gehringer_2

So what is the difference in what sanction the law allows for painting a swastika versus a gang tag? Besides, that is a different situation anyway. If you say "It is illegal to paint a swastika" you have made an ACT with a particular outcome (a swastika on a wall) illegal and are are punishing an a specific that can be separated from painting a gang tag-it's two different outcomes. When a person is dead, you can't separate anything in the character of the deadness based on the whether hate in the perp was personal or otherwise.

The church once said -"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." but as we would more commonly render it in English: "Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

much ado about nothing anyway. Target's report still depicts a plenty healthy enterprise.

Hard to prove is just the practical end, the base objection is that the addition of the hate specification is pointless. Your post about having the law "make a statement" is the core concept I take issue with. You can't/won't punish the buffalo guy any more for this being a hate crime than for it being a multiple 1st degree murder. The 'hate' statue adds nothing functionally and just take the law into an area that is at odds with the US concept that you are responsible for what you do, and free the think anything you want. Now as I said, if you want to change that base assumption, which is not the assumption made in many places in the world, then I think you can make a straighter case for calling something a 'hate crime' To me the law does not have 'instructional' value, it has only deterrent and public safety/order value, that is why I don't see any value in adding a 'hate' specification to something is already illegal and fully punishable.

this is a matter of opinion >Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done. Not at all, it's not that hard to see when a specific action is coordinated and contingent to a specific act/outcome - I bought a gun on Monday morning (legal) used it Monday afternoon ( = premeditation).

I don't care if whether the charge is 'accurate', that's fine. I was opining of 'hate crime' conceptually. Writing anything you want is not illegal. To me it's an odd bootstrap to say that something you did which was perfectly legal, basically now becomes part of a crime only retrospectively. While it's true that there a certain aspect of that in conspiracy law, that can get questionable in my view as well. I guess in general I don't see the utility - or should I say attraction, of finding more ways to stack charges onto crimes that already are going to carry the maximum sanction the law is going to allow - whether that be life/no parole or a death sentence. Maybe it's a form of 'virtuous' virtue signalling, but I don't see that it adds any useful or needed function to the law or public safety. Practically speaking society gains no objective value in deterrence, enforcement or safety by charging a murderer with an additional crime for the reason he murdered. Now if you are actually going to make the expression of hate illegal, which many countries do (e.g. Germany) then I think that is at least functional, we just don't agree with doing that in the US.

the problem with state of mind is evidentiary, and as this case shows, even though you may have it in spades, you don't need it at all because there is more than enough to prosecute without it. Thus - legally superfluous.

load the basis with no out - DO NOT SCORE

you were saying?

Fedder: Look - we don't care what you give up - go out there and throw some off speed pitches.

Cameron - noodle arm. Nothing on that throw, and he was shallow enough the assist was there for the taking.

Why is Beau still out there? I think Hinch had this game written off before it started.

Brieske - Major league - even swing and miss FB, but the breaking stuff needs work.

Shep is so FOS

Baez had completed the force but didn't know it.

PED systems that are beating the tests?

I'm sure he was very comfortable playing it on the big hop.

Kewl

Jeter, ARod would be if they would let him in, Simmons, Baines, Halladay....a lot I'm guessing without going through the list further!

Seriously, the only thing keeping Seider from being 'completely' elite is more TOI with better other players.

LOL - I know, I watched that game 7 and thought "Where did the Wings get those green sweaters!

lets hope it's Wilmer Flores knocking at the door.

Freehan is such an odd case to me. He was the hands down dominant catcher in his league for nearly his whole career. Forget all the stats, that alone should get you more consideration that Freehan ever got.

They are crappy on D because they do not attack the puck when the other team has it - they all sag off all the time - they don't fore-check, they don't close-out opposing puck carriers. They basically wait to recover pucks after shots on goal and aren't very good at that either. There are two extreme poles as to why - 1) they are just too slow 2) they have been coached to play that way. I have no question that #1 is at least partly true, but replacing Blashill should help resolve the balance between those possibilities. Of course the degree to which #2 is the problem is why he had to go. For instance there is no reason for Larkin or Bertuzzi to rank poorly defensively.

Interesting. I don't think you need to be a great performer to lead, but I do think you need to be a steady one - and good enough your job is secure. Guys who are always going in and out of slumps have to consume too much of their own mental energy on themselves - so that leaves out Schoop, Baez, Grossman etc. OTOH, I think despite not being an all-star, Alex Avila was a team leader - other than one year he wasn't much at the plate, but he was always a solid receiver and consistent in doing what he could do with the bat, and that kind of combination is/was enough for credibility I think. If Torkelson makes it, I think he is the most likely candidate to grow into the role. Candy would be the other obvious possibility, but I think he's a little too sweet to push anyone - maybe not...