Liberals would argue that they have been teaching core values like tolerance, nonviolence, respect for others, and opposition to hate for many many decades going back to the Civil Rights movement and before.
These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
Which civic values do you think are not being taught?
Seriously? Things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, what RZehr calls "strong loyal traditional families" which includes things like marriage and binary genders.
MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:55 am
Apparently some MSM opinionators are attempting to pin this shooting on right wing extremists. According to court records:
Anderson Lee Aldrich, the suspect who allegedly shot and killed five people and wounded at least 18 others over the weekend at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado, identifies as non-binary and uses “they/them” pronouns, according to a court filing on Tuesday night.
Leaping to conclusions seems to be the MO on any news story of late.
Of course the defense will claim something like this. They are trying to get out of the increased hate crime penalties.
I'm a 100% with mike on this. Next will be an insanity plea.
(I watch Law & Order therefore I'm an expert on all things legal )
steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:15 am
(I watch Law & Order therefore I'm an expert on all things legal )
You have it summed quite nicely. You should apply to AP to be one of their mysterious, unnamed online safety experts they are fond of quoting but who are never identified.
MSM is the last place to find Objective Truth. Diogenes would move on immediately. I do believe however, that Diogenes would linger here to help Robert, OJ, Neto, RZehr and Josh challenge lazy thinking and liberal Kool-Aid.
A person can be charged with a federal or state hate or bias-motivated crime even if they belong to the same community they are accused of targeting, several attorneys and experts told The Denver Post. The key factor, they said, is whether prosecutors have evidence to indicate there was bias toward that group, not necessarily to what group the suspect claims membership.
It really doesn’t matter who they are — if they are motivated by who the victim is, that’s what matters,” said Doug Richards, a Denver defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
“I think that if you can show that the shooting is bias-motivated, then the hate crime would apply and it wouldn’t matter what his particular situation is,” added Mitch Morrissey, who previously served as Denver’s district attorney.
The Club Q attack came minutes before the beginning of Transgender Day of Remembrance and amid a broader, national increase in anti-LGBT rhetoric. The timing and location of the shooting have drawn intense speculation about the suspect’s motive, along with calls for prosecutors to treat the act as a hate crime. Formal charges are expected to be filed in the coming weeks.
“I don’t know if this is a stunt or not,” Morrissey said. “Obviously, there would need to be some evidence one way or another of what his orientation was, but just because you have the same orientation doesn’t mean you can’t have a bias against the group. And (the LGBTQ community) is a very, very broad group.”
MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:55 am
Apparently some MSM opinionators are attempting to pin this shooting on right wing extremists. According to court records:
Leaping to conclusions seems to be the MO on any news story of late.
Of course the defense will claim something like this. They are trying to get out of the increased hate crime penalties.
I'm a 100% with mike on this. Next will be an insanity plea.
(I watch Law & Order therefore I'm an expert on all things legal )
You do have a point. What kind of sane individual arms himself and walks into a nightclub to start shooting random people? And what other possible defense could he raise? That it was all a big misunderstanding? That he was acting in self-defense?
The legal question isn't whether he is insane. It is whether he can still be held responsible for his own actions. Which is a slightly different question.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
A person can be charged with a federal or state hate or bias-motivated crime even if they belong to the same community they are accused of targeting, several attorneys and experts told The Denver Post. The key factor, they said, is whether prosecutors have evidence to indicate there was bias toward that group, not necessarily to what group the suspect claims membership.
It really doesn’t matter who they are — if they are motivated by who the victim is, that’s what matters,” said Doug Richards, a Denver defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
“I think that if you can show that the shooting is bias-motivated, then the hate crime would apply and it wouldn’t matter what his particular situation is,” added Mitch Morrissey, who previously served as Denver’s district attorney.
The Club Q attack came minutes before the beginning of Transgender Day of Remembrance and amid a broader, national increase in anti-LGBT rhetoric. The timing and location of the shooting have drawn intense speculation about the suspect’s motive, along with calls for prosecutors to treat the act as a hate crime. Formal charges are expected to be filed in the coming weeks.
“I don’t know if this is a stunt or not,” Morrissey said. “Obviously, there would need to be some evidence one way or another of what his orientation was, but just because you have the same orientation doesn’t mean you can’t have a bias against the group. And (the LGBTQ community) is a very, very broad group.”
I don't know what I think about the whole hate crimes thing, but in my opinion there are crimes where motives and even mental capacity should not matter in the slightest in terms of what the penalty is. A mass murderer should never see the light of day again.
A person can be charged with a federal or state hate or bias-motivated crime even if they belong to the same community they are accused of targeting, several attorneys and experts told The Denver Post. The key factor, they said, is whether prosecutors have evidence to indicate there was bias toward that group, not necessarily to what group the suspect claims membership.
It really doesn’t matter who they are — if they are motivated by who the victim is, that’s what matters,” said Doug Richards, a Denver defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
“I think that if you can show that the shooting is bias-motivated, then the hate crime would apply and it wouldn’t matter what his particular situation is,” added Mitch Morrissey, who previously served as Denver’s district attorney.
The Club Q attack came minutes before the beginning of Transgender Day of Remembrance and amid a broader, national increase in anti-LGBT rhetoric. The timing and location of the shooting have drawn intense speculation about the suspect’s motive, along with calls for prosecutors to treat the act as a hate crime. Formal charges are expected to be filed in the coming weeks.
“I don’t know if this is a stunt or not,” Morrissey said. “Obviously, there would need to be some evidence one way or another of what his orientation was, but just because you have the same orientation doesn’t mean you can’t have a bias against the group. And (the LGBTQ community) is a very, very broad group.”
I don't know what I think about the whole hate crimes thing, but in my opinion there are crimes where motives and even mental capacity should not matter in the slightest in terms of what the penalty is. A mass murderer should never see the light of day again.
My understanding is that "hate crime" charges are generally used for two purposes:
1. To Federalize what would otherwise be an ordinary state crime such as was the case with the murder of Ahmaud Arbery where the DOJ got involved with separate parallel charges in the event that the state murder trial fell through, and
2. To impose criminal penalties on hate activities that might otherwise not be against the law but are intended to intimidate like burning a cross or hanging nooses around your workplace
I'm not sure I really see the utility of rolling them out for every mass murder when the death penalty or multiple life sentences without possibility of parole are already in play.
I do think that prosecutors do tend to throw every possible charge against defendants because that then give them more leverage to reduce or drop some charges in exchange for plea deals. So it is probably at least partly a bargaining strategy.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
mike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 2:05 pm
I don't know what I think about the whole hate crimes thing, but in my opinion there are crimes where motives and even mental capacity should not matter in the slightest in terms of what the penalty is. A mass murderer should never see the light of day again.
I agree.
In my experience, MSM prints a great deal of flummery to fill pages, titillate clicks, and promote agendas. Focusing upon the crime itself and the person who committed the crime is the necessary.
If mental illness is a permanent condition, the solution is to institutionalise to protect the public. Frankly, I do not believe in the “temporary insanity” rationale. I believe that there are angry people who act out and when caught, look for excuses to avoid punishment: excuses often provided by their solicitor. E.g. the man who drove through and killed a number of parade participants a year ago offered up a temporary insanity plea that he was angry with someone. Thankfully that legal dodge did not work.
Solicitor gymnastics to lessen sentencing and obviate guilt serve only the pockets of the shyster brigade. Once a reputation is established, those who can afford them hire them.
I briefly was working in an involuntary commit prior to court. The goal of the entire program was to make them competent to stand in a court of law.
Most people think an insanity plead is a get out of jail card, but they haven't seen the inside of a mental hospital for the guilty by reason of insanity.
I remember one person who kept saying that they didn't mean to kill them, "I mean if I wanted to kill them I would have kept stabbing them with the scissors"
Soloist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:53 am
I briefly was working in an involuntary commit prior to court. The goal of the entire program was to make them competent to stand in a court of law.
Most people think an insanity plead is a get out of jail card, but they haven't seen the inside of a mental hospital for the guilty by reason of insanity.
I remember one person who kept saying that they didn't mean to kill them, "I mean if I wanted to kill them I would have kept stabbing them with the scissors"
I worked with both the ICs and those who had been sectioned after a thorough investigation. There are fewer that are authentically and certifiably insane than the solicitors for the defense would have the juries believe.
One of the purposes of IC is to provide time to investigate both history and observe mental status. Not many pass as genuinely incompetent.
Things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, what RZehr calls "strong loyal traditional families" which includes things like marriage and binary genders.
)