Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

[rexlunae]

Would you make the same argument for random attacks as well?

Perhaps in a limited sense in that violence can be construed as an attack on everyone. But the harm is pretty widely distributed in that case.

 

[rexlunae]

Many, but they have no more a right to extra protection than anyone else.

Wait, people who are attacked have no more right to protection than people who aren't?

Would it be any less or more of a crime if the person who killed them were black?

That depends on the reason for the attack, but potentially, yes.

Would other people who feel attacked feel less attacked if the person who killed them were black?

Probably. It would likely mean that they hadn't been singled out for violence based on some immutable trait of theirs.

All violent crimes are hateful.

No doubt. But that isn't the point or the actual meaning of hate crime.

 

[Alate_One]

His dad didn't want his only son being around nothing but females -
So he brought in the son of the house maid to live and be a male companion to his boy. This child was photographed with the family just like an adopted son....
What do you really know about slave owners?
Did you really think they were all bad and not like all other employers both good and evil existing through time?

Are you really trying to defend slavery as a system because some slave owners may have been good people? The outcome today is the same, economic disenfranchisement.

And that's not just due to slavery, segregation in housing enforced by law created ghettoes in the USA. And because of that for generations afterwards, many black homeowners could no longer afford to buy houses in white neighborhoods even though the laws were removed.

When you have concentrated poverty, you end up with many of the problems people blame on the disintigration of the Black family and poor morals etc. Those factors may play a role, but they're exacerbated by the economic issues that were originally created by government policy - slavery, jim crow, segregation etc.

 

[chrysostom]

seven more will be shot in the chicago area today

will someone let us know
if
they were hate crimes?

 

[rexlunae]

Well, you're whining, so I guess it affected you.

What do you think should happen? Execute him and then send him to a course on political correctness?

In this case, the penalty for his actions without the hate crimes enhancement is already about as high as it could be. It isn't always.

 

[rainee]

PS Granite, since the East hated slavery - why did Child Labor Laws have to be established because the East was working children as well as poor immigrants for long hours in horrible conditions and it became only worse and worse once factory production got better?

Still feeling self righteous, brother?

 

[kmoney]

Perhaps in a limited sense in that violence can be construed as an attack on everyone. But the harm is pretty widely distributed in that case.

Well, I meant random violence, not any and all violence. But how distributed does something have to be to make you say there doesn't need to be any heightened penalty? Because an act of random violence could make an entire community feel threatened, even if it's a lower level of fear than the black community might feel if someone murders out of racism. The intensity is higher in one case, but the reach is farther in the other.

 

[PureX]

The truth is that not long ago many Americans thought that enslavement was a morally and legally acceptable behavior. Now days most Americans will reject human enslavement both morally and legally, and yet will inexplicably support the physical and economic exploitation of other human beings for the sake of profit. Which is the ideological essence of human enslavement.

 

[rexlunae]

Well, I meant random violence, not any and all violence.

I understood that.

But how distributed does something have to be to make you say there doesn't need to be any heightened penalty?

There's no such threshold or requirement like that for hate crime. What matters in hate crime is the motivation of the perpetrator.

Because an act of random violence could make an entire community feel threatened, even if it's a lower level of fear than the black community might feel if someone murders out of racism. The intensity is higher in one case, but the reach is farther in the other.

I generally expect that the threat to the entire community should be covered in the penalty for the base crime. Singling out a subgroup within the community is a further crime beyond that.

 

[chrysostom]

The truth is that not long ago many Americans thought that enslavement was a morally and legally acceptable behavior. Now days most Americans will reject human enslavement both morally and legally, and yet will inexplicably support the physical and economic exploitation of other human beings for the sake of profit. Which is the ideological essence of human enslavement.

The truth is that now many Americans think it is okay to kill your baby

 

[Stripe]

Do you *only* blame the individual when there's an ideology he's feeding on? Would you say the same for the Boston Bombers? Would you have said the same in the 1960s?

All murderers should be executed. One can only imagine why you want to worry about "ideologies."

Um the shooter was the racist here. Are you unwilling to discuss that fact?

First show us someone who has said otherwise.

In this case, the penalty for his actions without the hate crimes enhancement is already about as high as it could be. It isn't always.

Murderers should always get the death penalty. Nobody should ever be charged over "racism."

 

[Stripe]

I generally expect that the threat to the entire community should be covered in the penalty for the base crime. Singling out a subgroup within the community is a further crime beyond that.

All murderers should be executed. End of argument.

 

[rexlunae]

All murderers should be executed. End of argument.

Great. Bye.

 

[kmoney]

There's no such threshold or requirement like that for hate crime. What matters in hate crime is the motivation of the perpetrator.

I'm not talking about what the actual law says. I'm talking about your justification for having those laws. If I understand your justification then it seems like it should apply in some cases where it isn't a specific subgroup that's targeted. Perhaps the crime being random isn't the only criteria though.

I generally expect that the threat to the entire community should be covered in the penalty for the base crime. Singling out a subgroup within the community is a further crime beyond that.

Would you punish random violence in the same way that you'd punish violence targeted against a specific person?

 

[drbrumley]

...and the victors of the Civil War made literal amends towards ending the institution.

Yep, so much so that Lincoln pushed thru the Corwin Amendment to the Constituition. So much for your slavery issue. Dead on arrival.

If you really want to go there dig into the Confederate Constitution, which protects slavery far more than its counterpart ever did. If you know history as well as you claim, this shouldn't be news.

It isn't news that you haven't read it. And it isn't news that you would overlook the Corwin Amendment in which your hero Lincoln orchestrated its' passage. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these false statements. But since you wanna talk about it, I will be happy to set the record straight. And it sure wasn't because Northerners just loved black folks. It was because which Lincoln put it that blacks weren't WELCOME in the new states to be created. Some hero you got there Granite.

The rebel flag is uniquely despicable in that its very existence was born of a demand to perpetuate slavery. While slavery was incidental in the formation of the United States it was the very lifeblood of the Confederacy.

What a load of horse manure. So much so, that there was roughly only 6% of the southern population who owned slaves.

This love affair with the lost cause needs to end.

I agree, so stop with Lincoln and Northern love fest you developed.

 

[PureX]

The truth is that now many Americans think it is okay to kill your baby

The truth is that this has nothing at all to do with this thread. :execute:

 

[drbrumley]

But What about the U.S. Flag?

Laurence M. Vance


Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. He doesn’t like the Confederate flag. He is upset that his home state of Mississippi “contains the Confederate Battle Flag as part of it.” The Confederate flag makes him wince, even though he is “the descendant of Confederate veterans.”

But what about the U.S. flag? It flew over a slave country for longer than the Confederate flag did. And what does the country currently stand for: war, empire, torture, killing, death, destruction. Just as those on the receiving end of U.S. bombs and bullets. Why does Moore give the U.S. flag a pass? And why in God’s name would Christians pledge to the flag during church services?

Update: A reader reminds me that in pictures of old KKK rallies, it is the U.S. flag that is flown in abundance, not the Confederate flag.

 

[PureX]

I generally expect that the threat to the entire community should be covered in the penalty for the base crime. Singling out a subgroup within the community is a further crime beyond that.

I do think there is an extraordinary threat to society when the victims were chosen by happenstance. People who kill indiscriminately prove by their actions that they remain a mortal threat, to everyone. Whereas this is not necessarily the case with people who kill for money, or revenge, or in a some chemical stupor.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm not talking about what the actual law says. I'm talking about your justification for having those laws.

There's really not much difference. The only objection I have with hate crimes laws is that they tend to enumerate specific protected attributes, but I tend to generalize to any trait that could be a source of identity for an individual.

If I understand your justification then it seems like it should apply in some cases where it isn't a specific subgroup that's targeted. Perhaps the crime being random isn't the only criteria though.

I don't think so. It could be an imaginary subgroup, perhaps, because the way the laws are written premises it upon the intentions of the perpetrator. But the people actually harmed by the hate crime are the subgroup that was targeted.

Would you punish random violence in the same way that you'd punish violence targeted against a specific person?

Yes. What would be the relevant distinction?

 

[Sancocho]

Turning this tragedy into an excuse to dump on a party you disagree with's both predictable and lame.

Please post any references you have that dispute any claims I have made. I have researched this topic for many years.