Sikh tragedy in Wisconsin

[Harry]

Originally Posted by whisper

Not comparable.

Children are protected because they are assumed not able to understand the ramifications of what they choose. Violent rape is no different among the different age groups; it's apparent consensual sex with minors that is deemed to be illegal by the law.

Murder is illegal. Saying murder with hate is somehow "worse" than just crazy murder is silly.

Is this guy so much worse than the CO Dark Knight shooter?
Are the people killed more dead?
Are the families hurt in this shooting harmed more?

Is the entire Sikh community more terrified now?
Are you more terrified now?

[Baby, ByeBye]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

But none of this is what was being argued. What was being argued was whether or not motive should be a crime.

According to minority report....no? Eek

[Anitha Desai]

Condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost or affected. Nothing we say or do will make them feel any better.

A distinct difference between the Colorado shootings and this one is that people of any ethnicity, sexual orientation or age might have been at the movies that night. However, the Sikh temple had mostly Sikh people who had congregated to pray and feed the hungry. Sikhs regularly offer free food to anyone who attends their services or is present afterwards at the lungar. No need to convert to their religion or even actually particpate in the service. It is a shame that a community meeting place that is a source of peace and generosity is thus defiled.
I've visited Gurudwaras in North America in the past because I have Sikh friends.....now I'll think twice before I go again.

[Heywood J]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

They made the wrong choice of words with "hate crime". They should call it something else like creating a credible threat against a group (in addition to the murder/assault/vandalism charge of the act itself). That shifts the focus from the nebulous area of what goes on inside their head to the more observable/tangible damage their actions have on others.

If somebody was going around the city burning down 2-car-garage houses with a number that ends in 55, that wouldn't be classified as a "hate crime", but they'd be terrifying the residents of other similar houses, and should be charged for that in addition to the actual acts of arson.

Agreed. Hate crimes should really be called terroristic crimes (although even that is far from perfect, because "terrorism" is a controversial bludgeon all on its own). The general commonality is that an individual is targeted for being part of an easily identifiable group.

[hellomath]

Originally Posted by Baby, ByeBye

the world is crazy

There are crazy people everywhere, but we allow crazy people to have guns.

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by hellomath

There are crazy people everywhere, but we allow crazy people to have guns.

But not the sane people.

[thing]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

If some guy hates rich people and kills a rich person, it will never be a hate crime, even though it may well offer the same kind of intimidating aspect to that class of people.

The underlined is where I end up disagreeing with you. Hypothetically, if some wack-job out of the "occupy" movement started shooting up a country club, said wack-job ought legitimately be charged with a hate crime against the rich.

Way I think of it is, if you beat up or kill someone for any reason, you should be charged with assault or murder. If you beat up or kill someone in order to put the fear into other people with that same ethnicity/sexual orientation/economic strata/employer/etc. - that attempt to put the fear into other people is the 'hate crime' part.

In this particular case, I live over a thousand miles from the incident, and the paper this morning was talking about my local Sikh community being especially upset by it. That's the 'hate crime' part.

[ADoubleDot]

Originally Posted by hellomath

There are crazy people everywhere, but we allow crazy people to have guns.

and you think we have the ability to stop them from getting guns because the war on drugs is going so well?

[MightySchoop]

Originally Posted by thing

The underlined is where I end up disagreeing with you. Hypothetically, if some wack-job out of the "occupy" movement started shooting up a country club, said wack-job ought legitimately be charged with a hate crime against the rich.

Should be. But probably won't.

[Atropellador]

Under the definitions of some people ITT, the spate of black-male-on-white-female robberies in my neighborhood should be considered hate crimes, because they have the effect of making white women afraid to go out at night. Based on the crime reports I've read, victims are clearly not being chosen at random.