Sikh tragedy in Wisconsin

[Harry]

Originally Posted by soyleche

So, if a person specifically singled out and attacked people named Chuck Johnson that would be worse than if they singled out and attacked gays?

(howmanyofme.com estimates 173 people in the US with that name combination - those people would be freaked out!)

Exactly.

[Inconceivable]

Originally Posted by soyleche

So, if a person specifically singled out and attacked people named Chuck Johnson that would be worse than if they singled out and attacked gays?

(howmanyofme.com estimates 173 people in the US with that name combination - those people would be freaked out!)

Are Chuck Johnsons generally discrimininated against and persecuted? If one crazy person singles them out that is terrible. But gays/jews/blacks (to various degrees in history) have all been victims of crimes on a large scale specifically because they are who they are.

See the difference?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by ADoubleDot

and you've yet to demostrate that you have to intend anything to be charged with manslaughter or any other crime.

In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise in applying it to particular cases. Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, whereas others require substantially less. Larceny, for example, requires that the defendant intentionally take property to which the person knows he or she is not entitled, intending to deprive the rightful owner of possession permanently. On the other hand, negligent homicide requires only that the defendant negligently cause another's death.

Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.

General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. Thus, in most states, a defendant who kills a person with a gun while intoxicated, to the extent that the defendant is not aware of having a gun, will be guilty of second-degree murder. The law will infer that the defendant had a general intent to kill.

Criminal law dispenses with the intent requirement in many property-related crimes. Under Common Law the prosecution had to establish that the defendant intended to steal or destroy property. By 1900 many statutes eliminated the "intent-to-defraud" requirement for property crimes. Passing a bad check, obtaining property under False Pretenses, selling mortgaged property, and embezzling while holding public office no longer required criminal intent.

Criminal law and tort law share the concept of transferred intent. For example, if A shoots a gun at B, intending to strike B, but the bullet hits C, the intent to strike is transferred to the act of shooting C and supplies the necessary intent for either a criminal conviction or a civil tort action. Under the criminal doctrine of transferred intent, the intent is considered to follow the criminal act regardless of who turns out to be the victim. Under the tort doctrine of transferred intent, the defendant is liable for monetary damages to the unintended victim.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

[Happy Skunk]

Originally Posted by soyleche

So, if a person specifically singled out and attacked people named Chuck Johnson that would be worse than if they singled out and attacked gays?

Are Chuck Johnson's a group that others are biased against?

[The Right]

Originally Posted by Inconceivable

Are Chuck Johnsons generally discrimininated against and persecuted? If one crazy person singles them out that is terrible. But gays/jews/blacks (to various degrees in history) have all been victims of crimes on a large scale specifically because they are who they are.

See the difference?

What about nerds? Long history of discrimination and violence yet no hate crime laws to protect the nerdy.

[EddieC]

Well, current laws in most states do not give Chuck Johnson the right to marry another Chuck Johnson, so he may be on to something.

[ADoubleDot]

Originally Posted by Inconceivable

Wait, are you arguing that "intent" is not something that is considered in these types of crimes?

every crime but hate crime is based on the actions of the perpetrator. for a hate crime, we are guessing what was in your head at the time and saying that some motivations are worse than others. but we can't really ever know someone's motivations.

[soyleche]

Originally Posted by Happy Skunk

Are Chuck Johnson's a group that others are biased against?

There may be some groups biased against them.

I don't have an exhaustive list of what groups are and are not biased against.

[Pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Happy Skunk

Are Chuck Johnson's a group that others are biased against?

If I owned a water fountain I would abso-freaking-lutely not let any dirty Chucks Johnson drink from it.

[ADoubleDot]

Originally Posted by Harry

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

ok, you win the argument. im not reading all that.