I’m weasel hunting today. andrew, you are the first weasel that is target identified.

You are looking at it backwards. Read over my posts.

Whinefest your way to victory.

By all means, complain about liberalism whenever you get the chance.

Hate creimes legislation is about protected categories, not groups.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Looks like you are saying that there are people that shouldn’t be “protected” from hate…. What people against “hate” crimes are saying is that no matter… people should be protected from “hate”. If there is a crime committed then they should be PUNISHED.

Leave it to a liberal to let the criminal have a lesser sentence…..

Leave it to a liberal to make commercials against Bush because of James Byrd’s killers didn’t face “hate” crimes laws when they were ALREADY GETTING the DEATH PENALTY.

Leave it liberals to be WRONG…

Be absolutely clear that hate crime laws do not apply to liberals. Hate crime laws were menat to give that extra kick to non-liberals when non-liberals are defenseless.

No. The difference is your state of mind, which includes your deliberation.

Manslaughter itself is a lesser charge that involves extenuating circumstances (such as the lack of an attempted coverup) and the absence of certain evidence (such as planning to kill someone). Prosecutors have been known to reduce charges to manslaughter when there is not enough evidence to obtain a murder conviction.

A short illustration on the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Check this stite out of the definition of murder.

And this one on manslaughter.

In both cases, evidence (such as what the perpetrator said and/or did) is used, not what they may or may not have been thinking in general about a certain group/category. Anyone who plans a murder and tries to conceal it is dangerous, regardless of why they did it.

This leads to a problem – in a real sense, just about any given murder can be considered a “hate” crime (since hate was probably involved). Why should a perpetrator’s general views on race (for example) be considered, unless the perpetrator wants them to be (perhaps an attempt to plead insanity)? I don’t think proponents of hate-crime laws have shown that existing laws against murder and other crimes are insufficient. Insufficient enforcement of existing laws – maybe.

Thats done all the time. The difference between murder and manslaughter is what you’re thinking at the time the crime is committed.

No its not hair splitting. If we protect the category of race, that means that white and black people are protected when attacked on the basis of race. If we protect the group “white” that means that we don’t protect both groups.

“I think that we have gone far astray from my original point – that if hate crime laws have any meaning, Garcia & Co. should be prosecuted under them”

No, because hate crimes laws don’t protect against any sort of hate. They protect against targetting people based on certain categories. And status as civilian/military is not one of them. Nor is political opinion, usually.

It seem that hate crime legislation advocates have unwittingly adopted the underlying logic of apartheid – each group is different in the eyes of the law. Not coincidentally, under such a system some groups turn out to be more equal than others.

Finally, what about the strange spectacle of the government deciding what someone was thinking when they committed a crime (i.e. they acted out of “hate”) and deciding to punish that crime more severely? Do you not see the enormous danger inherent in such a system of justice?

I think that we have gone far astray from my original point – that if hate crime laws have any meaning, Garcia & Co. should be prosecuted under them (do military recruiters constitute a “group” or a “category”?). The fact that they are not being prosecuted speaks volumes about the unjust and partisan nature of hate crime laws – and why a democracy should abhor them.