Don’t Go There Girlfriend

I get this weird feeling the Little Five Points shooting was a hate crime. Why else would anyone just gun down a Yacht Club patron? I’ve hung out at the EAYC for decades now. Lord knows a Yacht Club goer never has any money, and any money they do come across, they’d just spend on buying rounds for their friends. Did the murderer just want to shoot a honkie dead that night? Was this some kinda gang banger’s idea of a hot night out? Sickening to think about, but we’re going to have to when they catch this cold-blooded killer. And let’s hope they do real soon. I won’t go back there until they do.

29 comments

  1. Tommy_a2b says:

    Spacey, when is murder not a hate crime? If you think about it long enough you won’t have any other answer. An acident is not what I call murder BTW.

  2. SpaceyG says:

    Murder is often a crime of passion. Not necessarily hate. Rage perhaps, but those are two entirely different things. How old are you Tommy? Sounds like you haven’t had a whole lot of hard living quite yet under your belt. Bless your heart.

  3. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    “when is murder not a hate crime?” I hate when opponents of Hate Crime Laws and Legislation pull this one out from their talking points. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of creating special classes for certain crimes either, but there are a lot of different motives why humans murder or beat each other and hate is only one of them.
    How bout covering your tracks? Or beating the crap out of the guy who just hooked up with your chick?

    Hate, when used in connection with hate crimes, is narrower in definition, then the general acceptance of hate; i.e., targeting someone based on their race, religion, sex…blah blah blah…. Anyway, most everyone already knows this. So Spacey, what makes you think that this is a hate crime, because the perp was black and the victim, I’m assuming was caucasion…or non-black?

  4. Hotstetter says:

    A crime is a crime. Someone’s life has been cut tragically short because some people don’t feel that they should obey the laws. I don’t think it matters whether or not it was a hate crime- my stomach turns a bit every time someone feels the need to tag a title onto a crime in order to draw more attention to it. The guy died, his friends and family are grieving- why not concentrate on catching the guy who did it instead of putting some b.s. politically correct categorization on it?

  5. Tommy_a2b says:

    Spacey, I am old enough to know. Crimes of passion is another way of saying, I hate the MF who was boinking my wife. You pretty much have to boil up some hate to get to rage. I just get Dang tired of hearing “hate crime” used instead of crime or murder. IF a white man kills my wife, daughter, mother, or my sister and does less time than a white man who kills a black woman because of “hate crime” then something is just wrongggggggggggg. BTW in both case the JackA$$ should fry. So Spacey no bless your heart for being another confused liberal.

  6. drjay says:

    using motive for sentencing (which is reasonable) is another thing entirely than charging someone w/ a separate crime based on the motivation

  7. SpaceyG says:

    No, I am not confused at all. As far as determining the motives for murder, any who can claim crystal clear clarity there is simply a liar. But I think I can speculate with enough clarity to see how in some cases one would apply a hate crime “tag.” This case gives me a clear impression of such. An impression only… not a videotaped replay of the crime scene obviously.

  8. Doug Deal says:

    So, we should legislate thought? That’s not a slippery slope at all.

    People should have the right to hate or love whomever they want. The crime should be punished because the act is worthy of punishment (murder), not because the person may or may not love the people he is attacking.

    If it is up to me, all murders and armed robbers, would get life in hard labor with no parole, no matter the motivation.

  9. Decaturguy says:

    First of all I see no evidence that this was a hate crime or anything other than just a botched attempted robbery.

    But to say that all crime is a hate crime is absurd. Do you think that an act of terrorism that kills someone is just a murder? Was the World Trade Center attack just a couple of thousand acts of murder?

    Of course not.

    A true hate crime is not much different than terrorism. It would be done with the purpose and motive to instill fear and terror in a group of people because of a certain characteristic, whether they be of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

  10. griftdrift says:

    Well I guess we know how you stand on throwing out motive in sentencing and charging, Doug.

    Legislating thought. heh. Need some more straw for your man?

  11. Tommy_a2b says:

    Tell me whose life means more. The person murdered by a “hate crime” or the person mudered for “some other reason other than hate.” If you pick one over the other you are in need of help and there is a hospital in Milledgeville for you. If you answer that they all the same then no need for special designation of “hate crime.”

  12. Doug Deal says:

    grift,

    Intent to kill, is intent to kill. Why do you want to value some victims over others?

    Decatur, I agree with you that this looks like another downtown druggy who botched a robbery.

  13. SpaceyG says:

    The reason I say a hate crime is that it was a robbery, one where the victim complied and handed over his wallet. Then the robber put the gun to the victim’s head and pulled the trigger. So I suppose it could be considered an intentionally successful robbery — and follow up murder. And drugs were likely very involved.

    Would a perp not get more a more severe sentence if he was convicted of a hate crime?

  14. Doug Deal says:

    SpaceyG,

    Don’t you think anyone who murders another after robbing them should pretty much get the maximum penalty under law regardless of their emotional standing with the victim?

    My biggest problem with hate crimes is that they make light of the heinous nature of “normal” crime.

    As for whether “hate” was involved, it was very likely a druggy looking for a score, and probably was disappointed with the take, or maybe getting retribution for being “dissed”.

  15. Decaturguy says:

    Tell me whose life means more. The person murdered by a “hate crime” or the person mudered for “some other reason other than hate.”

    I don’t think that is the issue. Of course neither life means more than the other. Neither does the life of a police officer who gets shot vs. the life of a non police officer who gets shot.

    But we as a society have decided that murdering a police officer sends a greater message other than just a single murder, it sends the message that we are lawless society, which is unacceptable, so we punish the murder of a police officer more than just Joe Q. Citizen.

    If you disagree with hate crimes, shouldn’t you also agree that murder in the act of terrorism should not be punished any greater than a random act of murder? Shouldn’t you agree that the murder of a police officer shouldn’t be punished any greater?

    We already have varying degrees of punishment for manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, all based on intent, should we drop all of these classifications just because no life means more than another?

  16. Darth Mike says:

    Ok, lets be clear about this, motive is not a part of what makes a crime a murder or manslaughter.

    Intent is what matters.

    Intent is whether you intended to commit the crime. I point a gun, pull the trigger, I intend to shoot, and I am responsible for the results, and this would be a murder case.

    I get in a car, drive drunk, hit someone, and kill them. I intended to drive while I was drunk, I did not intend to kill them, this would be manslaughter.

    I kill someone in the heat of passion, that is manslaughter because the rage did not let me form the intent to kill.

    I point a gun at someone because I hate their race and pull the trigger, well I intend to shoot, and I am responsible for the results, and this would be a murder case.

    I point a gun at someone because they stole my stereo and pull the trigger, well I intend to shoot, and I am responsible for the results, and this would be a murder case.

    Motive, is why you did it. Motive is not part of any crime. Why you choose to kill does not matter to the fact that you intended to kill.

    Motive does not matter at sentencing. I was an Asst. D.A. for 7 years, and now a defense attorney for 1 year. I never once argued to the judge that a person’s motive mattered when it came time to sentence. Their lack of remorse, criminal history, etc. yes.

    Motive only matters to a jury so a jury can understand why someone did it, but motive is not needed for a conviction. A person can be convicted of murder whatever their reason was as long as they had the intent to kill. In fact, in many cases, you never know what the motive was. You have the guy caught redhanded, you can show the intent to commit the crime, but you never know the motive behind why the crime was committed. Motive does not matter (until you get to a hate crime).

    As for hate crimes, that is nothing more than a government attempt to legislate thought.

    You kill someone because of their race. That is a hate crime. To support the theory of punishing extra for a hate crime is to say that “The government does not approve of your thoughts, and you will be punished extra because of your thoughts.”

    If you kill someone, you should be punished, whether you did it because they were black, or because they stole your car. Either way, the killer terminated a human life, and should be punished equally.

    I am just not a fan of the government deciding that some thoughts are ok, and others are not. What, if I murder for an “approved” reason, I do not get enhanced sentencing? But if the reason for a murder is “frowned upon” by the government, I should be sentenced extra?

    Sorry, I just do not want my government making laws about thoughts.

    Punish the action, not the thought (or lack thereof) that was behind the action.

  17. Decaturguy says:

    I just can’t see how you can both be opposed to hate crimes, but also for increased penalties for terrorism.

  18. Darth Mike says:

    DecaturGuy,

    “If you disagree with hate crimes, shouldn’t you also agree that murder in the act of terrorism should not be punished any greater than a random act of murder?”

    There is a difference between a hate crime and act of terrorism.

    Hate crime is a crime against one person because of their race, gender, etc. The crime is against one person, not their entire race. For each person targeted, that would be a new hate crime.

    For example, I beat up one person because of their race, well, Agg. Assault 1 count as a hate crime because I had a naughty thought while I did it. 2 people would be 2 counts.

    Terrorism is different. Terrorism is to attempt to influence a large group of people by committing actions which are designed to terrorize the populace, not just one person.

    9/11 was an act of terrorism because it was designed to not only kill the victims, but to terrorize a nation and a government.

    A klan hanging is an act of terrorism because it is designed to influence the actions of an entire race by having the entire race flee the area (although the person hanged would be a hate crime).

    So yes, I think an act of terrorism should be punished more severely because the victims (the entire USA) are a huge class of people, not only the victims of the actual actions (the people that died in 9/11).

    A hate crime is merely a crime committed while having thoughts that the government does not approve of.

    As for punishing someone more severely because of the class of person of the victim (like police officers, firemen, and the elderly), that is different than a hate crime. You shoot a cop, you get punished for shooting a government employee doing his job. Why (the motive) does not matter. If you have the intent to do so, you are guilty.

    You are punished more severely because the government has decided that some people deserve extra protection. I do not have a problem granting extra protection to the police, firemen, and the elderly.

    I do have a problem with the government regulating my thoughts as to why I did it. If I shoot a cop because he is black, or I shoot him because he is in my way, either way, I shot someone worthy of having extra protection and deserve to be punished to the extreme,

  19. Decaturguy says:

    A hate crime is merely a crime committed while having thoughts that the government does not approve of.

    I simply disagree. A hate crime is just like terrorism – it is a targeted crime that is intended to terrorize a group of people. If that is not the case then in my book it should not be classified as a hate crime.

    In Georgia Senate Resolution 555, which passed 42-0 by the way, it specifically states “hate-motivated crimes intimidate not only the victim but other people in the victim´s community, making people feel isolated, vulnerable, and unprotected; and WHEREAS, hate-motivated crimes polarize communities and damage the very fabric of society.”

    A hate crime is more than just I am white, you are black, I don’ t like you so I shoot you.

  20. Doug Deal says:

    Decatur,

    All crime intimidates people in the victim’s community. When a neighbor gets beaten up and robbed, no matter the reason, other people are less secure and have to look over their shoulder, basically lowering quality of life.

    I am against society where murdering one innocent person is less important than murdering another, or vandalizing, or whatever. If additional time is needed to be tacked on because it is a “hate” crime, then perhaps the punishment for the normal version of the crime is not severe enough.

    I think once a person has it in their mind to inflict lethal force on another human being (excluding self defense), that person should pretty much never see freedom again.

    We give way too much tolerance to violent crime, and the penalties should be steep enough in the first place that anything additional would just be superfluous.

  21. Decaturguy says:

    I can accept that Doug, but, again, given your views I would expect you to support repealing laws that give extra punishment for acts of terrorism, killing cops, innocent children, etc. because a crime is a crime is a crime.

  22. Doug Deal says:

    Decatur,

    I am not sure I stated these things should get extra penalties. I may have agreed too broadly with DM. I meant to agree with his assessment of hate crimes in particular.

    All violent crime pretty much needs to be treated harshly. Robbing and killing an innocent 90 year old with stage 4 cancer should be treated the same as killing a healthy, innocent 2 year old. The number or even quality of the years remaining in one’s life, how well they are liked, or their station in life is immaterial. Save that for the civil trial.

    When it comes to murder, I always think the penalty should be the same. What may be an more interesting discussion would be about hate motivated vandalism.

  23. Nicki says:

    A) Good Satire. Like it!

    B) I’m not fond of hate crime legislation for the reason that it doesn’t really matter what the motivation is to the victim. But motivation should factor into consideration for sentencing and parole because someone who is motivated against a large group is a lot more dangerous to the public than someone who is motivated by individual factors.

    C) It bears noting that hate crime legislation was enacted to force courts to treat hate crimes as legitimate at a time when they were more likely to simply disregard or minimize the killing of various unpopular/disenfranchised types. Are we at the point when that is no longer the case? I have no idea.

Comments are closed.