(02-24-2019, 12:31 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote:

(02-24-2019, 11:21 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: So would you have considered what Mohammed Atta along with Al Quieda and ISIS did to Americans and our allies not hate crimes?

I’m pretty sure their hearts were filled with hate.  If, however, their hearts were instead filled with love for their fellow passenger and they felt like they were doing everyone a favor by flying the plane into a building, does that change anything for you?

Also, on principle there’s a huge difference between citizen on citizen crime versus acts by those deemed enemy combatants who were enabled by failures in our immigration system.  There’s a reason we don’t mirandize enemy soldiers on the battlefield.

It really boils down to: do you believe a person of one group that espouses hate filled rhetoric toward any other group but holds no position of power and never takes action against said group should be charged with a crime and locked away?  If the answer to that is no, and in a free society it should be, why are we ok imposing a thought penalty under any circumstance?  The action is the crime.  If a man beats another man to a bloody pulp on the street and in one scenario he gave no reason and in another he colorfully described out loud for witnesses to hear how he hated the group the man he beat belonged to, does it affect the outcome of the beating in any way?

I’m not arguing for leniency on anyone here. If you want to throw the book at someone who lays their hands on another person with violence in mind whatever their reasoning (outside of defense of oneself or another or in defense of one’s property), you’ll get no argument from me but the punishment should be consistent across the board.