Asking for a friend because of the event in Nashville. Haven’t seen it stated anywhere yet, but I am sure that the victims were targeted because of being Christian. Again asking for a friend, His name starts with J

"hate crime" when applied to multiple murders is just for emotional appeal.

the effectiveness of hate crimes is turning a garden variety assault which might get someone 1-3 years or less into a targeted assault with premotivated intent, and getting them for 5-10.

its a buzzword most people dont understand legally. if the shooter lived they'd be facing multiple life sentences and/or death penalty. so the addition of a hate crime statute does literally nothing but make people feel good about someone hating them.

you can read more about them here, as well as a detail of anti-christain hate crimes that have been reported:

https://hatecrime.osce.org/united-states-america

mostly, they've been applied to property damage, churches and cemeteries. in those cases people likely turned a simple fine or short jail sentence for misdemeanor damage into a full blown felony.

Nothing holds up better in a court of law than a conservative's gut feeling

real fucking sound logic there bud

I don't understand your question a crime is a crime.

And at this very moment Eastern Orthodox Christian are targeting Catholics / Protestants and vice versa in an all out war. Hate crimes between Christians exist too if that is what you are talking about.

lol

boy you Christians sure are fragile.
One incident that makes you feel threatened try a few hundred years of it..
Or currently your are part of the 98% of being the attacker group.. Yet you call other people snowflakes? SMH
This incident directed at Christians or not isn't that relevant
When you are even in the ballpark of being a targeted group and not in the group that DOES all the targeting..
Then you can make these threads without being laughed at.
LOL
Thoughts and prayers.

Typical responses from resident libturds

your definition of a hate crime has not been provided

but crimes, due to hate, occur, and are not specific to a single religion.

Which gets into the fact that 'hate crimes' are a pretty blatant example of treading over the 1st amendment and getting away with it. As long as a social cause exists to motivated legislators, we can play wishy washy with punishing people for their ideology. Even when working as intended, penalty amplifiers mean we distinguish between equally heinous crimes with identical outcomes because one party engaged in thought proscribed by the central government. But at its worse, and more common in application, hate crime legislation can be used as a door for prosecutors to throw the book at those who hold disfavored ideologies and use that famed prosecutorial discretion to completely fail to apply it when they sympathize with the perpetrator. A black man films himself punching a white guy for being white, the prosecutors can give him a plea deal for misdemeanor assault, no jail, stayed sentence probation. A white man films himself punching a black guy for being black, prosecutors can charge him with a felony plus hate crime multiplier and send him to prison for a decade.


I've never really read an argument for hate crime laws that doesn't just boil down into admitting that its a violation of the 1st amendment, that we know it, and allow it and the courts waved their hands and said we could get away with it.