When history repeats itself. #Dogs-doing-nazi-salutes

[kirottu]

Scottish bloke trains his dog to do the nazi salute and some other stuff.

 

He gets arrested by the police.

This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.

This has happened before. Only then it was the nazis who took the offence and the "dog trainer" was finnish.

 

Johannes Tuchel, head of the Memorial to the German Resistance, noted that "This case shows that National Socialism was striving to dominate all spheres of public life and all areas that it could influence. And that went as far as to this rather bizarre case of this dog."

[Meshugger]

I wonder how the police officers could even keep a straight face when knocking on the guy's door.

 

"Greetings, i've heeeed that yerr dawwg's been doin sum Hitlah-salutes on da Internet? We caaant havv that nau, cann we?"

 

What a time to be alive.

[Valsuelm]

When myth meets innocent morons meets oppressive government.

 

History repeating itself indeed.

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

He will be charged with Thoughtcrime and taken to the Ministry of Love for "re-education". The dog of course will be killed.

[Meshugger]

He will be charged with Thoughtcrime and taken to the Ministry of Love for "re-education". The dog of course will be killed.

 

Oh please. We don't kill dogs anymore. They are simply being terminated, retired or passed on.

[213374U]

He will be charged with Thoughtcrime

 

Well you are pretty much right on the money, but it's called "hate crime" these days. Makes it easier to... hate?

 

It's nature's prerogative to punish idiocy, not the state's.

[Leferd]

In the U.S., I'll go with the FBI's definition of Hate Crime.

 

https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

[Valsuelm]

In the U.S., I'll go with the FBI's definition of Hate Crime.

 

https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

 

It's still thoughtcrime. It's still evil.

[Leferd]

One is not charged with hate crime for thinking or saying something; instead, one is charged for the actual crime and it is designated as a hate crime if it is "against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

[Meshugger]

People should commit assaults and destruction of property in the name of love and tolerance. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

The thing I dislike about the whole hate crime thing is you are not punishing the act, you are punishing the motive. More often than not the motive is unknowable. Yes there are some repulsive a-------s who are up fromt about why they did what they did and take a perverse pride in it. But that is not the norm. When the state presumes it can know or minds and punish us for what it finds there we are well on the way to living in Oceana.

[Hurlshort]

But motive is looked at all the time when it comes to criminal acts.  There are different degrees of everything.   

 

Plus, that is why we have a trial system.  You don't get charged with a hate crime without having evidence against you, and a jury is hopefully not going to convict unless that evidence is solid.  It's obviously not an infallible system, but it is the best we've come up with as a society.  

[Vaeliorin]

But motive is looked at all the time when it comes to criminal acts.  There are different degrees of everything.   

 

Plus, that is why we have a trial system.  You don't get charged with a hate crime without having evidence against you, and a jury is hopefully not going to convict unless that evidence is solid.  It's obviously not an infallible system, but it is the best we've come up with as a society.  

The thing is, motive, in and of itself, is not enough to convict.  And yet, it is enough to take a crime from regular crime to hate crime.  So you're punishing someone further for something that is, generally, unknowable.

[Hurlshort]

Murder charges work exactly the same way.  I'm also not sure what you mean by unknowable.  If someone spends their time spouting racist stuff, and then goes off and beats up someone of said race, it isn't exactly a stretch to say that race was a factor.  It's up to the defense to prove that it was not.

[Guard Dog]

But motive is looked at all the time when it comes to criminal acts.  There are different degrees of everything.   

 

Plus, that is why we have a trial system.  You don't get charged with a hate crime without having evidence against you, and a jury is hopefully not going to convict unless that evidence is solid.  It's obviously not an infallible system, but it is the best we've come up with as a society.  

Motive is not and cannot be an element of a crime at trial. What your talking about is intent. 

 

Scenario 1: We get into an argument in a bar. I punch you, you fall back, hit the bar and break your neck. That is manslaughter because I caused your death but that was not my intent. You really can't say definitive what my motive was but you can judge my intent because I did not use a weapon so it was reasonable for me to believe my actions would not lead to your death. 

 

Scenario 2: Same situation only this time I pulled out a weapon. That is 2nd degree murder because I intended for you to die and that can be inferred because I used a weapon. Once again though, my intent was clear... what was my motive. Only I know that.

 

Now if you were a different ethnicity or sexual orientation than me and either scenario plays out the same I'm on the hook for a hate crime. My motive is suddenly "obvious" even though only one detail of either crime has changed.

 

You see the problem here? 

[Nonek]

I always wonder why common murders and such aren't judged as hate crimes? For instance when Mr Sutcliffe was beating prostitutes skulls in with his claw hammer back when I was a lad, surely there was a certain level of hate involved there. I'm not sure that the term fits really.

[Volourn]

The whole idea of hate crimes is  spin tingling  horrible.  If I punch you because I'ma  menaie it should be treated no different than if I punched you because I hate your race/gender/sexual orientation. A punch is a punch is a pucnh./

 

Charge with physical assault there. That's it. Case closed.

 

 

Only nazis think otherwise.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Volourn

[213374U]

Murder charges work exactly the same way.  I'm also not sure what you mean by unknowable.  If someone spends their time spouting racist stuff, and then goes off and beats up someone of said race, it isn't exactly a stretch to say that race was a factor.  It's up to the defense to prove that it was not.

 

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

[Hurlshort]

 

Murder charges work exactly the same way.  I'm also not sure what you mean by unknowable.  If someone spends their time spouting racist stuff, and then goes off and beats up someone of said race, it isn't exactly a stretch to say that race was a factor.  It's up to the defense to prove that it was not.

 

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

 

 

It's also up to the prosecution to prove that it is, but I had already stated that earlier.

[Hurlshort]

 

But motive is looked at all the time when it comes to criminal acts.  There are different degrees of everything.   

 

Plus, that is why we have a trial system.  You don't get charged with a hate crime without having evidence against you, and a jury is hopefully not going to convict unless that evidence is solid.  It's obviously not an infallible system, but it is the best we've come up with as a society.  

Motive is not and cannot be an element of a crime at trial. What your talking about is intent. 

 

Scenario 1: We get into an argument in a bar. I punch you, you fall back, hit the bar and break your neck. That is manslaughter because I caused your death but that was not my intent. You really can't say definitive what my motive was but you can judge my intent because I did not use a weapon so it was reasonable for me to believe my actions would not lead to your death. 

 

Scenario 2: Same situation only this time I pulled out a weapon. That is 2nd degree murder because I intended for you to die and that can be inferred because I used a weapon. Once again though, my intent was clear... what was my motive. Only I know that.

 

Now if you were a different ethnicity or sexual orientation than me and either scenario plays out the same I'm on the hook for a hate crime. My motive is suddenly "obvious" even though only one detail of either crime has changed.

 

You see the problem here? 

 

 

I don't think either of us are all that well versed in criminal law, but motive and intent seem to be 2 different things.  Motive is what brought you to the bar to fight, or what made you take the punch.  Intent is what you wanted to happen when you punched me.  They can both be vague or clear as day.  

 

It isn't a guarantee that you get charged with a hate crime if I'm a different race.  There has to be evidence that says you took the swing because of my race.      

[Guard Dog]

 

 

But motive is looked at all the time when it comes to criminal acts.  There are different degrees of everything.   

 

Plus, that is why we have a trial system.  You don't get charged with a hate crime without having evidence against you, and a jury is hopefully not going to convict unless that evidence is solid.  It's obviously not an infallible system, but it is the best we've come up with as a society.  

Motive is not and cannot be an element of a crime at trial. What your talking about is intent. 

 

Scenario 1: We get into an argument in a bar. I punch you, you fall back, hit the bar and break your neck. That is manslaughter because I caused your death but that was not my intent. You really can't say definitive what my motive was but you can judge my intent because I did not use a weapon so it was reasonable for me to believe my actions would not lead to your death. 

 

Scenario 2: Same situation only this time I pulled out a weapon. That is 2nd degree murder because I intended for you to die and that can be inferred because I used a weapon. Once again though, my intent was clear... what was my motive. Only I know that.

 

Now if you were a different ethnicity or sexual orientation than me and either scenario plays out the same I'm on the hook for a hate crime. My motive is suddenly "obvious" even though only one detail of either crime has changed.

 

You see the problem here? 

 

 

I don't think either of us are all that well versed in criminal law, but motive and intent seem to be 2 different things.  Motive is what brought you to the bar to fight, or what made you take the punch.  Intent is what you wanted to happen when you punched me.  They can both be vague or clear as day.  

 

It isn't a guarantee that you get charged with a hate crime if I'm a different race.  There has to be evidence that says you took the swing because of my race.      

 

Oh yeah they are different things. What you were describing in your first post was intent more than motive because that is what escalates the severity of a crime. Motive, unless the perpetrator actually says what it was cannot be known to a certainty. So it cannot be used as an element of a crime for the purposes of trial. It CAN be used for the purposes of arrest and indictment because there the standard is "probable cause to believe". 

 

I was just reading an article that made an interesting argument. Since is is already settled in law that a person without sufficient Mens Rea to formulate intent can't be punished like someone who can (the insanity defense) it is impossible to punish motive because the human brain can't help wanting what it wants and shouldn't be punished for what can't be helped.

 

Not that I buy the argument. I just found it interesting. 

[Gromnir]

am seeing that there is more than a little confusion regarding hate crimes. scotus rationale for hate crime is as Enhancement. is easiest to think o' hate crime as mandatory increased sentencing. yes, am oversimplifying, but not by much. am knowing it sounds the opposite o' what you likely know 'bout hate crime, but if State attempts to craft legislation that specific criminalizes the viewpoint o' the defendant, it is gonna fail. if a kinda speech or act is not subject to criminalization, then you ain't gonna be able to apply hate crime statute.  

 

"thus, the government may proscribe libel; but it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing only libel critical of the government." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul, 505 u.s. 377

 

try and criminalize speech because of a particular viewpoint is unconstitutional.  can't criminalize the viewpoint.  

 

 

so what 'bout hate crimes?  first and foremost, you need a crime. murders and assaults and whatnots is the "actual crimes" identified by leferd:

 

One is not charged with hate crime for thinking or saying something; instead, one is charged for the actual crime and it is designated as a hate crime if it is "against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

 

if government were choosing to criminalize murder but only if it were racial or religious biased, then there would be a Constitutional violation.  that ain't happening with hate crimes.  there must needs first be an "actual crime."  because the crime were committed with a motivation the People finds social repugnant and 'cause o' the belief that such crimes is more likely to provoke violent response, hate crime statute becomes applicable.  you need underlying crime and you need repugnant motivation.  it doesn't sound strange that we would allow a jury to consider a repugnant motivation when reflecting 'pon a sentence, yes?  well, hate crimes statutes is functional a sentencing enhancement. 

 

may seem like legal nonsense to a lay person, but the landmark hate crimes case for first amendment, wisconsin v. mitchell, 508 u.s. 476, were a unanimous decision with no concurrences. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

" because the crime were committed with a motivation the People finds social repugnant"

 

Which to any rational human being is such a stupid   empty statement. Murdering/assaulting someone (safe for self defense) should be 'socially repugnant' no matter what. Wether the motivation is 'racial hatred', greed, or 'romance gone bad drama. The very act is repugnant.

 

 'Hate' crime is something nazis would make up so only nazis support it.

[Vaeliorin]

Murder charges work exactly the same way.  I'm also not sure what you mean by unknowable.  If someone spends their time spouting racist stuff, and then goes off and beats up someone of said race, it isn't exactly a stretch to say that race was a factor.  It's up to the defense to prove that it was not.

What I mean by unknowable is that you can often assume someone's reason for doing something, but it's very rare (I'd say it's nearly impossible) to know someone's reason for doing something (especially given how often people can't truly identify their own motivations for their actions.)

 

Basically, I think it's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt someone's motivation for doing something, and therefore don't think that there should be an elevated criminal status such as hate crimes.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Vaeliorin

[Gromnir]

 

Murder charges work exactly the same way.  I'm also not sure what you mean by unknowable.  If someone spends their time spouting racist stuff, and then goes off and beats up someone of said race, it isn't exactly a stretch to say that race was a factor.  It's up to the defense to prove that it was not.

What I mean by unknowable is that you can often assume someone's reason for doing something, but it's very rare (I'd say it's nearly impossible) to know someone's reason for doing something (especially given how often people can't truly identify their own motivations for their actions.)

 

Basically, I think it's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt someone's motivation for doing something, and therefore don't think that there should be an elevated criminal status such as hate crimes.

 

"beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not gonna be the threshold, is it?  the threshold o' reasonable doubt is not near so insurmountable. nevertheless, it is indeed difficult to prove motivation above and beyond proving elements o' the underlying crime, which is just one reason why such prosecutions so often fail.  try and prove that a bigot or racist committed a particular crime because o' their bigotry is not gonna be easy... save for in the obvious exception--  if the defendant admits that they were in fact, "motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity," to have committed the crime, then the State is gonna have pretty compelling evidence o' motivation... so long as the finder o' fact believes the evidence. am not sure what % o' all criminal convictions is at least partial dependent on admissions, but am gonna guess that the number is far closer to 100% than 0%.  

 

HA! Good Fun!