NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your opinion on hate crime laws?

It's too easy to abuse hate crime laws. The court has to determine the mindset of the criminal. That's not always so clear cut. If the court beleives the crime to be particularly heinous they can impose the maximum sentance even without hate crime laws. That's why in most cases there are a range of accepted penalties for each criminal offense. We don't need hate crime laws to expand that range.

I despise the notion. Is a murder less heinous because the victim is the same colour as the perpetrator? Laws like this are racist in that they assume that if a person of one cultural background attacks a person from another background it must be because the perpetrator is racist.

Meh :rolleyes: it could be just because they are a violent individual, or have been provoked, or anything. They just might not like that particular person. I'm tired of the way people claim to be working toward unity but (esp. in US media) a person isn't a lawyer or a cook or a teacher, they are a black lawyer or a white cook or a Korean teacher. A white perpetrator and a black victim (or vice versa) are just a perpetrator of a crime and it's victim. Why does the colour of their skin or where they came from matter in a situation where the law is supposed to be blind? The same applies to the sexuality of either person in this circumstance. It shouldn't come into it. Is it worse to kill someone because they are gay than it is to kill someone because you want their wallet? I don't think so...

They are silly because they go to motive and not to intent.

What does that have to do with the crime? (Unless you are talking about hate crimes like putting a fiery cross on someones lawn or spraying swastikas on a Temple, that's different.)

I agree with what has been said here. Hate crime laws, affirmative action...it's these special racial (and gender) treatments that make people despise the ACLU, NOW, NAACP, etc.

We have a legitimate goal: equality.

But these laws undermine that.

Putting special interests ahead like this only undermines the goal (look at the resistance to gay rights...it's cause "They want special priveleges") :rolleyes:

(Unless you are talking about hate crimes like putting a fiery cross on someones lawn or spraying swastikas on a Temple, that's different.)

I disagree here. They are the same crimes - vandalism, property damage and trespass. Why is graffiti on a temple different to graffiti on a shopfront??

I disagree here. They are the same crimes - vandalism, property damage and trespass. Why is graffiti on a temple different to graffiti on a shopfront??
Because these criminals have a REASON to harass, terrify, and murder strangers. Ordinary ones don't.

Motive is a part of the crime and shouldn’t really be ignored when it comes to sentencing. However I don’t think that “hate crimes” deserves it’s own special category.

Hate crimes are serious crimes that need to be handled. Sometimes the only motive a brain-washed killer needs, is for the victim to be of another race. If we let these crimes go unsolved because of an absence of crime laws, then these animals can do whatever they want.

I disagree here. They are the same crimes - vandalism, property damage and trespass. Why is graffiti on a temple different to graffiti on a shopfront??

That;s a good point. I suppose I just look at them as a super offensive form of vandalism. I guess as an act they seem qualitatively different to me than ordinary vandalism. On the other hand a murder is still a murder, and I don't percieve the act as qualitatively different because of the motive behind it. That's why I suppose.

Hell, I'm a bisexual liberal and I think they are stupid. The motive is something to be agrued case to case, and should be used for swaying the jury.

I think the name "hate crime" is an interesting one - I guess it means that it's impossible to commit a crime based on hate unless the victim belongs to a different religious/ethnic/cultural group.

Hate crimes are serious crimes that need to be handled. Sometimes the only motive a brain-washed killer needs, is for the victim to be of another race. If we let these crimes go unsolved because of an absence of crime laws, then these animals can do whatever they want.

No, then you'd be punished for murder or whatever crime you commit. The race of the victim shouldn't be a factor to the sentencing. By supporting hate crime laws, you are essentially dividing us up into groups, saying that one group deserves special priviliges because of their skin color, religion, or sexual orientation.

Hate crime laws are a savage hypocracy.

I think that one South Park episode explained it best.

Because these criminals have a REASON to harass, terrify, and murder strangers. Ordinary ones don't.

No? Revenge, jealousy, poverty, provocation, insanity, duress, hunger and just plain for the thrill of it are not reasons?

Silly me...

I disagree here. They are the same crimes - vandalism, property damage and trespass. Why is graffiti on a temple different to graffiti on a shopfront??It's more offensive because the people that use that type of building believe that it is extremely objectionable morally - it is a serious sin to vandalize a holy place.

I wish humans were evolved to the point where they did not hate one another for differences in culture, skin color, and religion.

That said, hate crime laws are in place because there are individuals who feel the need/right to harass, murder, or destroy the property of anyone unlucky enough to be of a particular group. While yes, they can be tried as normal murder, harassment, and vandalism crimes, the problem comes when you get a group doing this.

In New Jersey very recently, some teens from a suburban community decided to band together and go "bum hunting". They beat with pipes and bats people who had done nothing to them except to sleep in the woods in tents, and severely injured one man by breaking both of his arms, shattering his ribs, and puncturing his lung, nealry killing him.

They were charged with a hate crime because they were specifically hunting for homeless people to beat.

Hate crime laws are a savage hypocracy.

I think that one South Park episode explained it best.

I saw that, and I totally agree. For those of you don't know what this means, a white child threw a rock at a black child (named Token...hehe) and everyone labeled it as a hate crime. Equality is impossible in this country because there are so many people who won't know what to do if they don't have something to argue about. One example of why this country will always be divided: hypocritical organizations who supposedly support equality also support ideas like affirmative action. I'm not racist, not sexist, and not a homophobe...and hate crimes are still one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of.

It's more offensive because the people that use that type of building believe that it is extremely objectionable morally - it is a serious sin to vandalize a holy place.
Sin, Schmin. I'm sorry, but we are discussing laws here. Anyone who is the victim of a crime is going to find it extremely objectionable, aren't they?

In New Jersey very recently, some teens from a suburban community decided to band together and go "bum hunting". They beat with pipes and bats people who had done nothing to them except to sleep in the woods in tents, and severely injured one man by breaking both of his arms, shattering his ribs, and puncturing his lung, nealry killing him.

They were charged with a hate crime because they were specifically hunting for homeless people to beat.

Surely instead of one generic charge of "hate crime" (and is there a violent crime that isn't based on hate of something?) they should have been charged with assault, battery, causing grievous bodily harm and attempted murder? That seems to cover it. As far as hunting specific people to hunt, haven't serial killers been doing that for a long time? Are they charged with hate crimes because their targets are (for example) caucasian men with green eyes who work in a bank?

It's just more separatism. I hate separatism. :gundge:

It's more offensive because the people that use that type of building believe that it is extremely objectionable morally - it is a serious sin to vandalize a holy place.
Since there is a putative separation of church and state your argument has no basis. Vandalism is vandalism. Who is less offended because say, their car, is not a "holy" place. I seriously doubt most people would be any less angry.

In the case of the swastika or a burning cross, those symbols are also used as threats in order to frighten the community as well as offend them.

In the case of the swastika or a burning cross, those symbols are also used as threats in order to frighten the community as well as offend them.
So any use of a symbol to intimidate and offend is hate? Not likely, what about ELF? They would then qualify as 'hate' crime. or how about 'street gangs using signs? - hate crime. Some would consider flying a rainbow flag a threat and offensive. - hate.?

The whole point you miss is that the motive does not make a crime any more criminal. A victim who is beaten for their money is no less deserving of justice than a victim who is beat because they are gay. All it does it give a broad latitude to punish certain criminals more than others for the same act, meanwhile drawing attention away from the crime itself.

It is similar to sexual harrasment laws, which were once used to protect people from inapropriate advances and groping and which are now perverted into lawsuits against people discussing certain 'Seinfeld' episodes. It is a law just begging to be abused.

The motivation for a crime shouldn't effect the sentencing.

LOL, Racial Prejudice!

In the case of the swastika or a burning cross, those symbols are also used as threats in order to frighten the community as well as offend them.

So then a cross burner could be charged with Vandalism, Tresspass, Arson, Making Terroristic Threats and Hate?

The motivation for a crime shouldn't effect the sentencing.
Where did you get that from? It is the heart of the sentencing phase.

I wish humans were evolved to the point where they did not hate one another for differences in culture, skin color, and religion.
Social evolution can still technically go in any direction. Social evolution is dynamic and ever changing. Change no matter which way it goes will be met by those who will resist change, and by those who wish to change in the opposite direction. So it can be said that it isn’t exactly linear, at times it can seem to be advancements going in two opposite direction at various times, depending on current social situations.

I view hate crimes as anti-terrorism laws. While I think it's silly to use it against individuals, using it against such groups as the KKK is perfectly acceptable.

I view hate crimes as anti-terrorism laws. While I think it's silly to use it against individuals, using it against such groups as the KKK is perfectly acceptable.

So people in the KKK aren't individuals?

There is no excuse for hate crime laws. Yes, I dislike people who have racist views, but I also hate people who air communist views as much.

I do not like what these people say but I would give my life to defend their right to say it.

Hate crime legislation is pointless.
A man is no less dead if he was shot by someone of the same race.
It takes no longer to remove a flaming cross from your lawn than if someone set fire to a tree or turned a flamethrower on your lawn. Swastikas don't automatically stain temples any worse than an informative poem telling people that for a "good time" they could call "Jane" (This hardly ever works. I tried one of those numbers, but the woman flat out refused to play me in a game of Unreal Tournament!)

I am pleased that you all realize that 'hate crime' legislation is the first set of laws that attempts to ban specific thoughts. A true threat to libery.

Hate crime legislation is a good thing.

Like most good things, however, it only remains so while people use it responsibly.

So just to clear the air before it thickens, I admit the plausibility--but by no means the certainty--of some form of the argument that hate crime legislation makes it a "worse crime" to hurt someone of another race, religion, gender, and so on.

To return to my main point, the basic principle is a good one, because a true hate crime is different than an "ordinary" crime. The commission of a hate crime, in fact, involves a greater offense, one in addition to the actual crime committed against some particular individual.

When a person is beaten, burned, generally tortured and finally murdered because (for instance) he is gay, clearly the perpetrator(s) should be charged with all of those crimes usually associated with the acts themselves. The actions have, however, great effects beyond this event itself.

Essentially, the perpetrators of such an act declare their support for such activities acted out specifically against the group in question. They create fear amongst gay men, who therefore refuse to "come out," but remain in hiding, as a persecuted group. The actions involved not only infringe the liberties of the individual attacked, they are damaging to the liberty of an entire group at large.

Thus, there are two crimes. One against the individual. One against the group. It is our interest in protecting liberty that demands we punish them both.

Does it make problems for determining intent? To some extent. Personally, though I support hate crime legislation, I am glad that the criminal law still demands a very high burden of proof. Given that proof--if, that is, beyond a reasonable doubt the accused acted out of animosity toward an individual through malicious prejudice toward some group to which that individual belongs--then I certainly think that person deserves to pay a higher penalty then the person who attacked only an individual, and whose crime was therefore against only that individual.

I wish humans were evolved to the point where they did not hate one another for differences in culture, skin color, and religion.

That said, hate crime laws are in place because there are individuals who feel the need/right to harass, murder, or destroy the property of anyone unlucky enough to be of a particular group. While yes, they can be tried as normal murder, harassment, and vandalism crimes, the problem comes when you get a group doing this.

In New Jersey very recently, some teens from a suburban community decided to band together and go "bum hunting". They beat with pipes and bats people who had done nothing to them except to sleep in the woods in tents, and severely injured one man by breaking both of his arms, shattering his ribs, and puncturing his lung, nealry killing him.

They were charged with a hate crime because they were specifically hunting for homeless people to beat.
By this classification aren't all rapes hate crimes unless one rapes both men and women?

The actions involved not only infringe the liberties of the individual attacked, they are damaging to the liberty of an entire group at large. Then all paedophiles are commiting hate crimes against children, all rapists who don't rape men and women are commiting hate crimes against one sex. What about the group I mentioned before - serial killers? All of these would fall into your definition.

I don't think that it is possible to legislate against an emotion.

I agree that Hate Crime Laws are just WRONG.

For every conceivable Hate Crime, there's already an existing law against it on the Statutes.

If you've ever got some spare time, look up your Country/State's Criminal Code (or "Big Book Of Stuff That Will Get Your Ass Thrown In Prison If You Get Caught Doing It"), and have a look at the maximum penalties for most things that could also be considered a Hate Crime.

Armed Robbery, in Queensland, Australia, has a MAXIMUM penalty of 14 years in prison. Unlawful Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm carry the same penalty. The sex, race, religion, political affiliation, or sexual preferences of both parties to the offence are completely irrelevant, IMHO.

Hate-Crime Laws are just more Tree-Huggery, and if anything, we need Anti- Tree Hugger laws.

And that South Park episode in which Cartman got sent down for throwing a Rock at Token (brilliant social commentary there!) was totally on the mark, as well as being incredibly funny...

Then all paedophiles are commiting hate crimes against children, all rapists who don't rape men and women are commiting hate crimes against one sex.

Perhaps there is a reason we already think that such crimes should be punished especially severely? In these cases, the "hate" part of the act -- the threat directed against an entire group -- is already contained in the act. They are inseparable. So to answer your question, yes, these do fall into my definition. Hence, I think they should be punished more severely than your average crime against an individual -- in many cases more severely even than run-of-the-mill murder, because of their inherently political character.

What about the group I mentioned before - serial killers?

Yes. I think a serial killer should be punished more severely than your average murderer. Got any more?

I don't think it is possible to legislate against an emotion.

Of course it's possible. But, that's not what is happening here. We are legislating against a particular kind of act.. And remember, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't prove that the perpetrator commited the crime as an act of aggression against a group of people, then it is a hate crime.

Do you think a terrorist should be treated as a regular murderer... if he only manages to kill one person?

Do you think a terrorist should be treated as a regular murderer... if he only manages to kill one person?

yes!

"i'd like to report a hate-crime. somebody hates me!"
-king of the hill

...aren't all crimes hate-crimes?

look at KillBill2, a crime-filled movie in which the white blonde heroine takes bloody revenge on another blonde whitefemale b/c she HATES her and wishes her dead.

:p :gundge:

Do you think a terrorist should be treated as a regular murderer... if he only manages to kill one person?
First you must define terrorist. :p

In any case, I think people should be punished by what they do, not what they are thinking.

First you must define terrorist. :p

In any case, I think people should be punished by what they do, not what they are thinking.

So if I have a kilo of cocaine, I should only be punished for possession of cocaine and not for possession with intent to deliver?

So if I have a kilo of cocaine, I should only be punished for possession of cocaine and not for possession with intent to deliver?
Exactly.

(on a tangent I don't even think you should be punished for that, but never mind).

Exactly.

(on a tangent I don't even think you should be punished for that, but never mind).

OOC: Note I haven't expressed my opinion yet, however, a harder example/question. Oh, and thanks for recognizing that this is not a debate about the rightness/wrongness of drug laws. My point, as you picked up on, was to illustrate that there are laws besides "hate crime" laws that "punish thought" or "motive."

IC: I find out my wife is having an affair, I spend weeks plotting/planning/scheming on how I will kill her and make the death look like an accident and then I carry out my plan and am caught. Do I deserve a worse, less or the same punishment than if I came home early one day and caught my wife in bed with some guy and killed her in a "fit of passion" and then afterwards made it look like a burglary that went wrong?

Hate crime legislation is a good thing.

Like most good things, however, it only remains so while people use it responsibly.

So just to clear the air before it thickens, I admit the plausibility--but by no means the certainty--of some form of the argument that hate crime legislation makes it a "worse crime" to hurt someone of another race, religion, gender, and so on.

To return to my main point, the basic principle is a good one, because a true hate crime is different than an "ordinary" crime. The commission of a hate crime, in fact, involves a greater offense, one in addition to the actual crime committed against some particular individual.

When a person is beaten, burned, generally tortured and finally murdered because (for instance) he is gay, clearly the perpetrator(s) should be charged with all of those crimes usually associated with the acts themselves. The actions have, however, great effects beyond this event itself.

Essentially, the perpetrators of such an act declare their support for such activities acted out specifically against the group in question. They create fear amongst gay men, who therefore refuse to "come out," but remain in hiding, as a persecuted group. The actions involved not only infringe the liberties of the individual attacked, they are damaging to the liberty of an entire group at large.

Thus, there are two crimes. One against the individual. One against the group. It is our interest in protecting liberty that demands we punish them both.

Does it make problems for determining intent? To some extent. Personally, though I support hate crime legislation, I am glad that the criminal law still demands a very high burden of proof. Given that proof--if, that is, beyond a reasonable doubt the accused acted out of animosity toward an individual through malicious prejudice toward some group to which that individual belongs--then I certainly think that person deserves to pay a higher penalty then the person who attacked only an individual, and whose crime was therefore against only that individual.


What do you mean "in addition". There is an extra seperate crime? If so how can you tie that into your definition of burden of proof? Proof of what? The extra crime? Which elements are you proving? There is a clear difference between motive and intent. Your reasoning is faulty for most "hate" crimes.

I mean, a crime is a crime. It is harming another human being in some way. Why not just toss a criminal in jail no matter what the rationale behind their crime is. Be it Destruction of Property or Murder in the First Degree, these crimes are enough in my opinion.

Sure it would be great if you could say "Well all cases are going to be tried equally so we don't need the laws."

Bzzzt! Wrong, laws like these make white, hick, red-neck, christian judges look out for a muslim when they may personally think against it. Hate crimes protect minorities in courts is my opinion. Further more it's there for a good reason. Racisism, xenophobia (and in civilised countries homophobia) are stupid and wrong.

Sure it would be great if you could say "Well all cases are going to be tried equally so we don't need the laws."

Bzzzt! Wrong, laws like these make white, hick, red-neck, christian judges look out for a muslim when they may personally think against it. Hate crimes protect minorities in courts is my opinion. Further more it's there for a good reason. Racisism, xenophobia (and in civilised countries homophobia) are stupid and wrong.

How do they protect minorities? The legal process works the same for everyone - or it should. Adding sentence enhancements won't alter whether or not the underlying crime is proved.

Perhaps there is a reason we already think that such crimes should be punished especially severely? In these cases, the "hate" part of the act -- the threat directed against an entire group -- is already contained in the act. They are inseparable. So to answer your question, yes, these do fall into my definition. Hence, I think they should be punished more severely than your average crime against an individual -- in many cases more severely even than run-of-the-mill murder, because of their inherently political character.But in some of these cases (paedophiles in particular) there is no "hate" involved. Most pedos argue that they are not wanting to hurt children, they are loving them. Don't take this as arguing for leniency on paedophiles, btw. I am perhaps more militant in my attitude to child protection than anything else. I am just disputing your assertion that there is hate involved in that crime.Do you think a terrorist should be treated as a regular murderer... if he only manages to kill one person?Yes. Murder is murder. No more, no less.

So if I have a kilo of cocaine, I should only be punished for possession of cocaine and not for possession with intent to deliver?Absolutely. Unless it is made up for sale, there is no proof that you don't just have a really bad habit or a lesser one and are buying to last you a while.

What amuses me is the constant conservative rallying cry of "We must be tougher on criminals!!!" .... but when we introduce a way to be tougher on criminals, they don't like it, but offer nothing else in return.

Well ... except to say, "murder is murder. that's good enough"

It wasn't good enough for you before the Hate Crimes Bill, why is it now?

People with brown skin get slapped with hate crime status if they commit a crime against a white person, so it goes across the board. Deal with it.

If some guy with a bunch of swastika tattoos and a membership card in Christian Identity beats up a black guy, then it's pretty clear cut that it was a crime motivated by race.

If some average white guy beats up a black guy, then no racial motivation can be determined and, thus, not a hate crime.

Hate Crime isn't a blanket. It only fits in certain categories.

What amuses me is the constant conservative rallying cry of "We must be tougher on criminals!!!" .... but when we introduce a way to be tougher on criminals, they don't like it, but offer nothing else in return.

Well ... except to say, "murder is murder. that's good enough"

It wasn't good enough for you before the Hate Crimes Bill, why is it now?

People with brown skin get slapped with hate crime status if they commit a crime against a white person, so it goes across the board. Deal with it.

If some guy with a bunch of swastika tattoos and a membership card in Christian Identity beats up a black guy, then it's pretty clear cut that it was a crime motivated by race.

If some average white guy beats up a black guy, then no racial motivation can be determined and, thus, not a hate crime.

Hate Crime isn't a blanket. It only fits in certain categories.

So you support them then?

People with brown skin get slapped with hate crime status if they commit a crime against a white person, so it goes across the board. Deal with it.

>> this is true. There is a recent case here in the UK

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=584396

>>of a group of Asian guys stabbing, burning and dumping a 15 year old white kid (15, brave guys) primarily because he was white. The -ringleader- has been given a life sentence for a racially motivated crime.

If some guy with a bunch of swastika tattoos and a membership card in Christian Identity beats up a black guy, then it's pretty clear cut that it was a crime motivated by race.

>> What happens if this swastika guy (who is previously law abiding) kills a black guy for his wallet. He is a racist, but it is a financially motivated crime. Should he be charged with a hate crime?

If some average white guy beats up a black guy, then no racial motivation can be determined and, thus, not a hate crime.

>> I am personally against any divisive law. Separation and segregation of groups in any form merely promotes the idea that certain people should be treated differently.

>>Why can't we all just get along....



Hate Crime isn't a blanket. It only fits in certain categories.[/QUOTE]

If some guy with a bunch of swastika tattoos and a membership card in Christian Identity beats up a black guy, then it's pretty clear cut that it was a crime motivated by race.

Even if the black guy was trying to pick his pocket?

Even if the black guy was trying to pick his pocket?

That would be different and if that came out in court, no hate crime.

Like I said, it's not a blanket.

Even if the black guy was trying to pick his pocket?

I'm guessing your a straight, white, male.

I'm guessing your a straight, white, male.

what's the significance of this?

I think people are missing the point of the laws... They're not to favour one group because they have been historically persecuted. It is to protect others of the same group.

Someone who kills someone for their wallet or watch isn't as likely to kill again as someone who killed someone for being black, or gay, or another person of a group they hate. These laws are in place to protect others who are very like the first victim, as someone with enough hatred for a group to kill members of it is likely to re-offend.

What if a "self-hating" white kills another white because they're white? What happens then? Why must we divide people into groups and give others special protections?

Why must we divide people into groups and give others special protections?

Because we have something in the English language called "adjectives".

They are used to describe things.

We like them.

What if a "self-hating" white kills another white because they're white?

Oh ... ummm ... we brown people giggle a lot and high-five each other.

That's about it. I don't know about the law in such a case.

Because we have something in the English language called "adjectives".

They are used to describe things.

We like them.

So the justifications for hate crime laws is that we have to use adjectives to describe people?

I mean, else can a 'hate crime' apply to? Shoe size? Cap size? Someone who wears glasses? Can't people all be beat up for these reasons? Aren't these hate crimes as wellf?

I mean, else can a 'hate crime' apply to? Shoe size? Cap size? Someone who wears glasses? Can't people all be beat up for these reasons? Aren't these hate crimes as wellf?

Dunno ... they're working on legislation to include obesety to be included in the realm of the hate crime. Not sure about the rest of it.

*shrug*

Personally, I'm all for them. I say if you attack someone because they have blue eyes or the wrong kind of dog or eat the wrong sandwich and have no other solid reasons, you should have extra penalties attached.

Why? Because I do not believe in letting bullies make the rules.

Isn't every crime a hate crime then if you think of it that way?

No, I do not favor them. But, I voted other because I consider nearly all crimes of violence* to be hate crimes, so in that sense I do favor them.

(* I say nearly because I'm sure someone would find an exception if I said all.)

isn't all a matter of proof? The question is how much proof does it take to show your kilo of cocaine was possessed with the intent to deliver, that the murder was pre-meditated, that the murder/battery was due to race/ethnicity/religion/eye-color or other physical characteristics? So that is my question, what proof is needed? How do I, the swastica tattoed man prove the black guy was picking my pocket and that is why I beat the hell out of him? Especially if there are no witnesses and he says I'm lying? My tatooes are enough? That's BS IMHO.

isn't all a matter of proof? The question is how much proof does it take to show your kilo of cocaine was possessed with the intent to deliver, that the murder was pre-meditated, that the murder/battery was due to race/ethnicity/religion/eye-color or other physical characteristics? So that is my question, what proof is needed? How do I, the swastica tattoed man prove the black guy was picking my pocket and that is why I beat the hell out of him? Especially if there are no witnesses and he says I'm lying? My tatooes are enough? That's BS IMHO.

You "beat the hell out of" someone because he was trying to pick your pocket?

Off topic but -
You "beat the hell out of" someone because he was trying to pick your pocket?Actually, if I had just collected my pay and it was the only thing that stood between my family and being kicked out of our house and starving (ie I had no other money and was the sole supporter of my family) then HELL YES I would beat the hell out of someone trying to steal it. Every way of making money has hazards and getting beaten up is an occupational hazard of stealing...

Off topic but -
Actually, if I had just collected my pay and it was the only thing that stood between my family and being kicked out of our house and starving (ie I had no other money and was the sole supporter of my family) then HELL YES I would beat the hell out of someone trying to steal it. Every way of making money has hazards and getting beaten up is an occupational hazard of stealing...

Exactly. And pocket-picking isn't the only thing. What if a black guy came up to the white swatizka guy and clubbed him in the face for his beliefs? In return the white guy beats him up. Who gets punished for the hate crime? I bet you ten bucks it won't be the black guy.

You know, I know a guy who has a shaved head, white skin and tattoos. He is trained in martial arts and is quite possibly the most physically dangerous person I have ever met. He rides a motorbike and associates with bikers on a fairly regular basis. He even likes swastikas. Are you saying that if he got into a fight with a person with different colour skin that there would be no doubt in your mind that he started it because he is racist?




Now let me tell you that he is an absolute pacifist who reveres life to the point that he rescues bugs from swimming pools and won't kill a spider. The reason he appreciates swastikas is because he is a buddhist and the swastika was originally a symbol of light. The only time he would be physically violent is if he was defending himself or someone else. His tattoos represent his children and, yes, he would seriously hurt someone who was trying to hurt them.

On numerous occasions he has been harassed by people because of the colour of his skin, with "Hey! White ****! Gizza dollar!" being the standard opening but has not reacted with violence if he was attacked first and then only as a last resort.

And there are people here who will assume that, because of the way he looks and who his family are, he is automatically a racist who would commit a crime based on skin colour/religion/whatever.

Grow a brain and realise that basing your opinion of someones actions on what they look like or their fashion choices is just as bad as the racists in the world.