Agreed, as are all the hate crimes perpetrated by racists using Trump's election as an excuse to act on their hatred. Point is, hate crimes do come from both sides. As do inflammatory rhetoric, "identity politics", ignorance, etc. No one side of the aisle has a monopoly on bad behavior, and vilifying by association accomplishes nothing.
Saying they "come from both sides" flies in the face of reality though. You may have 20+ of 800+ hate crimes coming from the left.
Just because you kill a black person does not mean you committed a hate crime. A hate crime is penalty enhancement for a crime committed where the particular victim was selected because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation... Just because you murder a black man doesn't make it a hate crime. However, if your motive was "I want to kill a black guy" and you murder a black guy, then yes you are subject to penalty enhancement upon a jury finding that you selected your victim because he was black. Similarly, if you wanted to kill white people, and selected your victim because he/she was white then you also have committed a hate crime. If the intent was to terrorize a protected class, you know -- like the KKK does -- don't you think the punishment should be more severe? That is the purpose of hate crime legislation. The crime wasn't just to harm an individual, it was to terrorize a particular population of people. It sounds like your issue isn't so much hate crimes, as it is that you want the death penalty for all murderers.
Pure speculation. And pointless. "They do it more often than we do!" Yeah, and everyone who does it is a moronic criminal. What does the finger pointing accomplish?
I listen to Joe and believe I heard that one. I disagree completely that the left is more to blame, you are talking about an interview with someone who is known specifically for that viewpoint. But, assigning blame to one side or the other just continues to amplify the gap. By the way, I know tons of liberals in real life, and all of them disagree with this neo-fascist new liberal wing and its ridged bldming which actually works contrary to what real liberalism is. The idea that some "liberals" want to hinder the first amendments protections is disgusting. I think you should give respect to people, call them by whatever they prefer, but I don't think it's healthy to compel anyone.
Let's take this back. I replied to your response to Further, who took issue with your statement that "the Trumpers are committing hate crimes right and left". This is the type of commentary with which he and I take issue. People committing hate crimes are simply that--people committing hate crimes, and people who should be prosecuted therefor. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with commentary about "Trumpers committing hate crimes"? And before you reply, first I might you request consider how you would respond to someone else making the exact same statement, but replacing "hate crimes" with "acts of terrorism", and "Trumpers" with "Muslims"? Neither claim is really accurate. In neither case are the actions of the few representative of the many. In neither case does the finger-pointing accomplish anything.
I'll rephrase my statement then. The vast majority of hate crimes since the election have been committed by Trumpers. This is a fact. So, get your people because it's like they want a race war.
First--I didn't vote for Trump. Second--even if I did, people who commit hate crimes are not and have never been "my people". I think they're deplorable, and willingly say as much. If your statement is not directed toward me, but toward those who did vote for Trump, then feel free to disregard my comments above.
It's nowhere near 50/50... You have this view because you must not be paying attention. Again from forbes:
I want to hold him to this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-promises-civil-rights-agenda-in-detroit-address/
They're deliberately not counting attacks on Trump supporters. The Southern Poverty Law Center simply wouldn't do that.
Do you have the link to the article? I'm curious--the headline refers to "hate crimes", but the chart specifically states "incidents". I wonder if there is a significant difference. I'm also curious as to the method by which the SPLC compiled their statistics.
