If not hate, then what motivates the killers of old war veterans, infants, and Australian jocks visiting their girlfriend?

Psychopaths aren’t driven by hate. They’re simply amoral. Other people have the status of things to them. They’re quite capable of killing just for fun or excitement.

@thorninmud
So it is quite possible that George Zimmerman is a psychopath?

Boredom, I understand, was the motive for the jogger’s killing. A terrible thing.

@marinelife
And you accept that as an explanation? Really?

“Hate crimes” are racially motivated; this seems to have been amorality as @thorninmud says. It doesn’t make it any less of a crime.

@janbb
So when is it basic amorality, and when is it a hate crime? How do you tell the difference?

@josie Yes, sadly, in our violence-filled culture, I do.

@marinelife
That is, what my dad used to call, a “cop-out”
Assuming I know what that means, but I think it applies here.

A “hate crime’ has a legal definition in most states. It is one in which the prime motivation is racial, religious or gender hatred. The defamation of Jewish synagogues is a hate crime as was the killing of Matthew Shepard. It doesn’t mean that other crimes are more justifiable; just different.

@janbb

But only certain people can be guilty of hate crimes. Just like only certain people can be guilty of sexual harassment. It is not a gripe. That is contemporary legal theory.
So what I am asking is, since the alleged perps are absolved of hate crime, what is the alleged motivation? Boredom. Can you accept that?

Only perpetrators of hate crimes can be guilty of hate crimes. I’m not sure what your point is. The article says the murderers said their motivation was boredom which shows a complete lack of morality and empathy.

My mother, a woman of light complexion and European heritage, was the victim of racially-motivated crimes when she was in high school. Several students would bully, harrass, and attack her because she was “white” and they did not like white people.

Yes, it is possible that this is a hate crime, but how does one prove it without confession, without evidence? If they were part of an organization that supports hate crimes or if we uncovered e-mail exchanges in which they made incriminating claims about how they would love to get back at white people, we cannot identify this as a hate crime.

The difference between this case and Zimmerman, is that the culrpits in this case are disturbed teenagers—not an adult in a position of power authorized to carry a weapon.

Based on the language of your post Josie, I am guessing what you really want to complain about is the idea that only “certain” people (which I am assuming, reading between the lines, you mean white males) can be convicted of these types of crimes, which certainly wouldn’t be a first with your track record for questions lately.

“When you ain’t got nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

@muppetish
There is nothing implied here, no code language.

Whether or not you or I appreciate or understand it, modern Western jurisprudence establishes as principle that only white heterosexual males can commit hate crimes. So that is that.

Now that we have established that, is there some sort of aggravating factor in these crimes that would be analogous to the notion of “hate crime” if the racial (or gender, or sexual orientation) context were different.

Just asking…

@josie, I don’t know what you mean by “accept” in your response to @marinelife, but I believe it’s true that that’s the reason given by the perpetrators. Accurately reporting what someone said doesn’t imply that a person regards it as acceptable.

Whether or not you or I appreciate or understand it, modern Western jurisprudence establishes as principle that only white heterosexual males can commit hate crimes. So that is that.

Hardly. Just because you say it is that way doesn’t make it so.
Look at the LA riots, and tell me there weren’t hate crimes committed by blacks against whites. That got a lot of coverage.

@Jeruba

If that is the context of the response then OK. But I am not sure that is the context. It is equally possible that it is a moral equivocation. Anyway, I am not going to start being a dog chasing it’s tail. It that is what @marinelife meant, then fair enough.

@filmfann
Lots of coverage, and lots of sociological excuses. Very little public condemnation. You know it and I know it.

It was racially motivated along poorly educated lines. It is no different than any other life taken for no reason other than ignorance.

It’s not exactly a racial line any more folks. It’s an economic one.

@Blondesjon

Then why is there not a genus “economic crimes” when it applies to physical assault?

For the stupidest reason ever. Nobody wants to discuss that.

@Blondesjon

Not to be pushy, but why not? Plus, what is it?

It’s much easier, and much better for ratings, to explain shit away along racial lines than it is to touch on the fact that a lot of these type of crimes are committed by or against folks who live below the poverty line.

@Blondesjon
How does that apply to George Zimmerman?

Disclosure: I do not know George Zimmerman, nor am I sure I even like George Zimmerman. But I wonder if he deserves the shit that the Politically Correct Establishment News has directed at him.

But, then again, I am just a typical consumer of the politically ambitious news.

Why does it have to? Stupid shit is done by stupid people all the time. Zimmerman and Williams just happened to come along during a slow news cycle.

I will wager that the neighborhood those events unfolded in didn’t contain too many Mercedes or BMWs.

I always seem to get myself in trouble on here when I give responses on topics related to sexuality and race, but I just couldn’t avoid this question. I really do feel myself that many problems blamed on race issues are really the results of other factors. On some of my previous posts I’ve mentioned some of these so I will not do so here.

When I look at the malicious intent involved with a specific hate crime committed for racial reasons, I don’t see the definition of the word ‘hate’ changing just because of race issues. There are people whom commit crimes against others on a frequent enough scale for malicious reasons not due to race. I’ve listed several reasons in other threads why I oppose the concept of hate crime laws, but I wanted to touch on something before getting the heck out of here.

Despite my opposition to hate crime laws, I think we should look at the intent behind many of those who support hate crime legislation. I don’t feel that the purpose of hate crime laws are to change or modify the definition of the term ‘hate’ itself just because of racial reasons, so in a sense the term ‘hate crime’ is somewhat of a misnomer to me. The intention of hate crime laws appears to be to address the concern that minorities are frequently subject to harassment, intimidation, violence and discrimination much more so than whites, and in a society where whites have been the majority race in authority and culture. These laws were also meant to be a way to allow a minority crime victim seek justice due to corruption in a justice system biased against minorities.

I’m basing some of my latter assumptions from the case of a hispanic man beaten to death by several white high school football players not far from my area. The players got acquitted of murder charges, but most local police department officers involved in that case were convicted of witness tampering, withholding evidence, bribary and a whole host of other charges. Ironically one of the football players mothers was dating the detective in charge of investigating the case (don’t ask me how that happened). The state police finally did take over the investigation, but likely after the damage had been done. The football players had federal charges filed against them for committing a hate crime against the deceased victim, though I’m not sure what ever became of it. The irony was that despite the racial slurs leveled at the victim in this case, those same players attempted to pick fights with several other white kids before they ran into the hispanic kid. I’m just trying to find some sense in an age of political correctness, where sometimes I agree with it while other times I don’t.

@Paradox25

The problem with your theory is that it’s just not true. Crime statistics show that blacks kill blacks and whites kill whites. If there is a mixed race killing it is twice as likely that it is a black killing a white. We can play with the numbers all we want but they don’t change. We have a racial problem but it is being fueled by the politicians and victimization industry. I like you don’t believe in Hate Crime Laws or any law that elevates one race/gender/ethnicity over another. Over the past five years we have been elevating the racial divide more than I’ve ever seen. Democrats have been screaming racist at every turn. Now it seems to be killing us. Literally.

I keep hearing that the old white guys are the problem and it appears some are beginning to believe it. What is the end game here? Do we want a full blown race war? All indications are that’s where we’re headed.

Sorry @Paradox25 this was not all directed at you. Only the crime stats were. The rest was just my own rant.

@Jaxk I messed up (like I usually do when typing too many characters) with how I stated the above about my own viewpoint concerning the intention behind hate crime laws. What I meant was that the reasons I’d described above dealing with the purpose of hate crime laws were the opinions of others that I’ve heard, rather than my own opinions.

I’m not into race baiting myself, nor blaming every problem on ‘old white men’. I’ve been around enough white and minority people to notice all of the opportunities thrown away because they wanted to be ‘cool’ or ‘tough’. Once the coolness wears off, and the effects of their self-driven failure kicks in, the scapegoats come. I’m no conservative by a longshot, but I tend to agree with them on some issues, and this is one of them.

STUPID American gun laws. The violence will never abate until Americans realise that it is NOT a God given right to own a weapon whose only use is murder. The motivation is simply nothing between their ears…..........

@Harold,
> until Americans realise
> nothing between their ears

Are you meaning to speak of all Americans? You are aware that we have been known to differ with one another on some matters?

@Harold

Delbert Belton was beaten to death. No gun. Just violence.

@Harold Do you also blame forks and spoons for making people obese?

@Jeruba – no, I was referring to those that support the current gun laws.
@josie – and your point is???????????
@Katniss – and that is exactly the attitude I was referring to. I rest my case…........