Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vexingsilence t1_j0wby5m wrote

What an absolutely useless article. You'd think with so few actual crimes, they could list them out or something, provide some context. But no, number is up. Nothing about severity or anything like that. Could be 34 instances of graffiti targeting a "protected class" for all that article shows.

Never change, NPR.

Actually.. at least they linked it:

Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property:  16

Intimidation:  13

Simple Assault:  6

Aggravated Assault:  1

All Other Larceny:  0

Mostly minor stuff. I really dislike the "hate crime" concept. Shouldn't matter who you assault or intimidate or what-not, justice is supposed to be blind.

5

petergriffin999 t1_j10gl7k wrote

Vandalism of property as a hate crime:

99% of those are by the supposed 'victim' themselves. And inevitably: "was just looking to start a conversation".

At this point, when you see "so-and-so college has 'go home xyz you're not wanted here!', go place a bet on it being written by the 'victim'. Often w 'signed, the KKK' at the end, for extra realism.

The demand for racism far exceeds the supply.

2

smartest_kobold OP t1_j0wg97g wrote

Even if NH didn't allow the gay panic defense, this would be a stupid position.

−4

vexingsilence t1_j0wh98b wrote

Just like NPR, pointless blather with nothing of consequence.

6

smartest_kobold OP t1_j0wwj5a wrote

If you can use bigotry to legally excuse a charge, I don't see why it also couldn't be used to add one.

1

vexingsilence t1_j0wwz8g wrote

Who is using bigotry to excuse charges? If that's happening, that's something that should be addressed. The answer isn't to inflate charges, the answer is to correct whatever has gone wrong so that the proper charges aren't being laid.

10

smartest_kobold OP t1_j0xdz5s wrote

I honestly can't tell if you're trying to argue against the concept of mens rea or the idea that crimes have been used to intimidate whole communities beyond individual victims, but stupid either way.

5

vexingsilence t1_j0xf1wm wrote

You think communities aren't intimidated by other types of crime? FFS, in nearly every thread that comes up in this sub from someone looking to move to NH, people warn against Manchester in significant part due to crime. Does that make those crimes a higher class of offense?

7

smartest_kobold OP t1_j0y17o4 wrote

If you think there's no difference between starting a campfire in somebody's woodlot and burning a cross in front of a black person's house, I do not think I can help you.

4

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wi3vq wrote

Just like you on every post. You even had to correct yourself here because you didn't bother to read the article to begin with. Commence backtracking...

−3

vexingsilence t1_j0wihu8 wrote

Yea, I added more details after checking the links. Doesn't change the fact that the NPR article didn't go into details. Sorry for providing more information, must have ruined your day.

9

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wj1wq wrote

You're the one who went out of your way to try to blindly defend criminals.

What do I have to add? Nazis in the streets of NH is not a direction I'm excited about. Whether you like the idea of "hate" crimes or not. Arguing the semantics is just deflection as far as I'm concerned.

2

vexingsilence t1_j0wjfzs wrote

>You're the one who went out of your way to try to blindly defend criminals.

I'm defending victims. Crimes committed against someone shouldn't matter less because they're not the right type of victim.

> Nazis in the streets of NH is not a direction I'm excited about.

You'll be happy to know that we won WWII.

8

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wk1cc wrote

If we won WWII why do we allow Nazis in our streets?

I know this is more deflection, I'm just curious.

1

vexingsilence t1_j0wkjyh wrote

There are no Nazis in the streets. They were all defeated. What you're witnessing is a bunch of smooth brains that can't describe a problem without resorting to calling someone or a group of people the worst possible name they can think of, or in reverse, a group of smooth brains that want to seem tougher than they are calling themselves the worst possible name they can think of. The proper term would be "neo-Nazi", but still.. you seriously think they're out doing work for the fuhrer, or are they just a group of thugs?

11

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wl7g8 wrote

Oh so you're just taking issue with Nazi vs neo-Nazi? Tell me how you're not arguing semantics as a deflection tactic again?

1

vexingsilence t1_j0wly6t wrote

You're ignoring the larger point and focusing on the minor. Justice should be blind, we should all be protected equally. If you just want to argue with me specifically and ignore the article, then piss off.

5

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wnepi wrote

So when the neo-Nazis organize we shouldn't consider them a group and solely treat them as individual, even though they're saying "we're a neo-Nazi group that hates other groups"? Glad you're not a lawmaker...

2

vexingsilence t1_j0wo9fq wrote

Is it any different than a violent street gang or a serious drug operation? Should a group like MS13 be treated less serious because they're not targeting a protected class, but a bunch of LARPers calling themselves neo-Nazis should be treated harsher? How does that benefit society? Why should justice not be blind in that kind of scenario?

3

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wowfx wrote

No, I don't think they should be treated less severely. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What does that have to do with hate crimes increasing anyway? It's just an odd hill to die on here. Crime organizations that target protected groups should be punished to the full extent of the law. Protected classes are protected for a reason--they're already under duress for their situation. Intentionally targeting them, in my mind, is worse than a "standard" crime.

2

vexingsilence t1_j0wqoc9 wrote

You're trying to have it both ways. You say it's a "worse crime" but that one shouldn't be treated "less severely". Which is it? Who's to say someone in a non-protected class hasn't had a worse life than a victim that was part of one?

I still don't see the logic or benefit to society in treating one as a more serious crime than the other. The acts committed are the crime. A victim shouldn't be seen as less of a victim because of who they are.

6

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wrlsh wrote

So, what would you charge Nazis for a genocide of some millions of people? Just like, a standard homicide charge? We might have to agree to disagree on this...

2

vexingsilence t1_j0wshzz wrote

Do we have a genocide of millions going on within our borders? I'm talking about present-day, domestic stuff that would be tried through the courts. What the heck are you going on about?

3

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wtrzl wrote

You're not talking any anything except in circles

2

vexingsilence t1_j0wu6rq wrote

You're talking about genocides, I'm talking about our justice system and how we deal with criminal matters. This is why names matter. You've dragged actual Nazis into this even though that war is long over. It's 2022, this is a discussion about an article about crime statistics in NH.

4

Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j0wuax7 wrote

Right, those statistics you'd like to ignore because you don't think neo-Nazis are "compentent" enough to be "real" Nazis. Again, I'll reiterate, I'm glad you don't make the laws.

2

Low-Head-1493 t1_j0yt3wj wrote

Excellent job rolling out the whataboutism right on cue.

0