When I got home from the animal hospital around 12:30 I caught some of Geraldo's show on Fox News and they were really covering the story from an angle that this guy was a Christian who didn't like this particular church because it was gay friendly.

I finally got a chance to read some more, and I have to say this guy sounded really whacked in the head. The right-wing equivalent of the unibomber- far less intelligent and crafty but equally nuts.

What thing that throws me though is statements like this...

"Anytime someone uses force to obstruct another person in the free exercise of their religious beliefs that is a violation of the federal civil rights statutes," FBI Agent Richard Lambert said Monday."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392081,00.html Can I post links to Fox News here Teresa ;-)?

The man killed two people. He is already eligible for the harshest sentence known to mankind, death. What does adding hate crimes to the charges serve in this case? Obviously they matter when you have people vandalizing or assaulting others since you can keep them off the streets longer. But the bottom line here is, there is no way this guy is escaping a conviction for murder. He will pay the ultimate penalty for his heinous actions. I guess those charges will just serve as a historical footnote so that long after he is dead it will be long remembered why he did such a deplorable thing to innocent people.

BTW, this just popped up on DrudgeReport and I don't know if you've seen it yet...

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/27/neighbors-accused-shooter-everyones-friend-hated-c/

Some excerpts

"The man accused of a mass church shooting this morning was described by his Powell neighbors as a helpful and kind man, but one who had issues with Christianity."

"..."He had his own sense of belief about religion, that's the impression I got of him," said neighbor Karen Massey. "We were talking one day when my daughter graduated from Bible college, and I told him I was a Christian, then he almost turned angry.

"He seemed to get angry at that."

"...Neighbors said he was the guy who would always help them, no matter what."

This is the kind of thing that makes you worried about your own neighbors. Geesh.

John,

You may post links to any source that you would like. That doesn't mean that the information in them won't be scrutinized and/or ridiculed, however. :-)

As I understand it, the hate crimes appelation doesn't just change the sentance, but also adds a catagory to the crime, and therefore changes the nature of evidence-gathering/cempelling witnesses/ rules of prosecution, etc.

I was under the impression that it gives the prosecuter more investagative tools that would ordinarily not be open to them.

Could be wrong, though.

And there IS something to be said for thoroughness. It is usual to list all of the charges possible against someone, is it not? Like, if one count of first degree murder could get him the death penalty, why charge him with the second?

'cause he did both of them, he should be charged with both of them. It's not overkill, it's being complete.

"What does adding hate crimes to the charges serve in this case?"

It adds accuracy. He targeted a set of victims based on their inclusion in a group toward which he nurses hatred. That is the very definition of a hate crime according to the law enforcement folks who deal with such things.

I also can't help but notice that questions like the one posed above, implying or sometimes even blatantly stating that such deeds should not be viewed as a hate crime, is one that has been thrown out a lot in the last several years... whenever liberals suffer at the hands of conservatives.

"I also can't help but notice that questions like the one posed above, implying or sometimes even blatantly stating that such deeds should not be viewed as a hate crime, is one that has been thrown out a lot in the last several years... whenever liberals suffer at the hands of conservatives"

I was by no means implying that his actions didn't fit the legal definition of a hate crime, or that he lacked such motivation. I was merely questioning the effect of tacking on charges for hate crimes when the man is highly likely to suffer death for the murder of two innocents. On that count my question has been adequately answered by Teresa.

How did I imply that the crime shouldn't be viewed as a hate crime? Are you offended that I should ask about the efficacy of adding such a charge? However, I will sarcastically thank you for the implication that I somehow think that conservatives can't commit hate crimes against liberals. Please don't assume me to be so base without at least first asking whether I believe such a vile thing.

I'm sure John didn't mean to imply that this isn't a terrible crime motivated by hate. (I wouldn't presume to speak for him, except that he's dealing with a personal tragedy right now.)

But you are right in general, I think. Phil Donohue implying that putting a nail through a peice of bread is a hate crime, for instance, and inflaming all of those Catholics to write to Prof. Myers and threaten him for being a dirty Jew who hates Catholics (even though he's not Jewish, and regardless, its extremely hateful to perpetuate the ancient lible about Jews wanting to desecrate the Host).

The man was clearly insane. The fact that he absorbed a lot of right-wing hate talk probably contributed to his CHOICE of victims, and the words that he used to explain himself in his "manifesto".

The nature of his condition probably dictated that SOMEONE would die by his hand, but it was likely the speech of others that pointed him in the direction of our liberal cohorts.

Of course, we cant stop people going crazy.

And the people who directed his actions have their free speech so wwe cant do anything about that. And I'm not saying that ironically at all. Free speech protects a certain level of irresponsible speech as well.

Which is why a pastor who preaches the Bible verse that tells us to stone homosexuals to death would not be charged with a hate crime any more than Ann Coulter has been for encouraging college students to stalk, harass, assault and terrorize their liberal professors.

But if someone puts it into practice and actually follows though, that adds an element to the crime that should be addressed. Especially given the tactic of "leaderless resistance".

It's pretty clear to me that the purpose behind certain types of speech is to motivate killings.

Take Rev. Lively for instance. Does anybody actually believe that him preaching that God wants homosexuals killed didn't have anything to do with some of his parishoners killing a homosexual? Or that Rabdall Terry preaching that abortionists should be killed lead to his followers killing doctors who perform abortions?

Does anyone seriously think that that wasn't the PUROPSE of that speech?

Id just like to add that "concern trolls" suck.

The prevalance of them on the web makes it hard, when you first meet someone, to tell the difference between an earnest person trying to disagree politely, and someone with an agenda whose just being passive agressive.

It's hard enough to discern with the written word.

Concern trolls? I am unfamiliar with the term.

Concern trolls are people with an ax to gind who come to sites specifically to cause disruption and flame wars, but do so in an outwardly humble and friendly-sounding way.

It is difficult to distinguish them from open-minded people from the opposite "side" of an issue who honestly want to learn about the views of others and exchange ideas, but sometimes end up accidently "stepping in it", or lose perspective from time-to-time and start arguments due to passionatly defending their position.

An example would be the "raiding parties" of people who will go and flood a blog with "I'll pray for you" posts...to make it impossible to carry on a discussion, or the creepy people who come and post comments along the lines of "It's dangerous for someone to talk the way you are talking, I hope you don't 'slip in the shower' some day. People like you are known to have 'accidents', and that would be unfortunate".

The most common example would be someone who is "just asking a question" but it isn't really intended as a question, but rather as a statement disguised as a question. When it's one that comes up a lot and then is followed by a stock argument, then the question becomes suspect as a concern troll.

The question you asked is a common wedge question used by concern trolls to question the validity of hate crime legislation, and usually ends with a big flameing rant about how liberals are just a bunch of censourous PC word faschists.

Unless you really work to give someone the benefit of the doubt, it is difficult not to just jump to the conclusion that the conversation is eventually going to go there...and further, that the person intended it to go there form the very beginning, and is just wasting your time with pretending to be genuinly open-minded.

"How did I imply that the crime shouldn't be viewed as a hate crime? Are you offended that I should ask about the efficacy of adding such a charge?

Questioning the validity of a hate crime charge is a standard conservative rhetorical ploy, and it always has been.

"However, I will sarcastically thank you for the implication that I somehow think that conservatives can't commit hate crimes against liberals."

You are sincerely welcome.

"Please don't assume me to be so base without at least first asking whether I believe such a vile thing."

Unfortunately, it's the safe way to bet. I hadn't actually thought that of you, based on what I'd seen of you here, until you spouted the standard-issue talking point that prompted me to respond. Clearly, Teresa doesn't think you are, and her judgment carries a lot of weight, and she knows you better than I. It may well be that you didn't realize the implications of what you said, like people I've run into who casually tossed out ethnic slurs but were shocked, SHOCKED! to find that they were perceived as racist.

Personally, I have certainly known some conservatives who were also good and decent human beings. But I have yet to run out of fingers with which to count them. If you are to be counted, that will become clear. And then I will have reason to alter my bet.

On concern trolls - Just a few days ago I got into a rather heated argument on a group I frequent with someone who gave every indication of being a concern troll. In the end, it turned out to be a huge misunderstanding; he had misread something in the original post and missed some other context, and so the argument wasn't really over what we thought it was. In the end, the original poster cleared it up, there was a bit of embarrassment on both sides, and we moved forward on good terms with each other. It was a relief for everyone.

This is an interesting thread re: concern trolls- I'll respond when I get some more time.