From an Ohio bar website...

 

Ohio law broadly defines hate crimes as criminal acts motivated by prejudice or intolerance and directed toward a member of a gender, racial, religious or social group.

 

So is rape a hate crime?

Setting a church on fire and getting into a fight are two completely different things.

 

The burden of proof should be very high. I'm curious what proof they have here to show it was a hate crime.

Setting a church on fire and getting into a fight are two completely different things.

 

So with no evidence what so ever you think it's okay to claim that was racist?

 

But if you feel this incident was racist, you are actually the racist.

The burden of proof should be very high. I'm curious what proof they have here to show it was a hate crime.

 

Yes it should be very high, but if people were taunting with racial remarks wouldn't that add to the possibility of it being a hate crime?

 

If not, then all hell can break loose, and people can hide behind that type of reasoning.

The burden of proof should be very high. I'm curious what proof they have here to show it was a hate crime.

With the church or the fight?

Until getting onto BGP today, I never realized that the definations for racist and now hate crime were so confusing.

 

I guess that it must be a hate crime because and American church was burned and hate towards Americans is racist. Did I get it right?

So is rape a hate crime?

 

Interesting thought.

 

I'd say that proving the rape is motivated by prejudice or intolerance towards the opposite gender would be difficult. Maybe I'm just not that bright but I don't think people are raped because of prejudice or intolerance. More crime of opportunity (in case of drinking/parties), people don't like being told no, etc..

Yes it should be very high, but if people were taunting with racial remarks wouldn't that add to the possibility of it being a hate crime?

 

If not, then all hell can break loose, and people can hide behind that type of reasoning.

 

So let's say someone yelled "kill whitey!" Enough proof? Unless the person arrested says "I fought him because he was white" then I'm struggling to see how it's proven.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Other than skin color, there is no reason to believe that this is a hate crime.

I posted hate crime only after hearing from several officers over the weekend.

 

The other Incident I posted about was also a hate crime period and the thugs got off easy.

 

You calling anyone who thinks it is a hate crime a racist speaks for

itself. I'm calling the criminals who did this if proven to be a hate crime racist. That is where I stand.

So with no evidence what so ever you think it's okay to claim that was racist?

 

But if you feel this incident was racist, you are actually the racist.

The building was either targeted because it's a Christian house of worship, or because it has a predominantly black congregation.

 

Assuming that it was actually arson where someone targeted the building, then set it on fire, then yeah.

The building was either targeted because it's a Christian house of worship, or because it has a predominantly black congregation.

 

Assuming that it was actually arson where someone targeted the building, then set it on fire, then yeah.

 

So without knowing the race or religion of those who set them on fire, how can we claim it was racially motivated, or even targeted because of a specific religion?

I posted hate crime only after hearing from several officers over the weekend.

 

The other Incident I posted about was also a hate crime period and the thugs got off easy.

 

You calling anyone who thinks it is a hate crime a racist speaks for

itself.

 

 

Based on the evidence that we have, it shouldn't have been called a hate crime.

 

As to me calling people racist, well I think now that was a little strong. I'm not out to make enemies here.

 

However, I think that line of thinking where we jump to conclusions and call it a hate crime is foolish.

So without knowing the race or religion of those who set them on fire, how can we claim it was racially motivated, or even targeted because of a specific religion?

 

 

The burned churches were targeted for some reason.

Based on the evidence that we have, it shouldn't have been called a hate crime.

 

As to me calling people racist, well I think now that was a little strong. I'm not out to make enemies here.

 

However, I think that line of thinking where we jump to conclusions and call it a hate crime is foolish.

Again, like I said earlier. I never called it a hate crime until I heard from officers across the river. I also find it interesting that I called it a hate crime long before the chief changed his opinion publicly and wants the suspects of caught charged with a Hate Crime.

 

Just sayin.

The burned churches were targeted for some reason.

 

Absolutely.

 

Look I'm not sure if this was or wasn't a hate crime, my whole point has been that we can't be calling others racist for simply forming an opinion or speculating. A lot of times on here opinions come off looking like they're made as 100% absolute fact, and I think that's maybe been the case here. I think we've had people simply speculating, not making statements of fact.

 

Now if the guy who was jumped ends up saying one of the guys stole his girlfriend or something so they threw down, and people still want to call it a hate crime, then yes you could have some merit to the racist claim. JMO.