Why hasn't this Jewish man been charged with a hate crime?

[Susan Cohen]

https://www.ibtimes.com/florida-man-caught-having-sex-dog-vandalizes-church-attempts-car-theft-arrested-3643803

It would seem that the fact that he vandalized a House of Worship in
the commission of his crime spree that he would indeed be charged with
a hate crime. If a different man had done the same to a Temple or
Mosque, I believe a hate crime charge would have been filed.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 09 Dec 22 04:12:18 UTC, Susan Cohen <thick...@cunt.com>
wrote:

To be a "hate" crime, the act has to be the result of bias against
people or groups. For this to have been a hate crime, there would
have to be indication that the vandalism was a result of the man's
bias against Presbyterians. However, it seems that the Presbyterian
church was merely the building in the "surrounding area" of where he
was confronted.

If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the surrounding
area and the vandalism was done there, it wouldn't be a hate crime.
There is no indication that the building he vandalized was chosen for
any reason other than it was in the area of his confrontation.




--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/12/2022 4:51 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 22 04:12:18 UTC, Susan Cohen <thick...@cunt.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.ibtimes.com/florida-man-caught-having-sex-dog-vandalizes-church-attempts-car-theft-arrested-3643803
>>
>> It would seem that the fact that he vandalized a House of Worship in
>> the commission of his crime spree that he would indeed be charged with
>> a hate crime. If a different man had done the same to a Temple or
>> Mosque, I believe a hate crime charge would have been filed.
>>
>
> To be a "hate" crime, the act has to be the result of bias against
> people or groups.

All crimes are biased against their victims. Therefore all crimes
are "hate crimes".

The criminal justice system should judge men by their actions,
not by their thoughts.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 09.12.2022 kl. 08.07 skrev Richard Heathfield:

> All crimes are biased against their victims. Therefore all crimes are
> "hate crimes".
>
> The criminal justice system should judge men by their actions, not by
> their thoughts.

That is contrary to Danish law. A person may remove an item that is not
his from a building without permission. This act can only be punished as
theft if the person had the intention to take the item in order to get a
monetary advantage for himself or others.

An act of killing can only be punished as first degree murder if the
perpetrator had the intention to kill the person. If it happened by
accident, it is a different crime.

There are numerous other examples.

--
Bertel

[Richard Heathfield]

Your point is a reasonable one, and I'm not trying to dispute
mens rea. But if someone nicks your wallet it's not because they
love you.

[GordonD]

On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:

> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the surrounding
> area

It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would have
been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense and say
"If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always wondered.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the surrounding
>> area
>
>It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would have
>been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense and say
>"If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always wondered.

When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.

It was the "normal" way it came out.

[GordonD]

On 09/12/2022 14:25, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the
>>> surrounding area
>>
>> It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would
>> have been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense
>> and say "If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always
>> wondered.
>
> When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
> intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.

Not really; as I said it seems to be normal AmE usage. I just wondered
why. I don't suppose there's any explanation.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:07:48 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>

wrote:

>On 09/12/2022 14:25, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the
>>>> surrounding area
>>>
>>> It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would
>>> have been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense
>>> and say "If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always
>>> wondered.
>>
>> When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
>> intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.
>
>Not really; as I said it seems to be normal AmE usage. I just wondered
>why. I don't suppose there's any explanation.

I'm not sure I use "normal" AmE usage. Sometimes, when I think I
have, someone else jumps in to say that my construction is not that
person's understanding of "normal" AmE usage.

[Peter Moylan]

On 10/12/22 01:25, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the
>>> surrounding area
>>
>> It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would
>> have been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense
>> and say "If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always
>> wondered.
>
> When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
> intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.
>
> It was the "normal" way it came out.

It's still an interesting question, though. We know that BrE and AmE
have differences, but a difference in ways tenses are used is a fairly
major difference, and worthy of note.

Romance languages have a conditional tense, and Germanic languages
don't, and that leads to a major difference in the way "if" clauses are
expressed, a difference that I find interesting. The difference is
understandable, though, given that the two language families have
different ancestors. It's more of a surprise when we find such
differences in languages that have a recent common ancestor.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:01:05 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/12/22 01:25, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the
>>>> surrounding area
>>>
>>> It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would
>>> have been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense
>>> and say "If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always
>>> wondered.
>>
>> When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
>> intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.
>>
>> It was the "normal" way it came out.
>
>It's still an interesting question, though. We know that BrE and AmE
>have differences, but a difference in ways tenses are used is a fairly
>major difference, and worthy of note.
>

There are certain constructions in my writing that are deprecated by
BrE speakers, and some that are deprecated by AmE speakers.

I don't have the grounding in grammar that most in this newsgroup
have, In college, I took the required "Comp 101" which was the only
required English course in my major, two creative writing courses, and
a course in business communication that was really about how to write
an effective business letter.

In Comp (Composition) 101, and in the creative writing courses, grades
were based on the ability to write something creatively,
interestingly, and coherently. The business writing course was more
about organization of thoughts and presenting them in a letter. I
aced all of those courses.

The "why" question implies to me that there is some deliberate choice
involved, and most of what I write is free-flowing without much
deliberation. If it clearly expresses the thought, I go with it.

The idea of thinking "Should I use 'would have been' or 'had been'?"
just doesn't enter my mind.

>Romance languages have a conditional tense, and Germanic languages
>don't, and that leads to a major difference in the way "if" clauses are
>expressed, a difference that I find interesting. The difference is
>understandable, though, given that the two language families have
>different ancestors. It's more of a surprise when we find such
>differences in languages that have a recent common ancestor.
--

[lar3ryca]

I have often used "would have been", but I think I use "had been" most
often when written.

>> Romance languages have a conditional tense, and Germanic languages
>> don't, and that leads to a major difference in the way "if" clauses are
>> expressed, a difference that I find interesting. The difference is
>> understandable, though, given that the two language families have
>> different ancestors. It's more of a surprise when we find such
>> differences in languages that have a recent common ancestor.


--

A day without fusion is like a day without sunlight.

[Joy Beeson]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 16:07:48 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> On 09/12/2022 14:25, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:36:20 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/12/2022 04:51, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >>> If a Temple or Mosque would have been the building in the
> >>> surrounding area
> >>
> >> It seems to be normal AmE usage but why did you write "If... *would
> >> have been* the building..."? In BrE we would use simple past tense
> >> and say "If... *had* been the building..." Something I have always
> >> wondered.
> >
> > When you ask "why?" it seems as if you think there was some plan or
> > intent or that I gave the construction some consideration.
>
> Not really; as I said it seems to be normal AmE usage. I just wondered
> why. I don't suppose there's any explanation.

This American had to untangle the sentence. I would have said "If a
temple or mosque had been the building in the area."

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:26:28 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> The idea of thinking "Should I use 'would have been' or 'had been'?"
> just doesn't enter my mind.

That is _precisely_ what is investigated by linguistics.

[Tony Cooper]

Quite possibly, but I am not under investigation by the LSA or the
ILA.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 10:04:27 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 06:28:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 7:26:28 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >> The idea of thinking "Should I use 'would have been' or 'had been'?"
> >> just doesn't enter my mind.
> >That is _precisely_ what is investigated by linguistics.
>
> Quite possibly, but I am not under investigation by the LSA or the
> ILA.

Don't be an ass.

> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> > I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And offensiveness.

[Peter Moylan]

And the conclusion is that people use what is natural to them, without
giving it conscious thought. We learn our way of speaking initially from
the people around us. Later, when the language has bee properly
internalised, phrase selection is automatic.

That's where speaking a foreign language is so different. In a language
that we learnt as an adult, conscious selection does remain part of the
picture.

[Boso deniro]

The troll who posted this message and titled it "Why hasn't this Jewish man been charged with a hate crime? and then calls himself "Susan Cohen" is none other than the son of a bitch asshole troll "Loose Canon" aka "Loose Sphincter". He is a lonely unemployable homosexual Jew-hating Nazi-faggot tard that he's always been who will post a link to a story like this about bestiality and then baldly lie that it's about some Jew and then he snickers when nobody here objects to the malicious conclusion. If it wasn't so pathetically OBVIOUS what he's doing I'd say it was kind of funny but then the asshole is not only a rabid Jew hater but he has the nerve to make his outraged forged and bogus strawman "Susan Cohen" take a Jewish name no less! The nerve of this useless cocksucker is really beyond the pale. There are selfies he's taken of himself lounging against a wall like some tall woman trying to look alluring just like the male hooker he really is. Read my lips you silly Loose Sphincter, you're NOT funny here or even remotely subversive, you're just a lonely silly asshole looking for attention any which way you can get it. Puh-thetic! Hit the road toad. Betcha you and the other Jew hater here "S A" snuggle up together and suck each other's cock Dontcha — yeah you do. Disgusting. Not funny. Get a job asshole. You and the other errant good-for-nothings are parasites trying to look wholesome arentcha. If anybody should be gassed here it's you malicious Jew-hating worthless assholes.

[Susan Cohen]

How can you make such an outlandish statement? There was nothing
anti-Semitic in my post. I was merely stating a fact; if a Christian
had defiled a synagogue or mosque, a hate crime charge would have
been considered. It is you who is a Jew-hater, targeting me strictly
because my name is Cohen.

[Boso deniro]

On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 3:30:08 PM UTC-8, Susan Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 23:56:37 -0800 (PST), Boso deniro
> <bosod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:12:22 PM UTC-8, Susan Cohen wrote:
> >> https://www.ibtimes.com/florida-man-caught-having-sex-dog-vandalizes-church-attempts-car-theft-arrested-3643803
> >>
> >> It would seem that the fact that he vandalized a House of Worship in
> >> the commission of his crime spree that he would indeed be charged with
> >> a hate crime. If a different man had done the same to a Temple or
> >> Mosque, I believe a hate crime charge would have been filed.
> >
> >The troll who posted this message and titled it "Why hasn't this Jewish man been charged with a hate crime? and then calls himself "Susan Cohen" is none other than the son of a bitch asshole troll "Loose Canon" aka "Loose Sphincter". He is a lonely unemployable homosexual Jew-hating Nazi-faggot tard that he's always been who will post a link to a story like this about bestiality and then baldly lie that it's about some Jew and then he snickers when nobody here objects to the malicious conclusion. If it wasn't so pathetically OBVIOUS what he's doing I'd say it was kind of funny but then the asshole is not only a rabid Jew hater but he has the nerve to make his outraged forged and bogus strawman "Susan Cohen" take a Jewish name no less! The nerve of this useless cocksucker is really beyond the pale. There are selfies he's taken of himself lounging against a wall like some tall woman trying to look alluring just like the male hooker he really is. Read my lips you silly Loose
> Sphincter,

> >you're NOT funny here or even remotely subversive, you're just a lonely silly asshole looking for attention any which way you can get it. Puh-thetic! Hit the road toad. Betcha you and the other Jew hater here "S A" snuggle up together and suck each other's cock Dontcha — yeah you do. Disgusting. Not funny. Get a job asshole. You and the other errant good-for-nothings are parasites trying to look wholesome arentcha. If anybody should be gassed here, it's you you malicious Jew-hating worthless asshole.

> How can you make such an outlandish statement? There was nothing
> anti-Semitic in my post. I was merely stating a fact; if a Christian
> had defiled a synagogue or mosque, a hate crime charge would have
> been considered. It is you who is a Jew-hater, targeting me strictly
> because my name is Cohen.

First of all why should I even believe who you claim to be with a tendentious name like "Susan Cohen", a conspicuously Jewish name, especially when it's attached to a piece of commentary its author chooses to title and suggest "Why hasn't this "Jewish" man been charged with a hate crime?" when there is absolutely nothing in the news article or its source that even remotely suggest that the person involved or accused has anything to do with a Jew, Judaism, a Jewish name, or antisemitism. For whatever reason, you just decided to conflate the two. Why? It makes no fucking sense at all especially if your name is "Susan Cohen", if that's your name, or if your gender as suggested by "Susan" is eve a female which I don't believe either, mainly because I don't believe a Jew could be so stupid and illiterate and say the things you did about the article. You are a preposterous mendacious liar. Period.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 11 Dec 22 23:30:04 UTC, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay
neo-nazitard, still strutting around as Susan Cohen, whined again:

> How can you make such an outlandish statement? There was nothing
> anti-Semitic in my post. I was merely stating a fact; if a Christian
> had defiled a synagogue or mosque, a hate crime charge would have
> been considered. It is you who is a Jew-hater, targeting me strictly
> because my name is Cohen.

As per usual, there's not a SINGLE line in your post that is NOT a blatant
lie, you endlessly FORGING, FAKING and FALSIFYING gay neo-nazitard!

--
Anti-virus firm AVG <a...@avg.com> addressing Loose Sphincter on Usenet:

"Hello from AVG.

Please stop advertising us. We don't want to be associated with neo-Nazi
scum like you and RichA, no matter whether you use our product or not.

And fix your fucking sig separator!

Sincerely, AVG."

[Boso deniro]

Thanks Peeler, but I think I can handle it from here. I think I'm going to hire the "Final Solution" from the movie Black Sunday to take care of our son of a bitch friend Loose Canon with his messy loose mouth and his even messier loose sphincter. Buh-Bye "Susan".