That smells a bit iffy.

Yes, but the point is the "reasoning".

Aplogies for the typo
No i dont agree, the point is the act.

With many criminal acts the "reasoning" or lack thereof is fundamental to the legal process and the possible outcome which will be handed down.

Criminals will often try to swap 'reasoning' for 'mitigation'.

Pick a news crime story from GT, see how often all sorts of people will argue mitigating factors.

In England, a hate crime is defined by prosecutors as “a criminal offense motivated by prejudice based on a person's disability, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.”
:D:D

so are these emo people disabled? like, maybe mentally disabled?
thy are a same race, religion, gender and sexual orientation are appearently npot a factor.

so emoes have a handycap.

or so the article suggests.

:D

Police department public relations fail...:rotfl2:

(i am not an emo, and know none, have never met one. just poking a stick at the british police)

Unfortunately, before the act comes the reason. So the point Tribesman makes still stands.

2003. It covers all factors in 4 and specifies that it is not limited to factors listed in 2.

Gustav reading fail

well then i just didnt get it.

reading okay, interpretatuion fail.

I am officially too dim for dis.. :D

The reason isn't a crime, the act is.
Sorry, but I firmly belive and uprovoked attack is an unprovoked attack,
sure take into account the victims vunerability in terms of age, physical strength, personality etc. But not the clothes he is wearing, that is just bloody stupid.

Then we can say the person conducting the unprovoked attack is Emophobic?

Not really.
If I stick a knife in six different people and they all die what are the selection of different crimes or non crimes due to the different reasons for the same action?

If you stick a knife in six different people, who did you nothing to you.
what difference does your 'reason' make when your reason what ever it is, is not obviously not going to be what society and the law considers 'reasonable'.

if you did it because the persons: ethnicity/Race/religion/sexuallity/disability (and now alternative culture), its a hate crime, fine, but if it was for any other reason, e.g the person was old/young, fat/thin, ugly/pretty, homeless/rich, male/female or maybe just wearing a shirt you found offensive (could simply be a football teams kit), of a certain profession ,had a certain regional accent, political allignment etc etc..... none of those are 'hate crime' as far as i am aware.

Imo Having the law treat certain wider groups abit differently is not a very clever way to build an equal and fair society.... and if anything, it just helps generate more division, resentment and hatred.

JU88 just take a moment to think about what I wrote, then try again.

Assuming you did not know them, they had not provoked you by way of their actions (since that is the scenario we have been talking about in this thread - unprevoked attack, not anything else) Im seeing six counts of murder, what else am I missing? and If im hypothetically prosecuting you, what else would I really need to know?

And likewise, feel free to re-read my last post and tell me if you can understand what Im getting at or not.