Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Congrats to the person that made up the headline. Triggered. I personally don't care about flag burning. I just looked into it until I found sources near Ames, before I started bleeding for the poor mistreated asshole out of fake rage.Let us know when you find out exactly why this man got a sixteen year sentence presumably for burning a gay flag.Seriously, (as much as I hate to) This inflammatory headlined thread is just click-bait to rattle the up tight right. I don't know what accelerate/explosive he put in the tire and on the rag/flag he lit after he stole it. Forget about possible political statement of a flag burning. That is not what got him sent to jail. It is simply loading up the charges for sentencing purpose to take a repeated dangerous offender out of THEIR community. I read about this from local sources and what was picked up on major wire services, looked into the town of Ames, Iowa and I applaud their district attorney, the jury (of his peers from that peaceful community) and the judge for keeping the violent assholes off the streets, so they do not have to become a Stand-Your-Ground state, as mine was force to become. I fervently wish my state had the crime rate of that state. My town does not compare favorably to their town. I wish them luck maintaining a generally peaceful community enforcing whatever statutes are on the books to keep it the kind of place most of us would like to live in.
In the meantime most of us will consider this sentence to be draconian, overly heavy handed and politically motivated.
Congrats indeed since this flag burner got three times the recommended sentence by Iowa authorities forCongrats to the person that made up the headline. Triggered.
I looked into the case too and no fake rage is neededI personally don't care about flag burning. I just looked into it until I found sources near Ames, before I started bleeding for the poor mistreated asshole out of fake rage.
Still not justifying a sixteen year term in prison. Nothing this idiot did remotely justifies that.Afternoon, Azog. What people are overlooking, is that the police were never called about a "flag burning". The dumb ass, many on the right are outraged for, threatened to burn down the bar after being kicked out, came back with tire, rags (the flag), accelerates or explosives and lit them in front of the bar. Police were called. They did not wait for numb nuts to roll the tire through the door. Hard to say if they could identify what kind of rags were being used to get the tire burning. Iowa is not a stand your ground state. They do not want society to deteriorate to the point where it becomes necessary. They probably will use any statute possible to add to sentencing guidelines to clear dangerous scum from their streets. In much of the country, police might have been called after the suspected arsonist was down, maybe breathing his last. I read up on Ames. Sounds like a nice place to live and raise kids if they can discourage the scum from taking up residence and taking over.
From reading some other articles, it appears that the “hate crime” charge includes an arson charge, that, by itself, would carry a maximum sentence of two years. So, we're up to genuine crimes that amount to three years and a month, and then three more years for the thoughtcrime of committing his genuine crimes as an expression of a politically-incorrect opinion. So this gets us to about half of his sentence to be legitimate, and half of it being a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.
From reading some other articles, it appears that the “hate crime” charge includes an arson charge, that, by itself, would carry a maximum sentence of two years. So, we're up to genuine crimes that amount to three years and a month, and then three more years for the thoughtcrime of committing his genuine crimes as an expression of a politically-incorrect opinion. So this gets us to about half of his sentence to be legitimate, and half of it being a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.
There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.
From reading some other articles, it appears that the “hate crime” charge includes an arson charge, that, by itself, would carry a maximum sentence of two years. So, we're up to genuine crimes that amount to three years and a month, and then three more years for the thoughtcrime of committing his genuine crimes as an expression of a politically-incorrect opinion. So this gets us to about half of his sentence to be legitimate, and half of it being a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.
There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.
Fair enough.
But suppose the flag stolen was the Rebel Flag instead of the Homosexual Flag?
Would the man have received as long of a term for that?
And to top everything off, it doesn't appear that it was even a flag. Was that an honest mistake or was the OP's site trying to incite more hate?
AMES, Iowa —
A man charged with burning an Ames church's LGBTQ pride banner outside of a nearby gentlemen's club told KCCI he has no regrets over what happened.
'I'm guilty as charged': Man says he doesn't regret burning church LGBTQ banner at gentlemen's club
All of the local sites note it was a banner.
And to top everything off, it doesn't appear that it was even a flag. Was that an honest mistake or was the OP's site trying to incite more hate?
AMES, Iowa —
A man charged with burning an Ames church's LGBTQ pride banner outside of a nearby gentlemen's club told KCCI he has no regrets over what happened.
'I'm guilty as charged': Man says he doesn't regret burning church LGBTQ banner at gentlemen's club
All of the local sites note it was a banner.
Does it make a difference to you if its a "flag" or a "banner"? Does the burning of banners merit more prison time?
I don't see it as much of a difference. Either way its a very controversial promotion of one of the hottest issues today in political discourse. The great controversy between homosexuality and normativity. Believe me, I do not agree with people damaging property in a political disagreement at all. However, the gentleman who was picked up should really just been given community service and a chance to see that his behavior wasn't in line with American norms.
There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.
Jury found him guilty. Judge sentenced. That's how we do it in our country. How about yours?Are you saying the jury determine his sentence and not the judge?It was good enough for a jury of his peers.I'd like to see this statement confirmed by some one rather than just the prosecutors word for it. Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI that Martinez “stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior, and that he would continue to do this, no matter what.”It was arson, elevated to a hate crime and further elevated as he was a habitual offender with two previous felonies and no sign of remorse.
He got the maximum penalty.
This is a good summary
Crime and Charges
Ames, Iowa, police arrested Martinez in the early hours of June 11, after police said he had caused a disturbance at a local bar and threatened to burn down the establishment, before returning with an LGBT rainbow flag he stole from the Ames United Church of Christ, and setting fire to it outside the bar. Martinez admitted to his crimes in an interview with KCCI, saying he was motivated by an antipathy towards homosexuality and that he had “burned down their pride, plain and simple.”
Despite his on-screen confession, Martinez pleaded not guilty to three charges, the Story County Attorney’s Office told Snopes: Third-degree arson, an aggravated misdemeanor which typically carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison; third-degree harassment, a simple misdemeanor; and reckless use of fire or explosives, a serious misdemeanor that typically carries a maximum prison sentence of one year.
On Nov. 6, a jury in Story County convicted Martinez on all three charges. The County Attorney’s Office confirmed to Snopes that Martinez was given a 30-day prison sentence for the charge of third-degree harassment, and a one-year sentence for reckless use of fire or explosives.
In the normal course of events, a conviction for third-degree arson would yield a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, because the flag burned by Martinez was an LGBT symbol, and because Martinez himself said this was his motivation for setting fire to it, prosecutors added a hate crime enhancement to the arson charge.
Iowa law requires that certain offenses, if prosecuted as a hate crime, must be “classified and punished as an offense one degree higher than the underlying offense.” Thus, Martinez’s conviction for third-degree arson was elevated from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony.
In Iowa, a Class D felony is typically subject to a maximum prison sentence of five years. However, Martinez had two previous felonies, details of which were not immediately available. Iowa law designates as an “habitual offender” anyone “convicted of a class ‘C’ or a class ‘D’ felony, who has twice before been convicted of any felony in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States.” Therefore, Martinez was sentenced as an habitual offender.
Iowa law states that the maximum sentence for an habitual offender is 15 years in prison. In this case, prosecutors recommended that maximum sentence, on the basis that they believed Martinez to be “very dangerous” and because of his lack of remorse. Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI that Martinez “stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior, and that he would continue to do this, no matter what.”
On Dec. 18, the judge imposed that maximum sentence, to be served consecutively with the one-year sentence for reckless use of fire and 30-day sentence for third-degree harassment, yielding a total prison sentence of 16 years. Due to his status as an habitual offender, Martinez will not be eligible for parole until he has served a minimum of three years.
Conclusion
It’s true that the action that garnered Martinez a total prison sentence of 16 years was setting fire to an LGBT flag outside a bar in Ames, Iowa, in June 2019. However, this does not account for the length of his prison sentence.
If the object Martinez burned had been a neutral one (for example, a banner or flag bearing the logo of a brand of beer) then his third-degree arson conviction would not have been enhanced as a hate crime, and he would have received a sentence of no more than two years in prison, likely yielding a total sentence of three years, taking into account the one-year sentence he received for reckless use of fire. So it’s true that the fact it was an LGBT rainbow flag, specifically, did cause Martinez’ punishment to be increased. Because the hate crime enhancement converted the arson offense from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony, it also triggered the habitual offender mechanism.
However, that habitual offender mechanism would not have been triggered if Martinez did not already have two felony convictions. Without that criminal history, Martinez would simply have been given a sentence commensurate with a Class D felony, after the addition of the hate crime enhancement. Instead, because of his own previous convictions, his sentence for third-degree arson was tripled, from five years to 15 years.
The websites mentioned at the beginning of this article served their readers poorly by failing to provide this crucial contextual information and created the false impression that anyone, in any circumstances, was liable to be imprisoned for 16 years for burning an LGBT rainbow flag in the state of Iowa.
Did an Iowa Man Get 16 Years in Prison for Burning an LGBT Rainbow Flag?
There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.
I don't think anyone is claiming that there is.
There is, however, a First Amendment right to believe what you will, and to express those beliefs.
Now, if someone chooses to express his First-Amendment-protected beliefs by stealing something that is not his, and destroying it, then prosecute him for the theft and destruction, the same as if he had committed those crimes for any other motive.
To impose additional punishment because of what he was expressing is blatantly unconstitutional; especially when that additional punishment for the thoughtcrime is greater than the punishment for the actual crimes.
I'm just curious.......how many of you condemning the sentence support three strike laws?
The article I just posted notes that he is a repeat offender. How many times can one break the laws before you believe a strong sentence should be enforced?
And to top everything off, it doesn't appear that it was even a flag. Was that an honest mistake or was the OP's site trying to incite more hate?
·All of the local sites note it was a banner.
·
·
Does it make a difference to you if its a "flag" or a "banner"? Does the burning of banners merit more prison time?
I'm just curious.......how many of you condemning the sentence support three strike laws?
The article I just posted notes that he is a repeat offender. How many times can one break the laws before you believe a strong sentence should be enforced?
I'm all for harsher sentences for persistent repeat offenders. But that's irrelevant here. Whatever reasoning the judge expressed, the record shows that a substantial part of the sentence was for what he expressed, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The actual charges and sentencing don't say anything about him being a repeat offender. If that's the reason for the harsher sentence, then they should say so.
Usinghate crimethoughtcrime as the justification for a harsher sentence is unconstitutional bullshit. That's an inexcusable abuse of this judge's powers, for which he should be removed from office, disbarred, and possibly face criminal prosecution himself.
And to top everything off, it doesn't appear that it was even a flag. Was that an honest mistake or was the OP's site trying to incite more hate?
·All of the local sites note it was a banner.
·
·
So, was it a flag, or was it a banner?
You can not express a first amendment belief by stealing something.There is, however, a First Amendment right to believe what you will, and to express those beliefs.There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.
He was gave additional time because he is a repeat offender.To impose additional punishment because of what he was expressing is blatantly unconstitutional…
