Iowa: Man Sentenced to 16-Years in Prison for Stealing, Burning LGBT Flag

[pknopp]

I do not have a boner for draconian sentencing. I just do not mind. I freely admit, the prosecution loaded up the indictment with every charge he thought he could make stick. The jury deliberated and found the defendent guilty. the guy was sentence by the judge to 15+ years. Apparently they take it pretty serious if you threaten to burn down a bar while it is open, then come with incendiaries to do it, and then light them up. The accused had prior history of arrests in the town. I think they were having trouble getting through to him and gave him plenty of time to think about it. In general, most people with 15+ sentences in the United States do not serve the entire sentence. If someone threatened to burn down your house, came back while you and your family were there after midnight, and lit a tire of rags and accelerates in front of your house. What sentence would you give? For that matter, if he flicked his bic, would he get a chance to light up a tire that he might roll into your door?

If someone comes to your house with a gun and threatens to shoot you they don't get a triply long sentence for the threat minus any actual violence. It's just that simple. .

So someone in the church should have just shot him?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So someone in the church should have just shot him?

WTF is this supposed to mean? I couldn't even try to guess how you arrive at this point.

 

[pknopp]

So someone in the church should have just shot him?

WTF is this supposed to mean? I couldn't even try to guess how you arrive at this point.

You don't support people defending their property even up to lethal force?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You don't support people defending their property even up to lethal force?

A church is not private property in the sense that a home is (A) and which is worse? Someone stealing and burning a gay flag (which couldn't have been known at the time of the theft) or murdering someone for that petty theft?(B)

Please continue down your rabbit hole, however, of one shaky disassociated point propping up the other.

 

[pknopp]

You don't support people defending their property even up to lethal force?

A church is not private property in the sense that a home is (A) and which is worse? Someone stealing and burning a gay flag (which couldn't have been known at the time of the theft) or murdering someone for that petty theft?(B)

Please continue down your rabbit hole, however, of one shaky disassociated point propping up the other.

I seem to remember the argument about how people should arm themselves when they went to church. A church most certainly is also private property. Most certainly to the level that an delivery truck is.

I don't support killing people over stuff so my answer would be obvious that killing someone would be worse but I'm not the one that argues to kill people over stuff. Do you? Do you support the right of people to kill others stealing their stuff?

 

[Questioner]

Did they misspell "flag"?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I seem to remember the argument about how people should arm themselves when they went to church. A church most certainly is also private property. Most certainly to the level that an delivery truck is.

I already said a church is not private property in the same sense someone's home is.
Care to dispute that?

I don't support killing people over stuff so my answer would be obvious that killing someone would be worse but I'm not the one that argues to kill people over stuff. Do you? Do you support the right of people to kill others stealing their stuff?

I support the right of people to confront robbers and home invasion artists with firearms and to use them
if they are personally and credibly threatened with violence to themselves.

So far as I know this victim of Ames Iowa "justice" never credibly threatened anyone's life so this detour you are on
is moot anyway.

 

[22lcidw]

I do not have a boner for draconian sentencing. I just do not mind. I freely admit, the prosecution loaded up the indictment with every charge he thought he could make stick. The jury deliberated and found the defendent guilty. the guy was sentence by the judge to 15+ years. Apparently they take it pretty serious if you threaten to burn down a bar while it is open, then come with incendiaries to do it, and then light them up. The accused had prior history of arrests in the town. I think they were having trouble getting through to him and gave him plenty of time to think about it. In general, most people with 15+ sentences in the United States do not serve the entire sentence. If someone threatened to burn down your house, came back while you and your family were there after midnight, and lit a tire of rags and accelerates in front of your house. What sentence would you give? For that matter, if he flicked his bic, would he get a chance to light up a tire that he might roll into your door?

If someone comes to your house with a gun and threatens to shoot you they don't get a triply long sentence for the threat minus any actual violence. It's just that simple. .

So someone in the church should have just shot him?

Is that a real church?

 

[pknopp]

I seem to remember the argument about how people should arm themselves when they went to church. A church most certainly is also private property. Most certainly to the level that an delivery truck is.

I already said a church is not private property in the same sense someone's home is.
Care to dispute that?

I already did. People cheer when a delivery driver shoots a thief. It's not their property.

I don't support killing people over stuff so my answer would be obvious that killing someone would be worse but I'm not the one that argues to kill people over stuff. Do you? Do you support the right of people to kill others stealing their stuff?[I support the right of people to confront robbers and home invasion artists with firearms and to use them
if they are personally and credibly threatened with violence to themselves.

So far as I know this victim of Ames Iowa "justice" never credibly threatened anyone's life so this detour you are on
is moot anyway.

Well no. You answered that you only support a lethal response if there is a credible threat to someone's life. I respect that. That is not the position many take.

 

[pknopp]

I do not have a boner for draconian sentencing. I just do not mind. I freely admit, the prosecution loaded up the indictment with every charge he thought he could make stick. The jury deliberated and found the defendent guilty. the guy was sentence by the judge to 15+ years. Apparently they take it pretty serious if you threaten to burn down a bar while it is open, then come with incendiaries to do it, and then light them up. The accused had prior history of arrests in the town. I think they were having trouble getting through to him and gave him plenty of time to think about it. In general, most people with 15+ sentences in the United States do not serve the entire sentence. If someone threatened to burn down your house, came back while you and your family were there after midnight, and lit a tire of rags and accelerates in front of your house. What sentence would you give? For that matter, if he flicked his bic, would he get a chance to light up a tire that he might roll into your door?

If someone comes to your house with a gun and threatens to shoot you they don't get a triply long sentence for the threat minus any actual violence. It's just that simple. .

So someone in the church should have just shot him?

Is that a real church?

You have some inside info that says otherwise?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I already did. People cheer when a delivery driver shoots a thief. It's not their property.

That point is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that some people won't shoot others when their personal stuff is not on the line.

 

[pknopp]

I already did. People cheer when a delivery driver shoots a thief. It's not their property.

That point is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that some people won't shoot others when their personal stuff is not on the line.

So I guess my point was directed at them.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So I guess my point was directed at them.

And since I'm not them the point was useless and moot. Congratulations on accomplishing nothing.

 

[james bond]

The obvious question here is the severity of the sentence. Clearly.

And the hypocrisy of the left over it.

There is a Better Call Saul show in season 1, episode 2 where James McGill is doing public defender work. The prosecutor likes to take him to task saying, "Petty with a prior." It means "Petty theft with a prior." California has a law that allows for repeat minor theft convictions to be punished more seriously than their typical authorized sentences for a single case or first crime. Some states call them "persistent" offenses which makes it sound worse. Anyway, Jimmy McGill talks to the prosecutor who keeps parroting "Petty with a prior" until he gets an offer for a bag of remaining chips and reduced sentence. He looks at the open bag and takes it.

 

[pknopp]

So I guess my point was directed at them.

And since I'm not them the point was useless and moot. Congratulations on accomplishing nothing.

You addressed it. You didn't have to. My point remains.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You addressed it. You didn't have to. My point remains.

Whether I chose to address your asinine point or not is immaterial. Your point remains inexplicable.

 

[pknopp]

The obvious question here is the severity of the sentence. Clearly.

And the hypocrisy of the left over it.

There is a Better Call Saul show in season 1, episode 2 where James McGill is doing public defender work. The prosecutor likes to take him to task saying, "Petty with a prior." It means "Petty theft with a prior." California has a law that allows for repeat minor theft convictions to be punished more seriously than their typical authorized sentences for a single case or first crime. Some states call them "persistent" offenses which makes it sound worse. Anyway, Jimmy McGill talks to the prosecutor who keeps parroting "Petty with a prior" until he gets an offer for a bag of remaining chips and reduced sentence. He looks at the open bag and takes it.

Many on the left do not support this. Many on the right do. Except for perhaps this case.

I support an increasing sentence level for those who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

You?

 

[james bond]

Many on the left do not support this. Many on the right do. Except for perhaps this case.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I support an increasing sentence level for those who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

Laws are different in every state and generally we, as citizens of the state, support some type of repeat offender laws. It's why they have been on the books for many years and we have more serious offenses and longer terms for career criminals. However, what is notable in this case is the symbol of the LGBTQ flag, the hate crime, and the multiple offenses for one act.

 

[pknopp]

Many on the left do not support this. Many on the right do. Except for perhaps this case.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

No, I guess the laws materialized on their own by magic.

Laws are different in every state and generally we, as citizens of the state, support some type of repeat offender laws. It's why they have been on the books for many years and we have more serious offenses and longer terms for career criminals. However, what is notable in this case is the symbol of the LGBTQ flag, the hate crime, and the multiple offenses for one act.

And, the repeat offender status.......

 

[Blackrook]

16 years for burning a flag is extremely excessive. He should have gotten 30 days at most.