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.
No one said it did. EVeryone agrees this guy broke the law but he did not deserve a felony and 90 days in jail. A $50 fine would have been right.
No one said it did. EVeryone agrees this guy broke the law but he did not deserve a felony and 90 days in jail. A $50 fine would have been right.
I think he should get more than a fifty dollar fine - how much money would it take to repair the damage? He should have been made to pay for the repairs, and pay a fine on top of that. Jail time is a bit severe, as now its on his record, he may have trouble finding employment in the future.
No one said it did. EVeryone agrees this guy broke the law but he did not deserve a felony and 90 days in jail. A $50 fine would have been right.
I think he should get more than a fifty dollar fine - how much money would it take to repair the damage? He should have been made to pay for the repairs, and pay a fine on top of that. Jail time is a bit severe, as now its on his record, he may have trouble finding employment in the future.
He should have trouble finding employment. Who the fuck would want to hire a douchebag like that?
In point of fact - as explained above and in links presented - he was convicted of committing a crime (vandalism) which had racial motivation (proven by the use of the letters "KKK" and the ensuing slur). Since our Constitution has a Double Jeopardy clause, he didn't get tried for vandalism and THEN the hate crime, he was convicted of the hate crime (which requires the commission of another crime - and both would have to be proven simultaneously).
Only a twisted racist would even make this case into a 1st amendment issue. The guy could have just gotten out a bullhorn and gotten his point across. Instead, he chose to make it personal - and that's where the 1st amendment does NOT give you freedom. It would indeed be pissing all over the constitution to even suggest otherwise.
Wow, are you stupid, or do you just play it on the internet?
How does the 1st Amendment restrict my right to make things personal?
Show me your "right" to make things personal. Explain to me where the Constitution says it's perfectly acceptable to stomp on the civil liberties of another.
Which part of the Constitution says Illinois can't make its own laws?Myles Burton, Elmhurst College Student-Athlete, Faces Hate Crime Charges moron
btw, you idiots are whining over a guy getting PROBATION
Student who scratched
why is it the right spends so much time defending bigots?
I don't care what he gets, this judge just shit all over the constitution and crushed the bill of rights.
I have a feeling had he scratched anything other than KKK, say Asshole, he would not be charged with a Felony, so Uncensored kinda has a point here, and all the Libs arguing the dude really only got in trouble for Vandalism are not being honest either.
The crime he was charged with was defacing property, the hate crime enhancement is just an enhancement. You can't be charged with just a hate crime - it must be an enhancement to some underlying crime, like murder, assault, or in this case, destruction of property. Much like there are firearm's enhancements to other crimes - if you rob a convenience store and have a gun on you, even if you never draw it - they can up the charge/penalty.
I don't believe in 'hate' crime laws, but 2 years probation and time served seems like a reasonable punishment for the crime. On the other hand, having a felony on his record for life over this seems unreasonable to me.
But what the fuck ya gonna do, right?
Finally - someone who thinks hate crime laws are just bad policy, instead of whining incorrectly about it being unconstitutional.
Oh this is great news. The boy's lucky he didn't get some hard time. He should go home and count his blessings...the lil DUMBA$$Another attack on free speech in america. Why wasn't Chris Matthews charged with a felony hate crime when he called white people crackers on national tv?
July 10, 2012 12:48PM
Student who scratched
A former Elmhurst College student who scratched KKK and a racial slur on a window ledge outside the room of an African-American dorm supervisor was sentenced Tuesday to two years of probation.
Myles Burton, 21, had faced up to five years in prison after being convicted in May of a felony hate crime for the November 2011 vandalism at the colleges Stanger Hall.
DuPage County Judge George Bakalis also ordered Burton to serve 90 days in jail, though he already had served that sentence while awaiting trial.
Prosecutors argued the Libertyville man had been drinking and was angry at a faculty member when he used a rock to scratch the initials and a slur into the window ledge of the 28-year-old dorm supervisors room.
Burton, who is appealing his felony conviction, has been expelled from the college
What principle is that?
The principle that the People of Illinois aren't allowed to pass there own damn laws?
The principle that offending people is not a crime.
He wasn't charged with offending people.
So the principle you refer to isn't relevant to this case.
A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.
Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!
For the record, it's a felony to deface the property of a school in Illinois even without a hate crime enhancement. You could carve "Sam was here" on a school in Illinois, and you're committing a felony.
Sadly, racism is a form of protected free speech.
The felony charge in this case would suggest you are incorrect.
The felony charge actually proves the point that you are entitled to SAY what you want to say without fear of government interference. But, the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to deface someone else's property in order to get the point across.
You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange. Would you still defend my right of free speech in that case? I'm banking on the fact that you wouldn't - even if you agreed with my point of view and choice of color.
So what makes scratching something equally offensive on someone else's property an act that ought to be protected? We have a law - true, it's not a guaranteed right, but a law nonetheless - that enhances vandalistic crimes when the motivation is purely racial. There is no constitutional protection from the law of the land.
The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.
What do YOU think was the intent of the vandalism putz?I'm tired of hearing that vandalism is a misdemeanor - not a felony. It can be either, depending on circumstances and location.
Vandalism could be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the value of damages
Vandalism Charge in Los Angeles | Vandalism Attorney in Los Angeles
It was also a threat. Putting KKK outside the residence of a black person is not speech, it's a threat. The perp might have just as well said they're going to bomb their church while the kids were doing choir practice, since that was also a KKK strategy.
I want you to think about the stupidity of what you just said and then try again (or redact your stupid conclusion).
Yep...the fellow I quoted above is a prime example of that.If he'd written "ABC" on the ledge, nothing would have been done to him. THINK
But he didn't, he wrote KKK and a racial slur on a window ledge outside the room of an African-American dorm supervisor. THINK. HARDER.
If he had written "DIE, ******, DIE!" these morons would still be defending him. Threat? What threat? He's just using his freedom of speech!
The principle that offending people is not a crime.
He wasn't charged with offending people.
So the principle you refer to isn't relevant to this case.
He wasn't charged with vandalism either, despite the fact that you argued it most of this thread. He was charged with a felony hate crime, which is defined under Illinois law as.
A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.
720 ILCS 5/12-7.1
I find that more offensive than the asshole bigot.
The felony charge actually proves the point that you are entitled to SAY what you want to say without fear of government interference. But, the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to deface someone else's property in order to get the point across.
You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange. Would you still defend my right of free speech in that case? I'm banking on the fact that you wouldn't - even if you agreed with my point of view and choice of color.
So what makes scratching something equally offensive on someone else's property an act that ought to be protected? We have a law - true, it's not a guaranteed right, but a law nonetheless - that enhances vandalistic crimes when the motivation is purely racial. There is no constitutional protection from the law of the land.
The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.
My argument is not about his guilt, that's a given, it's with the hate crimes legislation itself. A crime is a crime is a crime. Prison, or any other sentence, is punishment for a crime. What hate crimes laws do is criminalize THOUGHT, by punishing MOTIVE. That's not the kind of 'slippery slope' that I feel comfortable on.
And really, a FELONY? Y'all have lost your minds!
And yet, if you were to walk into your local gas station and say to the attendant "Give me the money", that's robbery. If you bring a gun to that party, it's armed robbery. It's the law's way of saying, don't steal. If you DO steal, don't bring a gun.
Thought and motive have EVERYTHING to do with the way that justice is handed out - which is how a 95 year old driver mistaking the brake for the accelerator can jump a sidewalk and plow into a crowd of people and only be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. As much as we'd like them to be, things aren't always black and white.
The guy in the link was called out by his bball coach as being racist. He acted out as a racist would. And now he's being punished for it - which happens to be a felony since it's governed under federal law. As someone once said, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
The felony charge in this case would suggest you are incorrect.
The felony charge actually proves the point that you are entitled to SAY what you want to say without fear of government interference. But, the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to deface someone else's property in order to get the point across.
You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange. Would you still defend my right of free speech in that case? I'm banking on the fact that you wouldn't - even if you agreed with my point of view and choice of color.
So what makes scratching something equally offensive on someone else's property an act that ought to be protected? We have a law - true, it's not a guaranteed right, but a law nonetheless - that enhances vandalistic crimes when the motivation is purely racial. There is no constitutional protection from the law of the land.
The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.
Funny, the courts disagree with you, but don't let the fact that you don't know what you are talking about change your position.
City of Orlando Arrests Occupy Protester for Chalk Art, Loses Almost $200,000 in Subsequent First Amendment Lawsuit - Hit & Run : Reason.com
No one said it did. EVeryone agrees this guy broke the law but he did not deserve a felony and 90 days in jail. A $50 fine would have been right.
I think he should get more than a fifty dollar fine - how much money would it take to repair the damage? He should have been made to pay for the repairs, and pay a fine on top of that. Jail time is a bit severe, as now its on his record, he may have trouble finding employment in the future.
He should have trouble finding employment. Who the fuck would want to hire a douchebag like that?
He wasn't charged with offending people.
So the principle you refer to isn't relevant to this case.
He wasn't charged with vandalism either, despite the fact that you argued it most of this thread. He was charged with a felony hate crime, which is defined under Illinois law as.
720 ILCS 5/12-7.1A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.
I find that more offensive than the asshole bigot.
So maybe you can work to get that repealed?
Under the current law, though, the asshole bigot got 2 years time served, probation, expelled, and a felony record. Other asshole bigots ought to pay attention to that.
My argument is not about his guilt, that's a given, it's with the hate crimes legislation itself. A crime is a crime is a crime. Prison, or any other sentence, is punishment for a crime. What hate crimes laws do is criminalize THOUGHT, by punishing MOTIVE. That's not the kind of 'slippery slope' that I feel comfortable on.
And really, a FELONY? Y'all have lost your minds!
And yet, if you were to walk into your local gas station and say to the attendant "Give me the money", that's robbery. If you bring a gun to that party, it's armed robbery. It's the law's way of saying, don't steal. If you DO steal, don't bring a gun.
Thought and motive have EVERYTHING to do with the way that justice is handed out - which is how a 95 year old driver mistaking the brake for the accelerator can jump a sidewalk and plow into a crowd of people and only be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. As much as we'd like them to be, things aren't always black and white.
The guy in the link was called out by his bball coach as being racist. He acted out as a racist would. And now he's being punished for it - which happens to be a felony since it's governed under federal law. As someone once said, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
There is the problem, hate crime laws are not based on mens rea.
The felony charge actually proves the point that you are entitled to SAY what you want to say without fear of government interference. But, the 1st amendment doesn't give anyone the right to deface someone else's property in order to get the point across.
You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange. Would you still defend my right of free speech in that case? I'm banking on the fact that you wouldn't - even if you agreed with my point of view and choice of color.
So what makes scratching something equally offensive on someone else's property an act that ought to be protected? We have a law - true, it's not a guaranteed right, but a law nonetheless - that enhances vandalistic crimes when the motivation is purely racial. There is no constitutional protection from the law of the land.
The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.
Funny, the courts disagree with you, but don't let the fact that you don't know what you are talking about change your position.
City of Orlando Arrests Occupy Protester for Chalk Art, Loses Almost $200,000 in Subsequent First Amendment Lawsuit - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Are you being deliberately dense?
As I've been saying here, the link posted by the OP and others who responded thereafter called the 1st amendment in to the rescue. This isn't a 1st amendment issue, though.
Your link kinda proves my point - a person can sit in front of city hall all day and write what's on his mind on the sidewalk (using erasable chalk, of course) and the 1st amendment protects his free speech. Once you add vandalism + racism into the picture, it's no longer a free speech issue, it's a federal offense.
The principle that offending people is not a crime.
He wasn't charged with offending people.
So the principle you refer to isn't relevant to this case.
He wasn't charged with vandalism either, despite the fact that you argued it most of this thread. He was charged with a felony hate crime, which is defined under Illinois law as.
A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.
720 ILCS 5/12-7.1
I find that more offensive than the asshole bigot.
