Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!

[oldernwiser]

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 5/12-7.1

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So maybe you can work to get that repealed?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.

Newsflash idiot, I do work to get shitty laws like this repealed. I also work to get laws that make crack cocaine a bigger crime than powder cocaine repealed, and to end the way the justice system treats blacks worse than they treat whites. Unlike you, I am actually intellectually consistent.

None of that prevents me from commenting on any individual case I think is wrong.

I respect that.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you believe I haven't been intellectually consistent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Really???
Would you not include hatred as a state of mind? Or racism? Or gender bias? Or the whole host of other labels that define the classes of targets?

Mens rea was a huge part of creating hate laws, and a huge hurdle to have to overcome getting them enacted.

The law would have made him guilty even if he did not know who lived in the dorm, that eliminate the need for mens rae. It isin't my fault you don't understand the law you are trying to defend.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

For the record, you are full of shit.

Criminal Damage to Property – Class 4 Felony

The charge you face will be a Class 4 felony if the damage is more than $300 but less than $10,000, or if the damage is committed against a school, place of worship, or to farm equipment and is valued at less than $300. A Class 4 felony can carry up to 1 to 3 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

Illinois

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I can't think of a reason why you would. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the People can't consider motivation in determining the definition and punishment of a crime.

Just because you are a close minded bigot doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 5/12-7.1

I find that more offensive than the asshole bigot.

I can't think of a reason why you would. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the People can't consider motivation in determining the definition and punishment of a crime.

Just because you are a close minded bigot doesn't mean everyone else is.

Nor can I see why you'd call me a bigot. Why won't you tell me what you find offensive about the law? Don't have any real reason?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Newsflash idiot, I do work to get shitty laws like this repealed. I also work to get laws that make crack cocaine a bigger crime than powder cocaine repealed, and to end the way the justice system treats blacks worse than they treat whites. Unlike you, I am actually intellectually consistent.

None of that prevents me from commenting on any individual case I think is wrong.

I respect that.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you believe I haven't been intellectually consistent.

Read your posts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

For the record, you are full of shit.

Criminal Damage to Property – Class 4 Felony

The charge you face will be a Class 4 felony if the damage is more than $300 but less than $10,000, or if the damage is committed against a school, place of worship, or to farm equipment and is valued at less than $300. A Class 4 felony can carry up to 1 to 3 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

Illinois

Again, you are full of shit. He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is the problem, hate crime laws are not based on mens rea.

Really???
Would you not include hatred as a state of mind? Or racism? Or gender bias? Or the whole host of other labels that define the classes of targets?

Mens rea was a huge part of creating hate laws, and a huge hurdle to have to overcome getting them enacted.

The law would have made him guilty even if he did not know who lived in the dorm, that eliminate the need for mens rae. It isin't my fault you don't understand the law you are trying to defend.

That's because he's comiting a crime against all people of the race he targets.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For the record, you are full of shit.

Criminal Damage to Property – Class 4 Felony

The charge you face will be a Class 4 felony if the damage is more than $300 but less than $10,000, or if the damage is committed against a school, place of worship, or to farm equipment and is valued at less than $300. A Class 4 felony can carry up to 1 to 3 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

Illinois

Again, you are full of shit. He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime.

The statement:

For the record, it's a felony to deface the property of a school in Illinois even without a hate crime enhancement.

Is still true.

 

[Amelia]

I don't understand the mechanism which turns a misdemeanor into a felony based on context. Has that already been explained?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 college’s 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.

Let's remind everyone -we have a white guy convicted by a jury of his peers of a crime that he could spend 5 years in prison for - and the judge gives him 90 days - and we're supposed to feel like he got an unfair deal?

Really?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't understand the mechanism which turns a misdemeanor into a felony based on context. Has that already been explained?

Its called "the law", perhaps you've heard of it?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0JXdBg&usg=AFQjCNG8qn4aDR5n8d41KAS-T8PxQOuMXw

 

[Amelia]

I don't understand the mechanism which turns a misdemeanor into a felony based on context. Has that already been explained?

Its called "the law", perhaps you've heard of it?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0JXdBg&usg=AFQjCNG8qn4aDR5n8d41KAS-T8PxQOuMXw

Thanks tons.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't understand the mechanism which turns a misdemeanor into a felony based on context. Has that already been explained?

Its called "the law", perhaps you've heard of it?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0JXdBg&usg=AFQjCNG8qn4aDR5n8d41KAS-T8PxQOuMXw

Thanks tons.

You betcha

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

Your claim was that the 1st Amendment does not allow someone to deface property they do not own, I proved you wrong.

How does that make me dense?

Hair splitting...

From the dictionary:
vandalism
noun
1. deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings.

deface
verb
1. to mar the surface or appearance of; disfigure: to deface a wall by writing on it.

From that we can see they may be synonymous with one another, no? Probably a bad choice of terms on my part, but I thought we were all on the same page here.

Clearly, writing on the sidewalk with chalk is not the same as scratching a racial epithet on a building. If the guy in your link had chosen to use a permanent marker, maybe I'd side more with Orlando on that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really???
Would you not include hatred as a state of mind? Or racism? Or gender bias? Or the whole host of other labels that define the classes of targets?

Mens rea was a huge part of creating hate laws, and a huge hurdle to have to overcome getting them enacted.

The law would have made him guilty even if he did not know who lived in the dorm, that eliminate the need for mens rae. It isin't my fault you don't understand the law you are trying to defend.

That's because he's comiting a crime against all people of the race he targets.

Thanks for missing the point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Illinois

Again, you are full of shit. He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime.

The statement:

For the record, it's a felony to deface the property of a school in Illinois even without a hate crime enhancement.

Is still true.

For the record, you are full of shit.

The fact is he was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime, The fact that it was a school was irrelevant to the prosecution,

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Again, you are full of shit. He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime.

The statement:

For the record, it's a felony to deface the property of a school in Illinois even without a hate crime enhancement.

Is still true.

For the record, you are full of shit.

The fact is he was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime, The fact that it was a school was irrelevant to the prosecution,

So what?

 

[oldernwiser]

For the record, you are full of shit.

Criminal Damage to Property – Class 4 Felony

The charge you face will be a Class 4 felony if the damage is more than $300 but less than $10,000, or if the damage is committed against a school, place of worship, or to farm equipment and is valued at less than $300. A Class 4 felony can carry up to 1 to 3 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

Illinois

Again, you are full of shit. He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with a hate crime.

Windbag, you might as well drop it - that pig won't fly. Ever.

As we've already discussed ad nauseum, the vandalism is part of the hate crime prosecution since you can't have one without the other.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 college’s 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.

Let's remind everyone -we have a white guy convicted by a jury of his peers of a crime that he could spend 5 years in prison for - and the judge gives him 90 days - and we're supposed to feel like he got an unfair deal?

Really?

For the record, I would think that anyone that got a felony conviction out of that got an unfair deal, regardless of his color.