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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Clearly, you were wrong, both are illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We have not discussed it, if we had you would know that I already proved that Illinois law lists hate crimes separately, not as an enhancement of other crimes. I will post it again though, since you can't read.

720 ILCS 5/12-7.1

 

[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?

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

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

Clearly, you were wrong, both are illegal.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the City of Orlando chose to charge
Osmar with violating an ordinance that prohibitis "writing or painting advertising matter on streets or sidewalks." instead of the much more serious charge of vandalism. The fact is that he neither defaced nor vandalized the sidewalk - they knew it and dropped all charges after holding him for 18 days.

I think you're wrong on the use of that link to defend your position. It was a decent deflection, but compares apples to oranges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

What was the monetary amount of the damage?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Clearly, you were wrong, both are illegal.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the City of Orlando chose to charge
Osmar with violating an ordinance that prohibitis "writing or painting advertising matter on streets or sidewalks." instead of the much more serious charge of vandalism. The fact is that he neither defaced nor vandalized the sidewalk - they knew it and dropped all charges after holding him for 18 days.

I think you're wrong on the use of that link to defend your position. It was a decent deflection, but compares apples to oranges.

Doesn't matter why they decided, does it? They were wrong and had to pay in the end, just like your comment that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to deface property was wrong.

 

[oldernwiser]

Clearly, you were wrong, both are illegal.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the City of Orlando chose to charge
Osmar with violating an ordinance that prohibitis "writing or painting advertising matter on streets or sidewalks." instead of the much more serious charge of vandalism. The fact is that he neither defaced nor vandalized the sidewalk - they knew it and dropped all charges after holding him for 18 days.

I think you're wrong on the use of that link to defend your position. It was a decent deflection, but compares apples to oranges.

Doesn't matter why they decided, does it? They were wrong and had to pay in the end, just like your comment that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to deface property was wrong.

Actually, it does matter. Either it's advertising matter or it's vandalism - defacing public property, etc. Their choice is that it wasn't vandalism.

I will - in deference to you, and other grammatically challenged folks who miss the meaning - amend that statement by replacing the word "deface" with the (arguably) more correct term "vandalize".

You're still hair splitting, and you're still just as wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then maybe you can explain to me why the City of Orlando chose to charge
Osmar with violating an ordinance that prohibitis "writing or painting advertising matter on streets or sidewalks." instead of the much more serious charge of vandalism. The fact is that he neither defaced nor vandalized the sidewalk - they knew it and dropped all charges after holding him for 18 days.

I think you're wrong on the use of that link to defend your position. It was a decent deflection, but compares apples to oranges.

Doesn't matter why they decided, does it? They were wrong and had to pay in the end, just like your comment that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to deface property was wrong.

Actually, it does matter. Either it's advertising matter or it's vandalism - defacing public property, etc. Their choice is that it wasn't vandalism.

I will - in deference to you, and other grammatically challenged folks who miss the meaning - amend that statement by replacing the word "deface" with the (arguably) more correct term "vandalize".

You're still hair splitting, and you're still just as wrong.

Look up lesser included offenses and understand that the crime you are trying to argue proves you are right is part of the mens rae for the crime that would prove you wrong, then come back and admit that I am actually right that it doesn't matter why they chose to go for the lesser included offense.

They lost because the 1st Amendment clearly allows some types of protest that deface property.

 

[oldernwiser]

Doesn't matter why they decided, does it? They were wrong and had to pay in the end, just like your comment that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow people to deface property was wrong.

Actually, it does matter. Either it's advertising matter or it's vandalism - defacing public property, etc. Their choice is that it wasn't vandalism.

I will - in deference to you, and other grammatically challenged folks who miss the meaning - amend that statement by replacing the word "deface" with the (arguably) more correct term "vandalize".

You're still hair splitting, and you're still just as wrong.

Look up lesser included offenses and understand that the crime you are trying to argue proves you are right is part of the mens rae for the crime that would prove you wrong, then come back and admit that I am actually right that it doesn't matter why they chose to go for the lesser included offense.

They lost because the 1st Amendment clearly allows some types of protest that deface property.

Maybe it's just late and I'm not tracking all the way...

mens rae defines culpability - whether he knowingly committed the act or should have known better, which is actually the way 720 ILCS 5/21-1.2 (Institutional Vandalism) is worded: "he or she knowingly and without consent inflicts damage to any of the following properties:".

Under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.1, "A person commits a hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, ... regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits ... disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections ... 21-1."

This says that in order to get a conviction under 12-7, mens rae would only have to be shown for the act of vandalism under 21-1. Once vandalism is established, there would be no need to re-examine it later.

I don't have transcripts available, but I'm going to assume that the part listed in the news article about how he was going to show his bball coach what being a racist REALLY meant came from the trial itself (there was no attribution as to when the printed comments were made). This would tend to indicate that he knew precisely what he was doing at the time - objective mens rae.

On top of that, his school and community have certain standards which could be construed in such a way that a "reasonable person" would understand that scratching a racial slur would be considered wrong behavior - subjective mens rae, ignorance of the law being no excuse.

Like I said, it's getting late... please show me the error of my ways where I get to admit you're right. I don't see this as anything more than what I just presented.

 

[Barb]

FELONY Vandalism????

What if he'd just written "Fuck You"????


"Hate Crime" is such an Orwellian Thought-Police bullshit crime.

Really?

There is intimidation very much intended by engraving a racial slur AND KKK in the same area outside the window of a black person's work, home, car, etc...

It doesn't take the amazing Kreskin to figure that out.

What it does take is an amazing amount of gall to pretend that it had to be explained to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it does matter. Either it's advertising matter or it's vandalism - defacing public property, etc. Their choice is that it wasn't vandalism.

I will - in deference to you, and other grammatically challenged folks who miss the meaning - amend that statement by replacing the word "deface" with the (arguably) more correct term "vandalize".

You're still hair splitting, and you're still just as wrong.

Look up lesser included offenses and understand that the crime you are trying to argue proves you are right is part of the mens rae for the crime that would prove you wrong, then come back and admit that I am actually right that it doesn't matter why they chose to go for the lesser included offense.

They lost because the 1st Amendment clearly allows some types of protest that deface property.

Maybe it's just late and I'm not tracking all the way...

mens rae defines culpability - whether he knowingly committed the act or should have known better, which is actually the way 720 ILCS 5/21-1.2 (Institutional Vandalism) is worded: "he or she knowingly and without consent inflicts damage to any of the following properties:".

Under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.1, "A person commits a hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, ... regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits ... disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections ... 21-1."

This says that in order to get a conviction under 12-7, mens rae would only have to be shown for the act of vandalism under 21-1. Once vandalism is established, there would be no need to re-examine it later.

I don't have transcripts available, but I'm going to assume that the part listed in the news article about how he was going to show his bball coach what being a racist REALLY meant came from the trial itself (there was no attribution as to when the printed comments were made). This would tend to indicate that he knew precisely what he was doing at the time - objective mens rae.

On top of that, his school and community have certain standards which could be construed in such a way that a "reasonable person" would understand that scratching a racial slur would be considered wrong behavior - subjective mens rae, ignorance of the law being no excuse.

Like I said, it's getting late... please show me the error of my ways where I get to admit you're right. I don't see this as anything more than what I just presented.

Why the frack is this so hard to understand? He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with, and convicted of felony hate crime.

There is no mens rae required for felony hate crime in Illinois, all that is required is that the victim of the crime be perceived to be on account of his race, gender, disability, etc. Taking your earlier example of a person accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake and extrapolating it so that the vehicle ends up crashing through a field trip of disabled children, the mens rae for the hate crime would be established by the fact that the car crashed through a bunch of disabled children, and the fact that the driver made a mistake would not be relevant. In fact, it is specifically written into the law that no other motivations can be considered other than the act itself. The car hit disabled children, it was a hate crime, end of conversation.

 

[oldernwiser]

Look up lesser included offenses and understand that the crime you are trying to argue proves you are right is part of the mens rae for the crime that would prove you wrong, then come back and admit that I am actually right that it doesn't matter why they chose to go for the lesser included offense.

They lost because the 1st Amendment clearly allows some types of protest that deface property.

Maybe it's just late and I'm not tracking all the way...

mens rae defines culpability - whether he knowingly committed the act or should have known better, which is actually the way 720 ILCS 5/21-1.2 (Institutional Vandalism) is worded: "he or she knowingly and without consent inflicts damage to any of the following properties:".

Under 720 ILCS 5/12-7.1, "A person commits a hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, ... regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits ... disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections ... 21-1."

This says that in order to get a conviction under 12-7, mens rae would only have to be shown for the act of vandalism under 21-1. Once vandalism is established, there would be no need to re-examine it later.

I don't have transcripts available, but I'm going to assume that the part listed in the news article about how he was going to show his bball coach what being a racist REALLY meant came from the trial itself (there was no attribution as to when the printed comments were made). This would tend to indicate that he knew precisely what he was doing at the time - objective mens rae.

On top of that, his school and community have certain standards which could be construed in such a way that a "reasonable person" would understand that scratching a racial slur would be considered wrong behavior - subjective mens rae, ignorance of the law being no excuse.

Like I said, it's getting late... please show me the error of my ways where I get to admit you're right. I don't see this as anything more than what I just presented.

Why the frack is this so hard to understand? He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with, and convicted of felony hate crime.

There is no mens rae required for felony hate crime in Illinois, all that is required is that the victim of the crime be perceived to be on account of his race, gender, disability, etc. Taking your earlier example of a person accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake and extrapolating it so that the vehicle ends up crashing through a field trip of disabled children, the mens rae for the hate crime would be established by the fact that the car crashed through a bunch of disabled children, and the fact that the driver made a mistake would not be relevant. In fact, it is specifically written into the law that no other motivations can be considered other than the act itself. The car hit disabled children, it was a hate crime, end of conversation.

Then, sir, the problem is that you are not comprehending the fact that a hate crime (720 ILCS 5/12-7.1) needs ANOTHER crime associated with it as specified above. It does not take place by itself, and as such, has no need to consider mens rae since the act for which the enhancement is added has already proven culpability.

The boy committed vandalism, the state proved that AND the fact that race was the reason he committed that crime. He doesn't get a separate charge of vandalism since it's automatically part of the more serious one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

What was the monetary amount of the damage?

what happened to "do the crime do the time?" why do you oppose personal responsibility?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Clearly, you were wrong, both are illegal.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the City of Orlando chose to charge
Osmar with violating an ordinance that prohibitis "writing or painting advertising matter on streets or sidewalks." instead of the much more serious charge of vandalism. The fact is that he neither defaced nor vandalized the sidewalk - they knew it and dropped all charges after holding him for 18 days.

I think you're wrong on the use of that link to defend your position. It was a decent deflection, but compares apples to oranges.

I can't believe he was in jail for 18 days for chalking a sidewalk, how incredibly ridiculous.

And why wasn't the right up in arms over this? Why no 1000 post thread freaking out over it???

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why the frack is this so hard to understand? He was not charged with vandalism, he was charged with, and convicted of felony hate crime.

There is no such thing as a ‘hate crime,’ felony or otherwise. Judges are allowed to enhanced sentencing when they determine race was a motive in the commission of a given crime. With regard to Federal law, ‘hate crime’ refers to civil rights violations subject to civil or criminal penalties or both.

But there are no laws – Federal, state, or local – which criminalize the emotion of ‘hate.’

 

[GuyPinestra]

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

How the FUCK can that 'damage' be more than $300??

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

How the FUCK can that 'damage' be more than $300??

facepalm

 

[manifold]

In many states this kid would face a harsher penalty if he got caught in possession of an ounce of weed.

Chew on that for a minute.

 

[Plasmaball]

FELONY Vandalism????

What if he'd just written "Fuck You"????


"Hate Crime" is such an Orwellian Thought-Police bullshit crime.

Writing kkk and a racial slur really doesn't take much to figure out its a hate crime there captain...

 

[Plasmaball]

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

Go ahead, convince me that 9 scratches on a window sill is a felony.

Don't have too, judge did it for you already. Don't like it? Write him a letter, im sure he will care deeply.