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

[Ravi]

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??

How the FUCK do you manage to turn on a computer?

 

[Plasmaball]

This wasn't your post?



Read and learn.

Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In other words, expressing a desire that somebody's family burn to death is reprehensible, but it is not a true threat, so it would not be a criminal threat.

It would appear in this case, the charge is actually property related.

Myles Burton, Elmhurst College Student-Athlete, Faces Hate Crime Charges
"felony hate crime related to criminal damage to property "



I'm pretty sure the government has the right to punish you for damaging the property of others.

I am pretty sure that punishing you for what you say is a violation of the 1st Amendment, if it wasn't WBC would be in prison.

Not really. Go yell fire in a crowded room and see what happens. I don't think you understand what freedom of speech is. It is not something that let's you say whatever you want where you want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And the MSNBC dude called whites crackers in front of millions. What is your fucking point?

The Chris Matthew's Show?
He did it in front of thousands.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe you ought to sharpen your word comprehension skills.

Maybe you ought to contain your demagoguery.

I didn't bring Obama into the discussion - you did.

Of course; the standard tactic of the left is to attack anyone who fails to worship Obama as a "racist." Since you used the same bit of demagoguery in regard to my support of the 1st amendment, it was reasonable to note the consistency of smears.

I didn't make an accusation of racism based on your opinion of Obama, you did.

You made the accusation of racism based on support of the constitution - anyone who supports the bill of rights is a racist. Yours is a common tactic for the left.

And, I don't believe I ever said you were a racist (unless, of course you are - and that would be fine by me).

WTF?

You can be as racist as you want to be. Hold those meetings where everyone wears the sheets. Hate just as hard and as unreasonably as you want to.

Mantra of the left, support the constitution, you're a racist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which part of the Constitution says Illinois can't make its own laws?

The 14th amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Great; had he been charged with that, you wouldn't hear a word from civil libertarains - BUT he was convicted of illegal speech, and that gets us pro-liberty folk riled up - due to that fact that it violates the constitution and the basic rights of man, and all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

in a ward where 118 white people were eligible to vote

Do you think whites should be prohibited from voting?

 

[L.K.Eder]

in a ward where 118 white people were eligible to vote

Do you think whites should be prohibited from voting?

no. thanks for asking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Again, he was not convicted and sentenced for defacing property: He was convicted and sentenced for what he said.

You defenders of justice would be righteously pissed off if I spray painted "Obama 2012" on your front doors in international orange.

Oddly though, you wouldn't be convicted on felony thought crimes, or speech violations.

Would you still defend my right of free speech in that case?

Of course.

If you were charged for the words you used, rather than for the actual crime, I would as vigorously defend you and your right to expression.

I support liberty against the onslaught of the authoritarian left.

I'm banking on the fact that you wouldn't - even if you agreed with my point of view and choice of color.

You're banking on the idea that others are as partisan and racially motivated as you are.

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.

Really? When was the 1st repealed?

The idiot listed in the OP's link got, arguably, less than he deserved - but deserved what he got no less.

"Bad speak" and "Bad Think" should be punishable by death? Or is there an opportunity for reeducation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I disagree, I mean the right was screaming support and for freedom of speech and freedom of religion with the muslims when they wanted to build a mosque at "ground zero".....remember?

No?

What criminal charges did those Muslims face?


Moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The person who went to law school and who became an actual judge disagree's with your legal stance.

(I seriously doubt if you get what I am saying.)

You're saying "Shut up and obey."

This is the standard refrain of the authoritarian left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The crime he was charged with was defacing property, the hate crime enhancement is just an enhancement.

Utterly false.

You didn't bother to read the actual case and are just making shit up to support your partisan position.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

They dropped the misdemeanor vandalism and went with felony thought crime, AKA hate crime.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Let's remind everyone - we used to have a Constitution that guaranteed basic civil rights. The preeminent of which is the right to speak, particularly offensive speech, without fear that the king would slap us in irons.

But the authoritarian left has done away with all that. The subjects will think and speak as commanded, or face the gulags.

 

[Moonglow]

The person who went to law school and who became an actual judge disagree's with your legal stance.

(I seriously doubt if you get what I am saying.)

You're saying "Shut up and obey."

This is the standard refrain of the authoritarian left.

Your parents must have been liberals, or you had no authority in your house by them.

 

[Moonglow]

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?

Let's remind everyone - we used to have a Constitution that guaranteed basic civil rights. The preeminent of which is the right to speak, particularly offensive speech, without fear that the king would slap us in irons.

But the authoritarian left has done away with all that. The subjects will think and speak as commanded, or face the gulags.

The same Constitution that took away rights from slaves?

 

[manifold]

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?

Let's remind everyone - we used to have a Constitution that guaranteed basic civil rights. The preeminent of which is the right to speak, particularly offensive speech, without fear that the king would slap us in irons.

But the authoritarian left has done away with all that. The subjects will think and speak as commanded, or face the gulags.

Threats are not protected speech.

You might disagree that what this kid did qualifies as a threat, but if so, you should be arguing that rather than repeating the same academic fail post after post.

 

[g5000]

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.

Bolded the relevant part for your blind eyes. It was not speech, it was damage to property. Don't you believe in the right to be secure in your property? That's a right, too, you know!

The dumb shit Klan-boi elevated his crime when he did it out of a racial motive. As somoene pointed out earlier, motive does determine the degree of your crime and punishment, and not just for hate crimes. First degree murder, second degree murder, etc.

 

[Moonglow]

The same Constitution that later afforded slaves freedoms but white society would not allow their rights to be practiced?

 

[Ravi]

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?

Let's remind everyone - we used to have a Constitution that guaranteed basic civil rights. The preeminent of which is the right to speak, particularly offensive speech, without fear that the king would slap us in irons.

But the authoritarian left has done away with all that. The subjects will think and speak as commanded, or face the gulags.

You don't have a right to vandalize property or intimidate others.

It's very simply, really. You are just extremely stupid.