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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.’

Wow, the legal expert is wrong again. I posted the statute in Illinois that defines a hate crime as a separate crime, not an enhancement. Deal with the real world bitch.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He would get even more time for that weed if the feds decided to go after him over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What is it with idiots and yelling fire in a crowded room? Do you all get your legal education out of a box of Cheerios?

 

[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?

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.

He did not make a threat. Unlike you, I can back my position up with a single fact that blows your stupidity out of the water, he was not charged with making a threat.

 

[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.

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.

Already answered.

 

[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?

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.

That would depend, as I have already proven.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of speech has limitations, it always has.

Not according to the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Threats are not protected speech.

So, "KKK" is a threat?

The judge and the black guy took it as a threat.

The judge did not because he was not charged with making a fracking threat. If you want to fracking defend this stupidity you should at least understand what you are defending.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was vandalism, not speech. Klan-boi is free to walk around with a KKK T-shirt.

He was convicted of speech, not vandalism.

Facts are difficult for you of the authoritarian left.

freedom of speech does not mean you can do anything you want, there are limitations, always have been.
The Constution does cover the right to freedom of speech, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Was his actions an infringement upon the rights of other citizens?
I know you will not be able to answer rationally or logically uncensored.

Tell me something, what can I possibly say that infringes on your rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate speech is not equal to hate crime.

WTF???? What he wrote, (spoke) was considered a hate crime. How dense can you be? Quaaludes and Mad Dog 20/20 should be avoided especially before noon on a week day.

I give up. Most reasonable people realize hate speech and hate crime are two different things.

You are free to continue believing that he was convicted of hate speech. You are free to continue believing that his first amendment rights were violated.

It won't be the first time I've seen stupid people on the internet and it certainly won't be the last time.

I do think having him spend time in jail was wrong, since it doesn't appear he had any prior convictions. But what he did was wrong and even he admitted what he did was racist.

Most reasonable people understand that hate speech includes hate writing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The judge and the black guy took it as a threat.

Bullshit. There was no coercive nature nor would a reasonable man fear for life or limb.

This was illegal speech due to offense taken. We cannot pretend that we have civil liberty when offensive speech is a felony.

The grand jury and judge say you don't know what you're talking about.

They do not, because he was not charged with making a threat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only right wingers would think of hatred as freedom of speech.

Violent terrorist acts of the past certainly provides evidence today of what is a terrorist threat.

The guy has a history of being a violent terrorist?

Ohh...terrorism is determined by HISTORY now? I see!

That is what Tuck claimed, isn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How disingenuous. The 2 Guys is not what terrifies us. It's a DOJ that excuses their Behavior solely because they are black, that scares the hell out of us.

You do realize that was done by the Bush Administration right? They investigated the situation and found it not warranting of any arrests.

So if you got a problem bub, take it up with Dick Cheney 'n' dem.

You do understand that it wasn't, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Apparently, you just don't like to read. Or is it that you just haven't had your coffee yet?

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.

This is false.

As already discussed earlier (see the 4am timeframe on this thread) with Quantum Windbag, this boy WAS found guilty of vandalism - it's part of the Illinois law that convicted of a hate crime. You can't be tried twice for the same offense, so it's a 2 part crime - did he commit vandalism, and if so was he racially motivated.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, he was found guilty of a felony hate crime, not vandalism. For some reason everyone defending this action has a problem understanding this simple fact, and wants to make the crime something else. I think that proves that those of us who oppose it are actually the ones that are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is false.

As already discussed earlier (see the 4am timeframe on this thread) with Quantum Windbag, this boy WAS found guilty of vandalism - it's part of the Illinois law that convicted of a hate crime. You can't be tried twice for the same offense, so it's a 2 part crime - did he commit vandalism, and if so was he racially motivated.

And as Quantum pointed out, the actual conviction lists "hate crime," rather than vandalism.

Vandalism is an act of damaging property, no one suggests that one not be held for such an offense.

However, what words are scratched or spraypainted, etc. are irrelevant to the act of vandalism.

The objection is that the WORDS rather than the vandalism are what is being punished. We have a clear violation of the 1st amendment here.

I'm just not going to argue the same point I already established with Windbag. You're interpretation is flawed. Read the Illinois laws I cited - they're available online.

Read 4:08 response on page 23.

Vandalism would be the arresting charge, the DA had the authority to prosecute under the hate crime law - which addresses MOTIVATION, not SPEECH.

As I have pointed out, by electing to prosecute under the hate crime law the DA avoids the issue of motive and only has to prove that he did it. The fact that he was drunk would have counted as a mitigating element he had charged him with vandalism.

 

[oldernwiser]

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.’

Wow, the legal expert is wrong again. I posted the statute in Illinois that defines a hate crime as a separate crime, not an enhancement. Deal with the real world bitch.

And I showed you specifically in the law where it was NOT a separate crime, but an enhancement.

Look - if you're just going to ignore the facts because they don't fit your preconceptions, let us know. We won't waste the time discussing anything since you'll always be right regardless of the what the truth is.

That, sweetheart, IS the real world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.’

Wow, the legal expert is wrong again. I posted the statute in Illinois that defines a hate crime as a separate crime, not an enhancement. Deal with the real world bitch.

And I showed you specifically in the law where it was NOT a separate crime, but an enhancement.

Look - if you're just going to ignore the facts because they don't fit your preconceptions, let us know. We won't waste the time discussing anything since you'll always be right regardless of the what the truth is.

That, sweetheart, IS the real world.

You showed me where the law says felony hate crime is an enhancement, not a crime in and of itself? Did I miss a post? Here is the law that you claim says is an enhancement.

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.

See, not an enhancement, a crime. The things you think are separate crimes are all defined as elements of the crime of felony hate crime. If you don't believe me go ask a lawyer.

 

[oldernwiser]

Wow, the legal expert is wrong again. I posted the statute in Illinois that defines a hate crime as a separate crime, not an enhancement. Deal with the real world bitch.

And I showed you specifically in the law where it was NOT a separate crime, but an enhancement.

Look - if you're just going to ignore the facts because they don't fit your preconceptions, let us know. We won't waste the time discussing anything since you'll always be right regardless of the what the truth is.

That, sweetheart, IS the real world.

You showed me where the law says felony hate crime is an enhancement, not a crime in and of itself? Did I miss a post? Here is the law that you claim says is an enhancement.

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.

See, not an enhancement, a crime. The things you think are separate crimes are all defined as elements of the crime of felony hate crime. If you don't believe me go ask a lawyer.

Read it again - or go back to page 23 at 4:08AM and RE-READ the explanation I gave there. You have to have one of the crimes I highlighted for you to begin with. If you can prove one of those, then this particular modifier can be applied if it can be further shown that the motivation for the crime was "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".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What was the monetary amount of the damage?

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

Why don't you go back and show me where I said that in the first place, then come back here and pull your head out of your ass.

What you seem to be wholly unappreciative of is that this is the will of the People of Illinois. Their judgement is better than yours about what is right for their state. They have decided that a crime of this type constitute a felony, punishable by up to 5 years. Yet you think that your judgement for what the law should be in Illinois is better than the People of Illinois! That's very elitist, and in no way could it be considered libertarian,conservative, or even American. Do you even live in Illinois?


BTW, statutes of these types have already passed Constitutional muster. In 1993 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crimes statutes of these types did not violated the 1st amendment. Because they require the defendant already be engaged in an act which would be illegal anyway, they do not chill the speech of law abiding bigots.

So you'll be happy to know - if you're a law abiding citizen - you can spew as much bigotry as you like, So go for it.