So this is a hate crime.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:57 pm

Nothing much surprises me anymore. Welcome to our world.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:03 pm

There is no such thing as a hate crime. It’s all made up bullshit so DAs can appear tough on crime.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:09 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:03 pm So it's okay to burn the American flag, but a hate crime to burn a gay flag.

Help us out with this one, Screwy.

Makes perfect sense. One is protected speech, the other is designed to bully and intimidate gay people. Plus the flag was attached to a building. Never a good idea.

Make sense?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:13 pm

Because you will lie about everything from politics to taxes to crime.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:03 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:55 pm I agree about the part of it being a bad idea to burn it while it was still attached to said building, but other than that - if you want to burn the American flag - you can. You should be able to do the same with the fag flag. If not - then total double standards.

No it's not, you nincompoop. Schmick just laid it out for you.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:05 pm

So it is a hate crime to burn someone else’s flag.

I will keep that in mind the next time an America hater burns a US flag.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:57 pm

Nothing like being late to the party you fat greedy glass dick sucking moron.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:51 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:57 pm Nothing like being late to the party you fat greedy glass dick sucking moron.

More homo smack from the Midget. Screwed in the Ass needs to jump in here now, calling his boyfriend a homoerotic for posting such a thing like dick sucking.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:59 am

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:05 pm So it is a hate crime to burn someone else’s flag.

I will keep that in mind the next time an America hater burns a US flag.

You're not very smart. I'm amazed anyone lets you fly them around.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:00 am

Yes I made up, and am the only one that uses, the glass dick reference.
Tiny deformed tard douth protest too much me thinks.

FiatLux · Post by **FiatLux** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:20 am

It's unbelievable how stupid Porky and the retard posse are.

FiatLux · Post by **FiatLux** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:14 am

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:46 am FiatLux, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Yet, Porky can't ignore me.

Too funny.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:17 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:20 am It's unbelievable how stupid Porky and the retard posse are.

Yep, even better is that they are WILLINGLY this stupid and ignorant. And they act proud of it.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:34 pm

Poor racist snowflake Screwy. Getting his shit kicked again, he has to turn to the other board bitch for support.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:15 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:25 pm
Left Seater wrote:Poor racist snowflake Screwy. Getting his shit kicked again, he has to turn to the other board bitch for support.
It’s like his double-standardized mind won’t allow him to process what the entire thread is even about.

Fuck!

Oh the irony of you two fat stupid fucks.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:43 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:15 pm Oh the irony of you two fat stupid fucks.

2 x 0 = 0

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:50 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:09 pmOne is protected speech, the other is designed to bully and intimidate gay people.

If one burns a US flag, what message is being sent? Could be that the individual hates Americans, or that he disagrees with a specific piece of legislation, or simply that he can because the 1st Amendment says he can. CouId be any number of reasons. If the message is that he hates Americans, isn't that bullying and intimidation toward Americans in the same way that burning a homo flag is toward gays, and therefore prosecutable as a hate crime?

The 1st Amendment gives you and me the right to openly say, "I hate gay people." Doing so is not a crime of the hate variety or otherwise. If flag burning is protected as a form of symbolic speech, and the message I'm trying to send by burning a rainbow flag is that I hate gay people, how is that a hate crime? I haven't threatened or bullied anyone, nor perpetrated any violence toward a group or an individual. I'm simply expressing myself symbolically in a way that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the flag I burn belongs to someone else, I'm guilty of vandalism, which could be lumped in with other forms of hate crimes, which in and of themselves are pretty lame since they cheapen other motives such as revenge or greed. Why should hate be a more sinister motive than any others?

FiatLux · Post by **FiatLux** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:15 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:50 pm If the message is that he hates Americans, isn't that bullying and intimidation toward Americans in the same way that burning a homo flag is toward gays, and therefore prosecutable as a hate crime?

Not even close. The American flag represents a nation of people. Of which, said flag-burner is a part of. The rainbow flag at a gay bar is telling people that a certain segment of society is welcome and are probably in attendance at said establishment.

Lighting a flag on fire that is attached to a building puts the occupants of the building in danger with a very good chance that the building could catch fire and the people in the building can be killed, knowing that some if not most of the people in the building are gay.

By the way, this isn't the first time this guy has done this. It's his second or third time he's done this at the same building.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:20 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:50 pm
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:09 pmOne is protected speech, the other is designed to bully and intimidate gay people.
If one burns a US flag, what message is being sent? Could be that the individual hates Americans, or that he disagrees with a specific piece of legislation, or simply that he can because the 1st Amendment says he can. CouId be any number of reasons. If the message is that he hates Americans, isn't that bullying and intimidation toward Americans in the same way that burning a homo flag is toward gays, and therefore prosecutable as a hate crime?

The 1st Amendment gives you and me the right to openly say, "I hate gay people." Doing so is not a crime of the hate variety or otherwise. If flag burning is protected as a form of symbolic speech, and the message I'm trying to send by burning a rainbow flag is that I hate gay people, how is that a hate crime? I haven't threatened or bullied anyone, nor perpetrated any violence toward a group or an individual. I'm simply expressing myself symbolically in a way that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the flag I burn belongs to someone else, I'm guilty of vandalism, which could be lumped in with other forms of hate crimes, which in and of themselves are pretty lame since they cheapen other motives such as revenge or greed. Why should hate be a more sinister motive than any others?

You can't possibly believe this.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:53 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:20 pm
Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:50 pm
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:09 pmOne is protected speech, the other is designed to bully and intimidate gay people.
If one burns a US flag, what message is being sent? Could be that the individual hates Americans, or that he disagrees with a specific piece of legislation, or simply that he can because the 1st Amendment says he can. CouId be any number of reasons. If the message is that he hates Americans, isn't that bullying and intimidation toward Americans in the same way that burning a homo flag is toward gays, and therefore prosecutable as a hate crime?

The 1st Amendment gives you and me the right to openly say, "I hate gay people." Doing so is not a crime of the hate variety or otherwise. If flag burning is protected as a form of symbolic speech, and the message I'm trying to send by burning a rainbow flag is that I hate gay people, how is that a hate crime? I haven't threatened or bullied anyone, nor perpetrated any violence toward a group or an individual. I'm simply expressing myself symbolically in a way that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the flag I burn belongs to someone else, I'm guilty of vandalism, which could be lumped in with other forms of hate crimes, which in and of themselves are pretty lame since they cheapen other motives such as revenge or greed. Why should hate be a more sinister motive than any others?
You can't possibly believe this.

Meanwhile rational folks can’t believe your takes.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:05 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:53 pm Meanwhile rational folks can’t believe your takes.

Go sit in the corner, adults with functioning brains are discussing serious issues.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:06 pm

FiatLux wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:15 pm
Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:50 pm If the message is that he hates Americans, isn't that bullying and intimidation toward Americans in the same way that burning a homo flag is toward gays, and therefore prosecutable as a hate crime?

Not even close. The American flag represents a nation of people. Of which, said flag-burner is a part of. The rainbow flag at a gay bar is telling people that a certain segment of society is welcome and are probably in attendance at said establishment.

Lighting a flag on fire that is attached to a building puts the occupants of the building in danger with a very good chance that the building could catch fire and the people in the building can be killed, knowing that some if not most of the people in the building are gay.

You're making my point for me, which is that it is as ridiculous to prosecute a person for burning the American flag as a hate crime toward Americans as it is to prosecute the bozo who torched the pride flag for a hate crime against gays. He was charged with arson, which is an appropriate charge, as would vandalism for destroying someone else's property. What if the motive for burning the flag wasn't hatred toward gays (which in all likelihood it was), but rather that he was trying to get back at the owner of the bar for some perceived wrongdoing (revenge), or that he was in cahoots with the owner to torch the place for insurance (greed)? Why should either of those motives carry less of a sentence than a hate crime? The result is the same, why shouldn't the punishment be?

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:06 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:20 pmYou can't possibly believe this.

Which part? Because it all makes perfect sense.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:28 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:05 pm Go sit in the corner, adults with functioning brains are discussing serious issues.

Says the racist snowflake.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:31 pm

SC,
I don’t condone hate crime legislation as stated above, but there is a difference between burning the two flags on American soil. Burning the US flag is a form of protest against an entity that governs your life. The other flag is in protest of what? Gay people? Trannies? Jayne the lesbian? It’s just people. Almost the opposite of a governmental body.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:32 pm

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:28 pm
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:05 pm Go sit in the corner, adults with functioning brains are discussing serious issues.
Says the racist snowflake.

Keep pounding that lie BrokenNazi.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:54 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:31 pm SC,
I don’t condone hate crime legislation as stated above, but there is a difference between burning the two flags on American soil. Burning the US flag is a form of protest against an entity that governs your life. The other flag is in protest of what?

It doesn't have to be in protest of anything. Flag burning has been deemed symbolic speech. Speech, symbolic or otherwise, is protected (within limits) by the 1st Amendment. I have every right to say "I hate gay people." I don't have the right to act upon that hatred in a way that could harm others (assuming that hurting their feelings isn't considered harmful), but can't I symbolically state by burning a pride flag I rightfully own on my property that I don't like gays and disapprove of their lifestyle rather than, or in addition to, putting those sentiments into spoken or written words?

If I were a Klansman and burned a cross on a black person's lawn, I am breaking laws (trespassing, intimidation, and arson among them). If I burn the same cross for the same reason ("I don't like Black people") on my property, Klan property, or other private property where such a fire is allowed and the owner of the property takes no issue with it, am I breaking any laws?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:05 pm

Burn whatever you want on your own property. That is not what I was arguing. Hating a government and hating people for who they are are different things, even though the government is obviously made up of people.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:25 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:05 pmBurn whatever you want on your own property. That is not what I was arguing. Hating a government and hating people for who they are are different things, even though the government is obviously made up of people.

So we agree on a few points: 1) Hate in and of itself is not a crime, irrespective of whether it's directed toward government, individuals, or groups; 2) the hate crime designation cannot be assigned if the target of the hatred is government; and 3) the existence of hate crime laws is idiotic. Given that hate crime laws do exist, and that the motive for burning the pride flag was likely hatred toward gays, it is probably reasonable to designate his action as a hate crime. What I was hoping Screwy would explain, if he indeed does believe that the existence of hate crime laws is a good thing and that punishments for them should be more severe than those for the same crimes committed for other motives, is why.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:42 pm

The answer is because acting on hate of a group, for who they are, has historically been a huge problem and hate mongers tend to get motivation from others who perpetrate hate. This is less true for crimes motivated by greed or hate of a single person or even groups based on what they have done. It makes sense logically I just don’t think it is good policy.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:46 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:31 pmBurning the US flag is a form of protest against an entity that governs your life.

For the most part I would say that is true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. What if an alien (legal or illegal) or a self-loathing citizen burns someone else's US flag on property that isn't his or on public land (let's say at a Trump rally, where it is likely people could be injured or killed by his actions), the property owner disapproves of his actions, and the stated reason for burning it is that he hates Americans rather than the US government? Can that be designated as a hate crime against all Americans? At least one source states that "current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability." Isn't American a nationality?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:52 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:42 pmIt makes sense logically I just don’t think it is good policy.

How do you rationalize that? Doesn't good policy stem from logical sense?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:55 pm

Hard cases make bad law. That is the rabbit hole you go down when you start to make motive an element of the crime. It’s precisely why I don’t support HCL.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:01 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:55 pmHard cases make bad law. That is the rabbit hole you go down when you start to make motive an element of the crime. It’s precisely why I don’t support HCL.

Is motive (hate) considered an element of HCLs, or is it a mitigating factor in sentencing?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:02 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:52 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:42 pmIt makes sense logically I just don’t think it is good policy.
How do you rationalize that? Doesn't good policy stem from logical sense?

Logic and policy are almost never in line. Logic is cold and hard. Policy needs to be pliable because we don’t always know the truth and so we have to, many times, impute actions and thoughts onto people. Again the whole rabbit hole phenomenon.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:04 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:01 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:55 pmHard cases make bad law. That is the rabbit hole you go down when you start to make motive an element of the crime. It’s precisely why I don’t support HCL.
Is motive (hate) considered an element of HCLs, or is it a mitigating factor in sentencing?

Element.
“—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—...”
18USC249

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:12 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:04 pmElement.

Interesting. My knowledge of the law is obviously quite limited, but it was my understanding that motive is typically not an element of criminal law. I get the "logic" that HCLs are intended to have a greater deterrent effect than non-HCLs (is there any evidence to support or contradict this?). Are there any other crimes for which motive is an element?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:45 pm

There are sex crimes where the touching has to be for sexual purposes.
Here is an example:
PC288-
“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.”

It’s a stupid way to make policy.

FiatLux · Post by **FiatLux** » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:30 am

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:07 am
Release the Porkabilly !!!