- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:23 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
They HAD to burn the cross. The black couple moved in and raised everybody on the street's property values 15%, except the cross burners.
The cross burners values would have been raised as well, but they are actively rednecking their home up to old-school Livingston parish trailer standards.
The cross burners values would have been raised as well, but they are actively rednecking their home up to old-school Livingston parish trailer standards.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:34 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Lowest form of life is white trash.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:39 pm to Shexter
that black couple>that white couple
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:40 pm to TC Kidd
quote:
You mean thought crime. I don’t necessarily agree with burning a cross, but where’s the crime.
The SCOTUS has ruled on this issue before. Burning a cross, without the intent to intimidate, is not illegal. If a state law, Virginia in that case, says burning a cross with intent to intimidate is illegal, then that is good law.
quote:
In upholding the part of the law that prohibits cross-burning with the intent to intimidate, the Court’s majority held that the Virginia law is not inconsistent with R.AV v. St. Paul, a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an ordinance prohibiting cross-burning and other kinds of threatening conduct, but only when it is motivated by racial, religious or gender bias. Unlike the ordinance in R.A.V., Virginia’s statute bans all cross-burning with the intent to intimidate and therefore does not discriminate against particular viewpoints.
This post was edited on 12/21/23 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:42 pm to Shexter
quote:
Hartnett (pictured) who works as a crystal healer
quote:
crystal healer
that’s a nice way of putting “sells and uses meth” Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:44 pm to deltaland
quote:And pretty liberal use of the word "works."
that’s a nice way of putting “sells and uses meth”
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:55 pm to northshorebamaman
They're McPoyles
Posted on 12/21/23 at 3:56 pm to northshorebamaman
Sounds like pieces of crap, but this is why we are where we are.
Free speech should be free speech. Burning a cross in your own yard shouldn't be a crime.
It then comes down to interpretation and that's when we all fricked. Fight like hell does not mean insurrection.
Free speech should be free speech. Burning a cross in your own yard shouldn't be a crime.
It then comes down to interpretation and that's when we all fricked. Fight like hell does not mean insurrection.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:00 pm to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
Hate crimes are crimes.
Crimes are crimes
Hate is irrelevant
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:00 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:pretty sure this couple post on the Poli Board
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:07 pm to Triggerr
quote:
Can’t burn a cross on your own property any more? What has this country come to
When it's used as a tool to intimidate, like this was, then it is absolutely a crime. 1st Amendment be damned. That shouldn't be used as a cover here.
frick those people
This post was edited on 12/21/23 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:13 pm to bayouvette
quote:
Worden Evander Butler,
Is the white guy?
Also, team black couple on this one all the way.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:16 pm to bayouvette
quote:True. Burning a cross by itself can be open for interpretation, however, if the additional allegations are proven to have merit, such as threatening them with "the devils army" (wtf), and posting their address online, I think it's reasonable to interpret this particular cross burning as a threat. I disagree with hate crime charges because a crime is a crime and what is and isn't considered a hate crime seems to vary depending on factors outside of universal application of the law.
Free speech should be free speech. Burning a cross in your own yard shouldn't be a crime.
It then comes down to interpretation and that's when we all fricked.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:19 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
pretty sure this couple post on the Poli Board
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:25 pm to geauxjuice
quote:
cant do shite anymore
quote:
geauxjuice
So you condone cross burning as a form of racist intimidation?
Cool.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:49 pm to Shexter
Judging from the photos, I’d rather live next door to the black couple.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:55 pm to TheFonz
The black couple looks like decent people. This white couple looks like pure trash.
Posted on 12/21/23 at 4:56 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
This definitely happened
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News