- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Iowa baw gets 16 years for burning LGBT flag
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:15 pm to lsu2006
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:15 pm to lsu2006
quote:
No. That in no way points to you committing that crime against her or her property due to her race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc.
Its not a crime against your ex-wifes gender and sexuality for hating her and destroying her clothes for sleeping with another man?
Did she screw him with a robot and box cutters?
1
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:16 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Please defend "hate crimes" constitutionally and legally in this specific case as opposed to something like a Christian flag.
Even the shitty article in the OP made this clear
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:16 pm to fightin tigers
Apparently not.
Try harder.
Try harder.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:17 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
It's the TYPE of flag that netted him 16 years.
Yeah because it's a hate crime under Iowa law.
quote:
Please defend "hate crimes" constitutionally and legally in this specific case as opposed to something like a Christian flag.
Are you asking about why, generally speaking, hate crime legislation is constitutional?
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:18 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Its not a crime against your ex-wifes gender and sexuality for hating her and destroying her clothes for sleeping with another man?
No. Did you commit this hypothetical crime because of the fact that she is a woman or because she is heterosexual? No, you did it because she slept around on you.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:19 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Apparently not.
Try harder.
quote:
729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime.
“Hate crime” means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person
or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with
a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex,
sexual orientation, age, or disability:
1. Assault in violation of individual rights under section 708.2C.
2. Violations of individual rights under section 712.9.
3. Criminal mischief in violation of individual rights under section 716.6A.
4. Trespass in violation of individual rights under section 716.8, subsections 3 and 4.
92 Acts, ch 1157, §9
Referred to in §692.15, 708.2C, 712.9, 716.6A, 716.8
So, maybe your wife falls into the disability and you could be tried.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:20 pm to cyarrr
quote:
I would hope not; it was his first amendment right that was violated.
If he wants to go buy his own rainbow flag and burn it in public in compliance with applicable local burn ordinances he would or should be 100% free to do so due to his first amendment rights. But those aren't the facts of this case.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:20 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Arson, third degree harassment and reckless use of fire, which in this context is a hate crime under Iowa law because it was directed against a person or persons or their property because of their sexual orientation.
"Martinez was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years for the hate crime of arson, as well as a year for the reckless use of explosives or fire, and 30 days for harassment."
Harassment and reckless use of fire were not part of the hate crime sentence,
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:22 pm to lsu2006
Yes. I am asking you to define hate crime specifically to this one group as opposed to other protected groups like Christians.
Hint: you cant.
Hate crimes are unconstitutional because you can be charged and prosecuted solely on thoughts and intent without even breaking a law as opposed to first degree murder etc that require breaking a law.
The issue is the breaking of a minor law gets conflated with thought to make it a subjective rendering TURNING it into a major sentencing with no recourse for the accused to defend themselves denying them of due process.
Hint: you cant.
Hate crimes are unconstitutional because you can be charged and prosecuted solely on thoughts and intent without even breaking a law as opposed to first degree murder etc that require breaking a law.
The issue is the breaking of a minor law gets conflated with thought to make it a subjective rendering TURNING it into a major sentencing with no recourse for the accused to defend themselves denying them of due process.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:23 pm to cyarrr
You can post that again and again. The cant read. Only type.
This post was edited on 12/20/19 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:23 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
The issue is the breaking of a minor law gets conflated with thought to make it a subjective rendering TURNING it into a major sentencing with no recourse for the accused to defend themselves denying them of due process.
While I get what you are trying to do, you have the wrong case to try this. The guy is unrepentant as to why he did this.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:24 pm to fightin tigers
You miss the part about sex and sexual orientation? Your wife sexually oriented to another man or woman has to be allowed or it's a hate crime
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:25 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
The guy is unrepentant as to why he did this.
Who gives a shite how he feels? This isn't church. It's a US court.
The facts are the facts.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:26 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime.
Just because it's a state law does not mean it passes constituional muster. This will likely be overturned if taken up or will set a precedent. I'm thinking the former.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:26 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Yes. I am asking you to define hate crime specifically to this one group as opposed to other protected groups like Christians.
Hint: you cant.
Uh... what? Iowa's hate crime laws include "religion". I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
quote:
Hate crimes are unconstitutional because you can be charged and prosecuted solely on thoughts and intent without even breaking a law as opposed to first degree murder etc that require breaking a law.
This is simply untrue under the facts and law of this case. He was charged with and convicted actual crimes committed against people due to their sexual orientation.
quote:
no recourse for the accused to defend themselves denying them of due process.
What? He wasn't allowed to defend himself?
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:26 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Who gives a shite how he feels?
Iowa legal system apparently
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:27 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Your wife sexually oriented to another man or woman has to be allowed or it's a hate crime
OK, there's no way you're being serious now.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:29 pm to theunknownknight
Why are you acting like intent can't be considered? Intent is a critical element of many crimes. Intentionally killing someone and negligently killing someone are two very different things, for example
Posted on 12/20/19 at 1:35 pm to cyarrr
quote:
Just because it's a state law does not mean it passes constituional muster. This will likely be overturned if taken up or will set a precedent. I'm thinking the former.
So, would you argue he was burning the flag as part of his first amendment right to protest. And his first amendment right is protected even though it is against a protected group?
Because I would actually like to see that argument go down.
Posted on 12/20/19 at 2:01 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So, would you argue he was burning the flag as part of his first amendment right to protest. And his first amendment right is protected even though it is against a protected group?
Because I would actually like to see that argument go down.
Freedom of expression.
Hate speech is protected free speech and has nothing to do with his right to protest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the guy is a POS and should be charged with numerous crimes. But this is not a good path to start down unless we want to start relinquishing our free speech rights.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News