A hate crime....

DeafCaroline said:
You tell me. You seem to oppose the hate crime law so you must know.
Click to expand...
It was your post, so I was hoping you could clarify it for me.

I can't tell you what you were trying to say.

If you don't want to make it clear so that we can discuss it, well, that's your perogative.
 
TXgolfer said:
:lol:

A) It's from the link Jiro provided
B) Yeah they jumped 60% in 4 years :laugh2:
Click to expand...

And? You got anything to add on the topic? Funny that you never have anything of substance to add, but simply wait for an opportunity to point fingers at others. :hmm: I would think you would be taking the opportunity to put your position forward in a cohesive and intelligent manner. Oh, well. Guess not.
 
Reba said:
The Supreme Court found the Virginia law against cross burning to be unconstitutional.

Virginia v Black
Click to expand...

there you go. nothing to do with hate crime law which is a federal law.

and I don't know what's this "terroristic threat" thing. sounds ridiculous. whoever created that state law should be tarred and feathered :lol:
 
Jiro said:
but what about those not affiliated with KKK such as just 2 racist buffoons? still would be charged with terroristic threat?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court decided that the Virginia law was unconstitutional.

The law:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”

The Supreme Court decision:

"In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginia’s statute banning cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” violates the First Amendment. We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form."

Virginia v Black
 
Reba said:
The Supreme Court decided that the Virginia law was unconstitutional.

The law:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”

The Supreme Court decision:

"In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginia’s statute banning cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” violates the First Amendment. We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form."

Virginia v Black
Click to expand...

So, if it is done with an intent to intimidate, it can still be prosecuted as intimidation.

The same as, just because a white guy hits a black guy doesn't mean it is a hate crime. Takes more to prosecute as a hate crime than surface evidence.
 
TXgolfer said:
That was for the poster who was arguing the numbers as if I had posted the. I saw your post :)
Click to expand...

I knew full well who posted the link. I'm saying your assumptions in reply were based on 2007 numbers. Statement of fact.
 
jillio said:
And? You got anything to add on the topic? Funny that you never have anything of substance to add, but simply wait for an opportunity to point fingers at others. :hmm: I would think you would be taking the opportunity to put your position forward in a cohesive and intelligent manner. Oh, well. Guess not.
Click to expand...

How rude.
 
Reba said:
The Supreme Court decided that the Virginia law was unconstitutional.

The law:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.”

The Supreme Court decision:

"In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginia’s statute banning cross burning with “an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons” violates the First Amendment. We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form."

Virginia v Black
Click to expand...

correct. this has nothing to do with Hate Crime law nor is there anything to fear about Hate Crime law.

my previous post -

Jiro said:
the [Hate Crime] law is very explicit about it.

if you're spray-painting swastika at synagogue for no reason other than just a stupid fun, you would not be charged with hate crime. In order to be charged with hate crime, they'll have to prove that you have documented history of anti-Semitism.

it's just plain dang silly of people to think that you can be charged with hate crime just for spraying swastika on some abandoned building or simply yelling - "You F**king Jews!". You are protected by Amendment One and you're free to explicitly express your hatred toward Jewish people unless it turned into violence or you inciting people to commit violence toward Jewish people.
Click to expand...
 
Will never understand why anyone without phd think good idea debate someone with phd.
 
jillio said:
Oh well. Sorry you see it that way. I see your constant attempts to minimize and ridicule serious discussions as rude and insensitive.
Click to expand...

:hmm: I believe I too, am entitled to my opinions. :wave:
 
Back
Top