|
clarification on Texas law, this guy probably isn't just getting time for spitting in a police officers eye, although he could get good time for that. just from reading the short article, and not the whole thing i'd assume he could be charged with
public intoxication - $500 fine Assault on the emergency services personnel - because they are paramedics the punishment is increased to a 3rd degree felony, 2-10 years and up to 10k fine Assault on public servant - 2-10 years up to 10k fine If they decided to charge him for whatever reason with aggravated assault (deadly weapon), which I don't know if that would be possible, it would be 2-20 years as a 2nd degree felony and up to 10k fine. Usually in a "normal" assault case, you'd only get a fine or a short jail term, not prison term. Also, if this guy was already convicted of other felonies his punishment could be increased, like it said in the article he was indicted under the habitual offender, well he's pretty fucked, and he's already been in trouble before. Like I said this is Texas law, I'm not speaking for this if it happened anywhere else.
|
On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS.
No no, iirc, it was cuz he spit in a cops mouth.
And there's a lot of stupid/naive people in this thread!! Try wikiing the significance of burning crosses... ever hear of the KKK people? Holy shit.
|
Oh wow, I thought page one was bad, then I got through the other three!!
WOW people are dumb!! Drug laws are retarded here, but they aren't even close to the two things being discussed here, holy fuck people.
|
Just a little bit off topic, but what sentence do you get for doing graffiti?
|
On June 09 2008 02:45 Hawk wrote: Oh wow, I thought page one was bad, then I got through the other three!!
WOW people are dumb!! Drug laws are retarded here, but they aren't even close to the two things being discussed here, holy fuck people. apparently you didnt get to the other three otherwise you would have read the correction on the spitting guy story, you would have noticed that 243 people before you pointing out the KKK to the people who thought he was just making a barbecue and that it was a sole post which mentioned drug laws to support any arguments.
|
On June 09 2008 02:40 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:25 Haemonculus wrote:On June 08 2008 13:07 Falcynn wrote: Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh. A man in Texas was recently sentenced to 35 years for spitting in public because he had AIDS. No no, iirc, it was cuz he spit in a cops mouth. And there's a lot of stupid/naive people in this thread!! Try wikiing the significance of burning crosses... ever hear of the KKK people? Holy shit.
Ahhh... okies that makes a bit more sense. Still absurd, but a bit more reasonable.
Still, jokes on the prison... the man's got aids... he's not gonna live out that sentence, lol.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 22:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 20:31 -orb- wrote: Shut up, you have no idea who I am.
I've never smoked pot in my life, so don't tell me I'm crying because I'm a pothead who doesn't understand US drug laws.
alt>qq plz So are you going to edit your totally incorrect earlier post or try and clarify and substantiate it with more information or should I just go ahead and assume you're admitting you don't know what you're talking about? Ok, so I was in a shitty mood earlier and now that I've had an Oreo Jamocha Blast, I want to apologize for this post. D:
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 02:10 aqui wrote: form german wikipedia: "Die HIV-Konzentration in Tränen, Schweiß und Speichel reicht für eine Ansteckung nach heutigem Erkenntnisstand ebenfalls nicht aus"
roughly: The concentration of hiv in tears, sweat and saliva does, from the present level of knowledge, not suffice to infect someone[..
edit: and form engl. wikipedia: "HIV has been found at low concentrations in the saliva, tears and urine of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible.[24] " Yep, we've known this for a while, but I just want to reiterate the guy was essentially a bum, so he probably has bloody gums.
|
Ten years is beyond ridiculous. He should get a year for burning something on another persons property, or maybe a fine. Unless he actually threatened the women, attacked her, or something along those lines, anything longer than a year is jumping the gun. An entire decade is just idiotic. You cant defeat racism by imposing Stalin like consequences for it, that will actually breed racism.
|
Oh wow after reading the first couple of pages after my first post I am shocked so many people were not aware of the KKK and burning of cross....I'm sure they have little knowledge on the fact that KKK has its own headquarters based in Arkansas...Not just some "shack" either....Oh well....
|
"That's not a cross... That's a "T!" For Teamwork!"
|
Cross burning has historically been the equivalent of a death threat.
Also, it was the man's intention to infect the officer with AIDS. If somebody tries to shoot a police officer with a BB gun, it's not going to kill him, but it's still going to get him into prison for many years.
|
United States24342 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:08 Mindcrime wrote: "That's not a cross... That's a "T!" For Teamwork!" No it's trouble.... with a capital T and that rhymes with P which stands for pool.
|
First: This thread is #3 on Google for "man gets 10 years burning cross"
I'd just like to ask, (and yes, I understand the significance of burning crosses as a racial thing and am definitely against racism), but what about the white people in the home? In the worst case scenario there's 1 black spouse, one white spouse and 3 white children. How can it still be considered a hate crime?
If I burned a cross on a white people's home, no hate crime, . If I move next door to where the black people are, I get 10 years. Is that right?
(And just for reference, the "Interfering with housing of another person" only carried a sentence of 15 months for the other defendent. That means there's 106 months that have to be spread between interfering with civil rights, tampering with a witness, and using fire during the commision of a felony).
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 05:20 dustinm wrote: First: This thread is #3 on Google for "man gets 10 years burning cross"
I'd just like to ask, (and yes, I understand the significance of burning crosses as a racial thing and am definitely against racism), but what about the white people in the home? In the worst case scenario there's 1 black spouse, one white spouse and 3 white children. How can it still be considered a hate crime?
If I burned a cross on a white people's home, no hate crime, . If I move next door to where the black people are, I get 10 years. Is that right?
(And just for reference, the "Interfering with housing of another person" only carried a sentence of 15 months for the other defendent. That means there's 106 months that have to be spread between interfering with civil rights, tampering with a witness, and using fire during the commision of a felony). It would need to be proven in court that it was a hate crime. I believe this asshole pleaded guilty to the hate crime counts, so he's admitting that it was for racist purposes.
|
On June 09 2008 05:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 05:20 dustinm wrote: First: This thread is #3 on Google for "man gets 10 years burning cross"
I'd just like to ask, (and yes, I understand the significance of burning crosses as a racial thing and am definitely against racism), but what about the white people in the home? In the worst case scenario there's 1 black spouse, one white spouse and 3 white children. How can it still be considered a hate crime?
If I burned a cross on a white people's home, no hate crime, . If I move next door to where the black people are, I get 10 years. Is that right?
(And just for reference, the "Interfering with housing of another person" only carried a sentence of 15 months for the other defendent. That means there's 106 months that have to be spread between interfering with civil rights, tampering with a witness, and using fire during the commision of a felony). It would need to be proven in court that it was a hate crime. I believe this asshole pleaded guilty to the hate crime counts, so he's admitting that it was for racist purposes.
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up
|
10 years is way too long. The "hate crime" fallacy is a popular one here in the states.
|
On June 09 2008 06:18 HeadBangaa wrote: 10 years is way too long. The "hate crime" fallacy is a popular one here in the states.
What do you mean? or rather explain a little more.
|
On June 09 2008 06:18 HeadBangaa wrote: 10 years is way too long. The "hate crime" fallacy is a popular one here in the states.
A hate crime is clearly defined and no more abused than any other charge. It's not like he burned a cross because of something he did or because he had an altercation with the family. Ten years is most certainly not too long for what could easily have developed into murderous intent (if it hadn't reached that point already).
|
This thread makes me sick. The sentence itself is bad enough (10 years for burning a cross!?!?), but the fact that people support it is the worst thing.
Hate crimes themselves are complete BS. You can't legislate (nor should you) what people think.
|
|
|
|