|
(Saw this earlier, figured TL might have an opinion): An Iowa man got 10 years (on 4 charges) after he burned a cross he put on the front lawn of a woman who had 3 biracial children living with her.
Now, I believe he deserves jail time for commiting a hate crime, but just in the interest of sparking controversy, who said the cross had anything to do with the woman's biracial children?
Any thoughts here?
(Random source: http://thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/NEWS06/80606040)
|
A little group called the KKK started that whole association you know them?
|
The page could not be found (404).
|
United States24342 Posts
What crimes was he convicted of?
|
he burned a cross? Why not just attack them with holy water instead. I mean common, a fucking cross.
|
United States22883 Posts
INDIANAPOLIS — A Delaware County man convicted of a cross burning directed at a Muncie woman and her three biracial children was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on Friday. Advertisement
Former U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder, now a federal appeals court judge, handed down the sentence for the hate crimes that federal prosecutors called “deeply disturbing.”
Kyle A. Milbourn, 22, listed in court records with addresses in Daleville and Oakville, was convicted March 11 on four federal hate crimes involving the burning of an eight-foot wooden cross in front of the home of a biracial family in south Muncie in March 2006.
The four counts included using fire during the commission of a felony, interfering with the housing rights of another person; conspiring to interfere with civil rights, and tampering with a witness. The sentence called for 121 months for all counts.
A second defendant, Kyle S. Shroyer, 22, pled guilty last year to violating the civil rights of the victim and her children. He was sentenced last January to 15 months in prison for his role in the hate crime.
According to a plea agreement Shroyer signed, he and Milbourn discussed plans to burn the cross, put lumber, nails, a hammer, a shovel and a gasoline can in the back of Milbourn’s truck, and drove to the victim’s house, where they built the cross and erected it, poured gasoline on it and set it ablaze.
The two men then took photographs of themselves at the crime scene before running away. 1. It was an Indiana man 2. He pleaded guilty 3. What Raelcun said 4. He took fucking pictures of himself with his redneck friend after doing it
/thread
|
anyone not familiar with the significance of the burning cross or the history of the dirty south should check out mississippi burning, fantastic film
|
10 years.. is a lot though;
|
Yeah, as much as it makes me happy to see him getting 10 years...I still have to admit that's a bit harsh.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
So is a \ 17 year old highschool kid getting life for attempted murder on a white 17yr old. All the black kid did was punch him because he was gettign harrassed for sitting under the white boy tree. Its the South of America, I am so confused
|
LMFAO @ SPENGUIN...I guess you need to be in the states to understand...
I really wonder if this Obama presidential thing will reflect any of this hatred....
|
On June 08 2008 13:14 Kennelie wrote: LMFAO @ SPENGUIN...I guess you need to be in the states to understand...
I really wonder if this Obama presidential thing will reflect any of this hatred....
I live in the States and I don't understand it.
|
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.
|
On June 08 2008 13:19 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:14 Kennelie wrote: LMFAO @ SPENGUIN...I guess you need to be in the states to understand...
I really wonder if this Obama presidential thing will reflect any of this hatred.... I live in the States and I don't understand it.
He meant cuz Obama's half too...
|
On June 08 2008 13:25 il0seonpurpose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 13:19 T-P-S wrote:On June 08 2008 13:14 Kennelie wrote: LMFAO @ SPENGUIN...I guess you need to be in the states to understand...
I really wonder if this Obama presidential thing will reflect any of this hatred.... I live in the States and I don't understand it. He meant cuz Obama's half too...
I was obviously referring to the first half of his post, in which he said you had to be in the States to understand it.
On June 08 2008 13:14 Kennelie wrote: LMFAO @ SPENGUIN...I guess you need to be in the states to understand...
|
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.
Source?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
????
10 years for burning something that means "time to leave?" That is a fucking garbge situation.
|
Anybody else think of Little Tiny Mustache?
|
thedeadhaji
39473 Posts
hm so ig uess this is the conviction
"conspiring to interfere with civil rights,"
|
wtf, 10 years for burning a cross?
|
It's not "10 years for burning a cross" it's 10 years for the aforementioned charges in the press release.
|
The man did not get 10 years for just "burning a cross", he got 10 years because of what it implies. The burning cross is/was used by the KKK to threaten their victims and it is considered a hate crime in the US. This is obviously a hate crime and it is obvious that the man is a white supremacist.
|
fuck that piece of shit and cut his balls off while you're at it
|
On June 08 2008 12:56 nitram wrote: he burned a cross? Why not just attack them with holy water instead. I mean common, a fucking cross. KKK used to burn crosses, no other group used holy waters. It's a racial thing.
|
|
seriously are you guys fucking retarded? the kkk used to do this all the time as a racist statement against black people in the south (and held no qualms about killing them and their families soon after) and the fact that this idiot did it and bragged about it is enough to make me sick.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK?
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On June 08 2008 12:56 nitram wrote: he burned a cross? Why not just attack them with holy water instead. I mean common, a fucking cross.
|
|
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.
Source or it didn't happen
|
10 years is pretty harsh, but since this is basically a death threat (not to mention trespassing, arson, and really fucking stupid) I don't think it's unreasonable.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Well its not just burning a cross.
Since burning the cross is symbolic; he probably also got charges of of terroristic threat, coercion and intimidation (move or else.. ). It also all depends on his intent and his previous criminal history too. Burning stuff in other people's property and even your own is also a public safety issue so he probably got nabbed on that count too. Apparently he didn't convince anyone it was just a harmless prank lol..(I am not saying he tried too or said it was one..)
Message sent, messaged received: burn a cross in someone else yard, bye bye 10 years.
Sometimes a good example, prevents horrible things from the past returning. On a personal level, if someone burned a cross in front of my house, his own house would be next - so even though I am usually not* an advocate of hate crime laws or legislation in my my book the judge was wise and I can understand the 10 year sentence.
*+ Show Spoiler +because i)the law already has mechanisms to increase punishment for aggravating circumstances ii)these hate crime laws have a real potential for misuse
|
So tell us what your view of hate crime legislation should be, oh wise-one. Reference to South Park... oh, okay... I understand now.
Obviously, this idiot did it with derogatory intentions.
Even if he burned a Teletubby, he should've gotten jail-time.
|
On June 08 2008 14:08 Wizard wrote: wtf, 10 years for burning a cross?
Well, he burned it in the other family's backyard and it was clearly an example of racial aggression.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 13:34 il0seonpurpose 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. Source? By 'spitting in public' he meant 'spitting in the eyeball of a police officer.' Apparently Haemonculus is the Fox News of TL. It was deemed assault with a deadly weapon, and even though pure saliva doesn't directly transmit AIDS, it's still possible to transmit it through spit (bleeding gums, canker sore, etc.) Maybe it was excessive because that's still a low chance, but it's obvious the guy was a douche bag (his intention was to infect the officer) and he has a past history of attacking officers.
"He turns and spits. He hits me in the eye and mouth. Then he told me he has AIDS. I immediately began looking for something to flush my eyes with," said Waller to The Dallas Morning News.
Officer Waller responded after a bystander reported seeing an unconcious male lying outside a building. Dallas County prosecutors stated that Campbell attempted to fight paramedics and kicked the police officer who arrested him for public intoxication. ...
Prosecutors said that Campbell yelled that he was innocent during the trial, and claimed a police officer was lying. Campbell's lawyer Russell Heinrichs said that because he had a history of convictions including similarly attacking two other police officers, biting inmates, and other offenses, he was indicted under a habitual offender statute.
|
wow, 35 years for a poor attempt to infect a police officer with aids. 10 years for a hate crime. the one thing that does really distrub me about the usa is its jurisdiction.
|
Hate crimes are the most retarded thing to ever exist. I guess all other crimes are done out of friendliness.
10 years for burning a cross... not that I feel any sympathy for the retard but how is that justice.
|
On June 08 2008 18:01 Jibba wrote: By 'spitting in public' he meant 'spitting in the eyeball of a police officer.' Apparently Haemonculus is the Fox News of TL.
Relax. To be honest, while spitting in the eye of a policman is definitely aggressive and is going to receive punishment, to me it really doesn't seem like that big of a difference from the original statement of spitting in public with aids.
Yeah, it's "assault," but in terms of receiving aids, give me a break. You're not going to get aids from someone spitting in your eye. 35 years for something like that is completely absurd.
The over criminalization in this country is absurd.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
For those that say it was too harsh.
The four counts included using fire during the commission of a felony, interfering with the housing rights of another person; conspiring to interfere with civil rights, and tampering with a witness. The sentence called for 121 months for all counts.
You start phucking around with authority after u been nabbed, and u WILL get it up the arse. I am sure now he got lucky. Plus burning an 8 feet cross near right by someone else's home, in a neighborhood.. he could have had arson easily added to his sentence lol.. + Show Spoiler +Arson is a serious crime that was punishable by death under the common law. Presently, it is classified as a felony under most statutes, punishable by either imprisonment or death. Many jurisdictions impose prison sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the criminal intent of the accused. A finding, therefore, that the offense was committed intentionally will result in a longer prison sentence than a finding that it was done recklessly. When a human life is endangered, the penalty is most severe. That's probably why he pleaded guilty, because they probably offered to drop an arson count.
Anyway tampering with a witness, sigh.. not just a racist, a dumb ass too.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 18:30 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 18:01 Jibba wrote: By 'spitting in public' he meant 'spitting in the eyeball of a police officer.' Apparently Haemonculus is the Fox News of TL. Relax. To be honest, while spitting in the eye of a policman is definitely aggressive and is going to receive punishment, to me it really doesn't seem like that big of a difference from the original statement of spitting in public with aids. Yeah, it's "assault," but in terms of receiving aids, give me a break. You're not going to get aids from someone spitting in your eye. 35 years for something like that is completely absurd. The over criminalization in this country is absurd. Whether you have AIDS or cooties or nothing at all, there's a huge, huge, huge difference between "spitting in public" and "spitting in the eye of a police officer." How about "I fired my gun in the air" and "I tried to blow that judge's head off."
It was a bit excessive, but the chance is there. The guy was a career drunk loser, so his mouth is probably infested with all sorts of diseases, including gingivitis.
|
On June 08 2008 18:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 18:30 -orb- wrote:On June 08 2008 18:01 Jibba wrote: By 'spitting in public' he meant 'spitting in the eyeball of a police officer.' Apparently Haemonculus is the Fox News of TL. Relax. To be honest, while spitting in the eye of a policman is definitely aggressive and is going to receive punishment, to me it really doesn't seem like that big of a difference from the original statement of spitting in public with aids. Yeah, it's "assault," but in terms of receiving aids, give me a break. You're not going to get aids from someone spitting in your eye. 35 years for something like that is completely absurd. The over criminalization in this country is absurd. Whether you have AIDS or cooties or nothing at all, there's a huge, huge, huge difference between "spitting in public" and "spitting in the eye of a police officer." How about "I fired my gun in the air" and "I tried to blow that judge's head off." It was a bit excessive, but the chance is there. The guy was a career drunk loser, so his mouth is probably infested with all sorts of diseases, including gingivitis. yeah, so he deserves a lifelong sentence. its so beyond me
|
The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so.
|
On June 08 2008 18:53 d1v wrote: The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so.
The perfect ongoing example is how we imprison people for possession of marijuana... I mean give me a fuckin break.
|
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.
that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy
this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic
that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness.
|
does no one know of the real meaning of cross burning?
In Scotland the "fiery cross", known as the Crann Tara, was used as a declaration of war. The sight of it commanded all clan members to rally to the defense of the area. (stolen from wiki)
obviously the man and his friend were using this to declare some sort of blood feud with the woman's family. the pictures were just to send to fellow clan mates so they would be notified of the feud.
on a more serious note that is extremely messed up ...
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 08 2008 18:57 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 18:53 d1v wrote: The American legal system has once again proven that it is one of the most ridiculous in existence (at least in the western hemisphere). As a law student, I get to hear so many exhilarating stories and our profs constantly mock the anglo-american legal system. I think they do rightly so. The perfect ongoing example is how we imprison people for possession of marijuana... I mean give me a fuckin break. Yeah, anyone walking around with a pound of pot should be let off case closed. Oh, you must mean how we imprison people for carrying a dime bag, because yeah, we don't actually do that. Pot possession under 1oz is a misdemeanor in most states and will likely just get you a fine or slap on the wrist. The deep south is the only place you need to worry and even then it's maximum 30 days.
Oh, and our "backwards law system" generally doesn't treat marijuana possession much differently than most European countries, and is actually more tolerant than countries like France, Sweden and Japan.
And for the record, I think the 'War on Drugs' is idiotic policy, but crying because you're a pothead who doesn't understand US drug laws is even more idiotic.
|
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
|
On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 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. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. Maybe I have the romanian syndrome here, but if its irony, its pretty hard to detect...
|
On June 08 2008 18:29 Frits wrote: Hate crimes are the most retarded thing to ever exist. I guess all other crimes are done out of friendliness.
10 years for burning a cross... not that I feel any sympathy for the retard but how is that justice. It's just what they call it lol... Don't worry about the semantics so much
Laws don't exist to uphold justice, they exist to keep people safe. It's 10 years for trying to start a white supremacist anti-black movement. That's a lot more serious than you might realise. If you don't understand that, try to imagine someone writing swastikas all over a Jewish person's house, proclaiming themselves Nazi youth, and maybe burning something on the property for shits and giggles. That's the equivalent so far as I can tell, and if you don't understand that either, there's nothing I can do but call you a fool.
|
United States22883 Posts
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?
|
What is in this thread that China doesn't like? I can't view the first two pages but can view the third one for some reason.
|
ya all you people saying its a harsh sentence really need a wakeup call. The burning cross isnt just a message saying "get out". It represents a threat, the treat of lynching and murder. Did the guy try to kill the family? no. But what is the jail time for a bomb threat or pointing a gun at an innocent person? The cross imo is much more severe because it invokes the possibility that the guy is willing do harm to the family. And whoever brought up pot...fucking moron. These are 2 separate things. Its not like the guy burned a cross in his backyard cause he thought it looked cool or something. If you knew anything youd know that in the past they burned crosses on peoples lawns prior to killing and burning them due to their race.
ps you people are fucking pathetic. I am so sick of your childish and idiot posts. w/e ban me. morons.
|
Just thought I'd throw in a few legal clarifications on some of these cases brought up.
I was in school studying aspects of the legal system when a case come up in Virginia, well, two cases that had been combined into one to be heard by the Supreme Court. In one, two idiots burned a cross on a black family's front lawn. In the other, a local Klan leader got a big ol' jamboree together on his farm and burned a 30-40 foot high cross about a hundred yards off of the highway but it could be seen for miles around. Both were arrested and found guilty of, more or less, intention to commit and threatening violence under a Virginia law that forebade the use of burning crosses as "free speech" as they showed a direct threat on life and a clear and present danger. The Supreme Court upheld the law banning cross burning as a form of speech not protected by the Constitution because cross burning, unlike flag burning and the like, has a history of surrounded by violence and the meaning is never one of protest or speech but of fear and hatred.
That said, 10 years is a light sentence. In Virginia it was up to 15 for awhile, maybe that has changed. Cross burning is not justified, the ACLU even gave up trying to defend it. These guys protected Communists during the Cold War and they just threw up their hands after this ruling. I was born and raised in the South and cross burning is never friendly but it is no longer a hate crime, it is now viewed legally as an unmistakable threat of violence, so white, black, blue people all have the same protection against it, and that kind of speech is definitively not protected by our legal system.
As far as the guy who got jail time for spitting in public with AIDS, if he spat on someone, I'd believe that story might be true as willingly and knowingly giving someone HIV is now a crime.
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
Oh, and stack is pretty much dead on in his argument, from a legal perspective.
|
uh oh chinese firewall sensitive keyword hunt
|
hey guys, did you know burning a cross is symbolic? just wanted to make sure you got it after the first 30 posts saying it.
|
On June 08 2008 23:31 Gene wrote: hey guys, did you know burning a cross is symbolic? just wanted to make sure you got it after the first 30 posts saying it. oh thanks, like any other pothead here i thought it was burned because it glows so pretty.
|
On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 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. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. The chance of afflicting someone with aids through spitting at someone is so small that you could as well charge a man trying to delay police officers in the sun for intentionally trying to give them skin cancer.
Blood and a needle, otherwise the risk of getting the virus is extremely small. In fact anything but blood and needle have very small chance of transmitting HIV, even sex.(Chance from sex is roughly 1/1000, then imagine the chance of it in a small piece of spit with a very short contact time)
|
On June 08 2008 23:19 oneCrash wrote:
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
Oh, and stack is pretty much dead on in his argument, from a legal perspective.
This was one of the most recent travesties in the American legal system. I was very pissed however that this incident wasn't even recognized until about 1 year later by the media, and the band wagoning on this case was ridiculous.
I missed how Drug Laws and Cross Burning fit in the same category, at least choose something else related to the first amendment to argue :/ (Granted I believe pot should be legalized, this thread is not for that discussion)
|
On June 09 2008 00:40 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 19:40 8882 wrote: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. that was absolutely right IMO. people with AIDS should be separated and marked (big tatoo on the forehead?), like in the past people with leprosy this is harsh, but probably the only way to stop the pandemic that guy was a bit of a scapegoat, to show others people with aids, that they cant abuse their sickness. The chance of afflicting someone with aids through spitting at someone is so small that you could as well charge a man trying to delay police officers in the sun for intentionally trying to give them skin cancer. Blood and a needle, otherwise the risk of getting the virus is extremely small. In fact anything but blood and needle have very small chance of transmitting HIV, even sex.(Chance from sex is roughly 1/1000, then imagine the chance of it in a small piece of spit with a very short contact time)
take the risks if you want. some people prefer to be safe. have you ever heard of murphy's laws?
is the 1/1000 number even true? any sources for it? I always thought it was more like 1/6. we could play russian roulette if you want..
|
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] "
|
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.
|
On June 08 2008 13:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote: ????
10 years for burning something that means "time to leave?" That is a fucking garbge situation.
hahahaha XD
incontrol i hope they discover how to prolong human life before you die xD
|
On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: 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.
It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence.
|
On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone.
But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
|
Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
|
On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
What he meant was that nowhere was he charged with "burning a cross". Or even with commiting a hate crime. He was charged with:
- using fire during the commission of a felony - interfering with the housing rights of another person - conspiring to interfere with civil rights - tampering with a witness
The only one that comes close is "conspiring to interfere with civil rights". And that is a blanket charge that can include many other things, including preventing Peace Officers from doing their job, or obstructing justice.
|
Haha. This is a good example of a hate crime right here. The judge's intent is obviously to damage this man because of his beliefs. No he didn't state explicitly that was the reason he gave him 10 years but it can be inferred.
|
On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon.
Then you understand that the idea behind hate crimes is not to control people's thought.
What would you have done, then? Ignored it? asked him to stop, maybe not to hate black people so much? Or not to hate mixed couples because that white parent is a racial 'traitor'? There is a reason that the justice system does everything, and even if I don't completely support it, I don't think that this was an overreaction given the obvious history of his act. Additionally, there were other charges aside from the clear threat. The law can't justifiably ignore the small stuff.
On June 09 2008 06:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
I don't agree with our mainstream control policies, but this isn't an event that you can just shrug off as screwed-up U.S. justice. This was an entirely legitimate case, for the reasons already brought up on previous pages, and because the escalation of a prejudicially-backed threat into violence has an abnormally high likelyhood. Especially in that part of the U.S. and especially according to well-documented history.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
amazing how many didn't even read the original article and are just stuck with the title of the thread for information lol..
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 07:05 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:51 fight_or_flight wrote:On June 09 2008 06:47 T-P-S wrote:On June 09 2008 06:34 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. It is NOT legislating or attempting to control what people think. It is a set of legal guidelines to prevent and/or punish crimes based on prejudice. It is NOT ten years for burning a cross. Read the thread in it's entirety if you'd like to be enlightened as to the reasoning behind this sentence. I know exactly what was about, he got 10 years in prison for threatening someone. But don't worry, we will be the UK soon. Then you understand that the idea behind hate crimes is not to control people's thought. What would you have done, then? Ignored it? asked him to stop, maybe not to hate black people so much? Or not to hate mixed couples because that white parent is a racial 'traitor'? There is a reason that the justice system does everything, and even if I don't completely support it, I don't think that this was an overreaction given the obvious history of his act. Additionally, there were other charges aside from the clear threat. The law can't justifiably ignore the small stuff. Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 06:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Everybody know that USA justice is completely fucked up anyway.
Theses guys just don't realize that when you sentence someone to 10 years you basically destroyd his life.
2,2 millions prisonners, means the biggest proportion in the whole world, including the worst dictatures: proportion is 700 / 100 000
Half of them is black. Quarter is latino.
So well...
I don't agree with our mainstream control policies, but this isn't an event that you can just shrug off as screwed-up U.S. justice. This was an entirely legitimate case, for the reasons already brought up on previous pages, and because the escalation of a prejudicially-backed threat into violence has an abnormally high likelyhood. Especially in that part of the U.S. and especially according to well-documented history. I think his point is that the punishment should not vary whether you commit a crime against someone because of the color of their skin or simply because you dislike their character. Motive should not be the driving factor behind criminal punishment, and hate crime legislation divides people even further. Bigotry is not a crime.
|
In all honesty, I don't even think someone would be taken to the police HQ for this in Britain ><!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Aye. Blymie would git an 'ol scabby-wanking fo' thinkin' he 'ad the tallywankas ta set foyah to formed timba in a mates paddie! Bollocks. T'ese days young chaps 'ave no spect.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 08:24 HamerD wrote: In all honesty, I don't even think someone would be taken to the police HQ for this in Britain ><! If this had happened in Britain, the two guys would've pulled out clubs and tried to attack the firefighters that came to the scene.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
nuttun loike a good 'ol scrap wit mah mates AYE? Foireboys lack the gumblewamblabas if you know wot I mean!
|
People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable.
|
On June 09 2008 08:45 sith wrote: People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable. I just have to ask you, do you really believe a (vague) death threat is deserving of 10 years in prison?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
It wasn't JUST a death threat dude. It was the murdering of a cross and the vandalizing of a lawn.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 09 2008 08:50 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2008 08:45 sith wrote: People don't seem to be understanding that the sentence is not for the "burning" it's for the thoughts and actions that go with the burning. I can understand if you are not from/live in the USA, but if you do you should know the meaning behind the burning. In this case it was basically a death threat, 10 years is totally justifiable. I just have to ask you, do you really believe a (vague) death threat is deserving of 10 years in prison? Don't forget arson and vandalism.
I don't think it is, but I don't really care that much because the guy was an idiot. I know that's the wrong attitude to have, and in most of my posts on TL I love playing the devil's advocate asshole, but this time it's just bleh.
I think it's the photos that do it for me.
|
Pfff...
Guys, you go to jail 10 years when you kill someone or rape a girl, not when you burn a fucking cross.
Ok, this is a hate crime, it's very serious and it's normal the guy goes to jail. 2, 3 years. 10 is just insane. The guy will get out and be completely mad.
Think how long 10 years is. You are 27? Imagine going to jail until 37. Just imagine what it implies and how it would fuck your life.
Again... 700 prisonners for 100 000 inhabitants in US... 56 for 100 000 in Norway. Sorry but something is wrong there.
|
And for the black kid who got put in jail for punching the white kid under "attempted murder." That case is known as the Jenna 6. Look it up, it's a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court appeal is supposed to come up this year (?? not positive on that).
Some food for thought.
some better food for thought would be you actually reading about this. It was six black kids, attacking an innocent white kid with malicious intent because they were pissed about being left out of and getting into fights at a party 3 days before....which the white boy (Barker) wasn't even involved in. He was attacked to the point of unconciousness and then still beaten beyond that. Don't write it off as something as simple as a sucker punch; whether or not they had the intent to kill him they certainly could have easily with 6 people attacking someone who had been knocked out. Forget race issues, that is just inexcusable in itself.
Before this even happened, something (nobody seems to really know one way or the other) happened at a convience store where a shotgun was introduced in a meeting between 3 of the group of six that attacked Barker and a white individual as well. The three black men got firearm theft (possible if they took it away from the white guy they were involved with, but still bullshit) and charged with 2nd degree robbery and conspiracy to commit. The robbery charges are bullshit, as the gun wasn't even theirs to begin with, and I don't know how you can honestly charge anybody with theft of a weapon if you took it by disarming somone in an sct of self-defense. The other side of this scenario seems to suggest that the white guy walked in on them robbing the place and got his gun in attempt to prevent it or protect himself; either way there isn't anything beyond testimony of two eyewitnesses to prove it either way.
The "black kid" (Mychal Bell, 17 at the time, legally an adult in Louisiana) you are referring to didn't even get thrown in jail on the sentence imposed for the battery charge he got. It was appealed on the grounds that the sentence was too severe for a juvenile tried as an adult, and was later relegated to 18 months probation. He was then found in violation of if because he had a previous record (no shit huh?) of battery and 2 counts of criminal property damage and put in juvie for it. The governor of the state stated he would be retried as a juvenile instead of an adult. His defense attorneys tried to get a double jeopardy motion for him as he was being tried for the same crime (*THIS* I don't get. Why would they try to prevent him possibly getting a lesser sentence for the same crime when tried as a juvenile, instead they want to keep his 22 year sentence as an adult? Seriously WTF?). The judge denied it (I'll agree that this is bullshit here, double jeopardy clause is very real even if they want to use it stupidly like this), but before he was even tried again, he entered a plea bargain agreement; pleading guilty to battery (lesser than aggravated battery) and getting a 18 months sentence in juvenile hall. All appeals were dropped as part of the agreement.
This Mychal Bell, at least, was not innocent. He had a prior criminal record, even a prior charge for the very crime he commited against Barker. Interesting to note, since this incident is so racially charged, is that out of 150 people called to jury duty for Bell's proceedings, only 50 showed up, and not one of them was black. Blacks make up 10% of the Jena community, so at 5 of them should have been present for the jury pool by those numbers.
Another thing, one of the black men involved and convicted got charge on ANOTHER assault charge after moving away to different area in Texas. Think on that for a minute.
IMO it doesnt matter if they are black are not, at two of them have shown they are just pathologically violent. And from the description of the Barker incident, they got off easy. They could have easily killed him, and then not all the rappers and black actors and Al Sharptons in the world could have kept the white supremecist shit out of it, and more people would be dead. And yes, that judge was definitely biased.
racism is stupid. When will everybody realize that some people are just bad people, regardless of their skin? It doesn't have to turn into some damn giant thing about race relations.
|
On June 08 2008 14:56 MyLostTemple wrote: how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK? Sorry if canada isnt as fucked up as the states :D
|
On June 09 2008 08:32 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Aye. Blymie would git an 'ol scabby-wanking fo' thinkin' he 'ad the tallywankas ta set foyah to formed timba in a mates paddie! Bollocks. T'ese days young chaps 'ave no spect.
LOL!
ee'd get a bump on the ol' noggin and no more fer such trinsgressions ee would.
btw your impression of an 1890's english fishwife is about 50% there, incontrol xD
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On June 09 2008 10:09 nitram wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 14:56 MyLostTemple wrote: how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK? Sorry if canada isnt as fucked up as the states :D
yeah me too.
sorry there are dumb asses in canada who don't know who the KKK are.
|
On June 08 2008 14:56 MyLostTemple wrote: how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK?
Things only have symbolism if people let them, like by enforcing laws about otherwise basically harmless acts. Same with oversensitizing people to obscenities and racial slurs. They are offensive because people choose to hold on to their offensive connotations. "Fag" and "queer" really aren't that offensive any more because the gay community took it upon themselves to use the terms and let the meanings evolve, instead of shunning them and allowing them to remain offensive. You can't directly compare to an action like cross-burning, but the concept is similar in that society chooses to allow it to mean more than it should as a whole.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be brought up to be wary of those who use obscenities, burn crosses, or hang nooses over trees. I just think to instill the feelings that they hold in them in your children and in your citizens is counter-productive. Criminalizing acts that are not in themselves direct threats really seems to go against the constitution imo.
|
Yes, I'm sure it's modern society's fault the KKK killed people it burned crosses on the lawns.
Makes me wonder why people get worked up over silly things like swastikas.
|
On June 09 2008 15:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Yes, I'm sure it's modern society's fault the KKK killed people it burned crosses on the lawns.
Makes me wonder why people get worked up over silly things like swastikas.
Getting worked up over killing people is great. Getting worked up over threatening to kill people is fine too. Getting worked up over genocide is important, as is doing the same over threats of genocide. Getting worked up over something someone else once did who also did something illegal is silly. I don't give a shit if the KKK says they hate other races, as long as everything they do is only symbolic. Certainly give any member the maximum allowable sentence if they ever kill/rape/assault/burglarize anyone. I certainly don't admire or respect anyone in an organization such as that, but I value the freedom to say and do things that don't directly harm others. I'm even for civil cases for emotional distress, but not for criminalizing such actions. I'm very much against enforcement of thought-crimes.
So in this case, I'm certainly for criminal sentences for trespassing and anything about setting a fire on another's property (trespassing is a felony?). I'm also for the family's right to sue for emotional distress and damages. I just don't understand what civil rights were violated, and why that would be a criminal sentence in this case, let alone a felony.
|
Like I said, burning crosses historically has been a symbol of KKK terror and furthermore, against the target, a death threat.
|
o_o
And if you draw a Swastika in front of a Jew you get death sentence ?
lol
|
On June 09 2008 09:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: Think how long 10 years is. You are 27? Imagine going to jail until 37. Just imagine what it implies and how it would fuck your life.
Again... 700 prisonners for 100 000 inhabitants in US... 56 for 100 000 in Norway. Sorry but something is wrong there.
Well the solution is simple. Just don't do it. The system might be too aggressive, we can talk about that ok, still the act has it's history and you have the right to consult a lawyer beforehand to check what will happen to you and decide by yourself if you still insist on doing it or not.
What the problem is with the US is the loop. People get out of jail and somehow end up in it again because they fall back in to the same situation they were before. Integrating a prisoner back in to society only works if you have a healthy working society. And that is not the case with the us many problems with education and unemployment.
In the end it gets so twisted that some people are better of in jail than outside and even choose to go back.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On June 09 2008 15:45 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2008 14:56 MyLostTemple wrote: how do some of you NOT know why burning a cross is one of the most offensive and racist things you can possibly do. Have you heard of the KKK? Things only have symbolism if people let them, like by enforcing laws about otherwise basically harmless acts. Same with oversensitizing people to obscenities and racial slurs. They are offensive because people choose to hold on to their offensive connotations. "Fag" and "queer" really aren't that offensive any more because the gay community took it upon themselves to use the terms and let the meanings evolve, instead of shunning them and allowing them to remain offensive. You can't directly compare to an action like cross-burning, but the concept is similar in that society chooses to allow it to mean more than it should as a whole. I'm not saying people shouldn't be brought up to be wary of those who use obscenities, burn crosses, or hang nooses over trees. I just think to instill the feelings that they hold in them in your children and in your citizens is counter-productive. Criminalizing acts that are not in themselves direct threats really seems to go against the constitution imo.
i don't know if you're arguing w/ me about this or what but all i'm saying is i'm surprised there are people on this thread that don't know what a burning cross references.
|
Yeha cmon you guys, it wasn't just offensive crime, it was SUPER OFFENSIVE crime. It's a worser kind, duh.
|
10 years for burning a cross is still way too much in my opinion. ( even with the KKK reference ... ) It should be one year at max, but well maybe it will solve the racial problems in US and when this guy will be released from jail he will for sure integrate in the society without any problem. Haha good joke. His life is fucked because this retard burned a cross. I think he will be super angry in 10 years and i'm not sure he will burn a cross this time...
|
|
|
|