American man gets fifteen years for flag-burning.

[El_Machinae]

The jury knows an unrepentant obviously guilty jerk when they see one, and even the best lawyer can't help you if you are committed to showing the jury that you are an unrepentant obviously guilty jerk.

One of the tricks in life is to be able to identify what you don't actually know, and then recognize that being agnostic on the topic is the way to go.

If you speak with certainty about things that you actually don't know about, I can file that into my records on how to judge your posts

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One of the tricks in life is to be able to identify what you don't actually know, and then recognize that being agnostic on the topic is the way to go.

If you speak with certainty about things that you actually don't know about, I can file that into my records on how to judge your posts

I should have said "a jury" instead of "the jury," but that doesn't change the way the system works, or the fact that this guy has given abundant evidence that he is willing to shoot off his mouth to spite his face under any and all circumstances. I think the razor indicates a much more likely explanation for his outcome lies on his side of the defense table than anywhere else.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, so long as a better man got "raped harder" by someone else somewhere else.

I just find it odd that stuff like that goes on every day in courtrooms across the US, but when a guy gets a screwing that in actual objective standards is really not a big deal the whole system gets called into question for some mysterious reason...which isn't really all that mysterious. Let's face it, the only way the guy could have made more friends is if he had stolen and burned a Mexican flag.

 

[Mouthwash]

He's okay with gay people. He just thinks they shouldn't be confident in themselves. It's different, see, because he's okay with their existence so long as they're ashamed of it. Anything that makes them feel valued can and should be burned, and hey, maybe he'd dabble a little if it came to his town.

My self-worth isn't bound up with my sexuality, and I don't think anyone's should be.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about gay people who, purely of their volition, try to live entirely celibate lives? I'm not just asking about their right to exist; would you shake hands with one if you met them on the street? Or are their beliefs 'self-hating' and offensive?

I just find it odd that stuff like that goes on every day in courtrooms across the US, but when a guy gets a screwing that in actual objective standards is really not a big deal the whole system gets called into question for some mysterious reason...which isn't really all that mysterious.

An already corrupt justice system expanding its jurisdiction into the culture wars strikes me as worthy of discussion, at the very least.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

An already corrupt justice system expanding its jurisdiction into the culture war strikes me as worthy of discussion, at the very least.

Arsonist thugs are a faction in "the culture war"? Sign me up on the other side.

 

[Mouthwash]

Never took you for a neo-Nazi.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Never took you for a neo-Nazi.

Just as well.

You might also notice that I have no problem with people being punished for violent crimes, which is much more relevant to the current discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

My self-worth isn't bound up with my sexuality, and I don't think anyone's should be.

What do you think happens first in people's life? They find out that Society disparages queer people? Or they start to wonder if they're queer themselves?

I found out that God hates Pride well before I was into puberty

 

[Synobun]

My self-worth isn't bound up with my sexuality, and I don't think anyone's should be.

You say this because your sexuality doesn't result in discrimination or mob rule. Your life has never been threatened on a structural level due to your sexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gay_purges_in_Chechnya

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about gay people who, purely of their volition, try to live entirely celibate lives? I'm not just asking about their right to exist; would you shake hands with one if you met them on the street? Or are their beliefs 'self-hating' and offensive?

I don't really feel anything. I don't see why I'd be disgusted or offended by someone opting out of sex. Am I... supposed to care? Or to hate these people? I don't get your point. What's the gotcha?

 

[Patine]

Just as well.

You might also notice that I have no problem with people being punished for violent crimes, which is much more relevant to the current discussion.

I have absolutely no problem with that, myself. But 15 years for only an unfulfilled threat to commit a violent crime, when law-enforcement and the whole system obviously also failed if it got to that point, is quite excessive, arbitrary, and probably a reaction to the sense of self-failure felt by the judiciary and thus over-compensating and attempting to salvage their sense of integrity. I have been threatened numerous times in my life, including with death, and arson of my home, and I doubt any of those involved would have gotten 15 years for it, to be frank. And, as I said, there is obviously failure by law-enforcement and the criminal justice system that it got to that if he was already known as a "habitual offender."

 

[Fippy]

Good, mainly cos he also threatened to put that bar on fire.
(means he would not stop at anything).
I like if potentially very dangerous people are locked away for a long time before something major happens.
If they think it's too harsh, they should think about that before becoming society problems,
and i would welcome if this case becomes a new standard.

 

[Patine]

Good, mainly cos he also threatened to put that bar on fire.
(means he would not stop at anything).
I like if potentially very dangerous people are locked away for a long time before something major happens.
If they think it's too harsh, they should think about that before becoming society problems,
and i would welcome if this case becomes a new standard.

Another fan of "The Minority Report," I see. I remind you, that was in the DYSTOPIAN genre of fiction.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But 15 years for only an unfulfilled threat to commit a violent crime...

Which part of 'arson is a violent crime' is it that you aren't following? Which part of 'strong arm robbery is a violent crime' are you not following?

 

[Patine]

Which part of 'arson is a violent crime' is it that you aren't following? Which part of 'strong arm robbery is a violent crime' are you not following?

Didn't you read? There was no arson. It was only threatened. Only a flag was burned.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Didn't you read? There was no arson. It was only threatened. Only a flag was burned.

LOL...so "only" a flag was burned. WTH do you think arson is? If you steal someone's stuff and light it on fire you'll find out, so go give that a shot.

 

[Patine]

LOL...so "only" a flag was burned. WTH do you think arson is? If you steal someone's stuff and light it on fire you'll find out, so go give that a shot.

I'll tell you exactly what arson is. Burning a permanent structure or edifice, usually one that would be legally and economically described as real estate, though outbuildings, storage buildings, utility buildings, etc. on a property, but that are not real estate in their own right, can also count. Burning a flag is NOT legally arson. It's vandalism, destruction of property under $1000, violation of civic fire ordinance, and, in this case, was used as a vehicle for a threat - but it, itself, wasn't arson.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My favorite arguments are when people arbitrarily re-define legal terms to declare everyone else is wrong for not using their arbitrary definition.

He didn't burn a flag. He burned their flag that he stole, according to people here.

 

[Patine]

My favorite arguments are when people arbitrarily re-define legal terms to declare everyone else is wrong for not using their arbitrary definition.

He didn't burn a flag. He burned their flag that he stole, according to people here.

Yes, but arson must legally be legally be burning a standing BUILDING or other such STRUCTURE. I'm not the one arbitrarily re-defining legal terms.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'll tell you exactly what arson is. Burning a permanent structure or edifice, usually one that would be legally and economically described as real estate, though outbuildings, storage buildings, utility buildings, etc. on a property, but that are not real estate in their own right, can also count. Burning a flag is NOT legally arson. It's vandalism, destruction of property under $1000, violation of civic fire ordinance, and, in this case, was used as a vehicle for a threat - but it, itself, wasn't arson.

I don't have immediate access to Iowa law, but by California Penal Code:

"A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property."

Notice that it doesn't say "real estate," it says "property."

Feel free to try again.

BTW, a routinely cited bit of case law involves the torching of an ex boyfriends car. As I said, feel free to go steal something from someone and light it on fire, then get back to us.

 

[Patine]

I don't have immediate access to Iowa law, but by California Penal Code:

"A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property."

Notice that it doesn't say "real estate," it says "property."

Feel free to try again.

BTW, a routinely cited bit of case law involves the torching of an ex boyfriends car.

It's probably expanded in California law over many other States because of wildfire risks. That would be my guess, and I'd say it would be a prudent one. Wouldn't you?