American man gets fifteen years for flag-burning.

[Traitorfish]

This thread is about flag-burning and it's what I had on the brain.

But the thread is clearly not about flag-burning. The article you posted is not about flag-burning. The convicted person in the story you posted was not convicted for flag-burning. And I don't think that you really believe that it's about flag-burning; I think you want everyone else to believe that it's about flag burning, because that provides a way to smuggle in your weirdo fringe views on homosexuality into the conversation under the guise of being about political expression.

That your framing was explicitly rejected in multiple posts on the first page of the thread is surely indication that this isn't working, and that you should drop the charade.

Yes. Had he said that 'homosexuals are conspiring to take down America' it would be a different story.

So if a person were to say they were "opposed to Jewry", but did not follow this up with the claim that "Jews are conspiring to take down America", you would have no objections?

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

I try not change my opinion of garbage people enacting garbage sentencing standards when they apply that malice to different <slurs>. It's a personal failing when I don't. Based on years of conversation, you happily do. Those that like your posts, do. They don't actually share the principle, they just have variable target lists. **** 'em.

 

[Patine]

But the thread is clearly not about flag-burning. The article you posted is not about flag-burning. The convicted person in the story you posted was not convicted for flag-burning. And I don't think that you really believe that it's about flag-burning; I think you want everyone else to believe that it's about flag burning, because that provides a way to smuggle in your weirdo fringe views on homosexuality into the conversation under the guise of being about political expression.

That your framing was explicitly rejected in multiple posts on the first page of the thread is surely indication that this isn't working, and that you should drop the charade.


So if a person were to say they were "opposed to Jewry", but did not follow this up with the claim that "Jews are conspiring to take down America", you would have no objections?

But part of this, that I'm the only one bringing up, is that the fact he was known for some time for this kind of behaviour, and had been labelled a "habitual offender," is that part of the blame rests on a failure of the "system" to allow things to come to this. A "system," that is accepting no responsibility for their over their obvious mismanagement helped this along, and no one is else is acknowledging this issue either - it's all otherwise a matter of lauding or approbium for them handing down a draconian sentence to a hate-filled, but unhinged, loose canon, who was allowed to be loose for too long.

 

[Synobun]

I try not change my opinion of garbage people enacting garbage sentencing standards when they apply that malice to different <slurs>. It's a personal failing when I don't. Based on years of conversation, you happily do. Those that like your posts, do. They don't actually share the principle, they just have variable target lists. **** 'em.

Consider adding cheese to your varied selection of whine.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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?

What you might guess is pretty much irrelevant. Took a few extra minutes to locate the Iowa statutes, but they are functionally the same. There is no specification that "property" applies as "real property" or structures or dwellings. As typical, the dollar value of the property reflects in the 'degree' of the crime, but arson is arson.

As a guess, this guy got the arson charge dropped in favor of the lesser 'reckless use of fire and explosives' in return for his plea on the 'threat' provision, which is a class D felony itself.

 

[Farm Boy]

Consider adding cheese to your varied selection of whine.

Subhuman, I think was the descriptor.

 

[El_Machinae]

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

People need to not let the narrative be controlled, it wasn't just a simple flag burning.

It was flag burning after an altercation that resulted in threats. It was the targeted removal of a symbol from people not involved, but associated in the mind of the offender. It was then the unsafe burning of that flag, with extra accidental arson (a patron's car), coupled with continued threats of future violence.

They gave the maximum sentence for arson, because there were a number of additional factors in that arson.

People object to likening it to getting a gun and then shooting the gun in order to prove how tough he was. Okay fine, liken it to getting hammer, and then smashing property while waving it around.

I don't know if you're more afraid of a man with a gun than with a can of lighter fluid, who then threatens to use it on you. I know it's more serious than a guy who goes and gets the hammer. But I don't know how much more serious. These things are subjective.

 

[Patine]

What you might guess is pretty much irrelevant. Took a few extra minutes to locate the Iowa statutes, but they are functionally the same. There is no specification that "property" applies as "real property" or structures or dwellings. As typical, the dollar value of the property reflects in the 'degree' of the crime, but arson is arson.

As a guess, this guy got the arson charge dropped in favor of the lesser 'reckless use of fire and explosives' in return for his plea on the 'threat' provision, which is a class D felony itself.

Please see my post above for a more important issues I've trying to make here for a while.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But part of this, that I'm the only one bringing up, is that the fact he was known for some time for this kind of behaviour, and had been labelled a "habitual offender," is that part of the blame rests on a failure of the "system" to allow things to come to this. A "system," that is accepting no responsibility for their over their obvious mismanagement helped this along, and no one is else is acknowledging this issue either - it's all otherwise a matter of lauding or approbium for them handing down a draconian sentence to a hate-filled, but unhinged, loose canon, who was allowed to be loose for too long.

What exactly do you think "the system" could have done with this "loose cannon" other than what they now have finally gotten around to doing? Are you in favor of giving police the authority to have every "hot head" they encounter involuntarily committed on a psych hold? Are you saying the loose cannon needed to be handed a draconian sentence for one of his previous, more petty, infractions?

 

[Patine]

What exactly do you think "the system" could have done with this "loose cannon" other than what they now have finally gotten around to doing? Are you in favor of giving police the authority to have every "hot head" they encounter involuntarily committed on a psych hold? Are you saying the loose cannon needed to be handed a draconian sentence for one of his previous, more petty, infractions?

No, but obviously your experience and knowledge in this matter is very limited. As a social worker for a living, I've also dealt with the "darker side" of the job that involves dealing with emerging loose canons like him without an outright "Minority Report" solution. There are protocols and such that can be, and are invoked, to nip these kinds of things in the bud, at least where I live. I don't know if they're prevalent in Iowa, but they should be - but such reforms are not likely to be seriously considered while the law-enforcement, social services, and judicial engines wash their hands of all true responsibility in the affair, and just take a self-righteous pride in bringing the hammer down, instead.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, but obviously your experience and knowledge in this matter is very limited. As a social worker for a living, I've also dealt with the "darker side" of the job that involves dealing with emerging loose canons like him without an outright "Minority Report" solution. There are protocols and such that can be, and are invoked, to nip these kinds of things in the bud, at least where I live. I don't know if they're prevalent in Iowa, but they should be - but such reforms are not likely to be seriously considered while the law-enforcement, social services, and judicial engines wash their hands of all true responsibility in the affair, and just take a self-righteous pride in bringing the hammer down, instead.

Oh, I have no doubt that as a social worker you are vastly more experienced with the judicial system than little ol' me. I'm sure that was obvious right from the gate, oh well informed one.

 

[Patine]

Oh, I have no doubt that as a social worker you are vastly more experienced with the judicial system than little ol' me. I'm sure that was obvious right from the gate, oh well informed one.

You haven't improved in your attitude, reasonability, tractability, credibility, or sufferability since the "dogpile," you and your toxic friends levied on me out of an attempt at sheer mudslinging and slander because I wouldn't agree fully and completely with every idea and point you had without dissent, concern, or question. I see I have made a mistake engaging you once again. Good-bye!

 

[Farm Boy]

a mistake

Spoiler remember where you are :

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Spoiler remember where you are :

You're welcome to leave too.

 

[Commodore]

There is nothing good, reasonable, or proportionate about this.

Sure there is when you consider how our legal system works. What you have to remember is that he wasn't given 15 years for burning the flag. He committed several crimes in the course of burning that flag, including willful destruction of property, criminal mischief, trespassing, and petty theft. When you couple the individual sentences for those crimes with the mandatory added time for being a repeat offenders and this being labeled as a hate crime as well as the judicial discretion exercised for this guy not showing remorse for his actions, and it becomes pretty easy (and reasonable) to see how the court arrived at the 15 year sentence.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

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

How quick you are to debase the conversation...

As well as to claim victimization...

 

[Patine]

How quick you are to debase the conversation...

As well as to claim victimization...

Oh, no! We all know only YOU can possibly be a victim, @Cloud_Strife! Everyone else must prioritize and pedestalize your suffering, grief, and injustices far above all others, even their very own, while you derisively and contemptuously dismiss any problems, concerns, injustices, or sufferings of anyone else as utterly inconsequential. I have never met a more arrogant, self-righteous, uncompromising, and demanding "victim" in all my life. And I mean you specifically here - not the entire LGBTQ community, by far - but YOU!

 

[Synobun]

Oh, no! We all know only YOU can possibly be a victim, @Cloud_Strife! Everyone else must prioritize and pedestalize your suffering, grief, and injustices far above all others, even their very own, while you derisively and contemptuously dismiss any problems, concerns, injustices, or sufferings of anyone else as utterly inconsequential. I have never met a more arrogant, self-righteous, uncompromising, and demanding "victim" in all my life. And I mean you specifically here - not the entire LGBTQ community, by far - but YOU!

Tell us more about the witch hunt that's out against you, Patine.

 

[Patine]

Tell us more about the witch hunt that's out against you, Patine.

You would know all it, given you were one of the instigators.

Tell us more about the witch hunt that's out against you, Patine.

But since you've proven NOTHING you say can be trusted or given any credence, I don't see why I should carry on with you. And I'd advise anyone of any integrity or honest or good intent not to deal with you either.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Oh, no! We all know only YOU can possibly be a victim, @Cloud_Strife! Everyone else must prioritize and pedestalize your suffering, grief, and injustices far above all others, even their very own, while you derisively and contemptuously dismiss any problems, concerns, injustices, or sufferings of anyone else as utterly inconsequential. I have never met a more arrogant, self-righteous, uncompromising, and demanding "victim" in all my life. And I mean you specifically here - not the entire LGBTQ community, by far - but YOU!

Are you okay? I don't recall talking to you