Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Sep 19 10:37:38 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Oppose BLM? Get charged with hate crime
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 06:37:28
California duo charged with hate crime for defacing Black Lives Matter mural

By Kenneth GargerJuly 7, 2020 | 8:01pm

A California duo was charged with a hate crime for defacing a newly painted Black Lives Matter mural outside of a courthouse, officials announced Tuesday.

Nichole Anderson, 42, was filmed using a roller to cover part of the yellow letters with black paint on Saturday as her cohort, 53-year-old David Nelson, stood guard near the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse in Martinez, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s said.

As Anderson painted within the lines, allowing the letters “B” and “L” to remain visible, Nelson told onlookers: “we’re sick of this narrative.”

“The narrative of police brutality, the narrative of oppression, the narrative of racism,” Nelson declared. “It’s a lie.”

“I said no one wants Black Lives Matter here!” he added. “That’s what I said. All Lives Matter, you punk.”

The temporary mural, which a Martinez resident received a permit for, was completed the same day the alleged vandals struck, authorities said.

“The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country,” Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton said in a statement.

“We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

Anderson and Nelson were charged with vandalism, violation of civil rights and possession of tools to commit vandalism of graffiti.

http://nyp...-crime-for-defacing-blm-mural/
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 07:24:05
What part about forcing pleabargains in your overworked criminal-justice system don't you understand?

Its like you only care when it targets something you might imagine doing.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 07:30:09
Jergul

Not interested in taking the troll bait.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 07:45:47
What troll-bait? I am accusing you of wilful ignorance and staged outrage.

"Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.[1][2] They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001."

More at:

http://en....argaining_in_the_United_States
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 08:03:19
Idiotic comparison as the issue here is charging fictional crimes.

There, I engaged you. Now stuff it.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jul 08 08:09:01
Well I agree that the plea bargaining BS is a bad jawn.

Was this private property? Still not a hate crime regardless.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 08:16:26
Habebe

It was a public road. The city had issued a permit for the sign, even though in doing so it opened itself up to massive 1st Amendment liability (if they allowed this sign then they're required to permit "All Lives Matter" signs for example as well).

Also painting over road signs is at the very least a stupid idea.

The permit for the sign shouldn't have been issued, and charging hate crime for vandalizing it is a blatant abuse of prosecutorial discretion. To say nothing of the fact that of all the acts of vandalism and destruction that have taken place around the country, this is virtually the only one that has resulted in criminal charges.

Leftist governments are selectively applying the law to further their own political causes.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 09:17:13
habebe
You argee that they are overcharging, right? Now what possible motive could a DA have for inflating the charges against someone?

You don't have to follow Ruggy in his stupid. You can have your very own kind.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 09:19:14
Ruggy
Speaking of overinflating. When you say government, you meant the DA, right?

It was a mural btw, not a sign.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:09:31
Jergu

-Your confusing overinflating with fabrication is not worth engaging.

-It was a sign. "Mural" implies art, which this was not (unless you think UP posts are works of art...?)

-DA is considered a component of government.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 10:13:17
Again, why overcharge if there is little expectation the charge will lead to a conviction.

Or...do you think it will lead to a conviction by a jury of their peers?

That 2nd option would prove the the charge was correct.

Chose your poison.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 10:16:40
The stylistic font strongly suggests mural. Its art.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:20:12
Jergul, It is true that they normally throw heavier charges and extra charges to bargain down from later.Hell I got charged with racketeering for less than 2 OZ of weed.

However, in the current climate who knows. It seems an odd choice to go for hate crime, but we will see.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:22:04
Equal justice under the law. They should have applied for a permit to do their own thing and it appears as though they didn't. If they had and were rejected the justice wouldn't be equal.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 10:23:26
habebe
Think it through.

What you are actually arguing is that the DA feels there is enough popular support of BLM that it can secure a conviction by a united jury if and when the case goes to trial.

Is that what you believe the DA thinks?

The other alternative is overcharging with *stuff* to ensure a plea-bargain.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:28:58
It would be difficult to say all lives matter is a hate crime when black lives are included in all lives. But what the hell! A crime seems to have been committed, but not one of hate.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 10:29:36
Overcharging on drug and violent crimes vs fabricating charges to suppress speech.

Can you please ban yourself from this thread?
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 10:37:18
TJ
Defacing the mural would seem to be the alleged civil rights infringement. Though the DA might argue that "All lives matters" is code for white supremacy in the same way the ok sign was coopted for that use.

Ruggy
Defacing the mural is not an expression of a protected right.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 10:42:47
Normally when you overcharge it does not include completely unrelated things, right? If you are caught with weed they may try to charge you with crimes other than possession, like distribution, but not assault.

Since this is a speech related crime, defacing of a public and sanctioned work of art, it does not seem like a "fabrication" outside the overcharge kind of fabrication.

These are two separate problems though, the plea bargain issue and the disagreement on whether hate speech should be a crime or not.

And also the written word can be art, otherwise poetry and literature are not art.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 10:44:27
There is a third issue that emerges in the intersection and that is, if this specific action was a hate crime. Just going by the legal definition and praxis, probably not.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 11:03:07
jergul:

Seem to be is a fabrication to defend a personal twist. A plea is specifically designed to eliminate the cost of trial and benefits all that are involved. Are you attempting to say all defacement of property is a civil rights infringement or just against BLM painted on the street?
Dakyron
Member
Wed Jul 08 11:19:43
Couple should have applied for their own permit for an All Lives Matter or whatever mural, and then sued when denied.

Would have been better for everyone.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 11:26:50
Exactly, now they are facing charges that are difficult to deny with the video against them. I suspect they would have relented to a reasonable plea without charging them with a hate crime.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 12:59:50
TJ
Ruggy is the one calling it a hate crime. The actual charge is violation of civil rights. It seems a stretch, hence my thinking its a DA ploy to get a plea-bargain.

Nimi
Its not completely unrelated. In the same ballpark as habebe's racketeering for a bit of pot.

Daky
"All lives matter" is getting pretty close to another one of supremist dog whistles if it is not one already.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 08 13:18:16
Jergul
I agree on that point.

I am not sure that "all lives matter" has become that. If it is being used as such then it must be judged in the context. There must be room for disagreement and we must be charitable towards the usage of catchy counter slogans.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 13:20:43
Under U.S. law, defacing public property with graffiti and other forms of "art is a misdemeanor. The DA isn't looking for a plea and totally determined on pursuing felony charges. He already had more than enough evidence to convict a misdemeanor charge.



Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 08 13:21:47
It was the objectively correct slogan to adopt, but the admittedly Marxist BLM founders have never taken a Sophomore-level marketing class.
sam adams
Member
Wed Jul 08 13:26:13
Going forward we are going to need conscious effort to hire predominantly white people, especially white men.

Affirmative action to fight the strong systemic racism being cultivated by the political left and their institutions of oppression.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 13:43:00
TJ
If the cost of the damage is greater than $400 dollars, the prosecution can charge the crime as either a misdemeanor or as a felony. With misdemeanor vandalism charges in this case, a person faces:

Up to one year in county jail.

A max fine of $10,000, unless the cost of the damages was higher than $10,000, in which case the max fine would be $50,000.

Informal probation.

If the cost of damages was over $400 dollars and the crime is being charged as a felony, then the person faces:

A jail sentence ranging from 16 months to 3 years.

A max fine of $10,000, unless the cost of the damages was higher than $10,000, in which case the max fine would be $50,000.

Informal probation

============

422.6.

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.

(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.

=======================

Having the tools is a 1 year misdemeanor. I guess that was tossed in for consequative reasons.

=========
=========

In California state law, the civil rights violation punishment is similar to that of felony vandalism. Destroying a protected expression of speech would qualify.

3 years + 3 years + 1 year = 7 years.

I stand with the pleabargain theory, and additionally find that the actions were probably fall under California's penal code on civil rights violations.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 14:11:47
Yes, you are assuming guilt of a civil rights violation.

Part of the restitution of a misdemeanor could easily be determined that they restore with a gallon or two of paint.

Plus a year in county jail along with a fine.

Think about what it would cost to restore? Maybe two gallons of painting between the lines. This incident has been sensationalized way beyond reason.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 14:21:42
Here is another stickler for you.

They didn't change the message. All of it remained clearly visible in black and yellow.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 08 15:12:22
Neither A or B applies here, and private speech on public property is not a hate crime.

Stop being a retard, jergul.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 08 15:12:36
defacing private...*
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 16:05:06
TJ
No, I am assuming that it is worth a trial if a pleabargain is not opted for.

What misdeneanor were you thinking of? The vandalism is a felony, at the DA's discression.

The two people are of course entirely free to roll the dice and take their chances with a jury.

Or they can accept pleabargain. The offer may not be too draconian, but will certainly involve a written admission of guilt along with a written statement of contrition.

You are of course completely correct in thinking your criminal-justice system is a bit odd.

Just ask the racketeer Habebe.

That it usually targets non-white, non-middleclass people does not lessen how outragous it is.

Perhaps this case will create a bit of awareness to go along with the outrage.

Forwyn
It obviously is a protected expression of free speech. At least according to the DA. Its not an outlandish intepretation.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 17:02:24
Quote from your posting on California law.

"If the cost of the damage is greater than $400 dollars, the prosecution can charge the crime as either a misdemeanor or as a felony."

The damage doesn't come near exceeding 400 bucks on what was and is a temporary mural, which it is according to the article. Greater is the key word in that quote.

Quote from article:

"The temporary mural, for which a Martinez resident received a permit, was completed the same day the alleged vandals struck, authorities said."

Sure the DA can threaten with trumped up charges.

We'll see how it finalizes. This is a waste of time for me.
kargen
Member
Wed Jul 08 17:31:27
They should face the same penalties any other first time offender would face. That is usually a few hours of public service cleaning up graffiti around the area or a small fine.

This isn't about getting a plea bargain. It is about trying to satiate a portion of the population that has of late shown a propensity towards violence and destruction of property.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jul 08 17:53:40
DA could have hit these guys with literal murder 1 and jergul would still merely call it "overcharging."

Theres a difference between throwing the book at someone for a crime they did commit, and leveling false charges against someone for a crime they're innocent of. Not even to mention that being opposed to BLM or denying the existence of systemic racism are both 100% protected acts of speech under the First Amendment.

Thanks a lot for hijacking this thread with your garbage, asshole.

PS how's your research into what right to work laws are going?


kargen
Member
Wed Jul 08 18:12:15
"In California state law, the civil rights violation punishment is similar to that of felony vandalism. Destroying a protected expression of speech would qualify."

Not a civil rights issue. Also not a freedom of speech issue as freedom of speech doesn't include a platform for that speech nor any timeline.

The city might not even be able to make a case on defacing property as it was already defaced. It is the permit that is the stickler. At best they might get failure to obtain a permit.

As an aside freedom of speech includes the rights of others to disagree with what you say. So if you somehow think painting on the street is freedom of speech then you have to allow that freedom to all. The person that originally painted it speaking out his support for BLM and the person that painted over the graffiti speaking out their objections to the BLM movement.
And as was pointed out above the city has opened itself up to all kinds of problems. The KKK can now ask for a permit and sue the city if they are not given the permit. You can't deny speech just because you disagree with it.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 08 18:27:25
Indeed, even vandalism is a tough charge to level, because the city created the precedent that paint on the road is just speech.

This is a civil violation, worthy of the same punishment as someone who builds a shed in their backyard without asking Papa Gubmint
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 19:00:17
TJ
It was art. It definitely would be evaluated at above 450 dollars. But that would ultimately be for the jury to decide.

The charges are as trumped (funny you should choose that word given your president) as those 1000nds of lower class citizens face every day.

We will see if the two dare roll the dice and face a jury, or if they will plea-bargain their way out of it like 80-90% of people do when in similar circumstances.

That your system is broken is beyond doubt. I am glad to see you actually care.

Ruggy
Its how your system works. I am glad to see your outrage. Now, why not generalize and be outraged every time someone is overcharged by slight of law?

Your freedom stops wher it begins to harm others. You may want to refresh your libertardianism.

People were definitely harmed by the distruction of the artwork. Was it a civil rights violation? Well, perhaps the two defendants will roll the dice to see.

We will see how it plays out. "All lives matter" is fast approaching supremist dogwhistling. It will probably get its day in court.

My perspective is hardly garbage. Your panties are in a bunch because this time the usual subjects are not the ones being subject to the travesty you call a justice system.

Oh, and overcharging will definitely play well with the minorities that generally expect that to happen.

Kargen
Well, the DA is claiming it is a civil rights issue and is charging two people. A trial will decide unless the two defenders fold and cut a deal.

Art does not deface by definition. You get that someone destroyed someone elses work of art, right?

You better read up on libertardianism too. You seem rusty.

Forwyn
Artwork are covered by free speech. Its why its often called freedom of expression.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 19:02:16
You get it, right? Your justice system is broken. As demographics change, the broken system will also begin to target people just like you, instead of "the others".

A wakeup call perhaps to do something about it.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jul 08 19:24:02
It's paint on a road with a permit vs paint on a road without a permit.

Civil violation. Prosecutorial discretion gone awry.
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 19:48:49
Yeah, let me know how much the city pays the artists when it is eventually removed from the street.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 20:12:26
Well, we will see what the plea/trial finally lands on.

Banksys thinks you are wrong on your evaluation btw. He says hi.
jergul
large member
Wed Jul 08 20:12:57
Banksy*
TJ
Member
Wed Jul 08 22:20:56
Associating an anonymous and illegal street artist with BLM who had a legal temporary permit to paint Black lives matter in large block letters on the street should be considered an insult to their cause.

kargen
Member
Wed Jul 08 23:43:51
"Art does not deface by definition."

Art has no solid definition as it is objective. And art can absolutely deface. In fact several artists have been found guilty of defacing all kinds of things.

Exactly what the fuck am I rusty on? I said the government over reached their authority and have opened up a whole mess by offering permits to paint signs in the street.

And we all know why the DA is charging as they are. They are placating the mob hoping the mob doesn't turn on them. Simple as that.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 09 01:07:10
TJ
I am pretty sure Banksy is legit.

Kargen
I am pretty sure the permit is for the artistic mural "Black Lives Matter". The county will certainly consider future permits for other artwork.

If you are saying the DA is charging in a way that fits what the county demographic's expectation of how DA's charge crimes, then sure.

A hispanic heavy county, it knows all about DA pleabargain tactics.

Heavily democrat. It hardly needs saying.
kargen
Member
Thu Jul 09 02:07:16
The "artwork" was three stenciled letters. The KKK could easily claim their three letters are artwork and ask for a permit. The county would have to allow it or face discrimination charges that could cost the county a good deal of cash.

Shouldn't surprise anyone but Soros donated $275,000 to her campaign. Should also come as no surprise that before the election she was appointed to the position despite plagiarizing several times on her application and having no prosecutorial experience.

She isn't there to uphold the law. She is there to promote an agenda.

"If you are saying the DA is charging in a way that fits what the county demographic's expectation of how DA's charge crimes, then sure."

That is not what I am saying and even if that were the case the counties expectations should in no way be a part of the decision. We have laws that are in place specifically because "mob rules" is a horrible way to do things.

This wasn't for plea bargain. This is a political statement with no concern about what the law is.
jergul
large member
Thu Jul 09 02:14:24
Kargen
Art is in the eye of the beholder.

The KKK sure could and the county could issue a permit if it wanted to.

I would personally love the KKK to take the county to court on charges of discrimination. So lulzy. It would fail of course. Those are not the sign of the times.

So you finally checked out the DA. Well, if you feel the DA is overcharging without merit, then you should definately advise the two defenders to roll their dice with a jury.

Upholding public expectations of justice is one of the tenants that our justice system rests on.

If its not for a plea-bargain, then I am sure the DA will not offer one.

The law is always interperative. Up to the court and jury to decide the merits of the charges.
TJ
Member
Thu Jul 09 07:50:06
jergul:

Since you chose to distract from what I posted and the meaning you know I was making this dude is also legit.

http://www...8nha66/sold-at-auction-prices/

Yes he is a legit satirical activist artist who became well known by doing graffiti in public places illegally. Lets play mind games.
sam adams
Member
Thu Jul 09 08:40:39
http://www...e-crosswalk-in-west-vancouver/

The leftist howling mob has state apparatchiks searching for a car that drove over a rainbow crosswalk in an unapproved manner.
sam adams
Member
Thu Jul 09 08:41:40
WEST VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) — A Pride crosswalk in West Vancouver was defaced with tire marks Tuesday, a week after being unveiled.

Around 4 p.m. Tuesday, staff inside the West Vancouver Police station heard a loud and sustained squealing sound.

West Vancouver Police has obtained a video of a black car that is suspected of leaving the tire marks across a portion of the Pride crosswalk at the intersection of 16th Street and Esquimalt Avenue.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Jul 09 09:26:58
They like getting poop on their dicks but can't handle tire tracks on roadways?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jul 09 09:53:06
"And we all know why the DA is charging as they are."

Yes, we know exactly why.

“We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention,” stated Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton in a press release.
sam adams
Member
Thu Jul 09 12:03:24
Destroying the lives of random white people to further their own careers?

These DAs need to not only be disbarred, they should probably go to jail themselves.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 09 12:18:51
The mural Episode 2, BLM strikes back.

http://www.../nyregion/blm-trump-tower.html

N.Y.C. Paints ‘Black Lives Matter’ in Front of Trump Tower

The public art project was the latest battle in a feud between President Trump and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

***
kargen
Member
Thu Jul 09 14:29:34
"The KKK sure could and the county could issue a permit if it wanted to."

No, it would have to. Otherwise the county is open to litigation and they would lose. That is why cities still allow the KKK to hold rallies. They apply for the permit and if denied it goes to court where they win based on the right to assemble. The county according to you made this a free speech issue. Same thing applies. Can't grant for one without granting to the other. Checking which way the wind blows isn't a criteria.

"Upholding public expectations of justice is one of the tenants that our justice system rests on."

Maybe where you are but in the US there are laws in place that are to be followed. They don't change because a mob decides they should. Public expectations is a stupid way to conduct court.

"A hispanic heavy county, it knows all about DA pleabargain tactics."

How very racist of you to assign global attitudes to people based solely on race.

And yeah it's always a good idea to spend city money to deface public property while asking the federal government for seven billion dollars. Blasio is a fucking joke.
Rugian
Member
Thu Jul 09 15:17:44
Kargen

"How very racist of you to assign global attitudes to people based solely on race"

That's not the first time he did it either:

"Jergul
Oh, and overcharging will definitely play well with the minorities that generally expect that to happen."

Yikes. If someone on the right engaged so blatantly in stereotypes of minorities and crime, they'd be run out of town within a day.

Hate to break the news to you jergul, but not every Hispanic or black person has the same experience living in America. In fact, the vast majority of them have no insight on DA charging habits because they're law-abiding citizens who never end up in that situation in the first place.

For someone who's hyper-critical of race relations in the US, you seem to have a an inherent sense of bigotry yourself. I guess that's what happens when you're living in Europe and your only experience with Latinos is via watching them on TV.




jergul
large member
Fri Jul 10 07:25:27
Kargen
Well, we shall see. Lots of places have given permits for "BLM" murals.

Allowing one artistic expressions does not mean the city needs to allow all artistic expressions would be my opinion. Your juries may think otherwise.

There are several reasons for why we punish crimes at all. One of the reasons is because the public expects crimes to be punished.

In the particular jurisdiction, there is an expectation that this type of vandalism and, arguably, civil rights violation be punished to the full extent of the law. The expectation does not have to have to be universal to exist.

Ruggy
Pretty much every black and hispanic knows they have to be very careful in any meetings with your criminal justice system.

You are arguing against yourself btw. If the DA is charging with the expectation that a jury will uphold the charges in a court of law, then you are wrong.

If the DA is charging with the expectation of a better plea bargain outcome, then you are also wrong.

So you are wrong any way you slice it.
TJ
Member
Fri Jul 10 10:27:54
jergul:

What plea do you suspect the DA is attempting to get in this case?

She is only overcharging because of the current emotional and political environment and she isn't doing it for a plea bargain when she has more than enough evidence to convict for the actual crime they've committed. No, no, and no, she isn't looking for a plea. She is doing it because she believes she can make it stick.

It is the energy of the time and not about the actual crime.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jul 10 12:29:13
The DA isn't just catering to the crowd. She had made it clear she wholeheartedly supports BLM as a political and social movement.

She's emotionally involved in this civil violation.
kargen
Member
Fri Jul 10 15:09:46
"Allowing one artistic expressions does not mean the city needs to allow all artistic expressions would be my opinion."
So you are opposed to freedom of speech. You do know some cities and towns in the US have decided not to display nativity scenes on public property because other groups sued for the right to display their own scenes? Same thing would apply here as it is a constitutional right to free speech.

And I'm still not buying that three stenciled letters in a street are artistic in any way shape of form. Not even bad art.

"The expectation does not have to have to be universal to exist."

Again expectation of the public should never be considered when deciding a legal matter such as this. The desires of the public go into the creating of the law through the appropriate means not the enforcement of that law after it becomes law. Mob rules is not a good foundation for law.

And you should apologize for your earlier racist comments. Actually you shouldn't unless you are truly remorseful and willing to change your way of thinking.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 13 10:39:43
Kargen
Too bad you do not work for that county's permit office then. I am sure it would have appreciated your artistic input.

The public expectation is that the people be charge and that they be charged to the fullest possible extent of the law.

Its the new normal. You are all blacks now.

Pretending your criminal-justice system treats all ethnic groups was lulzy btw. Good one!
kargen
Member
Mon Jul 13 19:42:19
"Too bad you do not work for that county's permit office then. I am sure it would have appreciated your artistic input."

Really, that is all you have?

"The public expectation is..."

Once more because you are being a dolt. Public expectation shouldn't play into things when the court (including DA) makes these decisions. Hell if public expectations mattered OJ Simpson would have died in the electric chair. Even many black people thought he did it.

And I see you are sticking by your racist comments. Good for you. Not many have that kind of conviction and would have offered up a false apology.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 13 20:02:49
Kargen
Your opinion on what is and is not a mural is irrelevant.

Public expectation falls under the retributive part of why we punish crimes at all. The others are deterence, incampacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution.

Trivialising the racial aspects of police brutality is the actual racist position. Just a heads up so you don't fuck up next time you leave the house.

You don't want to be that crazy older relative that says stupid and inappropriate shit.
jergul
large member
Mon Jul 13 20:04:33
I am incidentally not sure a jury would convict on the charges in the OP. The defendants can definitely roll the dice if they want to.

It worked out for OJ after all. At least until the civic suite took him for every dime he had.
Habebe
Member
Mon Jul 13 20:08:23
Jergul, You know OJ gets a bad rap, he should have been found not guilty in criminal Court.

And likely should have beem found guilty in civil since all you need is a preponderance of the evidence ( a much lower bar than criminal Court)

But yeah he did that shit. I thought it was really funny that he randomly came out.to say tje tiger king lady killed her husband.
kargen
Member
Tue Jul 14 19:26:52
"Trivialising the racial aspects of police brutality is the actual racist position."

Good thing I didn't do that.

"Public expectation falls under the retributive part of why we punish crimes at all"

No public expectation is why we create laws. After that the laws are to be enforced as envisioned and expectation of the public no longer applies.

No reason I have to be the older relative to say inappropriate shit. Inappropriate doesn't equate to racist nor even hateful.

And I will admit our civil courts are all kinds of fucked up.

And deflecting doesn't change that you made racist comments and are standing by them by your refusal to sincerely apologize for them.

Two of three definitions agree with me that stenciled letters on a street are not murals. THe third you really gotta stretch for it to apply. Whether it is a mural or not really doesn't matter for this conversation though. If you deface a mural it isn't a hate crime.
jergul
large member
Tue Jul 14 19:36:54
Kargen
Why you did trivialize racial bias. I am not the racist here. You are.

Laws are to be enforced as written, interpreted, and understood by judge and jury.

Yepp, your system is all kinds of fucked up, but is now targetting people just like you. Which is actually an improvement.

Equal under the law is a pretty important principle.

Defacing a mural is arguable a hate crime under the relevant jurisdiction. The defendants are free to test this in a court of law.

If they dare.
kargen
Member
Tue Jul 14 20:00:12
Why you did trivialize racial bias."

When?

"Laws are to be enforced as written, interpreted, and understood by judge and jury."

Yep. You see what is missing from your statement? Public opinion.

"Equal under the law is a pretty important principle."
Then why is this a hate crime when other cases of graffiti are not? And why do you continue to argue against equal under the law?

"Defacing a mural is arguable a hate crime under the relevant jurisdiction."

In this particular case, bullshit. It is just defacing public property. Now if they were spray painting "let's kill all the right handed people" on other peoples graffiti you might maybe have a case. THe content of what they are painting over would have little if anything to do with that decision though.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share