Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anti-Military Lawyer Damages Marine's Car on Eve of Deployment
Posted By Blackfive
This ought to make your blood boil. And this Marine should receive a commendation for not kicking the living crap out of the guy...seriously.
Marine Sgt Mike McNulty is on activation orders to Iraq (second tour). On December 1st, 2007, Mike went to visit a friend in Chicago before deploying to say goodbye. In order to get to his friend's residence, and keep in mind that Chicago is a myriad of diagonal and one-way streets, the front entrance (right way) to the one-way street was blocked. Mike, being a Marine, overcame and adapted by driving around the block to the other end of the street and backing up all the way to his friend's place.
While saying goodbye, at about 11am, he noticed a man leaning up against his car. Mike left his friend's apartment and caught the man keying his car on multiple sides.
...
The police report (and I have copies if needed) states:
Victim related to P/O that as he walked back to his vehicle, he observed the offender leaning up against his vehicle and rubbed/dragged his left arm and hand across the passenger side. As offender walked away from victim's vehicle, victim observed a scratch along the rear trunk and passenger's door area where offender dragged his arm and hand over. Victim and witness stopped offender and confronted him. Victim has military plates and decals on his vehicle and offender made anti war and military comments to victim. Upon P/O's arrival to scene, offender denied scratch victim's vehicle, but did admit to rubbing past it. Victim at this time did not sign complaint, because he is leaving tour for military duty. Offender said they accused him of scratching the car because he is Jewish. Offender's statements/responses to P/O's questions unreasonable.
As it turns out, the man is Chicago lawyer Jay R. Grodner, who owns a law firm in the city and has offices in the suburbs.
After sending the car to the body shop, it was determined there is $2400 in damage, making this a felony. Mike went to court Friday morning to collect the damages against Mr. Grodner and file felony charges. Though the damages are over $300 (the amount which determines felony or misdemeanor) Grodner offered Mike to pay his deductible, $100, and have Mike's insurance pay for it.
The Illinois States Attorneys tried to coerce Mike into accepting the offer. Appalled, Mike said he wanted this to be a felony. The state told Mike that it was not worth pursuing felony damage against Grodner because they don't have the time. In addition, the state prosecutors told him that he would never it 'would be difficult to recover the damages' from Grodner because he is a lawyer.
Instead, the State asked Mike if he would accept probation for Grodner. Mike accepted, probation was offered to Grodner, and Grodner declined the offer, saying within ear shot of Mike, "I'm not going to make it easy on this kid". Mike's next court date is tomorrow, Monday, December 31st, to pursue misdemeanor charges against Grodner.
Mike's leave is over on January 2nd when he reports to Camp Pendleton before heading to Iraq.
Jay Grodner knows this and is going to file for a continuance until Mike is gone and cannot appear in court.
By account of the Illinois State's Attorneys, Grodner is likely to get away with defacing Mike's car with no penalty because, 1) Mike is about to deploy to Iraq and will not be available to appear in court, and 2) Grodner is a lawyer and can get out of this very easily.
So, does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed? All peaceful and rational ideas are welcomed. We are contacting the media about this, too.
File a hate crime charge against the lawyer.
Hate crime charge? Maybe you could do it. I think hate crime laws are bad law for the most part. I agree. But, one must use the tools available.
For hate crime in Illinois the victim has to be targeted because of one of the following:
"actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin"
What fits in this case? Creed? Seems like a stretch. Perhaps. But, obviously the Marine was targeted. By defiinition his creed would be far different than the antiwar nutjob.
It's not a hate crime because to be a hate crime, the victim has to be a member of a suspect class...
the guy deserves some jail time, though. they should preserve the marine's testimony on video tape or let him testify by telephone from whereever he's deployed.
But I don't believe for a second that the DA's office said it would be difficult to collect a judgment from the guy "because he's a lawyer". You grab his bank account after getting a judgment against him. But that would be after a civil suit or an order for restitution. Guy's actual damages are, arguably, $100 though, which is why the D.A. can't be bothered. Never underestimate the machinations of such in Chicago.
It's not a hate crime because to be a hate crime, the victim has to be a member of a suspect class...
That isn't necessarily the case. The hate crime law in Illinois covers things like color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and mental and physical disabilities. Those are not suspect classifications. Gender is a quasi-suspect classification I think, I'm not sure the others even amount to that. The coverage of hate crime laws are defined by individual state legislatures. I think of suspect classifications more in terms of Constitutional protections.
But I still think hate crime laws are bad laws.
It is to the extent that race, gender and sexual orientation form the basis of hate crimes, which is what I meant. And, yes, the term itself has to do with constitutional protections insofar as if legislation impacts on a suspect class or a fundamental right, it will be subjected to greater scrutiny. If not, it will be upheld if the legislation is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
Just so you know, I have no problem with hate crime laws. I'm wondering why you do.
I do too, have a problem with hate crime laws I mean. There is no reason for the special connotation, from my understanding the judge can add time for special circumstances, if the sentence is not long enough.
Perhaps the military should be a 'protected class'? Just a thought.
Needless to say, if said lawyer was found guilty, the only motive was the military license, that was a vanity plate. Seems to be a violation of the service member's freedom of speech. I know that if I went around keying cars that had a countdown til GW was out of office or some other bumper sticker I disagreed with, I would expect I was going to pay damages and probably more.
Why should the victim's insurance company pick up the tab for vandalism? The $100 was the deductible, the damages were estimated at $2400. Seems though that the statute of limitations has exceptions for those serving in the military. I'm not going to be surprised to find this on talk radio this morning and in the papers tomorrow, (meaning New Year's).
There's no reason for the military to be a protected class. They aren't targeted by hate crimes. This seems to be an aberration.
The victim's insurance company ALREADY picked up the tab. As for statutes of limitations as regards military personnel, the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 says tht military people can't be sued while on active duty. But this isn't a civil suit, so I'm not sure what application, if any, the statute has with respect to a witness in a criminal action. I still think that they can video his testimony if need be.
There's no reason for the military to be a protected class. They aren't targeted by hate crimes.
But this isn't such an aberration. From Vietnam forward, military personnel have been the victims of assaults (spitting and threats), violent acts, screaming protestors at colleges, pushing, shoving, etc. There are some pretty outrageous acts captured on film for the movie "PC U" by "anarchists" against the Army. And there are restrictions against discriminating against military personnel by employers.
But their absence from the protected class category reveals the ridiculousness of "hate crimes." They are for the most part set up to favor minorities and hurt whites. There's barely a fig leaf of pretension that they're there to protect everyone or even a broad spectrum of people.
Here, it looks like the lawyer tried to whip it back against the soldier by accusing HIM of a hate crime, i.e., that he was accosted because he was Jewish. This lawyer knows full well the power of that accusation and that the soldier could be subject to a court martial.
Disenfranchised too.But this isn't such an aberration. From Vietnam forward, military personnel have been the victims of assaults (spitting and threats), violent acts, screaming protestors at colleges, pushing, shoving, etc. There are some pretty outrageous acts captured on film for the movie "PC U" by "anarchists" against the Army. And there are restrictions against discriminating against military personnel by employers.
But their absence from the protected class category reveals the ridiculousness of "hate crimes." They are for the most part set up to favor minorities and hurt whites. There's barely a fig leaf of pretension that they're there to protect everyone or even a broad spectrum of people.
Here, it looks like the lawyer tried to whip it back against the soldier by accusing HIM of a hate crime, i.e., that he was accosted because he was Jewish. This lawyer knows full well the power of that accusation and that the soldier could be subject to a court martial.
I dislike hate crime legislation because I dislike criminalizing thought, which is essentially what happens with a hate crime. We're going to increase the penalty because you hated the race of the person you assaulted, or what have you. Being a racist is not a crime, nor should it be no matter how abhorrent I find the philosophy. If someone is assaulted, the fact that the criminal is a racist doesn't increase the culpability of that person. The assault is the crime and the punishment should be based on that.
Also, I think hate crimes perpetuate the idea of differences among groups rather than bringing people together. How do you tell people they're all equal, but then say by the way if you're black or gay and someone assaults you for that reason, it is somehow worse than if they just assaulted you randomly.
I don't care for it.
