Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[catzmeow]

Flipping off a cop.

Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned. That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.

Burning crosses on someones lawn.

This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM. TRESPASSING. TERRORISTIC THREATS. And, potentially ARSON.

Are they actually teaching you the law in school?

 

[catzmeow]

maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....

cliff note version for you:

stop bragging about yourself so much

Don't kill the schadenfreudian buzz, dude.

 

[Nik]

ROFLMNAO...

No... Say it isn't so.. Nik is an officer of the court?

LOL... Sweet Mother...

Tell me Nik... in what discipline have you settled?

Clearly, you're no litigator... so... what? Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?

And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details. Try reading the thread, genius.

maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....

cliff note version for you:

stop bragging about yourself so much

I'm not quite sure how to stop "bragging" about myself, considering I'm not bringing it up. YOU and others like you talking about my qualifications isn't me bragging. But nice try there.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.



There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.

name one.

Flipping off a cop. Burning crosses on someones lawn.

I'll grant ya the Cop Flip... but cross burning on someones lawn necessarily includes multiple violations... , breeching the peace, treaspassing, property damage and of course it's an indisputable overt act designed to threaten someones personal safety...

Off the top of my head I'd say that the laws prohibiting drug use are symbolic...

And I am not advocating lifting those laws... as they serve the public interests...

I WOULD advocate lifting those laws, where it could be negotiated that all forms of public subsidy would be lifted, with regard to healthcare, subsistance for minor children and so on... Meaning that the drug addled individual would face the stark realities... should they abuse the substance... choose the wrong substance, the wrong dosage or the wrong dealer.

As a general rule, nature has a fantastic remedy for chronic drug abuse and that is STARVATION and all of the lovely effects of exposure... particularly in the winter.

With regards to the Children... where a drug abuser knows that their children are being cared for, even minimally, they can rationalize continued abuse of their DOC... Where they look over and see the boney shell of their once healthy child... THAT is some serious reality and such tends to bring the message right on HOME: GROW THE HELL UP AND TEND TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES!

But until then the symbol of the Drug laws serves as a poor, but otherwise viable alternative.

 

[Nik]

Flipping off a cop.

Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned. That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Burning crosses on someones lawn.

This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM. TRESPASSING. TERRORISTIC THREATS. And, potentially ARSON.

Are they actually teaching you the law in school?[/QUOTE]

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

 

[Nik]

maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....

cliff note version for you:

stop bragging about yourself so much

Don't kill the schadenfreudian buzz, dude.

Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate. I actually enjoy it.

ROFLMNAO...

No... Say it isn't so.. Nik is an officer of the court?

LOL... Sweet Mother...

Tell me Nik... in what discipline have you settled?

Clearly, you're no litigator... so... what? Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?

And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details. Try reading the thread, genius.

Didn't read the thread clue-less... I read the "I actually enjoy it."

Now when one considers that your declaration was in response to the discussion of the practice of Law as a means to eat... and you ended your declaration with the pronoun 'it'... referring to the aforementioned subject... the conclusion was fairly obvious...

But given that I had not read the thread... I phrased the point to impart the benefit of the doubt...

Of course, if you were MUCH of a Lawyer... you'd know that. Hell if you were much of a law student... you'd know that.

LOL... If you just were not an ignoramous... you'd know that.

As to the answer... the means by which you sustain your pathetic existance, presents no where NEAR the level of curiosity which would require I read through this thread ...

There's not much about the subject that is not already known and the opinions of those who are contributing to the thread, are no exception...

But I don't blame ya for this sudden reticence... I can't imagine that whatever it is you're doin' provides much to bark about; and given your score today... I'd say you could use the break; so as a humanitarian and all around great guy... I'll drop it.

 

[catzmeow]

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were. So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.

 

[catzmeow]

Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?

I'm enjoying watching you squirm.

 

[Ravi]

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were. So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.

Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?

 

[Nik]

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?

Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were. So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.

 

[Nik]

Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?

I'm enjoying watching you squirm.

Lmao. Yes, I am squirming so much. Your overwhelming brilliance has left me dazzled

 

[Nik]

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were. So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.

Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?

Super duper terrorist threats!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Flipping off a cop.

Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned. That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.

Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this. Not sure where it is now. Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.

Burning crosses on someones lawn.

This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM. TRESPASSING. TERRORISTIC THREATS. And, potentially ARSON.

Are they actually teaching you the law in school?

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?

LOL...

Well one might look to the whole history of Cross burning, where the cross burnee... was found shortly after the Cross Burning... in an exceptionally dead condition... Burned to a crisp... Hung, after a brutal ass beating which resulted in a broken neck... I am talking GOOD AND DEAD here...

While the history of burning newspapers in the front yard is littered with burnt grass... conspicous consumption of adult beverages, hot dogs and smors for the kids... and the obligatory instances where someone breaks out the guitar and never quiiite gets around to actually singing a whole song; ending in the inevitable declarations where someone is going to KICK SOMEONE ASS...

 

[catzmeow]

Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.

Proof?

Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.

For the record, threats are a criminal act. They are not symbolic.

 

[catzmeow]

Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?

A terroristic threat is a specific type of act:

Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition

A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.

The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:

TERRORISTIC THREAT

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation.

 

[DamnYankee]

Oy. I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible. This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that. I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question. You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.

and you are a lawyer?

a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you. i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.

I'm not assuming your not a lawyer. I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise. Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.

That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.

 

[Ravi]

hmmm...I wonder if that is true in all states.

It kind of makes acts of terrorism on a grand scale smaller if you can convict someone of terrorism for burning a cross on someone's lawn.

 

[Nik]

Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.

Proof?

Umm, what? Its a word. It means nothing until we attach value to it. Symbolic value, in fact. Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.

Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.

For the record, threats are a criminal act. They are not symbolic.[/QUOTE]

Oy. There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something. Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not. I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.

Man, you are really trying to dodge this.

 

[Nik]

Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?

A terroristic threat is a specific type of act:

Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition

A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.

The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:

TERRORISTIC THREAT

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation.

Moron. Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.