Now it's a FELONY to write KKK on a window ledge!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

In Illinois? Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Probably... if they were screaming KKK to people who had reason to see that as a threat.

Why do you insist on making this about threats?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

First, it is not an enhancement. This can easily be proven by the fact that I have repeatedly charged you to demonstrate that it is an enhancement under Illinois law and you have not done so.

Edit:

I actually found proof I am right about the law not enhancing anything.

First, Nitz claims that the hate crime statute is unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringes on his free speech rights. We do not agree. Initially, we note that a statute is presumptively valid and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. People v. Warren, No. 79680, slip. op. at 3 (Sept. 26, 1996). Whenever reasonably possible, we will construe a statute so as to sustain its constitutionality. Warren, slip. op. at 3. Our analysis is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436, 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993). The Wisconsin statute examined in Mitchell is a penalty-enhancement statute which increases the penalty for various crimes based on the selection of a victim who is a member of a protected class. The Illinois hate crime statute is not technically a penalty-enhancement statute. Instead, section 12-7.1 creates a crime within itself. However, this does not diminish the applicability of the Supreme Court's analysis in Mitchell to the question of whether or not our statute unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. See In re Vladimir P., No. 1-95-2141, slip op. at 7-8 (Sept. 20, 1996).

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txt

Why don't you admit that I just might know a bit more about the law than you do? Who knows, you might learn something.

Second, the law clearly prohibits speech if it is considered harassing or offensive to a vast range of people.

...or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively,

Go ahead, tell me I am wrong again, and then quote the law that actually proves me right to back yourself up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

"What if the guy wasn't drunk while driving...would it still be considered a DUI?"

You want me to show you a list of black folks that got arrested for DUI when they were stone cold sober?

 

[tjvh]

I doubt screaming KKK randomly would be considered a hate crime. Something else would have to show an intent to intimidate. Though in Florida I believe if you scream KKK at someone you could legally be shot.

How cool is that?

No I think you have to add assault into the mix before you can be legally shot in Florida.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

Disturbing the peace can be a crime. By for a hate crime enhancement to be added, the statute must specifically state it can be added to that crime.

What is wrong with people that are defending this law? Do they not know how to read? In Illinois hate crime is not an enhancement, it is a crime in and of itself. Since no one seems to be able to comprehend my simple English I will prove my point by using legal mumbo jumbo.

First, Nitz claims that the hate crime statute is unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringes on his free speech rights. We do not agree. Initially, we note that a statute is presumptively valid and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. People v. Warren, No. 79680, slip. op. at 3 (Sept. 26, 1996). Whenever reasonably possible, we will construe a statute so as to sustain its constitutionality. Warren, slip. op. at 3. Our analysis is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436, 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993). The Wisconsin statute examined in Mitchell is a penalty-enhancement statute which increases the penalty for various crimes based on the selection of a victim who is a member of a protected class. The Illinois hate crime statute is not technically a penalty-enhancement statute. Instead, section 12-7.1 creates a crime within itself. However, this does not diminish the applicability of the Supreme Court's analysis in Mitchell to the question of whether or not our statute unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. See In re Vladimir P., No. 1-95-2141, slip op. at 7-8 (Sept. 20, 1996).

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txt

Now you have it straight from the Illinois State Supreme Court, stop calling it an enhancement and start referring to it as a law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"

Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?

Yes.

A disturbing the peace citation would be used to carry the thought crime and he would still be convicted of felony hate crimes.

I don't see disturbing the peace listed here:

A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or disorderly conduct as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, and 26-1 of this Code, respectively, or harassment by telephone as defined in Section 1-1 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act, or harassment through electronic communications as defined in clauses (a)(2) and (a)(4) of Section 1-2 of the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.

Look up disorderly conduct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I doubt screaming KKK randomly would be considered a hate crime. Something else would have to show an intent to intimidate. Though in Florida I believe if you scream KKK at someone you could legally be shot.

How cool is that?

lol!

Some of the folks on this board honestly think the Bill of Rights was passed to protect the rights of criminals.

It wasn't, but if criminals don't have rights neither do you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting. Im usually against charging someone for a "hate" crime but in this case, that really is the crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And, don't look to me for sympathy for this idiot jerk. Maybe other racist idiots will think about this the next time they want to set fire to a cross on someone's from lawn.

GAWD. How naive I was to think we had gotten past this kind of shit.

"crackers" was spot on.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Interesting. Im usually against charging someone for a "hate" crime but in this case, that really is the crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And, don't look to me for sympathy for this idiot jerk. Maybe other racist idiots will think about this the next time they want to set fire to a cross on someone's from lawn.

GAWD. How naive I was to think we had gotten past this kind of shit.

"crackers" was spot on.

That confirmation bias seems to fit you nicely, Dudley...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why wasn't Arizona's judgement better than yours about what is good for their state?

It isn't.


Its not a states' rights argument.
Not when that individual has committed a crime. Your understanding of how our system works is seriously flawed.

What we are discussing here is not state's rights, or my belief about what is good for Illinois. I care about people, not government.

The People of Illinois ARE people.

I never said it was a state's powers issue, you did, I was just pointing out that you arguing in favor of it in one instance and against it in another makes you look stupid.

I made no such argument, you're simply a liar.

My argument is that the law is flat out wrong, and that no government anywhere on the planet should be making laws that are wrong.

And? So what? Would you like the People of Illinois to apologize to you for not following your rules? You'll have to forgive them for only considering the U.S. Constitution, their own Constitution, and the collective will of their People expressed through their Legislature. I guess they should have given you a call to get your take on it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually, no.

It's not a crime to yell anything. So the enhancement wouldn't have a crime to attach itself to.

Could it still be enough to get him kicked out of school? Maybe.

Disturbing the peace can be a crime. By for a hate crime enhancement to be added, the statute must specifically state it can be added to that crime.

What is wrong with people that are defending this law? Do they not know how to read? In Illinois hate crime is not an enhancement, it is a crime in and of itself. Since no one seems to be able to comprehend my simple English I will prove my point by using legal mumbo jumbo.

First, Nitz claims that the hate crime statute is unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringes on his free speech rights. We do not agree. Initially, we note that a statute is presumptively valid and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. People v. Warren, No. 79680, slip. op. at 3 (Sept. 26, 1996). Whenever reasonably possible, we will construe a statute so as to sustain its constitutionality. Warren, slip. op. at 3. Our analysis is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436, 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993). The Wisconsin statute examined in Mitchell is a penalty-enhancement statute which increases the penalty for various crimes based on the selection of a victim who is a member of a protected class. The Illinois hate crime statute is not technically a penalty-enhancement statute. Instead, section 12-7.1 creates a crime within itself. However, this does not diminish the applicability of the Supreme Court's analysis in Mitchell to the question of whether or not our statute unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. See In re Vladimir P., No. 1-95-2141, slip op. at 7-8 (Sept. 20, 1996).

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txt

Now you have it straight from the Illinois State Supreme Court, stop calling it an enhancement and start referring to it as a law.

One of the elements of a hate crime in Illinois is that another crime be committed. You yourself have quoted the statute that lists these crimes. Did you read your own quote?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I doubt screaming KKK randomly would be considered a hate crime. Something else would have to show an intent to intimidate. Though in Florida I believe if you scream KKK at someone you could legally be shot.

How cool is that?

lol!

Some of the folks on this board honestly think the Bill of Rights was passed to protect the rights of criminals.

It wasn't, but if criminals don't have rights neither do you.

Criminals have had their rights abridged by due process of law. You surrender some rights when you are committing a felonious act. By your absurd logic, you can't charge an armed robber with murder of a police officer if he only started shooting at the police in self defense - wrong, sorry, as soon as you pull a gun during the commission of a felony you no longer have the right to defend yourself - and as soon as you destroy other's property in the making of speech you surrender the right to have that particular speech protected.





You're a fucking moron, BTW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't.


Its not a states' rights argument.
Not when that individual has committed a crime. Your understanding of how our system works is seriously flawed.
The People of Illinois ARE people.

I never said it was a state's powers issue, you did, I was just pointing out that you arguing in favor of it in one instance and against it in another makes you look stupid.

I made no such argument, you're simply a liar.

My argument is that the law is flat out wrong, and that no government anywhere on the planet should be making laws that are wrong.

And? So what? Would you like the People of Illinois to apologize to you for not following your rules? You'll have to forgive them for only considering the U.S. Constitution, their own Constitution, and the collective will of their People expressed through their Legislature. I guess they should have given you a call to get your take on it.

Isn't your challenge to me in this post based on the precept that people have the power to come together to oppress people they don't like?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Disturbing the peace can be a crime. By for a hate crime enhancement to be added, the statute must specifically state it can be added to that crime.

What is wrong with people that are defending this law? Do they not know how to read? In Illinois hate crime is not an enhancement, it is a crime in and of itself. Since no one seems to be able to comprehend my simple English I will prove my point by using legal mumbo jumbo.

First, Nitz claims that the hate crime statute is unconstitutional because it impermissibly infringes on his free speech rights. We do not agree. Initially, we note that a statute is presumptively valid and a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. People v. Warren, No. 79680, slip. op. at 3 (Sept. 26, 1996). Whenever reasonably possible, we will construe a statute so as to sustain its constitutionality. Warren, slip. op. at 3. Our analysis is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436, 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993). The Wisconsin statute examined in Mitchell is a penalty-enhancement statute which increases the penalty for various crimes based on the selection of a victim who is a member of a protected class. The Illinois hate crime statute is not technically a penalty-enhancement statute. Instead, section 12-7.1 creates a crime within itself. However, this does not diminish the applicability of the Supreme Court's analysis in Mitchell to the question of whether or not our statute unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech. See In re Vladimir P., No. 1-95-2141, slip op. at 7-8 (Sept. 20, 1996).

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txt

Now you have it straight from the Illinois State Supreme Court, stop calling it an enhancement and start referring to it as a law.

One of the elements of a hate crime in Illinois is that another crime be committed. You yourself have quoted the statute that lists these crimes. Did you read your own quote?

Did you not read the Illinois Supreme Court decision I posted? Did you miss the part in I highlighted with bold underlined and italic text and in blue that directly contradicts what you just said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol!

Some of the folks on this board honestly think the Bill of Rights was passed to protect the rights of criminals.

It wasn't, but if criminals don't have rights neither do you.

Criminals have had their rights abridged by due process of law. You surrender some rights when you are committing a felonious act. By your absurd logic, you can't charge an armed robber with murder of a police officer if he only started shooting at the police in self defense - wrong, sorry, as soon as you pull a gun during the commission of a felony you no longer have the right to defend yourself - and as soon as you destroy other's property in the making of speech you surrender the right to have that particular speech protected.





You're a fucking moron, BTW.

I suggest you go tell a defense attorney, or even Obama the constitutional lecturer, that you surrender your rights when you commit a felonious act. Expect to be sat down for a long lecture about how the law really works when you do, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Interesting. Im usually against charging someone for a "hate" crime but in this case, that really is the crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And, don't look to me for sympathy for this idiot jerk. Maybe other racist idiots will think about this the next time they want to set fire to a cross on someone's from lawn.

GAWD. How naive I was to think we had gotten past this kind of shit.

"crackers" was spot on.

According to QW setting fire to a cross on someone's lawn is protected speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting. Im usually against charging someone for a "hate" crime but in this case, that really is the crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And, don't look to me for sympathy for this idiot jerk. Maybe other racist idiots will think about this the next time they want to set fire to a cross on someone's from lawn.

GAWD. How naive I was to think we had gotten past this kind of shit.

"crackers" was spot on.

According to QW setting fire to a cross on someone's lawn is protected speech.

Yep that is exactly what I said.

Q. What do you call someone who has to pretend the other person is saying something else in order to win an argument?

A. A Democrat.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I never said it was a state's powers issue, you did, I was just pointing out that you arguing in favor of it in one instance and against it in another makes you look stupid.

I made no such argument, you're simply a liar.

My argument is that the law is flat out wrong, and that no government anywhere on the planet should be making laws that are wrong.

And? So what? Would you like the People of Illinois to apologize to you for not following your rules? You'll have to forgive them for only considering the U.S. Constitution, their own Constitution, and the collective will of their People expressed through their Legislature. I guess they should have given you a call to get your take on it.

Isn't your challenge to me in this post based on the precept that people have the power to come together to oppress people they don't like?

Nope.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What is wrong with people that are defending this law? Do they not know how to read? In Illinois hate crime is not an enhancement, it is a crime in and of itself. Since no one seems to be able to comprehend my simple English I will prove my point by using legal mumbo jumbo.

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txt

Now you have it straight from the Illinois State Supreme Court, stop calling it an enhancement and start referring to it as a law.

One of the elements of a hate crime in Illinois is that another crime be committed. You yourself have quoted the statute that lists these crimes. Did you read your own quote?

Did you not read the Illinois Supreme Court decision I posted? Did you miss the part in I highlighted with bold underlined and italic text and in blue that directly contradicts what you just said?

And? Does it somehow fundamentally change anyone's argument that the law isn't "technically" an enhancement?