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

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Why don't you start the lecture off, for us? Maybe you can explain by what Constitutional basis an armed robber has the right to shoot a policeman dead so long as he was protecting his own life?

Oh - but wait, what the law and defense attorneys or anyone has to say doesn't really matter - its all about what you feew is right or wrong, isn't it?

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, you just have to reasonably feel threatened.

If someone started yelling KKK at me I would feel threatened.

 

[Sarah G]

Inciting a riot is sometimes a felony so I wouldn't be surprised if writing KKK on someone's window would be too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

So, when you argue that Illinois can make whatever laws they like you actually mean they can make whatever laws you like.

Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

C'mon PooP, you can do better than that.

The opinion cited Wisconsin v Mitchell as the guiding precedent. The Supreme Court held that it was legal to consider motive as a enhancement factor in the penalty phase of a trial after the person was found guilty of a crime. Since Mitchel specifically ruled that enhancement of a penalty is constitutional all courts in the US are bound by that precedent.

The Illinois Supreme Court took up the Illinois version of hate crime laws when it was challenged by Nitz. They found that, even though the Illinois law actually a crime in itself, and thus not technically covered by Mitchell, that it was reasonable to conclude that Mitchell could be read to cover crimes that are defined as hate crimes and not just enhancement penalties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why don't you start the lecture off, for us? Maybe you can explain by what Constitutional basis an armed robber has the right to shoot a policeman dead so long as he was protecting his own life?

Oh - but wait, what the law and defense attorneys or anyone has to say doesn't really matter - its all about what you feew is right or wrong, isn't it?

You are stupid beyond words.

Why don't you explain what constitutional right a totally innocent person who is in his house has to shoot a policeman dead to protect his life first, then I will point out how an armed robber has the same right.

 

[JDzBrain]

No, you just have to reasonably feel threatened.

If someone started yelling KKK at me I would feel threatened.

Yeah, we have a so called castle law AND stand your ground law and conceal carry here in America...otherwise known as Kentucky.

Feeling "threatened" is NOT gonna keep you from being prosecuted for shooting someone just for yelling KKK at ya....UNLESS they are pointing a .357 at ya Ravi.

Although, I doubt that will ever be a problem for you. I suspect you'd never pass the background check to actually buy a gun! ;~)

Truth is, NONE...not ONE of the states that have castle laws or stand your ground laws recognizes threats or speech alone as justification for shooting someone. They all require that you are in fear for your life or the life of others. The only kind of way around that is that in states with the so called castle law, intruders are ALWAYS presumed to be armed in the eyes of the law and therefore can be shot at will. Of course, they don't even have to say boo to deserve shooting in those cases. ;~0

In some states, that presumption of being armed extends the shoot at will authority to outside the home subsequent to the break in or in some states, even to a burglar leaving a neighbors house.

But in NO state can you shoot someone just because you feel threatened by something they say alone and not face prosecution.

By the way, Windbag.

You are wasting your breath buddy. The whole point to this thread went so far over his head he didn't even feel the breeze! ;~)

Oh yeah, the cop thing. If a cop enters a home without identifying himself as a cop...he CAN be shot as an intruder. You are NOT required to ask for the credentials of intruders. Just saying, and every cop knows that. That's policing 101 at the academy. ;~)

And it use to happen more often than you might think, back before most towns started hiring only professionally trained cops.

It hasn't been that long...like back in 06-08 since a backwater cop here in Kentucky was shot when he walked in on a guy and his wife in bed without identifying himself. Bad deal all around. Cop was sent to the wrong house and the guy has to live with damn near killing a cop.

He was NOT charged, by the way. The cop verified he had not identified himself before entering the bedroom. What sucked was the cop was suspended after damn near dying and TELLING THE TRUTH!

Bad deal all around, but it does happen!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you just have to reasonably feel threatened.

If someone started yelling KKK at me I would feel threatened.

Yeah, we have a so called castle law AND stand your ground law and conceal carry here in America...otherwise known as Kentucky.

Feeling "threatened" is NOT gonna keep you from being prosecuted for shooting someone just for yelling KKK at ya....UNLESS they are pointing a .357 at ya Ravi.

Although, I doubt that will ever be a problem for you. I suspect you'd never pass the background check to actually buy a gun! ;~)

Truth is, NONE...not ONE of the states that have castle laws or stand your ground laws recognizes threats or speech alone as justification for shooting someone. They all require that you are in fear for your life or the life of others. The only kind of way around that is that in states with the so called castle law, intruders are ALWAYS presumed to be armed in the eyes of the law and therefore can be shot at will. Of course, they don't even have to say boo to deserve shooting in those cases. ;~0

In some states, that presumption of being armed extends the shoot at will authority to outside the home subsequent to the break in or in some states, even to a burglar leaving a neighbors house.

But in NO state can you shoot someone just because you feel threatened by something they say alone and not face prosecution.

By the way, Windbag.

You are wasting your breath buddy. The whole point to this thread went so far over his head he didn't even feel the breeze! ;~)

Oh yeah, the cop thing. If a cop enters a home without identifying himself as a cop...he CAN be shot as an intruder. You are NOT required to ask for the credentials of intruders. Just saying, and every cop knows that. That's policing 101 at the academy. ;~)

And it use to happen more often than you might think, back before most towns started hiring only professionally trained cops.

It hasn't been that long...like back in 06-08 since a backwater cop here in Kentucky was shot when he walked in on a guy and his wife in bed without identifying himself. Bad deal all around. Cop was sent to the wrong house and the guy has to live with damn near killing a cop.

He was NOT charged, by the way. The cop verified he had not identified himself before entering the bedroom. What sucked was the cop was suspended after damn near dying and TELLING THE TRUTH!

Bad deal all around, but it does happen!

I have a damn good idea how often it happens, and how often police claim to have identified themselves first after the fact.