Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"
Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?
In Illinois? Yes.
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.
What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"
Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?
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.
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, 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).
Go ahead, tell me I am wrong again, and then quote the law that actually proves me right to back yourself up....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,
"What if the guy wasn't drunk while driving...would it still be considered a DUI?"What if the student had stood outside the dorm and screamed "KKK?"
Remove the vandalism, is it still a hate crime?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The People of Illinois ARE people.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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/1996/3rddistrict/november/html/3960276.txtFirst, 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).
Now you have it straight from the Illinois State Supreme Court, stop calling it an enhancement and start referring to it as a law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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?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.
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?