Iowa: Man Sentenced to 16-Years in Prison for Stealing, Burning LGBT Flag

[pknopp]

There is no first amendment right to steal something and destroy it.

There is, however, a First Amendment right to believe what you will, and to express those beliefs.

You can not express a first amendment belief by stealing something.

Of course not. Stealing is a crime, and you can rightfully be punished for that.

Nevertheless, holding and expressing a belief is a right explicitly affirmed by the First Amendment. Under no circumstances is it legitimate to punish anyone for that, even if it happens in connection with a genuine crime.

To impose additional punishment because of what he was expressing is blatantly unconstitutional…

He was gave additional time because he is a repeat offender.

View attachment 296364

Last time. He did not go to prison because he held a belief.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong again. You can try and twist the facts all you want.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for racially-motivated crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[/i]

Wisconsin v. Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

The Supreme Court has upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws.

The Supreme Court has upheld the “right” to savagely murder unborn children in cold blood.

Even recently, the Supreme Court has issued decisions regarding when and how government may infringe a Constitutional right which the Constitution explicitly forbids from being infringed at all.

As much as they have arrogantly usurped the power to do so, the Supreme Court absolutely •DOES NOT• have the authority to override what is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson warned against exactly this sort of usurpation and abuse in a letter that he wrote in 1820 to William Charles Jarvis…

You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.​

 

[pknopp]

Wrong again. You can try and twist the facts all you want.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for racially-motivated crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights.[/i]

Wisconsin v. Mitchell - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

The Supreme Court has upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws.

The Supreme Court has upheld the “right” to savagely murder unborn children in cold blood.

Even recently, the Supreme Court has issued decisions regarding when and how government may infringe a Constitutional right which the Constitution explicitly forbids from being infringed at all.

As much as they have arrogantly usurped the power to do so, the Supreme Court absolutely •DOES NOT• have the authority to override what is explicitly states in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson warned against exactly this sort of usurpation and abuse in a letter that he wrote in 1820 to William Charles Jarvis…

You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.​

The argument was that these laws are unconstitutional. Clearly they are not. Your opinion isn't worth the time it took you to write it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Last time. He did not go to prison because he held a belief.

Depending on which accounts you read, and how you interpret them, anywhere from about 50%* to 93% of his sentence was for holding and expressing a belief. In a civilized nation as we are supposed to be, that should be unthinkable.
———
* The 50% is a foolish error on my part. The correct value is a bit over 80%. See my next post.

 

[pknopp]

Last time. He did not go to prison because he held a belief.

Depending on which accounts you read, and how you interpret them, anywhere from about 50% to 93% of his sentence was for holding and expressing a belief. In a civilized nation as we are supposed to be, that should be unthinkable.

No, most of it appears to be because he was a repeat offender.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

NEVADA, Iowa -- A man has been imprisoned for burning an LGBTQ flag that was flying at a church in central Iowa.

Adolfo Martinez, 30, of Ames, was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years for the hate crime of arson and given a year for reckless use of explosives or fire and 30 days for harassment. The sentences are to be served consecutively, Story County court records said.

A jury convicted Martinez in November. He'd been arrested in June.

He's said he tore down the flag that had been hanging from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burned it because he opposes homosexuality.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...

--------------

15 years of prison for burning an LGBTQ flag..... but I highly doubt anyone in Iowa has been charged or even sent to prison for 15 years for burning an American flag.....which our liberal court has determined it is now your 1st amendment right to do so......Yes folks, this country cannot last the way it was headed....We need a few more men like Trump to back him up in the White House until, at least 2050 to FIX what has gone wrong here since the mid 1960's....even some before that!

16 yrs???...He should have wrapped it around a ****** and lit it. Get his 16 yrs worth.

J/K

 

[Bob Blaylock]

From reading some other articles, it appears that the “hate crime” charge includes an arson charge, that, by itself, would carry a maximum sentence of two years. So, we're up to genuine crimes that amount to three years and a month, and then three more years for the thoughtcrime of committing his genuine crimes as an expression of a politically-incorrect opinion. So this gets us to about half of his sentence to be legitimate, and half of it being a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.

Last time. He did not go to prison because he held a belief.

Depending on which accounts you read, and how you interpret them, anywhere from about 50% to 93% of his sentence was for holding and expressing a belief. In a civilized nation as we are supposed to be, that should be unthinkable.

A silly math fail on my part. I slipped ten years.

According to one account, his “hate crime” was an arson that, by itself, would have had a maximum sentence of two years. I erred in figuring the 15 to 16 as 5 to 6, dropping ten years from my calculations.
So, by that account, he got an additional THIRTEEN years, not merely an additional three, for the thoughtcrime.

He had genuine crimes which may have added up to three years and a month, and a thoughtcrime that added thirteen years, making it sixteen years and a month.

Everywhere that I said that the thoughtcrime accounted for about half the total sentence, I was wrong; it accounts for over 80% of his sentence. He got almost five times as much punishment for the thoughtcrime, than for the genuine crimes.

 

[pknopp]

From reading some other articles, it appears that the “hate crime” charge includes an arson charge, that, by itself, would carry a maximum sentence of two years. So, we're up to genuine crimes that amount to three years and a month, and then three more years for the thoughtcrime of committing his genuine crimes as an expression of a politically-incorrect opinion. So this gets us to about half of his sentence to be legitimate, and half of it being a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.

Last time. He did not go to prison because he held a belief.

Depending on which accounts you read, and how you interpret them, anywhere from about 50% to 93% of his sentence was for holding and expressing a belief. In a civilized nation as we are supposed to be, that should be unthinkable.

A silly math fail on my part. I slipped ten years.

According to one account, his “hate crime” was an arson that, by itself, would have had a maximum sentence of two years. I erred in figuring the 15 to 16 as 5 to 6, dropping ten years from my calculations.
So, by that account, he got an additional THIRTEEN years, not merely an additional three, for the thoughtcrime.

He had genuine crimes which may have added up to three years and a month, and a thoughtcrime that added thirteen years, making it sixteen years and a month.

Everywhere that I said that the thoughtcrime accounted for about half the total sentence, I was wrong; it accounts for over 80% of his sentence. He got almost five times as much punishment for the thoughtcrime, than for the genuine crimes.

The repeat offender laws of Iowa added thirteen years. Do you support repeat offender laws?

 

[Questioner]

An Iowa man who was arrested after tearing down and burning an LGBTQ flag that was hanging at a church will spend at least 15 years behind bars, according to reports.
Iowa Man Gets 15 Years in Prison Over Burning LGBTQ Flag



For the ass hats who think they are a protected class you idiots are so stupid you have no idea how severely you dumb m.f.;s are being politically used -------- there's a carpet about to be ripped right out from under your stuck up asses. Oh it won't be today maybe not even tomorrow but you can nbet your pathetic asses the LIGHT always Wins over the DARK bitches!!!


THIS IS HOW RETARDED YOU LOSERS WHO ARE ( ANTI AMERICAN PRICKS) IF YOU THINK FORCING LAWS MAKES PPL LIKE YOU OR " NOT " HATE YOU , IT'S SAD TO SAY YOU DO NOT LIVE IN REALITY AND SHOULD WAKE THE HELL UP)


ISLAM IS RIGHT ABOUT TRANSEXUALS

TL;DR

 

[Questioner]

Anyone who's bored enough to burn a flag needs to get a life... even a "gay flag"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As much as they have arrogantly usurped the power to do so, the Supreme Court absolutely •DOES NOT• have the authority to override what is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The argument was that these laws are unconstitutional. Clearly they are not. Your opinion isn't worth the time it took you to write it.

I guess that depends on whether you consider the judges to be the greater authority on what is or is not Constitutional, or whether you consider the Constitution itself to be the greater authority.

You can read the Constitution for yourself, and see what is written therein. By design, it is written to be easily read and understood by the common man, and not as the exclusive domain of elite judges.

Now I think that common sense dictates that if you read the Constitution itself, and can see that it clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says one thing, and you listen to a judge telling you that it says something different, that is irreconcilable with what you just read yourself; that the judge is wrong.

It is only arrogance and hubris on the part of judges, and ignorance and cowardice on the part of foolish people such as yourself, that allows this sort of abuse to take place.

 

[White 6]

Congrats to the person that made up the headline. Triggered.

Congrats indeed since this flag burner got three times the recommended sentence by Iowa authorities for
the offenses committed.
Why not shoot for the death penalty as long as you're at it? Would you like to bring back hanging judges too?

I personally don't care about flag burning. I just looked into it until I found sources near Ames, before I started bleeding for the poor mistreated asshole out of fake rage.

I looked into the case too and no fake rage is needed
for such a blatant case of disproportionate sentencing.
I have to wonder what is giving you such a boner for the draconian sentencing in this matter?

I do not have a boner for draconian sentencing. I just do not mind. I freely admit, the prosecution loaded up the indictment with every charge he thought he could make stick. The jury deliberated and found the defendent guilty. the guy was sentence by the judge to 15+ years. Apparently they take it pretty serious if you threaten to burn down a bar while it is open, then come with incendiaries to do it, and then light them up. The accused had prior history of arrests in the town. I think they were having trouble getting through to him and gave him plenty of time to think about it. In general, most people with 15+ sentences in the United States do not serve the entire sentence. If someone threatened to burn down your house, came back while you and your family were there after midnight, and lit a tire of rags and accelerates in front of your house. What sentence would you give? For that matter, if he flicked his bic, would he get a chance to light up a tire that he might roll into your door?

 

[pknopp]

The argument was that these laws are unconstitutional. Clearly they are not. Your opinion isn't worth the time it took you to write it.

I guess that depends on whether you consider the judges to be the greater authority on what is or is not Constitutional, or whether you consider the Constitution itself to be the greater authority.

You can read the Constitution for yourself, and see what is written therein. By design, it is written to be easily read and understood by the common man, and not as the exclusive domain of elite judges.

Now I think that common sense dictates that if you read the Constitution itself, and can see that it clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says one thing, and you listen to a judge telling you that it says something different, that is irreconcilable with what you just read yourself; that the judge is wrong.

It is only arrogance and hubris on the part of judges, and ignorance and cowardice on the part of foolish people such as yourself, that allows this sort of abuse to take place.

No matter how hard you try, what happened here has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. He can burn his own banner or gay flag in a safe manner until his little heart is content.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An Iowa man who was arrested after tearing down and burning an LGBTQ flag that was hanging at a church will spend at least 15 years behind bars, according to reports.
Iowa Man Gets 15 Years in Prison Over Burning LGBTQ Flag



For the ass hats who think they are a protected class you idiots are so stupid you have no idea how severely you dumb m.f.;s are being politically used -------- there's a carpet about to be ripped right out from under your stuck up asses. Oh it won't be today maybe not even tomorrow but you can nbet your pathetic asses the LIGHT always Wins over the DARK bitches!!!


THIS IS HOW RETARDED YOU LOSERS WHO ARE ( ANTI AMERICAN PRICKS) IF YOU THINK FORCING LAWS MAKES PPL LIKE YOU OR " NOT " HATE YOU , IT'S SAD TO SAY YOU DO NOT LIVE IN REALITY AND SHOULD WAKE THE HELL UP)


ISLAM IS RIGHT ABOUT TRANSEXUALS

At first I thought, "that seems harsh." Then I spent 3 seconds doing some research to find facts that won't be spoon-fed to you morons on mind wars, to find out he is a habitual offender.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

But ketchup IS a vegetable. Reagan said so!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Depending on which accounts you read, and how you interpret them, anywhere from about 50% to 93% of his sentence was for holding and expressing a belief. In a civilized nation as we are supposed to be, that should be unthinkable.

No, most of it appears to be because he was a repeat offender.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The repeat offender laws of Iowa added thirteen years. Do you support repeat offender laws?

 

[White 6]

It was arson, elevated to a hate crime and further elevated as he was a habitual offender with two previous felonies and no sign of remorse.
He got the maximum penalty.

This is a good summary

Crime and Charges

Ames, Iowa, police arrested Martinez in the early hours of June 11, after police said he had caused a disturbance at a local bar and threatened to burn down the establishment, before returning with an LGBT rainbow flag he stole from the Ames United Church of Christ, and setting fire to it outside the bar. Martinez admitted to his crimes in an interview with KCCI, saying he was motivated by an antipathy towards homosexuality and that he had “burned down their pride, plain and simple.”

Despite his on-screen confession, Martinez pleaded not guilty to three charges, the Story County Attorney’s Office told Snopes: Third-degree arson, an aggravated misdemeanor which typically carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison; third-degree harassment, a simple misdemeanor; and reckless use of fire or explosives, a serious misdemeanor that typically carries a maximum prison sentence of one year.

On Nov. 6, a jury in Story County convicted Martinez on all three charges. The County Attorney’s Office confirmed to Snopes that Martinez was given a 30-day prison sentence for the charge of third-degree harassment, and a one-year sentence for reckless use of fire or explosives.

In the normal course of events, a conviction for third-degree arson would yield a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, because the flag burned by Martinez was an LGBT symbol, and because Martinez himself said this was his motivation for setting fire to it, prosecutors added a hate crime enhancement to the arson charge.

Iowa law requires that certain offenses, if prosecuted as a hate crime, must be “classified and punished as an offense one degree higher than the underlying offense.” Thus, Martinez’s conviction for third-degree arson was elevated from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony.

In Iowa, a Class D felony is typically subject to a maximum prison sentence of five years. However, Martinez had two previous felonies, details of which were not immediately available. Iowa law designates as an “habitual offender” anyone “convicted of a class ‘C’ or a class ‘D’ felony, who has twice before been convicted of any felony in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States.” Therefore, Martinez was sentenced as an habitual offender.

Iowa law states that the maximum sentence for an habitual offender is 15 years in prison. In this case, prosecutors recommended that maximum sentence, on the basis that they believed Martinez to be “very dangerous” and because of his lack of remorse. Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI that Martinez “stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior, and that he would continue to do this, no matter what.”

On Dec. 18, the judge imposed that maximum sentence, to be served consecutively with the one-year sentence for reckless use of fire and 30-day sentence for third-degree harassment, yielding a total prison sentence of 16 years. Due to his status as an habitual offender, Martinez will not be eligible for parole until he has served a minimum of three years.

Conclusion
It’s true that the action that garnered Martinez a total prison sentence of 16 years was setting fire to an LGBT flag outside a bar in Ames, Iowa, in June 2019. However, this does not account for the length of his prison sentence.

If the object Martinez burned had been a neutral one (for example, a banner or flag bearing the logo of a brand of beer) then his third-degree arson conviction would not have been enhanced as a hate crime, and he would have received a sentence of no more than two years in prison, likely yielding a total sentence of three years, taking into account the one-year sentence he received for reckless use of fire. So it’s true that the fact it was an LGBT rainbow flag, specifically, did cause Martinez’ punishment to be increased. Because the hate crime enhancement converted the arson offense from an aggravated misdemeanor to a Class D felony, it also triggered the habitual offender mechanism.

However, that habitual offender mechanism would not have been triggered if Martinez did not already have two felony convictions. Without that criminal history, Martinez would simply have been given a sentence commensurate with a Class D felony, after the addition of the hate crime enhancement. Instead, because of his own previous convictions, his sentence for third-degree arson was tripled, from five years to 15 years.

The websites mentioned at the beginning of this article served their readers poorly by failing to provide this crucial contextual information and created the false impression that anyone, in any circumstances, was liable to be imprisoned for 16 years for burning an LGBT rainbow flag in the state of Iowa.

Did an Iowa Man Get 16 Years in Prison for Burning an LGBT Rainbow Flag?

I'd like to see this statement confirmed by some one rather than just the prosecutors word for it. Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI that Martinez “stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior, and that he would continue to do this, no matter what.”

It was good enough for a jury of his peers.

Are you saying the jury determine his sentence and not the judge?

Jury found him guilty. Judge sentenced. That's how we do it in our country. How about yours?

As far as how cases get prosecuted it depends on the case and the lawyers. It depends on what the attorneys file for in any case if you didn't already know that. The judge determines what punitive measures will be given and in this case it appears from what articles I have read on it that the judge determined that he was a possible future threat based on what a prosecutor claimed he said.

You could be right, but I read witnesses from the bar said in the article from the time he was arrested, not just the inflammatory headline article on this post. I have seen not transcript, but a good prosecutor would probably call those witnesses. It is possible the judge as well as the jury heard evidence. If anyone want to start a go fund me site to get him a better lawyer and try for a new trial, more power to them, but I'm satisfied and will not contribute.

 

[pknopp]

The repeat offender laws of Iowa added thirteen years. Do you support repeat offender laws?

You are the one who refuses to answer a simple question. Do you support repeat offender laws?

 

[White 6]

The argument was that these laws are unconstitutional. Clearly they are not. Your opinion isn't worth the time it took you to write it.

I guess that depends on whether you consider the judges to be the greater authority on what is or is not Constitutional, or whether you consider the Constitution itself to be the greater authority.

You can read the Constitution for yourself, and see what is written therein. By design, it is written to be easily read and understood by the common man, and not as the exclusive domain of elite judges.

Now I think that common sense dictates that if you read the Constitution itself, and can see that it clearly, explicitly, unambiguously says one thing, and you listen to a judge telling you that it says something different, that is irreconcilable with what you just read yourself; that the judge is wrong.

It is only arrogance and hubris on the part of judges, and ignorance and cowardice on the part of foolish people such as yourself, that allows this sort of abuse to take place.

No matter how hard you try, what happened here has NOTHING to do with the first amendment. He can burn his own banner or gay flag in a safe manner until his little heart is content.

Not outside my house, if he threatened to burn my house down and came back after midnight and started lighting up. Some people may look at a bar full of strangers differently. I don't.