• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man accused of saying, ‘Shut up, slave,’ at Starbucks faces felonies

But not for a hate crime.

If you just spit on a person it's assault, if you spit on a person for being black, it's a hate crime. It's the reason you spit on them that qualifies it as a hate crime. Normally, it would be hard to prove such a thing as a hate crime, but this guy went ahead and did it with a racist tirade. If you punch a guy unprovoked, it's assault. If you punch a guy, and say "take that nigger" it's a hate crime. 1 + 1 = 2.
 
lol wut?


Gut is a nutball, literally riding to starbucks on a unicycle to start a racist rant and punch homeless people.


He's got mental issues. but throw the book at him, right?


Guy needs help. Also note the black dood didn't hold him down but was droppin knees to the kids face (which I don't fault him for, but lets be honest in reporting).



bottom line, crazy unicycle d00d with mental issues needs help, lashed out in a racist way for attention, got it.

You may be right about the mental issues, but that's not relevant to the charges. This is about crime and punishment. Sadly, our society doesn't know how to deal with mental illness, so it doesn't. We just lock people up for what they do. What he did was wrong and disgusting, regardless of why he did it. Hopefully he has enough sanity to figure out that acting the way he did is not a good idea.
 
I think it's more that he spit on two black people and went on a racist rant that makes it a hate crime, rather than just the racist rant.

Spitting on someone is assault, spitting on someone because they are black is a hate crime.

Thought crime enforcement is un-American.
 
Thought crime enforcement is un-American.

Oh please, half of what you say on here is "though crime enforcement." of one form or another. Anything that even hints at being liberal think, is a thought crime in your eyes, and we are constantly subjected to asinine opinions on "why the police are always right." or "Why it's not a hate crime." You could probably release a series of christmas albums filled with all the bull**** you force us to read as you police our thoughts.
 
the title would be more accurate if it noted that his felonies were largely a result of physically assaulting people.
 
I'm guessing he won't go to jail -- but he'll probably face some steep fines and I'd be willing to bet he's ordered to attend anger-management classes. The punch he landed on the guy was the worst offense by far. The rest were just a bunch of rude words.

Spitting on a couple of black people isn't just rude words. Combine it with his punching the homeless guy, and charging him with a felony is totally appropriate. Spitting on someone IS assault.
 
Man accused of saying, ‘Shut up, slave,’ at Starbucks faces felonies – Chicago Sun-Times What a stand up guy. I would of bet money that this tool was from bridgeport, the neighborhood of quite a few white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Counting down to the usual suspects either downplaying his actions or crying outrage over his hatecrime charge.
True back in the day, but today's Bridgeport might surprise you. It's gentrifying and actually has become a bit hip!

I would have thought Mt. Greenwood or the southwest burbs (like Worth), but he's a Rogers Park product. I've passed this Starbucks hundreds of times, so it's a little crazy to think about.
Yep, that would be my thoughts today. Those areas are changing demographically, but the old guard is still pretty established. Many of the families in the Southwest 'burbs today fled the changing neighborhoods in the city starting in the '60's.

From last night's news:



Or a conservative and one of the good nazis that Trump spoke about.
Nope, that's Marquette Park you're thinking about! ;)

 
Loser should go to jail for this
 
From the story:

William Boucher, 24, faces four counts of aggravated battery in a public place and four counts of committing a hate crime, according to Cook County court and sheriff’s office records.

Yes "battery' which is a physical assault not verbal which is simple assault.

"In some jurisdictions assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim while battery is the actual physical impact on another person. If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened (or someone attempted to touch them), then the crime is assault. If the victim has been touched in a painful, harmful, violent, or offensive way by the person committing the crime, this might be battery. Even a minor touching can qualify as batter providing it is painful, harmful, or offensive to the victim."
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/assault_battery.htm
 
If you just spit on a person it's assault, if you spit on a person for being black, it's a hate crime. It's the reason you spit on them that qualifies it as a hate crime. Normally, it would be hard to prove such a thing as a hate crime, but this guy went ahead and did it with a racist tirade. If you punch a guy unprovoked, it's assault. If you punch a guy, and say "take that nigger" it's a hate crime. 1 + 1 = 2.

So the person who spit on me didn't hate me?
 
This article is highly misleading. He is going to jail for punching a guy not what he said.
there is a huge difference.
Fake News.
 
Spitting on a couple of black people isn't just rude words. Combine it with his punching the homeless guy, and charging him with a felony is totally appropriate. Spitting on someone IS assault.

Its a battery.
 
If their motivation was to do with your perceived race, religion, gender, nationality etc., they could be.

I see. So I could murder you for any number of reasons. But if the reason happens to be because of your skin color, the crime is somehow worse? Why? Are you more dead than the guy I killed for money?
 
Spitting on a couple of black people isn't just rude words. Combine it with his punching the homeless guy, and charging him with a felony is totally appropriate. Spitting on someone IS assault.

It is -- I agree -- it's "simple assault," which is a misdemeanor. Punching the guy, however, can be charged as a felony.

The store workers said he was a bad customer before, but nothing like this. I'm guessing the hot coffee stung and he lost it. His reaction was ridiculous, but, in light of the fact coffee was spilled on him, I doubt the judge will give him jail time. Just my guess, though.
 
So the person who spit on me didn't hate me?

Did you grow up in a house with lead based paint or something? I stated this kind of thing is hard to prove, unless they include a racist rant to go along with it. Which the guy did. The point you're trying to get at is not relevant based on the things I've already said.
 
It is -- I agree -- it's "simple assault," which is a misdemeanor. Punching the guy, however, can be charged as a felony.

The store workers said he was a bad customer before, but nothing like this. I'm guessing the hot coffee stung and he lost it. His reaction was ridiculous, but, in light of the fact coffee was spilled on him, I doubt the judge will give him jail time. Just my guess, though.
I dunno'.

Unless he can put up a passable 'self-defense' plea, that left cross sacking the bum seems a bit problematic to me.
 
Did you grow up in a house with lead based paint or something? I stated this kind of thing is hard to prove, unless they include a racist rant to go along with it. Which the guy did. The point you're trying to get at is not relevant based on the things I've already said.

I am disputing the idea that words should be considered a crime. The crime here is spitting. The words that precede or follow are irrelevant.
 
again he is going to jail for punching someone.
for some reason you don't seem to understand this.

The article doesn't make it clear, but it sounds like this is going on: He is going to jail for punching a guy, but the punching is charged as a hate-crime because of what he said.

The article says "William Boucher, 24, faces four counts of aggravated battery in a public place and five counts of committing a hate crime, according to Cook County court and sheriff’s office records," but fails to state exactly what conduct is alleged on each charge. So there's really no way for one of you to prove they are right 100%. However, a law making naked speech a "hate crime" sounds suspect to me. Maybe in Germany, but I doubt it'd fly under the 1st. And the way hate crime laws usually work is they charge the physical act as a hate crime, but include proof of what people say either during the incident or elsewhere, used to show racial motivation. That way, you aren't punishing naked speech. Your punishing a physical act with special evil intent.

(We do the latter all the time. For example, assault with intent to rape is worse than simple assault. Assault with intent to murder is also worse than simple assault. In either case, there is a particularly evil special intent being punished).



Anyway, I see people copy/pasting general legal definitions applicable generally to multiple jurisdictions. You cannot rely on one of those to say what is and is not accurate in a specific state charge. That's not how legal interpretation works. If you want to be accurate, your first step should be to read the main cases interpreting or applying the statute. LexisNexis and Westlaw do a good job of having those general main cases organized in the notes following each statute, but, of course, you have to pay for access.

From there, you then figure out how to structure your each terms, and you go hunting for cases with facts very similar to the thing you are looking at. Then, and only then, you get to argue about who is right about which cases apply.



Anything else leads you to meaningless hot air.
 
Last edited:
I am disputing the idea that words should be considered a crime. The crime here is spitting. The words that precede or follow are irrelevant.

That would be super convenient for anyone wanting to commit a hate crime. Let's punish terrorists for merely murdering people, let's not punish them for the terror aspect. Is an argument I doubt you've ever uttered when talking about terrorists kept indefinitely at Gitmo for a crime that without the aspect of terrorism would net them a shorter sentence. But hey, however you want to spin it in your head, you go right ahead.
 
I'm normally loathe to attach the "mental issues" label to people simply because they did something violent or unexpected. It's a cop out. That applies here as well, although I thought it interesting that many kids adopted from Russian orphanages in the 90's, as this guy apparently was, display aggressive behaviors:

Child-development specialists say they could have predicted such a fallout, citing the many studies that link an impoverished early environment with later social and emotional problems.

Only later do some parents come face to face with that reality. A child could be hyperactive or aggressive, refuse to make eye contact and have temper tantrums, speech and language problems, attention deficits, extreme sensitivities to touch or an inability to form emotional bonds.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/1996/06/...opted-abroad-come-with-too-many-troubles.html

No telling if or to what degree this applies here, but certainly more plausible than the "white nationalist Trumper" caricature that some are trying to push.
 
That would be super convenient for anyone wanting to commit a hate crime. Let's punish terrorists for merely murdering people, let's not punish them for the terror aspect. Is an argument I doubt you've ever uttered when talking about terrorists kept indefinitely at Gitmo for a crime that without the aspect of terrorism would net them a shorter sentence. But hey, however you want to spin it in your head, you go right ahead.

Is dropping the 'n' bomb a crime? No. So why would someone be punished differently for spitting on a guy and saying "take that blackie" than he would for spitting on a guy and saying "take that fatso"
 
It is -- I agree -- it's "simple assault," which is a misdemeanor. Punching the guy, however, can be charged as a felony.

The store workers said he was a bad customer before, but nothing like this. I'm guessing the hot coffee stung and he lost it. His reaction was ridiculous, but, in light of the fact coffee was spilled on him, I doubt the judge will give him jail time. Just my guess, though.

2 years probation, community service, and anger management classes is my guess. You won't believe how many people fail to complete their probation, though. When I was on probation for DWI, every time I went to report to my probation officer, I saw people being taken to jail in handcuffs for probation violation.

He could very well end up spending those 2 years in prison if he doesn't get a grip.
 
Back
Top Bottom