Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison

[ecofarm]

The guy could have been shot, for all I care... my point is that killing a person because they are gay or killing a person to steal their wallet should be treated equally, as murder. Giving a Hate Crime designation to one demeans the crime that the other one had to suffer. I find that utter bull****. :shrug:

Killing someone because they're gay is terrorism. The intent is to strike fear in the population and drive them away thus securing the election of bigots. Often, the stated intent is to start a war. That is violence for political gain.

 

[Bodi]

Killing someone because they're gay is terrorism. The intent is to strike fear in the population and drive them away thus securing the election of bigots. Often, the stated intent is to start a war. That is violence for political gain.

It is only terrorism if their intent is to target and drive away that particular group... otherwise it is just murder. Show me a statement or manifesto from this flag burner and I will agree that it could be terrorism.

That said, terrorism does not deserve an additional bonus length to a sentence over just murder. It could be a secondary charge, but not an enhanced one.

I'm correct and your ignorance is pathetic.

Why are you being mean to me?

 

[ecofarm]

Why are you being mean to me?

You're supporting bigots that commit terrorism by lying about legislation.

 

[Bodi]

You're supporting bigots that commit terrorism by lying about legislation.

:lol: uhhh... no, I am not doing anything remotely like that.

Has nobody been biting on your racist/bigotry trolling lately so you feel some need to lash out?

 

[ecofarm]

:lol: uhhh... no, I am not doing anything remotely like that.

Yes, you are. You are lying about legislation to apologize for and support bigots that commit terrorism.

Has nobody been biting on your racist/bigotry trolling lately so you feel some need to lash out?

Poor wittle victim.

 

[Bodi]

Yes, you are. You are lying about legislation to apologize for and support bigots that commit terrorism.

What lie did I make about legislation? This should be interesting... give it your best shot.

Poor wittle victim.

Dude, you are the one crying. :lol:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

First, it was a hate crime arson offense, along the same lines of burning a cross a black family's front lawn in order to frighten them into moving away from a white community before further violence ensues. Second, he was a habitual offender, and thankfully Iowa has "Habitual Offender" sentencing guidelines in place which essentially triple the maximum sentence.

That, of course, is totally irrelevant to those who want to defend this poor, oppressed, (White) victim of socialistic political correctness in defence of unspeakable acts that are against God's Law.

I wish California would go back to doing the same thing. The longer people like this are kept off our streets, the better and safer our society becomes.

Why not simply go to "Life without parole or any offence"?

You can't make the streets any safer than that?

PS - When I was doing my criminology courses (and that's a long time ago) the studies showed that, once all factors that were ACTUALLY in play were considered, "the vast majority of (non-violent) criminals had actually made the best possible career choice that was realistically available to them"?

I have had discussions with criminologists and judicial reformers and there is (when you can get them to be honest) a consensus that LONG-TERM it would be more cost effective to simply incarcerate anyone who is convicted of a crime permanently with basic food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs met while directing ALL of the savings arising from lowering "rehabilitation" and "post-release supervision" and "dealing with recidivism" into remedying the conditions which breed criminals. Admittedly the SHORT-TERM costs would be horrendous, but the LONG-TERM costs would actually be lower.

PS - Yeas ago John W Campbell (the editor of Analog Science Fiction / Science Fact) proposed a solution to the drug abuse problem. That solution was to issue everyone with a free "Overdose Treatment Card". That card would have three boxes that could be punched out on it. The First would be labelled "Everyone makes a mistake once in a while", the Second would be labelled "Not everyone learn from their first mistake", and the Third would be labelled "Just because we are nice guys". Anyone seeking treatment for a drug overdose would have to produce their "Overdose Treatment Card" and the first (unpunched) box would be punched at the start of treatment. Anyone whose "Overdose Treatment Card" no longer had an unpunched box simply would not be treated (and treating them would be illegal).

 

[Visbek]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Anyway....

It is only terrorism if their intent is to target and drive away that particular group... otherwise it is just murder. Show me a statement or manifesto from this flag burner and I will agree that it could be terrorism.

'kay

What’s your response to what you’re being accused of?
It’s my honor. It is written. It is a judgment, and it is written. To execute vengeance on the heathen and punishments upon the people. This honor have all his saints, plain and simple. And it’s my honor to do so. It was an honor to do that. It’s a blessing from the Lord to be able to stand for his word firmly against all odds, plain and simple.

I wish no harm upon any individual, however if you guys are going to bring it forth and address it, in such a manner, then by all means necessary, bring it forth, bro. I have God on my side, all day long.

So this was about homosexuality?
Yes, yes yes. Exactly. I burned down their pride, plain and simple.

No regrets about this?
No, none whatsoever. No sir. Why would there be so? Why would there be so? Honestly.

Do you have any plans to fight the charges?
No, no no no, I’m guilty, guilty as charged. I say it on camera, live. Let it be known. I’m guilty as charged. Plain and simple. Knowing, willingly, and intentionally did I do that. Yup.

Did you feel that this church shouldn’t be having that message as a Christian?
Oh, apparently, and I’m pretty sure if we sit through and vote concerning this, even non-believers are gonna be like “f*** yeah bro, what kind of s*** is this?” Honestly. Even non-believers will agree on this matter, any given day, bro.
Man charged with taking, burning LGBTQ flag found guilty of multiple crimes

There is no question that this was a hate crime. The dude openly admitted it.

And again, he got a long sentence for lots of reasons. He was a habitual offender with two previous felonies; as a hate crime, this was his third felony. He plead not guilty while freely telling a journalist "I did it." He defended himself in court (always a bad plan). He made it very clear to the court that he had no regrets and planned to offend again.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He lit the flag on fire outside of a strip club... not some LGBT person's house while their family huddled together in fear of their lives.

...and Hate Crimes are bull****. They demean the same types of offences committed against non-LGBT people.

Quite right, we all have to <SARC>unite to defend this poor, oppressed, (White) victim of socialistic political correctness in defence of unspeakable acts that are against God's Law</SARC>.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What lie did I make about legislation? This should be interesting... give it your best shot.

Do you mean other than stating that he was CONVICTED of a "hate crime"?

He was CONVICTED of arson and arson is NOT a "hate crime".

He was SENTENCED according to the law and that law includes guidelines which include FACTORS that can either reduce or increase the severity of the SENTENCE. This arrogant, stupid, pathetic, loser just happened to check ALL the boxes that increased the severity of the SENTENCE and NONE of the boxes that reduced the severity of the SENTENCE.

Dude, you are the one crying. :lol:

With respect to your posts in this thread, I will agree that "whining" COULD be considered a form of "crying".

 

[AProudLefty]

Probably so.

Is that what she did?

I have no idea and neither do you.

 

[Bodi]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Anyway....



'kay

What’s your response to what you’re being accused of?
It’s my honor. It is written. It is a judgment, and it is written. To execute vengeance on the heathen and punishments upon the people. This honor have all his saints, plain and simple. And it’s my honor to do so. It was an honor to do that. It’s a blessing from the Lord to be able to stand for his word firmly against all odds, plain and simple.

I wish no harm upon any individual, however if you guys are going to bring it forth and address it, in such a manner, then by all means necessary, bring it forth, bro. I have God on my side, all day long.

So this was about homosexuality?
Yes, yes yes. Exactly. I burned down their pride, plain and simple.

No regrets about this?
No, none whatsoever. No sir. Why would there be so? Why would there be so? Honestly.

Do you have any plans to fight the charges?
No, no no no, I’m guilty, guilty as charged. I say it on camera, live. Let it be known. I’m guilty as charged. Plain and simple. Knowing, willingly, and intentionally did I do that. Yup.

Did you feel that this church shouldn’t be having that message as a Christian?
Oh, apparently, and I’m pretty sure if we sit through and vote concerning this, even non-believers are gonna be like “f*** yeah bro, what kind of s*** is this?” Honestly. Even non-believers will agree on this matter, any given day, bro.
Man charged with taking, burning LGBTQ flag found guilty of multiple crimes

There is no question that this was a hate crime. The dude openly admitted it.

And again, he got a long sentence for lots of reasons. He was a habitual offender with two previous felonies; as a hate crime, this was his third felony. He plead not guilty while freely telling a journalist "I did it." He defended himself in court (always a bad plan). He made it very clear to the court that he had no regrets and planned to offend again.

I already stated my disagreement with the enhancement of a crime to a Hate Crime.

And nothing in there indicates that the guy meets the qualifications of what constitutes a terrorist.

 

[Bodi]

Quite right, we all have to <SARC>unite to defend this poor, oppressed, (White) victim of socialistic political correctness in defence of unspeakable acts that are against God's Law</SARC>.

huh?.

 

[Bodi]

Do you mean other than stating that he was CONVICTED of a "hate crime"?

He was CONVICTED of arson and arson is NOT a "hate crime".

"Adolfo Martinez, 30, was found guilty last month of a hate crime, third-degree harassment and reckless use of fire"

He was SENTENCED according to the law and that law includes guidelines which include FACTORS that can either reduce or increase the severity of the SENTENCE. This arrogant, stupid, pathetic, loser just happened to check ALL the boxes that increased the severity of the SENTENCE and NONE of the boxes that reduced the severity of the SENTENCE.

I said that I don't agree with increasing the severity of a crime and/or sentence due to Hate Crime criteria.

I made that pretty clear too...

With respect to your posts in this thread, I will agree that "whining" COULD be considered a form of "crying".

Sure buddy... I am just stating a opinion pretty calmly... eco comes running in lashing out insults and making wild accusations... and I am the one crying? :lol: Do you think that while I sit here laughing at such a stupid comment that this is also whining?

 

[Visbek]

I already stated my disagreement with the enhancement of a crime to a Hate Crime.

And nothing in there indicates that the guy meets the qualifications of what constitutes a terrorist.

I'm not making the "terrorist" argument, I'm making the "hate crime" argument, and he admitted to that.

That said, it's pretty clear he was targeting a community, in his own demented way.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Adolfo Martinez, 30, was found guilty last month of a hate crime, third-degree harassment and reckless use of fire"

I am not responsible for sloppy reporting, inappropriate use of the English language, and/or "dumbing down" of news items (so that "the average reader" can understand them).

Equally I am not responsible for the inability of people who have actually had the facts pointed out to them being unable to accept what the actual facts are.

I said that I don't agree with increasing the severity of a crime and/or sentence due to Hate Crime criteria.

Fair enough - that is your opinion.

Now, that means that there are two (actually three) things that you can do, and those are:

1. get off your butt and get the laws changed so that the actual laws do what you want them to do and do not do what you do not want them to do;
   *
2. keep on whining that the laws don't do what you want them to do but not actually do anything to get the laws changed so that the actual laws do what you want them to do and do not do what you do not want them to do;
   *
   and
   *
3. shut up.

Two of the items on that list would meet my definition of "positive actions".

 

[Bodi]

I'm not making the "terrorist" argument, I'm making the "hate crime" argument, and he admitted to that.

That said, it's pretty clear he was targeting a community, in his own demented way.

The whole point is that all crime is hate crime... making some crimes more hateful diminishes the pain and horror that others, that endured the same crime, had to go through. that is wrong.

 

[Bodi]

I am not responsible for sloppy reporting, inappropriate use of the English language, and/or "dumbing down" of news items (so that "the average reader" can understand them).

Equally I am not responsible for the inability of people who have actually had the facts pointed out to them being unable to accept what the actual facts are.



Fair enough - that is your opinion.

Now, that means that there are two (actually three) things that you can do, and those are:

1. get off your butt and get the laws changed so that the actual laws do what you want them to do and do not do what you do not want them to do;
   *
2. keep on whining that the laws don't do what you want them to do but not actually do anything to get the laws changed so that the actual laws do what you want them to do and do not do what you do not want them to do;
   *
   and
   *
3. shut up.

Two of the items on that list would meet my definition of "positive actions".

So any person not trying to change the laws, but is just talking about the laws, is whining?

That part of your post is ****ing stupid.

 

[Deuce]

I mean what else do you do with a criminal who is a repeat offender and openly says "Yes I did it and I'm definitely going to do it again?"

 

[Visbek]

The whole point is that all crime is hate crime...

:roll:

Dude, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. If a burglar breaks into your home, or if someone steals your car, it's not because they hate you. They probably have no idea who you are. It's because they want to steal your possessions. That holds for lots of crimes, including sexual assault, rape, even some murders.

Do you genuinely not understand how these laws work, or do you deliberately not want to understand? They should actually be called bias crimes, because that is the target of the law. If the criminal is motivated by bias or prejudice -- e.g. if they target you specifically because of your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and so forth -- then it is a bias crime, and we levy a stricter punishment for those types of crimes. And yes, that's because we think those crimes are a little bit worse than those where there is no such bias evident.

Yeesh.

 

[Bodi]

:roll:

Dude, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. If a burglar breaks into your home, or if someone steals your car, it's not because they hate you. They probably have no idea who you are. It's because they want to steal your possessions. That holds for lots of crimes, including sexual assault, rape, even some murders.

Do you genuinely not understand how these laws work, or do you deliberately not want to understand? They should actually be called bias crimes, because that is the target of the law. If the criminal is motivated by bias or prejudice -- e.g. if they target you specifically because of your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and so forth -- then it is a bias crime, and we levy a stricter punishment for those types of crimes. And yes, that's because we think those crimes are a little bit worse than those where there is no such bias evident.

Yeesh.

I get it all... I simply don't care. Enhancing a sentence for one 1st degree murder over another is bull****.

 

[Visbek]

I get it all... I simply don't care. Enhancing a sentence for one 1st degree murder over another is bull****.

So, let me get this straight.

Your argument -- that "all crime is hate crime" -- is patently false, and not the reason for establishing bias crime laws. When that argument is destroyed, you just don't care? Nice. Talk about bull****. You simply can't defend your own position.

 

[Bodi]

So, let me get this straight.

Your argument -- that "all crime is hate crime" -- is patently false, and not the reason for establishing bias crime laws. When that argument is destroyed, you just don't care? Nice. Talk about bull****. You simply can't defend your own position.

No. My argument is not that all crime is hate crime. My argument is that all crime is crime and designating some with a special classification of hate is stupid and demeans the murder of others, for example.

 

[Visbek]

No. My argument is not that all crime is hate crime.

LOL

Dude? Look at your own post, #592: "The whole point is that all crime is hate crime."

My argument is that all crime is crime and designating some with a special classification of hate is stupid and demeans the murder of others, for example.

No, that's a new argument, and it does not even remotely fly.

• Again! The classification is not "hate," it is BIAS AND PREJUDICE. You do not need to actually hate someone to be convicted of a bias crime, you just have to target the individual because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and so forth.

• We vary punishments for the same type of crime all the time. We distinguish between degrees of murder; we levy harsher punishments for repeat offenders; courts routinely consider motive when determining punishments.

I have no idea what your real motive is here, but it seems pretty clear that you are offering rationalizations, not arguments.

 

[Bodi]

LOL

Dude? Look at your own post, #592: "The whole point is that all crime is hate crime."

That comment was to point out that all crime is crime and that all crime is hate crime and that all hate crime is crime... etc. To state specifically that there is no distinguishing aspects, they are all the same. I know that you think that you got me on something but all it is is wording in the inverse to make the same point.

No, that's a new argument, and it does not even remotely fly.

No. It is the same argument that I have always made. Read the thread. You took one comment to another where I was trying to help him understand my point, but he, like you, are only more confused. Instead of telling me what my argument is why don't you just go with what I have told you that it is in the previous post... which was also my initial argument earlier in the thread.

• Again! The classification is not "hate," it is BIAS AND PREJUDICE. You do not need to actually hate someone to be convicted of a bias crime, you just have to target the individual because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and so forth.

Again. I understand that. I am using the word Hate Crime because that is the term being used... not because it is the qualification for an enhanced sentence. Jeesh... Shouldn't that just be simply understood?

• We vary punishments for the same type of crime all the time. We distinguish between degrees of murder; we levy harsher punishments for repeat offenders; courts routinely consider motive when determining punishments.

I don't care. This one should not be varied...

I have no idea what your real motive is here, but it seems pretty clear that you are offering rationalizations, not arguments.

I offered my opinion. You are the one having a hissy about it.