[NYCFarmboy]

Rainbow flag torched in Bloomington, Indiana

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...WS01/510120489


Associated Press
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Two teenagers stole and burned a rainbow-colored American flag representing gays and lesbians that was displayed outside a store, police said.
The 17-year-old boys took the flag from outside of David Wade's culinary supply store, called Inner Chef, according to Bloomington police. Wade said the flag, called the "New Glory," shows that all Americans are welcome at his business.


A witness saw the boys take the flag and took a picture of their license plate with a cell phone camera. Police later tracked the plate and questioned the boys, who said they burned the flag because they felt it was "unpatriotic," police reports said.

The boys were referred to juvenile court on preliminary charges of theft.
"I just wish they would've come in and talked to me about it," Wade said. "I didn't know if it was a prank, an American flag issue or a gay issue. Any of them could've just come inside and had a conversation about it."

Bloomington's Safe and Civil City Director Beverly Calender-Anderson said if there is a suspicion that the flag burning was a hate crime, the incident would get reported to the Human Rights Commission.

"We do value and honor the diversity in our city and do not condone discrimination or any kind of acts against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, race, class or anything else," she said.

Wade said he would replace the flag.

[Dakar]

Well this is a tough one.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well this is a tough one.

Its interesting no? The colors of one group get protection but the colors for everyone do not?

[notloc_D]

No, it is not a tough one. The boys broke the law and should be punished for theft. But as a hate crime....this goes into the fact that gays have obtained special rights they don't need as Americans who enjoy life under the US constitution.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Its interesting no? The colors of one group get protection but the colors for everyone do not?

Yeah, its that possible discrimination angle.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

No, it is not a tough one. The boys broke the law and should be punished for theft. But as a hate crime....this goes into the fact that gays have obtained special rights for making poor life decisions.

So when did you sit down and decide that you should be straight instead of gay?

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

So when did you sit down and decide that you should be straight instead of gay?

yesterday

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

yesterday

Congratulations, your genes may make it yet.

But how about some more poor life decisions? Grad school's way up there.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

yesterday

Sounds like it took you a while to figure things out.

[notloc_D]

I shouldn't have said that.
Sorry.
I am done.

Post is edited

[Sky Captain]

I hope the ACLU steps in to protect their first admendment rights to freedom of expression.

[notloc_D]

LMAO...not likely, sky. If they do, I will donate a weeks pay to the ACLU...no, a years pay...no...my life savings!~

[OldManMac]

Nice try at twisting things to suit your agenda, farmboy. They were arrested for theft, because that's what they did. They stole someone else's property, and whether that's a flag or anything else, it's against the law! Of course, you conveniently turn it into a flag burning issue, because that suits your objectives more than being objective.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Nice try at twisting things to suit your agenda, farmboy. They were arrested for theft, because that's what they did. They stole someone else's property, and whether that's a flag or anything else, it's against the law! Of course, you conveniently turn it into a flag burning issue, because that suits your objectives more than being objective.

Of course the boys broke the law and they should be punished for theft and destruction of property.

My isssue is with regard to the mention in the article of a possible hate crime. If it is a hate crime to burn a rainbow flag AKA "New Glory", then why isn't it a hate crime to burn the U.S. flag? Someone who intentionally burns a flag seems pretty full of hate to me.

[turtle777]

This thread is stupid.

STEALING a flag is always wrong, no matter what color the flag has.

-t

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Of course the boys broke the law and they should be punished for theft and destruction of property.

My isssue is with regard to the mention in the article of a possible hate crime. If it is a hate crime to burn a rainbow flag AKA "New Glory", then why isn't it a hate crime to burn the U.S. flag? Someone who intentionally burns a flag seems pretty full of hate to me.

exactly, but who gets to define what is hate? It is ok to hate Bush and America, but not select groups of Americans that happen to allied with your own personal political views.

KarlG... why is it ok to 'hate' SUV's, but not 'designer jeans'? I think maybe you are getting my point but are upset that it exposes the glaring discrepancies of those on the left which seek to impose their own 'rules' on others.... such as banning SUV's, because they are not politically correct, or banning the burning of any particular flag, because it may be construed as 'hate' by the protected agenda of the politically correct.

[cpt kangarooski]

exactly, but who gets to define what is hate?

Which is why I'm a liberal, and I think that the concept of hate crimes is completely bogus. OTOH, I would agree that hating an administration for its policies is completely different from hating a person for an immutable characteristic; the former is just part of politics, while the latter is bigotry.

[Sky Captain]

Politics and bigotry are quite interchangeable.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

OTOH, I would agree that hating an administration for its policies is completely different from hating a person for an immutable characteristic; the former is just part of politics, while the latter is bigotry.

That's what i was thinking.

[Sky Captain]

Administration = group of people.
Bigotry = hatred of a group of people.

[cpt kangarooski]

No. One hate is for what the policies they've chosen to implement, and how they've done it, which impacts everyone. The other is for who people are.

For example, I hate the Nazis, but I don't hate the Germans as a whole. And it'd be pretty difficult to say that hating Nazis is bigoted.

[Sky Captain]

But hating Christians or Mislims is bigoted?

[cpt kangarooski]

Merely for the fact of their religion, yes, I'd say so.

[Y3a]

Why should any group who wants to be treated 'fairly' get special treatment? DUH??

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No. One hate is for what the policies they've chosen to implement, and how they've done it, which impacts everyone. The other is for who people are.

...and as long as both sides fail to see any distinction between what a person does and who a person is, there will never be any headway in the debates.

[Macrobat]

You are all missing the point. The violation wasn't the burning of the flag, it was the theft of the flag. That's what they will be prosecuted for, the burning is a red herring (or maybe a rainbow colored one).

[Monique]

You guys make such a big deal about burning the U.S. flag; how many times did it happen?

Or it happened so few times that the media had to make a big deal about it.

I do not agree that U.S. flag should be burned in anyway for any point of view but I am not that will restrict speech; I would just ignored it and people would certainly stop it when they see it has no effect.

As for this subject, well the kid is obviously homophobe probably a right wing Christian who is this close to kill a gay person.

No it is a love crime; of course it is about hate of someone who is different from you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777

This thread is stupid.

Yep. I'm ashamed to have posted in it, but I couldn't resist:

Originally Posted by turtle777

STEALING a flag is always wrong, no matter what color the flag has.

Unless you're playing paintball.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

As for this subject, well the kid is obviously homophobe probably a right wing Christian who is this close to kill a gay person.

Judgemental much?

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Judgemental much?

It's good to see that they have their own "Budster".

[kmkkid]

They stole a flag, they burnt it. They were charged with theft. This could have been a hate crime, not because the flag that was burnt represented gay/american culture, but because the store itself may have been a hate crime target for allowing gays and whatnot.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Rainbow flag torched in Bloomington, Indiana

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...WS01/510120489


Associated Press
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Two teenagers stole and burned a rainbow-colored American flag representing gays and lesbians that was displayed outside a store, police said.
The 17-year-old boys took the flag from outside of David Wade's culinary supply store, called Inner Chef, according to Bloomington police. Wade said the flag, called the "New Glory," shows that all Americans are welcome at his business.


A witness saw the boys take the flag and took a picture of their license plate with a cell phone camera. Police later tracked the plate and questioned the boys, who said they burned the flag because they felt it was "unpatriotic," police reports said.

The boys were referred to juvenile court on preliminary charges of theft.
"I just wish they would've come in and talked to me about it," Wade said. "I didn't know if it was a prank, an American flag issue or a gay issue. Any of them could've just come inside and had a conversation about it."

Bloomington's Safe and Civil City Director Beverly Calender-Anderson said if there is a suspicion that the flag burning was a hate crime, the incident would get reported to the Human Rights Commission.

"We do value and honor the diversity in our city and do not condone discrimination or any kind of acts against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, race, class or anything else," she said.

Wade said he would replace the flag.

Well Farmboy, looks like you should stay on the farm or maybe you were a child left behind because you do not know what theft is.

You think we are fools like you?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Well Farmboy, looks like you should stay on the farm or maybe you were a child left behind because you do not know what theft is.

You think we are fools like you?

thank you for showing your depth of intellectual thought.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Of course the boys broke the law and they should be punished for theft and destruction of property.

My isssue is with regard to the mention in the article of a possible hate crime. If it is a hate crime to burn a rainbow flag AKA "New Glory", then why isn't it a hate crime to burn the U.S. flag? Someone who intentionally burns a flag seems pretty full of hate to me.

This really is pretty simple. You can burn a flag you personally own -- rainbow or Old Glory. If you do that you are protected from any possible prosecution by the First Amendment. But burning other people's property -- whether it be a rainbow flag, the Stars and Stripes, or for that matter a Confederate Battle Flag or Swastika is a property crime. It's not your flag to burn. You don't have a constitutional right to torch other people's property.

Property crimes, like other crimes, can be hate crimes. But first, it has to be a crime, and this clearly is. The fact that a flag was involved is irrelevant.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well this is a tough one.

No its not, they stole it. It would be a different news story if they bought a flag and burned it. I don't like a poster in a store, so I take it. Thats theft, it was no mine to take to distroy. Simple very simple.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Rainbow flag torched in Bloomington, Indiana

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...WS01/510120489


Associated Press
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Two teenagers stole and burned a rainbow-colored American flag representing gays and lesbians that was displayed outside a store, police said.
The 17-year-old boys took the flag from outside of David Wade's culinary supply store, called Inner Chef, according to Bloomington police. Wade said the flag, called the "New Glory," shows that all Americans are welcome at his business.


A witness saw the boys take the flag and took a picture of their license plate with a cell phone camera. Police later tracked the plate and questioned the boys, who said they burned the flag because they felt it was "unpatriotic," police reports said.

The boys were referred to juvenile court on preliminary charges of theft.
"I just wish they would've come in and talked to me about it," Wade said. "I didn't know if it was a prank, an American flag issue or a gay issue. Any of them could've just come inside and had a conversation about it."

Bloomington's Safe and Civil City Director Beverly Calender-Anderson said if there is a suspicion that the flag burning was a hate crime, the incident would get reported to the Human Rights Commission.

"We do value and honor the diversity in our city and do not condone discrimination or any kind of acts against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, race, class or anything else," she said.

Wade said he would replace the flag.

I think we can all agree that stealing someone's property and burning someone's property is a crime. As for hate crimes I've always been more uncomfortable with that because of it is so subjective. If you kill someone out of hate or you kill someone out of jealousy the end result is the same. To tack on extra punishment because the deceased belonged to one demographic or to not give the punishment because someone did not belong to a certain demographic seems in and of itself discriminatory.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I hope the ACLU steps in to protect their first admendment rights to freedom of expression.

Since when is theft a freedom of expression?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well this is a tough one.

Originally Posted by Athens

No its not, they stole it.

I'm sure Dakar was being sarcastic

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Since when is theft a freedom of expression?

DUH !

Do you know what this means on teh intarweb ----> ?

-t

[olePigeon]

What does this story have to do with your thread title?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I think we can all agree that stealing someone's property and burning someone's property is a crime. As for hate crimes I've always been more uncomfortable with that because of it is so subjective. If you kill someone out of hate or you kill someone out of jealousy the end result is the same. To tack on extra punishment because the deceased belonged to one demographic or to not give the punishment because someone did not belong to a certain demographic seems in and of itself discriminatory.

Bear in mind the actual mechanism of how those laws work isn't especially tied to the popular name of the statutes. That's just a nickname, not a legal principal. A conviction doesn't depend on a prosecutor, judge, or jury deciding whether or not a particular crime is motivated by "hate" (although there is nothing improper or unusual in juries, prosecutors, and juries deciding what motivated a crime. A hate crimes punishment is usually triggered by particular statutory language to do with whether or not a particular victim was selected because they fit within a group identified in the statute.

In principal, this is no different from similar statutes that identify specially harsh punishments for people who kill cops, children, and so on. The same analytical process is used. E.g. if a cop is killed, a statute might apply if the killer killed the cop because he was a cop, but not if the killer killed someone who just happened to be a cop. Nobody is against statutes that single out cop killing or thinks that cop killing statutes require juries to read the minds of the criminal in any extraordinary or disturbing way. There is no more reason for such a fear here.

It's also kind of notable that these issues only really become controversial when applied to gays and lesbians. If a synagogue is burned down, or a cross is burned on the lawn of a black family, few object to noticing that the victims were probably victimized because of their status and that the crime isn't mere arson or trespass and few seem to object to the fact that the federal government and many states would treat it as a separate crime. But when the same treatment is accorded to victims who are selected because they are gay, then suddenly it is a huge civil liberties issue. Odd, and I think a rather transparent double standard.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Nobody is against statutes that single out cop killing...

Actually....

Cops are just people like the rest of us. Their lives are no more or less valuable. Same goes for high level political figures.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Actually....

Cops are just people like the rest of us. Their lives are no more or less valuable. Same goes for high level political figures.

They are just people like the rest of us, but most (probably all) states and AFAIK, the federal government long since decided that society has good reason to be particularly concerned about discouraging crime against them. That's why there are special statutes, and there is no movement to change this.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

They are just people like the rest of us, but most (probably all) states and AFAIK, the federal government long since decided that society has good reason to be particularly concerned about discouraging crime against them. That's why there are special statutes, and there is no movement to change this.

I don't dispute that this is the case, I just don't agree that killing one person should be considered a worse crime than killing another.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I don't dispute that this is the case, I just don't agree that killing one person should be considered a worse crime than killing another.

It's usually pretty irrelevant in homicide cases. Sometimes it can mean the difference between a capital case and a non-capital case, but in general it doesn't much matter at that extreme. The cop analogy is an analogy (but a relevant one, because the argument people raise against hate crime legislation, especially as it applies in the case of homosexuals is a strawman, since criminal statutes that apply the same principle are so uncontroversial).

However, where hate crime legislation itself is important is in much more minor cases where there is a tendency to minimize and dismiss the effect if the psychological and social impact of a crime isn't taken into account. If a family is terrorized by people painting swastikas and the like on the door to their house, the impact of the crime isn't adequately captured by calling it just petty vandalism. Telling the police to handle it appropriately can mean the difference between the police doing something and all to often, doing nothing. It counts most when the crime and the terror that such targetted crimes of intimidation inflict is relatively small and before it escalates.

[BRussell]

The term "hate crime" is unfortunate because it sounds so damn PC. Really a better term, and more accurate, would be "domestic terrorism." It is a bit different from the laws about killing cops though. Usually I believe those are defined behaviorally - commit this act under these conditions, and you get X added to your sentence, or it becomes a more serious offense. Hate crimes laws are usually about motive - was the purpose of the crime to terrorize the group, or just the individual? That's a bit trickier, I think. I'd say that on balance I support them, but I do have some mixed feelings. There's also a difference between some hate crimes laws that actually make it a different offense, and those that add to the sentence. I bet more people would agree with the latter than the former.

Simey, I also believe you're right that there's opposition in particular to including sexual orientation in hate crimes laws, but there's a great deal of general opposition to them as well. I remember in the 2000 election that black man (Byrd?) that was murdered was brought up because Bush had opposed hate crimes legislation. Though perhaps he opposed the proposed Texas law because it included gays? I'm not sure, and it's poker night so I'm heading out.