Vandalism IS a crime. It is NOT a Hate Crime. They are prosecuted and sentenced radically differently, which is why Pam Bondi is an absolute moron for trying to re-classify it as such.
Judges still have classifications, prosecutorial guidelines and sentencing guidelines on the books to follow, and they can’t just willy-nilly change those at her discretion. That’s not how the law works, thank god.
The same way you can’t prosecute Petty Theft as Murder, you can’t suddenly decide vandalism of a car is any thing but vandalism of a car, especially escalating the brand based on your own bias.
“State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.”
“If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.”
Therefore, painting a Swastika as a symbol of hate on a Jewish person’s car with the knowledge that they were Jewish, and with the intent of instilling fear in them for being Jewish could be classified as a hate crime.
Doing the same to Tesla cars because Elon Musk is aligned with neo-nazi groups and did multiple Sig Heil salutes in public to big crowds of people doesn’t strike the same way. The defense to that being protected free speech.
You see why it’s still vandalism, but a long walk to prosecuting as a Hate Crime if no intent or bias can be proven. Bias against Tesla vehicles and people supporting a known neo-nazi sympathizer is kind of a HUGE defense. This is how due process works.
Now, the antithesis to this is what Pam Bondi trying to force down everyone’s throat to stem the image destruction of Tesla by saying that hating Tesla owners is now a hate crime. So she’s saying that hating neo-nazi’s is a Hate Crime. Judges aren’t going to go for that because the bar for intent and bias is still necessary according to the very clear legal requirements.
She just wants people to be afraid of hating on Tesla, essentially.
So I hope that makes it more clear.
Also, very few of the cars being vandalized had anything to do with Swastika as a symbol anyway, I think that’s just the extreme. It’s not something I would have done because of the above, and kids would see that shit. The people doing that are just stupid and potentially causing more harm than whatever good they may have intended.
Therefore, painting a Swastika as a symbol of hate on a Jewish person’s car with the knowledge that they were Jewish, and with the intent of instilling fear in them for being Jewish could be classified as a hate crime.
And one of the drivers was Jewish. You’re “intent” argument doens’t hold water. Because anyone could say, “Oh, well I didn’t INTEND to cause harm. It’s just an indian symbol, not one of nazi’s. I didn’t even know the person was Jewish.”
Lemmy needs to condemn nazi symbols, intent or not. If a bunch of republicans where painting nazi symbols on cars, you all would be up in arms. This is the same fucking thing.
I’ll be sure to keep this conversation on hand to show people that you don’t condemn nazi symbols. :)
It’s not MY “intent” argument, this is how the law works whether you like it or not. It’s not by action to the max degree of punishment. That’s why there are degrees of severity on charges.
There isn’t a blanket murder charge. There isn’t a blanket drug charge. You may watch TV shows where they say something like “Possession with the INTENT to distribute”? That’s because there’s a clear intent to the crime that has harsher punishments based on the degree.
This is also why there are manslaughter charges. You can harm someone by accident and catch a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, though if you INTENDED to harm someone, that’s 1st degree manslaughter. They have different prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines based on the intent of the crime.
If a person goes through a Tesla dealership and paints Swastikas on 100 cars, they have an obvious argument that it wasn’t a hate crime, they were intending to point out that a neo-nazi is running Tesla. That’s not a hate crime because of the intent.
So if Pam Bondi can prove that the person who spray painted a Swastika on a specific Tesla owned by a specific Jewish person, THEN you’d have the argument that a Hate Crime has been committed.
You’re also selectively reading my messages and saying I’m somehow okay with hate crimes. This is classic dipshittery and whataboutism in its dumbest form. Never said anything like that. I am explaining the law to you in a very child-like way (like people don’t Trump), because you’re failing to understand the difference between what is protected by free speech and hate crimes laws, and what is not. The subject matter you brought up was Swastika vandalism.
I’m not even advocating FOR vandalism of Tesla at all, I even said it was stupid, and not the right way to go about it. Pocketbook is a better target.
The same way Elon Musk is allowed to walk around and throw around Nazi salutes and spout the “benefits” of racial seperatism like the piece of shit he is, is the same way people are allowed to appropriate symbols of hate in their freedom of expression.
As I’ve previously said, I don’t particularly like that, but that’s free speech, and it’s covered by the constitution. Once you start whittling that down, shit gets messy, so it’s all or nothing.
As the saying goes: “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”
That’s freedom of speech and expression. Take the good with the bad, or be done with the whole thing. Trump wants to do the latter, and I’ll take the former with my dying breath.
I thought you said it was all about “intent” though? Cuz he says he didn’t intend for that to be a nazi salute.
Lemmy told me that if you defend a nazi thing, then you are a nazi thing. So, sorry man, I gotta put on you the list. It’s ok, Lemmy thinks it should be that way. I’m sure you understand.
So then people marking up Teslas and carving and spray painting nazi imagary is a crime. Correct?
Vandalism IS a crime. It is NOT a Hate Crime. They are prosecuted and sentenced radically differently, which is why Pam Bondi is an absolute moron for trying to re-classify it as such.
Judges still have classifications, prosecutorial guidelines and sentencing guidelines on the books to follow, and they can’t just willy-nilly change those at her discretion. That’s not how the law works, thank god.
The same way you can’t prosecute Petty Theft as Murder, you can’t suddenly decide vandalism of a car is any thing but vandalism of a car, especially escalating the brand based on your own bias.
painting a swastika on someones property is a hate crime. So is Lemmy pro-Nazi now?!
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title34%2Fsubtitle3%2Fchapter305&edition=prelim
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-3
Therefore, painting a Swastika as a symbol of hate on a Jewish person’s car with the knowledge that they were Jewish, and with the intent of instilling fear in them for being Jewish could be classified as a hate crime.
Doing the same to Tesla cars because Elon Musk is aligned with neo-nazi groups and did multiple Sig Heil salutes in public to big crowds of people doesn’t strike the same way. The defense to that being protected free speech.
You see why it’s still vandalism, but a long walk to prosecuting as a Hate Crime if no intent or bias can be proven. Bias against Tesla vehicles and people supporting a known neo-nazi sympathizer is kind of a HUGE defense. This is how due process works.
Now, the antithesis to this is what Pam Bondi trying to force down everyone’s throat to stem the image destruction of Tesla by saying that hating Tesla owners is now a hate crime. So she’s saying that hating neo-nazi’s is a Hate Crime. Judges aren’t going to go for that because the bar for intent and bias is still necessary according to the very clear legal requirements.
She just wants people to be afraid of hating on Tesla, essentially.
So I hope that makes it more clear.
Also, very few of the cars being vandalized had anything to do with Swastika as a symbol anyway, I think that’s just the extreme. It’s not something I would have done because of the above, and kids would see that shit. The people doing that are just stupid and potentially causing more harm than whatever good they may have intended.
And one of the drivers was Jewish. You’re “intent” argument doens’t hold water. Because anyone could say, “Oh, well I didn’t INTEND to cause harm. It’s just an indian symbol, not one of nazi’s. I didn’t even know the person was Jewish.”
Lemmy needs to condemn nazi symbols, intent or not. If a bunch of republicans where painting nazi symbols on cars, you all would be up in arms. This is the same fucking thing.
I’ll be sure to keep this conversation on hand to show people that you don’t condemn nazi symbols. :)
It’s not MY “intent” argument, this is how the law works whether you like it or not. It’s not by action to the max degree of punishment. That’s why there are degrees of severity on charges.
There isn’t a blanket murder charge. There isn’t a blanket drug charge. You may watch TV shows where they say something like “Possession with the INTENT to distribute”? That’s because there’s a clear intent to the crime that has harsher punishments based on the degree.
This is also why there are manslaughter charges. You can harm someone by accident and catch a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, though if you INTENDED to harm someone, that’s 1st degree manslaughter. They have different prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines based on the intent of the crime.
If a person goes through a Tesla dealership and paints Swastikas on 100 cars, they have an obvious argument that it wasn’t a hate crime, they were intending to point out that a neo-nazi is running Tesla. That’s not a hate crime because of the intent.
So if Pam Bondi can prove that the person who spray painted a Swastika on a specific Tesla owned by a specific Jewish person, THEN you’d have the argument that a Hate Crime has been committed.
You’re also selectively reading my messages and saying I’m somehow okay with hate crimes. This is classic dipshittery and whataboutism in its dumbest form. Never said anything like that. I am explaining the law to you in a very child-like way (like people don’t Trump), because you’re failing to understand the difference between what is protected by free speech and hate crimes laws, and what is not. The subject matter you brought up was Swastika vandalism.
I’m not even advocating FOR vandalism of Tesla at all, I even said it was stupid, and not the right way to go about it. Pocketbook is a better target.
No their intent to show they are Nazis. That’s why they draw the swastika. It isn’t free speech to draw a swastika on a Jews Tesla. That’s a crime.
Want to edit your comment for grammar and to make sense?
It makes perfect sense
https://www.timesofisrael.com/chicago-jewish-man-finds-swastika-protest-against-elon-musk-on-his-tesla/amp/
Let’s see if the courts agree with you then. And it’s noted that you seem to think painting a swasttika on something isn’t a hate crime. lol
Funny how Lemmy pretends to be all anti-nazi unless some of their own start spray painting swastikas on shit. lol
Actually I’m beginning to think you may be a nazi since you’re defending that shit.
What does Lemmy say? Oh something like “if you defend nazi shit, then you are a nazi shit.”
I learned it from Lemmy. So you can thank Lemmy for my opinion of you. :)
The same way Elon Musk is allowed to walk around and throw around Nazi salutes and spout the “benefits” of racial seperatism like the piece of shit he is, is the same way people are allowed to appropriate symbols of hate in their freedom of expression.
As I’ve previously said, I don’t particularly like that, but that’s free speech, and it’s covered by the constitution. Once you start whittling that down, shit gets messy, so it’s all or nothing.
As the saying goes: “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”
That’s freedom of speech and expression. Take the good with the bad, or be done with the whole thing. Trump wants to do the latter, and I’ll take the former with my dying breath.
I thought you said it was all about “intent” though? Cuz he says he didn’t intend for that to be a nazi salute.
Lemmy told me that if you defend a nazi thing, then you are a nazi thing. So, sorry man, I gotta put on you the list. It’s ok, Lemmy thinks it should be that way. I’m sure you understand.