California Couple charged with a Hate Crime, for painting over Black Lives Matter street letters

[BustOfPallas]

And now we come to the point that I was pushing for.

Does the government have the right to approve the defacing of government property in order to advance a unilateral political message?

Or is that itself a violation of rights?

It's a muddle right now. The shield of "civil rights" is being used as a trojan horse for a lot of stinky behavior. It's why more skulls were not cracked when all the little marxist/anarchist fuckwits and criminals intermingled with protestors were looting, vandalizing and rioting a few weeks ago.

[Ortizer]

It was vandalism (costing money to remove) to overpaint the BLM letters

But it was NOT vandalism to paint (and doesn't cost money to remove) the original BLM letters?

It had been approved by the government via the permitting process, so no.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[BustOfPallas]

It had been approved by the government via the permitting process, so no.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Yes, but do you agree it risks trivializing hate crime laws to charge them with one?

[Vlad the lad]

It was definitely vandalism. Hate crime is a stretch. Especially when viewed in the context of the mass wave of vandalism of statuary going on in the country.

If they were smart they would have used a water soluble paint to make a point without creating more work for the powerwash/sandblast man.

Vandalism? This will be thrown out. Unless they are going to jail those that painted on the street the first time.

It’s amazing how many closet Marxist we have had living in this country

[BcRaven]

Vandalism? This will be thrown out. Unless they are going to jail those that painted on the street the first time.

It’s amazing how many closet Marxist we have had living in this country

Hmmm, I guess people can paint their agenda on our streets without repercussion, but it's a crime to have a Christmas tree (or a Menorah) on the lawn of a public building. Are the 10 Commandment still allowed to be posted in our courts? God (am I still allowed to write that?) forbid we trample on the "rights of the few" while they desecrate those of the many. Majority rule with respect for minority rights, has become :





... Bc

[owknows]

It had been approved by the government via the permitting process, so no.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

So government gets to pick the winners and losers in political discussion?

And to offer a permit to one... but deny it to the other.

[owknows]

Yes, but do you agree it risks trivializing hate crime laws to charge them with one?

I consider the very notion of hate crimes absurd.

[blah3]

I consider the very notion of hate crimes absurd.

Hate is not a crime

[owknows]

Hate is not a crime

Nor is a crime any more criminal, because of the perpetrator's motivations.

Nor is a victim any more worthy of the protection under the law, because of the perpetrators motivations.

[owknows]

ow, you'd think so, but not today. It depends on who defines "crime."

If "painting over Black Lives Matter street letters" is a Hate Crime, then what is tearing down a statue of George Washington? There are no perfect people, only those who accomplish something and those who do not. I guess we should forget that Christopher Columbus and his crew, sailed the Flat Earth in three wooden boats to explore the "New World", I guess we should forget that George Washington was the General leader of the army that won the American Revolution, I guess we should forget that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, I guess we should forget that Abraham Lincoln ("Oh Captain, My Captain") kept the Union together while freeing the slaves, etc. I guess Diogenes should dust off his lamp to find the perfect man or woman. Alas, he will be disappointed in his quest... Bc

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” --Thomas Jefferson


I posted this to make it clear that the state declaring an action criminal, does not make it a crime.

And conversely, the state failing to criminalize a behavior, does not mean that it is not a crime.

The state often fails to legitimately identify and defend the rights of individuals.

Or to quote a famous Baltimorean, H L Mencken... "The law is often an ass."

In the 1850's men were acting within the law to buy and sell human beings in the United States.

The nazis acted within the confines of the law, when they fired up the ovens and roasted millions.

But I would say objectively that a crime was committed. Wouldn't you?

[CarrollCoRaven]

So government gets to pick the winners and losers in political discussion?

And to offer a permit to one... but deny it to the other.

Sounds like Facebook, Twitter etc.

[Greg]

"Hate crimes laws" s/b abolished-period. They're weapons, not laws.

That's true but this couple shouldn't be painting the street without a permit. The same would apply to the original "mural" but that maybe they had permission to paint the street.