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

[Greg]

An action is either a crime, or it is not a crime.

The motivations of the actor are irrelevant.

Motivations do play a part in identifying the guilty but indeed they shouldn't by themselves be a crime or play any part in the sentencing of the crime once convicted.

[owknows]

Motivations do play a part in identifying the guilty but indeed they shouldn't by themselves be a crime or play any part in the sentencing of the crime once convicted.

Guilt is not determined by the motivations of the actor.

Guilt is determined by whether or not a criminal chooses to violate a victim.

His reasons for doing so are not relevant to the question of whether or not he did so.

Moreover, the motivations of the actor may not be objectively known unless the actor chooses to share them publicly.

[Greg]

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.

Did they apply for a permit to paint over it? And I could see that declined. They would need to apply for a permit for an opposing message up the street. If that were denied they could take that to the courts and win. It might have to go to the SC but they would win.

I am not approving of the BLM message but you just don't start painting over stuff on public property without permission. It is akin to tearing down a statue you don't like without permission.

[Greg]

Guilt is not determined by the motivations of the actor.

Guilt is determined by whether or not a criminal chooses to violate a victim.

His reasons for doing so are not relevant to the question of whether or not he did so.

Moreover, the motivations of the actor may not be objectively known unless the actor chooses to share them publicly.

but motive plays a part in determining guilt. If I had no reason to kill a person given the same marginal evidence I am lot more likely to get off as opposed to having strong motivation like an insurance policy or some love/hate relationship. The why is either obvious (like why did the person hold up a liquor store - to get money) or part of the trial, whether by the defense saying no motive or the prosecution saying motive.

[owknows]

but motive plays a part in determining guilt.

And this has nothing to do with the question under discussion.

You seem unable to grasp the point being made, so we'll leave it at that.

[owknows]

Did they apply for a permit to paint over it? And I could see that declined. They would need to apply for a permit for an opposing message up the street. If that were denied they could take that to the courts and win. It might have to go to the SC but they would win.

I am not approving of the BLM message but you just don't start painting over stuff on public property without permission. It is akin to tearing down a statue you don't like without permission.

You seem to not be getting the idea that the city is government by choosing to allow ANYONE to deface public property by painting the street is incurring a taxpayer burden (the ultimate removal of the painted message which will cost money). I effect it is forcing taxpayers to pay for the promotion of a political message.

Moreover most of the messages painted on city streets have been done in defiance of permit processes.

And not a single permit has been allowed to any group other than BLM by a city government in spite of them being applied for.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ed-city-stree/

https://www.wate.com/news/local-news...ithout-permit/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX371r20Ywc

[Ortizer]

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

Yeah.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

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.

Do we know the couple asked for a permit to paint over it?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Don Frye's Moustache]

Regardless, how does lack of a permit escalate to a hate crime?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[owknows]

Do we know the couple asked for a permit to paint over it?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

We know that many have, and have been denied (or simply ignored) even after permits were granted to BLM (see above links).

Do you see no problem with state resources being made available to promote overtly political messages?

You don't see a slippery slope here?

[Ortizer]

Guilt is not determined by the motivations of the actor.

Guilt is determined by whether or not a criminal chooses to violate a victim.

His reasons for doing so are not relevant to the question of whether or not he did so.

Moreover, the motivations of the actor may not be objectively known unless the actor chooses to share them publicly.

In this case no, but in other cases motive determines the degree of crime. Take the various degrees of murder.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

And this has nothing to do with the question under discussion.

You seem unable to grasp the point being made, so we'll leave it at that.

You're speaking in generalities, then getting unhappy when someone applies them to more than this specific case.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk