WashTimes can’t find any hate-crime prosecutions related to destroyed Bibles

posted at 9:44 am on July 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

Surprise. A Lexis-Nexis search isn’t foolproof as it might not turn up cases that were tried by jury and not appealed, i.e., where there were no rulings issued from any bench recounting the facts of the case, but you’ve got to figure the ACLU would have climbed aboard and left a record somewhere if anyone had been charged with Bible-flushing. As it is, and as I hinted yesterday, the problem here has less to do with the statute than with how the statute is being selectively enforced by the D.A. and NYPD. Prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing whom to charge and whom not to charge; absent extreme proof of bias, there’s not much a court can do to make them be more evenhanded. That’s why the next Lexis-Nexis search should be to see if any other Koran desecrations have been prosecuted or if this is the first. Do they have a pattern of arbitrary enforcement, in other words? If so, it’s good political leverage even if it’s not legally actionable.

Speaking of which, here’s an interesting tidbit from the article:

“We reported it initially as an act of vandalism, then the police hate-crime unit came over and decided to pursue it as a hate crime,” said Chris Corey, Pace University spokesman, adding that he was “not at liberty” to discuss the investigation or how Mr. Shmulevich was implicated.

My impression was that Pace, under pressure from Muslim students, had pressed the cops to charge him with a hate crime. Sounds like it was the cops themselves who decided on that. Perhaps someone might think to ask American messiah Mike Bloomberg whether he agrees with his police department and D.A. that putting a book in a toilet warrants a year or two in the state pen. That’s the good news here: because the bias is in the enforcement, not the statute itself, it whittles down the number of people who are responsible for it substantially, which makes political pressure considerably easier.

I’ll leave you with Eugene Volokh’s take on New York’s hate-crime statute. He’s making a subtle point about the Supreme Court’s logic in finding hate-crime laws constitutional: assuming the Korans belonged to Pace University, then the victim of the crime is Pace, not any Muslim or Muslim group. Is it enough that Shmulevich had a discriminatory motive in committing a crime or, as the Court seemed to suggest, must the discrimination lie in who he chose as his victim?

But it doesn’t necessarily follow that the law should be free to increase the punishment not just because the criminal was discriminating in choice of victims, but because the criminal was hostile to some other person based on that person’s religion, religious practice, sexual orientation, or race — which often means that the criminal simply disapproved of some group, even when the target of the crime was not discriminatorily chosen. Nor does it follow that the law should be free to increase the punishment because the criminal was trying to insult some group.

Potentially, it’s even more subtle than that. Pretend Shmulevich swiped a Koran not from Pace but from a Muslim student — but not because he wanted to destroy something owned by a Muslim, rather because he simply wanted to make a statement about Islam by destroying a Koran and that was the nearest one available. Would that constitute a hate crime? He’s not choosing his victim out of discriminatory motive, i.e., because he wants to hurt a Muslim; he’s choosing his victim because he’s got a copy of the Koran handy, whether he’s a Muslim or not. In other words, how close does the nexus between crime, victim, and motive have to be for a “hate crime” to have been committed?

Update: In case you missed it last night, here’s Alan Colmes showing he has more sense on this issue than Bill O’Reilly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

As someone who loves the Bible, I say “hate crime” legislation is wrong, no matter who the victim is

jgapinoy on July 31, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Is it a crime to hate something that hates you?

Is it a crime to hate something that wants to kill you?

right2bright on July 31, 2007 at 9:49 AM

I hope Shmulevich wasn’t smoking a cigarette at the time, otherwise he might face life in Bloomy’s America.

JammieWearingFool on July 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM

oh good a morning koran flushing thread!

zane on July 31, 2007 at 9:51 AM

Maybe at trial, Shmulevich’s defense team can show video footage of 9/11; unless of course, that’s been banned by then.

JammieWearingFool on July 31, 2007 at 9:58 AM

“Hate” crime charges should be outlawed. If you broke the law, you broke the law. Period. The arbitrary supposition of motivational factors should be completely irrelevant.

Our Islamic enemy is not stupid and hate-crime statutes are the ideal vehicle to move the United States toward Sharia.

kjspeedial on July 31, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Flush the Bible, flush the constitution, flush the American flag…. Just don’t dare flush a Koran. Our country has lost it’s mind.

There is no such thing as a hate crime. It is insane to convict someone for what they might be thinking. The law is based on actions and has to be based on actions.

Cinematicfilm on July 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM

The double standard on the subject is sickening.

Spineless cowards.

Montana on July 31, 2007 at 10:06 AM

so…. there have been no hate crimes related to the Bible. I dare some prosecutor to issue a hate crime charge the next time some Bubba burns a cross. That is hateful towards Christianity, and destructive. Let’s see the libs heads’ explode when they try to say burning a cross is not a hate crime against Christians.

balishak on July 31, 2007 at 10:06 AM

And maybe the charges being laid in this case have to do more with the “investigator” than the “crime”:

The arresting officer on the complaint, Det. Faisal Khan, has been nominated for the board of the American Muslim Law Enforcement Officers Association, and on the page where it’s announced you’ll also find links to CAIR, the ISNA, the ICNA, and the SoundVision discussion forum.

[via LGF]

andycanuck on July 31, 2007 at 10:08 AM

I got really pissed at my xbox last night. Is it a hate crime if I smash it?

Someone please tell me why my controller loses its wireless connection sometimes and won’t reconnect unless I reboot :/

lorien1973 on July 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

lorien1973 on July 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Because it hates you???

doriangrey on July 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM

I got really pissed at my xbox last night. Is it a hate crime if I smash it?

lorien1973 on July 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

That depends. Is it a 360?

He’s not choosing his victim out of discriminatory motive, i.e., because he wants to hurt a Muslim; he’s choosing his victim because he’s got a copy of the Koran handy, whether he’s a Muslim or not.

If that’s the case, people might argue that his intent was still to hurt Muslims at large and therefore it wouldn’t matter whose Koran it was.

But if we go that far, then we really are accepting a portion of Sharia.

Esthier on July 31, 2007 at 10:32 AM

That’s a ‘hate crime’? pppffftttt This idiot needs to read “Because They Hate” by Brigitte Gabriel and see what REAL hatred is.

O/T: The Left is very sad today because Judge Roberts did NOT die.

Tony737 on July 31, 2007 at 10:33 AM

This is a hate crime, but this isn’t?

Also, this isn’t PU’s first brush with politacl correctness viz-a-vis Islamists. There was this incident back in January.

BigOrangeAxe on July 31, 2007 at 10:35 AM

The arresting officer on the complaint, Det. Faisal Khan, has been nominated for the board of the American Muslim Law Enforcement Officers Association

I’m sure he’s more ‘American’ than any Smith (/sarcasm). Any time you see the sirname ‘khan’ you can know they are from Pakistan and they are automatically victims no matter what.

The issue here is sharia law. It isn’t against the US Constitution or American law to protest or put a book in a toilet. It is against the Koran and Sharia law to protest, question, or ‘desecrate’ a Koran.

He did this out of ANGER. ANGER IS NOT HATE.

We have to decide whether we are a country with secular laws or are we going to look to sharia law for our country’s courts.

ThackerAgency on July 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

We, Christians, will be hated and our symbols and God’s Holy Word attacked without this government’s protection and yet the faith of the enemies of our faith and our country use the blood bought religious freedoms of our forefathers against us and to destroy the very Christian principles that allow them to worship here in the first place. To hell with PC, this is a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, that allow others to practice their faith as long as their faith doesn’t destroy the very principals that allow them the freedom to be here in the first place. We have allowed our government to demean and persecute Christianity which was the faith of most if not all the founding fathers. Christians seeking the freedom to practice their faith came to this country and established it to practice their Christian beliefs; not Mohammedans. Yet, Christians are the one’s non-Christians want to supress or destroy.

apostle53 on July 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Once CAIR gets involved, it is always going to be pushed as a “hate crime”. the good old Council on American-Islamic Relations is only concerned about the relation of America’s continued dhimmi status and capitulation to Islam.

Methinks I hear the sound of the camel’s back breaking.

awake on July 31, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Hate crime legislation is the real hate crime.

Halley on July 31, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Bloomberg is giving Olbermann a run for his money as the Biggest Douchebag in America.

Jaibones on July 31, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Someone please tell me why my controller loses its wireless connection sometimes and won’t reconnect unless I reboot :/

lorien1973 on July 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

When it happens to me I change the batteries. Works every time so far.

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM

The countries of the Mohammedans have no problem letting Westerners and others know that they are an Islamic Nation and that you don’t have the freedom to convert or practice other faiths in their boundaries. Our Christian established value of religious freedom is being used against us and other Western Nations to destroy us.

You would think that if Mohammedans desired the full freedom to practice Islamic law that they wouldn’t want to come here in the first place or if are Americans who convert that they would move to a country to practice their Anti-Christ faith that does not allow for the religious expression of others. However, their mission and purpose is world domination.

apostle53 on July 31, 2007 at 10:50 AM

What’s the penalty for love crimes, by the way? We do have those, right?

JunkCoast on July 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Theres actualy a broader question that no one is touching on..

Does the Constitution get to decide what I believe, or what I think. Hate, like love, is an emotion which is unquantifiable, and is excercised in my mind. Do I have the Freedom to THINK what I want or not? If we are not free in our own MINDS, we are not free anywhere.

We need to get off this PC train of Hate legislation, it is totaly un American. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the right to Property (our own minds) are all blindsided by these Hate laws…

You need to punish ACTS… proovable ACTS, not thought.

Romeo13 on July 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

The crime here: Destruction of college property (the book), and the possible damage to a university toilet. The END.

nyrofan on July 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

The arbitrary supposition of motivational factors should be completely irrelevant.

Oh, say AMEN to that!

tree hugging sister on July 31, 2007 at 10:56 AM

I am no fan of hate crimes, but you guys are just bias against Muslims — for good reasons (I agree). However, if you changed this situation to a bible you could see that it is technically a “hate crime.” For Example — I hate Christian. I want to insult and offend Christians. I steal someone elses bible. I commit the crime of vandalism by pooping on someone elses bible. I leave the bible in a toilet where I know it will be seen by Christians who I know will be outraged and offended. I have committed a crime — vandalism , which as a result of my evil state of mind can technically increase the seriousness of the charge.

In crimnal law, you always take into account the state of mind of the accused. Its called mens rea. If you negligently kill someone, its not a crime. If you recklessly kill someone its manslaughter. If you kill someone intentionally its murder. If you kill someone to overthrow the government, its treason. If you poop on someone elses Koran its vandalism, but if you did it with animus towards a minority group (as this schmuck admitted), it is a hate crime.

The hate crime works like this: (Actual crime) + (evil state of mind) = (more serious crime). The evil state of mind is wanting to offend, outrage or intimidate a minority. Should it matter if you spraypaint the swastika on the synagogue or on the store next door where you know all the Jews have to walk by to get to their place of worship. The effect it the same, just the victim of the vandalism was not necessarily a Jew (just next door to their place of worship). The actual crime was still committed, the evil state of mind was still there. It would technically still be a hate crime.

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM

As much as I usually disagree with Alan Colmes, once in a while he is on the right side of an issue. This is a good example. Personally I think hate crimes are Orwiellian, thought crimes.

2theright on July 31, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I’ve never like the so-called “hate-crime” laws simply because ANY crime that is committed is due to hate (i.e. I hate that some rich person has that money and I don’t). You can make a case for any crime that is committed.

Judges should have the ability to hand out sentences because of the harshness of the crime.

HarryStar on July 31, 2007 at 11:04 AM

However, if you changed this situation to a bible you could see that it is technically a “hate crime.”

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Okay, then why was the crucifix in urine or the Virgin Mary smeared with excrement called “art” and not prosecuted as “hate crimes”?

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 11:04 AM

We’re definitely in the realm of ‘thought police’.

Crimes against any person is by definition hateful. The law has traditionally judged actions, with intent or motive as tools for determining an outcome – not an offense in themselves.

Justice is supposed to be blind , not clairvoyant.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 31, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Isn’t this more like self-defense?

DfDeportation on July 31, 2007 at 11:06 AM

What was the argument against showing the movie “Obsession” at Pace?

What good is a university that values “sensitivity” over education?

Zach on July 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Hate crimes are oxymorons.Premeditation should be considered in capital offenses only.

volsense on July 31, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Premeditation should be considered in capital offenses only.

volsense on July 31, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Can we make burning the flag a capital offense?

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I think Schmulevich should be charged with using more than his allotted one square of toilet paper.

Immolate on July 31, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Our justice system is a complete joke.

PRCalDude on July 31, 2007 at 11:30 AM

The odd thing is that Jewish groups like the ADL were instrumental lobbying for and getting these laws passed. I suppose they didn’t envision them being used against them though.

PRCalDude on July 31, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Okay, then why was the crucifix in urine or the Virgin Mary smeared with excrement called “art” and not prosecuted as “hate crimes”?

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Duh….

Because the “artist” did not steal the crucifix first. (See the difference?)

You are getting your right-wing scandals confused. The crucifix in the urine was a clear case of free expression — no one is not arguing that — but the debate was weather that “art” should be getting tax dollars.

If the artist stole the crucifix from the church then dunked it, it would be a hate crime (assuming the artist’s intent was with animus towards Christians). I imagine the artist would come up with a better excuse — I was trying to purge my body and my former religion of the refuse of history — or some such nonsense. Then it would not have been done with animus and would not be a hate crime. State of mind matters in criminal law. That is why Shmulevich was an idiot to admit to his state of mind. He could have said he loves Muslims, but he couldn’t find any toilet paper and the pages of this book with funny writing looked like it would work.

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Perhaps NYPD Detective Faisal Khan has something to do with the hate crime charges. His name is on the criminal complaint.

A quick Google of Faisal Khan and CAIR brings up this interesting tidbit. (Scroll down to the 9th and 10th pictures.) Apparently a Faisal Khan received a courage award from CAIR-Chicago. Whether this is the same Faisal Khan, I have no idea. However, it’s worth looking into as it would explain where the push for the hate crime came from.

IrishEi on July 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Can we make burning the flag a capital offense?

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM

No.

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM

You’re right on one point, but that doesn’t mean someone should go to jail for doing it, even if it’s done to a Bible, even a stolen Bible.

If you negligently kill someone, its not a crime.

I’m fairly certain that negligence is not a defense to murder, hence stupid parents who leave their babies in hot cars or just don’t feed their children, are still guilty of a crime, but yes, intent does matter when it comes to a crime.

Though damage done also matters. We don’t put people away for making racist statements. If burning a flag constitutes an expression, the flushing a Koran should as well, bring it back to the realm of vandalism only because the Koran in question was not his to flush.

Esthier on July 31, 2007 at 11:53 AM

“Hate” crime charges should be outlawed. If you broke the law, you broke the law. Period. The arbitrary supposition of motivational factors should be completely irrelevant.

Our Islamic enemy is not stupid and hate-crime statutes are the ideal vehicle to move the United States toward Sharia.

kjspeedial on July 31, 2007 at 9:59 AM

BINGO.

Colmes was reasonable for once but he is an ignorant numbskull (typical liberal) when it comes to CAIR. Even Barbie Boxer knows that CAIR is dangerous. He also poo-poos the idea that Sharia law could be the law of the land. Fool.

Christine on July 31, 2007 at 11:54 AM

I’m fairly certain that negligence is not a defense to murder, hence stupid parents who leave their babies in hot cars or just don’t feed their children, are still guilty of a crime, but yes, intent does matter when it comes to a crime.

Esthier on July 31, 2007 at 11:53 AM

You can be held civilly liable for negligently killing someone — wrongful death. But you cannot be criminally liable. To be thrown in jail, our criminal law system requires more than you did a bad thing. You must also have done it with a bad intent — Mens Rea. THUS, THOUGHTS MATTER IN ALL CRIMINAL OFFENSES, INTENT IS REQUIRED IN ALL CRIMINAL OFFENSES. The idiot parents that leave their kids in the car will only be prosecuted if they are found to be reckless (knows the risks but ignored them anyway) — not negligent. If they are merely negligent, they get of scott free – but with a dead baby.

The same act can be a minor crime, a serious crime or no crime at all — all depending on the accused state of mind. This is not unusual in our criminal law system.

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM

What’s the penalty for love crimes, by the way? We do have those, right?
JunkCoast on July 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Yes we do, it’s called marriage…

right2bright on July 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Hmmm… actualy I have an interesting question….

The Korans themselves, who placed them there, and who owned them?

If this is a common “meditation” room, were there other religious texts there?

For it to be theft, you have to have a plaintif, someone needs to step up as the OWNER of the book. The complaint talks about a “custodian” of the property… but not an owner.

Romeo13 on July 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Yes we do, it’s called marriage…

right2bright on July 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Ah… but somtimes that becomes a Hate crime as well… LOL

Romeo13 on July 31, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Do you all remember those college punks who burned an American flag? I think it was around mmemorial day? Well, this flag was not their’s. Indeed, it was hanging from the front of the owner’s house. And they set it on fire.
Do you suppose anyone thought to apply a hate-crime statute to this situation? I don’t recall if that ever came up, but it seems in both cases a person destroyed an object not belonging to themselves. An object that many people consider sacred.
When the law is applied unevenly you know justice has not been done.

VolMagic on July 31, 2007 at 12:34 PM

In crimnal law, you always take into account the state of mind of the accused. Its called mens rea. If you negligently kill someone, its not a crime. If you recklessly kill someone its manslaughter. If you kill someone intentionally its murder. If you kill someone to overthrow the government, its treason. If you poop on someone elses Koran its vandalism, but if you did it with animus towards a minority group (as this schmuck admitted), it is a hate crime.

The reason you get off easier for manslaughter is not because the crime is any less than murder, but rather leniency is given in that case because of heat of passion, provocation, or diminished responsibilty. So mens rea reduces the punishment crime. To use mens rea to increase the crime is to enforce thought crime.

pedestrian on July 31, 2007 at 12:34 PM

To be thrown in jail, our criminal law system requires more than you did a bad thing. You must also have done it with a bad intent

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I’m no lawyer, but if that’s the case, then how is this possible?

Michael Straw, 25, and Iana Straw, 23, pleaded guilty Friday to two counts each of child neglect. Each faces a maximum 12-year prison sentence.

Their charge is child neglect.

Or this one:

If convicted of second-degree murder and felony child neglect, a Ruckersville woman could be sentenced to as many as 50 years in prison for the death of her infant son, who was left inside a car and died of heat exposure.

Though I will say, some of this seems to vary by state.

Esthier on July 31, 2007 at 12:43 PM

If you negligently kill someone, its not a crime.

I’m fairly certain that negligence is not a defense to murder, hence stupid parents who leave their babies in hot cars or just don’t feed their children, are still guilty of a crime, but yes, intent does matter when it comes to a crime.

Yep, it’s Manslaughter. Another good example would be failure to follow safety procedures that result in death. Not malicious, but negligent, and criminally punishable.

So why isn’t Ted Kennedy in jail? Maybe if he had a Koran in his car when it went in the drink…

I forgot which thread and which Hotair pundit wrote it, but the idea that Muslim reactionaries carry a threat of violence that Christians don’t is spot on. Serrano (the Piss Christ artist) might have had a death threat or two, but I doubt they were credible and there was never the threat of riot, or random violence. Compare Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie. Hitchens wrote a whole book attacking God (I know, all gods, including the Muslim one, but Hitchens lives in the West where his challenges are primarily to Christianity). Rushdie wrote passages in a work of fiction. Who went into hiding? One author was threatened with real violence, the other is on the lecture circuit.

hulbstar on July 31, 2007 at 12:46 PM

And how can Muslims be a “minority” when they’re always trumpeting that there are “1.2 billions Muslims” (or 1.3 billion, or more, depending on the speaker)?

The idea of a thoughtcrime should be revoked.

It is anti-Constitutional and anti-First Amendment to criminalize non-violent protest or contrariann beliefs.

I’ll donate replacements for the two squishy Korans if Pace U. wants.

Even though I believe in a:

No to Islam’s hate-

-reading the Koran is useful intellectual self-defense.

profitsbeard on July 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Dear Alan Colmes,

Throwing the Koran in the toilet is just as intolerant as burning the flag. Would you agree? Yes or No.

God forbid anyone be intolerant of the religion that killed three thousand people on 911.

srhoades on July 31, 2007 at 1:04 PM

And how can Muslims be a “minority” when they’re always trumpeting that there are “1.2 billions Muslims” (or 1.3 billion, or more, depending on the speaker)?

I’ve heard some speakers say three billion. Of course these were the same guys that kept telling me the population of Kabul was “around 40 million”.

srhoades on July 31, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Why were they both saying it is “despicable” to burn ANY book? Why does anyone care of someone burns a book they bought? Why is a “book” any different from anything else in the sense of your ownership and ability to do what you want with it? Because it has words in it?

I don’t get any of this….

nottakingsides on July 31, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Can I make a radical suggestion? Outlaw CAIR. I don’t recall the Council on American-Communist Relations suing Joseph McCarthy for hates crimes during the Cold War.

aengus on July 31, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Someone please tell me why my controller loses its wireless connection sometimes and won’t reconnect unless I reboot :/

lorien1973 on July 31, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Stop throwing them in the toilet for starters.

TexasDan on July 31, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Blasphemy of any religion is protected under the Constitution. For the matter, blasphemy has a sounder constitutional basis than hate crimes laws, which are an abomination.

And from news reports that describe the Qurans in question as being paperback editions, my guess is that they may not have been stolen, but rather were available in the meditation room for free, just as Christian missionaries make bibles available.

In any case, either he’s not guilty of anything or just guilty of shitting on someone else’s book. To my reading of the First Amendment, it’s my right to shit on any book I possess legally.

Someone should start a legal fund for Shmulevich.

rokemronnie on July 31, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Blasphemy has a sounder constitutional basis than hate crimes laws.

The constitutional right to freedom of religion means that I am not forced to respect what others regard as holy.

Also, the flushed Qurans may not have been stolen. They were allegedly taken from a “meditation room”, and news reports indicate they were paperback editions. It’s quite possible that they were being made available to the public for free, just like Christian missionary groups do with bibles.

rokemronnie on July 31, 2007 at 2:20 PM

We, Christians, will be hated and our symbols and God’s Holy Word attacked without this government’s protection and yet the faith of the enemies of our faith and our country use the blood bought religious freedoms of our forefathers against us and to destroy the very Christian principles that allow them to worship here in the first place.

Religion begat prosperity, and the daughter ate the mother. – Cotton Mather

gator70 on July 31, 2007 at 2:35 PM

If the artist stole the crucifix from the church then dunked it, it would be a hate crime (assuming the artist’s intent was with animus towards Christians)

tommylotto on July 31, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Oh, so if the guy bought the koran and did the same thing, then it would be “artistic expression” and not a “hate crime” right?

And I do assume the “artist’s” intent was animus towards Christians. I don’t think he was trying to tell everyone how much he loved Jesus.

Can we make burning the flag a capital offense?

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM

No.

Esthier on July 31, 2007 at 11:53 AM

That’s ok. I have a T-shirt with a picture of the flag on it. Below it, it says “Burn this flag and I will gouge out your eyes and skull f*ck you”. My wife won’t go out with me when I wear it. lol

Kowboy on July 31, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Trillions for defense, not one cent for tribute.

profitsbeard on July 31, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Proponents of “hate crime” legislation should really watch the “South Park” episode about “hate crime” legislation. Really made sense to me. More so than any opponent in Congress.

Claimsratt on July 31, 2007 at 7:55 PM

The guy was arrested by a Muslim, so it must have been a hate crime. I personally would have thrown a copy of the New York Times in the toilet (although that is also a hate crime in the eyes of democrats).

gary on July 31, 2007 at 8:43 PM