In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail

Yes, the SYG statute most definitely shifts the burden to the state once the motion is filed. You can't just do a 2 minute Google search and pretend to understand the law. That shifting of the burden was made in the 2017 amendment to the law. Prior to the amendment, the burden of proof was on the defendant and the standard of proof was by clear and convincing evidence. The 2017 amendment kept the standard of proof the same, but shifted the burden of proof to the state. That was a HUGE amendment to Florida's SYG law.

The state, however, is not obligated to go through a SYG analysis prior to filing charges, but it would be a consideration.

 

I do not, because I don’t think words and thoughts should every be criminalized. In effect, you are criminalizing an emotion and a thought, and that is more dangerous to me than that paint. That type of criminal activity does not happen that often, at least making the news. But when it does, I always see the community coming together to provide support to the victim. That is a hell of a lot more important than a prosecution. It is much more powerful of a defense of good when your neighbors stand by you instead of a man with a badge. Your hypothetical is an example of why, IMO, we need to have some forethought before we give our government power and authority. If you surrender your right to hate to the government, how long before that same government tells you who to love? We kinda see that happening now, don’t we?

now, feel free to respond and wrongfully claim I love Nazis, or hate Jews….but that just shows a very, very shallow understanding of history, civics and the true power of a community (that I trust more than a politician. )

 

You can think anything you want about Jews or whoever. That isn't what you would be prosecuted for. You'd be prosecuted for the act.
You can also hate the government. There's absolutely no crime in that.

It doesn't seem necessary to make up stuff about me to have a discussion.

 

I didn’t make up anything about you. That comment was directed at the masses, not you. As for your first contention, you are incorrect. What makes painting a swastika on a building different from painting your name on the building? An emotion! You have changed the topic (somewhat) when you say “you can think what you want about Jews, that is not why you are being prosecuted for”. This assertion is wrong in its conclusion, and is only right if you are off topic. If you commit a crime directed at Jews which is deemed hateful, then you are being charged for that emotion. If you just hate Jews, you aren’t being charged (yet), but that is not the topic here. It is a great topic to expand into though. Because that is a logical evolution of this type of government power.

here is the problem with your position. You are forfeiting your right of association and freedom of thought to the government to allow that government to criminalize “hate”. It sounds noble in theory, but……. There is ALWAYS a but. What happens when the politicians get corrupted (or remain stupid) and decide to change the groups you are prohibited from hating? Now, instead of making it a crime to paint a swastika, it’s now a crime to paint a Star of David. Remember, today is the day we celebrate FREEDOM.

 

Law: Use your free speech all you want but you cant threaten, terrorize, and intimidate minority groups because we are a country that protects minority groups from the persecution of ideas.

Rightwingers: Whoa... what about the majority's right to threaten, intimidate, a terrorize minority groups for an idea?!?!

Law: uh, you cant do it.

Rightwingers: This country is persecuting me!

 

Utterly lacks understanding of what America promised and continues to strive toward. Hate crimes that persecute classes of people are WORSE than a similar crime targeting some perceived slight because of the fundamental promise that "all men are created equal" which means in the US you cannot be terrorized for simply 'being' because that is a core violation of our principles. Terrorizing groups of minorities with hate symbols is worse than being a dick and spray painting your name on a house. You know that but being a victim is a core right wing principle.

 

Couldn't help but notice that you suggested non-Christians are hated and targeted.

....like Christians aren't.

Of course what you're really saying, is that it's OK to target Christians.

Or at least, you'd give em a special discount for criming against Christians, opposed to one of your pet ppl.

Sure, that gels with the constitution....

 

Lol! "All men are created equal..."

.. .but "...some are more equal than others".

Bro... at least give Mr. Orwell his due, when you go n pirate his work like that.

 

Ok. Calm down. Enjoy your freedoms today at least. Tomorrow you can resume your quest for Nirvana. Meanwhile, the adults here will continue with our rational discussions. BTW, you added nothing of substance to this conversation. You make cliche, talking point assertions about “terrorizing” certain “groups” with some unknown word or symbol, and allow the entire point escape your noggin.

 

Looks like I triggered those fighting for the right to treat painting swastikas on a synagogue as a simple misdemeanor vandalism under $500 crime.

 

there it is. There is that nasty “but”

 

actually, what you have done is demonstrate the lack of an original thought and a deficiency in logic. You posted this…

…but that doesn’t really jive with your message now, does it? Can the government terrorize citizens by apply a harsher penalty to tagging because YOU don’t like the message? The person who paints a swastika is simply “being” a douche, but if we are to have actual freedom, part of the price you pay for that is allowing the douche to paint a swastika, or for racists to form exclusionary groups such as the KKK, BLM or NAACP. We allow fascists to march in our streets while holding the delusion that they are anti-fascist. Freedom means that not only do you have the right to hate conservatives, but 92gator has the right to love conservatives. It also means you can’t criminalize someone’s behavior just because they are a Nazi. A crime is a crime. If you want harsher penalties for painting swastikas, then you have to increase the penalty for painting, not for the group that the painter belongs to, or the message in the paint.

 

Nope. Take it up with the courts. Bias motivated crime punishment is constitutional. I mean... taking your argument to the next level hitting a pedestrian is the same as killing someone for their shoes since motivation doesnt matter to you. Wrong. If the crime was to intimidate a group vs spray painting your name.. never mind... youre not interested.

 

Again, if you only think bad stuff, you have no legal problems. It's acting on them. So quit pretending its about freedom of thought and association. Think what you want and hang out with whoever you want.

But, yes, your intent (not emotion) can and does determine which crime you're charged with, whether it's vandalism or hate crime. That does get into your thoughts at the time. That's always been true, hasn't it? Run someone down with a car and whether or not you intended to do it plays a pretty big role is what you're charged with. Or do you disagree that it should?

 

My goodness, your understanding of the criminal Justice system is on par with Joe Biden’s understanding on what makes a good grandfather.

 

Triggered a response of nothing but insults. Feel free to point out that hate crimes are unconstitutional which is your base premise we are debating. I wasnt aware they were.

 

your example is so removed from the reality of this discussion, I’m going to bite my tongue on my snarkiness. What you’re failing to include in your piece of the puzzle is the identity of the victim. In the example that you’re using, do you want to charge the Nazi with a hate crime if he accidentally runs over a grand wizard of the KKK? Of course not. Not because you don’t care that the grand wizard was hit by a car, but you realize that the Nazi’s hate had nothing to do with the crime. Without the hate directed to a victim, there is no “hate crime.” Also, using the painting analogy, if a Nazi paints a giant, yellow, happy face on a Jew’s home, is that a hate crime? I am certain that you would say no. So your analogy of running somebody down in a car, and looking at the driver’s own culpability really has nothing to do with this discussion. You’re talking about degrees of mens rea: from pure accident, to negligence, all the way up to first-degree murder, and everything in between. If a Jew darts out between two parked cars and is hit by a nazi driving down the road, that is not a hate crime, it is an accident, maybe even negligence, but it’s not a hate crime.

my point is the government has no business criminalizing emotion. You are confusing emotion with intent. If a criminal terrorizes a victim, it makes no difference whether that victim is of a particular group. Terror is terror, crime is crime. Any form of “hate” speech or association should not be an aggravating factor to be considered in any criminal prosecution. There is a reason this country was founded upon the principle of equal justice under the law. Too often, we have failed to live up to to this principle in practice, but God Almighty, why would we codify an attack on this principle into our law?

 

Huh? You can continue to feel free to make arguments for me that I have not made, such as a hate crime is unconstitutional. At no point during this discussion have I made such a comment, nor have I put any thought into it. Try harder.

 

To me painting a swastika and painting the threat “death to Jews”are two different degrees of crime.

One is a blatant attempt to terrorize/scare.

The other is a symbol that people see as bad, some see as good, wether right or wrong.

I think the written threat should be charged at a higher rate. Imo

If any jurisdiction wants a symbol to be charged a defined rate the symbol needs to be on a specific list in the statutes. Allowing individuals to define the crime through emotion or feelings is rot with irregularities.