Man Sentenced to 16 Years For Burning Gay Flag While Burning American Flag Remains Legal

[Maverick44]

This pretty much sums it up.

A Story County judge sentenced Martinez to 17 years in prison on Wednesday and explained the increased sentence was due to Martinez having a long history of harassment and habitual offending while never showing any remorse.

“The defendant stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior and that he would continue to do this no matter what,” said Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds, whose office recommended the maximum sentence.

If you want to burn a flag in protest, do so with your flag on your property. You have that right. If you despise someone's sexual preference, you have that right. You do not have the right to harass them though. If you have a long history of committing crimes and harassing people, and then tell the judge that you are going to continue that behavior no matter what, then you are an idiot of the highest magnitude and should expect to get bitch slapped with a harsh sentence.

I don't feel bad for the guy. He was a piece of shit and would have just continued being a piece of shit. If he would have kept his mouth shut and had just left people alone, he wouldn't be serving 17 years for being a dipshit.

 

[TX OMFS]

This pretty much sums it up.



If you want to burn a flag in protest, do so with your flag on your property. You have that right. If you despise someone's sexual preference, you have that right. You do not have the right to harass them though. If you have a long history of committing crimes and harassing people, and then tell the judge that you are going to continue that behavior no matter what, then you are an idiot of the highest magnitude and should expect to get bitch slapped with a harsh sentence.

I don't feel bad for the guy. He was a piece of shit and would have just continued being a piece of shit. If he would have kept his mouth shut and had just left people alone, he wouldn't be serving 17 years for being a dipshit.

Thanks Maverick, I LOL'D. I haven't read the whole thread or any of the articles but that was funny.

 

[MTA]

17 years for burning a fag flag? Should have burned an American one and you would have gotten an invitation on to cnn

 

[cycleguy2300]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

As a repeat offender he may have gotten a few years however sentencing for non-violent crimes is generally less harsh in this social climate. "Hate crimes" against any of the favored minorities is prosecuted with zeal. I dont believe he'd be as harshly sentenced absent that designation.

I do agree it wasn't specifically about a flag and that running his mouth didn't help him at all. I don't condone his actions or beliefs as the former was unlawful and the latter unpopular.

I contend in the exact same scenario against say a conservative, straight white male group and a Confederate flag that aspect would have been characterized differently and resulted in less stringent sentencing.

Since when is arson a non-violent crime?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler]

Burning a flag? I'm sorry I'm not tracking. If I overlooked where he hurt (caused physical harm) to someone other than himself my bad.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Burning a flag? I'm sorry I'm not tracking. If I overlooked where he hurt (caused physical harm) to someone other than himself my bad.

A flag he stole...

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I am running down the street one night on my weekly mile run, alongside a city park, a couple of thugs, jump me. I wear a fanny pack and carry money, flashlight pepper spray n stuff because I take lots of different routes thru the city, just to see it at ground level.

The thugs want my fanny pack and I refuse, they begin to push and shove, while trying to grab the fanny pack. One kicks trying to kick the pack but misses and catches me between the legs, I drop screaming in pain and the other rips off my pack. My madness overcomes pain and I go after them and being a runner I soon catch up and I tackle the one running with my pack, and now realizing they are black because we are in a lit parking area I start to scream the N word along with a few other choice words.

A black couple is there seeing me chase down and punch the crap out of the N!!!! He cell fones it.

The results. Viedo tape of me running down the black guys and punching one out while calling him NNNN. I get charged with a hate crime, I have no proof they assaulted me, they walk free and I also get charged with Assault since I am a shape big guy. As its my first offense I get a light sentence and probation, it now on my record. Black guys take me to court and sue...ohhh yes we forget about the flip side the $$$$ law suit. One guy gets awared $100k, the other guy who I punched gets awarded $500k.

Lost my job, filed for bankruptcy...

 

[SA_Steve]

what a mess

 

[Double Naught Spy]

He was not charged with most of that:

He received 15 years for the hate crime of arson, one year for the reckless use of explosives or fire and 30 days for harassment.

In Texas vs Johnson, Johnson did the same thing but to an American flag, and it was free speech.

The difference here is that Johnson burned his own flag whereas in the OP case, the idiot, Martinez, burned somebody else's property, which makes it arson.

 

[Hoji]

And this guy gets a 30 day sentence for murder and robbery.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-jailed-just-30-days-shooting-man-dead.html

 

[phoenix]

supposedly he had other brushes with the law and that was the problem. I do have issues when its a hate crime to burn a rainbow flag yet ok to burn american flag or remove POW flags and replace them with transgender flags ( some congressmen are doing this). Or for spoiled NFL stars to kneel during the national anthem. If some groups think america is so racist and want to make a point just sit out and dont play. Teh game will get slower, but still go on.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I do have issues when its a hate crime to burn a rainbow flag yet ok to burn american flag

Again, there is a difference between burning your own property and burning somebody else's property which is ARSON. If you burn somebody else's property because you don't like their race, religion, etc. it becomes a hate crime. I think the notion of "hate crimes" are stupid as well, but that is the law.

Now, if you feel so strongly about what you don't like about the law, contact your congressfolks and tell them that you want to see a change.

 

[Maverick44]

If it had been his gay pride flag, he probably would have never been charged with a crime, let alone a hate crime. And yes, the idea of a hate crime is stupid. Just as stupid as this guy stealing someone else's flag and committing an act of arson with it.

 

[Whistler]

Sort of stuck on this arson thing.

When BLM/Antifa snatched (stole) an American flag from the hands of another and set it ablaze (arson) and/or assaulted someone there was no crime charged or prosecuted. To the contrary it was characterized as 'brave', honorable and 'social justice'.

The point of this thread had nothing to do with flag burning and everything to do with the dichotomy of similar offenses characterized and prosecuted with disturbing disparity based on the perpetrators beliefs.

The intent was to point out the danger inherent in permitting the Judicial system to define particular speech or actions as 'hate speech' or 'hate crimes' based on socially popular minorities and prescribe substantially more onerous penalties.

Any violence perpetrated against another is essentially a 'hate crime' and is already illegal. The idea that when the victim is socially popular (or a minority) the crime and subsequent sentencing is somehow enhanced is reprehensible and contrary to our system of justice. In exactly the same way excessive prosecution of any particular group would be.

'Hate crimes' and 'hate speech' are an artificial construct intended to undermine the 1st Amendment and criminalize 'unpopular' beliefs.

While I don't condone or agree with his beliefs or actions I support his right to believe whatever he wishes and assert his crimes should be prosecuted with equity to similar crimes irrespective of his beliefs.

 

[Maverick44]

Sort of stuck on this arson thing.

When BLM/Antifa snatched (stole) an American flag from the hands of another and set it ablaze (arson) and/or assaulted someone there was no crime charged or prosecuted. To the contrary it was characterized as 'brave', honorable and 'social justice'.

The point of this thread had nothing to do with flag burning and everything to do with the dichotomy of similar offenses characterized and prosecuted with disturbing disparity based on the perpetrators beliefs.

The intent was to point out the danger inherent in permitting the Judicial system to define particular speech or actions as 'hate speech' or 'hate crimes' based on socially popular minorities and prescribe substantially more onerous penalties. Just because one bad person went free doesn't mean they all should.

Any violence perpetrated against another is essentially a 'hate crime' and is already illegal. The idea that when the victim is socially popular (or a minority) the crime and subsequent sentencing is somehow enhanced is reprehensible and contrary to our system of justice. In exactly the same way excessive prosecution of any particular group would be.

'Hate crimes' and 'hate speech' are an artificial construct intended to undermine the 1st Amendment and criminalize 'unpopular' beliefs.

While I don't condone or agree with his beliefs or actions I support his right to believe whatever he wishes and assert his crimes should be prosecuted with equity to similar crimes irrespective of his beliefs.

Instead of arguing that bad people should be freed since other equally bad people have committed similar acts with no real repercussions, why not argue that they should all face these same harsh repercussions? Just because some bad people went free doesn't mean we should throw out the whole justice system and let them all run wild. Focus on the actions of those BLM and Antifa members who committed crimes but were not prosecuted. Focus on the people who made that happen and bring attention to their failure to uphold the law.

Don't focus on the jackass who committed an act of arson and then told a judge that he would continue harassing people. He committed very real crimes and deserves to be in prison.

This guy needs to be in prison, and he needs to be there for a long time based on his attitude and his constant harassment of others. Those Antifa and BLM members need to be in there along side him. Society is better off without them.

 

[jrbfishn]

I think the argument is not so much a matter of whether he needs to be locked up or not. But rather or not his dislike of someone else should be a factor in how he is sentenced.
Our whole system is predicated on the idea that we are all judged equally. The idea that any group is more protected or more restricted in thought or voice is against our entire legal system not to mention our system of government. Or that any criminal act is more deserving of harsher punishment because you don't like another group. And too often these days, our elected officials charged with making sure everyone is treated equally under the law is picking and chosing when and which group is favored at the moment and who not to due to their perception of who is hated most at the moment.
How many times have we heard of someone defending themselves from an attack get charged for a crime while the attacker is called a victim and released or face minimal charges because someone might "hate" them?
I fail to remember any part of the Constitution that has any references to what group is more deserving of protection than another.
Hate crimes need to be done away with. Period. Violent attacks need to be punished regardless of who or why they are committed.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler]

Thanks jrbfishn, well put.

I'm just arguing for equal treatment untainted by popular bias. The stereotypical American Blind Justice. Running his mouth was stupid, stupid isn't illegal no matter how much it offends you.

 

[Maverick44]

Thanks jrbfishn, well put.

I'm just arguing for equal treatment untainted by popular bias. The stereotypical American Blind Justice. Running his mouth was stupid, stupid isn't illegal no matter how much it offends you.

Running his mouth isn't illegal. Having a long history of harassing people due to their beliefs/preferences, commiting theft and arson, and then telling the judge that you have zero intentions of ever stopping is illegal.

Justice was served in that case. It was not served against Antifa and BLM. We should be putting pressure on prosecutors to make sure that BS stops.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

Running his mouth isn't illegal. Having a long history of harassing people due to their beliefs/preferences, commiting theft and arson, and then telling the judge that you have zero intentions of ever stopping is illegal.

Justice was served in that case. It was not served against Antifa and BLM. We should be putting pressure on prosecutors to make sure that BS stops.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Just a question here, but do you think being prosecuted and punished for a possible future crime is ok?
History or not, yes, he absolutely deserved to be charged and sentenced for theft and at least destruction of property. Not his feelings or thoughts. Don't like the way he feels, he might do it again? Ok give him the max for those two crimes. With no parole. Keep him locked up as long as possible.
Conspiracy to commit a crime, IIRC requires proof of planning and/or actually trying to do it. Like a guy that tried to hire a hit man but it turns out to be a cop.
And what if he has a change of heart?
Or decides he is tired of the whole jail thing and just sits quietly fuming at home from now on instead of attacking those he don't like?
It's a slippery slope when charging someone for a crime because they don't like someone/something and speaks out. Even if I personally do not agree with them. Personally, I think the guy is an idiot. But he doesn't deserve jail time for it.

I am all for incarcerating people that break laws that are Constitutionally valid laws. I am totally against incarcerating people for what they think or say. At least unless you can show in court that they are capable and actively in the process of carrying out a threat.



Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick44]

Just a question here, but do you think being prosecuted and punished for a possible future crime is ok?

Depends. Just because the mere possibility exists? Absolutely not. If there is a high level of probability backed by evidence that a crime will take place in the future, and if the intent to commit that crime can be proven? Sure. That's not really what happened here though. He's not serving a 16 year sentence just because he might (or more realistically, most likely would) harass people in the future.

History or not, yes, he absolutely deserved to be charged and sentenced for theft and at least destruction of property.

He was charged with arson, which was appropriate. There are aggravating circumstances that likely contributed to his lengthy sentence. The "hate crime" aspect likely being the most prevalent. Others include recidivism, and a lack of remorse, which he very clearly admitted to. I'm not going to argue the hate crime aspect of it. The law is clearly not carried out equally and justly across all groups. Considering this guy's history, his lack of remorse, and his admittance that he would do this again, I do not feel that a 16 year sentence was unwarranted.

Not his feelings or thoughts.

He was convicted based on his actions, not his thoughts and feelings. You have the right to have any thoughts and feeling that you want. You do not have the right to act on those thoughts and feeling in a way that violates the rights of others. Your beliefs are not an excuse to harass and commit crimes against certain groups of people.

Don't like the way he feels, he might do it again? Ok give him the max for those two crimes. With no parole. Keep him locked up as long as possible.

Agreed.

Conspiracy to commit a crime, IIRC requires proof of planning and/or actually trying to do it. Like a guy that tried to hire a hit man but it turns out to be a cop.
And what if he has a change of heart?
Or decides he is tired of the whole jail thing and just sits quietly fuming at home from now on instead of attacking those he don't like?

This guy has a long history of doing this. What-ifs are great for arguments, not so great for determining real world outcomes. There are a million what-ifs you could use on just about any criminal. If doesn't change the fact that they are criminals. Sentencing should be based on evidence and fact, not what-if arguments. This guy has a long history of harassing people. He committed theft and arson, and then admitted to a judge that he would do it again in a heart beat. These are facts. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to lock this guy up for as long as legally possible.

I am not familiar with Iowa law regarding conspiracy to commit a crime, so I will not comment on what is required in that state. I will point out though, that he was not charged and convicted with conspiracy to commit a crime, making it a moot point.

It's a slippery slope when charging someone for a crime because they don't like someone/something and speaks out. Even if I personally do not agree with them. Personally, I think the guy is an idiot. But he doesn't deserve jail time for it.

I have no problem with someone being the biggest, most bigoted piece of shit imaginable withing their own home. Obviously I wouldn't want anything to do with that person, but I would respect their right to be a piece of shit. That's not what happened here though. This guy is not in prison because he spouted off some bigoted BS. He is in prison because he targeted and took action against a specific group of people. He harassed them (a crime), stole from them (a bigger crime), and then committed arson (a very big crime). It's not like the police just waltzed into his home and arrested him for posting bigoted rants online. He committed actual crimes against actual people.

Again, you can have any belief you want, but you cannot use it as an excuse to harass and victimize people. You don't have that right.

I am all for incarcerating people that break laws that are Constitutionally valid laws.

Like theft, arson, and harassment?

I am totally against incarcerating people for what they think or say. At least unless you can show in court that they are capable and actively in the process of carrying out a threat.

I believe we, along with the vast majority of this forum are in agreement there. I do not feel that anyone here is advocating arresting people and convicting them based on beliefs alone. That is not what happened in this case though. It was stated earlier that certain groups of unlawful people seem to get a pass while others seem to get the book thrown at them. I do not agree with that happening, but allowing all bad people go free for the sake of equality is not the answer. We do not need more bad people on the streets. We do not need them making the world a worse place to live. What we need is to take more of them off the streets, and put them in prison for as long as possible. As I said before, the focus should be on pressuring prosecutors and judges to uphold the law, and to stop allowing politics to decide who gets charged or not. Focusing on a bad person getting charged and rightfully convicted for committing actual crimes is not a good way to spend our time.