Cowards Attack the Dead

[Mr.Moto]

@mhendo

No, none of that would surprise me, although i’d like to see some evidence of the appropriate laws.

For my answers here, I consulted the Revised Code of Washington State, since it directly applies.

Now, the law that directly applies here involves grave desecration, which is punishable under the code:

RCW 68.56.010
Unlawful damage to graves, markers, shrubs, etc. – Interfering with funeral.

Every person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who unlawfully or without right wilfully does any of the following:

 (1) Destroys, cuts, mutilates, effaces, or otherwise injures, tears down or removes, any tomb, plot, monument, memorial or marker in a cemetery, or any gate, door, fence, wall, post or railing, or any enclosure for the protection of a cemetery or any property in a cemetery.

 (2) Destroys, cuts, breaks, removes or injures any building, statuary, ornamentation, tree, shrub, flower or plant within the limits of a cemetery.

 (3) Disturbs, obstructs, detains or interferes with any person carrying or accompanying human remains to a cemetery or funeral establishment, or engaged in a funeral service, or an interment.

Now, that is a misdemeanor, of course. Had these miscreants hung the swastikas on a synagogue, it would have been a different crime altogether:

RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment – Definition and criminal penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

 (a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

 (b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

 (c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.

 (2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact's satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person's perception of the victim's or victims' race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:

 (a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage; or

 (b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika.

 This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state's ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection.

 (3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.

 (4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

 (5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.

 (6) "Sexual orientation" for the purposes of this section means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

 (7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.

 (8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

 (9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.

So there it is. Hang a swastika on a veteran’s grave - misdemeanor. Hang it on a synagogue - felony. Which means that when BobLibDem perceived these as not being more wrong or less wrong - well, he was wrong, wasn’t he?

@mhendo

The point i was making was how ridiculous your argument was, because, as someone has already pointed out, putting a swastika up in a school classroom might be perfectly acceptable in the context of a class about the Third Reich. How that compares to putting one up on a synagogue, i’m not sure.

Just answered.

@mhendo

And you still haven’t made any convincing argument about the alleged connection between BobLibDem’s attitude to patriotism in the other thread, and his comments in this one. The link you make between them is so spurious as to cast doubt on your intelligence and rationality. I never suspected you were part of the milroyj-style dribbling idiot brigade, but i could have been wrong.

Well, all of you are in full agreement that this is wrong, as am I. But press you on why it is wrong, and I think some of you will not have answers that go beyond property destruction and respect for the dead.

There is another reason why this is wrong, isn’t there? Wasn’t it alluded to when comments were made about veterans and the VFW?

I said before some things were more wrong than other things. That is very very true.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Mr. Moto

Which means that when BobLibDem perceived these as not being more wrong or less wrong - well, he was wrong, wasn’t he?

Only if the only measure of “wrong” is in criminal terms. And of course only if BobLibDem agrees with that law.

He might be wrong. But you can’t tell just from that.

[Mr.Moto]

Lots of ways to measure that, sure.

But we all make distinctions about degrees of wrongness all of the time, including BobLibDem.

[Mr.Moto]

The OP called this an attack on the dead. Personally, I think it is an attack on a lot more than that, by cowards who chose proximate victims who couldn’t stop them anymore.

My take on it, FWIW.

[Monty]

So, if even one of the graves was that of a Jewish veteran, then the crime is a felony? I wonder how the family members of the deceased veterans felt about someone placing swastika flags on the graves–especially if said veterans had fought in Europe during WWII.

“More wrong vs less wrong” isn’t the issue anyway. It appears, as far as the Sheriff and the law are concerned, to be “a crime of a certain gravity (i.e., misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony).”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Mr. Moto

Lots of ways to measure that, sure.

But we all make distinctions about degrees of wrongness all of the time, including BobLibDem.

That we do, but until you know how he makes those distinctions, you can’t call him wrong. Which means when you said that - well, you were wrong, weren’t you?

Not that anyone cares, but “wrong” is a fun word to say. I like the sound of it.

[mhendo]

@Mr. Moto

Well, all of you are in full agreement that this is wrong, as am I. But press you on why it is wrong, and I think some of you will not have answers that go beyond property destruction and respect for the dead.

Well, it’s wrong for those reasons, and because it’s wrong to tear down someone else’s shrines (or whatever sort) in order to make your own point. Personally, i don’t think it’s made more wrong by the fact that the graves in question are veterans’ graves. Desecration of memorial and gravesites like this is bad, no matter who the interred people are, and no matter who it was that hung the flags on the graves. Nor does it especially matter that the flags were American flag. If one of those graves had been covered with some other flag that had some significance for the family of the dead, it would be just as bad.

And you still haven’t explained how this all connects to the completely irrelevant comparison you made between BobLibDem’s attitude to patriotism, and his comments in this thread. You haven’t provided a single piece of relevant material to connect the issues.

@Mr. Moto

I said before some things were more wrong than other things. That is very very true.

“Some things are more wrong than others.” Well, give you a gold star, you fucking genius. When did you work that out?

Your problem is that you assume, or expect, that everyone should hold exactly the same set of standards that you do, and that everyone else should agree with your taxonomy of which things are more wrong than others.

[Terrifel]

@Gundam_Cricket

was anyone else misled by the thread title?

There’s lots of names that you could hang on the vandals, but “coward” doesn’t seem like it particularly applies in this instance. They broke into a veteran’s graveyard to burn flags and hang swastikas; I’d say that takes some stones, especially since plenty of people in this thread seem to think that the perpetrators would likely get their asses kicked if anyone caught them at it. Putting an American flag on a vet’s grave takes zero bravery in America; putting a Nazi flag on the same grave risks legal penalties and physical harm. It may be stupid bravery, but that should still count.

Having read the thread title, I, too, was hoping to hear about somebody sneaking into a funeral home to punch out an old enemy, or something of the sort. But it’s still good, as I now know about scenic Orcas Island! Land of the Nazi Dead!

[John_Mace]

@Mr. Moto

And again, I did not want to make more of that incident in that thread than it likely was - a bunch of (probably) kids getting into trouble.

Still, one of the reasons I’m teaching certain patriotic lessons to my kids is so they will know exactly why actions like this are wrong - and why they are more wrong than ordinary acts of vandalism that don’t involve such disrespect.

You don’t need to teach kids to be patriot to teach them not to vandalize.

I don’t see how you can twist Bob’s post around to imply that he was OK with this sort of thing. That’s ridiculous. He didn’t say the US flag and the Swastika were interchangeable. He said patriotism, per se, isn’t a good thing. It isn’t.

[BobLibDem]

Thanks John and the rest of you. Mr. Moto, you can quote chapter and verse of the law all you want, but in my opinion the three cases you presented about the display of swastikas were roughly equivalent. I’m not sure I agree that the exercise of any speech, however repugnant, should be construed as a hate crime. You get into the gray area when something is speech or when is it intimidation and I can’t call that any better than anyone else. I don’t care if someone is patriotic or not and I don’t see why anyone else should either. This issue is about civilized behavior and committing acts that trespass on the rights of others. There is no connection nor is there any hypocrisy on my part for separating the two.

[Miller]

@Mr. Moto

Oh no. There are degrees to every crime. Surely you know that.

Which is worse, putting a swastika in a classroom, putting one in a veterans’ cemetery, or putting one on a synagogue?

I would say, synagogue is the worst, classroom second, and veteran’s cemetary lagging a bit at third.

Thing is, instilling a sense of patriotism in your kids would only remedy the third and least offensive act. One can, after all, be an American patriot and an anti-Semite at the same time. It seems to me that teaching your kids to respect other people’s property and beliefs would be a more generally useful lesson, as it cover all three of your hypotheticals all by itself, without ever having to mention patriotism.

Plus, it’s much harder to twist, “Respect other people,” into something evil or destructive, than it is to twist, “America is the best country ever,” into something evil or destructive. So teaching patriotism is both less useful overall, and more dangerous, than simply teaching your kid respect for other people.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

That’s pathetic. If the point is to protest the war it’s off target. A lot of those guys died so that we wouldn’t be flying swastikas on our public buildings.

Then again, the vandals could be actual Nazis.

I can’t believe I actually find myself hoping for that!

[Miller]

@BrainGlutton

Then again, the vandals could be actual Nazis.

I can’t believe I actually find myself hoping for that!

Why would you hope for that? If the choice is between a bunch of idiots pretending to hold evil, inhuman ideas in order to piss people off, and a bunch of people who really do hold evil, inhuman ideas and want to piss people off, I’d rather have the idiots than the monsters. The idiots, at least, are less likely to migrate from petty vandalism to violent hate crime.

[Monty]

Some of y’all are quite entertaining. My thread title is misleading? Oh, please. It takes exactly zero bravery to wait until there’s nobody at the cemetery before one vandalizes the place. Had they not been cowards, they would’ve gone to the grieving family members and said, “Hey, your relatives were Nazis!” What the cowards in this instance did though was to vandalize the graves in the apparant hope of shocking the relatives.

To address another subject referred to in this thread: Patriotism isn’t a bad thing, jingoism is.

[John_Mace]

@Monty

Some of y’all are quite entertaining. My thread title is misleading? Oh, please. It takes exactly zero bravery to wait until there’s nobody at the cemetery before one vandalizes the place. Had they not been cowards, they would’ve gone to the grieving family members and said, “Hey, your relatives were Nazis!” What the cowards in this instance did though was to vandalize the graves in the apparant hope of shocking the relatives.

Some? One person said something, but I took it as more of a zombie joke than as an accusation of intentional misleading on your part.

[Monty]

Well, Terrifel’s wasn’t a joke. Yes, you’re right. One person made a joke and a different person attempted to show the vandals really weren’t cowards.

[mhendo]

@Monty

Patriotism isn’t a bad thing, jingoism is.

Unfortunately, for some people, the first always seems to involve the second.

[John_Mace]

@Monty

Well, Terrifel’s wasn’t a joke. Yes, you’re right. One person made a joke and a different person attempted to show the vandals really weren’t cowards.

OK. I didn’t see the one from Terrifel.

You may not be a ware of this , but there have been a number of complaints lately about false thread titles in the Pit. But when those complaints have been made, it’s been a lot more than just one poster. But these were not just “misleading”, they were out and out false (at least according to a number of people).

[Voyager]

@John Mace

You don’t need to teach kids to be patriot to teach them not to vandalize.

I don’t see how you can twist Bob’s post around to imply that he was OK with this sort of thing. That’s ridiculous. He didn’t say the US flag and the Swastika were interchangeable. He said patriotism, per se, isn’t a good thing. It isn’t.

In fact, I can see some ultra-patriotic Nimrod thinking it is a good idea to vandalize the graves of a former enemy. Patriotism teaches differences, but ethics teaches how we are the same, and deserve the same treatment.

[Terrifel]

@Monty

It takes exactly zero bravery to wait until there’s nobody at the cemetery before one vandalizes the place. Had they not been cowards, they would’ve gone to the grieving family members and said, “Hey, your relatives were Nazis!” What the cowards in this instance did though was to vandalize the graves in the apparant hope of shocking the relatives.

Doubtful. They probably vandalized the graves just to be dicks in general, and also to see if it would rile people up, which it has done. I didn’t see anything in that article about the vandals singling out any particular graves, so they didn’t specifically care about upsetting relatives. It’s not like they were thinking, “Man, I’d really like to go up and tell that dead veteran’s aged widow that her husband was secretly a Nazi, but she might leap up and kneecap me with her walker, so I’d better just break into the graveyard and leave a note to that effect. It’s safer.” They wanted to mess shit up and piss people off. Mission accomplished. There was probably some adolescent dare at the back of it all… “Dude! Bet you a pony keg that you wouldn’t risk the wrath of Orcas by putting Nazi flags in the VA Cemetery!”

So, no; they’re not cowards. Cowards would have said something like, “Oooh, wouldn’t it be cool to go piss on some graves and burn flags and shit,” and then be too scared to actually do it, because of the risk of arrest and/or beatings. These guys did it not once, but twice.