In the Court of Mtgman, hearing the cases of Redneck Asshole and Offended Vigilante.
In the case of the Redneck Asshole I find the defendent guilty and would like to sternly warn the offender about his unrepentant attitude. This type of offense is not acceptable in society. Further offenses will be treated most seriously, even moreso if the accompanying attitude is not reformed.
In the case of the Offended Vigilantee I find the defendant guilty and would remind the offender that society set up the rule of law so proportionate and fair justice could be meeted out. If the offense rises to the level of being actionable in court the proper remedy is to seek justice through the justice system.
And, in a case that is perhaps more closely applicable to the one being discussed here:
Make of that what you will but, if that website’s representations of those cases is accurate, it appears to me that the assailant in this case would have trouble defending his conduct by claiming that the white kid’s shirt constituted “fighting words.”
What I gather from those cites is that it is a question whether fighting words would apply in any case. The courts seem to be all over the place on it.
The one common factor, however, seems to be that all the cases revolve around the person issuing the fighting words having been arrested for a breach of the peace. I don’t see anything about how it would apply as a criminal defense to someone responding to the fighting words.
We all know it’s wrong to “go upside someone’s head”, but at the same time there is something about an offensive ignorant asshole being “educated” in such a simple and direct way. It’s like eating a whole box of chocolate. It’s a supposed to be a bad thing, but it feels good somehow.
I even feel this way about the death penalty. I oppose it on principle, for a variety of reasons, but that didn’t prevent me from feeling a certain amount of satisfaction when Timothy McVeigh was executed.
But, conversely, that sense of satisfaction did not change my opinion about the death penalty, nor my implacable opposition to it.
Nothing’s next, none of your silly examples to the side.
But if you want a “what’s next,” how about this one: your mom dies of cancer, and I point and laugh at you and say, “Ha ha, your mom died!” and you pop me one. That’s what’s next.
When a person uses free speech to express personal satisfaction at a horrific death (or, in this case, a tradition of horrific deaths), it’s hard for me to get worked up over their getting popped in the nose, especially by someone who was affected by those deaths.
That’s very different from a person using free speech to express a political view and getting attacked for it.
However, in my understanding of how the courts work, a simple assault like this, with no aggrivating circumstances on the part of the perpetrator (I see no indication that this fight was between two mis-matched persons in age, physical fitness or even gender.), no serious harm having been done, and extenuating circumstances existing for the assault (Whether you’re satisfied or not by this kid’s actions, there is nothing incomprehensible about them.) the most common punishment handed out for a first offender will involve fines, community service, and possible treatment for anger management.
The fines are usually up to the discretion of the judge (And seperate from court fees.) and are scaled by several factors, including (but not limited to) how incomprehensible the action of the defendant had been, the age of the defendant, and the defendant’s past record. It is not unusual from the times I’ve spent sitting in general court, to see a judge waive all fines if he’s satisfied the defendant isn’t a continuing hazard, or that the circumstances were understandable. Anger management treatment is something that is rarely suggested until at least a second offense.
I want to make it clear my satisfaction is not such that I want to give the kid any sort of “Get Out of Jail Free” card. I just think that given my understanding of the usual sentencing for this crime is such that a little directed community service seems especially appropriate. Community service is AIUI the standard punishment for this kind of assault. All that I and several other posters have said is that the judge suggest where the community service be done, if that’s possible. I really don’t see anyone saying that the kid who assaulted the other should be given a bye, and told “Go and be a righteous fist for God and Country.”
This reminds me of the incident at Auburn University a few years back when some frat boys came up with some really clever and “hysterical” costumes (scroll through- the worst ones aren’t on the front page) and several honestly didn’t understand why people (including, I must add, MANY white southerners) because “we’re not really racist— we’re making fun of racists!” (Sometimes I think that if it weren’t for the contributions of their hazing rituals in gay porn frat boys would serve no purpose at all.)
At the time I didn’t want to see expulsions from the University or their fraternity closed or any of that stuff (all of which happened) half as much as I wanted to see some fraternity brothers drive the 20 miles from Tuskegee and crash the party. With bats. I’d have definitely contributed to their bail.
Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe abortion, GLBT causes, or the death penalty to be silly examples.
Pro-lifers consider the termination of a fetus by other than natural causes to be horrific, and abortion service providers have been killed for their pro-choice position.
Although the numbers aren’t sufficient to meet your test of “tradition”, GLBT persons have been killed simply for being what they are.
Anti-capital punishment persons view every taking of a life by the state to be wrong, and argue that no means of execution is acceptable.
Whatever your view, and however you promote it, I still hold that you should be protected from assault by those whose position differs. If you’re making light of a loss by another, I’ll assess you to be a pathetic soul more deserving of pity than a punch.
What if the t-shirt featured a picture of someone dragging Bush behind a car? What if the t-shirt espoused harm to the president of the United States? Should that be equally tolerated?
I’m not at all expressing disagreement - I’m just surprised that you are a staunch defender of 1st amendment rights.
Oddly, Michael Shermer (in Why People Believe Weird Things) has chapters on holocaust deniers and frequently mentions that many have been physically beaten. This detail is irrelevant, but Shermer seems to relish in it.
Right, and if Lisa’s dad was murdered by a pro-lifer and you wore a t-shirt with a cartoon depicting glee at the death of an abortion doctor, I’d have a hard time blaming Lisa for punching you.
Right, and if you wore a shirt showing a cartoon of Matthew Shepherd dying on a fence, bloodymouthed, with a humorous caption, and if Josh were gay, I’d have a hard time blaming Josh for punching you.
Right, and if some anti-death-penalty nut had killed your cousin because your cousin worked as a guard on death row, and I wore a t-shirt gleefully celebrating your cousin’s death, your punching me would come as no surprise. (I know that’s a stretch, but I’m trying to work with your analogy here).
In all cases, in case you missed it, I’d advocate normal punishment of the assailant. It’s just that my heart wouldn’t be in it. If that’s a mortal sin, well, I’m a sinner.
According to the article, he bought it at a flea market. And you can probably buy that kind of thing from hate websites, I would imagine.
And count me with those who say even though he should be punished too, I TOTALLY sympathize with the kid who kicked his ass. Dammit, I want to kick this loser’s ass, and I’m as white as white can be.
My feelings exactly. I’m also against the death penalty, and yet I also felt no pity for McVeigh. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance, maybe it’s some base crass “revenge thing”.
To the extent that such display is a political statement, I must defend it. That said, I will confess my lack of knowledge regarding the legality of expressions depicting harm to the POTUS. If such is not legal, then a potential conflict exists between those statutes and the 1st amendment.
I don’t know why such support would be surprising. Even when I disagree with laws, I still abide by them while seeking change. To allow selective application of Constitutional protections based upon whose ox is being gored makes a mockery of the entire document, IMHO.
A quote hanging here in my home office reads:
So wrote the Appellate Court in Texas v. Flynt.
Thank you for the reply LHoD. If I cannot make my case to you successfully with words, then it’s time for me to walk away. Raising my hand against you in anger isn’t likely to change your mind.
Students’ rights to free speech are not necessarily the same as the rights of adults outside of a public school situation. According to SCOTUS in Tinker v. Des Moines and Bethel v. Fraser, schools can regulate students’ expression to preserve order and prevent disruptions. But the schools’ forecast of disruption has to be based on facts and not just speculation.
I would think that if such racial t-shirts weren’t already against the dress code, they will be from now on. They have official caused a disruption.
The student wearing the offensive t-shirt is an adult, but still has to abide by the school dress code.
The Tinker decision (1969) came about, BTW, because students got into trouble for wearing black arm bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam! (That was the year that I started teaching.)
I was wondering the same thing. Is the flea market he got it at tied into the Bizarro-world equivalent of the Northern Lights catalog? Also, why didn’t someone at the flea market say something?
I’ll be honest. I knew guys like this in high school and they scared me. Since a black family didn’t move into my district until my junior year, they tended to be cruel and nasty to anyone who was different, including first-generation immigrants like me and people who were handicapped like my best friend. They considered me uppity because I was smart and I didn’t like them teasing and attacking my best friend, and I had the temerity to object to it. After all, we minorities should just up and know our places, shouldn’t we? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: