The sheriff has posed for pictures with the white nationalist 1/6er who claimed responsibility for it.
I don’t know why you don’t want to post links for your assertions on this story, but never mind, I found it for myself.
I guess I’m content to wait to draw absolute conclusions until at least some of the higher-level investigations have concluded. This sheriff sounds no better than he should be. But nevertheless.
I’m waiting on what the FBI say.
This probably also belongs in the stupid gun news thread.
Floridaman takes a friend’s goldendoodle out for a walk and, naturally, pauses to give her a proper schtupping, because, that is always part of dogwalking. Some people (including a young-ish teenager) observe this and inquire as to his intentions. Floridaman becomes upset, runs around hair-on-fire tearing up the joint and is detained whilst trying to steal a car.
Hey, Chad. Do anything interesting over the weekend?
One of the charges is
criminal mischief to a place of worship
Yes, I would agree with this.
Dog going to be OK? (you folks have got to remember the important stuff… 
That’s a weirdly specific charge. Had he damaged the Photos with Santa setup at a mall, would he have been charged with “criminal mischief to a place of commerce?” Would damage to someone’s front lawn display have been “criminal mischief to a place of residence?” More to the point, even if those categories do exist, do they all share the same sentencing guidelines upon conviction? I don’t mind saying that I would be disturbed (but not surprised) to learn that the answer to all these questions is “No.”
Also, that story doesn’t give us any information about the outcome/aftermath of the incident for the goldendoodle, who is the real victim here.
Stoopid Florida so-called “journalists.”
It is Florida, after all. Churches are kind of especially sacred there (and, in most cases, also places commerce – the Church of Scientology, for example, is based there).
Why “to a place of worship” and not “in a place of worship”?
Oddly enough, I don’t care where on the planet it is; I’m against [crimes] against a place of worship being treated differently by whatever legal system is in place locally. It’s dangerously close to permitting the concept of blasphemy to have legal meaning (which I’m also against).
One presumes that the damage was to an outdoor Nativity display.
Goldendoodle. Sounds like a tease.
Flip it the other way around. Someone uses chalk to put a swastika on a Jewish temple. Not much physical damage there. but a whole hellofa lot of hate crime. Should that be treated the same as someone drawing a dick in your driveway with chalk?
That’s a valid thought, but I think this perp just wanted to fuck a dog, not desecrate a church.
But people move to Florida because they’re tough on crime.
Agreed, but kalasdad made a very strong statement about treating places of worship the same as any other location; I was opining that the law was set up to discourage religious hate crimes, not blasphemy.
Is dog fucking a form of blasphemy?
All Dogs Go To Heaven so, yeah.