But it's not the argument. It's a verbatim quote of something else.
it's your argument. you brought it up
or did you miss that in the above?
When I post something like that argument,
Right back at ya!
don't you think it's fair?
When I post something like that argument, I say different things than when I post something else, such as observations of what just happened. It's called "language" and "meaning" - look into it. start here:
http://www.readingbear.org/
And contains exactly the terms - "willfully" and so forth - at issue.
if you're going to argue the syntax of the legal document then i suggest you also include precedent to validate your argument with something other than your opinion
otherwise you're talking about what you, personally, think the law should state, while not actually comprehending what the law states
thanks
Did he do that anyway, unwillfully? Of course.
this is called a subjective interpretation of events and as such is not considered anything but
your opinion
moreover, this does not in any way change the argument of the legality of shooting blacks, or even the legality of using race as a justification for feeling threatened
it is still illegal per 18 U.S. Code § 249
it's not a debate, nor is it a matter of interpretation
unless, and only unless, you can provide precedent and supporting evidence from not only case history and the law, but also from studies of the statistics freely available from various government agencies covering crime and the census
Was his reasoning - based entirely on his race-warped perceptions of threat and vigilante response - accepted by the legal authorities as exonerating? Yes, it was.
please show the requisite physical evidence... you know, where it stated in the review as well as the investigation
you're making a claim about the situation, now i will ask for the evidence that specifically demonstrates your claim
if you're referring to the Brown/Wilson DOJ document, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that substantiates your claim
if you're referring to Martin/Zimmerman then you still haven't presented evidence that is not subjective, like the DOJ document
therefore you're wasting your time and everyone else too
It's not always covered, of course - as the various examples, including the DOJ official determinations in more than one of them, clearly demonstrate.
blatantly false claim and big fat lie
if you utilise race or any of the others mentioned per 18 U.S. Code § 249 as a justification for threat or even violence, it is against the law and prosecutable under multiple statutes, including but not limited to 18 U.S. Code § 249
get that through your skull... it's not rocket surgery. it's really simple.
if you attempt to justify it with race, you're commiting a hate crime
period
full stop
as i told
Tiassa, take it to any prosecutor and get them on the record. they will state the same thing.
I will bet money on it
care to take me up?
There's a muddle there, in that it's hard to tell whether you are talking about the perp's beliefs or the victim's as the "base".
again: it doesn't matter.
if your justification is
due to race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, then you are committing a hate crime and prosecutable under the law
The hate crimes laws, interestingly enough, are sometimes similarly slippery.
only to a sufficiently trained and well paid lawyer with experience that you don't have... and that is debatable too
Meanwhile, you are wrong in that prediction of what they will say in some particular cases, as the actual examples of doing just that demonstrate.
then get a prosecutor to go on the record and prove it to me
please
make sure it is in writing so that you can get the idiot debarred
But punching someone for threatening - sufficiently - is not illegal.
it is if your justification is due to:
race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability
But punching someone for threatening - sufficiently - is not illegal. Even shooting someone. And some expressions of some ideologies do - under some circumstances - directly threaten people.
then prove it to me with something other than your opinion
The ideology common to all "nazi" is among the ideologies that lend themselves to such expressions. The expression and circumstances that would add up to "sufficient" are of course the topic of the thread.
and again: if your justification is
due to race, color, religion, or national origin, actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, then you are committing a hate crime and prosecutable under the law
period
full stop
why can't you understand that?
it's not like i haven't already proven it to you... all you have is 3 examples that you are interpreting
and one of those examples you are misinterpreting intentionally
My "flag burning" or "fighting words" general criterion is posted. Apparently the others have been withdrawn? Or something. Anyway: - -
fighting words are not the same thing as a threat due to race, and it's not my argument, nor is it the argument i've continually posted about
don't change the goalposts again
)