Hi HopOnPop,
(October 6, 2014 at 11:01 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: in my eyes the were damages in this case that may be rightly considered by our courts -- namely, in the form of intimidation/bullying (which is a civil rights issue)...What happened can't be classified as intimidation or bullying. Intimidation requires an obvious or specified target and the intent to create fear of injury or harm. Whilst the target may be inferred, there's no way to show the intent to create fear of injury or harm.
Quote:...and, secondly, in the form of potentially incitement to violence (in that, if simply ignored, this lack of official notice would predictably be expected to encourage other youths and people to do similar things, and such situations can also predictably escalate to retaliatory actions as well -- thus it behooves the government to nip-it-in-the-bud to help preserve peace by enacting some kind of deterrent to the initial act, not as punishment but as a deterrent to others).This can't be construed as incitement to violence as you need to demonstrate that his actions were persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. In fact, some of the resulting christian lynch mob were likely more guilty of incitement to violence than he was!
Quote:I think If you wish to argue that such forms of "damage" are too intangible to consider punishable by some form of regulation, then you calling into question a lot settled law founded under the auspices of Civil Rights and Equal Rights statutes (which I personally consider to be a hallmark development to any society that might remotely consider itself to be a "free society").No-one can argue that intimidation and incitement to violence are intangible acts however this boy's actions are neither, by legal definition or by precedent. The decision to commit him to community service is a miscarriage of justice, plain & simple. Christian mob-law has won out on this day and the US justice system is all the poorer for it.
Sum ergo sum
