Skip to comments.
Accused cross-burning couple may be evicted from Conway home under nuisance law
wpde.com ^
Posted on 02/01/2024 11:23:36 AM PST by algore
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
flag burning still totally ok
1
posted on
02/01/2024 11:23:36 AM PST
by
algore
To: algore
Klan defenders on FR? Let’s hear from you guys. January White Sale ought to have been good for costumage.
2
posted on
02/01/2024 11:26:00 AM PST
by
babble-on
To: algore
Calling for the death of all Jews is considered virtuous as well.
3
posted on
02/01/2024 11:31:18 AM PST
by
gitmo
To: gitmo
Likewise, calling for the death of all White people is considered virtuous.
4
posted on
02/01/2024 11:33:38 AM PST
by
NorthMountain
(... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
To: algore
And sodomy in the senate chamber.
5
posted on
02/01/2024 11:34:03 AM PST
by
mrmeyer
(You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. Roberor thert Heinlein)
To: NorthMountain
Likewise, calling for the death of all White people is considered virtuous. "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people."
6
posted on
02/01/2024 11:34:19 AM PST
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: algore
Did they do this or is this another voluntary act of self-racism?
7
posted on
02/01/2024 11:49:14 AM PST
by
Jonty30
(In a nuclear holocaust, there is always a point in time where the meat is cooked to perfection. )
To: algore
While I would argue that these idiots are being unfairly targeted and that I would acquit them as a juror, I would also not lose a minutes sleep over their self-inflicted problems.
8
posted on
02/01/2024 11:53:02 AM PST
by
Responsibility2nd
(A truth that’s told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent ~ Wm. Blake)
To: babble-on
"Klan defenders on FR?"
As a FR Klan Defender, my defense strategy would focus on:
Challenging the Nuisance Definition: I would argue that the specific incident of burning a cross in their own yard, while deeply offensive and potentially a hate crime, may not fit within the legal definition of a nuisance as per Section 15-43-10 of the South Carolina Code
First Amendment Rights:
Distinguishing Between Criminal and Civil Liability: I would differentiate between criminal liability for a potential hate crime and the civil issue of declaring a residence a public nuisance. Just because an individual may be criminally liable does not automatically translate to their residence being classified as a nuisance.
Questioning the Proportionality of the Action: Seeking to declare a residence a public nuisance and potentially displacing residents is a severe action. I would question the proportionality of such a measure in response to a single incident, especially considering the gravity of declaring a residence a public nuisance.
This general approach would need to be adapted to the specifics of the case, including the evidence and the legal context. For precise legal strategy and advice, a detailed examination of the case specifics is essential.
9
posted on
02/01/2024 11:53:19 AM PST
by
DEPcom
(DC is not my Capitol after Jan 6th lock downs.)
To: algore
10
posted on
02/01/2024 11:54:49 AM PST
by
Reno89519
(Biden, Democrats, and Some Republicans may have surrendered, but I have not. Defend America!)
To: DEPcom
Burning a cross was done to intimidate the neighbors. That is a hate crime. Again, kick them to the curb, run them out of town. Good riddance.
11
posted on
02/01/2024 11:56:08 AM PST
by
Reno89519
(Biden, Democrats, and Some Republicans may have surrendered, but I have not. Defend America!)
To: algore
How many times does someone beat up a white person because they are white and not charged with a hate crime? That is the ultimate form of intimidation.
To: Reno89519
“Burning a cross was done to intimidate the neighbors. That is a hate crime. Again, kick them to the curb, run them out of town. Good riddance.”
Let’s avoid subjecting them to the same treatment as the January 6th protesters.
I understand the concern about hate crimes, and agree that acts like burning a cross, often seen as a symbol of intimidation and racism, are deeply troubling. If an act is done with the intent to threaten or intimidate, it’s rightfully subject to legal scrutiny and action.
However, it’s essential to adhere to the principles of due process and the rule of law. In our legal system, everyone is entitled to a fair trial and legal representation. This ensures that justice is served correctly and in accordance with the law, rather than through immediate, extrajudicial actions
13
posted on
02/01/2024 12:05:28 PM PST
by
DEPcom
(DC is not my Capitol after Jan 6th lock downs.)
To: DEPcom
If what you’re suggesting is that there should be due process before declaring the house a nuisance I’d agree. Given the fact that the article and others suggest that Butler and Harnett “face several charges” and that they’re under federal investigation on suspicion of hate crimes the nuisance issue may not be their biggest problem.
14
posted on
02/01/2024 12:15:09 PM PST
by
SJackson
(In a war of ideas it is people who get killed, Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)
To: SJackson
You make a good point. After the DOJ gets through with them, they’ll be locked up (and out of their home) for longer than a year.
15
posted on
02/01/2024 12:20:49 PM PST
by
Responsibility2nd
(A truth that’s told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent ~ Wm. Blake)
To: SJackson
“If what you’re suggesting is that there should be due process before declaring the house a nuisance I’d agree.”
Your point is well taken. Due process is indeed crucial in any legal matter, including the declaration of a property as a nuisance. It’s important that Butler and Harnett’s rights are respected throughout this process.
As you mentioned, if they are facing multiple charges and are under federal investigation for suspicion of hate crimes, these issues are indeed severe and potentially more pressing than the nuisance declaration.
16
posted on
02/01/2024 12:23:21 PM PST
by
DEPcom
(DC is not my Capitol after Jan 6th lock downs.)
To: Responsibility2nd
That’s what I think, federal hate crime can put them away for ten years. Hope they can sell the home for enough to pay their attorneys.
17
posted on
02/01/2024 12:24:00 PM PST
by
SJackson
(In a war of ideas it is people who get killed, Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)
To: babble-on
Theres 2 sides to every story, You have no clue what the neighbors put these people thru since they moved in. otoh, they should thank God they dont have an HOA, the HOA would not approve!
18
posted on
02/01/2024 12:43:55 PM PST
by
Ikeon
(Why is it acceptable to be a fool but, wrong to point it out? )
To: alternatives?
see post 18. The white guilt on FR is spreading
19
posted on
02/01/2024 12:45:48 PM PST
by
Ikeon
(Why is it acceptable to be a fool but, wrong to point it out? )
To: DEPcom
Due process is Constitutionally guaranteed.
Hate Crimes? Not so much. A modern made-up feel-good notion.
If I’m intimidated or shot, it shouldn’t matter whether the intimidator hates me or not. Burning a cross on your own lawn is different than burning one on your neighbor’s lawn.
If I simply say “I hate your guts!” is that a “hate crime?”
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson