Hate crimes

Should This Obnoxious Drunk Be Punished for His Political Views?

That's what Illinois prosecutors are trying to do by charging Timothy Trybus with hate crimes for objecting to a woman's Puerto Rican flag shirt.

|

YouTube

It is pretty clear that Timothy Trybus broke the law when he harassed Mia Irizarry for wearing a T-shirt featuring the Puerto Rican flag at a park in Chicago last month. But now that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office has charged Trybus with hate crimes in addition to assault and disorderly conduct, the government is trying to punish him for his opinions as well as his actions.

During the June 14 incident, which you can watch in a viral video that Irizarry recorded with her cellphone, an audibly intoxicated and belligerent Trybus repeatedly confronted her in and near a gazebo she had reserved for a birthday party and berated her. "Why are you wearing that?" he asked, pointing at the flag shirt. "This is America….You're not gonna change us, you know that?…You should not be wearing that in the United States of America….If you're an American citizen, you should not be wearing that shirt in America."

Trybus did not touch Irizarry, but he got uncomfortably close and raised his voice, notwithstanding her requests that he leave her alone. Meanwhile, a park police officer who has since resigned stood by passively, ignoring Irizarry's pleas for help, although he did ultimately tell Trybus to "shut the fuck up."

YouTube

The initial charges against Trybus seem to fit his behavior. Under Illinois law, someone commits assault when he "knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery." Disorderly conduct includes "any act" committed "in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace." Both offenses are Class C misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $1,500 and up to 30 days in jail. By contrast, the hate crime charges filed last week, taking into account the enhancement for offenses committed in a public park, are Class 3 felonies, punishable by two to five years in prison.

The hate crime provision applies when someone commits any of several offenses, including assault and disorderly conduct, "by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals." In this case, the allegation presumably is that Trybus harassed Irizarry at least partly because of her race, color, or ancestry, which seems like a reasonable supposition.

But even if that's true, it's hard to deny that Trybus faces the possibility of years rather than weeks behind bars because of the views he expressed about the propriety of displaying the Puerto Rican flag. If he had instead objected to T-shirt advocating marijuana legalization or Donald Trump's impeachment, he might still have been arrested for assault and disorderly conduct, but he would not be charged with felonies. The subject he chose and the position he took were crucial in determining the penalties he now faces.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who joined Cook County Commissioner Jesus Garcia and the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois in calling for hate crime charges against Trybus, made it clear that the goal is to emphasize that certain opinions are beyond the pale and should never be publicly aired. "People have to learn there are consequences, especially in the era of Trump," Gutierrez told the Chicago Tribune. "I really do believe there are people who say to themselves, 'If Trump can do it, I can do it. Why can't I go out there and say the things the president says?'"

Gutierrez, in other words, hopes the threat of prison will deter people from echoing the president's controversial views on matters related to race and immigration. That expectation should give pause to anyone who doubted that enhancing criminal penalties based on a defendant's bigoted beliefs poses a danger to freedom of speech.

NEXT: Police Kill Man with Bulldozer over 10 Marijuana Plants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “This is America….You’re not gonna change us, you know that?…You should not be wearing that in the United States of America….If you’re an American citizen, you should not be wearing that shirt in America.”

    Props to him for being the kind of ignorant bigot who doesn’t even understand what country Puerto Rico belongs to

    1. “How dare you wear that Guam flag shirt! You’re not gonna change us, you know that?…”

      1. “Oh, you’re from New Mexico? Well, you’re not gonna change us, you know that?”

        1. “I don’t speak Mexican, because this is AMERICA!”

        2. I emigrated from New Mexico 30 years ago.

        3. There’s a new Mexico?

          1. Filled with New Mexicans.

        4. Whoa, slow down there maestro. There’s a NEW Mexico?

          1. It’s not as nice as it sounds.

        5. Pisses me off when I see people wearing shirts saying ‘ heart New York.” Go back to York already you limey bastards.

          1. And New Jersey fuckheads round up your jersey cows and go HOME to Jersey!!!!

            (Before I make jerky out of your furriner jerseys, invasive species that they are!!!!)

    2. Props to him for being the kind of ignorant bigot who doesn’t even understand what country Puerto Rico belongs to

      My favorite retort so far has been from the criminal justice reporter on the local NPR affiliate that was along the lines of “I don’t think he just woke up when Trump got elected and forgot that Puerto Rico is a US Territory. I don’t think he ever knew. I think the issue is about skin color. I think some people are racist and the issue is that Americans are too dumb to know.’

      Like he himself was two drinks shy of saying, “Look, bottom line, I hate America… and not just institutions, but the people too. Puerto Ricans included.” on air.

      1. Puerto Rico is a territory temporarily under US administration. If it weren’t for Puerto Rico’s strong desire for US tax payer subsidies, they would have left long ago. And if it weren’t for the corrupt interests of US members of Congress, Puerto Rico would have been kicked out of the US long ago.

        And this woman didn’t get berated for her race, she got berated for wearing a T-shirt that proclaims her separate national identity. Do you think a “White Pride” T-shirt is appropriate to wear? No? Good. Same deal for other national or ethnic identities.

        Drunken accostment isn’t the correct response, but she certainly deserves to be criticized and potentially ostracized. It is certainly legal for Americans to display other national identities than “American”, but that only makes social controls of such behaviors more important.

        1. satire or retarded? With you, Mark22IQ, it’s hard to tell.
          Do you not get enough fapping material over at Brietard or the Federalist? Why pollute these threads with your white nationalist drivel? I don’t come to your drunken picnic and berate you for wearing a wife-beater and satin Dallas Cowboys shorts.

          1. I’m sorry, “No Yards Penalty” that I have to spell it out even more clearly: I strongly oppose the wearing of apparel that proclaims ethnic, nationalist, or racial identities.

            Unlike you, I’m consistent about it. You are the kind of racist who makes excuses when Hispanics or other “minorities” engage in such behavior.

            1. So, should we repeal the 1st amendment so we can introduce legislation to enact your clothing preferences?

              1. Not at all. The First Amendment gives this woman the right to wear such a T-shirt and that is a good thing.

                The First Amendment also gives other people the right to express their disapproval to her face on public property over wearing such a T-shirt.

                1. So you’re strongly opposed to it but think it’s OK?

                  1. I think the woman is an asshole for wearing such a shirt. And I think the man is an asshole for getting drunk and making a scene.

                2. “The First Amendment also gives other people the right to express their disapproval to her face on public property over wearing such a T-shirt.”

                  Depends on how they choose to express it.
                  If they do so by wearing a shirt of their own choosing, no problem.

                  If they do so by setting fire to her car, no, the first amendment doesn’t cover that.

                  1. No, it does not “depend”. “Setting fire to her car” is not a 1A issue.

                    1. “‘Setting fire to her car’ is not a 1A issue.”

                      Duh. That’s what I said. Can you read above a 5th-grade level?

                    2. No, that’s not, in fact, what you said. Can’t you write above a 5th grade level?

                    3. ” the first amendment doesn’t cover that.”
                      “not a 1A issue”

                      Revising my estimate from fifth-grade to third-grade.

    3. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h ? $72h?how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now
      I couldn’t be happier.Check it out here? >> https://1kdaily.us

    4. The greater ignorance belongs to citizens and politicians who push “hate crime” legislation – and the prosecutors who enforce it.

      1. Weren’t “hate crimes” only an enhancement, when actual violence happened?
        Then mind-reading was used to punish further than would normally be applied.
        How is this “hate crime” not a violation of the First Amendment?

        1. “Weren’t ‘hate crimes’ only an enhancement, when actual violence happened?”

          Yes.

          “Then mind-reading was used to punish further than would normally be applied.”

          Hate-crime enhancements reflect the fact that hate crimes have more victims than just the immediate. Hate crimes produce intimidation in whole communities, and are thus a more serious crime than is simple battery, or vandalism.

          We punish more serious crimes with more serious penalties.

  2. certain opinions are beyond the pale

    Like *that* opinion?

  3. “People have to learn there are consequences, especially in the era of Trump,” told the Chicago Tribune. “I really do believe there are people who say to themselves, ‘If Trump can do it, I can do it. Why can’t I go out there and say the things the president says?'”

    Hey, thanks Gutierrez, now I feel sorry for the bigot.

    1. He doesn’t even seem to answer or consider the question he himself made.

      1. There was no racism before Trump’s America. I mean the Era of Trump… or let’s blend the two. Trump’s Era of America. Era of Trump’s America? Hmm… gotta run it past some people.

      2. He probably just realized that the answer is “I can”. Just as long as you are not drunk, disorderly, and intimidating someone at the same time.

    2. So “The Era of Trump” is like “The World War 2 Era” and we can get special statism like Korematsu and Schenk?

  4. Disorderly conduct includes “any act” committed “in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.”

    So all democratic political speeches are actually disorderly conduct? Because they disturb me quite a bit.

    The hate crime provision applies when someone commits any of several offenses, including assault and disorderly conduct, “by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals.”

    So their speeches also are hate crimes because they attack me based on my creed,religion, gender, sexual orientation, and membership in the group of individuals who believe in personal freedom.

    1. And being white, if you are.

      Have you heard democratic event speeches in the last year or 2? Everything bad is because white people.

      1. Actually, I am kind of pink, except where short sleeves leave my forearms kind of tan.
        So I can never claim discrimination; on the other hand, I am not a racist white guy either.

        1. As I typed that, I realized I may be guilty of cultural semi-appropriation, because I have a partial tan.
          But what the hell, I don’t accept the left’s views anyway. They can take it up with my manufacturer.

          1. Yo mama?

      2. Yah, poor, poor white people. Always victimized. fkn hillbilly loser.

  5. In an ironic twist, it turns out Timothy was drinking Puerto Rican rum.

  6. It’s not the opinions that are a crime. You’re free to have shitty opinions.

    But you’re not free to use those as a reason to commit a crime against somebody. He could tell her that he thought he should leave the US to go to….another part of the US. That would make him an asshole. But, doing it in a way that constitutes assault and disorderly conduct makes it a crime.

    1. It is known that standard criminals only have good intentions when they commit a crime.

      1. woketarianism is a moral failing and a brain disease

        1. “Moral Failing” is your phrase of the day, huh?

            1. I mean, it’s no “gargle my balls.”

    2. RTFA – he’s not free to have that opinion. Which is why he’s being charged with a hate crime *on top of* the assault charges.

      1. Yeah, I thought I didn’t read the articles.

        1. Don’t we all just go straight to the comments?

      2. Yes, but hate crimes suck.

        Which indirectly ties into the question “should” he be punished for his views, the answer is no.

      3. It’s related to the assault. If he didn’t assault her, his opinion wouldn’t be a crime.
        If he didn’t express his opinion while assaulting her, it wouldn’t be a crime.

        You have to be awfully ignorant of the terrorism in American history to not understand why we have hate crime protection.

        1. “You have to be awfully ignorant of the terrorism in American history to not understand why we have hate crime protection.”

          LOL

        2. I don’t follow the last line. Are you saying hate crime protection is needed?

        3. You do realize that there’s a long history of people in America murdering each other over money, jealousy, and other common motives too, right? Shouting “history! History!” Isn’t a valid reason for why one motive for a crime is inherently worse than another.

          1. When the crime is to terrorize a community, yes, it’s worse.

            Is burning a cross just arson?
            Burning churches?
            Why do we need special crimes about lynching? Are lynched people any more dead?

            1. Yes.
              Yes.
              Same as any other murder, IMO.

              1. BINGO-BANGO-BONGO!!!!

        4. People who are murdered because of their skin color or whatever are more dead than people who are murdered for other reasons. It is known.

          1. So the murderer should be executed twice.

        5. You have to be awfully ignorant of the gas chambers to understand why we shouldn’t have hate crime protection.

          1. …or not understand but I may stick with the typo.

            1. Nine hours later and no one denying gas chambers. Good sign.

          2. Those gas chambers were run in accordance to the laws at the time put in place by Nazi officials. Any hate crime laws that would have prevented gas chambers would have been either rescinded, or ignored. I don’t see how hate crime laws are a shield against gas chambers.

        6. Uhm, where he was at, expressing his opinion forcefully *was* assault.

          1. Then I guess it’s A-OK for the police to arrest all those “protesters” who scream all kinds of hateful stuff in their faces.
            It is assault, isn’t it?

            1. Depends on whether you have a cop’s salty balls in your mouth at the time of the protest, retiredfaggot.

        7. You have to be awfully ignorant of the terrorism in American history to not understand why we have hate crime protection.

          WTF?

  7. Puerto Rico is a state, so he was wrong factually too. Now if she’d been wearing one of them furriner New Mexico flags ….

    1. I see I was way late and obvious. Fuck.

      1. And Puerto Rico is not a state, as you contend. It is a commonwealth under the direct authority of Congress.

        1. One of six commonwealths in the U.S., four of which are actually just states.

          1. The ones that are just states are just states – the commonwealth thingy doesn’t mean anything from a practical angle once you accept statehood.

        2. That explains why PR is such an economic basket case.

        3. Yes, I know that, dang, I meant in the generic sense, same as calling DC a state. 57 of them, right?

          1. Don’t you wish.
            Because the federal government cannot legally exist within a state.

            1. I think you’ve got the supremacy clause backwards.

    2. “Puerto Rico is a state”

      Since when?

    3. Puerto rico is not a us state. Its a us territory.

      This guy never touched her and never threatened her. He is a dipshit but he never committed a crime.

      Lefties yell at other peoeple in oublic places all the time and never get arrested because it protected by the 1st amendment.

      1. ?
        Cheapskate REASON comments!

  8. There are ignorant white people in america?

    In the idiot’s defense, Puerto Rico is kind of sort of part of the US.

    1. Maybe he is still outraged about Monica Puig’s Gold medal, I know I am. The US should have gotten 122 medals in Rio.

  9. Lawyers have ruined this country.

  10. Why would you be mean to any woman dressed like that?

    1. Because she wouldn’t sleep with you?

      1. Still wouldn’t be mean to her. Hope springs eternal.

    2. The picture on this page of her “shirt” is definitely focused pretty hard on the boob part of her shirt.

      1. Well, yeah.

      2. It’s not like she has eyes or anything

  11. Does he get irate when he sees Texas flags, or California? WTF.

    1. He doesn’t seem the type to understand the nuances of a commonwealth.

    2. To be fair, there are a lot of folks round here that see red when they read about California.

      1. Actually, we see blue.

        OT Exactly who got to assign red, the color of communism, to the Republican party / right section of politics?

        1. The original red/blue maps had the Republicans as blue and, for obvious reasons, the demoncraps as red.
          The only entity that could, and had a reason to, change that, through repetition, was the media.
          But they’re not biased, at all. Just ask them.

          1. No, but you are a cop=slurping dittohead.

    3. Goddamn those Chileans! Why are there so many of them in Dallas?

  12. “…People have to learn there are consequences, especially in the era of Trump,” Gutierrez told the Chicago Tribune. “I really do believe there are people who say to themselves, ‘If Trump can do it, I can do it. Why can’t I go out there and say the things the president says?'”

    Go fuck yourself asshole.

    1. It’s funny, because you’re right, but you still live in Canada where you can be jailed for using the wrong pronoun

      1. That’s why you should listen to me. This retarded country has unelected jerk offs sitting on human rights tribunals to ‘judge’ if we run afoul of this country’s retarded ‘hate speech’ laws.

        1. I know, I know

          1. And challenging Canada’s recent fetish for curbing speech is what propelled Jordan Peterson into stardom.

            He rightfully pushed back and told Trudeau and the Liberal party to go eat a bag o’ glass.

            1. Which is the POINT (his defense of free speech) Reason has missed about the guy given their disappointing articles on him. They should herald and support him. Not engage in specious bull shit.

              1. I agree that Peterson should be hailed if for no other reason than the fact that he is a speech martyr

            2. Didn’t Ezra Levant also push back on Canadian hate speech laws after getting shoved around and threatened by them and actually manage to dilute their power?

              1. Yes, he did. So did Mark Steyn. But it hardly slowed it down.

  13. BREAKING NEWS: POLITICIAN LOOKS TO CASH IN ON VIRAL OUTRAGE

    1. Also, IT’S TRUMP’S FAULT!

  14. Isn’t Puerto Rico a shithole?

    /ducks.

    1. IT IS! EVERYONE STAY AWAY! The weather sucks! The beaches are filled with plastic straws and shit!

    2. It wouldn’t have been if Hillary had been the one to rebuild. It’s offensive to call it a shithole, but it’s only a shithole because Trump is so racist he didn’t do anything to fix it after the hurricane.

      1. Signed Epstein’s mother.

        1. Welcome back

      2. “Trump is so racist he didn’t do anything to fix it after the hurricane.”

        Whattya mean he didn’t do anything? He was there, lobbing paper towels to the crowds…

  15. It seems to me that the article is wrong – and that the prosecution’s theories are even more absurdly wrong.

    Based on the limited data presented here, the tirade was sparked solely by the wearing of the Puerto t-shirt. That implicates the ‘national origin’ clause of their hate crime law. There is no evidence in the article above implicating race, color or ancestry. It seems to me that this boneheaded drunk would have been equally stupid no matter who was wearing that shirt.

    What makes the case especially stupid is that the national origin argument can’t work for a Puerto Rican. Puerto Rico is “an unincorporated territory of the United States”.

    In other words, she’s from the US and her flag t-shirt is no more “offensive” than wearing a flag of Ohio, California, Texas or Delaware.

    Gutierrez and Garcia, by the way, should be impeached for advocating positions so wildly in opposing the First Amendment that they have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Gutierrez thinks that words should have consequences. So do I. A drunk’s ignorant ramblings about politics can be excused. A politician’s willful abuse and deliberate attempt to undermine constitutional protections can not.

    1. Gutierrez and Garcia, by the way, should be impeached for advocating positions so wildly in opposing the First Amendment that they have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Gutierrez thinks that words should have consequences. So do I. A drunk’s ignorant ramblings about politics can be excused. A politician’s willful abuse and deliberate attempt to undermine constitutional protections can not.

      It’s pretty blatant narrative shifting. If you watch the video, a police officer rather outrightly refuses to do his job. Reforming the police department and ousting drunks from public spaces is hard work and only rises to the non-newsworthy level of ‘shit you should be doing anyway’. Race baiting and slamming Trump for something he has nothing to do with? Whipping up minority voters and driving them to the polls… that’s how you get yourself into the Mayor’s office!

    2. If it didn’t have words on it, he would probably think that she was a Captain America fan.

      1. Maybe he was team Iron Man. Some people have trouble accepting that the Civil War is over.

        1. Some people have trouble accepting that the Civil War is over.

          You sure it’s over? Listened to any political speeches lately?

          1. Yeah, it’s over. Infinity War came out a while back. Maybe you missed it?

  16. It seems real stretch to fit his rant into the hate crime qualifications. All he talks about is the shirt and her nationality is American so that doesn’t really work…

    1. “actual or perceived”

      He perceived that she was from a different country. Being wrong doesn’t excuse it any more than beating a Sikh Indian because you think they’re Muslim.

      1. He’s saying it doesn’t even meet that qualification though. This equivalent is complaining about a guy’s Sikh shirt, because he thinks the shirt is Muslim.

      2. Why are you so obsessed with pushing for thought crimes?

        1. Assault is a thought crime?

          1. Assault is a term most of these right-wing cranks couldn’t define to save their downscale lives.

  17. She should just be thankful she wasn’t wearing a Green Bay jersey.

    Not being a soccer fan, this rises to what? Like a 2 or a 3 on the hooliganism scale? Pretty much any flag shirt in any foreign nation/state *could* incur this amount of drunken belligerence pretty much anywhere in the world.

    1. Dude was being a douche. Not leaving her alone was a pretty solid way to get charged with drunk in public and breaking the peace. Being belligerent towards her is encroaching on assault.

  18. Maybe he was just negging her?

  19. So a drunk American guy is ranting about an American girl’s American shirt? Just wanted to be sure in order to work up the appropriate level of outrage.

    1. She’s brown, he’s not. Thems the facts!

  20. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who joined Cook County Commissioner Jesus Garcia and the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois in calling for hate crime charges against Trybus, made it clear that the goal is to emphasize that certain opinions are beyond the pale and should never be publicly aired. “People have to learn there are consequences, especially in the era of Trump,” Gutierrez told the Chicago Tribune. “I really do believe there are people who say to themselves, ‘If Trump can do it, I can do it. Why can’t I go out there and say the things the president says?'”

    Progressives: making ignorant bigots seem sympathetic since ~1912

  21. Can’t wait for our new SCOTUS Justice to find “hate” crimes unconstitutional! Disordily Conduct seems an appropriate charge for harassing someone in the manner he did.

    1. Drunk and disorderly. No sticks or stones were used, no broken bones. His words do not matter. End of story.

      1. His words do not matter?

        Is that a Regent or Ave Maria law degree talking, or are you remembering something your mother taught you from an off-brand homeschooling outline?

        1. In a country where actual violent acts, like setting fire to something – a flag, but don’t try it to a cross – is called free speech, then anything someone says, without causing physical harm, should be accorded the same protection.

          1. Shouldn’t you be out marching in support of blueballsmatter, retiredfaggot?

    2. Hate crimes are unconstitutional. Everyone has equal protection under the law, not special treatment under the law.

      ADA and Civil Rights act are all unconstitutional. They create special protected groups that are not listed in the constitution.

  22. The reason that hate crimes enhancements exist is to reflect the fact that hate crimes have multiple victims beyond the immediate.

    Assaulting one person puts one person in fear, and the punishment is calibrated for that. Assaulting one person in a hate crime can put a whole neighborhood in fear, and the punishment is “enhanced” to be calibrated for THAT.

    We don’t arrest people for being assholes, as a general rule, or even for having objectionable opinions. We do arrest assholes who choose to act illegally, whether by assaulting, battering, trespassing, vandalizing, or harassing, or some combination thereof. When they choose to attempt to terrorize an entire class of people, the scope of their crime is increased.

    Now, it is true that sometimes a case will come around that should have received a greater punishment than what is received. Sometimes a case will come around where the punishment is greater than what should have been applied.

    Pretending that this twit is being punished for his opinions is nonsense. Had he stayed out of this woman’s face and the space she legally occupied, he would have received zero punishment, regardless of what his opinions were regarding flags, foreigners, or Puerto Rico. He chose to carry those opinions into action… illegal action… and now gets to savor the results.

    1. You are an asshole.

      1. So you’re saying we’re related, and you came out of me?

    2. When they choose to attempt to terrorize an entire class of people, the scope of their crime is increased.

      So your assertion is that the drunk guy who doesn’t seem to realize that Puerto Rico is a US Territory is really a white racist terrorist mastermind who just happened to get caught loitering in a reserved public park?

      What space did she legally occupy? The park? Clearly you aren’t privy to the Cook County forest preserve system. She books the pavilion for noon (let’s say). Tipsy Kowalski stumbles into the pavilion at sunrise for a little public intoxication, when the preserve opens, as the normal SOP is first-come, first-serve with regard to the facilities. There’s not always or even generally an indication that the pavilion is reserved at any given time so, for all Tipsy knows, she’s blowing smoke. This altercation happens probably hundreds of times every season. Fights have been known to occur. Of course, none of this matters one iota because a good portion of the time these conflicts are between brown and browner people or people of the same nationality/ethnicity, and petty squabbles over park pavilions don’t generally garner national media coverage.

      I hate dumb, drunken polocks as much as the next guy but national attention for a hate crime is pretty clearly political signalling at play.

      1. political signalling at play.

        The greatest hate crime of them all.

      2. “So your assertion is that the drunk guy who doesn’t seem to realize that Puerto Rico is a US Territory is really a white racist terrorist mastermind who just happened to get caught loitering in a reserved public park?”

        No, if that were my assertion, I would have said that, instead of what I did say.

        1. No, if that were my assertion, I would have said that, instead of what I did say.

          That’s unfortunate. Because he’s a drunken polock and what you said would require even more subtlety and social cognizance from him than what I suggested. You want to punish him for the boogeyman you imagine him to be rather than the stupefied guttersnipe he’s barely capable of rising to be. It says more about yourself that this guy can’t be just a belligerent degenerate in the wrong place at the wrong time and *has* to be some racist boogeyman acting in droves to keep all minorities everywhere oppressed.

          1. “You want to punish him for the boogeyman”

            You should stop making assumptions about what I write, because you keep inserting your own bugaboos in place of what I said.

            ” It says more about yourself that this guy can’t be just a belligerent degenerate in the wrong place at the wrong time and *has* to be some racist boogeyman acting in droves to keep all minorities everywhere oppressed.”

            What does it say about YOU that you came up with all that, even though none of it is in what I said?

            Please just go away.

            1. You should stop making assumptions about what I write, because you keep inserting your own bugaboos in place of what I said.

              No assumptions. You said, “When they choose to attempt to terrorize an entire class of people, the scope of their crime is increased.”

              Prove that he chose anything, let alone terrorizing an entire class of people.

              Again, read the thread, the guy’s a douchebag but the fact that you want to punish him for something more than just being a douchebag makes you worse than him.

              1. “Prove that he chose anything, let alone terrorizing an entire class of people.”

                In today’s lesson, we learn that each jurisdiction has a person whose job it is to prove all the elements of crimes against the accused, and they have a staff of professionals to do the work. This work is not outsourced to random people on the Internet.

                “the fact that you want to punish him for something more than just being a douchebag”

                You should stop making assumptions about what I write, because you keep inserting your own bugaboos in place of what I said.

                Here’s a fucking hint: In this country, the trial comes FIRST, in which we determine if a crime took place and if so, if the accused is the person who committed the crime(s). THEN we decide what punishment, if any, is to be applied.

    3. There has been a crime wave in my neighborhood recently, culminating in a multiple shooting. Unsurprisingly, it has the residents somewhat on edge. I don’t think the shooter’s goal was to terrorize anyone other than his victims, but it had that effect. I also don’t think the drunkard’s goal was to terrorize anyone other than his victim. Should there be enhancements for murdering someone in a residential area? At what point do we stop giving the judicial system more ways to punish us?

      TBF, I have a problem with most sentencing enhancements. The enhancements for having a firearm and a controlled substance is virtually never used to bring down drug kingpins. Instead it’s used to utterly destroy the lives of non-violent people by converting the misdemeanor possession of a joint into a felony.

      1. You’re making a policy argument, that this is a law that we shouldn’t have. Fair enough.

        What I object to isn’t that. Everybody has a right to argue that the law shouldn’t be what it is.

        It’s the dishonesty of claiming that this dumb fuck is being punished for having an opinion. He’s not. He’s being punished for the form of expression he chose to make that opinion known. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans share the idiot’s point of view, and approximately zero percent of them face prosecution for holding that point of view. This one idiot IS facing prosecution, because he chose to express that opinion with violence, threat of violence, or other forms of expression that are not permitted by law.

        I have opinions. Sometimes strong ones, sometimes unpopular ones. I sometimes even SHARE those opinions with people who do not agree. But I have zero fear of being prosecuted for my opinions, or the fact that other people sometimes don’t like them, because I don’t do illegal things to advance or demonstrate my opinions.

        1. Exactly right.

        2. It’s the dishonesty of claiming that this dumb fuck is being punished for having an opinion.

          And what I object to is dishonest fucksticks like yourself nominally cleaving toward honesty and portraying your opposition as dishonest despite their drunken, public frankness.

          because he chose to express that opinion with violence, threat of violence, or other forms of expression

          Idiotically conflating vague blanketing statements of ‘other forms of expression’ may impress the rubes in whatever backwater shithole you crawled out of. But for the overwhelming majority of Americans, even those in US territories and plenty who weren’t born here, there’s a clear distinction between acts of violence and forms of expression. Please, continue to pretend that there’s no overlap between Trump’s supporters and Obama’s supporters or that there are a legion of white racists out there keeping Trump in office and the GOP afloat and nothing else. See if it gets you a different result next time.

          Seriously, read the thread, you’ve demonstrated yourself to be morally and politically less honest and viable than Trybus. Why you think the shitty stance that you continue to lie to yourself about holding is a winning strategy most of the rest of the US and even large parts of the world, will never understand.

          1. “And what I object to is dishonest fucksticks like yourself nominally cleaving toward honesty and portraying your opposition as dishonest […]”
            Following immediately by an intentional misquote of what I said.
            LOL.

            “Seriously, read the thread, you’ve demonstrated yourself to be morally and politically less honest and viable than Trybus.”

            I’ll take “psychological projection” for $200, Alex.

            1. I’ll take “psychological projection” for $200, Alex.

              You equate violence, threats, and other forms of expression. You are categorically worse than he is, without error or question.

              1. “You equate violence, threats, and other forms of expression.”

                Ah. I see. You’re one of those “repeating a lie often enough makes it true” people.

                1. “You equate violence, threats, and other forms of expression.”

                  Although, it IS interesting that you think you can lie to ME about what my opinions are.

          2. mad.casual, Pollock put it honestly, and well.

            Your taste for abstraction overwhelms your respect for experience. And you’ve got the abstract argument muddled, besides. I’ll try to help out.

            You want to talk about defense of speech freedom. Also yell about it. Also agitate about it. Also rally to defend it. All sorts of good stuff. And all within the category of defending a right you are entitled to defend. But among more-vigorous defenses you want, some lie ambiguously close to other stuff you should not be doing, and also include stuff that is unambiguously against the law.

            To avoid those latter two situations, here is a rule of thumb to rely on. If, while you are defending your right to speech, there are actual, particular-person targets in sight, that’s a different category than “defending free speech.” Not everything you can do in that different category ought to get you in legal trouble, but some of it should. Making the defense of a precious right an occasion for targeting particular people diminishes respect for you, and, worse, brings the right itself into disrepute.

            That’s no way to defend a right. So avoid targeting particular persons. And then say whatever you want. If you do that, and leftists object, I’ll be on your side. The way to undercut the hate speech issue is to stop targeting particular people. Keep it abstract. That way, your speech right can thrive. And by using it the way you prefer, you will only bring yourself into disrepute.

            1. mad.casual, Pollock put it honestly, and well.

              No, he didn’t. He lumped literally said, “express that opinion with violence, threat of violence, or other forms of expression

              He says everyone has a right to argue their opinion as long as they don’t express their opinion by vague “other forms of expression” that he doesn’t approve of and equates with violence.

              Either speech is speech and he respects it and violence is violence and he regards that, or he’s lying and striving to further construe speech with violence in order to silence behavior he doesn’t like.

              Trybus was being a douche, drunk and disorderly. Piling on charges because he doesn’t like people wearing Puerto Rican flag shirts when he’s drunk isn’t helping Puerto Ricans or any other nationality (especially with the Police Officer standing there picking his nose the whole time) and isn’t going to change Trybus’ feelings, opinions, or behavior.

              1. “He says everyone has a right to argue their opinion as long as they don’t express their opinion by vague “other forms of expression” that he doesn’t approve of and equates with violence.”

                No, liar, he didn’t.

                “Either speech is speech and he respects it and violence is violence and he regards that, or he’s lying and striving to further construe speech with violence in order to silence behavior he doesn’t like.”

                False dichotomy for $400, Alex

              2. Here’s another free hint:

                When you have to lie about what the other guy said in order to support your opinion, that’s a strong sign that your opinion is wrong.

                When you show a repeated willingness to lie, that’s a strong sign that you, yourself, are wrong.

                Your judgment is objectively, demonstrably poor. If your goal was to establish this, well done!

        3. If what this guy did was a crime – an “enhanced” one at that – then every “protester” who creams obscenities at a police officer is also guilty and should immediately be arrested.
          You’ve seen the scenes; police in a line and some twit screaming an inch from their face all sors of “hateful” things. Why should that not constitute assault?
          Because the police should be expected to take it?
          Then so should she. We are all equal, here.

          1. “You’ve seen the scenes; police in a line and some twit screaming an inch from their face all sors of “hateful” things. Why should that not constitute assault?”

            If you had a slightly longer attention span, you’d see the protesters being arrested and taken away. And, yes, assault on a LEO carries sentence enhancements, too, just like hate crimes do.

  23. Is it too late to surrender to Spain and give them back Puerto Rico? They can have Guam too.

    We could thrown in a few billion dollars too, It would be cheaper then keeping our “winnings” from the Spanish American War

    1. Is it too late to surrender to Spain and give them back Puerto Rico? They can have Guam too.

      I think Congress could grant them independence tomorrow (and cut all federal aid).

      You can’t revoke their US citizenship, but you can force Puerto Ricans to make a choice between US and PR citizenship.

      1. “You can’t revoke their US citizenship, but you can force Puerto Ricans to make a choice between US and PR citizenship.”

        The first and second halves of this sentence are inconsistent with each other.

        1. The first and second halves of this sentence are inconsistent with each other.

          Not at all. Those that have citizenship cannot have it revoked. Going forward, pending overturning of the Jones-Shafroth Act (something only being proposed here in pure hypothetical) those with PR citizenship can be forced/asked/required to surrender it in exchange for (applying for) US citizenship.

          Are you always this dumb or do you just play it on the forums?

          1. Not feeding the stupid troll.

        2. The first and second halves of this sentence are inconsistent with each other.

          Not at all. Taking on a foreign citizenship automatically results in loss of US citizenship. Someone who chooses to become a Puerto Rican citizen after independence should lose US citizenship, just like any other American.

          1. “Not at all. Taking on a foreign citizenship automatically results in loss of US citizenship.”

            How do you get to that “loss of US citizenship” if “you can’t revoke their US citizenship”?

            Is this a Schrodinger’s cat thing? The US citizenship is both “lost” and “not revoked” at the same time?

            1. How do you get to that “loss of US citizenship” if “you can’t revoke their US citizenship”?

              I think I was clear enough about it:

              You can’t revoke their US citizenship, but you can force Puerto Ricans to make a choice between US and PR citizenship.

              That is, no Puerto Rican has their US citizenship revoked as part of the creation of an independent Puerto Rican nation: the new nation is created, and every Puerto Rican who was a US citizen before Puerto Rican independence is a US citizen after Puerto Rican independence.

              US citizenship is lost as part of an action that someone takes, namely the action of becoming a citizen of another nation, just like for any other US citizen taking on a foreign citizenship.

              Of course, perhaps Congress should perhaps simply go back and outlaw dual citizenship altogether, making these discussions moot.

              1. “Of course, perhaps Congress should perhaps simply go back and outlaw dual citizenship altogether, making these discussions moot.”

                Sounds great. They can make dual citizenship both outlawed and not revoked at the same time, thus mooting this whole discussion.

  24. What a charming fellow (and he’s so educated about geography, too!). The government really had to work overtime to make him look like a sympathetic character.

    “People have to learn there are consequences, especially in the era of Trump”

    Because Trump invented public intoxication, disorderly conduct and harassment? Before 2016 drunk assholes never bothered people in public parks?

    1. Oh, wait, it’s Chicago, that was a law-abiding paradise until Trump riled up the disorderly elements.

  25. Can anyone identify the screen name Timothy Trybus uses as a frequent commenter at reason.com? I can think of at least a half-dozen candidates.

    Thank you.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland.

      1. Zing!

        1. Too obvious.

  26. Last I checked, being a drunken asshole is not a hate crime. Maybe this guy will get off for being mentally challenged too?

    1. Like Robert Dear, the Planned Parenthood shooting warrior for the babies?

  27. I hope he is charged with the hate crime and appeals it to the Supreme Court. Then Gorsuch pens opinion that “hate crimes” based solely on speech of an individual are unconstitutional. Case remanded to Illinois for the original charges of assault and disorderly conduct.

    1. This case seems to be criminalizing “hate speech,” a made up term by the Orwellian/Authoritarian left.

    2. What? ANOTHER Roe v. Wade decision? The guy was simply bullying and menacing an unarmed girl. That’s what Republicans do–that and demand a Constitutional Amendment to overturn “that” 1972 LP platform plank.

    3. “I hope he is charged with the hate crime and appeals it to the Supreme Court.”

      Before he can do that, he has to work his way through the state courts first. By the time he’s exhausted all his appeals, President Warren will have appointed a couple of USSC justices.

  28. During the June 14 incident, which you can watch in a viral video that Irizarry recorded with her cellphone, an audibly intoxicated and belligerent Trybus repeatedly confronted her in and near a gazebo she had reserved for a birthday party and berated her. “Why are you wearing that?” he asked, pointing at the flag shirt.

    I’ve been harassed for my skin color. Other people have been harassed for wearing a MAGA hat. Nobody seems to give a fuck.

    1. Try to improve how cute you look in a tank. You might get more people to care.

      1. People who are in tanks tend not to get harassed by crowds. Something about the machine guns…

    2. mark, you’ve been harassed for being a fucking tool. Learn fromit.

  29. This was an extremely poorly thought out article. His crime had nothing to do with a a political statement. It had completely to do with the fact that she was Puerto Rican. Assaulting someone based on their race is not a political statement. Not for libertarians anyhow.
    The libertarian position on this is crystal clear. Once you commit assault, that ship has sailed, you open yourself up to whatever consequences that society has deemed fair.
    Should the crime of assault have more severe consequences if it is a crime targeted not at an individual, but because of a ‘group’ they belong to by birth?
    I find it a reasonable position. You can’t have people going around attacking people based on their race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or however else they had been born.
    Perhaps we can add the category of assaulting completely random people to that.
    All other assaults are based on either robbery, which already carries a greater consequence, attempted murder, again, or almost invariably stupid reasons stemming from a personal altercation.
    I can have a tiny bit of patience with altercations spiraling out of control. I don’t have any patience with people going around looking for people to assault.

    1. He never touched her. Not assault

      1. Menacing is easy to look up in criminal statutes.

      2. “He never touched her. Not assault”

        What you would have said, if you knew what you were talking about, is “He never touched her. Not battery.” But you didn’t know what you were talking about, so you said that, instead.

        1. What you would have said, if you knew what you were talking about, is “He never touched her. Not battery.” But you didn’t know what you were talking about, so you said that, instead.

          How many battery cases have you tried? Because all the legal definitions I look through say if you throw a rock and it misses, it’s assault, if it hits, it’s battery. Since he didn’t even throw a rock, both are questionable. What you both missed is that he didn’t say anything like, “I’m going to tear that shirt right off your back.” or “I’ll knock you back to PR.” which would be assault. “I’ll go down on you.” is, arguably, the closest we get.

          That’s why they charged him with disorderly conduct, the equivalent of disturbing the peace. Not to portray him as the victim (he’s clearly guilty of drunk and disorderly) but, two people lay hands on him while telling him to “Go away.” and “Shut the fuck up.”. The problem, ultimately, is that Officer Numbnuts, stands around rather than putting this guy in his squad car or taking him to a drunk tank to sober up.

          That he isn’t legally capable of mustering up the wherewithal to enter into a contract or operate a motor vehicle but is guilty of a hate crime is the pinnacle of legal idiocy.

          1. Here is the way it is taught in law school.

            Battery is when you touch someone in a way that is offensive to them. Assault is when you place that person in reasonable fear that they will be battered.

            To the person with half a brain (lack thereof is why you missed it), you can see that being touched is a required element of battery. Being touched is NOT a required element of assault. Put another way, you can be assaulted without ever being touched. Put yet another way, not being touched doesn’t mean an assault hasn’t occurred.

            Do you see the difference yet? I’m guessing no, but then again, I’ve lost whatever tiny amount of interest I held in educating a repeat liar and confirmed stupid person.

        2. Correct. Libertarians pretend they know the law and substitute their opinions. This fucking idiot doesn’t know the difference between assault and battery.

        3. Start here you know nothing dipshit. https:// statelaws.findlaw.com /illinois-law/illinois-assault- and-battery-laws.html

    2. His crime had nothing to do with a a political statement. It had completely to do with the fact that she was Puerto Rican.

      Puerto Rico is a country, not a “race”. And it’s a country full of nationalists who live at the US tax payer’s expense.

      Assaulting someone based on their race is not a political statement. Not for libertarians anyhow.

      Assaulting someone is against libertarian principles (let’s leave aside the question of whether this was an assault). But even if this incident had been motivated by racism, racism is not against libertarian principles.

      1. Stop defending your white supremacist bullshit on libertarian grounds, Mark22IQ. Crawl back to Daily Stormer with the other cretins, you toothless hillbilly.

        1. If you think that I’m defending “white supremacist bullshit on libertarian grounds”, you are an illiterate moron.

          As for the “Daily Stormer”, those people want to kill me. As, for that matter, do people like you.

          1. “As for the “Daily Stormer”, those people want to kill me. As, for that matter, do people like you.”

            Maybe that’s a sign that your interpersonal skills need development.

            1. My interpersonal skills probably do need development.

              However, the reason why the Daily Stormer and “No Yard Penalties” want to kill me is because that’s what progressives and fascists do with people who oppose them.

              1. Yes, yes, everybody is out to get you because that’s what we do.

                1. Yes, yes, everybody is out to get you because that’s what we do.

                  You are a progressive or a fascist? Well, yes, then you are out to hurt and kill people. That is indeed what you do.

                  1. Not “people”. Just you.

                    1. Not “people”. Just you.

                      You may have an animus against me specifically. But historically, progressives and fascists are, in fact, out to hurt and kill libertarians, homosexuals, “imbeciles”, and immigrants in general.

                    2. Nope. It’s just you. You’re special. Everyone is out to get you. I was gonna ignore it, pretend I was busy, but now you dragged me into it to.

  30. Yes, it’s true, the message on your T-shirt can elicit a violent reaction in others…..
    Just the other day I was wearing my Coke-a-Cola T-shirt and was harassed by a guy wearing a Mountain Dew T-shirt !!!
    Be careful out there…..

  31. but there are many a Boricua

  32. Didn’t CA already decide that wearing an American Flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo is a Hate Crime?

    1. That was a school banning US flags on cinco de mayo.

  33. Who gives a sht about this guy, he didn’t hurt anyone. He’s a drunk racist, it’s not illegal to be racist.

    1. Yet, but they are working on it. And being racist will not be determined by you , but by others.

    2. He’s a drunk racist, it’s not illegal to be racist.

      He didn’t berate her for being Puerto Rican, he berated her for wearing a T-shirt singling out her Puerto Rican identity.

      And “Puerto Rican” is not a race, any more than “Cuban” or “Russian” is.

      1. Luckily for you, ”idiot” isn’t a race, either. Or you’d get drummed out of your Klan for not being white, Mark22IQ.

        1. Luckily for you, ”idiot” isn’t a race, either

          Progressives and leftists didn’t just sterilize, imprison, and kill blacks and Asians, they also sterilized, imprisoned, and killed homosexuals and idiots like myself, for the same reason: you hate us.

          So, your attacks on me are in conformance with long-standing progressive and leftist practice and policy.

          1. “So, your attacks on me are in conformance with long-standing progressive and leftist practice and policy.”

            So, there’s a huge, organized conspiracy against you, personally? They’re all out to get you?

            And your proof of this is that when you say dumb things, they point out that you’re saying dumb things?

            Whoa.

            1. So, there’s a huge, organized conspiracy against you, personally? They’re all out to get you?

              No, not against me personally. Progressives and leftists traditionally hate all libertarians, foreigners, homosexuals, and people with low IQs. Since I fall into several of those categories (at least according to NYP), he hates me.

              when you say dumb things

              What exactly is “dumb” about pointing out that the guy screamed at that woman not because she was Puerto Rican, but because she wore a T-shirt declaring her ethnic identity?

              When someone wears an “Aryan Nation” T-shirt and gets rightfully screamed at over it, are they being screamed at for being white or for being a racist?

              1. What’s dumb is expecting anyone to buy into your paranoid fantasies. We’re ALL against you.

                1. What’s dumb is expecting anyone to buy into your paranoid fantasies. We’re ALL against you.

                  Well, given that I had to emigrate to the US to get away from massive discrimination and homophobia, it’s a tad more than a “paranoid fantasy”.

                  1. You came to the US to escape homophobia? Mwa ha ha ha.

                    1. You came to the US to escape homophobia? Mwa ha ha ha.

                      Yes, honeybuns. The world is full of countries where the government will make your life a living hell simply for being gay. The US has its fair share of nasty jerks in the population (just look at yourself), but the Constitution and a good dose of American common sense still prevents people like you from imposing your mean spirited policies on others through the government.

  34. This the problem with “hate speech ” law. It is by definition based on view point of speaker. Reconciling hate speech with 1st amendment seems impossible.

    1. You’re confusing “hate speech” law, which doesn’t exist in the United States, with “hate crime” law, which does. The countries that do have “hate speech” laws don’t have a first amendment, so there is no conflict.

  35. I’m Puerto Rican, carry pepper spray AND vote libertarian.

  36. Hate Crime over-reaction: one more reason to avoid Illinois. As if anyone needs another, judging from the net out-migration from that state..

  37. So many smugly assume that millions of people in “flyover country” are just like this prick. They’ll point to the video as undeniable proof that their prejudices are confirmed. Media focuses almost solely on negative things like this.

    I hope that lady’s party wasn’t completely ruined by this jerk. I sentence him to 10 consecutive playbacks of Big Pun’s entire catalog.

    1. I hope that lady’s party wasn’t completely ruined by this jerk.

      I see people all the time using public parks for parties and, hiking through the parks in the mornings and evenings, fishing, I regularly seeing people asleep on the tables or hunched over a bench with various signs of inebriation, I can’t fathom why you would want to celebrate there and/or like that. Especially considering that it’s Chicago and there are 1000s of places both public and private to get together and celebrate.

      I hope her party wasn’t ruined too and it’s a public park, she’s got every right to access it, I just don’t get why you would use it for that purpose.

      1. ” I can’t fathom why you would want to celebrate there and/or like that.”

        Some people like to be outside when the weather’s nice but can’t afford to own vast tracts of land on their own.

        Plus, of course, some folks assume that a cop who happens to be right there at the time, will take action to prevent you from being harassed when it happens right in front of them. Idealists, but what can you do about it?

  38. Orwellian liberals are behind the hate-crime laws. Democrats are paying the price:

    “When you tally up their representation in Congress and governorships, the Democrats almost have their lowest representation in about 100 years.” ?Fareed Zakaria, June 10, 2018 http://www.politifact.com/pund…..oint-cent/

  39. I’ll wait until someone gets prosecuted for harassing anyone wearing a MAGA cap.

    1. You will be waiting a very long time – – – – – – – –

    2. I don’t wear my red ball cap in public anymore because this (I’m not Fred Durst).

      1. Yeah, kind of a bummer for baseball fans in Cincinnati. And also St Louis, I think? Boston? I’m not a baseball fafn, so I don’t know off the top of my head what colors the uniform hats are. Maybe it’s good for the teams, because the fans will cough up a few more bucks for a uniform jersey instead of a hat?

        Meh. It’s almost football season. Real football, no matter what those French people are talking about.

  40. I have yet to read of a prosecutor successfully proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that he can determine the mental process (hate) of a suspect at the time of a crime.
    Crook decides he needs another hit of his favorite drug. The next person he sees is going to get to contribute to his very own wealth redistribution plan. So far, we have mens rea for theft, possibly assault. Now comes the dilemma; the crook is white, and has certain tattoos, so if the next person he sees is also white, he is just a crook, but if the next person is “of color” or of a certain “sexual orientation”, he is going to get hit with hate crimes. Doesn’t fit the whole equal protection thing, does it? Wouldn’t the courts have to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was targeted, and not just the next in line?
    Even a racist might rob a white person because he had money, not because he was white.

    1. I have yet to read of a prosecutor successfully proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that he can determine the mental process (hate) of a suspect at the time of a crime.

      After the fact, while the suspect was drunk no less.

    2. “Crook decides he needs another hit of his favorite drug. The next person he sees is going to get to contribute to his very own wealth redistribution plan. So far, we have mens rea for theft, possibly assault”

      Whoops. Prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe he’s just following someone, hoping to beg for a handout, or maybe the guy will drop a quarter or leave his wallet behind somewhere, and pay a reward when he gets it back. Reasonable doubt.
      BTW theft with assault is known in the legal community as “robbery”. Guess what underlying crime is generally not included in hate crime enhancements?

      I’m sorry these factual details undermine your entire argument.

  41. Can’t have much sympathy for a drunk! If people want to poison their souls with it, they should realize that they will pay for their indiscretion. Racism like this occurs in my own, dad! I don’t know how he managed to raise three kids who have children that have been in inter-racial relationships/marriages! Oh, he is a registered Democrat, too!

  42. He probably feels like the biggest idiot in the world right now,…. as he should. However, as with all “crimes”, are the tax payers getting value for their incarceration costs? If you want to flush $34,000 down the toilet, you could just buy me a truck.

    1. Funny thing. We’re going to have a trial first, before we decide how much to punish this fellow. Presumably, the judge will take the taxpayers’ interests into account, along with everything else, when and if there is a sentencing phase.

      1. He will never go to trial.

        He verbal rant is protected by the 1st Amendment.

        1. The trial will be conducted by people who, unlike you, understand the Constitution and the law that comes from it.

  43. I react like that when I see someone wearing a Yankees ball cap, esp when it’s tilted and off-center.

    1. No doubt you do. And you wouldn’t be charged with a hate crime over it, people would just shrug it off and take you for the jerk you obviously are.

  44. “Trybus did not touch Irizarry, but he got uncomfortably close and raised his voice, notwithstanding her requests that he leave her alone.” This is the common law definition of assault. Battery would have been touching. The victim did not have a right to be shielded from views she disagreed with. But she did have the right to be free from an objectively reasonable fear of bodily harm. So yes, he should be arrested and probably convicted for assault. Not for a felony hate crime, though.

    1. Well, the prosecutor thinks it’ll stick. They aren’t always right, but the prosecutor has both a better grasp of the facts and more experience prosecuting crimes than I do, so I find it persuasive, if not conclusive.

      1. Drunk in public at best.

        All the other actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.

        1. Still no.

  45. “Trybus did not touch Irizarry, but he got uncomfortably close and raised his voice, notwithstanding her requests that he leave her alone. ”

    Isn’t this what the Left calls “protest”?

    1. Sure is. Both before and after they get arrested for it.

  46. She probably is a FAKE Portorican u know. There are a couple million of them in the U.S. plus immigrants both Legal and illegal, who are going ’round passing/posing as Portoricans. On the other hand, it takes a Drunk to bother someone for that.

  47. The obnoxious drunk should have been firmly escorted away from the woman he was threatening and detained overnight to sober up. The cop lounging in the background, refusing to come to the woman’s aid should be fired for not doing his job. No one should be punished for their beliefs. It’s their actions (or in this case inaction) that should carry consequences.

  48. The obnoxious drunk should have been firmly escorted away from the woman he was threatening and detained overnight to sober up. The cop lounging in the background, refusing to come to the woman’s aid should be fired for not doing his job. No one should be punished for their beliefs. It’s their actions (or in this case inaction) that should carry consequences.

  49. Point of order: it was not the cop who told Trybus to STFU, but his drunken friend, who was also sitting at the farthest picnic table with Trybus at the beginning of Trybus’s rant, and who never approached the woman.

    I’m not sure what the author of this article thinks Trybus’s politics is, as there is no coherence to it. Trybus obviously has not thought deeply enough about the subject to argue, say, that Puerto Rico should not be a part of the USA. He is not being punished for his “politics” but for harassing a nonwhite woman wearing a shirt he thought belonged to another country. Would he similarly harass a white French or German tourist for wearing a shirt with a French or German flag? That’s doubtful. Trybus probably thought it was a Mexican flag at first, and didn’t back down when he read PUERTO RICO on it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.