Hate crimes

This Obnoxious Drunk's Opinions Could Earn Him an Extra 59 Months Behind Bars

The case vividly illustrates how hate crime laws punish people for the views they express.

|

There is little question that Timothy Trybus, the obnoxious drunk who angrily confronted Mia Irizarry as she was preparing for a birthday party at a Chicago park in June 2018, was guilty of disorderly conduct. He may also have committed simple assault. But both of those offenses are Class C misdemeanors, punishable by up to 30 days in jail. So why does he face up to five years in prison?

It is entirely because of the opinions Trybus expressed during his tirade, which this week led a jury to convict him of two felony hate crimes.

This case is highly instructive for anyone who doubts that hate crime laws punish people for what would otherwise be constitutionally protected speech. If Trybus had yelled at Irizarry because he hates birthday parties or because she was wearing a Green Bay Packers hat, he might still have been arrested for harassing her, but he would not be facing a prison sentence. Because he yelled at Irizarry about her Puerto Rican flag T-shirt, his misdemeanors became felonies.

A viral cellphone video recorded by Irizarry, which shows an audibly intoxicated and belligerent Trybus repeatedly harassing her, provided the damning evidence of his benighted views. "Why are you wearing that?" Trybus asks, 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."

Under Illinois law, Trybus' behavior pretty clearly qualified as disorderly conduct, which includes "any act" performed "in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace." His actions may also have amounted to assault, a charge that applies to anyone who "without lawful authority…knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

Trybus' lawyer, David Goldman, questioned whether Irizarry was "reasonably in fear of receiving a battery," noting that he never touched her and that she remained calm throughout the episode. But in these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable for an unaccompanied woman to fear that the angry, intoxicated man who repeatedly rebuked her and refused to leave her alone might be capable of violence.

Either way, both of these offenses are misdemeanors. What made them felonies was the Illinois hate crime law, which applies "when, 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," someone commits any of several offenses, including assault and disorderly conduct. A hate crime is a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison, for a first offense and a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to five years in prison, for a second offense if it is committed in "a public park."

To put it another way, the maximum sentence for Trybus' offenses is 60 times as long as it would have been if prosecutors had not invoked the hate crime statute. And that staggering multiplier applies purely because the object of his ire was the Puerto Rican flag on Irizarry's shirt, suggesting that he targeted her because of her race, color, or ancestry. Trybus could spend an extra 59 months behind bars for no reason other than the content of his beliefs, as opposed to the manner in which he expressed them. That clearly amounts to punishing him for his opinions, which is not something the government should be doing in a society that claims to respect freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

NEXT: 'Telecontraception' Secret-Shopper Study Shows Safety of Online Birth Control Services

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. And apparently the newspaper dug up some nasty tweets from the reporters not too distant past as well.

      1. The newspaper? more like conservative twitter.

        1. Or just regular normies of Iowa who… from everything I have gleaned… don’t like one of the most beloved institutions of the state fucked with: The University of Iowa Stead Children’s hospital.

          Another thing I learned from Iowahawk’s twitter feed (noted hard right conservative) is that at the end of the first quarter of every football game, the U of Iowa fans look towards the children’s hospital which overlooks the stadium and wave to the children.

          When the Des Moines register thought it would be pertinent to poke the process of a million dollar donation to said institution with cancel culture, regular Iowan’s didn’t think a whole lot of it. So I’m not fully convinced it was a small number of sour grapes “conservative twitter” users.

          1. Sorry, by “didn’t think a whole lot of it” I mean to say they didn’t think highly of it.

          2. If someone burns The Des Moine Register to the ground, I’ll send money to his canteen fund every month.

        2. >>conservative twitter.

          National Review

    2. Another example of the trampling of Freedom of the Press in Trump’s America.

    3. I hate that this is where we are at. But at the same time how else are these people going to learn when they largely think they are doing gods work? The reality is they won’t even learn from this they’ll just delete their past tweets and keep doing this to everyone else.

      1. The funny thing is that I doubt this reporter was trying to do “God’s Work”. I think he, like many other reporters, has been trained that someone’s 20 year old tweets are news, and he didn’t want to get scooped by some other reporter next week.

      2. The funny thing is, there’s an editorial staff who checked, double checked, then ran with this story that’s still employed.

        And as Iowahawk deftly notes, no real ill will towards the reporter, I’m sure he’ll land on his feet. No doubt his inbox is filled with offers from Buzzfeed and Vox.

        1. Most papers these days have only a skeleton staff compared to the way it used to be. It’s unlikely an “editorial staff” checked the story. Probably it was just looked at by a single editor.

    4. Yeah, but the editor is the real culprit here

      1. See my note above. There is a good argument for that… because I made it.

        1. Right. At exactly the same time I said it. But it was good.

          1. I like to measure response time in nanoseconds.

      1. Good to see that someone stepped up here. Sounds like the guy is getting better beer out of the bargain.

    5. The chief editor should have been the first to go particularly for that piece trying to justify the original decision to include the tweets in the story.

      Someone on twitter posted photos of the fired reporter. There should be an online guessing game: “Man or Middle Aged Lesbian”

    6. I have no problem with this dimwit losing his job. However, the paper published his muck raking story, didn’t they? It seems to me that the editors are at least as much to blame. Did any of the editors lose their job over this?

  1. a society that claims to respect freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

    Do we have one of those?

    1. Speech? Not so much. Conscience [aka “thought”] to follow.

    2. The Rev will check with our betters and get back to us.

  2. “A hate crime is a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison, for a first offense and a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to five years in prison, for a second offense if it is committed in “a public park.”

    This law appears to be targeting the skinhead panic of the 1980s. May be another example of a law being applied in ways that lawmakers didn’t expect. Only libertarians seem to expect the unexpected.

    1. Just the fact that one has to add the adjective ‘hate’ to crime means that it is bs. Like ‘social’ justice. Either it is a crime or it is not. Hate only is a potential motive, not something that exacerbates the effect of the crime.

  3. He’s going to appeal this. And he’s going to win.

    1. Let’s pretend he can’t afford one. What then?

  4. much prefer friendly crime.

    1. I know, man, crime should be all about love, not hate.

  5. A simple ass kicking would have been sufficient. Felony is definitely overkill. Hate crime laws are bullshit anyways. Ticket for Disorderly Conduct, $500 fine max maybe. She should also be able to sue him for ruining the event.

  6. I always wondered what Mike M. looked like.

  7. When someone verbally attacking a person wearing a MAGA hat gets convicted of a hate crime, I’ll reconsider my opposition to such laws.

  8. That clearly amounts to punishing him for his opinions

    That’s not ‘clearly’ at all. It’s more an aggravating circumstance and the jury made a decision that I’m not going to second-guess. The max penalty for that looks excessive in this case but I also doubt the max penalty will be the actual penalty either.

    I’ve lost interest in dying on hills for assholes.

    1. Assholes have freedom of speech, too.

      “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” — Mencken

      1. That was not freedom of speech. Best case, it was hostile belligerence by a drunk towards a smaller person with two instances where any reasonable person could construe imminent assault. The ‘hate crime’ merely eliminates the ‘excuse’.

        And as I said – I no longer have any interest in unrequitedly helping assholes be assholes. Granted, he’s 63 so there’s no possibility he will ever learn shit so – have fun in jail with PR gangs.

        And spare me that you ‘defend freedom’. You’re just a typical partisan R who is defending this guy because you DON’T think he’s a ‘scoundrel’.

        1. And spare me that you ‘defend freedom’.

          I absolutely would stepped between these two to educate this asshole on Puerto Rico’s status as part of the US. And if I thought he was going to assault her, I would have tackled his ass. That being said, the charge is a violation of his free speech.

          You defend it because you believe in hate crimes, just admit it and then go find somewhere else to peddle your Proggie bullshit. This exact situation is practically the litmus test for what it means to be a libertarian. You failed.

          1. This exact situation is practically the litmus test for what it means to be a libertarian

            I didn’t realize libertarians for bullying had a litmus test.

            1. Your Proggie programmed passive-aggressive brain can’t seem to classify assertive behavior properly – standing up to a bully when confronted and then letting it go if he walks away without actual harm done. A very libertarian mindset.

              You believe that having cowered in fear of a bully, it is acceptable to empower the State to take a revenge completely disproportionate to the offense because of the way the bully made you feelz.

              Again. You failed. Go peddle your hate legislation somewhere else slaver.

              1. a revenge completely disproportionate to the offense because of the way the bully made you feelz

                Obviously you libertarians for bullying are perfectly OK with intimidation. Hell – mock the very idea that it can exist. After all, that’s just about the feelz. And that’s far less important than the liberty to intimidate others.

                Here’s the penalties for misdemeanor assault (or intimidation if they have that) in a few states:
                WA – up to a year in jail and fine up to $5000
                NY – up to a year in jail
                TX – 3 misdemeanor lvls – this one prob would have been a B – up to 6 mos in jail, fine $2000 (same as the above two if a class A where victim is disabled/elderly)
                CA – up to 6 mos in jail, fine $1000
                FL – 60 days in jail, fine $500
                AZ – up to 6 mos in jail, fine $3600
                IN – 60 days in jail, fine $500
                WI – up to 9 mos in jail, fine $10,000
                MI – up to 93(?) days in jail, fine $500

                Disorderly conduct max in other states is often up to 90 days to 6 mos.

                My guess is the jury said – 30 days in jail ain’t enough in this case. So they gave da judge something to work with. Good for them. Reality is it’s that IL ’30 day’ max law that is the outlier. Maybe that’s why this guy has multiple disorderlies, trespassing, battery, etc on his record. At 63 hasn’t learned anything. Maybe real time will work. Maybe IL should up their max for 2nd+ time offenders so they don’t need to go ‘hate crime’.

                1. Have to agree with Chuck. Your argument is not at all persuasive

                  1. I’ve spent enough time online to know that I will never persuade someone who already holds a belief that that belief is incorrect.

                    Libertarians for bullying do not believe that bullying itself is aggression. It is not ‘free speech’. Turning it into ‘free speech’ is a diversion – a way of avoiding ‘bullying itself is aggression’. Nor does ‘free speech’ create a ‘get out of jail free’ card for aggression. Nor is there anything remotely libertarian about forcing the victim of aggression to accommodate themselves to the aggressor on their own. Nor does the libertarian hero myth (that some good guy with a gun or hero on a white horse will come in to save the day and deliver a swift kick in the nuts to the bully) have the slightest basis in reality.

                    Any ‘libertarian’ attempt to sell those ideas in toto will fail – but does help explain why that strand of ‘libertarianism’ is composed of younger men (who may be either bullies or think-they’re-heros or just incels) trying to appeal to bigots who turn into bullies when drunk.

                    The basic premise of this article and everything else about it is flawed as hell and moronic. Whether you see that or not.

                    1. Just the fact that one has to add the adjective ‘hate’ to crime means that it is bs. Like ‘social’ justice. Either it is a crime or it is not. Hate only is a potential motive, not something that exacerbates the effect of the crime.

                    2. Yeah life must have become a real bitch for those looking for easy targets. My sympathies.

                    3. Libertarians for bullying do not believe that bullying itself is aggression.

                      Of course, nobody you’ve responded to could be realistically called ‘libertarians for bullying,’ because none of them have said that the guy wasn’t guilty of disturbing the peace. What they are objecting to is tacking on a bullshit hate crime penalty based on the nature of his drunken ranting. The distinction clearly seems to be too subtle for you.

                    4. none of them have said that the guy wasn’t guilty of disturbing the peace

                      Disturbing the peace does not equal bullying/intimidation. Stop trying to ignore what he actually DID.

                      What they are objecting to is tacking on a bullshit hate crime penalty based on the nature of his drunken ranting

                      It was not tacked on because of the nature of his ranting. That is just Sullum making you stupider by writing that and jerking your knee. It was tacked on because he went after (and by that I mean came within potential battery space – committing assault/intimidation the second she reasonably feared something and backed up) someone who he perceived (and told) had no power/rights worth respecting. That is classic bullying. What a hate crime designation does is eliminate the time-tested defense for misdemeanors of ‘I didn’t mean anything by that. I just get a bit sloppy when I’m drunk. No harm done right?’. When a court agrees with that defense for purposes of punishment, it is also sending a loud signal that in fact that targeting of victim is acceptable to the court.

                      Do I think that designation should really turn a misdemeanor offense into a full-fledged felony with future loss of civil rights. No. But as I said I’m not interested in defending that hill for these assholes. If IL wants to turn all hate crimes into felonies while essentially decriminalizing misdemeanor assault, that’s their inevitable problem not anyone else’s.

        2. Explaining away pushback to your opinion as partisanship is lazy. I’m a democrat with libertarian leanings on social issues. The hate speech felony convictions weren’t for anything but his speech. He was originally charged with assault and disorderly conduct iirc, for which he seems to be guilty. Simply being a racist isn’t (and shouldn’t be) illegal.

          1. And those charges were upgraded a couple days after the short-version of the video went viral. Which presumably led them to look at the long 40 minute version of the video – posted online a couple days after the event but which hadn’t gone viral (and still has only been seen 9000 times 15 months later). Sullum is definitely not one of those 9000 even though he wrote an article a year plus ago (linked in this article) referencing solely the viral short-version. Fucking lazy bum cuz apparently he has an agenda that does not allow him to process anything that doesn’t fit that agenda.

            If I want to be generous that long version is additional evidence of what actually happened. Or if I want to be cynical, evidence that would introduced when the police/city are hit with a lawsuit and lose if they don’t attempt to show that they are taking it seriously and upgrade the charges somehow.

            1. Yet again proving that the only journalism to be found at Reason is in the comments.

              She explains to the guy that Puerto Rico is a US territory at the outset. He’s too drunk or too ignorant for that to click. He does approach her multiple times.

              He was a disorderly, belligerent drunk. But failing US geography while drunk should not turn a misdemeanor into a felony.

              His upset was over someone displaying what he took to be a foreign flag in the US. He confronted that speech with his own.

              1. But failing US geography while drunk should not turn a misdemeanor into a felony.

                And it doesn’t in this case either. A felony charge requires proving intent. A misdemeanor has no such burden. That is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor. I assume Illinois has a grand jury system that is required in all felony cases to cross that threshold.

                The assault itself did not rise to felony assault levels cuz there’s no evidence that he intended to physically harm her (and purely psychological harm or fear is almost never charged at felony level). But his words on that video de facto revoke his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate. They are evidence of why he targeted her specifically for intimidation – and the video is evidence that the intimidation occurred – twice.

                The IL hate crime statute:
                A person commits hate crime when, 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, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he or she commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, intimidation, stalking, cyberstalking, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, transmission of obscene messages, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications

                Prosecutors had none of that before the full video (not the viral edited one) shows up. After it shows up, prosecution has proof of both the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea for a hate crime (but not for a felony assault). Worse, the video proves that the delinquent officer is the one who took the complaint of the woman so there is reason to believe that might have understated what occurred and that was the only basis for the original filing of charges.

                Based on their own statutes for assault and hate crime, the prosecutors did everything right. The hoohaa about ‘speech’ is nothing but idiots yapping about what makes this case entertaining – the viral/controversy stuff. Irrelevant to the legal stuff.

                1. The TL;DR version:
                  If bigots want to avoid their bigotry being used in court against them while still being free to voice their bigotry; then they should assault/intimidate those who are NOT the object of their bigotry.

                  eg – a drunken white bigot who is assaulting a white yahoo in a MAGA hat while yelling anti-Puerto Rican hate will not be charged with a felony hate crime.

  9. Recalling the original story, the bigger issue was that a police officer stood around and did nothing to intervene while this man staggered through his drunken tirade.

    Since it appears that his drunken tirade turned out to be a felony, no doubt the officer’s pay has been cut commensurate to his ineptitude, right? Or, I know! Maybe his paid leave was cut short? How about, possibly, his mandatory training hours were increased? The stern lecture from his supervisor was slightly longer?

    1. The stern lecture from his supervisor was slightly longer?

      I’m going with this one.

      1. Probably rewarded with a brief paid vacation.

    2. He resigned a couple days after the video came out.

  10. “the obnoxious drunk”

    Clearly biased journalism.

    I found him to be quite endearing.

  11. Idiot doesn’t even realize that PR islanders are U.S. citizens.

    If she was wearing a Green Bay shirt in Chicago, I could understand.

    1. What makes you think he’s not realizing that? Puerto Ricans are US citizens, yet also have allegiance to a foreign nation (Puerto Rico). I think that’s part of the problem.

      1. How do you (or the idiot in the story) know she’s not a local who once went on vacation in Puerto Rico where she bought a T-shirt. I still have a Czech Republic shirt from a trip years ago. Should I harrassed as unpatriotic?

      2. Puerto Rico is not a foreign nation. It’s a territory of the United States, further cemented by the Supreme Court’s verdict in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016).

    2. Even after she told him.

      The Puerto Rican flag has an interesting history. It was illegal to display in Puerto Rico through 1952.

      https://islandsofpuertorico.com/puerto-rico-flag/

  12. Going after people’s opinions is just a necessary to before you go after their thoughts.

  13. to = step.

  14. That clearly amounts to punishing him for his opinions, which is not something the government should be doing in a society that claims to respect freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

    I’ll bet most of us get punished for our opinions with every election.

  15. Just tell him it’s an Ohio flag. Very similar and he probably wouldn’t know better.

    1. I’d have told him to go back to fucking Poland.

      1. Well, you may get your wish: a lot of hard-working immigrants are getting increasingly pissed off at the direction this country is taking.

  16. Look, Puerto Ricans shouldn’t come across the border into America if they don’t want to be American.

    1. The majority of them really don’t want to be American. That’s why they’ve never voted to apply for statehood.

      1. They have never been able to get a majority for either statehood or independence.

      2. Indeed, the majority of Puerto Ricans is happy to receive massive US subsidies and the benefits of US citizenship while maintaining a separate identity and not committing to full statehood. That’s not an acceptable state of affairs.

        To resolve this conflict, the US should simply force independence on Puerto Rico and force Puerto Ricans to make a choice between US citizenship and Puerto Rican citizenship.

      3. I think the majority of Puerto Ricans today do live on the mainland, primarily in New York. They voted with their feet–a more precise and just form of democracy than winner-takes-all state democracy.

    2. https://islandsofpuertorico.com/puerto-rico-flag/
      “In June of 2017, a non-binding statehood referendum took place, an overwhelming percentage of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. ”

      Some want independence. Some want statehood. I’m sure some want to remain as a territory. I think there were personal tax implications with remaining a territory vs. becoming a state.

  17. I find this article not well thought out. This is not a free speech case because we are dealing with assault, which is a crime not protected by the First Amendment.
    The claim is the felony is ‘because of his opinions’.
    I find that to be a inexplicable mental leap. The felony comes from him targeting her for assault because she is from Puerto Rico, not from what he said while assaulting her. What he said while assaulting her was evidence of his motivation.
    He could have said the same thing, put it on youtube and blasted it out to the entire internet, and he would not have been committing a crime.
    What he said, therefore, was not the action that resulted in the felony charge.
    Does the state have a justification for adjusting sentences based on the motivation for the crime?
    I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t think someone stealing food to feed his family should have the same sentence as someone stealing food in order to put a competitor out of business.
    I think an assault on a child should result in a much, much harsher sentence than an assault on a grown man.
    Along those lines, I can see the citizens deciding to have a law that an assault on a random person because he is white or latino or Jewish, or whatever, deserves a longer sentence to separate what are run of the mill assaults between people with some personal grudge, from assaults which are essentially tools of terrorism, targeting complete strangers to strike fear into a community.

    1. I agree except the last paragraph. I don’t think the rationale for ‘hate crime’ is really that some crimes are deemed to be generalized victim rather than specific victim.

      Rather, I think the rationale has been that some victims are far less likely to be able to rely on others to help them resolve things on their own before they get out of hand – and many aggressors target those people precisely because they too know that. Our own history is chock full of examples where that applies. Cops who are part of the lynch mob rather than protectors against it. Bystanders who do nothing because if they do something on behalf of someone unpopular they too will be targeted for aggression. Victims who know that if they do something, the entire crowd of witnesses/bystanders may become hostile to them and things may only get worse for them. And obviously aggressors who will target them precisely because of all of the above. The effect of all that may be ‘generalized terror to third-parties’ but that is merely the outcome not the unique dynamic of what is happening in some cases that needs some unique way of being incorporated into the punishment.

      1. In any case, whether we agree with it or not, is that something that the citizens of a state can choose to implement?
        In general, I think so. But on the other hand, we can’t trust the prosecutors and police to not abuse the law. However, that is a separate issue.

        1. Yes. All criminal punishments are in the end something the citizens of a state can choose to decide.

          The nonsense of Sullum/etc that this is about ‘speech’ is obvious nonsense. If it were about speech, then a 1st amendment challenge would have popped up by now. And the FBI stats re hate crimes indicate that its not being abused or tilted either right now.

          7175 ‘hate crimes’ in 2017. 50.7% of offenders were white – of which 8.8% Latino, 21.3% black, rest other. Doesn’t look like the usual whiny partisan DeRp that this is only used against whites.

          Of those crimes – 3310 were misdemeanor assault/intimidation (like here) turning into something more serious. Considering there were 810,000 aggravated (felony) assaults and many millions of misdemeanor assaults/intimidation I don’t see where the statutes are being overused.

          The state-by-state reporting indicates that blue states impose these standards on residents of their own states and red states don’t charge hate crimes much at all:
          CA – 1094; NY – 552; NJ – 495; WA – 510; MA – 427
          TX – 190; FL – 145; GA – 27; AZ – 264; IN – 55; MS – 1

          IOW all the partisan kvetching about top-down imposition is BS as well. Seriously – does anyone rational think there was only one hate crime in Mississippi in 2017 cuz blacks and whites have now learned to sing Kumbaya together? The places that have never given a shit about protecting disadvantaged citizens still don’t. The places that do or claim to try – do. Even drilling down into IL (the example here), virtually all reported hate crimes occur in Chicago and the other bigger cities. Not in suburbs or rural. IOW – it ain’t even urban-imposed WITHIN states.

          The entire focus on ‘hate crime’ is pure partisan DeRp. Voiced by the stupid. Aimed at the even stupider. And Sullum has made everyone reading stupider.

    2. “I can see the citizens deciding to have a law that an assault on a random person because he is white or latino or Jewish, or whatever, deserves a longer sentence”

      Can you see citizens having a law that an assault on someone because she is black deserves a *shorter* sentence? You think a typical victim would be content to discover her assailant is getting a reduced sentence because he was NOT motivated by racism? Believing some motivations should increase sentences is identical to believing they should reduce sentences.

      Real situations are indeed more complicated (eg, determining likelihood to repeatedly offend) than legislators can account for, which is why judges should have some discretion, and their cumulative decisions if repeated become the complex civil law of the citizenry.

      But the general predetermined principle that a person should be sentenced in a court of law for harm NOT specifically demonstrated against alleged victims NOT present or accusing, for past politically-motivated reasons (as politician legislators are prone to) is a recipe for abuse and injustice.

      This case, as presented here at least, appears to be a good example. There is no evidence presented that this man is guilty of an offense against any more than 1 person. It would surely not be just if another person acting out the same way got a small fraction of the sentence for no reason other than the drunken gibberish spewing from his mouth sounded instead hateful of something not enumerated in the legislation. It would instead be better for the court at the time to determine his likelihood to repeat offend (whatever his motivation), and sentence accordingly.

    3. “The felony comes from him targeting her for assault because she is from Puerto Rico, ”

      He targeted her for displaying a non-US federal flag, which he seemed to take for a foreign flag.

      He targeted her for her speech, with his speech.

  18. “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.”

    Puerto Rico is a US territory. He deserves 20 years for being a complete dumb fuck.

    1. Well, we should remedy that and give Puerto Rico its independence. If necessary, against their will. Puerto Ricans should be forced to choose between US and Puerto Rican citizenship, just like other US citizens are forced to.

      1. Why not trade Mississippi or Alabama for Puerto Rico?

        Better yet — Mississippi AND Alabama.

        Making those two stains and drains on our system unincorporated territories would improve America.

      2. Like the citizens of Illinois are forced to, for example?

  19. So it’s a hate crime to target an American citizen for wearing the flag of an American unincorporated territory? Isn’t that like a New Yorker berating a Texan for being from Texas? Is THAT illegal now?

    1. I think wearing a Puerto Rican flag is understood by many to be a political statement, not just an indication of origin. And as a political statement, people ought to be able to discriminate against it.

      (Of course, a drunk lout being charged with disorderly conduct is probably not the best case to make that argument.)

  20. when, 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

    He didn’t do any of those. He got irate because of her political views expressed through her shirt. Her T-shirt suggests that she wants the benefits of US citizenship while still viewing herself as a member of a separate and distinct nation and culture. You may agree or disagree with her point of view, but it is certainly something you ought to be able to “discriminate” against, just like you ought to be able to discriminate against any other political views.

    1. How is a Puerto Rican wearing a Puerto Rican short any different from a North Carolinian wearing a North Carolinian shirt? How would a North Carolina shirt be a political statement? Most often, people wear shirts of places they’ve been to. If I wear an Atlanta T-shirt, or a Dollywood T-shirt, what political statement am I making?

      1. For some Puerto Ricans, the more accurate analogy is a North Carolinian with a Confederate Flag. Few view North Carolina as an independent sovereign nation, but some view the Confederacy that way.

        Probably a greater percentage of Puerto Ricans consider themselves conquered and want to be independent.

        There are still Hawaiians feeling the same way.

  21. Treating some extra badly because you hate the ethnic or sexual group you identify them with deserves extra time.

    1. And most statutes have some leeway in them for the judge to do just that. They often read “up to 6 mos in jail, and $500 fine” or something similar. The judge can set the sentence to fit the malevolence of the criminal. The word “hate” need never appear in a statute, although it might be a mitigating circumstance that the judge uses to set the sentence.

  22. If you try to take away someone else’s right to expression, why is it not ok to have yours taken away for a while?

  23. I won’t look at the video, since the jury already confirmed him to be a belligerent jerk.

    The issue of hate crimes is very delicate, but I’m basically against those sorts of laws unless there’s some way to single out people who habitually target particular races/etc.

    There should be a way that repeated instances of this sort of behavior gets enhanced sentencing. Whether he’s ranting against Puerto Ricans or just harasses random people in public parks.

    I’m curious…will the race-sturbators cite him as an example of “overincarceration” and of “too man people in prison”?

  24. PS – Puerto Rico is in the U. S. because of foreign policy stuff from the very end of the 19th century. Don’t try and rationalize it. It’s U. S. territory now and likely to remain so.

  25. Would he have been offended by a state flag? I bet he wouldn’t. He thought she was displaying a foreign flag and that was inappropriate, disrespectful to “old glory”. He’s an ignorant jerk who made a fool of himself. A night in jail is the max punishment I think fair. But we live in a tyrannical police state, growing worse and worse every year. This won’t stop until the public puts a stop to it. The govt. is/and has been for decades out of control. Only the public can reign it in.

    1. This won’t stop until the public puts a stop to it. The govt. is/and has been for decades out of control. Only the public can reign it in.

      Beto and his Donkey friends are trying hard to eliminate the ability of the public to reign it in.

    2. He might have been offended by a Confederate flag, which would be the better analogy for some in terms of political independence.

      Many people are offended by Confederate flags.

  26. When people refuse to accept the truth of logic and science, their ability to recognize and differentiate reality from delusion is lost.

    Those with the resources, lobby groups, money to manipulate our dialogue by censorship can control our perceptions of reality, brainwash us, to act in their best interests not our own.

    This has always been how the weak elite exercise control over the more numerous masses. The persecution based on the nefarious definition of “hate speech” is only the latest method.

    What is really the definition of hate speech?

    Our first line of defence is to demand this clarity and then challenge the constitutionality of it.

    1. “Hate Speech” is blasphemy against the pieties of the postmodern Marxist Theocracy of America.

      1. While that may be how it is often applied, were that it’s clear definition, it would easily be ruled unconstitutional.

  27. Witness the “Hate Crime”:
    “Why are you wearing that?” Trybus asks, pointing at the [Puerto Rican] 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.”

    He’s saying, in a *milder* form, what Teddy Roosevelt and those opposed to “Hyphenated Americans” in the late 19th and early 20th Century said to all Americans. Your loyalty should be to Americans, not to your ethnic tribe in another country.

    The race baiters like to point to the previous waves of European immigration assimilating, and assert that any doubt that the current waves of immigrants will assimilate just as well is “obviously” just racism against “brown people”.

    But those previous waves of immigration got assimilated in a culture that told them to assimilate or get out.

    Now we prosecute those who say that for hate crime, and tell foreigners Americans are racist bastards who are only rich because they oppressed the “brown peoples” of the world.

    It’s not unreasonable to expect that assimilation will occur at a slower rate in the latter conditions compared to the former.

    Teddy Roosevelt on Hyphenated Americans
    https://www.pnwriders.com/threads/hyphenated-americanism-speech-theodore-roosevelt-october-12-1915.88078/

    The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

    1. She is not Puerto Rican-American. She is an American simply by virtue of having been born in Puerto Rico, exactly the same as someone born in Illinois is an American. It’s like a Texan wearing a Texas flag on his shirt.

  28. lol think this is too much… why not just give him education about that thing.. old man with Extra 59 Months Behind Bars??
    How about this, if that man your father.?
    https://jasagol.win

Please to post comments