Church arsonists get life in prison

[Phenomanul]

I have no personal grudge against a random messageboard poster. As usual, I was asking you simple questions which you have failed to answer.

You don't hide your butthurt at all.

The thing is... i don't owe you anything. I don't answer to you. And yet you constantly refute my position with pettiness and semantical red-herrings... whatever... I just figured the example above would amuse you (if by chance you hadn't realized [or acknowledged] that this is how you have responded to most of my posts [subconsciously or not])...

[Blake]

The thing is... i don't owe you anything. I don't answer to you. And yet you constantly refute my position with pettiness and semantical red-herrings... whatever... I just figured the example above would amuse you (if by chance you hadn't realized [or acknowledged] that this is how you have responded to most of my posts [subconsciously or not])...

The thing is I never demanded anything from you. If you don't want to answer simple questions, great!

The need for you to dissect and type out why I ask questions to you is very telling about your messageboard insecurities.

[Phenomanul]

The thing is I never demanded anything from you. If you don't want to answer simple questions, great!

Good to know... Now I know that since you aren't demanding anything, I don't have to worry about seeing you quote your own questions repeatedly [for emphasis]... since of course you aren't demanding any answers at all...

The need for you to dissect and type out why I ask questions to you is very telling about your messageboard insecurities.

Insecurities?? Dramatic much?

Like I said, one can always count on your pettiness...

But go ahead and get the last word. I've stepped aside on the last 12 or so threads... one more time of letting you get a last jab couldn't possibly hurt my - what was that..? ummm... oh yeah... my "messageboard insecurities"...

[Pyromaniac]

Entirely excessive. So they are getting pretty much the same sentence they would have gotten had they killed someone, right? I mean, its hard to top life in prison other than maybe the death penalty.

All because they burned down 5 churches? don't get me wrong, what they did is de able, but life in prison? really?

Damn, the way some of you feel gets me all fired up!!

[mingus]

if they didn't intend to physically harm anyone it's excessive. if they lit the church on fire while their was service, then it's appropriate.

[Blake]

Good to know... Now I know that since you aren't demanding anything, I don't have to worry about seeing you quote your own questions repeatedly [for emphasis]... since of course you aren't demanding any answers at all...

I do repeat my questions when they go unanswered [as is the case again here].

Insecurities?? Dramatic much?

yes, you are extremely insecure and dramatic.

But go ahead and get the last word. I've stepped aside on the last 12 or so threads... one more time of letting you get a last jab couldn't possibly hurt my - what was that..? ummm... oh yeah... my "messageboard insecurities"...

Why is the last word so important to you? FWIW, you running away after I pose a question is not me getting the last word.

You've gotten butthurt and went off topic, making it about me in the last 12 threads or so.

your messageboard insecurities

[ohmwrecker]

Church or not is incredibly relevant. That's why there are laws on the books allowing church arson to be classified as hate crimes and no such provisions exist for burning down empty gas stations. Whether that legally should be the case or not depends on your view of hate crime legislation in general.

Even if you are someone who is opposed to differentiating similar criminal acts via the whole hate crime concept, it's still pretty ridiculous to suggest that burning down a structure viewed by hundreds if not thousands of people to be a vital part of their lives to be equal to burning down an abandoned structure not being used by anyone.

Afterall, if the cir stances around the criminal act didn't matter, and in arson cases those cir stances including the use and perceived loss to society of the structure that had been destroyed, then there would be no need to have sentencing guidelines spanning vastly different lengths of time. Just say one count of arson gets you 5 years and be done. Whether it's an abandoned gas station serving no one, a church of 100 people, or a hospital serving thousands is irrelevant. Right?

So, if it were a gay/lesbian community center, or an abortion clinic, or a mosque, or even a church in an urban, black community would you be so quick to say to defend a similar punishment as justified because it was a hate crime?
If no one was injured, it is essentially an abandoned building. It's still arson and should be prosecuted, but life in prison is not an equitable punishment. Is the faith of the people who attend that church so easily shaken that the destruction of the building where they worship should stop them from expressing it? Did God leave their lives when their church was burned?

Shouldn't a hate crime have a victim?

[scott]

Shouldn't a hate crime have a victim?

Jesus wept.

[coyotes_geek]

So, if it were a gay/lesbian community center, or an abortion clinic, or a mosque, or even a church in an urban, black community would you be so quick to say to defend a similar punishment as justified because it was a hate crime?
If no one was injured, it is essentially an abandoned building. It's still arson and should be prosecuted, but life in prison is not an equitable punishment. Is the faith of the people who attend that church so easily shaken that the destruction of the building where they worship should stop them from expressing it? Did God leave their lives when their church was burned?

Shouldn't a hate crime have a victim?

I've already said in this thread that I think the life sentence is excessive. But generally, yeah, if you successfully burn down five gay/lesbian community centers and/or abortion clinics and/or mosques and/or urban black churches with two additional attempts at the same, you deserve to go away for a long time.

As for your contention that if no one is in the building it's essentially an abandoned building, I'm sorry you can't understand the difference between a structure that's not in use by anyone ever versus one that's not in use by anyone at the time. But it's interesting to know that if someone burns your house down when you're not home that you'll see it as a victimless crime.

[ohmwrecker]

But it's interesting to know that if someone burns your house down when you're not home that you'll see it as a victimless crime.

Nobody LIVES at the church . . . not even Jesus.

[coyotes_geek]

Nobody LIVES at the church . . . not even Jesus.

Doesn't matter. You weren't living in your house at that moment. It's essentially an abandoned building.

[ohmwrecker]

Doesn't matter. You weren't living in your house at that moment. It's essentially an abandoned building.

It certainly matters. You can worship Christ anywhere. It's not a home.

[Blake]

It certainly matters. You can worship Christ anywhere. It's not a home.

some of the reasons the laws are tougher when it comes to churches has to do with some Black churches getting torched back in the 90s.

Church is one place where a number of people of the same race/ethnicity/belief system congregate so when a person knowingly commits arson on a church, it sends a message of fear to a [mostly] specific group of people.

Is life sentence too harsh? I would agree that it is, but that's mostly the reason behind the tough penalty.

[coyotes_geek]

It certainly matters. You can worship Christ anywhere. It's not a home.

That home isn't a home. When you're not there, it's essentially an abandoned building. Just be homeless, you can live anywhere.

[Phenomanul]

That home isn't a home. When you're not there, it's essentially an abandoned building. Just be homeless, you can live anywhere.

well played [considering it's ohmwrecker]

[ohmwrecker]

That home isn't a home. When you're not there, it's essentially an abandoned building. Just be homeless, you can live anywhere.

You really don't see the difference? Good job avoiding the point btw.

[ohmwrecker]

well played.

Let me ask you this:

If someone told you that either your church or your home would be burned down, which would you choose?

[Phenomanul]

You really don't see the difference? Good job avoiding the point btw.

There is an obvious difference between burning down an abandoned building and one that happens to be unoccupied at the moment of arson. You're being disingenuous in your approach. Abandoned =/= Unoccupied.

Also lost on you is the fact that irreplaceable objects may have been lost (generational grand pianos, one-of-a-kind artwork, fotos, etc...). Churches are a second home to many. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't diminish the relevance of that fact.

[ohmwrecker]

There is an obvious difference between burning down an abandoned building and one that happens to be unoccupied at the moment of arson. You're being disingenuous in your approach. Abandoned =/= Unoccupied.

Also lost on you is the fact that irreplaceable objects may have been lost (generational grand pianos, one-of-a-kind artwork, fotos, etc...). Churches are a second home to many. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't diminish the relevance of that fact.

I didn't say it wasn't a crime, dummy. I said no one LIVES there.

Answer my question. Church or Home?

[Phenomanul]

But clearly, to target a specific group of people [with the church as an extension of what they represent] is not lost on the law... nor the deliberateness of their repeated offenses... that's why they will go to prison.

Life terms a bit excessive... but well within the range of punishment as the laws are currently cons uted.

[Phenomanul]

Let me ask you this:

If someone told you that either your church or your home would be burned down, which would you choose?

strawman.

[ohmwrecker]

strawman.

That's all you have been doing since you entered the discussion.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know... depends on the property losses...

As an aside; gas stations are a poor analogy. Unless it's a mom&pop store handed down from generation to generation. Most corner gas stations these days are franchise owned and operated. They are replaceable and covered by insurance... [premiums which would then be passed on to the rest of us].

But let me ask you this; how would you feel if someone willfully and maliciously burned down your house, along with the houses of those closest to you? Even if none of your loved ones were hurt; wouldn't you want justiced served? Sure, material things can be replaced but many of our belongings such as fotos, artwork, musical instruments, etc... are priceless sentimental objects that are by all intents and purposes irreplaceable. You would feel angered to say the least.

The fact that it's a church is highly relevant. Of course, given your world-view perspective and the context provided by most of your post history you wouldn't understand why that would be the case. Your nonchalant approach (bolded in your quote) is proof of that.

Normally I like to consider my posts somewhat carefully. I think I end up backspacing and deleting more than I actually end up posting sometimes. Being human, I do occasionally fire one off without much thinking, and this is one of those cases.

You are right about this.

Let me say that again, just to make sure:
You are right about this.

Churches are markedly different in character than empty gas stations.

They form the basis of a community in many rural places, and are quite meaningful to the people who worship there. I can appreciate that, despite what you seem to think about me based on previously expressed opinions on other topics.

Burning down a church is, essentially, a physical attack on someone's religious beliefs, and that is unacceptable. As a society, we must act to prevent such things.

As to your question, yes, I think justice should be served. That is also right and proper.

Should extra weight be given to the fact that they are churches? Yes, I think so. I would hate to see them in jail for their entire lives, that seems a bit extreme, but they should have some extra tacked on above what one might otherwise get.

[Phenomanul]

That's all you have been doing since you entered the discussion.

Hey... you're the one implying that there are no victims simply because no one as physically harmed.

Shouldn't a hate crime have a victim?

And to pursue that line of reasoning you had to insist on establishing your view that unoccupied buildings were for all intents and purposes abandoned.

Silly logic.

We both agree that arson is a crime.
We both agree that life terms were excessive.

Apparently, where we disagree is that you don't believe 'churches' should fall under any special consideration or protection, in so far as the law is concerned. Like it or not, these arsonists targeted a very specific group of people. The law becomes especially bearing in those cases (be they gays/abortionists/Christians etc... ).

[coyotes_geek]

You really don't see the difference? Good job avoiding the point btw.

Your point that victimization is solely a function of occupancy is ridiculous. You should be avoiding that point too.