Omaha man accused of burning gay windsock charged with hate crime

[Arbitr8]

The attorney for an Omaha man accused of stealing a lesbian couple's gay pride flag, setting it on fire and waving it in front of their house said Wednesday that the act was a drunken prank, not the hate crime prosecutors depict.

Omaha attorney James Martin Davis said Cameron Mayfield, who lives about a block from the women, didn't know they were gay when he burned the rainbow flag about 12:30 a.m. Sunday.



http://www.omaha.com/content/tncms/live/#





"If it were a Mexican flag or an Iranian flag, we wouldn't even be here," Davis said after Mayfield's first court appearance Wednesday. "Just because the victims ... are gay doesn't make it a hate crime."



Because the incident was investigated as a hate crime, the arson charge is being prosecuted as felony instead of a misdemeanor, prosecutors said.

In a statement Wednesday, the couple, Ariann Anderson and Jessica Meadows-Anderson, said Mayfield's actions sent a obvious message. "Had the man who burned our gay pride flag burned our Husker flag, we would have still called the police - but we wouldn't have felt as threatened," they said in the statement. "We wouldn't have wondered "what's next"? What became so clear to us after Saturday night, is that the intent really does make a difference. Seeing him waving that burning symbol of a controversial, and inherent part of our being(s) as a minority, in front of our house as a clear message, made it scary. It made it an attack as opposed to a prank."




Douglas County Judge John Huber released Mayfield on his own recognizance because he has no criminal record. Davis told the judge that Mayfield is an aviation student at the University of Nebraska at Omaha who helps his mother take care of two siblings who have Down syndrome.



Jessica and Ariann Anderson, who were married in Iowa in 2011, said that they had never met Mayfield before.



The Andersons have since replaced the flag; Davis called it a $15 windsock and said Mayfield plans to apologize to them and replace it.





Davis said he didn't think the couple saw Mayfield's actions, which they deny.



"There's a political wind blowing here in Omaha," Davis said, referring to Nebraska's current gay marriage debate. "I want to make sure that my client doesn't get caught up in the wind."





The Andersons said that the flag wasn't a windsock and that they saw the whole thing unfold.



"It was a display meant for us to see. That is frightening. ... We pray that (Mayfield) and his family find peace, but this was a hate crime, and we don't have peace right now."

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/attorney-man-accused-of-burning-gay-pride-flag-was-pulling/article_de5ad718-c283-11e4-a0f7-b3bdd29b9cb0.html

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[slieb85]

I'm so torn on the concept of hate crime laws.

I think in general I come down on the side of supporting them, but I wouldn't be shocked if the data shows they aren't very effective and are just adding to our prison problem.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Originally posted by slieb85:
I'm so torn on the concept of hate crime laws.

I think in general I come down on the side of supporting them, but I wouldn't be shocked if the data shows they aren't very effective and are just adding to our prison problem.

They are fairly useless. Just prosecute murders for being murders.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by ANYCHawk:

Originally posted by slieb85:
I'm so torn on the concept of hate crime laws.

I think in general I come down on the side of supporting them, but I wouldn't be shocked if the data shows they aren't very effective and are just adding to our prison problem.

They are fairly useless. Just prosecute murders for being murders.

I generally agree. But, things like this, if done as part of plan to "intimidate" someone due to their race/religion/sex/sexual orientation, well then it serves some sort of purpose.

That said, it's really tough to prove the mentality in actions such as this. Maybe best used for when people admit to targeting others because of one of those.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by ANYCHawk:

Originally posted by slieb85:
I'm so torn on the concept of hate crime laws.

I think in general I come down on the side of supporting them, but I wouldn't be shocked if the data shows they aren't very effective and are just adding to our prison problem.

They are fairly useless. Just prosecute murders for being murders.

I generally agree. But, things like this, if done as part of plan to "intimidate" someone due to their race/religion/sex/sexual orientation, well then it serves some sort of purpose.

That said, it's really tough to prove the mentality in actions such as this. Maybe best used for when people admit to targeting others because of one of those.

I just dislike the idea that somehow what was because in your head (which one could argue is free speech until you act upon it) dictates the punishment. If I beat the crap out of you because you slept with my lady friend or if I beat the crap out you cause you are black should face the same punishment. The act was the same.

 

[naturalmwa]

I wonder where lesbians hang their windsocks.

Any: Don't many crimes take motivation (i.e. what's in your head) into account? If you assault that guy for sleeping with your lady, that is a different crime than if you just walk out the door and look for the first black victim you can get your hands on. Even if the physical blows are the same, the acts are different IMO.

Under the first act, it was a reaction to stimulus by the victim. It may be wrong, but doesn't indicate you are a particular danger to the rest of your community. Under the 2nd act, you are a danger to every black person without provocation, so you need to be separated from your community to a greater extent to protect that community.
This post was edited on 3/9 12:44 AM by naturalmwa

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I wonder where lesbians hang their windsocks.

Any: Don't many crimes take motivation (i.e. what's in your head) into account? If you assault that guy for sleeping with your lady, that is a different crime than if you just walk out the door and look for the first black victim you can get your hands on. Even if the physical blows are the same, the acts are different IMO.

Under the first act, it was a reaction to stimulus by the victim. It may be wrong, but doesn't indicate you are a particular danger to the rest of your community. Under the 2nd act, you are a danger to every black person without provocation, so you need to be separated from your community to a greater extent to protect that community.
This post was edited on 3/9 12:44 AM by naturalmwa

Kinda. That's the rhetoric behind hate crimes for sure. But there are arguments why it doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. We've always had a sort of line with mens rea that it is required to show that you intended to do an act, and nothing more. If you think "boy I hate this gay guy, I wish he would die," you've committed no crime. If you purposely move your fingers to grasp a gun and point it at someone and pull the trigger, you have the requisite mens rea. Any motivation beyond that is unnecessary for the proof of the crime.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I wonder where lesbians hang their windsocks.

Any: Don't many crimes take motivation (i.e. what's in your head) into account? If you assault that guy for sleeping with your lady, that is a different crime than if you just walk out the door and look for the first black victim you can get your hands on. Even if the physical blows are the same, the acts are different IMO.

Under the first act, it was a reaction to stimulus by the victim. It may be wrong, but doesn't indicate you are a particular danger to the rest of your community. Under the 2nd act, you are a danger to every black person without provocation, so you need to be separated from your community to a greater extent to protect that community.
This post was edited on 3/9 12:44 AM by naturalmwa

Kinda. That's the rhetoric behind hate crimes for sure. But there are arguments why it doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. We've always had a sort of line with mens rea that it is required to show that you intended to do an act, and nothing more. If you think "boy I hate this gay guy, I wish he would die," you've committed no crime. If you purposely move your fingers to grasp a gun and point it at someone and pull the trigger, you have the requisite mens rea. Any motivation beyond that is unnecessary for the proof of the crime.

Doesn't the law outside of just hate crime legislation recognize different levels of intentionality? There is intentionality to do something in the moment. Some nations recognize a "crime of passion." In the US we think its worse if you plotted out the crime in advance. An argument could be made that hate crimes are simply crimes you intended to commit in advance, often far in advance. Additionally they take on an almost genocidal intent in that the perpetrator isn't likely to be satisfied with committing the one crime, they want to continue to hurt that segment of the community in perpetuity.

 

[22*43*51]

We complain about 3 oz. of pot being felony possession and the prison over-population that causes.

Not sure rainbow flag burning is equal to, or greater than 3 oz. of pot.


I would've burned the Husker flag and openly proclaimed hate and prejudice towards Nebraska fans.

 

[HawkFantastic]

But If I burn their Cornhusker fan because I hate the Cornhuskers, that's not a hate crime? For the time being, this should be treated for the crimes they are and not want somebody wants to interpret them to be. Now, if he yelled derogatory terms at them, then that's a different story.

 

[Madman_1]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

We complain about 3 oz. of pot being felony possession and the prison over-population that causes.

Not sure rainbow flag burning is equal to, or greater than 3 oz. of pot.


I would've burned the Husker flag and openly proclaimed hate and prejudice towards Nebraska fans.

If you'd burned the Husker flag, they would have charged you with burning trash without a permit.

.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I wonder where lesbians hang their windsocks.

Any: Don't many crimes take motivation (i.e. what's in your head) into account? If you assault that guy for sleeping with your lady, that is a different crime than if you just walk out the door and look for the first black victim you can get your hands on. Even if the physical blows are the same, the acts are different IMO.

Under the first act, it was a reaction to stimulus by the victim. It may be wrong, but doesn't indicate you are a particular danger to the rest of your community. Under the 2nd act, you are a danger to every black person without provocation, so you need to be separated from your community to a greater extent to protect that community.

This post was edited on 3/9 12:44 AM by naturalmwa

Kinda. That's the rhetoric behind hate crimes for sure. But there are arguments why it doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. We've always had a sort of line with mens rea that it is required to show that you intended to do an act, and nothing more. If you think "boy I hate this gay guy, I wish he would die," you've committed no crime. If you purposely move your fingers to grasp a gun and point it at someone and pull the trigger, you have the requisite mens rea. Any motivation beyond that is unnecessary for the proof of the crime.

Doesn't the law outside of just hate crime legislation recognize different levels of intentionality? There is intentionality to do something in the moment. Some nations recognize a "crime of passion." In the US we think its worse if you plotted out the crime in advance. An argument could be made that hate crimes are simply crimes you intended to commit in advance, often far in advance. Additionally they take on an almost genocidal intent in that the perpetrator isn't likely to be satisfied with committing the one crime, they want to continue to hurt that segment of the community in perpetuity.

and there are already laws for that. No need for hate crime laws. All they do is raise emotions and as Sileb pointed, aren't really needed to show proof of the crime.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by ANYCHawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I wonder where lesbians hang their windsocks.

Any: Don't many crimes take motivation (i.e. what's in your head) into account? If you assault that guy for sleeping with your lady, that is a different crime than if you just walk out the door and look for the first black victim you can get your hands on. Even if the physical blows are the same, the acts are different IMO.

Under the first act, it was a reaction to stimulus by the victim. It may be wrong, but doesn't indicate you are a particular danger to the rest of your community. Under the 2nd act, you are a danger to every black person without provocation, so you need to be separated from your community to a greater extent to protect that community.

This post was edited on 3/9 12:44 AM by naturalmwa

Kinda. That's the rhetoric behind hate crimes for sure. But there are arguments why it doesn't belong in the criminal justice system. We've always had a sort of line with mens rea that it is required to show that you intended to do an act, and nothing more. If you think "boy I hate this gay guy, I wish he would die," you've committed no crime. If you purposely move your fingers to grasp a gun and point it at someone and pull the trigger, you have the requisite mens rea. Any motivation beyond that is unnecessary for the proof of the crime.

Doesn't the law outside of just hate crime legislation recognize different levels of intentionality? There is intentionality to do something in the moment. Some nations recognize a "crime of passion." In the US we think its worse if you plotted out the crime in advance. An argument could be made that hate crimes are simply crimes you intended to commit in advance, often far in advance. Additionally they take on an almost genocidal intent in that the perpetrator isn't likely to be satisfied with committing the one crime, they want to continue to hurt that segment of the community in perpetuity.

and there are already laws for that. No need for hate crime laws. All they do is raise emotions and as Sileb pointed, aren't really needed to show proof of the crime.

Are there? Assume for a moment that this case was indeed a hate crime meant to intimidate gay people, but there was no hate crime laws on the books. What law would allow the perpetrator to be charged with more than vandalism or trespassing? Not assault. Harassment requires a pattern. I'm at a loss as to what existing laws would cover this degree of intentionality to harm. Thats the reason those laws were sought in the first place, because they were needed to deal with the situation the existing laws couldn't cover.

 

[lucas80]

I looked for a place in any of the manic fueled Arb threads in the last 24 hours to put this: Get back on your pills, Arb.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Are there? Assume for a moment that this case was indeed a hate crime meant to intimidate gay people, but there was no hate crime laws on the books. What law would allow the perpetrator to be charged with more than vandalism or trespassing? Not assault. Harassment requires a pattern. I'm at a loss as to what existing laws would cover this degree of intentionality to harm. Thats the reason those laws were sought in the first place, because they were needed to deal with the situation the existing laws couldn't cover.

I meant there are laws to cover premediation versus heat of the moment. And sorry i don't think a crime meant to intimidate shuold be its own level. In the end its a type of speech. If I go write the F word above your doorstep, I feel it should be handle like tresspassing, vandelism, destruction of property, criminal mischif, etc etc. I worry about punishing people because what's in their mind and the slipperly slope it creates.

And not to go back to south park too much, but aren't all crimes hate crimes? It's rare you committ a crime against someone because you love them.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by ANYCHawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:


Are there? Assume for a moment that this case was indeed a hate crime meant to intimidate gay people, but there was no hate crime laws on the books. What law would allow the perpetrator to be charged with more than vandalism or trespassing? Not assault. Harassment requires a pattern. I'm at a loss as to what existing laws would cover this degree of intentionality to harm. Thats the reason those laws were sought in the first place, because they were needed to deal with the situation the existing laws couldn't cover.

I meant there are laws to cover premediation versus heat of the moment. And sorry i don't think a crime meant to intimidate shuold be its own level. In the end its a type of speech. If I go write the F word above your doorstep, I feel it should be handle like tresspassing, vandelism, destruction of property, criminal mischif, etc etc. I worry about punishing people because what's in their mind and the slipperly slope it creates.

And not to go back to south park too much, but aren't all crimes hate crimes? It's rare you committ a crime against someone because you love them.

Thats just it, I don't think there are laws to differentiate between the spur of the moment vandalism and premeditated vandalism. Hate crime laws serve that function in part. So if you believe in punishing premeditated crimes more, you do believe in punishing people for acting on what's in their head.