Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2026, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

While the suspect may or may not have known about the history of burning crosses, it's irrelevant. Either he did it or he didn't do it. (I know a man who was 40+ years old and claimed he didn't know about Hitler -- and his father is German and the guy went K-12 in public school.)

In other words without that element of 'intent' - this is nothing more than just garden variety vandalism - perhaps destruction of public property. But, in any event - not terribly serious at all. And essentially the same as some bum on the street lighting newspaper and couple of sticks from a pallet to keep warm in an alley. Slap on the wrist kind of thing.

And you're right - people really ARE this stupid. LOTS of them.

and burning a cross. With the burden of proof, the defendant would have to prove his motivation for burning wood shaped prominently as a cross.

That would be the job of the prosecution. (always has been - and the 'burden' has always lain there)

In order for this to be more than just a fire on public property - the government needs to assert that this is something more than just a fire ....
i.e., the element of 'intent'....

In your original post you argued that it didn't matter what the clown thought. (i.e., 'here's the action - and result') What I'm asserting is that is one of those cases where - "Yeah - it kinda' does!"

Maybe he can read up about it in jail

Then he's seriously stupid

It seems there's a whole lot of stuff this guy doesn't know.

that are just this clueless and ignorant. (and in fact a decent number that are pursuing 'higher education')

Ask an educator ....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nice try.........

Of course if Trump’s DOE has its way, so much of that history will be erased.