Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

cjmar41 t1_j5n8es6 wrote

>She committed this crime while out on bail.

Enter conservative outrage about bail reform

>In Texas.

Nevermind

49

nyokarose t1_j5ne59y wrote

Tbf Houston votes pretty blue. The outrage continues, unfortunately.

17

cjmar41 t1_j5no2qa wrote

True, but bail reform law happens at the state level.

10

zsreport OP t1_j5nw70e wrote

Here in Texas we have District Courts, which are state courts, that handle felony cases, and County Courts that handle misdemeanor cases. Here in Harris County (Houston) we have had federal court ordered bail reform in the County Criminal Courts at Law.

I’m assuming this case is in a District Court, but not 100% sure.

6

[deleted] t1_j5mtysj wrote

[deleted]

34

neo_sporin t1_j5ocd6e wrote

“It wasn’t a crime because we all KNOW the Jews are bad…they should have used their space lazer to stop it”

15

ttyp00 t1_j5qfev3 wrote

"superior orders" is the excuse she's looking for

1

[deleted] t1_j5m8kjx wrote

[removed]

22

johnhummel t1_j5m91rf wrote

> Law was out of jail on bond when she allegedly returned to the South Houston synagogue last Friday – the same day she missed a scheduled court appearance related to the Jan. 14 incident – according to the DA's office.

She was out on one and committed a new crime and missed her court hearing. Things you shouldn’t do when on bail.

114

[deleted] t1_j5maghj wrote

[removed]

−42

Art-Zuron t1_j5mt7fz wrote

Anti-semitism happens to not be an accepted mental illness, as delusional and irrational as it is.

55

MitsyEyedMourning t1_j5mcfr3 wrote

People break their bond requirements hourly, doesn't by itself suggest mental deficiency.

43

mlc885 t1_j5p652f wrote

She fell asleep because she was drunk the first time, and the article doesn't make it clear if she realized that people would find it threatening when she came back. Presumably the competency check is for the court to determine how likely it is that she didn't understand that this would violate her bail (and that it was definitely antagonistic) or if she really isn't competent enough to be fully blamed for her bad acts. (Racists who are sick deserve medical treatment too)

1

5xad0w t1_j5mcgub wrote

She does sound like someone who would buy into right-wing ideology.

21

mces97 t1_j5mtksr wrote

Sure but mental illness may be a mitigating factor at sentencing with less jail/prison time with mandated therapy, but in the legal system being crazy and being found not guilty due to insanity, the latter meaning you don't know right from wrong. So you can kill, skin, and eat 20 people. If you try to hide evidence of your crime for example, you might be bat shit crazy, but you will be found guilty, because hiding evidence means you knew it was wrong.

7

kobeyoboy t1_j5p0xkn wrote

Why does she have to act like Jesus? See boy and girls u should be like Abraham. (Excluding the human sacrifices)

0

mlc885 t1_j5p57ye wrote

Poor woman, she probably does need that competency evaluation if she was dumb enough to not realize that people are going to think you might hurt someone if you show up again after the initial vandalism. There is clearly something wrong with her if she did not realize that the initial charge was not the only thing that would happen if she continued to seem like a serious possible threat to these people.

Also most vandals don't fall asleep at the scene of the crime because they are drunk, so I would assume the people at the synagogue would want her to get help if that is what she needs. (Not to say there aren't a bunch of bigots who are fully responsible for their own behavior, but this looks like she is probably a bigot and also very possibly unwell)

−2

Vitriholic t1_j5muqpa wrote

Is “desecration” an actual crime, or was she accused of vandalism?

−24

traegeryyc t1_j5mvjwn wrote

First sentence

>Ezra Law, 33, is accused of criminal mischief in a place of worship

29

Different-Music4367 t1_j5ngd48 wrote

In a roundabout way, special provisions on damage to places of worship is a way of ensuring equal religious protection under the 1st amendment.

Hard to argue otherwise in this case considering it's a synagogue.

7

Vitriholic t1_j5mww1y wrote

For real, religious institutions get special laws protecting them?

Of course they do.

−30

[deleted] t1_j5nglsh wrote

[deleted]

25

Vitriholic t1_j5nsij5 wrote

Our vandalism and hate crime laws ought to be sufficient.

−14

Greggers42 t1_j5o48x1 wrote

Ok ok ok, slow down friend, you’re missing the forest for the trees. As someone who disagrees with organized religion and a lot of exceptions they get, I do agree with protection of religious freedoms. See, some people in this great country of ours would like to impose their religion on all of us and our religious freedom to not be religious (or whatever we want to be really) would be protected by the same rights you’re scoffing at. This isn’t a special law for religious organizations, it’s constitutional protections provided to help shape laws in the US such as hate crime laws. One could argue that without those protections, hate crime and vandalism laws could apply to anti <insert controlling governmental religion> speech, protest, etc etc. You’re not making a point here and people are downvoting you because you’re answer is wrong, not for any other reason.

9

Vitriholic t1_j5ozt2k wrote

Why exactly is a special law needed? I still don’t understand.

0

Greggers42 t1_j5pvkju wrote

The special laws are the Hate crime laws and the Vandalism laws. It’s a chicken and an egg situation that sometimes is hard to understand about the American legal system. The Constitutional Rights came first and the laws came second. The stipulations to Hate crime laws are shaped generationally by what is defined as “Hate” at that time. It’s not because of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion that they will be held or tried, it’s because of the federal and local laws and statues that are established by elected officials in all levels of the Government that have defined a Hate Crime based on the constitutional guidelines. The Federal laws can also be contrary to local laws or more strict than local laws on the matter, which can result in laws that “fill the gaps” between federal laws and local needs. This is a rabbit hole of how complex a legal system can be and saying that the law has been made for churches that is separate from individual citizens, isn’t really correct here. The building, it’s contents, and the event is, by definition, religious and the act here can be defined as a hate crime for that reason. I guess the contrary would be sitting on your couch on a Sunday watching TV in atheist bliss only to have someone come into your home and start screaming at you and not leaving, threatening you and potentially causing you harm based on your beliefs and your rights to exercise them. You can say, “let trespassing laws handle it.” But in reality, the motivation and subsequent actions can lead to additional charges that prevent this person from getting just a fine for their actions.

2

Vitriholic t1_j5q26fk wrote

I think I’ll just have to be content with not understanding our legal system.

4

petgreg t1_j5m5ifb wrote

I mean, she really just sounds like someone having an episode and/or. None of those desecrations seem to be malicious.

−66

tetoffens t1_j5m8n27 wrote

It's only being mentioned in some articles but she also made social media posts about what happened, including one where she mentions a synagogue staff member by full name with a birth date and death date. Not a nice memorial for someone passed on. The person is still alive and she posted they die in 2023...while targeting multiple times the place they work at.

I'd say that alone gives enough cause to at least consider this potentially malicious.

EDIT: This article from The Houston Chronicle goes into more depth on things.

66

mlc885 t1_j5p6n1q wrote

Oh, that makes much more sense. This article just saying ahe turned up again makes it totally unclear if she understood why she couldn't go there again. Although obviously it doesn't say anything about how competent she is, but it makes it entirely rational for them to assume that this is someone who may intend to hurt people.

1

HammerTimeHTFU t1_j5mof4x wrote

Yes, I’m sure she just randomly picked a house of worship used by an oft-persecuted religious minority that makes up ~2% of the population at large. Mental illness is not an excuse for bigotry.

40

MugRuithstan t1_j5o0s9a wrote

Not to mention, she's part of an supersessionist group that co-opts that groups holidays and religious items to try and convert them in the hopes of bringing about the end of the world. Jewish people have been sounding the alarm about these groups for years.

9

Drgntrnr t1_j5m9dqe wrote

Sometimes people having episodes go on to kill people.

24

[deleted] t1_j5m2pjv wrote

[removed]

−70

tetoffens t1_j5m9ej3 wrote

She's a Messianic Jew. Really a misleading name though. Regardless of the name, most consider that an offshoot of Christianity. One of their big things is to try to convert traditional Jews into becoming believers/followers of Jesus. As you can imagine, not always the friendliest relationship.

64

kaloonzu t1_j5msnno wrote

It is 100% an offshoot of Christianity that co-opts some Jewish practices and they actively seek to convert real Jews, while at the same time diminishing and demeaning Judaism.

Its an antisemitic cult, basically.

53