by Jack
Maybe this is a moot point now because the shooter is dead, but why are our nations highest authorities refusing to call the murder of two television news people a hate crime? Here’s a black male who by all accounts is consumed with rage over what he perceives is racial discrimination. Prior to the killing he writes quite a bit about race in a rambling manifesto.
I’m just trying to understand, because when one twisted young white male shot black people in a Charleston church, his crime was immediately called a hate crime. In the Virginia shooting today the killer said he put the initials of the Charleston church shooting victims on the bullets that he used today to shoot three white people, killing two of them. He praised the Virginia Tech mass killer, as well as the Columbine High School killers.
A hate crime is defined as a crime motivated in part or in whole by religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically involving violence.
The shooter listed numerous grievances including racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying while at work. The shooter alleges he was attacked for being a gay, black man although we have no evidence of that at this time.
The shooter said, “The [Charleston] church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!” So, what’s missing here, why is this not a hate crime?
In the Obumble admin, it’s only a hate crime when white acts against black but never the other way around.
For the rest of us who’ve watched or read the story, it’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Jack, your definition seems to answer the question. A hate crime is motivated by prejudice against a group. I haven’t followed this story closely, but from what you write here I don’t see any evidence that his crimes were motivated by a hatred of white people in general. It seems his motive was revenge against specific individuals not because of their race, but because of how he thought they treated him because of his race. That’s different.
Hate crimes are also typically not targeted toward specific individuals known to the perpetrator, but towards random members of a group. The targets are symbolic rather than personal. This man had a vendetta against specific individuals. It wasn’t race that was the motive, it was (perhaps false) feelings of racial persecution.
The motive also usually involves sending a message to a specific community that they aren’t safe because of their membership in that community. In that way, it’s a form of terrorism. I haven’t seen evidence that this shooter was trying to send a message to all white people everywhere that they can be shot for being racist, though I could be wrong.
The Charleston shooter was very clear that he was targeted black people for being black. I’m not sure this guy shot white people for being white; if that was his goal, he likely wouldn’t have just targeted two individuals that he personally knew and felt wronged by.
OK, I read a little more into the case.
I now think it’s totally possible this would count as a hate crime.
While the mental masturbater Chris tries to decide what this is about, I have found his dream job!
“A New Jersey teacher will keep his job even though he was late for work 111 times over a two-year period. An arbitrator criticized Arnold Anderson’s claim that the quality of his teaching outweighed his tardiness.
“However, the arbitrator found the city of New Brunswick School District failed to give him adequate notice to correct his behavior and the 15-year classroom veteran is entitled to progressive discipline prior to termination.”
http://www.fox5ny.com/local-news/12560466-story
Pie, Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the language in the NJ teacher’s contract is the same here in Calif. and all other states. It also applies to all support staff too. When an employee completes their probation period, usually one year, it is VERY difficult to fire them. Prior to the end of the probation period they can be let go “without cause.”
To change the contract it would take every parent and grandparent demanding the change to the school board. Remember it’s teachers and staff who help elect school board members who will be favorable to the same group of people that got them elected.
There is a bill before the House that is addressing cleaning up the employee mess in the VA making it easier to fire bad employees and extending the probation period to 18 months.
http://www.stripes.com/house-to-vote-on-easier-firing-of-va-employees-1.358335
Jack, reading Chris’s response the first thing that occurs to me is how utterly stupid the hate crime designation is. Whether I’m a kid who hates his parents, a man who hates his wife, a black that hates whites, a white that hates gays, or an employee that hates his employer I am still just a cold stone murderer. Such people should be seen as a vile regardless their motivation.
There’s nothing wrong with a prosecutor creating a profile to show any person was motivated by racial, parental, or employer hate; it would only enhance his case. But special laws for groups suggest some lives are more important than others and that is divisive and absurd.
We are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Our laws should be consistent with that guarantee.
We should be consistent with our laws, but with Holder and Obama in command that’s not going to happen. There’s a long list of examples both race and non race related.
The latest is Holder’s decision to not pursue criminal charges against the owners of Solyndra for lying to obtain the half a billion bailout just before filing for bankruptcy.
The owners were amongst Obama biggest campaign contributors. In other words our tax dollars went into Obama’s campaign pocket to get him reelected.
Tina: “But special laws for groups suggest some lives are more important than others and that is divisive and absurd.”
There are no special lives for groups; you are protected from unequal treatment based on race whether you are black or white. According to the FBI, 21% of victims of hate crimes in 2013 were attacked because they were white:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/victims/victims_final
I do agree, though, that hate crimes are redundant; they should simply be called “terrorism,” since they are always violence meant to send a political message and intimidate a community.
If there ever was a “hate crime” this is it. The fruit of progressives and their proclivity to feed victimhood politics. This very disturbed and evil man was their creation. Congratulations!
Answer: Because it plainly isn’t.
Both he and the Charleston shooter were sick puppies. I was impressed by how quickly the media were able to put together a work history that pretty clearly documents a fellow who’s become increasingly disturbed over the last several years. And if we lived in a country where access to mental health (or just even health) care was 1) not dependent on your ability to hold a job and 2) easier than access to firearms, maybe we would have been spared this latest.
Angsting over “evil” is, if you don’t mind my saying so, a well-documented comfort to stupid people … stupid, lazy, selfish people.
Libby, you need to read the Walker health care plan Tina posted in another article. You should really like it since it increases affordable health care to both those with and without jobs, low and high incomes, and can be purchased and coverage provided in EVERY state.
Peggy, nothing like that can be purchased by the unemployed. One of the several reasons I get fed up with this site is that there really is a limit to how long a person can repeatedly, continually, and, apparently, fruitlessly … point out the obvious.
Good to hear from you Libby. Can you please explain what you mean by: “…where access to mental health (or just even health) care was 1) not dependent on your ability to hold a job?”
Hasn’t Obamacare changed that?
No. And you know it hasn’t. The guy’s been in four different states in the last four years. The Obama scheme is nothing like “universal”, having been picked to pieces, already, by the stupid, lazy, selfish occupants of assorted state houses.
P.S.: I’m glad you’re feeling well enough to re-join the fray.
Libby, that was kind of you to say.
From The Blackshpere.
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
Thank you Libby; it’s good to feel better and good to be back.
Regarding “…where access to mental health (or just even health) care was 1) not dependent on your ability to hold a job?”
WebMD:
Now it’s true that not all states created their own exchanges, but…
ZaneBenefits:
Of course there are people that would not buy insurance or pay the fine. They don’t work or file taxes. Some panhandle! Universal healthcare, like Obamacare, will do damage to responsible citizens and doctors. The price to all of us isn’t worth it for something completely out of anyone’s control…what crazy people will and will not do.
I do agree that there should be an easier way to place people in institutions when they pose a danger to themselves and others but we donlt need the ACA or Universal care to accomplish that.
“I do agree that there should be an easier way to place people in institutions when they pose a danger to themselves and others but we donlt need the ACA or Universal care to accomplish that.”
Indeed. Abolishing the legal doctrine of habeas corpus, with a little suspension of due process would do the trick.
Geez. And I never said anything about institutionalizing anybody, anyway. I said he should have unencumbered access to services. There’s no guarantee he would have made use of such access, but we, as a society, would have done our bit.
You, and your fondness for the Gulag … this will not be indulged. Sorry.
And yet, whenever the subject of the mentally ill comes up, liberals can’t wait to blame Ronald Reagan for doing away with involuntarily committing of them.
The sad part is it wasn’t Reagan’s fault, it was the ACLU and other liberal organizations that lobbied for the rights of crazy people to live on the streets and under bushes. There was little we could do to force them into a care facility.
C’mon Libby, nobody is fond of the Gulag and neither are we fond of mental patients allowed to wander the streets. We ponied up a lot of tax money to care for them, what ever happened to that tax money? After they closed all the mental institution I never got a refund on my tax bill.
Hate crime? Answer: Yes it plainly was, by his own admission….as to disturbed or hateful, it is just a matter time before one provokes the other.
Get with the program, Jack. Where is your PCness?
Don’t you know when a white is killed it is only a hate crime if the white is gay???
And if you think otherwise you are committing a serious thought crime.
Any of the liberals that infest this blog will have it no other way.
Bob, please read the comments before making such ludicrous strawmen. As I already explained, the FBI has found that 21% of hate crime victims in 2013 were the victims of anti-white bias. In other words, they were not attacked because they were gay, but because they were hate, and the FBI considers that a hate crime–as they should. I don’t know of any liberals who object to the FBI’s designation or who are accusing them of “thought crimes,” nor do I know any who have ever argued that whites cannot be the victims of hate crimes unless they are gay. So please do not put words in my mouth again.
Ugh–the third sentence above should say “In other words, they were not attacked because they were gay, but because they were WHITE, and the FBI considers that a hate crime–as they should. – See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/08/26/va-shooting-hate-crime-not/#comment-57272
But you said “…because they were hate” instead of “…because they were white.”
Interesting Freudian slip. I always knew you are a self-hating white.
Black killings of whites are more than twice as frequent as white killings of blacks and for overall violence black violence against whites is five times as frequent as white violence against blacks yet only a fraction of crimes against whites are classified as hate crimes.
But that’s fine with me as the whole concept of a hate crime is idiotic. As are so many laws liberals come up with.
Libby: “Abolishing the legal doctrine of habeas corpus, with a little suspension of due process would do the trick.”
Ahhh Libby, you go to extremes.! I guess that’s a result of the false narrative you’ve swallowed about the mean right.
The suggestion wasn’t a plan to deny due process or trample on rights.
You think that universal health care would change these individuals into model citizens and find them running to the clinic. What a joke! Some people are just not capable of making the decision to get help. Some would avoid it like the plague.
Destroying and disrupting our healthcare system and insurance industries for a minority of citizens is insanity when alternative solutions can be put in place.
Reminder to our readers:
Stanford Review, “Public Health Care in UK Faces Major Problems,” by Kyle Huwa
City Journal, “The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care,” by David Gratzer
Forbes, “What The US Can Learn From the Australian Health Care Debate,” by Paul Hsieh
Competition is necessary to keep healthcare costs down. Obamacare has created monopolies in insurance and consolidation of doctors. It has also created a big expensive bureaucracy. All of these make healthcare more expensive for everyone!
Universal healthcare would deliver the final blow. Big government would be the sole monopoly and would require a bigger, more expensive bureaucracy. There are many other reasons to avoid government controlled healthcare. The idea is just not very smart or workable.
Steve and Jack…it was an even more ridiculous liberal plan. The idea was that we could create little clinics where these people could check in and still live, literally, outside.
I’m aware of a young man who was diagnosed as Schizophrenic. He refused help and would not take his meds. His family tried to get him to live at home and take his medication; he refused. They tried to get him admitted to a facility because they feared for his life. Not possible in the current system; he was over 18. Last time I saw him he was not in good shape. He said he lived in Seattle (did he?). We were in Bozeman, Montana at the time. David didn’t know how he’d get “home.” We gave him some money and my husband took him to the bus station. We gave him a couple of post cards with our address and a stamp on them. I have no idea whether he’s okay today or not.
Is the current policy compassionate? Does it work for the best interests of the individual? Is it the smart way to deal with the mentally ill? I don’t think so.
We used to have a system that was not perfect but served the mentally ill well. Now we have homeless individuals wondering the streets who are endangered themselves or a danger to others. This is an experiment gone bad that should be addressed…but universal healthcare is not the solution.
This says it all —
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNdRUuXU8AAjLd4.jpg
It sure does!