Several media outlets have recently been complaining that hate crimes are systematically under-reported. California even passed legislation trying to force police to increase their discovery rates of hate crimes. Behold glorious pushback!
Cops Arrested a Black Man. He Called Them Nazis, So He Was Charged With a Hate Crime.
Police officers in Crafton, Pennsylvania, arrested a 52-year-old black man, Robbie Sanderson, for shoplifting at a CVS in September of 2016. He called them Nazis, skinheads, and Gestapo as they cuffed him.
Because of those epithets, Sanderson was charged with “ethnic intimidation.” Insulting the officers in such terms was an anti-white hate crime, from the perspective of the authorities. Sanderson had made bias-motivated “terroristic threats,” they claimed. The alleged motivation increased the seriousness of Sanderson’s crime from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony. …
“This is not what the hate crime statute was for,” says the ACLU’s Mary Catherine Roper. “This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment.”
I love the sound of liberals getting screwed by their own tools. Sounds like… the dentist.
As an example of the kind of thing that should be prosecuted as a hate crime, Pennlive.com’s editorial board recalled a 2016 incident involving a white teenager who made cruel, racist remarks about a black kid and “shared the result of his disgusting handiwork to Snapchat.” The teenager was charged with cyber-bullying and harassment, but the authorities didn’t immediately think to add a hate crime charge.
Hate crime laws work when they punish the white kid talking smack but not the black shoplifter resisting arrest? Are we still pretending that this sort of thing will bring us a colorblind society? Not according to US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow:
[Kirsanow] directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.
“Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?” he asked.
Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.
Kirsanow continued. “Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?” he asked.
Again, silence.
“Thank you, Madame Chair,” he said, yielding the floor.
Knife. Twist.
.This is not what the hate crime statute was for,. says the ACLU.s Mary Catherine Roper. .This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment..
First amendment for me, but not for thee (whites).
Last I read, pavement apes were way more likely to face hate crime charges. Not because they attacks Whites so often ( which they do) but because they are way more likely to attack queers and tranny’s and such