January 5th, 2017

When is a hate crime not a hate crime? [UPDATED]

UPDATE 5:50:

The four perpetrators—two 18-year-old men and one 18-year old and one 24-year-old female (the women appear from their names to be sisters or otherwise related)—have now been charged, and “hate crime” is among the charges:

Authorities have charged three teens and a 24-year-old woman with a hate crime after a Facebook Live video showed four people torturing a man who authorities say has mental health issues.

Jordan Hill, 18; Tesfaye Cooper; 18; Brittany Covington, 18; and Tanishia Covington, 24, also face charges of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, according to WGN. Hill, Cooper, and Covington were also charged with residential burglary. Hill was also accused of robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

I think the video was so clear and the offenses so egregrious that they had no choice but to include “hate crime” among the other offenses. If there must be a category known as “hate crime,” this would appear to be a textbook case.

It gets worse, too. Another video has emerged:

In the first 30-minute video, which apparently was posted live on Facebook on Tuesday, the victim is backed into a corner, his mouth duct-taped shut. The victim’s clothes were cut, he was peppered with cigarette ashes, and then his hair cut with a knife until his scalp bled.

Several people can be seen laughing and eating during the attack, in addition to making disparaging remarks about President-elect Donald Trump and using racially charged language. At one point, while the victim is backed into a corner, someone is heard shouting “F*** Donald Trump. F*** white people.”

Thursday morning, Chicago police confirmed they are investigating a second video, which surfaced on Twitter, and appears to show the suspects grabbing the victim’s head, shoving it into a toilet, and forcing him to drink.

Someone can be heard yelling “Drink that s*** right f***ing now. … Drink the toilet water, b****! Say f*** Trump! Say f*** Trump!”

What follow is my original post on the subject.

John Hinderaker at Powerline notes that the original AP story about an apparent hate-motivated assault perpetrated in Chicago and documented in a video that was posted online was mum about the races of the parties involved.

But Fox reported the story this way:

Chicago investigators are questioning four African-Americans after a Facebook Live video shows a group of people torturing a white mentally disabled man while someone yelled “F*** Trump!” and “F*** white people!”

Chicago police were made aware of the video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding the young white man hostage.

The AP story has now been updated. As of this moment, the headline is the rather neutral “Police: Charges coming in Chicago beating aired on Facebook.” The opposite of inflammatory or racial. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Chicago police don’t believe a man beaten in an assault broadcast live on Facebook was targeted because he was white despite profanities made by the accused assailants about white people and President-elect Donald Trump, a police spokesman said Thursday.

Charges are expected later in the day against four black suspects, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told The Associated Press.

Guglielmi acknowledged that the suspects made “terrible racist statements” during the assault, but that investigators believe the victim was targeted because he has “special needs,” not because of his race. Still, Guglielmi said authorities are looking at whether the attack falls under hate crimes statutes.

Guglielmi said it’s possible the suspects were trying to extort something from the victim’s family. Investigators said the victim was with his attackers, including one who was a classmate, for up to 48 hours, and the attack left him traumatized.

Excerpts of the video posted by Chicago media outlets show the victim with his mouth taped shut slumped in a corner as at least two assailants cut off his sweatshirt with a knife, as others taunt him off camera. The video shows a wound on the top of the man’s head, and one person pushing the man’s head with his or her foot. A red band also appears to be around the victim’s hands.

Off-camera, people can be heard using profanities about “white people” and Trump.

As with many stories of the “possible hate-crime” type, there are at least three stories here: the initial event (or in some cases, hoax), the manner of its coverage, and the reaction (both of law enforcement and the public) to it. Another issue is that of the category “hate crime” itself; whether there should be such a special category of crime at all.

As far as this particular initial event goes, I think most people would agree that it was egregiously vicious and chilling (I haven’t watched the video and don’t intend to do so, but I don’t think it’s necessary to view it to come to that conclusion).

As for the police reaction, I think they’re doing the right thing in announcing the facts and being rather cautious about characterizing it. I think that should always be true. This event appears at first blush to have been a crime with many motivations, one of which might indeed be hatred of whites and one of which might be hatred of mentally challenged people (the “F*** Trump” part may be more gratuitous than specific; I doubt the victim was identified as a Trump supporter). There seems to be plenty of hatred to go around on the part of these perpetrators, who appear to have proudly documented their own crime (although the person who posted it online was unlikely to have been one of the perpetrators; perhaps a girlfriend or friend? UPDATE: It apparently was one of the female perpetrators).

Then there’s the press coverage of the story. It is obvious that so far this has been in tremendous contrast to what would be going on if the races had been reversed, and if the perps had yelled “F*** Hillary.” The races would then have been identified in a sensational headline, and the first stories would have led with the racial angle as well. And I very much doubt that AP lede would have read like this had the races been reversed:

Chicago police don’t believe a man beaten in an assault broadcast live on Facebook was targeted because he was black despite profanities made by the accused assailants about black people and President-elect Barack Obama, a police spokesman said Thursday.

No, it’s hard to imagine that sort of lede being written by the AP these days (or back in 2008), except in an alternate universe.

In contrast, of course, there are the many hate crimes that have been reported recently against Muslims and others, some of them supposedly committed by Trump supporters, crimes that have often turned out to be fake (“trumped up,” you might say) in the end. And yet, they were so well-publicized in the media and social media that most liberals probably believe to this day that they occurred. Those same people may have missed the details of the present story, which at least at this moment appears to be only too true.

Then there’s the whole question of whether there should be a special category of offense known as a “hate crime.” After all, we already have perfectly good charges in our criminal justice system. In general, hate crime laws were originally passed in order to provide for a federal remedy in cases in which states either couldn’t or wouldn’t prosecute, or when states didn’t have penalties considered serious enough.

Another argument for separate hate crime laws is this:

Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s words, “this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm…. bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.”

I happen to think that there is no special need for hate-crime laws. Interestingly enough, quite a few hate crimes committed against white people have been prosecuted, although that’s a controversial area, too:

Hate crime statistics published in 2002, gathered by the FBI under the auspices of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, documented over 7,000 hate crime incidents, in roughly one-fifth of which the victims were white people. However, these statistics have caused dispute. The FBI’s hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, executive director of Intergroup Clearinghouse, to decry it as “an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover”, stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities.

Jill Tregor seems to be a charter member of “white lives don’t matter, unless the whites involved are the perps.” Apparently Tregor is not alone in her views; enough people seem to have shared her opinion to have prompted this rejoinder:

James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter note that white people, including those who may be sympathetic to the plight of those who are victims of hate crimes by white people, bristle at the notion that hate crimes against whites are somehow inferior to, and less worthy than, hate crimes against other groups. They observe that while, as stated by Altschiller, no hate crime law makes any such distinction, the proposition has been argued by “a number of writers in prominent publications”, who have advocated the removal of hate crimes against whites from the category of hate crime, on the grounds that hate crime laws, in their view, are intended to be affirmative action for “protected groups”. Jacobs and Potter firmly assert that such a move is “fraught with potential for social conflict and constitutional concerns.”

That should be glaringly obvious. But apparently it’s not.

Then there’s this on the differential reporting:

Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents). In analyzing hate crime hoaxes, Katheryn Russell-Brown propounds a hypothesis explaining the disparity in how hate crimes against whites are viewed with respect to hate crimes against blacks. She hypothesizes that the prevailing view in the minds of the public, that hate-crimes-against-blacks hoaxers intend to take advantage of, is that the crime that whites are most likely to commit against blacks is a hate crime, and that it is hard for (in her words) “most of us” to envision a white person committing a crime against a black person for a different reason.

There will be tremendous reluctance to label the current Chicago incident a hate crime. This doesn’t bother me, actually; as I said, I would prefer that the entire category “hate crime” be removed at this point. Assault, aggravated assault, deprivation of civil rights, kidnapping, attempted murder, manslaughter, murder—nothing wrong with those tried-and-true categories of crime, which are all avenues for vigorous prosecution of offenses.

[NOTE: If you want to take a look at a debate about whether hate crime laws are a good idea or not, see this.]

47 Responses to “When is a hate crime not a hate crime? [UPDATED]”

  1. Ray Says:

    Hate crimes are simply an attempt to criminalize motives.

  2. Nick Says:

    I wonder if they’re emphasizing the disability angle to make it easier to prosecute this as a hate crime.

  3. Trimegistus Says:

    I guess white people should burn down Chicago.

  4. Kyndyll G Says:

    When I try to think of legit angles for consideration of a “hate crime” motivation, my main thought is in debating future risk to society. If a person commits a violent act against another person because of what the victim is (race, gender, religion, etc) it seems more likely that person might commit a similar crime in the future vs someone commits a violent act toward a person who, say, slept with his wife.

    I do agree that the emphasis on trying cases as “hate crimes” is wrong-headed. If someone gets killed, or beaten senseless, or kidnapped and tortured for two days on live video, that’s the crime – not what motivated the perp.

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    THis reminds me of the era that started this

    Feminist McKinnon said that the oppressed have a RIGHT to class hatred against their oppressors…

    and then there were the old jokes in the 70s that coveredit..

    what do you call a white man who beats a black man?
    what do you call a black man that beats a white man?

    [i wont say the movies they are in]

    the left has always given justification tickets to those peole willing to cause turmoil and violence… even if the justification ticket is not working, the ones giving it out dont pay the price, the person who thought the ticket was a license, gets to pay the price..

  6. Artfldgr Says:

    “justification tickets” is my term.. if anyone else has used it i have not seen it before… but it fits better…
    over the next few weeks watch as it appears
    same happened with MGTOW that i was a part of creating, now its millions of hits and in many countries and has funding.. go figure..

  7. Ralph Kinney Bennett Says:

    Ray has said all that need be said about this unfortunate phenomenon. By all means, let’s criminalize motives. As civilization declines we have this parsing of norms and standards; we slide along the slippery slope of thought crime; we talk about things like “journalistic ethics” and “family values,” embracing such vagaries so that everyone will feel comfortable without getting to the roots (dare we say, for instance, Judaea-Christian?) of the ethical behavior we once placed a high value upon. Soon we find that common decency seems uncommon indeed. I agree with Neo. A crime is a crime. They have been on the books for centuries. Throw the book. Prosecute. Live up to the standard.

  8. Artfldgr Says:

    if you look the definition of that oppressed and this thing that started back with feminists adn the BLA

    the same group that now is havingb one of its friends in the weather underground having their sentence commutted, despite killing a few people, using automatic weapns and trying to steal the money to start a race war.. that was ayers group… they wanted a race war then as they do now… manufactured history – communists make history

    Do members of an oppressed group have a right to hate all members of the group that oppresses them?
    “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor


    this was the time when feminsts were terroriists… (the left communist fems that took over) the perpetrators to that were also pardoned recently – see Rote Zora

    all the stuff that is said that feminists said was copied for the black movement in solidarity..

    Blacks Abduct, Torture Mentally Disabled Man, Apparently for Being White

    Chicago Police detectives are questioning four African-Americans suspected of torturing a white mentally disabled man and recording the attack, while someone yelled “F— Trump!” and “F— white people!” …

    The victim, an 18-year-old man, is believed to have been held hostage and tortured in an apartment in the 3400 block of West Lexington on the West Side, Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. …

    Several videos of the incident were posted on Facebook. In one of them, on a woman’s Facebook page, a man threatens the victim with a knife. Someone tells the victim, “kiss the floor, b—-!” and “nobody can help you anymore.” At one point, someone tells the man, “say ‘I love black people.’ ”

    at least academia is helping foment it much more!!!

    and sadly, Obama and the leaders DO know the trotsky definition that is not what their fools and others and even us know

    “Well, part of my understanding of race is that it’s more of a social construct than a biological reality. And in that sense, if you are perceived as African American, then you’re African American.”

    thats what trotsky invented the word for in the history of the soviet revolution, prior to that the word and concept of such an ism didnt exist (while race and such did, it was just another misappropriation)

    here is anotehr facet of it, because its about neutering the defenders of the culture and so on

    University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Men’s Project Seeks to Eradicate Toxic Masculinity

    he UW Men’s Project is a six-week program open only to men-identified students that kicks off with an overnight retreat where the group or groups will talk about what “masculinity” means to them.

    there are similar programs for whites
    including one set of ladies who are selling white pin boxes for 25-100 for oppression..

    Safety Pin Box: White People Can Now Pay for Those ‘How Not to Be Racist’ Lessons
    If you’ve ever slid into a black woman’s DMs, comments or mentions begging and pleading for her to show you how not to be racist, Safety Pin Box is for you


    i posted once the thing in which they laid out the rights of the oppressor, which was that they dont have a right to respond to the hate, they dont have a right to defend themselves (which is what the wepaons and other stuff is and the hate crim if whtie does it, but not if black does it), if they marry out of their race its just to prove they arent when they are racist, and that doesnt save them, and more.

    [by the way, this also applies to states whichis why the US cant go in and kick but, why isreal is not allowed todefnd itself, etc]

    they have sections of libraries on this, but who would read it but communists and anticommunists? no one

  9. Lizzy Says:

    It’s particularly jarring to see such reticence in labeling this a “hate crime” when the MSM has been insisting that hate crimes have skyrocketed since Trump was elected — and that the biggest examples of these have been found to be hoaxes.

    I don’t like the concept of hate crimes (as said above, criminalizing motives), but this latest perfectly fits what we’ve been told is a hate crime, and directly linked to Trump for good measure (based on them forcing the victim to say F#@$ Trump).

    The shoe fits, so they should be charged for the hate crime in addition to kidnapping and assault.

  10. Juli Says:

    In IL, targeting someone due to disabilities is a hate crime as well. This being Chicago, all the statements made are 100% political. I would daresay most Chicago cops consider this a hate crime, even if they don’t agree with the notion of hate crimes. The upper mgmt is playing (IMO) to the race sensitive elements in the City. And by this I mean the activists, media, etc.

  11. carl in atlanta Says:

    Apparently they’ve now been charged with hate crimes:


  12. parker Says:

    The vicious thugs who had the audacity to film and post their crime on facebook are obama’s chosen ones.. He and his regime, including the msm, created this atmospere of hate. This incident is just another example of ‘justice’ meted out on the oppressors on behalf of all the special victims. This will be bho’s longest lasting legacy.

    As far as the concept of hate crime is concerned, I too think it is not a good idea. This incident involved kidnapping and torture. Throw the book at them and put them away for 20 to 30.

  13. parker Says:


    Homelessness, poverty, and skinned knees have spiked since 11/8/16; along with all those hate crimes against black, hispanics, muslims, women, and the rainbow LGBTQEIEIO people.

  14. John Dough Says:

    I am 100% in calling out the races of perpetrators when the politically correct media decides to not share those facts

  15. Artfldgr Says:

    Hate crime charges filed after ‘sickening’ video shows attack on disabled man in Chicago


  16. Artfldgr Says:

    Last night on CNN Don Lemon defended the teens who tortured a mentally handicap teen, making him say “fuck white people” and “fuck Trump.” Does Lemon realize 18-year-old’s are adults? They can vote. they can serve in our military. Why is Lemon protecting them? They are not innocent and they are certainly not children. “The fact that this was a vulnerable person that was probably duped into going along with them. It appears it is someone who is mentally disabled, I think makes it even more sickening,” said guest Matt Lewis.

  17. Artfldgr Says:

    This makes it easy to understand their complicity in germany, china, and so on… ZERO morals, infinite GREED, with Evil served as a big gulp smoothie…

    CNN’s Camerota Frets ‘Right-Wing Websites’ Making Chicago Beating ‘Political’

    As Thursday’s CNN New Day covered the horrendous story of a white special needs man being tortured by four black teens in Chicago while they made anti-white and anti-Donald Trump taunts and live streamed the assault on Facebook, CNN co-host Alisyn Camerota fretted that “right-wing websites” like Breitbart, The Blaze, and Townhall are going too far in making the story “political.” At 6:31 a.m. ET, after a full report on the horrific attack, Camerota plugged an upcoming segment on right-wing reaction to the video as she worried: “I mean, look, not only is this hideous, it’s being also now somehow…


    if its not so bad, why dont they volunteer to be the punching bag for the next time?

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    I’m thinking that this video documentation of a bona fide “hate crime” against whites, the disabled, and Trump supporters—perpetrated by young black men—must be an absolute nightmare for the left to try to explain away and/or justify.

    They probably are up to the task, though. It will probably rely on the idea that the underprivileged and oppressed are not responsible for what they do. The oppressors made them do it, or something like that.

  19. Cornhead Says:

    Hinderaker has been calling out the AP regularly. As I wrote on Power Line, it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  20. Montage Says:

    ‘Must be an absolute nightmare for the left to try to explain away and/or justify.”

    Why would you think ‘the left’ would try to explain it away? Or justify it?? It’s a crime. Do you think it is a crime that the left did or caused somehow? Or that they would want to justify? If so, why?

    At what point do people see crime as being only tied to some kind of political statement? And at what point do people then use that crime as a way of implicating an entire political group [of whom are often labeled incorrectly?] Think about it.

    Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do this all the time. Are they right all of the time, none of the time, some of the time, rarely? If you answer that then you also have to consider those on the right who do the same thing. I think we should be careful when we do that. Especially if we are making generalizations about an entire group of people.
    Note the extreme example in what parker says:

    “The vicious thugs who had the audacity to film and post their crime on facebook are obama’s chosen ones.. He and his regime, including the msm, created this atmospere of hate.”

    That is absurd. Back in October when three white high school football players in Idaho assaulted a black, disabled teammate was that Obama’s fault or the msm? No. It was a crime. Human beings commit crimes. Finding reasons that fit into one’s particular political beliefs is not a smart way to label crime. It’s a start, perhaps. But it is also an easy way out. Let’s first ask about the parents and the school and then consider the nature of teenagers and crime throughout history.

    I agree the left does this all the time. They shouldn’t. Either should the right. Thanks.

  21. Harry The Exremeist Says:

    Neo: ‘Must be an absolute nightmare for the left to try to explain away and/or justify.”

    Nope. We should already well understand that to liberals and “progressives”, the world is exactly what they say it is no matter what the video shows.

  22. parker Says:


    You say things one would expect to hear from a well paid CNN talking head. Sheesh most of the msm have offered convoluted gibberish to explain why this incident was not a ‘hate crime’ and had nothing to do with politics.

    The Idaho assault you mention was roundly condemned by many on the right as blatant racism. And no, it was not djt’s fault. But starting with ‘beer gate’ and later with if I had a son he would look like Trayvon, bho has actively sought to divide us along racial lines.

    Ask not why the cattle car comes for you once you are an expendable useful idiot.

  23. neo-neocon Says:


    Because that’s what the left ordinarily does. Because this embarrasses them due to the fact that it goes against their preferred narrative.

    This one is especially difficult to “excuse” much less to “justify.” However, I would wager that at least a few on the left are doing (or attempting to do) just that. However, I should have added in that quick comment of mine that what they are most likely to do—and have already done—is to minimize it, compare it to other things that are not alike (for example, the Zimmermann/Martin case, of all things, because Zimmerman wasn’t convicted and therefore “justice” wasn’t served), and accuse the right of using it to “to promote a racist agenda against Black Lives Matter.”

    See also this:

    If the attackers had been white and the victim had been black, the incident would have, of course, conjured America’s ugly history of white mobs committing violence against black people. There is no parallel history of the reverse happening on anything remotely approaching the same scale.

    That’s the sort of thing they’ve been putting out today.

    This crime is so vile—and the documentation of it so clear—that it really does present the left with a nightmare scenario. It’s not only racist, it’s against the disabled, and it’s all linked to being anti-Trump as well, and perpetrated by young black people who are essentially bragging about it.

  24. Montage Says:


    Your view of what Obama said when he said about the Trayvon shooting is quite different than mine. Let’s look at the full statement:

    “You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.”

    It wasn’t the act of Trayvon being shot that he was speaking about; it was the RULING in which George Zimmerman was acquitted of shooting a black kid. That WAS controversial. In your world, perhaps, mentioning that might be some kind of violation but a lot of people needed to hear that from a president. Just like Trump sometimes speaks to a certain segment of the population so did Obama. The difference is no other president ever had like Obama did. Anyone who thinks that his statement divides people along racial lines is not thinking about what Obama said.

  25. Montage Says:


    Every side of the political spectrum has a preferred narrative. This one – unfortunately – fits into a conservative narrative about young black teens, Chicago, anti-Trump people, etc.

    I’m simply saying we should be careful when condemning and labeling groups no matter which side of the spectrum we are on. This was a horrible crime, agreed. The fact that it came from an people who are clearly anti-Trump definitely makes it more visible within the political realm. But note that millions voted against Trump. Millions also do not like Trump. But I don’t expect them to start committing crimes. [I certainly hope none do, anyway – because a lot on the left are a over-the-top with outrage I will admit. I do expect protests. Let’s see what inauguration week brings].

  26. Trimegistus Says:

    Montage: So where was your concern for fairness and keeping a cool head until the facts are in when liberals were hallucinating “hate crimes” after the election? Did you take to the streets or the Interwebs to correct them?

    Or when riots broke out in Ferguson — were you shielding the buildings downtown from the arsonists with your body? No? Then why this sudden concern?

  27. Frog Says:

    Hate crimes are an absurd, Leftist invention, to be invoked by prosecutors, not by cops. Prosecutors, DAs, are clearly political creatures, holding elective office as they do. A certain now-disbarred DA in Durham, NC, Mike Nifong, comes to mind in leading the famous hoax of falsely charging Duke lacrosse players with rape of a black whore, and messing with exculpatory DNA evidence.

    As to the race topic today, and whether blacks can be guilty of “racism”, I cite the current statement of the Seattle School Board:
    “Racism: The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.”

    In Seattle, therefore, racism is defined as being a trait of whites only. A majority of Seattle’s School Board are white, while the schools themselves are majority non-white, due to white flight. Isn’t it odd that the group with “relatively more social power (Whites)”, the “agent racial group”, should be the ones to flee?

    The more blacks yell about racism and use that to excuse their many “community” deficiencies, the more racist I become, I guess.

  28. neo-neocon Says:


    I don’t see anyone condemning a group here, except the Gang of Four group that perpetrated the crime. Maybe I missed something—I certainly don’t read every comment with a fine tooth comb—but I haven’t seen it here.

    However, I certainly saw a lot of condemning of groups—especially of the police, first white police and then all police—during the Ferguson case, etc.

    Also, Obama made the remarks about Trayvon Martin looking like a son of his long, long before any verdict was handed down. He said it in one of his first statements after the shooting had become a cause célèbre, a bit less than a month after the shooting had occurred:

    “My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”

    “Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened.”

    At that link you can find a video of the entirety of his first remarks on the case. The more emotional parts are geared towards sympathy/empathy for Martin’s parents, and the remarks are otherwise fairly standard and say pretty much nothing. There is no mention of Zimmermann at all, or of protecting his rights, or of innocent till proven guilty.

  29. Montage Says:


    The comments by parker are particularly problematic in my view. You likely don’t condone them all but they are in the comments section. So my response was in many ways to that.

    Thanks for the link on Obama. I had not realized that he TWICE said that about Trayvon; once before the ruling and once after. I was referring to his remarks after the ruling. It does change the meaning in that instance. However, Obama was saying things many wanted to hear. Others didn’t want to. I realize a president is supposed to be neutral on ongoing investigations but the kid had died and his response was sympathetic rather than dispassionate. I wouldn’t fault him for that. As Obama and now Trump have shown the concept of neutrality on such subjects is very old school – like maybe Eisenhower old.

  30. parker Says:


    Don’t piss on me and then tell me its merely rain falling from a clear blue flyover country sky. You are just another useful idiot, but I will acknowledge you do try to be polite. I suspect you do experience more lucid moments where you probably realize you are mistaken, but I assume those moments last for no more than 10 seconds.

    To be specific, innocent little Trayvon was introduced via the msm as a smiley faced 12 year old, not a punk 17 year old. And, the the msm photo shopped away the contusions from the police photos of the back of Zimmerman (the WHITE hispanic’s) head. Need I discuss the gentle giant of Furgeson “hands up, don’t shhot” fake narrative about Michael Brown?

    There is no point discussing reality with you. Good bye forever.

  31. Frog Says:

    Montage wrote, “Every side of the political spectrum has a preferred narrative. This one – unfortunately – fits into a conservative narrative about young black teens, Chicago, anti-Trump people, etc.”

    A narrative? How about the facts of the case? Montage cannot escape facts by hiding behind “narrative”.
    And “-unfortunately-” means what exactly? That this case fits a “conservative narrative” is unfortunate? For whom? Why unfortunate?

    What do you mean by “etc.”, Montage?

    What was done by the perps is an obscenity. They are black. Teens. In Chicago. The facts speak for themselves, unfortunately.

    There is a bigot in the house and his name is Montage.

  32. Paul in Boston Says:

    “Hate crime” is an assault on the first amendment. It makes no difference if the murderer says “you have lovely pale skin” or “take this whitey”. It’s still a murder.

    This is not new, it’s just that these thugs decided to torture their victim on camera instead of just beating him up and disappearing. The official name of what goes on regularly with innocent white victims is “the knockout game”.


  33. M. Schoultz Says:

    No mercy for these morons….not only are they evil, but they are beyond stupid …. posting on facebook. (which, by the way, can be credited with getting these punks arrested). They need to be incarcerated for forty or fifty years, but I am sorry that we have to pay for this with our tax dollars…..there are NO EXCUSES for this….poor upbringing, lousy schooling etc. will be brought up at there trial……the bottom line is they are EVIL and there is no redemption for them. Good riddance

  34. M. Schoultz Says:

    I meant to say their trial, but my fingers got ahead of me….don’t want to look like a spelling dunce!

  35. Montage Says:


    Easy guy. No need for hate.

    I say ‘unfortunately’ because a case like this should not be about extrapolating bigger issues [narratives] regarding politics of either the left or the right. These thugs committed a crime and should be thrown in jail. But why condemn others for their crime?

    Etc. is everything under the progressive / left umbrella that oft times gets thrown into the conversation when it is not directly related to the crime. It would be like someone looking at a KKK rally and concluding that it has something to do with Trump. Or like some Republican from Texas shooting a person and someone concluding that all Republicans and Texans do this….

    There are crimes committed every day in every corner of America. Drawing a political connection to them is a fool’s game. The thugs who committed this crime were black, but not all blacks commit crimes like this. Some of them were teens, but not all teens commit crimes like this. They were from Chicago but there are 2.7 million people in Chicago, clearly not all people in Chicago commit crimes like this. That is what I mean.

    When I say narrative I don’t mean the general definition regarding the story of an event. I mean the ‘political narrative’ by which people take a series of anecdotal events that they then add together and conclude that these events are the very definition of ‘Chicago’ ‘Blacks’ ‘Teens’ ‘Anti-Trump people’ and ‘liberals’.

    In short, it’s best to avoid generalizations, which tend to be the life-blood of political rhetoric. Thanks.

  36. charles Says:

    Yea, I agree that normally black-on-white “hate” crime usually isn’t charged as such.

    But, in this case, I really do believe that they had no other choice. Even if they didn’t say so at first.

    For one there is the racial “talk” that they engaged in. Clearly racially motivated. It would be, as Neo has mentioned, hard to explain it away. (“Trump’s win made me do it”? Most folks won’t be buying that any more)

    Second, the torture aspect was caught (not really “caught” more purposefully done) on video. It is very revolting to watch.

    Third, this was done not just to a person of a different race from the thugs; but, done to a mentally handicapped person. Who was later found roaming the streets underdressed for the season. He was clearly distressed by what had happened to him.

    Lastly, and what doesn’t seem to be mentioned much in the MSM is that the victim was held for TWO days! TWO DAYS! This wasn’t some 5, 10, or even 20 minute “my emotions got away from me” episode. It went on for TWO days!

    This last fact cannot be ignored – even if they wanted to. The blow back from ordinary folks on the right – heck, even just ordinary folks of any political viewpoint would be disgusted by this if it weren’t charged as a hate crime.

    Oh, and to join in a side conversation; No Montage most folks didn’t need to hear OUR President talk about a white guy get away with killing a black “kid.” Most folks I know, of different races and different political viewpoints, couldn’t believe that Zimmerman was even charged as the police originally decided that it was self-defense. Nor was Martin a “kid” going to the store to buy some candy. Martin was a punk, a criminal who started a fight and lost. period. And then OUR president decided that his imaginary son might have looked like him! Would his son have acted like him too? Stealing, doing drugs, getting expelled from school, starting fights, trying to kill others? That is what made Obama’s statements about Martin so disgusting. Obama has done so much to “fan the flames” in the war on cops. Thank Goodness the sun is setting on Obamanation.

    Which leads to another point as to why this might be treated differently from other black-on-white hate crimes. Trump has called on Chicago’s mayor to do something about the high criminal violence or he (meaning Trump) will. I don’t know that he could actually do anything legally to take over Chicago; but, I suspect local officials there don’t want to test him on this. So, they had better start acting tough, maybe?

  37. parker Says:


    He/she/ it (acknowledging the LBGTQEIEIO community), who shall not be named, is stuck on dogma, but wants to appear as reasonable, sincere, and magnanimous. My BS radar says otherwise. I have long experience with what comes out of the south end of a north bound bull. I know it when I see and smell it.

  38. Frog Says:

    I dislike (and perhaps despise) sloppy loose slipshod thought pretending to be rational and cohesive. Your 9:28pm response is the former.
    “Not all blacks commit crimes like these” deserves nothing more than a “Duh”.

  39. CapnRusty Says:

    I am a Virginia lawyer, though not actively practicing. Virginia still has the death penalty, and the standard to be met for imposing it is set out below. If the four black adults had killed their victim — in Virginia — they’d wind up sitting in old smokey.

    § 19.2-264.2. Conditions for imposition of death sentence. — In assessing the penalty of any person convicted of an offense for which the death penalty may be imposed, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the court or jury shall (1) after consideration of the past criminal record of convictions of the defendant, find that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society or that his conduct in committing the offense for which he stands charged was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim; and (2) recommend that the penalty of death be imposed.

  40. artfldgr Says:

    The news this morning explained that is a hate crime because he is disabled not because he is white
    Disabled = protected class
    White male = unprotected class

    For the record
    White woman = prote protected class

  41. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Suppose we had a category for “They just like to do this stuff.”
    Would that indicate more or less moral awfulness?

  42. Frog Says:

    artfldgr is correct.

  43. Artfldgr Says:

    the incident would have, of course, conjured America’s ugly history of white mobs committing violence against black people

    funny thing about the real hsitory is that blacks were part of those white mobs too…

    just as natty was a black slavholder too

    we seem to have sanitized it that it was group against group not color againt color as race is culture not color, as confirmed by trotsky, inventor of the term, and Obama who said the same recently…

    its the rubes that dont know
    you know, you and me, and the average folk
    unless they study what is not taught to rubes…
    its how it is and i cant put gold leaf on a turd

  44. OM Says:

    Art seems to have forgotten that the exception does not make the rule. Gild that.

  45. Artfldgr Says:

    Montage, i can potentially guess that you havent lived in an underclass black neighborhood as i grew up in.. whats missing for you is the back story of the bored people listening to people in basements and such give lectures to gin up this political hate…

    its where i learned the ins and outs post bookstore backrooms with communist pamplets.

    if you go to the 6 train line in ny, and get out one stop past 96th stree… hang a right in the station, go up the stairs, and to the right coming out in a spanish area

    they pushed the blacks farther north by taking their cheaper jobs, which is why when i was a kid you saw black men with hats and good clothes kiss their wives, say goodbye and many would be doing short order cooking and all that, but now, they hire spanish illegals for it. (and give a phantom job to a wife that never shows up and pays from that keeping the remainder, while also getting SBA 8a and race based perks which whites males cant get but everyone else can)

    there is a small bookstore…
    just read whats on the table outside
    communist, black liberation, liberation theology, nationlaism (la raza), and more…

    yes la raza is basically spanish nazis:
    As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente. M.E.CH.A

    just as the BLA was the black nazis!! (i can show similar but wihout openly claiming nationalism)

    in queens, the tables are full of isis, islamic, and so on..
    they usually are on steinway street just outside of the area near astoria and over by long island city.. the astoria area is lots of hooka places.. then at the other end are the madrasas and mosques and massids.. (i go to a massid in the warm months that is indonesian, nice people, not political, good food, the mosque by my house was implicated in 9/11)

    so the more radical places are farming the poor for such people
    then they gin them up, give them their tickets, and let them go out and sacrifice their time, effort, freedom, and more for the cause that ignores them once they get in trouble… (they are not leaders, they are what the cathchism of the revolutionary i put up says are to be used wisely… they say a similar section as to the women being anotehr stupid group to do things to, but i guess the feminists dont read what they are not told to read)

    this has been going on since before WWII…

  46. Artfldgr Says:

    cicero, rome, exception proves the rule not disproves the rule…

    my point is that its not an exception, they also are around today… and there are whites who pretend to be black too… whatever benefits them

    YOU want them to be an exception, but they arent
    they are PART of it, in that they think that they will do better on that side than the other, and they do.

    booker T knew they were NOT exceptions!!!!!!!!

    “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
    ― Booker T. Washington

  47. Artfldgr Says:

    this is a form of making history
    just as stalin killed his own kind
    there are people who sell their own kind, and who would hurt their own under the idea that their target get blamed and they would have more power, which is why they are not an exception.

    its about power… and playing the rubes to act
    if you tried to raise up an army and pay them youwould fail and be put in jail.. if you get idiots to sacrifice their lives, wages, and more… you get an army you can say its not my fault.. and cause the same end

    THATS what its about and since race for communists is a social construct like everything, they mix… communist first color is not even there… so what you call an exception is blacks who want the end result, which is not what they paint it to be, but a place at the table of power.

    thats why the rubes are confused and act out

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge