Dylann Roof

Feds to File Utterly Irrelevant Hate Crime Charges Against Dylann Roof

He's never getting out state prison, assuming he doesn't get executed.

|

But you can't run for governor or Congress with a campaign of NOT filing charges, can you?
CCTV

Dylann Roof faces nine charges of murder in his bloody, racially motivated rampage at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina. He already faces the death penalty for his crimes, and should he be convicted, execution seems to be the most likely outcome (eventually).

There is no legal need to the federal government to get involved in the court case. But you don't get publicity by doing nothing, do you? So, in effect, the Department of Justice is apparently going to file additional charges against Roof for the purpose of expressing its opinion that what Roof did was really, really bad. From the New York Times:

Mr. Roof, 21, already faces nine counts of murder in state court and could face the death penalty there. But Justice Department and F.B.I. officials have said the Charleston shooting was so horrific and racially motivated that the federal government must address it.

He was also charged with killing someone while obstructing religious freedom, which is eligible for the death penalty.

South Carolina doesn't have hate crime laws, so here we are. The other laws that South Carolina has are more than sufficient to handle the brutality of Roof's crimes, hate-motivated or not. There isn't a gap here. There isn't an injustice that is going to be left unaddressed by the state courts. The Department of Justice is using the law to express how it feels about Roof's motivations. That's an awful way to make prosecutorial decisions.

Granted, in this case, nothing likely will or can come of it because Roof is already doomed. But it's important to remember that not all situations where the Department of Justice comes stomping in are so cut-and-dried. Recall that federal prosecutors used hate crime laws to throw a group of Amish people into federal prison over a religious fight that resulted in men's beards being forcibly shaved off. A federal appeals court overturned the convictions last year.

NEXT: Watch Matt Welch on Fox Business Network's After the Bell at 4:30 p.m. ET

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The feds have to show their relevance by sticking their *&^% in everything.

    1. I’m enjoying trying various words out in place of “*&^%”.

    2. They filed it so they get to kick the corpse and high five when SC is done with him.

    3. If it keeps some of the goon squad busy not being goons then maybe let them waste their rime on this.

    4. I’m just wondering how much scratch they are going to blow on this pointless prosecutorial grandstanding.

      1. If it makes Happy Chandler (and Warty) happy, then it’s money well spent!

  2. #fedlivesmatter

  3. More symbol-mindedness.

    /consistent Tony

  4. The threat of death penalty just doesn’t provide enough disincentive to keep murderers at bay. Calling them haters should solve the problem.

  5. Silly libertarians, everyone knows that getting executed for a hate crime makes you way deader than getting executed for a regular crime.

    1. Getting executed for a hate crime sends you to super secret robot hell.

      1. Cigars are evil,
        You won’t miss ’em,
        We’ll find ways to simulate that smell,
        What a sorry fella,
        Rolled up and smoked like a panatela,
        Here on level one of Robot Hell!

    2. In all seriousness, was what Holmes did worse than what Roof did? What Lanza did? WTH is the point of “hate” crime legislation other than pure symbolism to appeal to leftists? Deliberately killing someone not in self-defense or defense of another is pure evil, whether your motives are insane, racist, or whatever.

      1. Well, murdering someone because of their race or sexuality also makes them way deader than murdering them for their wallet. Society has to compensate.

        1. Since money is evil, it is only to be expected that it drives a murderous urge in others, and that they are not really responsible for what they do. It’s really more the fault of society for the constant barrage of messages about how money is the only thing that matters.

          1. Good point. We should ban money AND guns, so that nobody will do crimes ever again.

            1. So black market guns wll be paid fro with black market money? I approve.

      2. The primary historical purpose that hate crimes were federalized was because they were often not punished in the Jim Crow South. The white majority, aided and abetted by local and state governments, engaged in a century long reign of terror against blacks and others. Since the criminals were aided and abetted by the government, the federal government needed a mechanism to establish jurisdiction to protect the vulnerable.

        As for expanded penalties, that is to acknowledge that there are further harms from a crime targeted by race, religion, etc, to the surrounding community who would live in targeted fear, rather than the harms either being isolated to a particular circumstance or spread among the community at large.

        1. You’re thinking of Civil Rights laws.

          Hate crime sentencing enhancement didn’t become a thing until 1993. I don’t think racist southerners lynching black people and getting away with it was quite so common by then.

          1. From the way i hear progtards talk about the South (an area about which they know nothing and have never been), one would conclude otherwise.

          2. Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes was enacted in the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

            1993 increased the penalties, see the second paragraph of my post for reasoning.

        2. As for expanded penalties, that is to acknowledge that there are further harms from a crime targeted by race, religion, etc, to the surrounding community who would live in targeted fear, rather than the harms either being isolated to a particular circumstance or spread among the community at large.

          More whites are now killed by blacks than the other way around. Would you say that whites should start being granted the benefit of the doubt on hate crime penalties? If not, then isn’t it time to acknowledge that hate-crime legislation has outlived its usefulness in dispensing justice?

          1. When there is evidence for a bias crime, blacks are charged. When there’s no evidence, charges won’t stick. What are you asking for?

            1. A realistic assessment on the necessity of hate-crime legislation, given that definitions of “further harms to the community” is an entirely arbitrary exercise and the victims are just as dead.

              1. They are still happening. The legislation is still necessary. And, it is a deterrent to know that the federal government would be involved, rather than just the local yokels.

                1. They are still happening. The legislation is still necessary

                  Begging the question. If the justification for it is based off of arbitrary definitions like “further harms to the community,” then the argument that these laws are “necessary” doesn’t hold water from a quantitative standpoint.

                  And, it is a deterrent to know that the federal government would be involved, rather than just the local yokels.

                  Clearly not, since they’re still happening. And considering that Charleston has had the same far-left Democrat mayor for the last 40 years, the contention that the feds need to be involved in this case to override the “local yokels” doesn’t even apply.

                  1. To further expand, citing your article below, do you really think that there was a risk that the Oak Park police wouldn’t prosecute Alton Hayes to the fullest extent of the law and thus require federal involvement? After all, you state below that white men are a protected class–would the absence of hate crime legislation have stripped Hayes’ white victim of the chance at justice?

                    1. Paragraph two above. The white community, even though the effect is lessened because the community is larger, shouldn’t face the prospect of being targeted for their race.

                      The effect of the crime is larger in these cases, so the punishment should fit the crime.

                    2. The white community, even though the effect is lessened because the community is larger, shouldn’t face the prospect of being targeted for their race.

                      No they shouldn’t, but it doesn’t increase the actual severity of the crime just because of their skin color.

                      The effect of the crime is larger in these cases

                      How so? Is there a scale that’s applied to empirically measure this “effect” you speak of?

                  2. Funny, I thought that the prosecutor’s office was responsible for prosecuting, not the mayor.
                    And, it’s interesting that you suggest being a Democrat makes someone qualified to be a good prosecutor.

                    1. Funny, I thought that the prosecutor’s office was responsible for prosecuting, not the mayor.

                      Yes, because the mayor can’t bring any pressure to bear on the city DA. Just look at Baltimore!

                      And, it’s interesting that you suggest being a Democrat makes someone qualified to be a good prosecutor.

                      Burn that strawman! Toast it good!

                  3. They are still happening. The legislation is still necessary

                    If they are still happening, how is the legislation successful?

                    If its not successful, how is it still necessary?

                    I know, I know, we have laws against murder, etc.

                    But that’s the point, in a way: nothing that is a hate crime isn’t already a crime anyway. What purpose do hate crimes laws serve?

                    1. Give it up. You’re beating a dumb horse.

                    2. That’s not a nice thing to say about yourself :p

                    3. That’s not a nice thing to say about yourself :p

                      Considering your argument for hate crime legislation amounts to little more than MUH FEELZ, you’re hardly in a position to mock anyone for stupidity.

                    4. Happy Chandler came along to confirm my question above: hate crime legislation exists merely to stroke progressives’ egos.

      3. There may have been a point when it was more common for white people to get let off for killing black people. As I say below, I don’t really have a problem with the feds stepping in when a state obviously botches a trial.

        I do agree that a separate charge for a hate crime is superfluous. However, I would note that the state of mind of the killer should have something to do with the charge and the severity of punishment. But still, that doesn’t make it a different crime.

      4. Well, intent is relevant in investigation and sentencing and is not considered constitutionally protected expression. The idea is that hate crimes harm not just the immediate victim but the group they are a part of. As deterrence I think hate crime laws are not on solid ground, and may even cause increased tension. So I’m not their biggest fan, but the idea that intent is irrelevant is strange.

        1. I never said intent was irrelevant. All intent requires in deliberate homicide is to purposely or knowingly cause the death of another (at least, under the Model Penal Code, which is what quite a few states have adopted).

          Murdering people because they are black, because you think it will grant you superhuman strength, or because you want their money are equally reprehensible and deserve the highest degree of punishment.

          As far as history goes, it made sense in the past to federalize enforcement of crimes against minorities when the states wouldn’t enforce their own laws against murder, etc. But unless there is actual evidence that, say, Roof would be acquitted merely because of his skin color, the whole point of hate crime legislation is, well, pointless. It is enough that he intended to kill them.

    3. And then you’ll be dead – FOREVER

  6. Scott, you’re using an awful lot of words here to say, “I’m racist.”

    1. Look at that. Scott doesn’t think murdering a bunch of black people is a hate crime. Grand Dragon Scott, why do you think it’s all right to murder black people?

      1. “Well you see Warty, since the 15th century the niggers haven’t been as advanced as we are, leading to my “high-functioning primate” theory of HEY, WAIT A MINUTE!”

        /Scott

    2. Wow, Nikki and Warty, proving once again that H&R is the worst hive of scum and villany on teh webz.

      1. They are both the worst.

      2. When is the Doomcock graphic novel coming out?

        1. Never. Everyone knows media are loss-leaders for the merchandising, and Funko wouldn’t approve the Pop Vinyl Doomcock Warty.

          1. Plus there was SugarFree’s insistence that it be published as a pop-up book.

  7. We need to return to a simpler time, when mass murderers murdered with love in their heart.

  8. OT: network of large mammal feeding stations does all day breakfast. Finally acknowledges scene in Falling Down where Michael Douglas shoots up a restaurant for not serving breakfast at 10:30am

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../30509831/

    1. I’ve been close to shooting up a McDonalds for stopping breakfast early. It was before 11 on a weekend and the damn breakfast menu was still up at the drive through. Who the fuck wants lunch before 11 on a Saturday?

      1. God-fearing people who are up at the crack of dawn every day to milk the chickens.

      2. Who wants breakfast food…ever?

        1. I’m guessing not you.

          1. Yeah, I realize I’m out of sync with the rest of the world. But I don’t like sweets, I hate eggs and don’t like to eat meat. So, what approved breakfast foods does that leave? I just don’t understand why ‘breakfast foods’ are so limited and so unappetizing. I’d rather have a slice of pizza or sandwich. But eating those things in the morning really seem to bother people, like I’m breaking some unwritten rule.

            1. Yeah, if you aren’t into eggs or meat, you are kind of out of luck with American style breakfast.

              I, on the other hand, think bacon and eggs makes a good meal at any time of day.
              And their breakfast biscuits are the best thing McD’s has going.

              1. My aversion to breakfast foods truly makes me feel like an alien. However, I have eaten cereal, pancakes, and waffles in the evening and enjoyed them. They just don’t sound good first thing in the morning. Consider yourself lucky that the majority of the US is in agreement with you on this topic.

                1. I’m really not much for eating first thing in the morning either. But at 11 AM on a Saturday, a McDonalds bacon, egg and cheese biscuit can be just the thing.

                2. And I don’t think it makes you all that weird. Unless you don’t like bacon. Then you are some kind of freak.

                  1. OK, I gotta admit I DO eat bacon on occasion. I don’t eat any other pork products, but bacon is like it’s own food group so I make an exception because it’s sinfully delicious.

        2. Breakfast food all other foods

          1. God damn it, where did my “greater than” sign go?

        3. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

          1. Then you can have mine because I have no appetite in the morning and acceptable breakfast foods are repulsive.

        1. I was feeling pretty hateful at the time. Or do you mean leaving up the breakfast menu?

          My self restraint breaks down a little when my blood sugar is low.

          1. Fuck you, then. You get cold pizza from Dominoes.

          2. Fuck you, then. You get cold pizza from Dominoes.

            1. Now that’s just mean.

              1. (takes a bow, blows kisses)

      3. Zeb’s the bad guy? How did that happen?

        1. Just what kind of vigilante are you?

    2. I thought of you today as I saw a reptile (snake) sunning himself on a rock by the edge of a pond outside my office building. I thought to myself, “You know who would like to be on this rock right now? Mr. Lizard. That’s who.”

      And then I sent on about my business.

      1. And nothing else happened?

        1. Predictably no, nothing else happened. I saw on a bench by aforementioned pond and read this book for the remainder of my lunch hour.

          1. *sat on a bench

      2. Share a rock with a snake? Disgusting

  9. Oh come on Scott. There’s plenty of good reasons to do this. Mostly, it shows that anyone who disagrees with thought crime laws want to massacre black people at church. I don’t know exactly how it proves that, but it does. So QED you racist teathuglikan.

  10. What’s the point of having all these laws if we’re not going to use them?

  11. I think it is a reasonable thing for the Feds to step in in some cases when the state really fucks up a trial (lots of cases involving police come to mind). But that is clearly not necessary here. This is one case where the state seems to be handling things about as well as can be expected.

    1. In my opinion, the feds should only intervene if the state trial process is corrupt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    2. Agreed. If there were an obvious subversion of the judicial process or they decided not to charge him or something, by all means, get the feds involved.

      Here, there has been universal condemnation of his actions and there appears to be no chance in hell that he’ll get anything less than life in prison. No need for Uncle Sam here.

  12. You new here, Scott? If government doesn’t use the laws they have, they’ll wither on the vine.

  13. Looking forward to the day when minorities get charged with ‘Hate Crimes’ for assaulting whites. Since about 80% of interracial violence is black on white, this idiotic enhancement will end up disproportionately affecting blacks, and once again Progressive legislation will have the opposite result as intended. Of course, those of us who have always opposed ‘Hate Crime’ laws will get blamed.

    1. That’s totally different though. Whites deserve hate.

      1. I thought that as long as whites socially signaled the appropriate amount of guilt, then all was forgiven.

        1. You mean, coughed up the appropriate reparations?

          Just like the fucking Pope and his indulgences?

    2. Hate Crime Data
      Click on “Victims”
      22% of hate crime victims are victims of anti-white bias.
      Click on “Offenders”
      23.3% of offenders were black.

      Your day has come, and you didn’t have to wait long.

      1. Interesting. Good to know.

        It would also be interesting to see the numbers on interracial violence, and how they square up to hate crimes charges. If 80% of the perps of interracial violence are black, it would seem, as a first cut, like 80% of the hate crimes offenders should be black as well.

        But there are a lot of confounding variables and misaligned definitions in there, I am sure.

        1. Not all hate crimes are interracial.
          Not all interracial crimes are hate crimes.

  14. I for one am enjoying the rich irony that one of the cops (or whoever) behind Roof in that picture appears to be black. Sorry that the black dude had to put up with that, but I hope that Roof is shitting himself 24×7 at the thought of all those black guards and inmates with whom he’ll be spending the rest of his hopefully miserable life.

    1. Yes. One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is because I believe life in General Population would be a far worse punishment than a few years on Death Row followed by a painless exit. Especially for a piece of garbage like this guy.

    2. There are white prison gangs too.

      1. White privilege is everywhere.

        1. Yep. It’s good to be King.

      2. Yes, there are, and they will welcome Roof with open arms.

    3. There’s no particular reason to shit himself – he’ll likely get in with the white gang. Then he’ll just have to worry about getting his jelly rolled by his ‘friends’ rather than by the members of the black and brown gangs.

  15. Was this actually a racially-motivated crime? He had black friends and none of them believed he was racist. I heard that he originally intended to shoot up a college. But when he saw all the security he chose the church as a consolation. He murdered 9 innocent people and deserves the harshest penalty. But what evidence points to a ‘Hate Crime?’

    1. You’re not very smart, are you.

      1. I’m asking a sincere question. I don’t see the point in insulting me. If you have information or knowledge that he indeed targeted just black people then please share it.

        1. Assuming you’re not a troll, the guy has a manifesto. I’m willing to believe his own statements as to his motivations.

          1. OK. I was just asking. It just seems odd that he didn’t initially target someplace that had only Blacks. But I’m sure you can understand my skepticism when the media is bending over backwards to paint him as a White Supremacist. I doubt the guy had any real thoughts of his own and was probably just repeating shit he read online.

            1. Fuck off, troll.

              1. Jesus, what’s your problem? In what way am I trolling? If you can’t comprehend how the whole concept of ‘Hate Crimes’ undermines our legal system by imposing different penalties depending on the perpetrator’s skin color, then you’re beyond help. That practice was wrong in the past but it’s worse now because people should know better. I expected more from someone who regularly posts on a Libertarian blog.

                1. Few people here actually think hate crime laws are good, since at best they just add an extra penalty to what is already a crime. Their historical creation in an era where people literally got away with murder makes sense, but they’re no longer needed.

                  But you’re investing a lot of effort into arguing that Roof’s particular brand of insanity isn’t based in some fucked up racism. Enough that Warty is justified in suspecting you’re just trolling at this stage.

                  I mean, we’ve got at least a couple crazed Islamic shooters, one guy motivated by a theory straight out of Highlander, another who shot a politician because he believes the government controls grammar. Why is it unlikely this one is motivated by his own cobbled-together racism + paranoia?

                  1. I don’t care why he did what he did. It’s irrelevant. Nine innocent people are dead, he’s solely responsible, and he’ll be punished accordingly. But criminal punishments should be consistent and the skin color (or beliefs) of the perpetrator shouldn’t be a factor in that punishment. We all have a visceral revulsion towards racists and we want to punish them for their ignorant views. But that’s an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

                    1. Then you’re in agreement with pretty much everyone else on this board. Yay!

          2. the guy has a manifesto. I’m willing to believe his own statements as to his motivations.

            But the Muslim who shot up the recruiting station after visiting the Middle East, posting quasi-radical Muslim stuff, and tweeting a Koranic verse before opening fire? His motivations are a total mystery

            1. Not to me. The media got that one wrong, deliberately, but that doesn’t mean we’ve got to compensate by pretending Roof had no agenda.

      2. Whoosh, there it is . . . The SBDs emanating from your asshole.

        No, just pin him down and sit on his head. Cuz, no one fucks with Warty.

    2. “You’re raping our women” said to the black woman whom he allowed to live to bear his message to the world.

      I don’t think he actually thought the people he shot were rapists themselves. Other people in their group were and they were punished for it. The group could be blacks, or Christians, or people who like to meditate in groups, or bipeds that eat tomatoes.

      The traditional though loosey goosey definition of a hate crime is a crime perpetrated against a person solely based on their being a member of some protected group.

      1. The traditional though loosey goosey definition of a hate crime is a crime perpetrated against a person solely based on their being a member of some protected group.

        Why is it limited to just protected groups? Isn’t a Black man killing a white man because of skin color just as bad as a white guy killing a Black guy because of skin color? I know this is supposed to make up for injustices in the past, but this is the 21st Century and we should be past that.

        1. Isn’t a Black man killing a white man because of skin color just as bad as a white guy killing a Black guy because of skin color?

          According to those who support such laws, no, it is not just as bad, due to the intersectionality of history and current white privilege.

        2. White men are a protected group.

          1. How so? Less than two years ago I was robbed by two Black women in New Orleans who likely targeted me because of my skin color. Yet they would never be charged with a hate crime. I guarantee if the roles had been reversed that I would have been.

            1. Was there any evidence that you were targeted for your race, or just conjecture?

              1. That’s the problem with ‘Hate Crime’ laws. They assume a motive even when there’s no evidence to support it. So, I’m going to assume I was targeted for my race (I was definitely targeted for my gender) until evidence proves otherwise.

                1. In order to hold up in court, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, charges are only brought with evidence, and if there’s no evidence, they don’t hold up.

            2. See? With evidence of bias, it will be charged.

            3. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that in a robbery, even if they chose you because of your whiteness, it is generally assumed that the motivation for the crime is to get money. The crime is it’s own end. Even if racial bias was involved, it was probably more like “I bet this white boy has some money in his pocket”.

              i don’t think hate crime laws are particularly necessary or good, but at least in that case, i think that has more to do with it than the victim being not-black.

              1. I have no doubt I was targeted because they knew I had money (which I did) and that I likely lacked the street smarts (ditto) to suspect they were interested in something other than my company. I fit the standard white stereotype perfectly and made the ideal mark. I guarantee that if I pulled something like they did on an Asian tourist I’d receive an enhanced punishment.

                1. Again, evidence.
                  If there was evidence in your actions that you were motivated by bias against an Asian tourist, you would be charged. If there’s no evidence, you won’t. Your bias (disproven by the statistics showing that blacks are charged with hate crimes at a higher percentage than their population) doesn’t count for much.

                  Poor poor white man. The man really keeps you down.

                  1. God, what a douche. Go fuck yourself, Happy.

                    1. If I could, I’d never leave the house! Ha!
                      Try again when you can get beyond repeating speculative biases.

                    2. I should have listened to Warty!

            4. Because you aren’t GAY and WHITE, son.

              Next time, try harder.

              1. I identify as Gay in every way but the gay sex part. Does that count?

                1. Not sure . . . .We need a line judge’s decision.

                  Hey, Scott – what say you? Does that count?

          2. White men are a protected group.

            From a purely legal perspective, white men are the least protected group there is.

        3. No, because 400 years of conditioning. Even their conditioning has been conditioned.

    3. I would imagine that his writings meet the loose standards for hate crimes. A better question would be is he even sane? Normal sane people just do not kill random strangers. OTOH, if he is declared legally insane then he gets marginally better treatment than a mere criminal.

      1. Yes, he is clearly an insane loser who just wanted to hurt people. But the focus on race obscures the issue and is ultimately irrelevant.

      2. “A better question would be is he even sane? ”

        He randomly killed nine innocent people in a church. He’s very insane.

        1. Apologies. He’s just plain crazy. He probably doesn’t come up to the level of legal insanity.

          “Whatever happened to ‘just plain crazy’?”– Chris Rock

          1. They should get a new word for the legal non-culpable thing. He’s insane.

      3. Legally, if Holmes is sane, I’m not sure how this guy wouldn’t be.
        Medically, Holmes was schizophrenic. However, that wasn’t enough for him to be crazy enough for the courts.

        1. If it can be shown that he knew what he was doing was wrong, no legal insanity defense.

        2. What paul said.

          Merely suffering from mental illness does not equal successful ‘insanity defense’. That’s a misunderstanding of what the legal structure is.

          The fact that they guy planned his actions for months and bought protective body armor, etc, demonstrating he knew exactly what he was planning to do and that there would be potentially life-threatening consequences, and chose to do it regardless, demonstrates that he was rational enough to understand what his actions *were* and what their consequences would be.

          Its people who temporarily (by dint of some sudden onset of dementia/delusion) think they’re surrounded by alien-creatures trying to eat them that have a shot at an “insanity” defense.

          They have to convince a jury that they were incapable of understanding what was going on and what their actions meant.

        3. Roof is definitely not insane in the “not guilty by reason of insanity” way.

          Holmes probably was that kind of insane, but I don’t really care either way. If you are murderously crazy like that, you need to be put away whether or not you knew what you were doing.

      4. A better question would be is he even sane?

        of course not. The time scale stuff I saw mentioned is irrelevant- it just means that he wasn’t temporarily insane, but rather, he’s full-on batshit crazy.

    4. In the manifesto, he said that, yes, he came to hate blacks after reading some crank websites on rape and crime statistics. He also happened to mention that he couldn’t go after the common culprits of these offenses–the ghetto hood rats–because they’d be armed and more likely to shoot back.

      It wasn’t just a racially-motivated crime, he deliberately targeted the church because he reasoned that no one would be capable of defending themselves.

      1. So, did he initially target a college or was that a piece of erroneous reporting? But as I’ve said elsewhere, this guy is an idiotic, inbred POS who knew he was a loser and wanted to blame anyone but himself. Those White Power websites feed nonsense to these types of guys who repeat what they’ve read without even comprehending what they’re saying. None of this excuses his actions and I’m glad he’s in custody and that he’ll be severely punished.

    5. I have a theory Roof wasn’t a classic racist, but he was a racist. The blacks he knew were okay, but those other blacks were not and did all these bad things and nobody was doing anything about it so he was going to. So yes he was a racists.

  16. It’s a super-effective deterrent. I read about some guys a few years back who were planning a similar mass murder against a black church but then one of them was like, “Wait a minutes, dudes…this might be HATE crime…” and they didn’t do it. True story.

  17. “But you don’t get publicity by doing nothing, do you? “

    How many Trump articles does it take to be a hate-crime? Discuss

  18. I’ve never understood why ‘Hate Crime’ legislation is sating that killing someone because you hate a one (or more) of a limited number of protected characteristics is worse than a guy who goes out to live his Joker fantasy.

    If a militant MeCha member with a hard on for ‘reclaiming Aztlan’ comes by and shoots me – well, that’s comprehendible.

    Someone who releases poison gas on a bus for the evulz – not so much.

    1. The poison gas was just Warty’s apple juice farts.
      That’s why he’s the fucking Farty Warty.

  19. Has Trump commented on Roof? I’d like an article about what he thinks

    1. And we need to poll some millenials.

    2. I wonder what millenials think about Roof, too.

  20. He gets a hate crime so the Feds can . . . #blacklivesmatter.

    Then, confiscate every Confederate flag and burn them.

    1. STOP PRETENDING MY POLITICS ARE A FASHION STATEMENT

  21. Does that mean he’ll have to listen to Taylor Swift?

    1. Dear Lord, we may be tough on murderers, but we’re not *barbarians!*

  22. Honestly, whatever reasons there are to charge Dylan Roof with a hate crime, they’re just as good or better than using Dylan Roof’s killing spree to justify progressive jihad against the Confederate flag.

    This is not to say that there aren’t excellent reasons to take the Confederate flag off of every piece of government property save Civil War battlefields. It’s just that whatever the reasons to do that are, they’re the same reasons they would be if Dylan Roof had never fired a shot.

    I’m as much against thought crime as anybody, but we’ve got a huge list of injustices being perpetrated by the government in this country, Dylan Roof being charged with a hate crime is way down at the bottom of my list of priorities–somewhere below making sure convicted child molesters get internet access in jail. At this point, I’d rather stand up for his my Second Amendment rights than his right to be a racist retard–while he was shooting people.

    1. The guy killed 9 people and it’s a given that he’ll get the death penalty. So, what’s the point of charging him with a ‘Hate Crime’ beyond the fact it makes Proggies feel good? Yes, there are many injustices out there yet the government is wasting time charging a dead man walking with an additional crime.

      1. government is wasting time charging a dead man walking with an additional crime.

        See the wasting time part is actually a point in favour. Time spent slapping on an extra-pointless charge on him is time not spent prosecuting people for victimless crimes.

        1. Who says the government can’t multitask?

      2. “Yes, there are many injustices out there yet the government is wasting time charging a dead man walking with an additional crime.”

        I assumed they’d use this to come after our Second Amendment rights.

        They wanted to make it about the Confederate flag instead?

        Whew! That was a close one.

  23. One day she had nothing to do sing rickety tickety tin
    … she cut her baby brother in two
    Served him up in an Irish stew
    And invited the neighbors in
    -Bors in. Invited the neighbors in.

    When at last the police came by sing rickety tickety tin
    … these terrible deeds she did not deny
    To do so she would have to lie
    And lying she knew was a sin
    A sin. Lying she knew was a sin

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.