Hate crimes

Anti-White Hate Crime? Video Shows Black Teens Torturing Mentally Disabled White Kid

Be skeptical that Donald Trump's election has unleashed a wave of hate crimes, period.

|

Hate
Youtube

Chicago police have arrested four teenagers for assaulting a mentally disabled young man with a knife, tying him up, and subjecting him to other abuses—all of which were livestreamed on Facebook.

The alleged perpetrators are black teens, and the victim is white. The police found the victim wandering Chicago's West Side on Tuesday. He was "in an obvious state of trauma," according to CBS Local. Authorities eventually calmed him down and identified him as the subject of the video.

The video itself lasts for 30 minutes, during which the victim—who is tied up, with his mouth taped shut—is abused in numerous ways. The perpetrators cut his hair with a knife until his head bleeds, flick cigarette ashes on him, and threaten him. They occasionally utter things like, "Fuck Donald Trump, fuck white people." At one point, the video recorder—a black woman whose name is easily identifiable—suggests putting the victim out of his misery.

It's these statements that have some segments of Twitter—including and especially the alt-right—wondering whether the incident counts as a hate crime. As I write this, #BLMKidnapping is trending on Facebook, in reference to the attack. Needless to say, that's hyperbole, based on the facts as they are currently known.

BuzzFeed News reported police were looking into the hate crime angle, but couldn't speculate at the moment:

Johnson said police were investigating if the incident was a hate crime, but so far he said there was no indication it was motivated by politics or race.

"Some of this is just stupidity," he said. "People just ranting about something they think might make a headline. We'll keep investigating, and we'll let the facts guide us on how this concludes."

Maybe the perpetrators have malice toward white people in their hearts. Maybe they're just deeply immature people who think hurting someone is funny. Maybe they're under the influence of drugs (someone is definitely smoking something). It really shouldn't matter: what they've done is reprehensible, regardless of the motive.

That's the problem with making hate crime determinations—in many cases, determining the precise factors that led a bad person to do something awful is no easy task. For example, BuzzFeed took a second look at 28 of the alleged "hateful incidents" the news outlet investigated in the wake of Trump's election. Reporters found few outright hoaxes, but the motives remained questionable in roughly a third of stories:

Other incidents happened as described — and were reasonably initially perceived as political — but the stories are a bit more complicated. A Southern Illinois University student who appeared in front of a Confederate flag in what appeared to be blackface later said it was a cosmetic mask, and the university said "we sometimes find that reports of incidents made via social media and elsewhere are not fully supported by the facts." The man arrested for scrawling "Black Bitch" on a Philadelphia woman's car is black.

Meanwhile the hoaxes, which were at the center of the conversation in late December, didn't surprise academics and journalists who study extremism and hate crimes.

"People will do things when there's a lot of attention paid to it, and hate crimes aren't any different. What I find interesting is how that is being politicized now," Brian Levin, a criminology professor and director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, told BuzzFeed News. Hate crimes, he said, spike after a catalytic event, and in that "cycle of publicity and retaliatory violence" there will be false reports.

As our catalog shows, there's little evidence of a wave of hoaxes. There has also not been the wave of violent assaults that some anticipated. (The FBI did disrupt one murderous terror plot just before the election, in which Kansas militia members sought to bomb Somali refugees.)

We ought to be a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center's contention that Trump's election has unleashed a wave of race-based harassment and hatred. But we should also be a little skeptical that a bunch of teenagers bullying a white man has anything, really, to do with Donald Trump. This was an inexcusable act of violence, no matter what was going through the perpetrators' heads.

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.

313 responses to “Anti-White Hate Crime? Video Shows Black Teens Torturing Mentally Disabled White Kid

  1. Given that the victim was apparently mentally disabled, I imagine this could be tried as a hate crime despite the victims status as white male. I’m not saying it should be, only that it could be. I think hate crime laws are all bullshit,

    1. This is hardly the first time something like this has happened.

      Underclass children are taught race hatred.

      If you look at property in a marginal, just beginning to gentrify DC neighborhoods, kids loitering will scream things at you like “you will be our slaves one day” or follow you and scream obscenities and aggressive sexual invitations.

      1. That may be true in some circumstamces. I was raised in a small, poor, all white town with plenty of underclass kids and we were not taught racial hatred. The one black kid our grade was not harassed at all. Sure there was plenty of rednecks who may say racially charged things amongst a group of their peers, but never would have actually done or said anything to an actual black/mexican/whatever.

        1. I was raised in a stereotypical small midwestern town. had 3 black guys in my grade, their parents tried to move them out of the ghettos, they brought it with them. All 3 were drug dealers. No one ever said anything racially negative to them, nice community.

          1. I’m not sure poor white small town kids in the 50s 60s or 70s count as underclass. They mainly were from families who believed their kids would be better off than they were.

            I mainly meant poor black kids taught victimology.

    2. I think it’s just an inherent flaw in hate crimes again. They are politically motivated first and foremost, and so they only apply in cases where it politically behooves someone to call it a hate crime. This kid is likely not in that group.

      This pick and choose aspect is one practical reason they are bullshit, separate from the philosophical reason.

      1. They occasionally utter things like, “Fuck Donald Trump, fuck white people.”

        Johnson said police were investigating if the incident was a hate crime, but so far he said there was no indication it was motivated by politics or race.

        Really? No indication at all? What a load of horse shit.

        1. What he meant to say was no indication that it was motivated by unacceptable politics or against the races that matter.

    3. no indication it was motivated by politics or race.

      Given the readiness to label just about anything for which the victim is seen as “not white” a “hate crime”, this is disgusting.

  2. What we REALLY ought to be skeptical of his hack opinion journalists like you who call kidnapping and torture “bullying” . And what’s with “teenagers”, they’re all adults according to the news report.

    1. They’re 18, according to the news. They’re legal adults, yes, but I would still call them teenagers.

      1. I thought you made a new years resolution to stay out of the comments?

        1. What matters is that he tried.

          1. THAT IS NOT WHAT MATTERS!

            1. Ok, he didn’t try, but he had good intentions. and intentions matter.

              1. Here’s something for his attempt:

                *Hands Robby an obviously mass-manufactured Tried To Stay Out Of The Comments Participation Trophy*

      2. Is it a breach of journalistic integrity if I buy a copy of “Breath of the Wild” and accidentally leave it on your doorstep?

      3. I wouldn’t. Its a bad mental place to put 18 year-olds as it encourages you to think of (and treat them) like children. I’ve always hated it when my colleagues referred to their young subordinates as ‘kids. They’re not kids, they’re adults and we consider it perfectly appropriate to pay these fuckers to kill other people for us.

        Neither would I call what the did bullying.

        1. They’re not kids, they’re adults and we consider it perfectly appropriate to pay these fuckers to kill other people for us.

          Well said.

        2. They are legal adults, but “eighteen” and “nineteen” still contain “teen”, so they are “teenagers” until they turn 20. And I would call their crimes an extreme form of bullying.

          1. And married 19y/o women have “teenage pregnancies” and 17 y/o career criminal felons killed in a gunfight during the commission of an armed robbery are “child gun deaths”.

            1. Also, a nineteen-year old not-a-kid, the one driving the tank over Joe Sixcamel, can’t buy a beer back home because he’s not ‘of age.’

              18-21 is legal grey area between ‘kid’ and ‘adult’ in weird irrational ways in this society, but I agree with Agammamon critique.

            2. People well into their twenties have been counted as “children” for crime statistics. that’s how gangbanger deaths pad the shot children stats.

          2. They’re legally adults and still teenagers, sure. But duct-taping someone’s wrists and ankles together, torturing him, and then talking about killing him goes way, way beyond bullying.

            1. ” teenage horseplay”

          3. If they raped several people while being 18 or murdered them would it just be bullying?

          4. If they raped several people while being 18 or murdered them would it just be bullying?

          5. If they raped several people while being 18 or murdered them would it just be bullying?

            1. I think you have been raped and bullied dem squiirlz.

              1. *by dem squiirrlzz.

            2. It’s not “just” bullying, it is obviously a serious crime. But it is also an extreme example the type of gratuitous nasty behavior generally classified as “bullying”, rather than (in my opinion) really being motivated by “hatred”. Which gets into that whole argument about whether this was a “hate crime” (which I agree should not be a legal question at all).

              1. Robby should make a correction to the article. It is not bullying. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that his definition is just wrong, but seriously, this is kidnapping and torture, not bullying. It would be like calling a rape victim a victim of “sexual harassment”.

      4. Robby, I don’t know what your hair sees in you and why it insists on staying. You don’t deserve it.

      5. 4th wall

      6. AP Style says you stop referring to people as teens when they hit 18.

        1. Unless they are a mentally disturbed, then the 18 year old is a “young man,” is that it Toast?

      7. Okay Weigel, then why the different wording for four people of the same age (18)?

        Chicago police have arrested four teenagers for assaulting a mentally disabled young man

    2. He refers to it as torture in the headline.

      1. And as assault in the article. But it doesn’t matter. He could’ve referred to it as the worst crime in human history and the yokels still would’ve found a reason to throw a tantrum.

        1. TORTURE
          Assault
          bullying

          “horseplay”

  3. So the other wall needed is a wall around Chicago or parts of it?

    1. It’s too late for a wall. Just send in the tanks.

      1. There’s only one way to be sure

        1. There is and it doesn’t involved tanks. You must have an orbital platform to be sure.

    2. Last I checked, Chicago has the highest rate of egress of any city in the US. So, I guess give it a few more years to let a few more people save themselves before walling it off.

      1. So everybody else needs a wall.

  4. If the races were reversed in this incident, is there any doubt it would be charged as a hate crime?

    1. This might end up being charged as a hate crime. Too soon to know.

      1. It made the national news. Therefore, hate crime.

        They were heading for not-hate-crime, but then the publicity thing happened.

        1. On the other hand, the high profile means more risk of encouraging the backlash against minorities (the real victims here, along with women). So they will have to weigh the political ramifications. After all the point of hate crime laws is a political outcome.

      2. Charges filed include hate crime.

    2. No.

    3. Nope, it would have been politically expedient to do so if the races were reversed.

    4. No, and no doubt that Robby would refer to its hate crime status as an unimpeachable fact.

    5. Forget the races. Can you imagine if this was about 4 Trump supporters torturing a disabled person with a Hillary bumper sticker? It would be international news with breaking hourly updates for weeks.

    6. There would have already been violent protests.

    7. No, there is no doubt it would immediately be classified as a hate crime. However, with the current Dept. of Injustice, it’s highly unlikely they will pursue it in this case. Just one more reason Trump was elected.

  5. It certainly shouldn’t be a hate crime but the douchebag/psychopath perpetrators need to be locked up for a hell of a long time. I don’t like to think any human being is irredeemable but stuff like this makes me second guess myself.

    1. I don’t like to think any human being is irredeemable

      Have you seen SIV’s blog?

      *shudders*

      1. Hopefully his stuff is fantasy and is in no way autobiographical.

          1. It’s got the sarge from Stripes and the father from Red Dawn. I’m going to have to check that out.

          2. Monte Hellman is a genius auteur.

    2. I really think something like this should net you 20 years or better. I think we have far too many people in prison for victimless crime and not enough for violent crime.

    3. Grinch, and just why shouldn’t it be classified as a hate crime?

  6. there was no indication it was motivated by politics or race.

    They made him say “Fuck Trump”, “Fuck White People”, “I love Black People”.

    Newspeak Dictionary
    “Allahu Akbar” means “No Islam to See Here”
    “Fuck Trump” means “No Politics to See Here”
    “Fuck White People” means “No Racism to See Here”

    This actually constitutes terrorism. Violence for political purpose.

    The difference between this and a Klan lynching are that they didn’t actually kill him.
    Oh yes, and that the victim was White and the perpetrators Black.

    Because it’s only hatred and terror when Whitey does it.

    1. Going by the standards they’ve set it certainly seems to qualify.

    2. The difference between this and a Klan lynching are that they didn’t actually kill him.

      And makes burning a cross in his yard or laying a flag on a monument of Robert E. Lee look exceedingly tame by comparison.

      1. We discovered today that the difference was the guy escaped.

        It’s not that they declined to kill him. He just got away.

  7. Robby is telling people to stop politicizing hate crimes?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    The same guy who wrote articles like this “White Identity Politics Gave Us Trump. But Did the Left Give Us White Identity Politics?”

    haha wow.

    1. You’re saying the election of Trump was a hate crime?

      1. Literally worse than Hitler.

  8. No mention of the “special needs” angle? Does that count as a hate crime?!

    1. Or, I could have read the other comments. WTF, Robby?

    2. The victim being a retard could enhance the crime without it being a “hate crime”. If you go out midget-bashing and unknowingly beat up a child that is going to be battery on a child. “I thought he was a midget!” isn’t a mitigating factor.

      IANAL

    3. That’s not implied from the words “Mentally Disabled” in the headline?

  9. We can hand wave away statements that indicate racism and call it “stupidity? I like this new policy.

  10. Weeeeeeeeeeee!

  11. “It’s these statements that have some segments of Twitter?including and especially the alt-right?wondering whether the incident counts as a hate crime.”

    As if the reaction of the alt-right is the primary story here.

    The primary story is a video purporting to depict a very nasty crime.

    So there’s (a) what seems very much like story involving a sadistic crime of violence, and (b) OMG people on Twitter are jumping to conclusions!

    Yeah, (b) can be a problem, but if we’re covering this story at all, let’s take a look at (a), which seems to be a bigger problem.

    1. As if the reaction of the alt-right is the primary story here.

      Well, you know…

      1. we all want to change the world

    2. The main story is whatever the right wing is doing that can be complained about.

      1. Well, the right-wing just let off a huge fart and blamed it on me.

        That’s one thing I don’t like about them.

    3. I’d also add that the video depicts exactly what Robby is accusing the “alt-Right” of suggesting.

  12. Yes, hate seems involved (unless this was an elaborately-staged prank), and the hate crime laws, with their distinction between “hate” and “super hatey hate” is crap.

    By all means Wait Till All The Evidence Is In before we decide whether this involves hate or super uncool hatey hate.

    1. The “hate” criterion is both stupid, and obviously limited in a very specific way. Someone tagging banks out of a hatred for banking institutions isn’t going to get in trouble for a hate crime.

      Hell, someone murdering their arch-nemesis won’t get in extra trouble for his hatred, even.

    2. If this was staged they did an impressive job. Can’t be ruled out just yet though.

  13. a little skeptical

    Just a little. because the SPLC is otherwise very credible.

    1. I think we can all agree their hearts are in the right place, even if there methods can be problematic…

  14. 1. Hate crimes are bullshit
    2. This would be awful regardless of why it was done or whom it was done to.
    3. Mentally disabled aspect is a large factor
    4. There’s still going to be people who latch onto this for political reasons, and who are going to demand the book to be thrown here. I can’t quantify how much time someone should have to do for something like this, but from the actual damage done per the video, and the age of the perpetrators, I think things like 20 years (mentioned above) or whatever bullshit the prosecutor can throw at them to make it stick are more than a little extreme.

    1. Should note I did not watch the video. I am going on descriptions of it and the extent of injuries to the victim.

      1. Watch the video before you make a “little extreme” remark. Twenty years for almost any crime is excessive, but torturing a mentally disabled person is an act that should be punished severely. Twenty years is probably too much, but shit, in Libertopia the people who made the video would be in prison for a few years.

        1. Assuming the video is real, of course. If it’s fake then we should all go to the prison of naivete.*

          *I know, that was stupid. Shut up.

          1. Perhaps it was all consensual S&M

            1. Yes. We, too, in the Mulatto household use “Fuck Donald Trump, fuck white people” as our safeword when engaged in nuptial activities.

        2. I wouldn’t argue against “a few years” without putting a specific figure on it at this point in time. I also wouldn’t argue for them being beaten and forced to drink piss, either. But I certainly do think:
          1. Physically, the victim doesn’t seem to have serious injuries let alone permanent damage done. This is pretty damn important to me when assessing punishments.
          2. I think people lose sight of what they are talking about when they throw around some of these figures in years, such as the mention of 20 above.
          3. I’m not going to play armchair psychologist and try to diagnose people as sociopaths.

          Perhaps I underestimate any potential psychological trauma.

          1. Perhaps I underestimate any potential psychological trauma.

            You do.

          2. Kidnapping is also a factor here.

          3. As I see it anyone who would torture someone and think it is funny is somebody who is too dangerous to have around society at large probably ever. I think 20 is to lenient. I would do 40.

          4. Most rapes don’t result in permanent physical harm to the victim, either. At the very least, I’d say that keeping somebody prisoner for 2 days and torturing him for the amusement of your Facebook friends is at least as bad as rape.

            In Illinois, criminal sexual assault is a Class 1 felony (Illinois does not use the designation ‘rape’ in regard to sex crimes), carrying a penalty of 4-15 years and a fine of up to $25,000. I’d say that that would be a good starting point.

          5. Are you retarded yourself?

        3. in Libertopia the people who made the video would be in prison for a few years.

          In Anarchotopia they could get lynched, depending on which voluntary community got a hold of their ass.

          1. At first, I read your comment as Arachnotopia, and had a vision of people being lynched by giant spiders.

            1. Being black and swinging from the end of a rope both carry much different connotation in arachnotopia. I mean, we’re still talking about lots of dead humans bound and hanging from threads, but the spiders’ intentions aren’t racially or violently motivated. So… cultural win.

          2. Lynching’s too good for them. I suggest The Boats.

    2. I think that if you and your buddies are depraved enough to tie up and violently assault mentally handicapped person for nothing other than your own enjoyment, then you don’t have a place in our society. The people who perpetrated this crime are sociopaths and should be treated as such.

      1. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of “hate crimes” being a thing. But since they do exist, if it means these people aren’t allowed in regular society for a longer period of time, I’ll sleep just fine.

        1. I don’t think a hate crime angle is even needed. Kidnapping, aggravated assault, false imprisonment. I’m pretty sure any combination of these could add up to some serious time without the hate multiplier.

          1. The sad part is that half the time they don’t, though. I am not sure if you read this story from a few weeks ago of a white football player in Idaho that stuck a coat hanger up a mentally disabled black boy’s rectum. “When Howard is sentenced on February 24, he will be looking at two to three years of probation and about 300 hours of community service.”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-deal.html

    3. This. I thought libertarians opposed “hate crimes” as a form of thought police. Prosecute the crime, oppose the “hate crime” distinction.

    4. Hate crimes are bullshit

      But consistent application of the law is not.

      1. I try not to lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved here, even if they aren’t types who evoke sympathy.

        My justice calibrator could be way the fuck off in general, but I’m not going to get on board with throwing the book at x group simply out of some slavish sense of consistent application of the law (with the exception of politicians and bureaucrats). The idiots in this video didn’t create the hate crime laws. Nor did they prosecute anyone for them.

        So maybe these assholes deserve 20 years, life or death or whatever people want to say for this particular case. I still won’t get on board with the above. I will, however, call out hypocrisy in how people respond, but to try and change future misapplication of bullshit hate crime laws.

        1. I try not to lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved here, even if they aren’t types who evoke sympathy.

          Those are animals, not people. They need to be put down like animals (after a fair trial of course).

          1. How can you tell that they’re animals? Is there any chance that former “animals” might become “people” again, or should all of them be “put down”?

            1. I think 20 years is not unreasonable, if for nothing else as an example. It was pretty brazen to put this up on social media, laughing as though it were some kind of joke. Twenty years. Let’s see how funny you think that is.

        2. One sided rule of law.
          One sided decency.
          One sided justice.

          Surely that will have no negative consequences.

        3. but I’m not going to get on board with throwing the book at x group simply out of some slavish sense of consistent application of the law

          I’m not picking on you specifically (your comment was great!), but isn’t this pretty much the opposite of what people were saying on here when it came to gay marriage?

          I happen to agree with you, equality (consistent application of the law) is a secondary consideration to the maximization of liberty, and if that means that only white folks can be charged with hate crimes, it’s better than everybody being under the hate crime jackboot.

    5. I don’t think hate crimes should have any teeth in regards to the law. However, when it is apparent that a crime was motivated by hate, it shows how bat-shit crazy the perpetrator was. This makes them a far greater danger to society, and that should be taken into consideration by the judge and jury when deciding sentencing.

  15. When did BuzzFeed become a news source people reference? I have noticed this a lot lately, not just at Reason. I still thought Buzzfeed was for taking quizzes to determine which Smurf I am.

    1. It became a news source for STUPID people maybe, but certainly not for anyone who still remembers what journalists are supposed to do.

      1. BuzzFeed has done some real journalism over the past few years. Naturally, any “best of” list should only be published in “listicle” form.

        1. Some of the non-Trump articles are real stories at least.

          1. So out the what, 10 or so non-Trump pieces, 8 are basically done “in tandem” with the BBC or the WaPost and this makes up for the rest of the absolute garbage they produce the rest of the year?

            Some of those pieces do deserve praise (Free At Last ? Alex Campbell was interesting) but boy do you have to wade through an awful lot of shit to find it.

            And how sad is it that they write a listicle about “the 22 times we kinda did journalismy things”?

            1. I was not defending them in the “they are top notch journalism outfit!!!” way, I was just stating that they have an investigative division that does real work, too. They also do regular, DC journalism, I think.

              Reason’s criminal justice reporter worked there, and he has produced really good work since he has been at Reason. But yeah, most of it is trashy, listicle bullshit that shouldn’t be used as a real source. Then again, what the fuck is a real news source now? I am sure some commenters would complain if WaPo or the NYT were sourced.

              1. I may hate the NYT but their sources are *usually* (Duranty!) well verified independently. If you are using Buzzfeed as a primary “source” for news I would argue you need to look harder for sources.

                1. If you are using Buzzfeed as a primary “source” for news I would argue you need to look harder for sources.

                  I don’t disagree in the general sense. However, I was trying to make the greater point that what constitutes a legitimate news source? Who the dickens knows?

              2. I am sure some commenters would complain if WaPo or the NYT were sourced.

                If Reason started repeating – sans any further analysis or scrutiny – the recent horribly-sourced, ridiculous claims of the WaPo…. i’d think there would be legitimate reason for complaint.

                Merely being a recognized news-source isn’t any instant validation of what they pump out.

                in the case of buzzfeed…. the “28 incidents” robby cites pointedly excludes many known “hoax hate crimes”…while trying to assert that “hoax hate crimes” are rare.

                You’d think if robby read that piece and done 10 mins (seconds?) of due diligence, he might have noted that fact himself. as did some commenters @ the Buzzfeed piece.

                The single most notable “hoax” was the Louisiana Church Burning.

                Something they seemed aware of before the election, but conveniently forgot about when doing their own post-mortem

                1. At this point, I just want to note that Lucy was fired for less.

                  1. We don’t talk about that!

                2. * ok, the church burning was not part of any post-election ‘spike’ in hate crimes, so omitting it may make sense –

                  but the others mentioned below certainly don’t. no mention of the louisiana or NYT hijab hoaxes, the Long Island KKK bit, etc.

                  its implausible that any journalist doing a round-up of incidents would omit the very-well-covered hoaxes by accident.

              3. This probably means that people should just have some proper skepticism regardless of source.

        2. BuzzFeed has done some real journalism over the past few years.

          Sure. Pornstars have made “real movies” too.

          1. The progressives forced Traci Lords to “legitimize” her talents by outlawing her oeuvre.

        3. the point is really, ‘does the source add or detract from the credibility of the story’.

          If the subject were stuff like “what teens think about Star Wars” = go ahead, cite the LOL WUT/to/OMG ratio @ Buzzfeed.

          if the subject is ‘scrutiny of click-baity, sensationalized hate-incidents’? They’re part of the problem, not the cure.

          1. In the past year Robby has gone Social Justice Warrior, and thus has grown allergic to facts and the truth. Anything that fits the left-wing narrative will work.

    2. Does penis size matter? Buzzfeed has the answers and more.

    3. Well? Don’t leave us hanging. Which Smurf are you?

  16. “We ought to be a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contention…”

    A little skeptical? I’d be highly skeptical of the veracity of the information if Morris Dees was reading to me from my birth certificate.

    1. He got everything right except for two things: (a) the date, and (b) he incorrectly gave my race as “right-wing demonic subhuman scum.”

      1. I mean, yes, I’m scum, under certain definitions of the term, but it’s the human variety of scum.

    2. Labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz as “anti-Muslim extremists” was the absolute final straw. lebling Ben Carson as a dangerous extremist was pretty funny, too. Anybody who still takes them seriously should be considered themselves part of a hate group. I’ve considered SPLC a hate group for a long time.

  17. If this wasn’t on video, it wouldn’t even be a story outside of conservative blogs. I doubt Reason would be covering it. It is obvious from the text of this article that they are only begrudgingly so.

  18. a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contention

    A little? A LITTLE?!?! Writing like this is why I don’t have the ability to love.

    *runs away crying*

    1. OT: Cuba Is Actually a Terrible Place to Go

      Who knew?

      (And no, this is not from the Onion)

      1. Mulling over the entire experience we had, one thing that really irritated me was the currency. For a country like Cuba to value their currency on a 1:1 basis with the US Dollar or even 10% less than the Euro is absolutely appalling. For the infrastructure, transportation and even food to be as expensive as it was, everything should have been leaps and bounds better than what it was.

        This guy is probably a Bernie Bro, too.

        1. everything should have been leaps and bounds better than what it was.

          I read that and for the life of me could not figure out how he could even say this.

          Do they even teach the Cold War anymore in High School? Or is it like an elective or something?

          1. I’m sure the version of the “cold war” as it is now taught leaves the students with mental images of soldiers in heavy parkas and white “snow cammo”.

              1. Thank you. Donna Dixon and Vanessa Angel?

                1. Speaking of: Can we bring back Battle of The Network Stars? To be the guy at 8 seconds…

                2. “Doctor, Doctor, agh- glad I’m not sick.”

              2. Yeah, that sure looks like a cold war doesn’t it…

          2. That little Cold War section of history class had to be cut to make room for Evolving Gender Dialectics.

      2. This only means 1 of 2 things in that the country is a massive tourist trap or that the government is skimming money and not reinvesting it to build a country up.

        Someone needs to explain to him how third world dictatorships work. I take it this guy has not traveled many places other than Cancun.

        1. “…the country is a massive tourist trap or that the government is skimming money and not reinvesting it to build a country up.”

          I giggled to think that he somehow wrote that without understanding it is both and that there is no reason to imagine why it couldn’t be.

          1. “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?? DOESN’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????”

        2. Another thing that made me wonder with that story. Has anyone ever traveled anywhere that you could get a visa at the departure gate? I have never seen that before. Does Cuba have no Customs agents or what?

  19. BuzzFeed took a second look at 28 of the alleged “hateful incidents” the news outlet investigated in the wake of Trump’s election. Reporters found few outright hoaxes,

    I just scanned those, and it seems they specifically went out of their way to exclude the known hoaxes in the first place. Like this guy. Or this girl

    Buzzfeed is not a fucking source.

    1. Buzzfeed is not a fucking source.

      Wikipedia said it was.
      /Robbo

    2. Neither is Robby so Buzzfeed can count. Fake news citing fake news.

    3. oh, and another very-high-profile hoax-hate-crime Buzzfeed somehow failed to remember to note in their detailed-accounting of the ‘fake news’

      the whole fucking point of their piece was to pretend that

      “well, a good deal of it is very real, even if there are some *very minor and rare cases of hoaxes*“…

      … a conclusion they can only draw if they journalistically-squint and decide to overlook most of the highest-profile hoaxes.

      Seriously, if you’re going to use some other source as a journalistic crutch, aim a little @&(#$^ higher.

      1. Have you seen some of the sources Nick Gillespie uses?

        1. I know, he goes back to his roots @ Teen Beat, et al

  20. The headline *does* put one in mind of the Onion, back when the Onion was funny.

    1. Response to Tman at 10:27

      1. You have to read the article, the kid whines about HOW HE CAN BARELY FIND A WIFI SIGNAL in a Fascist hellhole. I never thought someone could visit Cuba and come back LESS informed about Communists failures.

        What the fuck are they feeding millenials these days anyways?

          1. Ya know I knew that link was gonna be terrible but I clicked it anyways. Good to see the next generation working hard at their songwriting skills!

            /pukes

  21. I followed the link to YouTube…

    This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on spam, deceptive practices, and scams.

    1. I wonder if CBS in Chicago is reporting the four people the police have in custody are being released because they were doing some spam, deceptive practices, or a scam.

  22. We ought to be a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contention that Trump’s election has unleashed a wave of race-based harassment and hatred. But we should also be a little skeptical that a bunch of teenagers bullying a white man has anything, really, to do with Donald Trump.

    What do you mean? This had nothing to do with Trump as in his Limo was not the car they used to kidnap this guy? The assholes said, “Fuck Donald Trump” as they tortured him. Holy fuck.

    I only made it through half of the video. Those are some sadistic fucks. Maybe President Obama can have them on the stage for his farewell speech next week to demonstrate how Trump being elected has made things more violent in America. It was all puppies and kittens before that asshole was elected.

  23. I’m a “little skeptical” of this guy.

    I’m far more skeptical of the SPLC.

    1. I also think it’s significant that a hate crime for Democrats is “a group of men in Trump hats pulled off my hijab and called me names” as opposed to hours of kicks and blows and cuts with blades and threats to kill ON VIDEO with lots of laughs and drunken hillarity.

  24. “Johnson said police were investigating if the incident was a hate crime, but so far he said there was no indication it was motivated by politics or race.”

    “Fuck White People” “Fuck Trump”

    Maybe I’m under-thinking things here.

    1. Hmm… maybe the police are not sure they might have simply been offering to be passively intimate with Trump and with white people?

      Hey, you have to look at every angle!

  25. Soave suggests that some people on the fringes are wondering whether or not a serious crime committed by people of one race by another while the criminals said “fuck the [race of the victim]” is a hate crime.

    Fuck you, Soave, you asshole. You don’t have to be a fucking white nationalist to not be retarded when this comes up.

    1. Robby is still an apprentice. Gillespie will be along in the morning to make sure the spin job is done right.

    2. Careless|1.4.17 @ 10:48PM|#
      “Soave suggests that some people on the fringes are wondering whether or not a serious crime committed by people of one race by another while the criminals said “fuck the [race of the victim]” is a hate crime.”

      Care to define “hate crime”, careless? Just asking ’cause only idiots call “hate crimes”.

      1. The law defines hate crime. And it is a crime done specifically because of the victim’s race or religion. If I punch you that is an assault. If I punch you because of your race, that is a hate crime. Now that may be a dumb law. I think it is. But, it is the law and this fits the definition. If you don’t like that, too bad. The facts are what they are.

        1. John|1.4.17 @ 11:39PM|#
          “The law defines hate crime.”

          Yeah, John and the law provided for slavery, you shitbag.

          1. Yes it does. You fucking retard. The alien and sedition acts banned sedition. They were unconstitutional. That doesn’t make things that were sedition not really sedition. It just means it shouldn’t have been a crime to engage in it.

            I had no idea you were this fucking stupid. Really. I am pretty sure Fransisco could grasp this concept and he is the densest motherfucker I have ever met. What the hell is wrong with you?

            1. John|1.4.17 @ 11:47PM|#
              “What the hell is wrong with you?”

              A concept that may be hard for you to grasp:
              “principle”
              Fuck off.

              1. What principle? That a bad or unconstitutional law doesn’t exist? You are not making any sense. You can say that hate crimes are unconstitutional and a waste of time and also understand that there are things that meet the definition of the law. That is all I am doing here.

                Go fuck yourself. You are not this stupid. You are just fucking with me. You have to be.

              2. I never knew systematic selectivity in the enforcement of the law was a libertarian principle.

          2. John’s point is that there is a legal definition, and it’s hard to see how this doesn’t meet it. The fact that you don’t like the definition or that you think there should be a term in the first place is irrelevant. We aren’t discussing what the law ought to be, just how would it be applied if considered straightforwardly.

    3. Yeah, I’m kind of of the same opinion. What the hell would it take for Robby to be convinced that this was motivated by race, the culprits standing with signs saying “We Hate White People”?

  26. If “beyond a reasonable doubt” actually meant what it seems to mean, hate crimes couldn’t exist.

  27. Robbie’s post needs a little balance.

    1. Well, it’s a step up from Buzzfeed, anyway.

  28. Including video of a mentally disabled kid being tortured in this post is disgraceful.

    What are you going to do next, Robby, post a real, live snuff film?

    There is no need to show video of the victim or even a photo of the victim’s face. You’re effectively participating in the victim’s humiliation and the abuse that’s been perpetrated against him by posting this here.

    Morally repugnant. I hope whomever Robby answers to gives him a good talking to. I hope whomever Robby answers to didn’t approve this post.

    1. That is a great point Ken. I wonder if Robby would like a video of him being tortured and beaten put up on the web. I bet he wouldn’t. but he posts the video here because it brings clicks and he apparently has fewer scruples than a quarter a trick crack whore.

      1. I think this is genuinely shameful, and I’d be surprised if Robby doesn’t hear about it.

        Neither Gillespie nor Welch ever put up anything like that.

        1. I kinda don’t appreciate having to look at the still of it while the comments reload because not only is there a picture of a human being suffering but THE COMMENT SYSTEM REQUIRES A PAGE RELOAD TO SEE NEW COMMENTS. Which is the REAL atrocity, guize???

          1. Look!

            Now YouTube took it down because it’s so disgraceful!

            Robby putting that video up was pathetic.

            A total lack of decency.

            Does Robby not know anything about consent? Did he think about this kid’s feelings and just not care?

            Is Robby so callous that the feelings of a mentally handicapped victim never even crossed his mind?

            Whether Robby should be legally allowed to post something like this isn’t the issue. Common decency is the issue.

            Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Ron Bailey, Jacob Sullum, Brian Doherty, Jessie Walker, and company don’t need a law prohibiting them from publishing videos and photos that needlessly humiliate a mentally handicapped victim.

    2. Oh, hey, Ken,
      Started idling through a re-read of “Guns at Last Light” (the third of Atkinson’s trilogy on WWII in the west) while waiting for new books over the Holidays, and end up at page 517 at lunch today. It’s part of the section on the Yalta Conference, February, 1945.
      By now, the western Allies were closed to the Rhine in the south, at the Seigfried Line north of Trier while the Red army is within 50 miles of Berlin. Churchill laments: “All the Balkans except Greece are going to be Bolshevized, and there is nothing I can do to prevent it. There is nothing I can do for poor Poland, either”.
      Tell us again, Ken, how the West “gave Eastern Europe to Stalin!” I’d love to hear which Allied Army or Group could have advanced where far enough to do other than what we did.
      I’m always up for a laugh.
      BTW, you should read the book. And maybe one or two more. Readers’ Digest isn’t the best source for history.

      1. All three of the Atkinson books are fantastic. The third is the best of the three. I have read a lot of books on that subject and even still learned a lot I didn’t know from that book.

        1. I thought it was a balance between “Eisenhower’s Lieutenants” and “World at Arms”.
          Weigly was not at all happy with Eisenhower, while Weinberg was too kind by half. I’d have to check the shelf, but one I read last year finally leaned on Monty as much as he deserved, which is a lot.

      2. “It’s part of the section on the Yalta Conference, February, 1945.”

        So, now, you admit, at least, that there was a Yalta conference–and it meant something?

        Do you even know what you’re arguing about anymore? Do you remember anything at all?

        If you thumb through your book backwards, does it tell you where Russian troops were during the Tehran conference in 1943?

        “The U.S. and Great Britain wanted to secure the cooperation of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany. Stalin agreed, but at a price: the U.S. and Britain would accept Soviet domination of eastern Europe, support the Yugoslav Partisans, and agree to a westward shift of the border between Poland and the Soviet Union.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference

      3. If after reading a book, you still don’t think the other Allies conceded eastern Europe to Stalin, you’re being willfully obtuse.

        If you think they didn’t acquiesce in exchange for Stalin’s cooperation–after being agreed to beforehand–you’re being willfully obtuse.

        If you think the Allies didn’t hold back from invading Berlin and eastern Germany, waiting for the Russians –because of the agreements they’d made beforehand–you’re being willfully obtuse.

        We haven’t even begun talking about our concessions to Russia in Korea or China–all of which contributed to the Cold War borders coming down as they did. It didn’t have to be that way. We could have done things differently. The Cold War borders being where they were was not a necessary consequence of working with Stalin–no matter how many books you read. The Cold War borders being where they were was a consequences of mistakes we made. We could have done things differently.

        In addition, working with Putin against ISIS likewise wouldn’t necessarily entail our making any serious concession to him on anything–and that’s a fact regardless of how many books you read, too.

    3. In principle, I agree with you and do respect your point. Unfortunately, I have to say, in this case, it does serve a purpose. Some people (sadly, including Robby) seem to be trying to minimize or dismiss what happened. The video puts lie to that.

      1. Let people dig it up themselves if they need to.

        Not a sufficient reason to effectively participate in the embarrassment and humiliation of a mentally handicapped crime victim.

        The reason we wouldn’t do this with rapes isn’t because the video would be sexually explicit. The reason we wouldn’t do this with rapes caught on video is because adding to the humiliation of rape victims is woefully shameful.

  29. I don’t believe that we should have “hate crimes”. But the fact is we do. And as Careless points out above, when you have a crime where black people assault a white person while saying ‘fuck white people’, that is a hate crime. Even if you don’t agree with there being hate crimes, the concept is still a real one and some crimes do fit the description. It is what it is.

    Then we have this That’s the problem with making hate crime determinations?in many cases, determining the precise factors that led a bad person to do something awful is no easy task. No Robby sometimes it really isn’t. Somethings speak for themselves you fucking moron. The people who did this say that they are doing it because the kid is white. There is no reason not to take these people at their word. Indeed, if they were white, you would. Do you think black people are incapable of moral agency or to be taken at their word? I doubt it. You are just a progressive douche bag who is too mendacious to tell the truth when it involves saying something that goes against your SJW sensibilities.

    Soave is really appalling. Why does reason hire these people?

    1. John|1.4.17 @ 11:32PM|#
      “I don’t believe that we should have “hate crimes”. But the fact is we do. And as Careless points out above, when you have a crime where black people assault a white person while saying ‘fuck white people’, that is a hate crime”

      So you don’t think we should have limitations on A-1, but so long as we do, you’re happy to use them on people you don’t like?

      1. Which part of “I don’t believe we should have “hate crimes” do you not understand? I am fully aware of the issues with them. My objections to them do not, however, change the fact that they are on the books, they do mean something, and this clearly fits the definition of a hate crime. This is a hate crime and Soave is a mendacious douche bag for pretending otherwise.

        1. John|1.4.17 @ 11:43PM|#
          I am fully aware of the issues with them. My objections to them do not, however, change the fact that they are on the books, they do mean something, and this clearly fits the definition of a hate crime. This is a hate crime and Soave is a mendacious douche bag for pretending otherwise.”

          Sorry, John, remember the ACLU defending the Nazis in Skokie?
          You don’t get away with it here.
          Called on bullshit.

          1. Yeah. Just because they could march didn’t mean they were not Nazis.

          2. Hey Sevo…

            I usually stay away from these flame wars, but I’m gonna break protocol.

            You are 100% in the wrong on this one. You don’t have to agree with a position to be able to understand it and apply it. You don’t have to agree with the existence of “hate crime laws” to understand that the utterance of any racial epithets during an assault by members of a group of one race on an individual of another race is prima facia evidence of a bias incident… a hate crime.

            I don’t agree with the existence of hate crime laws (which are 100% thought crime laws – forget 1st amendment issues. The law shouldn’t care if your rational for assaulting me was racism or you just hated the fact that I paired a plaid shirt with striped pants. Assault is assault.

            But I can fully understand that under the current definition of hate crimes, yelling various racial epithets during an assault on a member of another race is pretty much automatically a hate crime. Unless, as is the case here, the races of the kids are reversed.

      2. No, he is simply stating objectively that this meets the criteria of a hate crime, just like objectively stating that a black/white marriage meets the criteria of antimiscegenation laws. Observing that didn’t mean agreement with the laws; in fact, pointing out consequences of laws is often a way of arguing against laws one disagrees with.

  30. Some mutherfuckers just need ton die.

    1. to

    2. Yes. These guys need killin. They no longer qualify as human beings. They are just animals.

      1. How can you tell that they’re “animals”? Has anyone who ever did something “animalistic” and “needed killin'” been able to redeem themselves and become a “human being” again?

        1. I thinks that’s what purgatory is supposed to be for.

          1. Purgatory is supposed to be for people who are repentant, but need to make up for shit they’ve done.

        2. Not someone who does something as deliberately evil as this.

          1. Do you mean “evil” in the Christian sense, or?

  31. It’s a hate crime, becuase right or wrong, hate crimes have been made law and the Fourteenth amendment means you can’t be a racist about it. Not really a hard call for honest people once the law is as it is.

  32. Robbie, you have my sympathy.
    One fucking ignoramus after the other here is whining that “hate crime” determination is just fine so long as it gets used on people they don’t like.

    1. No they are not. What the hell is wrong with you? You can say you don’t agree with a law and still say this violates that law. Did you take a marijuana or something? You are normally not stupid.

      1. Did you take a marijuana

        (spits beer)

        1. It was a “jazz cigarette” Sevo picked up from a negro in the colored part of town.

            1. That’s probably still less embarrassing than autierotic asphyxiation. Probably.

              1. Masturbating while choking myself in my Q7 is the height of my day. I feel no shame.

    2. not that it matters … i don’t personally care about the “hate crime” part at all, and agree with you (i think) that they don’t really exist in principle.

      but people pointing out that any given action fits the legal definitions…. isn’t the same as saying that “its just fine”, or that its only valid when used against “people they don’t like”.

      The burning of the church in LA i mentioned above… was given a huge amount of attention by the media.

      Arson against a black church is pretty much the ‘slam dunk’ example of a hate crime, under the law. it was civil-rights-era incidents like that which gave rise to the category of law.

      While i thought it was an obvious hoax from the very start, i didn’t think it was *wrong*, per se, for the FBI to have immediately pursued a hate crime investigation. it was obvious.

      I don’t necessarily think this above case is quite as obviously fitting the bill… nor do i care. but i don’t think anyone suggesting that it probably qualifies is somehow making a racist statement by default.

    3. Christ, you are obtuse. Hate crimes are shit. They shouldn’t exist. But they do, and this is one. Selective enforcement could be viewed as somehow partially ameliorating bad laws, but in practice it simply reinforces injustice by allowing proponents of bad laws to avoid ever suffering any negative consequence from their existence.

      I mean, the next time a cop gets professional courtesy on a drug crime, are you going to say “Whew, I’m sure glad that, at least in this case, we did the right thing and didn’t prosecute a victimless crime”? No? Then fuck off.

  33. Both Robert Soave and 3-dimensional women are pig disgusting.

    1. Soave vs the commentariat, with a quick Nick Gillespie cameo near the end.

      1. So Welch is Screech in your fantasy?

        Seems legit.

        1. No, stupid. Welch is Max, and Screech is obviously Suderman. It’s obvious.

      2. I don’t know who those people are

  34. Not even pretending.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..-protests/

    1. I say pox on both parties. Fuck the gangster for being a gangster and fuck the police for ambush killing him. All parties guilty.

      1. Yeah. British cops are so scared to confront criminals they just take them out with a sniper. Of course FBI tried to do that to Randy Walker and ended up shooting his wife while she held her baby instead. The Reno days.

        1. FWIW, those articles are pretty terrible with details. While they say “marksmen” they really don’t contain the specific information to back it. The “operation” could have been pre-planned, and he could have been “shot by marksmen” without it being what it sounds like?

    2. the 28-year-old drug dealer was killed by police marksmen on Monday in a “pre-planned operation”.

      So the UK is going the Duerte route now?

      is it a british thing, or a tabloid thing, where they break every paragraph up with photos that add nothing to the story? because that shit gives me a headache.

  35. Why do mentally ill people go on shooting rampages?

    1. Because the neighbors dog told them to go on a shooting rampage.

    2. More importantly, why did tOSU continue to try running outside on the Clemson defense? Pathetic. #NotMyBuckeyes

      1. Because JT Barrett has been overrated from day 1, and you can’t compete on the national stage with a marginally good running QB who can’t hit the broad side of a barn with their arm. Oh, and the O-line needs to gain 45lbs per head.

  36. Bullying? Really?

    I think this goes well beyond bullying.

    1. Yeah, it’s not like they pushed him around until he gave them his lunch money.

  37. I don’t doubt that racial hatred played some part in these degenerates’ actions. There were of course other factors, such as that they thought they could get away with it because of his mental handicap. Hate crime laws are ridiculous and unconstitutional, of course. I don’t necessarily see anything from a libertarian perspective though that would limit individual jurors from deciding that racial animus could be one factor in determining degree of guilt or punishment. That seems quite a bit different than hate crime laws directed from above. For instance, if I was a juror in this case (and guilt was proven) I would look upon it differently than say, if this was done to someone because of an ongoing feud between two people.

  38. What kind of mental defect is it when you’re stupid enough to live stream yourself committing multiple felonies?

    When these perps get in front of the judge, he should order them flogged to death.

    -jcr

    1. What kind of mental defect is it when you’re stupid enough to live stream yourself committing multiple felonies?

      You really think these Chicago hood rats have any kind of future time awareness at all? I guarantee every single one of them, while getting their mug shot done, were all thinking, “What on earth did they arrest me for? I didn’t do nothin’.”

  39. As a result of this incident, it’s important that we be vigilant and make sure that there isn’t a backlash against Muslims

  40. So it is alleged that someone ripped off a mulsim woman’s burqa, and it’s front page news everyone, pumping out a narrative of violence against muslims, it’s all trump’s fault, this is a racist sexist country… OH IT WAS FUCKING FAKE

    here you have video of multiple felonies by black people against a disabled white man, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. It’s not even a hate crime, despite the actual video evidence. (hate crimes are BS, but they should be applied evenly)

    And people still wonder how Trump got elected. Jesus fucking Christ. I don’t even have to say ‘imagine if the races were reversed’, because it’s literally already happened

    – Muslim Woman says she was assaulted, later proved to be a hoax, and ever Trump supporter was labeled a racist, sexist, islamophobe whatever. Full on shrieking at every major news outlet
    – White disabled person was assaulted, confined, etc and there is video evidence AND IT’S JUST ‘BULLYING’ by ‘TEENAGERS’

    Fuck all of you in the media

  41. Why is the first thing I learn about this man in every article that he was “mentally disabled.” Why the fuck is that important? The important thing would seem to be that he was kidnapped and tortured by a bunch of racist fucks.

    1. How will you know how tragic it is if you don’t know what protected legal classes the target is a member of?

  42. I’m not a fan of “hate” crime laws either but if they are going to exist then it’s important that they be applied equally. Otherwise it sets off all kinds of claims based on extremely viewed data. That’s how you end up with statistics showing hate crimes being committed only against one race.

    So if there are hate crime laws, and there certainly are, then this qualifies without much consideration.

  43. I’m not a fan of “hate” crime laws either but if they are going to exist then it’s important that they be applied equally. Otherwise it sets off all kinds of claims based on extremely viewed data. That’s how you end up with statistics showing hate crimes being committed only against one race.

    So if there are hate crime laws, and there certainly are, then this qualifies without much consideration.

  44. I’m not a fan of “hate” crime laws either but if they are going to exist then it’s important that they be applied equally. Otherwise it sets off all kinds of claims based on extremely viewed data. That’s how you end up with statistics showing hate crimes being committed only against one race.

    So if there are hate crime laws, and there certainly are, then this qualifies without much consideration.

  45. Randomly…at what point do the restraints, etc (how long?) lead a kidnapping charge? Something like that brings the feds in normally and amps it up to capital crime status regardless of the victim’s “status”.

    1. You’d think it would apply depending on how severely mentally disabled the victim was and whether he understood enough to try and escape during the ordeal.

      That’s actually why it’s important to know that he was actually disabled–to establish his capacity to reasonably defend himself by, say, shooting these feral animals in the face.

      1. Perhaps a demonstration challenge could be arranged after the fact?

        Tell him to start low and take his time.

  46. “Needless to say, that’s hyperbole, based on the facts as they are currently known.”

    No, you douche canoe, it isn’t. This was definitely a kidnapping, unless you are seriously claiming that the victim VOLUNTEERED for this. And using racial insults while doing it meets the standard for a hate crime.

    Excuse-mongers like you have been around a long time:

    http://www.poetryloverspage.co…..eared.html

    “Our friends believe”? — Of course they do — as sheltered women may;
    But have they seen the shrieking soul ripped from the quivering clay?
    They! — If their own front door is shut,
    they’ll swear the whole world’s warm;
    What do they know of dread of death or hanging fear of harm?”

    1. In fairness, perhaps Robbie is just bad at writing, and was trying to say that the BLM part of #BLMKidnapping is hyperbole, not the Kidnapping part?

  47. Seriously, Robbie, WHAT THE FUCK were you thinking making us all look at that horrifying picture of dude dozens of times if we try to participate in the comments on this overnight thread?

    I even tried to adblock the image but apparently something magical about Reason’s shitty ass website kept that from working.

    Next time, maybe think twice before you choose an image of someone being tortured to run above the fold? Because this shit website software forces commenters to reload the page (when we comment and when we want to see new comments) and it doesn’t remember where we are in the page. Usually we just have to see a stupid clickbait headline, not a picture of a human being being tormented…

    1. Praise Jebus! Finally got adblock to fucking hide it! Now to figure out how to clear the cache in my FUCKING BRAIN.

  48. If torturing retards is a hate crime, you’d have to lock up everyone who voted for Trump.

    …I wonder how many people will consider this an ATP

    1. Harsh, but fair.

  49. Heh, looks like Mofobama’s gutter brownshirt army has added a sick new kind of twist to the “Knockout Game”.

    Thank goodness our country’s greatest knockout ever takes place on the early afternoon of January 20.

    1. Ted Nugent and Kid Rock concert?

  50. The fact that people are even questioning whether or not this is a hate crime is all the evidence you need to see that the entire concept of hate crimes is illogical unconstitutional bullshit.

  51. “But we should also be a little skeptical that a bunch of teenagers bullying a white man has anything, really, to do with Donald Trump”

    Perhaps. But it seems likely that it has to do with race, at least if we apply the same criteria as we do to other hate crimes.

  52. That YouTube took the video down that Robby embedded with this post because it’s so wrong is shameful, but Reason really should take the photo down, too.

    What does disseminating the image of a mentally handicapped victim add to the story? Why write a story about how shameful it was to publicly humiliate a mentally handicapped victim–and then needlessly include his image in the story?

    I’d understand putting up photos of the alleged perpetrators, I guess, but maybe that’s fraught with legal risks?

    No legal risk for putting up photos and videos that might humiliate a mentally disabled crime victim, though?

    For goodness’ sake, if no one at Reason is supervising Robby’s posts, someone definitely should get that assignment right away.

    1. Or simply disguise his face?

  53. Obama post-racial healer my ass.

  54. i keep forgetting that a bunch of dumb motherfucking white people once burned a bunch of black churches in the south and now we have hate crime laws. But didn’t it take gay people to get them fully enacted ? hehe

  55. “We ought to be a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contention that Trump’s election has unleashed a wave of race-based harassment and hatred.”

    The SPLC has a track record such that if they should announce that the sky is blue, I would want somebody to check.

    1. I would assume that they were flat out lying and not believe them

  56. I hope to read the next your article update obat aborsi herbal Thank you for sharing in this article OBAT ABORSI

  57. i can learn a lot be a reference obat penggugur kandungan aman website nya sangat bagus obat aborsi aman

  58. “flick cigarette ashes on him,”

    In Chicago (and most other proggievilles) you have to be 21 now to smoke, so throw the book at these miscreants! If they “children” weren’t smoking, it would just be another dumb social media video-no hate crime here…

  59. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  60. Some white progs I know complain about why more of their kind won’t stay and raise their families in cities and send their kids to public schools. I suspect that incidents like this are the reason but they won’t admit it since that would be racist.

  61. I think the concept of a hate crime is stupid, but the point being made here is not a stupid one. Had the perpetrators been white and the victim black, there is no doubt in my mind it would be investigated as a hate crime. Had a white perpetrator said ‘F- Jesse Jackson and F- black people’ there’s no doubt in my mind that the media at large would be insisting it was a hate crime that represented endemic racism in our society. If we are to judge black on white crimes using the same standards we use for white on black crimes, then this is indubitably a hate crime.

    One more thing – the examples Soave gives at the end are stupid. They have no bearing on this case.

  62. Wait, did Soave really just describe holding a man captive for two days and slicing his head with a knife as ‘bullying’?

  63. Since they would not have committed these acts against a person of color it clearly was a hate crime. If you are going to have a law called hate crime you better use it eqaully

  64. Be skeptical that Donald Drumpf’s election has unleashed a wave of hate crimes, period.

    Yup, one white victim = no hate crimes are even possible.

    1. It’s also just plain stupid.

      “Yeah, I really want to hurt minorities, but I feel restrained. It’s like nobody in Washington understands me, ya feel? I guess I’ll just have to wait for a Presidential election to legitimize my desires for violence.” – the strawman of rednecks that coastal elites have in their minds.

  65. We ought to be a little skeptical of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contention that Drumpf’s election has unleashed a wave of race-based harassment and hatred

    Absolutely. Especially since no period to period data are available. A single point does not show the slope of any line.

    But what does skeptical mean? That no such crimes are occurring with any greater frequency or that none are occurring.

    Surely SPLA lists categories of crimes, and alleged crimes, and alleged crimes that proved to be false accusations. Pointing out that the last set is not empty changes, what?

  66. http://www.spiked-online.com/n…..G6CTvkrI2w

    Spiked has a better analysis of this incident (sorry, Robbie). I guess cocktail parties are not as important in the UK

    1. I keep seeing stuff like this–

      But then there’s the flipside: the race, not to discuss the attack, but to exploit it for political gain, primarily as a means of attacking BLM. Alt-right tweeters are using the hashtag #BLMkidnapping. Alt-right observers are using the attack to push their white-victim narrative. This is virtually indistinguishable from when sections of the British left cynically used the murder of Jo Cox by a right-wing nutter to delegitimise Brexit. In both cases, a rare act of cruel violence is used as a stand-in for political argument.

      Flipside?

      ‘Using’ the fact that there’s a white victim to point out that whites get victimized and no one starts screaming for justice for them? That blatant racial animus, FILMED blatant racial animus is ‘questionable’ somehow when it’s white people? is a ‘flipside’?

      We saw this when women were raped in Cologne, when Rotherham became the center of a Muslim rape celebration.

      Over and over people are afraid that all the horrific shit done by the preferred racial/sexual/ethnic/religious groups will give impetus to the evil right-wing groups saying that all the horrific shit done by the preferred racial/sexual/ethnic/religious groups has to stop.

      That we shouldn’t ‘give them fuel’.

      Over and over they get proved right–and the only thought is that we should pretend they weren’t right lest we give them power?

      1. If all of these events are “giving fuel to evil right-wing groups”, maybe it’s because the evil right-wing groups are on to something.

      2. The implication is clearly that violent white racists are everywhere just waiting for an excuse to torment innocent minorities, whereas violent black racism is an aberration, possibly caused by racist whites. Therefore, brushing black racist violence under the rug is a small price to pay to prevent the tidal wave of white racist violence that would ensue. Because you’ve never, ever, ever heard anyone say that when, for instance, a white cop shoots an unarmed black man, the media shouldn’t report on it because it might fuel black-on-white violence.

        The sick thing about this is that it’s those fuckers on that CNN panel and the rest of their ilk who promote shit like this, and they do it deliberately. It’s a fundamental part of their identity, it’s how they gain political power, social relevance, and make a living. This race war narrative is being stoked by the media in order to push a progressive agenda that results in these same people holding positions of authority. This kind of tactic is straight out of the Russian Revolution.

  67. It’s really interesting that a bunch of you are ready to put Robby up against a wall over including a video.

    Many of you will willingly consume a video depicting police violence (crimes) towards the citizenry. We’ve watched police beat, taze, bodyslam, and shoot teenagers and the outrage is directed towards the perpetrators (where it should be). A video showing citizens attacking one another is a bridge too far, I guess. It’s somehow victimizing someone all over again. Why do we feel that way only when the perpetrators of the violence aren’t wearing a uniform?

    1. For the record, I am fine with him posting a link to or embed of the video, as it has news value. What bothered me is the picture of the suffering person, above the fold, where I had to see it like 20 times last night until I adblocked it.

      1. That’s fair. Nobody should be subjected to a random photograph of a scene of violence if that wasn’t what they were seeking to look at.

        Perhaps the solution to that is what Reddit does with NSFW content now. There’s a filter that pixelates pictures and you have to click to view them. Nobody is censored, and people who don’t want to see graphic imagery don’t have to be ambushed with it.

    2. A video showing citizens attacking one another is a bridge too far, I guess.

      I’m not really opposed to the video either way. However, I would think that the distinction between officers who happened to be caught on film or get filmed as part of doing their business and violent criminals who deliberately filmed and broadcast their actions would be obvious. Mall Security footage exists but I wouldn’t intrinsically equate it with voyeur porn, snuff films, or political propaganda out of hand.

  68. Maybe Robby is gunning for a job at CNN.

  69. Thank Jesus that Mein Kampf is back on the best-seller lists in at least one important Christian nation. Expect a diplomatic note in German to roundly scold the derelict officials having jurisdiction!

  70. “It really shouldn’t matter: what they’ve done is reprehensible, regardless of the motive.”

    The question is whether the motive makes the crime more or less reprehensible.

  71. Just came to say “FUCK YOU ROBBY, you mendacious cunt!!” This was clearly a hate crime, whatever you may think of those laws. Fuck these subhumans and the cops that are still investigating whether this was motivated by racial animus. To anybody not infect with SJW there is no question. I say once again, FUCK YOU ROBBY, you mendacious cunt. Do the world a favor and DIAF with the human fucking garbage that perpetrated this crime.

  72. It’s important to determine if it’s a hate crime. How else would you know which model of wood chipper to select?

  73. This whole parsing of words started wihen Bill Clinton questioned the definition of ‘is’. There is nothing more racist than determining the severity of ones offense by the color of their skin.

  74. “They occasionally utter things like, ‘F*** Donald Trump, f*** white people.'”

    “But we should also be a little skeptical that a bunch of teenagers bullying a white man has anything, really, to do with Donald Trump. This was an inexcusable act of violence, no matter what was going through the perpetrators’ heads.”

    Hatred for Trump and white people was obviously on their mind. Why would they say these things if this doesn’t have anything to do with Trump? I can’t say I agree with Soave this crime didn’t have anything to do with Trump, and believe these guys were unhappy with Trump’s win and white people, and took it out on the victim. I do agree it “was an inexcusable act of violence.” And they should know better, and they should also know that their anger at Trump and white people are inexcusable as well.

  75. Sure am glad we have Reason to Suavesplain these things to us.

  76. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  77. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  78. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  79. Bet if it were 4 white kids/adults doing it to a mentally handicapped African American the NAACP, The Reverend Al Sharpton and Obama would be commenting more on it but Bc it’s a white kid/adult he doesn’t matter!!! SMH what’s wrong with humanity nowadays? Hate is taught!!!! We don’t owe anybody anything so why is this incident being played down like it wasn’t something serious?

  80. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.