Hate crimes

Black Lives Matter Is Not Responsible for Four Black People Abusing a White Man in Chicago

The #BLMKidnapping is another frustrating example of assigning moral culpability to an entire group.



To state more strongly what I wrote earlier, Black Lives Matter—the social change movement focused on racial equality and criminal justice reform—has nothing to do with the attack on a mentally disabled white teenager in Chicago.

The incident, which was streamed on Facebook Live, is horrific in its own right, regardless of the motive.

The four perpetrators, who are black, made comments like "fuck Donald Trump, fuck white people," as they terrorized a defenseless white victim, who was tied up with tape over his mouth. They cut his hair until his scalp bled, and even threatened to kill him, apparently amused by his confusion and pain.

The attack has provoked all sorts of over-the-top analysis, given that it confounds the usual media narrative: racist white people harassing black people.

"If this had been done to an African American by four whites, every liberal in the country would be outraged, and there'd be no question but that it's a hate crime," observed Newt Gingrich.

The alt-right, in particular, agreed with him. The incident trended on Twitter as #BLMKidnapping.

Right-leaning media figures blaming the attack on BLM is no different than left-leaning media figures blaming Gabby Giffords' attempted murder on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, or Newtown on the National Rifle Association. It's a guilt-by-association tactic deployed for the express purpose of demonizing entire groups for the actions of disturbed and unrelated individuals. The right is no better than the left here: both sides do it when it suits them.

Thus the benefit—and moral clarity—of the libertarian position: people are individually responsible for their actions, and actions—not thoughts, or manifestos, or ideological categorization—are what matter.

Addressing the conservative argument that the Chicago incident represents an anti-white or anti-Trump hate crime, The Washington Post writes:

If you believe discrimination against white people is rampant, that Donald Trump supporters face persecution, that Chicago is a war zone, and the media is dishonest, then your entire worldview is likely to be confirmed by one awful story. …

A Huffington Post survey conducted in November showed that 45 percent of Trump voters believe white people face "a lot of discrimination" in the United States today. Just 22 percent of Trump voters said the same about black people.

The result was consistent with the findings of researchers at Harvard and Tufts, whose 2011 study concluded that whites, overall, now view discrimination against white people as more prevalent than discrimination against black people.

"This perception is fascinating, as it stands in stark contrast to data on almost any outcome that has been assessed," the researchers, Samuel Sommers and Michael Norton, wrote on the Post Everything blog in July. "From life expectancy to school discipline to mortgage rejection to police use of force, outcomes for white Americans tend to be — in the aggregate — better than outcomes for black Americans, often substantially so."

The worldview of many Trump voters might not be supported by data. But now they can find support in one awful video out of Chicago.

The self-victimization of white Americans is no doubt one of the reasons Trump won: he promised to be the champion of white working class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan who had traditionally supported Democrats. White people think things are worse for them than they actually are, and Trump has promised to do something about their perceived problems.

At the same time, I wish The Washington Post and other media outlets would apply the same scrutiny to the prevailing narrative that Trump's election has directly resulted in a staggering increase in hate crimes. Both sides play the self-victimization game, but we should remember that crimes are perpetrated by individuals against other individuals. Spend more time being upset about an individual person's abuse than being angry—or delighted—about the opportunity to assign blame to an entire identity group.

As to whether the incident in question is a hate crime, Symone Sanders—former press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders—said on CNN that it was premature to label it as such. Watch the video below.

Sanders characterizes the attack as "hateful," but not necessarily a hate crime, because we don't know whether the perpetrators were motivated by racial animus. If they were motivated by anti-Trump animus, then it isn't a hate crime, in fact: hate crimes must involve targeted malice toward a protected class.

So Sanders is technically right, but the fact that she's right serves as a powerful reminder of the utter futility of hate crime designations. It shouldn't ultimately matter whether these people hurt the victim because he was white, or a Tump supporter, or disabled, or for any other reason. The reason doesn't change the awfulness of the crime.

Related: Read Reason's Jacob Sullum on the legal problems with federal hate crime statutes.


NEXT: Senators Seek Retaliation Rather Than Defense for Foreign Hacking Incidents

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. What about ctrl-alt-delete?

      1. Those nihilists? Fuck those guys.

        1. These men are nihilists. Nothing to be afraid of.

      2. They will definitely be blamed by the ctrl-alt-t.

        1. my caps lock is on full time now…

  1. Hate crime math:

    2 + 2 = more 4

    1. maybe less 4 too, it’s no longer a binary problem…quantum states galore

  2. I don’t understand this argument. There was more explicit anti-white content in the video than anti-trump content. Not to mention the implicit racism of attacking a retarded white person (who probaly doesn’t even know who Donald trump is) in order to express hatred for trump.

    1. This is a white guy who is trying to say:

      “let’s not get all worked up about black people being racist.”

      Its clear that americans are terrified of a logical, rational conversation. And they should be so.

      You can lose your job and your house for trying to have a reasoned, cogent conversation with someone in this country.

      1. I don’t really see anyone getting that worked out, but as Soave concedes the narrative in this country is that blacks face the never ending threat of white violence. Confronting that myth win the reality both of this situation and crime victimization data is not getting worked up.

        It’s instructive just how different reasons response here is compared to any situation involving police violence.

        1. But pointing to the data is just another way of saying “hey what are your chances”. The fact that they are small doesn’t make this any less outrageous or anything other than what it is.

          1. I think you are misreading me John. My point was basically that the alt right isn’t out trying to gin up a lynch mob (indeed they are less bloodthirsty than some of the more unhinged posters here are on police violence posts) but trying to destroy a particularily pernicious myth re: the threat of violence whites supposedly present to blacks.

            1. Fair enough. Sorry to misunderstand.

      2. Its a white guy saying that we need to maintain a clear head – BLM is no more part of this incident than Tea Partiers were all racist rat-baggers. Keep a level-head and understand that while any *individual* incident may be reprehensible, a handful of them does not a race-war make.

        Don’t stoop to the other side’s tactics.

        1. Agreed. The only people responsible for the reprehensible actions of the people in that video are those individuals people.

        2. What purpose does that serve may I ask? And where is that mindset and prudence when for instance a cop shoots a seemingly unarmed black man.

          Currently the major media and city government is feverishly denying that anti white racism is involved. There is no lynch mob in need of dispersing. What Soave is vehemently defending is a narrative about white and black violence in the United States.

          1. Sam Haysom, cop-loving dipshit, wants a race war, Aggy.

            1. Clearly yours is a brain addled with rage and bitternesss about past times when I’ve logically dismantled your comments but this kind of projection doesn’t even make sense.

              I’m for the state neutrally enforcing hate crimes legislation and for culture working to dismantle false narratives of racial victimization. That’s two things that would defuse a race war.

              I’m sorry you think that the guys who picked on you in high school grew up to be cops. But you’ve got to move on man. You’ve got that sweet man cave in your parents basement and that primo porn collection- you showed them, just keep being you.

              1. You sound a bit smug.

                1. And by the way Sam. That kind of talk can get you kidnapped by a few youths, summarily tortured, forcefully fed toilet water, and scalped.

                2. No, I’ve just paid attention to the drivel coming out keyboard.

                  1. *out of his keyboard* smdh

              2. I’m for the state neutrally enforcing hate crimes legislation and for culture working to dismantle false narratives of racial victimization.

                And we were just talking about self-contradictory axioms up above.

            2. He may be. But, does that make him wrong here? It’s pretty ridiculous to pretend (as Robby seems determined to) that this incident is not somehow an act of black-on-white racial (as in because of race) violence.

        3. There are two questions:

          Is BLM responsible for this?

          Clearly, no.

          Is this an act of racial animus against white people that no one would tolerate if the races were reversed?

          Most emphatically yes. One would have to be more mentally disabled than the victim to conclude otherwise.

        4. agreed, except where the atmosphere is polluted with the stupidity and irrationality of others…BLM (and all the other shouters) just add to the noise and provide some cover and background for bad behavior

  3. “To state more strongly what I wrote earlier, Black Lives Matter?the social change movement focused on racial equality and criminal justice reform?has nothing to do with the attack on a mentally disabled white teenager in Chicago.”


    The only crimes BLM were involved in had to do with blocking busy highways, keeping people from their jobs, ambulances from the hospital, etc. Nothing major.

      1. “Black Lives Matter?the social change movement focused on racial equality and criminal justice reform”

        Maybe for about the first 2 weeks of the movement.

        Then Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton realized they could pimp it for extortion and that was the end of it.

        It is now a slogan for “F*ck white people” Nothing more.

        1. It’s as if people said, “we have some legitimate beefs about the system, what can we do to piss away the opportunity for challenging these abuses and put ourselves completely in the wrong?”

        2. Yep, pretty much how the Tea Party go co-opted. But only white people are stupid enough to get co-opted.

          1. ^^This x 2nth

    1. You know what’s a bloody great idea in American political theatre? Framing yourself as endlessly anti-American. I mean, we can’t do smart things like King did and use American values and patriotism as a central point in your anti-racism argument.

      1. Please post this again ten and/or eleven days from now. It bears repeating.

  4. BTW, BLM certainly has not done one thing to help the tension, nor quell the feverish ignorance of the angry and misguided black population, at all.

    And fuck the Bureau of Land management as well.

    1. I’m glad I’m not the only one who still constantly reads BLM as Bureau of Land Management. Fuck those guys, bring on Frontier Act 2.0!

      1. and here I thought it stood for Butt Lick, Montana…crap

    2. And its not their job to. They aren’t responsible for what every psychotic gang of thugs who happen to share their skin color decide to do for sociopathic shits and giggles. No more than any white person is responsible for Dylan Root.

  5. There are 3 choices:

    1. Get rid of this hate crime nonsense

    2. Enforce laws against race-based crimes equally

    3. Look like a bunch of hypocritical assholes who think black people can’t be racist because they are too stupid

    Progs are always going to chose #3.

    1. It’s not even hypocritical under their worldview. Laws exist explicitly to further a specific worldview and cultural state to them. That they are using it as such likely means that they feel no hypocrisy whatsoever.

      It’s one of the difficulties with arguing the point against them, in that they are coming from a fundamental different basis.

      I had a friend on FB make the following statement the other day (Paraphrased slightly):

      “The left looks at inequality and attempts to find ways to end it, the right looks at inequality and looks for ways to justify it.”

      This expresses a fundamentally different worldview I think. I don’t think it easy to argue against this bullshit.

      1. The left thinks equality means equality of outcome.

        The right thinks of equality before the law.

        Maybe we need two different words, here. Or, your friend is full of crap and a shallow thinker.

        1. I agree to an extent. You could read his definition as just differing ideas of equality. But I think he’s expressing a more fundamental difference in appreciation of the world works, of the role of government, and the rights of individuals for their own self.

          I suppose I am also taking his statement at face value, and that he is not just trolling in his analysis of what “right” means. But he’s pretty plainspoken honestly, so I do believe that is his genuine analysis.

          1. Hence, “full of crap and a shallow thinker”.

            A genuine analysis can still be profoundly wrong. Hell, I’ve been there, and reaped the sorrow from it.

            1. I guess the question is, can you have an incorrect axiom or basis to your worldview? If so, how do you determine that an axiom is incorrect?

              For instance, I would say the basis of my reasoning that lead me to Libertarianism, is that it is almost impossible to know what is best for any person, they best you can do is let them try to figure it out themselves. And so from this fell many of my libertarian beliefs.

              Can this be proven wrong?

              1. Is a worldview self-contradictory? If it is, then it’s invalid.

                1. So you are saying that if argumentation that logically follows from a given axiom contradicts itself than it is invalid?

                  1. Yes, see below.

              2. I don’t think it can be proven wrong, because value-based axioms are inherently matters of choice, because what you value is subjective.

                Many values are common (most people value their own well being, for example) but I don’t think any are universally held (see: masochists and suicides, to extend the example.

                You appear to value other people’s ability to pursue their own self-interest.
                That is not a universally held value. I like it, though.

                1. I don’t think it can be proven wrong, because value-based axioms are inherently matters of choice, because what you value is subjective.

                  I disagree. The vaguest axioms pose a difficulty because they are non-specific, but to me that renders them invalid as well.

                  I’ll throw out an example of a self-contradictory worldview. Liberte, egalite, fraternite. The third value is in opposition to the first two. The Jacobins used liberte, unite, egalite which wasn’t that much different in meaning.

                  1. Not sure what you are disagreeing with – you seem to be headed in another direction.

                    The slogans you present as world views are emotional exhortations rather than axioms, although I agree that most value-based axiom systems you would derive from those slogans would be inconsistent in some way (unless you are alone on a desert island, maybe).

                    Fact based axioms can be wrong – if I take it as axiomatic that water naturally flows uphill, I won’t get good results if my actions are guided by that axiom. And you really would not want me plumbing your sewer outflow.

                    1. Alright, fair enough. I’ll be more specific. I’ll go use Tony Rousseau

                      By joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.

                    2. Well, I think Rousseau is wrong – I’m just not seeing where you think I’m wrong.

                      I thought what I said was axiomatic, in fact ; )

                      But, I’ve got to go, so for me the matter rests.

                      Thanks for the thinking fun!

                    3. I was more responding to BUCS than you.

                    4. Sorry, was eating a burrito for the last hour.

                    5. and expelling the results for another after that?

              3. I came from the same place. I have no inclination to tell others how they should live their lives, or what behaviors should make them happy. Consequently, I have no interest in the government telling anyone what health/entertainment/moral/etc. decisions they should make, so long as they don’t infringe others rights to do the same.

                This could be interpreted as selfishly motivated. It starts with me not wanting the government telling me how to live my life, but the fair extension is to include all people.

                1. I feel like a lot of time it comes from lack of information on my side. I look at my life, and I see a million contradicting possibilities for how to live, and a billion reasons for them. I am doing stuff, and I am doing “well” I suppose, but with this much doubt about my own, I certainly don’t think I know enough to tell others what to do.

        2. The left thinks of sameness, not equality.

      2. The left (and a lot of the right) skip right over liberte and egalite while heading straight for their own take on fraternite.

    2. They gave themselves permission by re-defining the word “racism.” All it takes is to get someone in an ivory tower to say something that confirms their worldview and they spread it relentlessly.

      Nobody can be a “racist” towards white people because white people are privileged and are in a position of power. Therefore “racism = prejudice + power” becomes the new definition. All racially motivated crimes against “powerful” people are now blessed acts.

      It really is no different from Catholicism’s concept of plenary indulgence, except those who dole out the indulgences to their acolytes are employed in academia gender and race studies departments rather than by a church.

      1. It’s a logical conclusion of post-modern thought. There is no objective worldview, and it should not be attempted to function with the idea that there is an objective worldview. All we have is power, and means to gain power.

        This is idea of “racism” as you say it, you cannot be racist against whites because they are the ones in power. Racism is simply a tool for dismantling the white power structure and to gain power for non-whites.

        The problem is that you are stating that, and arguing that it’s unequal. While progressives will read statements like that and go, “Yeah, no shit.” There is a difference in belief that makes that statement meaningful to them and repugnant to us.

        1. It’s easy to see how Marxists find this sort of logic so appealing to begin with.

          Look at the tactics of communist revolutionaries. Their rhetoric enables them, and much of it is destructive. Use the words for destruction favorably and then wash your hands of the violence people do in its name.

          We must dismantle the white power structure. Smash the patriarchy. Destroy the oppressors.

          Note then that when words like “unity” and “solidarity” are used, they’re in support of destruction as mentioned above.

          “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.” Orwell tried hard to convince us to be vigilant against this.

          I propose another: Destruction is liberation. No more succinctly can this premise be put, from those who participate in race riots to those who use political violence to install socialist regimes.

          Rarely do we hear those proposing to build their group’s legitimacy; to build genuine bonds with everyone, not just goodthinkers. We’ll instead hear an angry diatribe against “all lives matter” even though that phrase shouldn’t even be controversial.

      2. Yeah four people against a retarded kid and its the retarded kid who’s got the power. What a load of horseshit.

        (and I know the sentiment is not yours).

      3. +1 “punching up”

      4. Catholicism’s idea of plenary indulgence is contingent upon the sinner being sorry for his or her sins. The plenary indulgence lets them off the hook for Purgatory, not for Hell.

    3. If you get rid of hate crime nonsense then there are no race-based crimes left to enforce.

      They’re just crimes.

      Can’t be having that.

  6. The self-victimization of white Americans is no doubt one of the reasons Trump won: he promised to be the champion of white working class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan who had traditionally supported Democrats. White people think things are worse for them than they actually are, and Trump has promised to do something about their perceived problems.

    Gee being lectured by know nothing douche bags in the media about how good they have it didn’t prevent these people from voting for someone who claimed to be their champion. What the hell is wrong with people?

    Nice of you not to put the actual video up again like last night there Robby, you fucking two bit whore.

    1. Trump won: he promised to be the champion of white working class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan who had traditionally supported Democrats. White people think things are worse for them than they actually are, and Trump has promised to do something about their perceived problems.

      Did I miss Trump making promises to specific races during the campaign?

      1. He never did. But Soave has this idea that only white people work in factories. Black people all live in the ghetto or are entertainers. That is actually what he thinks.

          1. Shhh. Red Tony’s on a roll.

            1. Did you stay up late last night thinking of that clever retort Jordan? That is pretty high end snark for a retard. I have to admit.

              1. John, You have to admit that was f*cking funny.

          2. I forgot the sarc tags. I am sure Robby knows a black janitor in Washington. Or some guy who runs a food truck. So there is that.

    2. Brought to you by the home of Dalamia no less. Talk about self victimization. Dalamia manages to self victimize herself via Bobby Jindal’s Catholicism.

    3. So now being taxed beyond one’s means is “self-victimization.”

      With libertarian friends like Robby, who needs prog enemies? Maybe he and Dave Weigel can go start a “MIses’ Third Way” blog.

  7. “So Sanders is technically right, but the fact that she’s right…”
    So, Bernie Bros are not the most masculine of men, but Bernie Sanders is a man.

    1. RTFA. Symone Sanders is presumably a woman.

  8. Given many years of strong incentives to be a member of a victim group, it should not be surprising to see WASPs (is there still such a thing?) declare their own victim identity group.

    1. When the only way to get a piece of the pie is to become part of a group then yes. Prime example is the number of business that were owned by men who then transferred 51% of the value to their wives name so that they could get contracts. When the government requires everything they are involved with to be a percentage of some group then there is no choice. thats if you want a government contract but its amazing how many jobs become related through second and third parties without even trying.

  9. “If they were motivated by anti-Trump animus, then it isn’t a hate crime, in fact: hate crimes must involve targeted malice toward a protected class.”

    Sure, that’s exactly the approach the Left would take if a bunch of white men beat up a woman while chanting “fuck Hillary.”

      1. I did not read it based on the stupid title.
        Does he actually spend time dissecting their potential motives rather than dismissing the term hate crime as one of the stupidest redundancies of all time?

    1. hate crimes must involve targeted malice toward a protected class

      And the victim here seems to just be a straight white male, so, you know, open fuckin’ season.

  10. They cut his hair until his scalp bled

    No, they cut his scalp until his hair came off. Aka ‘scalping’. Why make excuses for them? Despicable. This is what happens when you constantly apologize and excuse morally reprehensible behavior – on either side: it escalates into a witch hunt and war.

    Honestly, I’ve just about had it up to here with you people.

    1. Holy shit. Robby is such a dirt bag, he has AddictionMyth making sense. Wow.

      Give credit where credit is due, you are dead on.

  11. BLM spent a year claiming the entire country was racist and out to get black people. Why is it unthinkable that maybe a few black people took that message to heart and acted upon it?

    Jesus Christ, the same people who before immediately claimed that the confederate flag was responsible for Dylan Root shooting up a black church, now claim it is impossible for a group spending a year claiming white people are racists and black lives do not matter to them might cause some animosity in the black community towards whites.

    1. So then it’s whitey’s fault some black people are racist.

      1. In some ways yes. People like Soave go to great lengths to virtue signal and talk about how racist other white people are. Isn’t it inevitable that black people would at some point believe them and rationally start hating white people in return? If you were black and honestly thought white people hated you and wanted to keep you down, which is what people like Soave claim, why wouldn’t you hate white people? I would if I were in that position.

        1. great point if a mans wife said she was cheating on him do you think he would eventually get the idea that she’s not lying and act upon that.

        2. This does remind me of when I finally saw some Malcolm X speeches in college I thought — Damn if I were black in the 60’s I think this message would resonate in me more strongly than MLK. The injustice of it all back when civil liberties was a whites only thing; that injustice is/was real.

          Malcolm X was a great orator, I don’t think MLK would have had me turning the other cheek (if I were black).

    2. Maybe Obama can invite them to have a beer and a hug?

    3. One of the reasons Trump won is because people were sick and tired of being told they were all a bunch of racists. The only people who listen to BLM rhetoric are people who already believe that rhetoric. And even those people aren’t going to find some random retard and film themselves torturing him. Racism and Trump were just excuses for something these assholes wanted to do already.

      1. You are right. But Progs ought to be held to the same standards they apply to others.

        1. I don’t think they should. As good as it would feel to hoist them on their own petard, those standards are fucked up and encouraging their use just validates them for both sides, making us all worse off.

          1. Yeah, but maybe if we held progs to the same standards, the Progs wouldn’t have such fucked up standards.

            Just like if Congress were subject to the same laws as us unwashed masses, maybe there wouldn’t be so many stupid laws.

            1. And that’s exactly why they’re disputing that this was a hate crime. Playing the game with their rules ensures we will all lose.

    4. If you go to the real Black Lives Matter website, and click on the Get Involved page, you will find a quote of Assata Shakur.

      Assata Shakur, the convicted cop killer, the fugitive from justice who now resides in Cuba. Her rap sheet includes murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping.

      BLM promotes Assata Shakur as an inspiration to those who desire to “get involved”.

      Yet, for some reason, the progressive left and their acolytes in the mainstream media are enchanted by BLM.

      The phenomenon described in Radical Chic and Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers brought us Nixon to some extent. The same sort of elite nonsense brings us Trump.

  12. A 24 y/o is a teenager? Robby X brings more fake news

    1. tbf, until very recently (as in the newest article update on the Chicago Tribune) it was being reported as 4 18-year-olds, not 3 18-year-olds and a 24 year old.

    2. Maybe he *identifies* as a teenager?

      There’s this guy named Roman Polanski who once felt like a teenage girl.

      1. Take two:

        There was this guy named Roman Polanski who said, “I feel like a teenage girl.”

        1. Groucho Marx often said “your only as old as the women you feel”

          my mother did not understand how this was a bad thing to say, or maybe she did understand?

  13. I love that the CPD believes saying “fuck white people” is not evidence of racism.

    1. Racism only happens to those who incessantly cry about it as their source of failure.

  14. 1. I think first and foremost, the people who act are responsible for their own decisions. Libertarians often make this point. Though the line becomes blurred at time (I certainly take my shots at Islamic culture/religious doctrine).
    2. It is definitely possible that idiots like this get motivated by the identity politics of the left.
    3. There is definite hypocrisy in the attempts to dismiss any connection between this sort of violence, or even rioting at BLM events, with the violent rhetoric employed by many supporters. One only has to look at the pathetic attempts to blame Trump’s rhetoric for anything and everything bad that they can.

    I’d also like to revise my hot take from last night. I did not realize at that time they held this kid for 2 days/~48 hours. It also means there’s likely more physical abuse we remain unaware of, as well.

  15. The people involved in the kidnapping have been charged with a hate crime. Now everyone can shut the fuck up about it.


    1. Retard hate, not white hate.

  16. I thought last nights whiskey would have quenched the thirst. The news circling round today is proving otherwise.

    1. “And they ask me why I drink…”

      1. Sit down here and tell me why you drink, boy! If I had a 204yo Elizabeth Taylor as my wife, I wouldn’t have no damn time for drinkin.

  17. As to whether the incident in question is a hate crime, Symone Sanders?former press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders?said on CNN that it was premature to label it as such.

    If you believe in hate crimes, then based on the video evidence, this was a hate crime. It was presented as racially motivated by the perpetrators in the video. Mrs. Sanders (I assume she was the senator’s wife as well as his press secretary) focused on the Trump statement and ignored the racial statements while proclaiming hate crimes as being motivated by racial ethnicity. I believe she’s being disingenuous here in her attempt to make this political. Also, she used the phrase “a whole nother story”.

    1. Well, if a bunch of rednecks kidnapped a mentally disabled black boy and had filmed themselves making him say fuck Obama and such, I feel pretty confident in guessing that she’d be singing a different tune.

    2. huff post went even further and called it an “alleged” crime. when you have video proof it is no longer alleged, however the Russian hacking is proven beyond all reasonable doubt even though no evidence has been shown

  18. Jordan Hill, 18, of Carpentersville; Tesfaye Cooper, 18, of Chicago; Brittany Covington, 18, of Chicago; and Tanishia Covington, 24, of Chicago; were each charged with aggravated kidnapping, hate crime, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and residential burglary, according to the Cook County state’s attorney. Hill was also charged with robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

    Yeah, the time to look all hard is after you terrorize a mentally handicapped kid.

    1. Every one of them is an adult. Where is the media getting this bullshit that they were kids. They are all over 18. They are not kids.

      1. I think that the victim and at least one of the criminals go to high school together, information released before the ages were. But yes, called them kids is to minimize what they did.

        1. Thank god a gun wasn’t accidentally discharged, hitting one of them. Then it’d be another tragic child shooting.

        2. We should just call them “possible voters”

          1. Presuming there’s a conviction, after a year they’ll be rolled up into the statistics for voter disenfranchisement.

    2. Tesfaye Cooper was just working out life-long, pent-up anger at being named “Tesfaye.”

  19. Was Gingrich incorrect in his statement, “”If this had been done to an African American by four whites, every liberal in the country would be outraged, and there’d be no question but that it’s a hate crime,”?

    1. No but the alt right agreed so you know yucky. Thankfully to the extent that anyone ever notices lil Robbie’s scribblings only leftist would agree.

  20. “the social change movement focused on racial equality and criminal justice reform”

    Not a single word of that is true. Not. One.

    Let me give you a hint Robbie. You probably won’t understand it, but I feel obligated. I was raised on a farm. Early on I learned to recognize bullshit and developed a low tolerance for it.

    1. I hit the brakes on that, too. Take a look at their manifesto – they aren’t focuses on racial equality or criminal justice reform. Not any more.

      Now, social change? Oh, hell yeah. They are all about that. Although “socialist change” might be more accurate.

      1. They completely dropped the mask with their posthumous praise for Comrade Castro. BLM are commie agitators, nothing more.

  21. This is the thing about systematic racism which Reason basically accepts. under that pernicious idea a mentally retarded person really is complicit in perpetrating the “racist apparatus.” He isn’t even collateral damage he’s a emblem of white privilege. That’s the odious implications of systematic racism idea.

  22. I feel like we’re almost playing semantics here.

    Obviously Black Lives Matters, which isn’t even an official organization for tax purposes, did not order the hit on this white man. But it’s beyond all doubt that the radical fringe among the group advocates for violence, and the more moderate majority do not address this issue. Sounds familiar?

    I don’t believe in hate crime laws, but this WAS a hate crime. And the conservative outrage to to media’s whitewashing of this incident is justified on all levels. If there was string hung on tree that resembled a noose, a college campus 5 miles away might cancel exams and call in grievance counselors. The left’s approach to race and personal freedom was always selective.

  23. The alt-right, in particular, agreed with him.

    I love how every journalist is instantly granted with collective-mind-reading powers. why, it was only a few months ago that no one was sure what the “alt right” was. Now they have all established direct, transparent connections to its collective-subconscious, presumably through the medium of Twitter.

    I was actually expecting a few ‘sample tweets’ following, attempting to justify this statement … which is the normal M.O.. But apparently not even that is necessary anymore.

    1. What’s funny is that many people in the media and on the left would probably describe Robby as alt-right, with their stupid over-generalizations and demonization of any non-progressive.

      1. I’m getting the dog whistles confused with the cat calls.

      2. Libertarians have frequently been lumped in with other assorted groups under the label of ‘Alt-Right.’

      3. many people in the media and on the left would probably describe Robby as alt-right,

        Well, he does write for a Neo-Nazi magazine, and bears a strong resemblance to Known White Supremacists

    2. It’s all narrative. The world is linear story with well defined characters and obvious motive. And it is the news medias job to just identify and write that narrative out, I suppose.

      1. well defined characters

        that’s sort of my point – they aren’t. they’re made up in the writer’s heads.

    3. The alt-right is so goddamn diverse in its inane weirdness that claiming an alt-right consensus on anything is utter nonsense. Some of them probably even view the victim as a candidate for their T-4 program.

    4. “…no one was sure what the “alt right” was.”

      Just learn to recognize their secret Nazi haircuts and you can spot ’em a mile away.

    5. The Alt-Right appeared with the fury of a sudden storm — a blitzkrieg if you will.

    6. When your entire worldview requires that you put people into some kind of collective group so that you can put them into their appropriate position in the stack, it’s not surprising that you would start lumping all those people who disagree with you into one category.

  24. Kind of reminds me of the Emmitt Till incident. Totally not a hate crime, right?

    Thanks Obama.

  25. White people think things are worse for them than they actually are, and Trump has promised to do something about their perceived problems.

    Shorter Robby: “Fucking white people, am I right?”

  26. Thus the benefit?and moral clarity?of the libertarian position: people are individually responsible for their actions

    Unless they’re a pizza place. then they’re responsible for having the wrong opinions, and should be mobbed out of business.

    1. Comet Ping Pong is still in business.

      1. Which proves that the much-hyped power of the alt-right is a drop in the bucket compared to the SJW/PC forces.

      2. Is that the pedo-pizza joint? I was thinking Memories Pizza, which was demonized in headlines as “anti-gay” for the crime of answering a hypothetical question incorrectly, and subsequently shuttered.

        1. I know what you were referring to. I was just being a dick. 🙂

          1. Hey, a few days back I caught a comment from you where you said you’d been in a news blackout. Was that self-imposed? If so (or even if not) isn’t that one of the most liberating feelings ever?

            1. Self-imposed, but not a statement. I just didn’t pay attention the news on the holiday break. Too much bingeing Netflix and reading.

              But yes, ignoring the outside world for a while was very nice.

      3. But they are willing to cater imaginary gay pizza weddings, no?

  27. I say again, we should be monitoring for retaliation against Muslims after this isolated incident.

  28. While this is morally reprehensible behavior, it is not motivated by ‘racism’. It is in fact motivated by the ‘human trafficking’ and ‘ransom’ hysteria that is sweeping the country.

    1. “It seems this incident of youthful misguidance is more a symptom of and a signal for the need for more free shit. If we give more free shit to savages, then they won’t hate white people as much.”

      1. when those who are given gifts freely by others for long enough they soon believe they are the sacred ones and demand more from their servants.

  29. It’s far less of a stretch than the “dangerous rhetoric” argument constantly peddled by progressives and the media when the shoe is on the other foot. Both are indeed wrong, though.

  30. The obvious motivation was guys wanting to impress women. When are we going to learn to ban women!?

    1. We should ban scalping.

      1. Sounds good to me, artificially inflate the value of orphan scalps. I already corner the market in them, might as well make me richer.

        1. That is brilliant sir. I have boxes of them in my hole in my crawlspace under the house.

  31. The #BLMKidnapping is another frustrating example of assigning moral culpability to an entire group

    As is chanting “Fuck White People”.

    But there’s very few people in either group so let’s discuss at high volume black people and racists in general instead of the very limited subset Robbie’s referring to because we all know Robbie’s adept at the dog-whistling/social signaling and we all know what he really means.

    Isn’t it odd that how when people start blaming some particular group for every wrong committed by anybody else in any way connected to that group, Robbie’s right there to defend the idea that not every individual is responsible for every act committed by any member of any group they’re a member of – yet I’ve never once seen him criticize anybody who blames the Jews for killing Jesus. Clearly an anti-Semite.

    And don’t even get me started over his failure to criticize anybody who fails to acknowledge Han shot first.

    1. If Han hadn’t shot first it would have been a short movie. SPOILER ALERT, But movies paid back his karma by having his own sun kill him latter.

  32. Wait, wait wait –
    So they attack this dude and explicitly make it a point to disparage a race, yet it’s *not* a hate crime?
    I agree that hate crimes are bullshit and should be abolished, but this kind of uneven enforcement is a fucking joke when it usually amounts to “Harsher punishment for same crime but different race.”

    Since left-leaning media/progressives want to blame the election of TrumpHITLER on white people (who are ALL racist), this kind of a kneejerk reaction by dipshits isn’t actually surprising anyone, is it?

  33. “The worldview of many Trump voters might not be supported by data. But now they can find support in one awful video out of Chicago.”

    Not to mention every college admissions office in America. If you think “white people aren’t being discriminated against” you’re fooling yourself.

    1. Its not even implicit. Its quite overt, both in college admissions and in government contracting. If you are a white male, go to the back of the line. And make sure you use that bathroom over there, not the one the good people are using.

      1. Pretty sure the white people get to cut in front of the Asians in the line for college admissions, so we’ve got that going for us.

        1. not in California where the foreign Asian students have to pay a lot more than in state students so the state universities will take them first. the State is supposed to be putting a cap on that but its the state monitoring the state so who knows.

      2. It’s not quite the back of the line, which is part of how they get away with it. It’s disproportionate in a way that would be totally unacceptable in reverse, but the courts have allowed it in part because race, ethnicity, and national origin aren’t the sole factors. As long as racist factors are used in tandem with other factors it magically becomes okay, justified with hand-waving about “history” and “diversity”.

    2. Sometimes I think Rico might be the worst. Especially since I haven’t seen Nikki around here in a while.

    3. or any job with the government or a contract with them

  34. I used to come here because the articles were good and commenters were even better – you guys rock….not Tony of course.

    But this…

    “If they were motivated by anti-Trump animus, then it isn’t a hate crime, in fact: hate crimes must involve targeted malice toward a protected class.”

    From dictionary –
    hate crime
    noun: hate crime; plural noun: hate crimes
    a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.

    Where does it say class Robby!

    1. “Protected class” You can’t leave off the first word. Race, religion, sexuality are protected classes.

      SLD on hate crimes.

    2. Hating a person – meh
      Hating a class – doubleplusungoodthinkful punish punish

  35. White people think things are worse for them than they actually are

    These silly white people think that schools teach that only whites can be racist, and that there are federal and state laws that discriminate against them in hiring and college admissions! Oh, wait….

  36. the conservative argument that the Chicago incident represents an anti-white or anti-Trump hate crime

    For clarity =

    whether one believes in the legitimacy of “hate crimes” or not (i don’t), or whether one is liberal or conservative, has nothing to do with whether or not this incident actually fits the legal requirements as exists in current statutes.

    Having an opinion about whether or not it would meet those requirements isn’t a political opinion. it would be a legal one.

    there is nothing “liberal” about arguing that the behavior was de-facto ‘not a hate crime’. In my experience it is the Left that retains the MOST expansive notions about what can and should qualify for those charges.

    Basically, robby simply seems to be saying in his backhand way that =

    “people on the left always support black people, regardless of the evidence; and people on the right will always attack them”

    which is basically a silly racist generalization.

    I didn’t see the video myself, and even if i did, whether the thing was a hate crime or not would probably be the least of my concerns, because i think hate-crime laws are stupid. I don’t think that POV would tell you anything about any of my other opinions about how i think laws should be enforced. It doesn’t make me a good person or a bad person, or any special “moral clarity”. its just an opinion about law.

  37. The real story that everyone has missed is that this story merely proved that only mentally disabled people supported Trump.

    Jesus the commentariat is really slowing down these days.

    1. We rode here on the short bus.

    2. And that scalping was a protest towards the symbol of trump’s privilege.

      Simple: White people have created an atmosphere where ignorant savages have no choice but to kidnap, torture, humiliate, and scar people in order to make the world aware of their suffering.

      The kind of suffering similar to that which occurs in Africa and other third world countries.
      Why, just the other day, I saw a riot in Africa where one thousand people had free cell phones and nice cars. After they all watched the beginning footage on their flat screens in government paid housing, they got into their SUVs and BMWs and drove to the scene. Before they decided to participate in this great injustice, they purchased alcohol and food with a tax payer funded magic card.

  38. Police seem to disagree with you there, Robbie.


    It’s OK, I’m sure CNN will give you a call any day now.

    1. Again, the police are trying to pass this off as a “disabled hate” rather than “racist hate”.

      I guess they aren’t worried about an angry mob of paraplegics marching on Daley Plaza.

      1. “paraplegics marching” Pun intended or happy accident?

  39. More than anything Soave is a coward. Your principles and beliefs should never prevent you from stating the truth. Yes, hate crime laws are stupid, unnecessary and unconstitutional. The truth remains however that these guys did this because the victim was white. What that means or should mean is up for debate. But its truth is not.

    Yet Robby is so terrified of appearing “racist” and losing his perceived status above lesser “racist” white people, he can’t bring himself to say the obvious truth in this case. He ties himself in knots and makes utterly absurd and offensive statements to avoid saying that four black people kidnapped and tortured someone for the crime of being white.

    Here we have a case where a mentally disabled person is kidnapped and tortured because of their race and what does Robby think is important to know about the story? How the lesser stupid white people are a bunch grievance mongers who have it better than they think. Maybe they do. I don’t know. But perhaps this isn’t the proper forum for discussing that issue you fucking douche canoe.

    1. I don’t think we know specifically why he was targeted. Maybe they targeted him because of his mental disability and race had nothing to do with it until they decided to toss in a “fuck white people” for the hell of it. Pretending that we are able to divine the motives inside the heads of what are obviously disturbed individuals is just further proof that “hate crime” is BS.

      1. I also believe they say “Allah Akhbar” in terrorist beheading videos by accident.

        1. Not the sole motive != Totally incidental

      2. I will take them at their word. They kidnapped a white person and tortured him while making fun of his race. This was a racially motivated crime. Was race the only motivation? I don’t know. People’s motivations are often complex as you point out. But race was certainly a significant part of it. The fact that it might not have been all of it really doesn’t matter.

        1. It’s amazing the lengths people go to to avoid the obvious. The obvious is just far too painful for the narrative they’ve cooked up to make themselves comfortable. They wanted to beat up a white person, and a special needs kid is an easy target.

          Do people actually think old people get robbed because that ’87 Grand Marquis in the driveway is a sign that the owner has latest technology and the most money in the house?

        2. I’d say it’s quite likely they did this because of his race. Whether it is because they generally hate white people all this time, or they, like those in journalism, have made being white synonymous with being a Trump supporter, is the more plausible thing to figure out.

      3. I agree, we don’t actually know for certain that he was kidnapped and targeted deliberately because he was white.

        The attackers might just be sadistic monsters irrespective of race.

        But the people on the racial grievance train, both black and white, sure want to make it out to be another example of racial grievance.

        1. But the people on the racial grievance train, both black and white, sure want to make it out to be another example of racial grievance.

          Yep. You’re either for thoughtcrimes or against them.

          1. The fact I don’t think thoughts should be a crime doesn’t obligate me to deny thoughts exist.

            1. Is anyone arguing that?

              1. Yes. They are arguing that this isn’t a hate crime when it obviously is. Just because hate crimes should not be crimes doesn’t mean that the actions and motivations that give rise to them don’t happen as they have here.

                1. Fine. Pointing it out seems kind of irrelevant though.

                  1. It is very relevant Lee. Because it is not just that hate crimes laws are bad laws, it is that they are bad laws that are never applied fairly. If the races were reversed, everyone would call this a hate crime. Hate crime laws are almost never applied to black on white crimes. And that is wrong.

                    1. The fairness argument is not of much importance to me and I’m loathe to utilize it simply because it tends to lead to more perverse solutions. Lawmakers utilize that unfairness to write ever more and more specific rules in an attempt to “ensure” fairness. It’s a never-ending rabbit hole, much like identity politics in general.

                      I oppose thoughtcrime, full stop.

                2. I really don’t have a problem with the identification of “hate” being a factor in aggravating the seriousness of an otherwise petty property crime. For example, spray painting a swastika on a synagogue or “KKK” on an AME church is more serious than random vandalism with equivalent property destruction.

                  The violent crimes of the sort discussed in this article, however, are so evil that there should be no reason to determine whether they were motivated by racial animus or sociopathic sadism. The alleged perpetrators deserve a fair trial and, if convicted following a reasoned deliberation over the facts presented by the accusers and the defendants, a first class hangin’ regardless of their motives. Of course, I oppose the death penalty because the government is too incompetent to administer a reasonably fair justice system.

                  1. The alleged perpetrators deserve a fair trial and, […] a first class hangin’ regardless of their motives.

                    But not with a new rope.

        2. The attackers might just be sadistic monsters irrespective of race.

          Sure. Maybe they did it because they work for the CIA or aliens mad them do it. We don’t know that either. All of that assumes facts not in evidence. The facts I have is a video of them beating and torturing a white person while very clearly expressing their hatred for white people. Unless you can show me some evidence to believe otherwise, I am believing my lying eyes and ears.

          Why do you feel the need to bend so far over backwards to not take these people at their word?

          1. No, maybe they did it because he was an available victim, and if the available target had been a Mexican teenager, they would have shouted “f*ck Mexicans” instead. No need to invoke aliens or the CIA.

            We don’t know that they kidnapped him BECAUSE he was white. That is my point.

            1. We don’t know that they kidnapped him BECAUSE he was white.

              Yes we do. they said so. You just can’t admit that so you pretend that there are all of these other hidden motivations even though there isn’t any evidence to support their existence.

              1. They did? They said “f*ck white people”, they didn’t say “we’re torturing you because you’re white”.

                1. So anything short of a maniesto saying in so many words “we are doing this because you are white” means we should assume they are not? yeah, that makes sense.

                  1. Assume whatever you want. I don’t care. But don’t state it as some sort of known fact. It is an ASSumption.

            2. No, maybe they did it because he was an available victim, and if the available target had been a Mexican teenager, they would have shouted “f*ck Mexicans”

              That didn’t happen. this did. When you kidnap and torture someone talking about how much you hate people of their race, people are allowed to assume you are a racist who did this because of the person’s race. Jesus fucking Christ, did you act this obtuse with Dylan Roof? How do we know he shot up a black church because he hated black people? Just because he said so doesn’t mean its true/. Maybe he just wanted to shoot up a church and would have said “fuck Mexicans” had he shot up a Mexican church.

              That is how stupid you sound.

              1. “Jesus fucking Christ, did you act this obtuse with Dylan Roof? How do we know he shot up a black church because he hated black people?”

                Dylann Roof actually wrote an entire manifesto about starting a race war. So yeah I’m pretty confident that that was racially motivated.

                And I’m not saying you are wrong. You might be right. We just don’t know for certain. There are other plausible hypotheses that don’t involve aliens or the CIA. And since we don’t know for certain, it seems a bit of a leap at this juncture to start blaming BLM or anyone else besides these four individuals, or to start engaging in petty racial grievance-mongering.

                1. You don’t have to be certain. All you need to be is beyond a reasonable doubt.

          2. Look John, just because the attackers clearly said “Fuck White People!” in the video, it’s blatantly obvious that they really meant “Fuck Retards.”

    2. It would certainly be nice if Robby’s articles were just articles instead of attempts to build a portfolio of work he can bring to his next job interview at Vox, Salon, The Atlantic, etc. Apparently Cato already rejected his application.

  40. I love how biased the fucking media is. The victim is 18, and the perpetrators were 18, 18, 18, and 24.

    They said the “teens” committed a crime against a “man”, ponder that for a second.

    The white victim is referred to as a man since he would get more sympathy if he was called a “teen”

    The black perpetrators were called “teens” because oh it’s just bullying. They arn’t teens they are fucking adults.

    Sorta like how they ran the picture of Travon Martin as a 12boy, not the buff gold chain wearing thug he was

  41. Are we sure this wasn’t just fraternity hazing?


    1. IT!!

      That’s racist man!

  42. but the real question is – how do journalists manage to walk down the street without getting punched in the face?

    1. Matt Yglesias doesn’t, but sadly it only happened once.

      1. But Yglesias was lucky. They only kicked him in the head, where it couldn’t hurt him.

        1. True. Most of the head is bony plates and reservoir spaces for profound loneliness.

          1. He got a cat, but it committed suicide rather than listen to his voice for one more goddamn day.

        2. (Second try)

          < snicker >

      2. The beard helped soften the blow.

    2. Good point shinin pete.

      The only good thing about our collapse into utter chaos and savage disorder will be when the herd turns on all journalist for being utter shitbag scum.

      Tough luck for the 4 of them that are not shitbag scum.

      The gun fights between the savages, savage cops, and the 4th estate are going to be better than any video game ever created.

  43. If you accept the premise that BLM is in some way responsible for this attack via their rhetoric (or Tea Party rhetoric responsible for shooting Gabby Giffords), then that starts us down the road of criminalizing speech. I don’t think we want to go down that road.

  44. Surprisingly, one person who had a unique (and probably partially correct) take on the whole thing, look at this column from Matt Walsh at The Blaze. I’m far from convinced about this prescription to cure the issue, but he makes some interesting points.


    1. Matt Walsh at The Blaze



    2. Indeed, they’re more likely to call it a hate crime when you leave a bad tip for your Hispanic pizza delivery boy than when a group of black teens inflict unspeakable physical torment on a disabled white kid. The reason for that is simple. Hate crimes must be motivated by racism, and liberals believe and have been taught that it is not possible for white people to be victims of racism. Racism is all about power and institutions, they say, and because blacks have no institutional power, they cannot be racist.

      That about sums it up.

      1. blacks have no institutional power

        except for all the black mayors, city council members, legislators, and judges, not to mention the sitting (admittedly, half-black) President who’s finishing his second term

    3. Matt Walsh… didn’t he play in the Eagles?

      1. No, I think he was kidnapped and murdered as a kid.

      2. He is a terrible but lovable spokesman.

      3. No, he coached the Niners.

        1. Steve walsh was the quarterback.
          Lawrence Welch had a variety show in the early 70s that outed 100s of gay celebrities.

    4. The white man kidnapped and savagely tortured by a group of racist thugs wasn’t the first to fall victim to a hate crime of this sort in Chicago recently. It was only a few weeks ago that a white Trump supporter was dragged from his truck by a group of black teens and ruthlessly beaten in the middle of the street while a crowd of onlookers egged them on. A pattern is emerging. And it’s getting worse.

      I’m not sure that’s the best start…

      , I would tend to agree ? though for vastly different reasons ? that this atrocity was not a hate crime. It was worse.

      yeah, not getting better.

      If we’re really going to rank crimes, then, I would put Indifferent Crimes over Hate Crimes. A violent sociopath is a thousand times more dangerous than an angry bigot. After all, anger can be calmed and bigotry can be overcome. An utter lack of a moral compass, however, is not an issue so easily resolved. Especially when the parent suffers from the same condition.

      But we shouldn’t ‘rank’ crimes (according to the assumed psychology of the perps). So who cares about the rest?

      It seems like the Right is just adopting the language of the left, and trying to one-up them by claiming to be even MORE concerned about the social-impact of crimes, and suggesting even harsher penalties for ‘the wrong motives’.

      1. Of course we do legitimately rank crimes constantly in the legal system. All crimes have mitigating and aggravating factors. Murder is considered worse if it’s planned than if it’s committed in ‘the heat of the moment’.

        I agree that Mr. Walsh’s prescription is wrong. My interest in the article was because it was coming at the issue from a different direction than everyone else. It’s good to look at a situation from a fresh perspective, if for no other reason than to declare it full of crap.

        1. Murder is considered worse if it’s planned than if it’s committed in ‘the heat of the moment’.

          Those are categorical differences which require an elevated standard of evidence.

          Hate crimes require speculating on the “intent” of the perp, and the subjective interpretation of the meanings of words. the same crime and the same set of evidence can turn a minor example of battery with a short sentence, into a ‘hate crime’ with a very long one.

          1. Hate crime is purely about motivations. It can be used to establish intent but it should serve no part in sentencing.

  45. Members of the BLM protests dedicate their time largely to aggressively waylaying bystanders with their execrable racialist antics, and to endlessly spewing progressive bigotry at every passerby with insufficient means to escape an encounter. Whitewashing their immoral claptrap by representing them as the honorable activists you wish they were and patently are not is disgracefully unprofessional.

  46. I agree I see no reason to associate this asshattery with BLM.

    Don Lemon is really looking like a douche btw. To say this is not “evil” but “bad home training”?

    I’ve seen and investigated many crimes and among them – this looks pretty fucking evil – torture, “scalping”, just brazen cruelty and they had to know the guy was “mentally challenged” and god knows how this will affect him for the rest of his life.

    all this talk of “trigger warnings” and PTSD because somebody read a tweet by Milo… THIS is the kind of shit that will cause actual PTSD and could cause years of serious emotional trauma, special needs or not.props to CPD btw, for seeing this guy wandering around looking disoriented and being proactive, looking into it and helping the guy out.

    The MSM (as usual ) looks terrible – plenty of example of fits-the-narrative-incidents (proper oppressor and victim class representation) where they are eager to point out the racial component etc. whereas in this case as several pointed out with screeenshots etc. the angle was downplayed if not ignored.

    it’s “truck attack” or “vehicle collision in Nice” all over again

    1. Ugh, it’s you. Fuck off slaver. Surely Morgan Fairchild needs you to lift her while you ride a surfboard through a tsunami.

      1. smooches

        we are winning – support for police at 40 yr high

        support for me exceptionally high too as I won hundreds of thousands from PD in lawsuit

        thank you for your contribution!

  47. Every crime is a hate crime. There is not a jail term long enough for these scum and I’ll bet you they all get off easy. I’m not a fan of the death penalty, but I’ll admit that I’d be OK with these four being executed. This crime is as bad as that poor gay man that got drug to death several years ago. In that case, at least the victim didn’t have to live with that terror running through his head.

    Is hate involved in a crime worse than mean involved in a crime? Did they choose him because he was white or because he was special needs?

    1. Every crime is a hate crime.

      Come, now. You know this isn’t true. You can trivially find counterexamples to it.

      Suppose you were starving and stole food. You have no idea who the food belonged to, you simply decided that you should have it and taking it from anyone who wasn’t there to catch you would be sufficient for your needs.

      Then there are lots of victimless crimes to consider. Buying weed to smoke in your own home = hate crime? Maybe if you bought it specifically to funnel money to a violent gang or cartel you’d have a point, but how many people do that specifically to enable the use of violence?

      Not even all violent crimes would be hate crimes. Suppose you knew someone was breaking into your property and decided to install a booby trap to harm the perpetrator. You don’t know who they are and your motivation is to stop them from trespassing. Creating booby traps is a crime.

      1. A thief decides to rob someone. He must dislike someone enough to take their stuff.
        Everyone knows stealing is wrong. It therefore becomes a choice to steal from someone. I guess the thief has to make a choice who he wants to steal from.

        Of course it is trivial but there is no such thing as a hate crime.

        There is a thing called crime. That’s it.

      2. Zero, I wonder why creating booby traps is a crime. I should be able to put a bear trap out for a thief in a free country.

        After all, if you have ever been robbed, you kind of see where the arab way of cutting off the hands of thieves could be embraced.

    2. Did they choose him because he was white or because he was special needs?


  48. So a WaPo writer is complaining that people think “the media is dishonest?”

    Isn’t this the same WaPo that recently breathlessly reported that Russians had hacked the power grid in Vermont?

    1. Not disagreeing with you, but the power grid story was sloppy, not so much dishonest. However, I will say that the media tends to “get sloppy” when a story fits its bias and narrative.

      1. If your writing is being disseminated to whip up your political allies into a fury against their opponents, you have a great obligation to get your reporting right. If it is intended to influence the government into action, even more so.

        Sloppiness when the stakes are high is the same as dishonesty. It’s not like WaPo didn’t know what they were doing.

      2. It could be argued that they didn’t know the story was false, (and it was — one infected employee laptop is not, in any way, the power grid), but it is hard to argue that they cared enough to bother doing even the most cursory reporting. The dishonesty comes in the Post’s insisting that they should be trusted because they fact check and are only interested in the truth and not an agenda, as they did earlier when running that other bogus story (since retracted) about that “study” from a supposed expert organization that “proved” other media were all in cahoots with Russian propaganda ministries.

      3. The power grid story was a lie.

        A lie told to further their ‘Russia hacked the election’ lie.

  49. Another angle to the story missed: When did black people start using facebook? I thought MySpace was still the social platform of choice for the urban set.

    1. Twitter is big with the urban set.

      1. Yep urban guys like Trump

  50. Hang on: isn’t scalping cultural appropriation?? That’s a hate crime, right there!

    1. That’s so much worse than what they did to that white kid, too! Why won’t anyone think about how much the Native Americans have suffered?

    2. It’s hate crimes all the way down.

    3. Maybe they thought he was a dyke.

  51. The flipping and the flopping have officially commenced (although I’m probably about a month late).

    1. BLM does not wear flip flops.

  52. FUCK YOU ROBBY you mendacious cunt!

  53. …hate crimes must involve targeted malice toward a protected class

    This is worth quoting twice. And keep in mind that people who reference hate crimes are also often people who talk seriously about the concept of “white privilege”. I just can’t imagine why there are white people in this country who think there’s some kind of systemic bias against them.

    1. The prevailing interpretation has also resulted in an excellent case of base-stealing. A protected class is any group of people who would be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, etc. Whites are just as much a protected class as blacks for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act and (most?) hate crime statutes.

      1. But aren’t “protected classes” laid out in statutes? IIRC “white” isn’t one of them. And though it’s supposed to be based on historical discrimination, I don’t think Jews count, either.

        1. Protected class is actually a judicial invention, at least as far as Federal laws are concerned. But the laws themselves specify things like “on the basis of perceived or actual race, sex, religion, …”. There is no qualification in the (again, Federal) statutes for some people being more equal than others within a category of discrimination.

          1. The whole concept of a “protected class” just revolts me as an American. We should not organize justice according to class, people. Fuck.

      2. Right, and that’s the big problem with the CRA and other related laws that you’re not allowed to talk about. The letter of the law should protect everyone, but the intent has been construed to refer only to those classes who need protecting. Modern interpretations seem to be that if you’re a member of a “majority” class, you need no such protection. It’s the mindset that talks about “reverse racism” or even claims that discrimination against whites isn’t racism because racism can only be practiced by the most populous race.

  54. Does the citing of Huffington Post and CNN qualify this as fake news?
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. The byline qualifies it as fake news.

  55. I just LOVE CNN! It’s the network that does the best job in surmounting the tremendous technical difficulties in transmitting trans-dimensional news from Bizarro World.

  56. Good Lord Almighty! What kind of retarded headline is that? And that was NOT a poor choice of words either.

  57. “Black Lives Matter Is Not Responsible for Four Black People Abusing a White Man in Chicago”

    I don’t know about that, but Robby Soave is responsible for posting the face of a mentally disabled crime victim online–which is effectively participating in the poor kid’s humiliation.

    Robby should be ashamed of himself, and Reason.com should be ashamed of him, too. Last night, Robby posted the actual video of the poor kid being humiliated–without any apparent concern for the feelings of the victim.

    I’ve never seen anybody at Reason do anything like it.

    Showing that video in such a callous way was so disgusting, YouTube took the video down. How pathetic is that?

    1. I think the issue here is the kidnapping and torture, not the humiliation. They didn’t just dump a bucket of pig’s blood on him or draw a dick on his face.

  58. What are you going to do next–start doxing rape victims?

    1. I would say don’t give him ideas, but I suspect that one stayed on the whiteboard.

  59. This entire article illustrates that “hate crimes” can only be committed by white people. Obviously a bunch of alt-right evil white guys have conspired to hurt the reputation of BLM, and their motives were clearly hatred for the blacks in the BLM organization proper. To speculate about the motives of the four fine upstanding suspects in the video before the investigating police make their pronouncement would be an action that could only be motivated by hatred, and therefore it would also be a hate crime. Those white CNN pundits had better shut their mouths and stop thinking, lest they risk serious prison time for committing hate crimes.

  60. Robby, my man. We need more common sense writers like you.

    1. The racist left needs more woke allies like Robby.

  61. I dunno. When you have a movement based around “Fuck White People” and then when you have people torturing (not bullying) a white person and saying “Fuck White People”, well, I think there just might be a connection.

    Beyond that, I think BLM has largely legitimized racism against white people. I mean, to be fair, it always existed on campuses and in lefty controlled places, but BLM took it out of those halls and into the everyday world.

    1. Be fair. For about twenty minutes BLM actually took a principled stance against police brutality before it got co-opted by Racewar, Inc.

    2. So what is BLM supposed to do? For every one of these incidents of black thugs using race to bash a white person, i can point out 3 or 4 counterexamples. Obama criticized these thugs. Two of the thugs own grandma crticized them. You didnt see anyone from BLM make excuses for these thugs action. Yet, when Zimmerman or a cop shoot an unarmed black person, you see not only lack of regret expressed bymany other cops or friends of the accused, you see active demonization of the victims. And you want a BLM movement to shut their mouths because of what might follow ? These black thugs would have bullied that innocent white guy regardless and probably would have used a different tag line.

  62. “If this had been done to an African American by four whites, every liberal in the country would be outraged, and there’d be no question but that it’s a hate crime,” observed Newt Gingrich.

    The alt-right, in particular, agreed with him.

    You know what, the alt-right also breaths. Robby, you’re not alt-right, are you?

  63. “The worldview of many Trump voters might not be supported by data. But now they can find support in one awful video out of Chicago.”

    As well as by data in the form of crime statistics that show that black on white crime is a bigger phenomenon than ‘white on black’ crime. And of course this is not the only attack against whites by blacks to be caught on video since Election Day. This isn’t a on- off, it just feels like that to some on the left because they never, ever report on black on white crime. It’s also important to note that whites (and even some non- whites) feel that they as white people face discrimination because in modern society, it is acceptable if not encouraged to be openly derisive and disdainful of white folks. This of course gives people the perception that whites are persecuted in America.

    I’d certainly agree that BLM is not responsible for this attack, just as Trump voters are not responsible for the supposed ‘hate crimes’ that have been pinned on Trump supporters. Perhaps their vitriolic and hostile rhetoric has played a role, though.

  64. You know who else thought it was a lesser offense to attack random people from a certain race/ethnicity because they believed that people in their race/ethnicity held an unjustifiable amount power in social institutions?

  65. The Media, and Academia have been pumping out this propaganda over the last 10 years. BLM is a product of it. You are full of shit Robby.

  66. I am not going to condemn you for posting the video. The was the honest thing to do. People needed to se the ugly truth of the results of leftist propaganda. To apologize for it ? That’s unacceptable.


  67. Robby and Reason have been dying to be the “anti racist” alternative to conservatives so the dedication of an article to this is not surprising.

  68. “Thus the benefit?and moral clarity?of the libertarian position: people are individually responsible for their actions, and actions?not thoughts, or manifestos, or ideological categorization?are what matter.”

    That position refers to criminal liability and how the state should treat it. The libertarian position is not, which would be removed from reality, that people do not act upon shared beliefs and convictions. That would be incredibly stupid to believe.

    The author is confused.

  69. 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

  70. let’s see how Criminal Justice, Chicago style, treats the perps.

  71. 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

  72. Once again I have to take Robby to task. Maybe Black Lives Matter did not commission those four thugs to torture that retarded man, but would they have done it without the racial pollution fomented by Black Live Matter? Any way you cut it, Black Lives Matter has helped create the atmosphere in which these things happen.

    1. Bullshit. those black thugs were just finding some excuse to do their crime. So during any protest movement, are protesters ssupposed to stop protesting because some idiots might take advantage of the protests and piggyback their crimes along such a movement?

  73. Here is another difference. THE GRANDMA OF THE TWO CRIMINALS APOLOGIZED TO THE VICTIM. Obama himself condemned the crime. The problem with the cops or some white civilians shooting unarmed black civilians is more than the actual crimes themselves. It is the fact that the accused rarely get indicted , let alone convicted. And you almost never see the family or friends or colleagues of the accused apologize or even show some regret, let alone condemn the actions of the accused. The BLM movement is about that injustice. That is why it is idiotic to point out how that black on black crime is a bigger danger. Guess what. Most of the black criminals get convicted for those crimes.

  74. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept that…my… friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out

    ==================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  75. Right-leaning media figures blaming the attack on BLM is no different than left-leaning media figures blaming Gabby Giffords’ attempted murder on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party,

    I think that’s the point that the “right-leaning media figures” are trying to get across. Congratulations for getting it.

  76. No but BLM has been propagating criminality–starting by defending a thug who was shot justly named Michael Brown. And if Trump can’t put a stop to BLM, the rising Marxists and the Muslims then we are eventually headed for war.

  77. 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

  78. 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.