The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Man Pleads Guilty to Driving Car at "Stop Asian Hate" Demonstrators
The plea agreement recommends that he receive probation.
From a Justice Department press release [UPDATE: link fixed] dated Oct. 24, but just posted on Westlaw a few days ago:
A Diamond Bar man pled guilty today to a federal criminal civil rights charge for disrupting a "Stop Asian Hate" rally in March 2021 by running a red light and driving through a crowded crosswalk of peaceful demonstrators while shouting racial slurs and epithets.
On the third day of trial, Steve Lee Dominguez, 57, pleaded guilty to one felony count of bias-motivated interference with federally protected activities….
According to the Plea Agreement,
Defendant drove to the "Stop Asian Hate" rally in his car, a black Honda four-door sedan. When he approached the intersection at the center of the rally, he stopped and yelled "Go back to China!" and "fuck China!" to the rally participants, including the Victims. Defendant then deliberately ran a red light and drove his car, which was at all times a dangerous weapon, through the crosswalk of the intersection. He made an illegal U-turn and cut off the route of several rally participants who were lawfully crossing the street in the crosswalk. The Victims, other adults, and a nine-year-old child had to quickly move to avoid being hit by defendant's car. Defendant then got out of his car and continued to yell racial epithets and threatening language at the rally participants, including "come on you fucking Niggers," "you Jap motherfucker," "Fuck you, you Gook!" and "Fuck you, I'll be back," among others.
The Justice Department press release also states,
He then called the police, identified himself as "John Doe" and falsely reported to police that the rally participants were blocking the street and he had to run a red light "because they were about to trample my car," according to evidence presented at trial. He also requested that police "get some control out" at the intersection.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wondered why Prof. Volokh chose to mention this -- among a number of similar recent incidents -- until I approach the end of the quoted section of the plea agreement . . .
That's forty (40) . . . and counting . . . discussions that include vile racial slurs published by the Volokh Conspiracy blog since Jan. 1 of this year.
Carry on, clingers.
Speaking of vial racial slurs, sorry I'm delayed in replying,
I was taking a "Sandusky".
What's with all the Anti-Semitism of my (our?) supposed "Bettors" at Hahvud, Yale, Stanford, heck, is there a College that hasn't had a Pro Ham-Ass Rally??? (Yes, every SEC School last time I checked)
If they're really our "Bettors" VC bettor(get it?) have more seminars on Shari'a Law and less on how to keep people from re-erecting "45"
Frank
Yeah, I can’t believe the Biden Administration would say things like “nigger” and “gook”. I guess it’s not surprising, since he eulogized a KKK exalted cyclops.
We should vote those racists out of office next election cycle!
You agree, right Arthur. I know you wouldn’t politically support bigots who use vile racial slurs, right?
The important point is that conservatives' multifaceted bigotry will be one of the most important factors ensuring their continuing defeat in the modern American culture war, taking gun nuttery, anti-abortion absolutism, endless special privilege for religion, and other right-wing preferences down with it.
Carry on, clingers . . . so far as better Americans permit, as usual.
Reporting the details of criminal behavior, including motive where motive is relevant to the particular crime...is not done for the pleaure of being able to say racial slurs. How someone could argue this in good faith is beyond me. Is it wrong for the official charge to say it, or is it simply wrong to repeat the contents of a government document?
I, personally, think trying to hit someone with a car should be a crime whether based on race or some other motive, but the law speaks of racial animus, thus it's relevant. And, if relevant, the accusation should spell out examples of the relevant motive.
With the vast intelligence AK professes to have, you'd think he'd grasp those basic principles, but alas, it is not so.
Do you attempt to contend that the remarkable frequency with which items involving an opportunity to quote racial slurs are chosen for this blog -- among the vast universe of items available -- is happenstance (rather than some bizarre fixation from the proprietor of a strikingly white, improbably male, bigot-hugging blog)?
Do you also contend that this blog's incessant stream of Muslim-transgender-white grievance-drag queen-Black crime-lesbian-more transgender-racial slur content is also mere coincidence, rather than the work of an awkward, Tourette-like, partisan obsession?
There is nothing accidental about a blog that publishes a racial slur weekly -- and that appears to be precisely what the target audience of the Volokh Conspiracy enjoys.
Again, he didn't try to hit anyone. The plea agreement doesn't say he did, and the video, that I already linked twice in these comments already, shows that he didn't.
This idiot was stopped, he got angry at the protesters passing in front of him, he honked, the protesters parted, he made a too-fast illegal U-turn that came near some other protesters, he parked, he yelled at the protesters, and he called the police complain and to have them control the protesters.
Reckless driving, sure. Potentially a false police report (but, frankly, I'd rather worked-up idiots call the police on the people they're irrationally angry at than work themselves up to violence). Objectionable yelling that might possibly have risen to the level of fighting words but probably didn't.
Wrong press release linked — you have the church arson one.
And strict construction of the language: A Molotov Cocktail does not "explode" -- can not "explode" -- because liquid gasoline does not burn. Only the vapor does -- and there has to be a relatively precise mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen *before ignition* for an explosion to occur.
Incendiary, yes; arson, yes -- but explosive, no. Not with a VOC that has to evaporate before igniting.
The press release URL appears to be
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/diamond-bar-man-pleads-guilty-civil-rights-charge-driving-his-car-crowd-demonstrators
I'm seeing: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/ohio-man-pleads-guilty-attempting-burn-down-church-planned-host-drag-show-events#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAttempting%20to%20burn%20down%20the,Justice%20Department's%20Civil%20Rights%20Division.
To clarify, I was reporting what I think is the correct press release link, not the one in the post. Dr. Ed 2 was actually correct that the link in the post was the wrong one.
(One could note that today a stopped clock could actually be correct three times rather than only twice, but Dr. Ed 2's track record is more in line with stopped calendars than stopped clocks.)
How Ironic (Dontcha Think?)
it's usually the Asians driving badly,
Frank
Absurdly lenient plea agreement. This is more like attempted murder, or at least aggravated assault. Sorry, this guy has to do hard time.
Those sound like they should be state charges, not federal, though.
Yes.
Section 245 contains an enhanced penalty provision if the conduct included an attempt to kill, so to the extent the evidence justified it, it certainly could have been federally prosecuted in that way.
A quick run through Google News didn't show anything about the state filing charges. That seems wrong to me.
How do these things work? Can a state use a plea deal to a not-identical Federal charge as evidence?
Yes.
Then he should have been charged by the state, not the feds.
"One felony count of bias-motivated interference with federally protected activities"?? WTF? That sounds like a charge you would find in Orwell's 1984.
Bored, I disagree: if *he* and not the protesters had the right of way, then they are the ones in the wrong.
Unless the white peds light was on -- and it wouldn't be with a green ball showing, the protesters did NOT have the right of way. But, after coming to a complete stop, he had the right of way to turn right (absent vehicular traffic).
So they broke the vehicle code, not he. And as the governments case is based on the protesters governmental benefit of using a crosswalk -- which the weren't using legally -- maybe they took the plea they could get rather taking an iffy case to trial.
Ridiculous. The right of way laws don't justify ramming into people, which at minimum can cause great bodily harm.
Do you think if someone is jaywalking, you can speed up and run them down?
I'm honestly surprised that you don't believe that. Most conservatives and commenters here are 100% in favor of plowing down pedestrians who slightly slow them down by "protesting" in the street.
Simon, is it too much to ask that the criminal penalties apply to ALL users of the road, motorists, bicyclists, skateboarders, & pedestrians?
You know that "equal justice under law" thing.....
"Do you think if someone is jaywalking, you can speed up and run them down?"
You clearly have never driven in Boston....
He does.
And who, exactly, was rammed into?
By the plea agreement, he didn't hit anybody, and after the initial maneuver to "cut off the route" of the protesters with U-turn, he stopped the vehicle, got out of it, and communicated ("yell[ed] racial epithets and threatening language"), rather than make any attempts to injure or kill anyone.
In fact, if you watch the video, it's very clear that if he had wanted to hit someone with his car, he could have, and instead honked at them to get out of his way so he could perform the U-turn.
That maneuver with his car was both illegal and dangerous, but any charges that required an element of intent to hit the pedestrians would have been ridiculous and quite deserved an acquittal.
It absolutely should be justified to ram into people who are protesting for liberal causes, which is tantamount to treason.
Liberal beliefs are not legitimate beliefs in the marketplace of idea, but evil treasonous filth that need to be eradicated.
There were probably exsanguinating circumstances, maybe he was a POW in Southeast Asia and gets "Triggered" by masses of Asians hindering his movement?? (Umm, OK, 56, probably not) or maybe he just was on the way to pick up some Chinese food and didn't want it to get cold?
Wasn't there some "Peace Activist" in the 80's who lost his legs trying to stop a train? (the Very Wrong) "Reverend" Jesse Jackson used to introduce him with "He gave his legs for Peace!!!!",
Hey, Parkinsonian Joe told him to "Stand Up!"
Frank
Knew I remembered it,
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/veteran-activist-recalls-losing-legs-to-train-in-concord-protest/
"Brian Willson" like the Beach Boys guy, but with only 1 "L" (and no legs)
Frank
The guy is probably a Harvard grad. His mistake was targeting a church. If he had targeted a synagogue the DA would have given him a complete pass. This guy is a primary example of the "better people" us deplorable clingers Arthur wants us to be like.
I'm of two minds about this -- see: https://news.yahoo.com/man-pleads-guilty-driving-diamond-223846328.html
It appears that he could legally turn right on red there -- and that means that the pedestrians ONLY have the right of way when the white peds light is on.
The prudent thing in such a situation would be to let the vehicle go -- and it appears that they are doing the exact opposite. So I'm not so sure about an absolute right here.
It’s been a very long time since I took a driver’s ed course, but one of the things I remember was them stressing that the law says when YOU, as a driver or pedestrian, must yield the right of way. The law does not say when you can claim the right of way, because that would encourage reckless (but, as Frank D would probably say, wreck-ful) use of a vehicle in a weapon-like way.
What, pray tell, do you think "right of way" means -- and why would the law require you to sometimes yield it?!?
Yep, the law does say when you HAVE the right of way.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_of_way
He didn't right-turn-on-red, he illegally made a left U-turn. See the video.
It's like running over a bunch of Asians at a "Stop Asian Hate" Rally, in an Asian car....
I think that may actually be "Ironic"
Frank
"What's an "apparent Neo Nazi"? Liberal bullshit?
In the case of the earlier story, which did not involve the Mr. Dominguez who drove through a "Stop Asian Hate" protest, the apparent neo-Nazi was a member of a "White Lives Matter" group. WLM is reportedly a white supremacist analogue of BLM.
Michael P: Indeed; the apparent neo-Nazi was the defendant in the other post, and here's the basis for that, from the FBI agent's affidavit:
I have multiple gas cans -- one chain saw wants a 32:1 mix, another a 50:1 mix, and the weed wacker a 40:1 mix -- and none is happy on anyone else's mixture. OK, I don't have the White Supremacist stuff but absent stuff more related to Molotov Cocktails, eg. bottles & wicks, what do they really have?
And Molotov Cocktails are NOT "explosives" because liquid gasoline can not explode. UN1203 is listed as "flammable" (albeit level 3) but not "explosive" for this reason. You won't get an explosion without a fairly precise mixture of oxygen and gasoline *vapor* -- that's why burning gasoline smokes so badly, there is no where enough oxygen present for complete combustion, let alone an explosion. (Complete combustion is a blue flame.)
Or is the DoJ exempt from the laws of physics in criminal prosecutions? Flammable, incendiary and dangerous -- yes, but not explosive -- that's why it goes with *this* placard: https://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/n-ww20x/g7vv6dvh/products/3447/images/5709/D1203__93296.1499268112.500.659.jpg?c=2
Ridiculously lenient plea agreement. It doesn't matter what is being protested. This guy needs to be locked up. If not prison then in a mental hospital.
You know how it is, you run over a bunch of Asians and an hour later you feel like you need to again.
re: "his car, which was at all times a dangerous weapon"
Dangerous - yes. Weapon? Sloppy language like that diminishes the meaning of the word.
An improvised weapon is a weapon when being used as one, and I think also when such use reasonably appears imminent, but "at all times" is a bit broad here.
Mary Joe Kopeckney would disagree, if she hadn't already asphyxiated (not drowned, there's a difference) in Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile
From National Lampoon (has it been 25 years??)
" If Ted Kennedy Drove A Volkswagen, He'd Be President Today."
It floats.
The way our body is built, we'd be surprised if it didn't.
The sheet of flat steel that goes underneath every Volkswagen keeps out water, as well as dirt and salt and other nasty things that eat away at the underside of a car. So it's watertight at the bottom.
And everybody knows it's easier to shut the door on a Volkswagen after you've rolled down the window a little. That proves it's practically airtight on top.
If it was a boat, we could call it the Water Bug. But it's not a boat, it's a car.
And, like Mary Jo Kopechne, it's only 99 and 44/100 percent pure.
So it won't stay afloat forever. Just long enough.
Poor Teddy.
If he'd been smart enough to buy a Volkswagen, he'd never would have gotten into hot water."
Yikes, that was a long time ago. Our Reverend had not even attended Artek camp yet!
I'm not your reverend, clinger. I'm with the Congregation Of Exalted Reason, not the collection of superstition-addled, obsolete, right-wing bigots.
The VW Bug floated because the weight of the water it displaced exceeded its own weight (1735 lbs) -- and that is not always a good thing because it brings hydroplaning into a whole new dimension.
Go into a puddle deep enough to float it -- easy enough to do in the spring when the snow is melting -- and you're adrift. Wonder how many people got killed that way...
Archimedes reincarnate, our Dr. Ed.
A TV station in Green Bay (WLUK 11) sent it's consumer complaint investigator to the VW dealer to ask if the bug would actually float. Dealer said it would and offered the reporter to make his choice of any new bug on the lot. They took it to a boat landing and drove it off. It floated - IIRC, for 15 minutes. They pulled it back in and opened the doors, and no water was inside.
It floats because the interior is well enough sealed that the air doesn't escape very rapidly. This requires really good door seals, and is dependent on cabin air valves and the design of the HVAC system, but you'll find that almost any car on the market will float for at least a little while, it's a pretty unusual car that's heavier than water once you take interior space into account.
But door seals were pretty crappy back when Teddie decided he needed a hot shower and a good night's sleep after his late night swim. And he opened the car and swam out, so of course it sank.
Many years ago, there was a railroad bridge near my town that wasn't particularly high up. So they'd "fixed" the crossing by digging the road down. No surprise - the dip would fill with water in any moderately heavy rain that even partially clogged the drain. Other cars would turn around at the obstacle. I used to put on a little speed, hit the water with my Bug and floated across with just enough momentum to get traction on the other side. There wasn't much I could brag about in that beat-up old used car but that was always fun. Unfortunately, one time a car behind me didn't know what I was doing and thought that meant the water wasn't very deep. She stalled out in the middle of the gap and had to wait for the drain to clear. I still feel bad for her.
The last paragraph, in which the intentionally violent defendant made a claim that he had to act proactively and illegally in order to preclude a violent attack against himself, is not unusual.
Not meaning to upset anyone, but the recent Israeli attack on the Agence-France Presse (AFP) offices in Gaza is a parallel example. The Israeli Militia (IDF) has admitted attacking the AFP office -- no dispute there -- but says that it did so as a protective measure (against naughty reporters? or what?). Going a bit further down that ugly road, last Thursday's Israeli expulsion of non-Jews was perhaps was reported as a protective measure; however, I'm uncertain that so-called ethnic cleansing is widely perceived as a valid proactive measure.
My first university office was in what was originally an underground communications bunker, complete with water-well, sewerage disposal pits, and fuel storage, deliberately built by the "peace-loving" Kennedy Administration (Ha!) under a three-story "human shield" dormitory with a huge not-so-inconspicuous satellite receiving dish. Every legitimate nation has the right to defend itself and every legitimate nation, including the US, employs techniques, such as human shielding, which, when used by others, itself would describe as abhorrent.
In the case reported via the blog post, the violent perpetrator was arrested, tried, convicted, and (presumably) is being punished through the normal legal process: we did not, as a nation, forcibly expel from the nation all those resembling the perpetrator and did not, as a nation, encircle and bomb the perpetrator's neighborhood, destroying all property and effectively precluding the perpetrator from ever returning to his home. Heck, we didn't even destroy all of Oklahoma after terrorist Tim McVeigh bombed a child care center.
Both-side-ism, perhaps, but both-side-ism is reality.
" under a three-story “human shield” dormitory with a huge not-so-inconspicuous satellite receiving dish."
No, and no.
First, Telstar wasn't launched until July of 1962 and it was experimental -- there were no satellite communications during the Kennedy administration and even then, I doubt it would have worked after a nuke war. In the '70s they were using microwaves, in addition to shielded copper wire.
And second, a structure like this was designed to be protected from fallout, not enemy attack. The presumption was that the students wouldn't be in the dorm were the center used -- they'd either be dead or in some fallout shelter elsewhere, not attending classes.
A LOT of fallout shelters were built into colleges being built in the 1960s -- UMass Amherst has a LOT of them and it really wasn't that much more expensive to have hallways underground than not.
What Hamas does is something else entirely....
"last Thursday’s Israeli expulsion of non-Jews"
Not going to let that lie slip by unchallenged. Israel is only ~74% Jewish, if they'd expelled a quarter of their population no news bubble would have kept that a secret.
What they did was expel from Israel Non-Israelis. Not even all of them. Gazans who were working in Israel.
No country at war with another country allows that other country's citizens to remain, except maybe diplomatic personnel.
Now, mydisplayname, that wasn't a mistake. That WAS a lie. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Really found the headline puzzling, until I realized you meant "into", not "at".
Not sure what is so puzzling.
Did you think "at" meant he was a mile away, driving in the general direction of the protest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k
No, I thought it meant he was "at" the protest, and driving a car. Which could be anything from vehicular assault to delivering a pizza.