Democratic Strategist Not Sure Chicago Torture Video of Disabled White Man Constitutes a Hate Crime

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE : MEDIAITE

URL: http://www.mediaite.com/online/that-is-not-a-hate-crime-democratic-strategist-gives-her-thoughts-on-chicago-torture-video/

by Justin Baragona


Tonight, CNN’s Don Lemon gathered a panel to discuss the story of a disturbing Facebook Live video out of Chicago in which a group of young black adults broadcast their torture of a young white mentally disabled man. While holding their victim hostage, they cut his scalp, burned him with cigarettes and kicked him, all while shouting “f*ck Donald Trump! F*ck white people!”

At the beginning of the conversation, Lemon turned to CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Symone Sanders. Stating that he can’t say it’s a hate crime because police are still investigating, he asked the former Bernie Sanders campaign spox her thoughts.

After calling it “sickening,” Sanders gave the following observation: “But I’m gonna say something that’s probably not very popular — we cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”

After wondering if it were hate for Trump or white people, she expanded on he point. “If we start going around and anytime someone says or does something egregious or bad and sickening in sense,” she noted. “In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump or even President Obama for that matter because of their political leanings, that’s slippery territory. That is not a hate crime.”

Fellow panelist Alice Stewart was next to weigh in and while agreeing with Sanders the crime was “sickening,” she also said that she “hoped it was classified” as a hate crime.

Later on in the discussion, Sanders would argue that much of the rhetoric of the presidential election may have had an impact on the attackers and other troubled young people, which would draw some condemnation from Lemon himself who explained that they probably don’t even watch the news.

If Sanders seems familiar, it’s probably because you remember her mockingly exclaiming “Oh my goodness, poor white people” during an on-air conversation about a Trump supporter beaten by a mob. She’s also said the Democratic Party doesn’t “need white people leading” it right now and the election of Trump put “white supremacy into the White House.”

Watch the exchange above, via CNN.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

[andy58-in-nh]

Now. if I referred to the people who committed those acts of torture as "thugs", that would be a hate crime, right?

[endicom]

I thought the video was an episode of The Love Boat.

[skeeter]

How do these brainstems think America sees their comments in the context of the social situation in this country today? Are they not concerned about the consequences of an unsympathetic and mobilized ethnic majority?

[Wingnut]

Too bad Obama is packing his uhaul and unable to comment on the situation.

[SirLinksALot]

Now. if I referred to the people who committed those acts of torture as "thugs", that would be a hate crime, right?

Switch colors and think what would happen. There would be protests and riots in the street. Everybody knows it!

I am personally opposed to the concept of a "hate crime". A crime is a crime and must be prosecuted as such. However, if there is to be such a concept, I have to say that this crime certainly fits.

[Hondo69]

I don't know why they don't fly me in to be on these panels - ratings would improve dramatically.

"Well, Don, Symone . . . I fully understand your logic here.  And if beating and torturing a disable person falls into a grey area for you, then it follows that beating the living crap out of a fully functioning human being doesn't even begin to approach that grey area.  Here, let me demonstrate right now on your f**cking racist, sick, twisted, fascist asses . . ."

[Wingnut]

Anyone heard fro, Al "But resist, we much… we must… and we will much… about… that… be committed.” Sharlaton?  Or Jesse Jackass?

[SirLinksALot]

[TomSea]

I've heard the line before that there should be no hate crime laws; but I'm mixed on this.

A person spray paints a neighborhood randomly and ends up spraying a religious establishment, that's vandalism.

But if they purposefully, paint symbols offensive to that religion, that is a bit different.

Vandalism might be a misdemeanor that receives lenient punishment in a first case scenario but I believe hate crimes are often punished more severely.

[Frank Cannon]

I thought the video was an episode of The Love Boat.

I know. It was very similar to the 1982 episode where Charro falls in love with Ken Berry, but Ken has just gotten into a loveless marriage with Stella Stevens.

[Wingnut]

I know. It was very similar to the 1982 episode where Charro falls in love with Ken Berry, but Ken has just gotten into a loveless marriage with Stella Stevens.

Was that season 2, Episode: 27 ?

 

[goatprairie]

How do these brainstems think America sees their comments in the context of the social situation in this country today? Are they not concerned about the consequences of an unsympathetic and mobilized ethnic majority?

They don't care...they have a narrative to maintain. And the narrative is evil whites hunting down and killing/lynching innocent black people. That hasn't changed for half a century when I still young and gullible and believed the national media always reported the truth.
For Big Media it's always pre-1965, and Evil Whitey still has his jackboots on the throats of black Americans. That the reality is almost exactly the opposite bothers them not in the slightest.  They rely on gullible blacks to keep on supporting the leftist lie machine to stay in power. Telling the truth about black crime might cause the whole rotten liberal edifice to crumble.

[Sanguine]

I've heard the line before that there should be no hate crime laws; but I'm mixed on this.

A person spray paints a neighborhood randomly and ends up spraying a religious establishment, that's vandalism.

But if they purposefully, paint symbols offensive to that religion, that is a bit different.

Vandalism might be a misdemeanor that receives lenient punishment in a first case scenario but I believe hate crimes are often punished more severely.

Yes, we must judge what they were thinking at the time and punish them accordingly.

[TomSea]

Yes, we must judge what they were thinking at the time and punish them accordingly.

@Sanguine

Are we judging their thoughts or at the symbols they left?

[TomSea]

I saw a Jewish Community Center egged and it revolted me. Now, what if instead, swasticas had been painted on it? Same crime? 

[Cyber Liberty]

Just in case anybody was wondering why this person can't get her mind around the concept of "hate crimes" in these cases, here is Ms Sanders:

[goatprairie]

I saw a Jewish Community Center egged and it revolted me. Now, what if instead, swasticas had been painted on it? Same crime?

It's a crime, but if you start classifying "hate" crimes, then you are really punishing thought crimes. How is extra punishment for a "hate" crime of vandalism  more reprehensible and despicable than beating up someone because of their religion or ethnicity?
Vandalism is vandalism...punish the perp for that, and forget about the "hate" crime motive.

[goatprairie]

Just in case anybody was wondering why this person can't get her mind around the concept of "hate crimes" in these cases, here is Ms Sanders:

Maybe there should be crimes for being egregiously stupid like Ms. Sanders.

[Sanguine]

I saw a Jewish Community Center egged and it revolted me. Now, what if instead, swasticas had been painted on it? Same crime?

I guess it depends on what they were thinking at the time, @TomSea.   Were they angry at the mom and thought egging a building would help?  Or, did they want to show their antisemitism and they only had eggs because they weren't old enough to buy spray paint? 

[TomSea]

I guess it depends on what they were thinking at the time, @TomSea.   Were they angry at the mom and thought egging a building would help?  Or, did they want to show their antisemitism and they only had eggs because they weren't old enough to buy spray paint?

@Sanguine
Okay, so one doesn't see any difference between throwing eggs and painting swastikas.  So noted.

In this case, both might qualify for what are hate crimes; but I don't think it is hard for a lot of people to find one case to be much more malicious.

Thought is already in the legal system, manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree murder, depraved indifference and so on.

But thanks for the cute answer.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
Okay, so one doesn't see any difference between throwing eggs and painting swastikas.  So noted.

In this case, both might qualify for what are hate crimes; but I don't think it is hard for a lot of people to find one case to be much more malicious.

Thought is already in the legal system, manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree murder, depraved indifference and so on.

But thanks for the cute answer.

No, no, Tom, you misunderstood.  The difference is between throwing eggs out of anger and throwing them out of malice.  Very important distinction.

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe there should be crimes for being egregiously stupid like Ms. Sanders.

She is not without...uh...redeeming qualities...



Somewhere there is somebody who has a fulfilled "Mommy Complex."

[Cyber Liberty]

It's a crime, but if you start classifying "hate" crimes, then you are really punishing thought crimes. How is extra punishment for a "hate" crime of vandalism  more reprehensible and despicable than beating up someone because of their religion or ethnicity?
Vandalism is vandalism...punish the perp for that, and forget about the "hate" crime motive.

I agree with you, that "hate crimes" are really "thought crimes."  That said, I'll give a stab at what proponents of the concept are saying.

A "hate crime" is more than a crime against the individual, it's supposedly a crime against everybody who shares the characteristics of the victim.  I don't agree with this at all, because it's just another flavor of Socialism, but that is the "thinking" behind it.

[TomSea]

If I could vote on hate crime legislation, I would vote against it because of the way such punishment could be meted out unjustly, protecting certain classes, etc. , but at the same time, it is clear, there are instances where the intent is malicious and intent is in the law all the time.

One has a certain amount of an illicit drug beyond an amount for personal use, the law says "with intent to distribute."