1. Lindsay Lohan‘s desperate excuse when she was arrested in 2007 for driving intoxicated and possessing cocaine, which had been found in the pocket of her jeans. Young Lindsay claimed she wasn’t driving her own car and that she was wearing someone else’s pants.
2. In 2012 a woman who had reported her husband for domestic abuse met responding police bleeding from her face and told them that her husband had just beaten and tried to strangle her. Confronted by the officers, her husband Michael (above, next to Lindsay) explained that he was innocent because a ghost had attacked his wife.
3. Brian and Sara Wilks of Houston, Texas (that’s them to the left of Mr. Lu) authored bad excuse #3 when they were at a beach with their four children last year and left their baby alone under a tent for about an hour as the rest of the family along the beach. Witnesses told police that the baby had been left alone while the family wandered off. When the parents and their other kids ambled back to the scene, they found police waiting as some charitable bystanders took care of the infant. Mom and Dad admitted to placing the child under the tent for a nap before leaving her alone. Their excuse for leaving an infant on a public beach for over an hour was that they “lost track of time.”
I’ve already had a “rank ’em” post recently, and I once thought the “A ghost did it!” couldn’t be topped. Claiming a cross burning wasn’t meant to be a racial comment, however….Wow.
Ethics Alarms 
Is Merlin an immigrant or a 1st generation American? Or even a 2nd gen?
A lot of people bemoan (rightly so) that very recent immigrants do not seem to care much about really groking our foundational histories and foundational myths- so much that they don’t even bear passing familiarity with some of the key cultural “landmarks” of our history.
Could it be also, that they are wholly unfamiliar with some of our darker past as well?
I tend to believe the guy. Cross burning isn’t exactly a common thing any more, and younger people, ignorant of history as many of them are, may not be aware of the KKK association, especially if they’re perhaps an Asian immigrant or his family was.
Mayor Brandon Johnson, et al, so want it to be a right-wing “hate” crime, rather than an anti-Trump act.
So he just came up with the idea of a burning cross on his own, or was aware of the symbol and unaware of what it has always meant? Similar examples: painting a swastika on a synagogue door because its a pretty symbol? Reciting “From the river to the sea” because it’s a cute rhyme? Thinking “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” is about hors d’oeuvres?
Sure. I don’t buy it for a second. How does a burning cross relate to Trump in any way? This is using Trump derangement as a get out of jail free card.
I have a teenager who attends a mostly white private school and and is so not racist that he can’t understand why he should not use the word n***** when all the black guys at school do all the time.
I tend to believe this moron dora not have the developmental capacity to understand symbolism, period.
There are no shortages of stupid and ill-informed people. “Everybody knows X” isn’t really universally true. Maybe all he knew about a burning cross was that it indicated disrespect. The symbolism seems obvious to most of us, but how often do we run across others who seem to be unaware of basic facts or history? Far too often, it seems. He claims the cross and red hat were his protests against Christian nationalism and Trump, which, as symbols, could be plausible. Even that wouldn’t save it from being a stupid stunt, so I’m not too convinced he’s the brightest bulb. Unless information is dredged up about past behavior that supports the current interpretation, I’ll hold off on my verdict. It’s going to be a dilemma for mayor Swirley-top & company if they can’t find actual evidence contradicting him, or do find some supporting his claims. We do know it’s currently the left that’s awfully fond of “mostly peaceful” protests highlighted by burning things.
This is just another false-flag ‘racist incident in all likelyhood. Please reference the SPLC. Remember, most ‘racist’ incidents of the last 30 years were perpetrated by liberals who were just trying to ‘raise awareness’ of racism. People need something to blame on Trump. Trying to blame a charter jet company not making sure they had enough fuel in Mexico on Trump is difficult. Cross burning is much better. See, it was really a public service. It doesn’t matter that this wasn’t done by a racist person, the fact that somewhere, at some time, someone might have burned a cross because they hate black people, makes this a valid example of Trump’s racism. He should be congratulated for giving us another example of Trump’s racism.
I was trying to be sarcastic, but I think I just wrote the defense attorney’s statement.
“He insists that he was protesting President Donald Trump and Christian nationalists,”
I see no reference to Trump other than the MAGA hat on top of the cross. My question is how is burning a cross to demonstrate hatred of a “Christian Nationalist” any different than burning a cross to intimidate Blacks or any of the other non-Protestant sects or a swastika painted on the side of a synagogue?
The young man is not protesting anything he is exhibiting his rabid dislike of people that do not ascribe to his way of thinking. I would say that he hates a particular religious perspective and thus the charges are appropriate. It does not matter who his hate is directed at to be charged.
Isn’t that like asking whether “54-40 or fight” is any different from “I like cheese”? Words and symbols have meaning established through use and history. I should have written this in the post, but it’s “Humpty-Dunptyism,” when the user makes up what words mean and the listener has to abide by the speaker’s definition. Burning crosses have a meaning. They are a “true threat” to blacks in the area, whatever the terrorist later says he “meant.”
Jack. I think you missed my point. His intent was to demonstrate hate irrespective of the target. Thus, the hate crime allegation is warranted regardless of the target. His excuse means nothing because the act was done to demonstrate hate.
The Klan’s cross burning was used or designed to intimidate blacks but hatred of them was the underlying motivation. Symbolism can be appropriated.
I agree that this excuse is nonsense even if his historical understanding is less than adequate.
But hate itself is legal and protected by the First Amendment. To be a hate crime, there has to be an act. In the case of burning a cross, it’s a terrorist threat. If I burned a cross to show I hate “The View,” it might violate the fire code, but it wouldn’t be a hate crime.
The problem with “hate crimes” is this: there is no separate category of crimes called “hate crimes.” It is a punishment enhancement based on the motivations of the perpetrator. In one sense, it is supposed to express the community’s outrage that someone did something terrible motivated by animus or hatred against the victim because of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc.
The problem is that it treats crimes differently and elevates certain victims over others. If my son, a 22 year old non-minority male, is killed in a robbery, the killer can face X years in prison if convicted. If another 22 year old minority male is killed, and the killer did so because of the victim’s minority status, then the killer faces X years plus more as an enhancement based on “hate” or such motivation. So, it effectively means that my 22 year non-minority son’s life is worth less than another 22 year minority male’s life.
All crime is based on hate in one form or another.
jvb
Any way it’s rationalized, establishing “hate” as an additional punishment-bearing offense is essentially creating a category of thought crime, and punishing the thought, not the action.
What about crime that’s based on greed or laziness?
Insofar as mens rea matters for prosecution, I’d argue that we do have reason in principle to distinguish between crimes committed out of prejudice and crimes committed out of selfishness or out of equal-opportunity hatred. That said, it may be impractical to prove that someone committed a crime for reasons of prejudiced hatred. Even if the crime didn’t benefit them in any other way, I’d expect the defense could usually find an unfalsifiable reason to argue the perpetrator hated the victim for some other reason, no matter how petty.
To be charitable to Lu, the intuitively obvious meaning of setting fire to a cross is that you hate Christianity. If you didn’t receive a solid education in American history, you’d have no reason to think it was used as a symbol of racism.
The Ku Klux Klan also wear dunce caps (which are apparently based on the Catholic capirote, even though they hate Catholics), give themselves titles that sound like they’re playing make-believe, and named their organization the Ku Klux Klan. Whoever made their symbology may never have been within shouting distance of rational thinking.
Mitchell and Webb mercilessly mock the aesthetics here: https://youtu.be/zcC2ZFnrwao?t=89.
The The Adventures of Superman radio show also apparently hurt the KKK’s recruitment in the 1940s by revealing their silly secrets.
Then how would you know about cross-burning at all? He said he was aware of the symbol, which is inextricable from its origins. If he wore a white hood while lighting the cross, would you believe he was pretending to be a ghost>
Sorry, I misread the sentence you quoted from Lu. “I did know about this historical relevance beforehand. But I didn’t know the severity…”
It sounds like Lu knew who burnt crosses and what message they intended to send by doing so, but that he assumed that it was just a bit of historical trivia and that surely nowadays people would interpret burning a religious symbol as an expression of contempt for the religion.
I’d chalk this up to “people who engage in ostentatious acts of protest are generally incompetent at conveying the message they intend, unless the message is unthinking anger at someone, and sometimes even then.”
I’d accept that analysis.
I have no issue with the points you are making. However the klan burned crosses to intimidate blacks, Catholics and Jews historically. His excuse is that he did not intend to intimidate blacks but to express hatred of Trump. My point is merely if an act can be associated with intimidation tactics it makes no difference who was targeted. People have the right to protest government -or more specifically seek redress for grievances-but targeting a group based on religious beliefs is not specifically guaranteed.
If his excuse had merit because the act did not understand that the historical issues regarding targeting blacks why would this post be needed? If the impetus to an act is hatred of a group and intended to intimidate then why does it matter what group was the target? Otherwise burning a cross which might violate fire codes is all he can be charged with. I am confused.
More to the point. Why should any group have the privilege of invoking hate crime enhancement. That seems to be in direct conflict with the 14th amendment.