Military recruiters targeted – again

Posted by: ST on April 29, 2006 at 6:07 pm

The latest incident happened at the University of Minnesota. The Star Tribune reports, noting, of course,that it started “peacefully” before the red paint started flying:

It began peacefully before turning red in the end.

Six people, including a man who allegedly splashed paint on a recruiting station, were arrested Friday following a rally of area high school and college students at the University of Minnesota to protest the war in Iraq.

Police estimated the crowd at more than 200 people, who chanted and listened to nearly a dozen speakers for about an hour.

Riva Garcia, 15, a freshman at Minneapolis South High School, told the crowd that she believes the war is racist and that the military is using dirty tactics to get minorities to enlist.

“We, as working class, minority and immigrant youth, deserve equal access to education,” she said. “We don’t deserve to die for our country just because someone told us to. We deserve to be heard, and to be recognized as the future of this country.”

When it came time for a march downtown, organizers changed course and went to a U.S. Army and Navy recruiting station near Washington Avenue and SE. Oak Street.

One person, with face covered and dressed in all black, splashed a bucket of red paint on the station’s windows. Other protesters pounded the windows and scribbled messages including a peace sign over a sticker of the American flag.

“They’re exercising their rights,” said Army Capt. Val Bernat, adding that campus police alerted the office days earlier of a potential incident. “However, we don’t appreciate the vandalism.”

The protest group then dispersed at the nearby Coffman Memorial Union, where police arrested the man who apparently threw the paint, according to campus police Deputy Chief Steve Johnson. Five others also were cited for disorderly conduct and released, Johnson said.

To see photos of the incident, click the below links:

Photo 1
Photo 2

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Related Toldjah So posts on left wing fanaticism in the public school system as well as colleges:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

30 Responses to “Military recruiters targeted – again”

Comments

  1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    If this is not a hate crime, then hate crimes do not exist.

  2. JAH says:

    OT

    AE is showing a special on Rick Rescorla right now (8:00 EST Saturday)

  3. JAH says:

    It will be repeated at midnight

  4. benning says:

    mmmmm … not so much a hate crime, Mwalimu, as a stupid and cowardly crime. The topper was Ms. Garcia’s unintelligible statement.

    Nice to know the fifteen-year-old will not be talked into dying. Talked into publicly showing off her stupidity, perhaps, but not talked into dying.

    Good for her! What a proud family she must have.

    Notice, also, the bravery of those who commit violent acts whilst hidden behind masks. Such bravery. Wow.8-|

    *sigh*

  5. sanity says:

    They are children…

    Better take away those cell phones…those are contracts also.

    Better take away thos edrivers licenses…

    Better not hire them either…

    We make decisions every day of our lives, if they are under the age of 18 they have to have a parental consent to sign anything. Are they saying the parents are too stupid now too?

  6. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    Aw, Benning, I just want to see if advocates of hate-crime legislation really believe in what they say.

    Imagine if Ms. Garcia and her pals has tossed red paint on (say) the doors of an abortion clinic or a local gay/lesbian organization. Entire regions of our country would be deforested to make the paper to print the denunciations by the MSM and Democrats. Charges of brain-washing and child-abuse would be made against her parents, her teachers and the school she attends, the church she attends, and (of course) Halliburton. RICO would be invoked. Umpteen millions of tax dollars would be poured into “sensitivity” programs (a.k.a. recruitment seminars for the Democratic party). al-CNN would run a 101-part prime-time special linking Bushitker, tax cuts, the Iraq war and greenhouses gasses to Ms. Garcia. Legislatures would be called into special sessions to pass new “hate crime” legislation. And the inevitable books and Hollywood movies would be released denouncing neocons and anyone who had ever voted for a Republican at any level.

  7. andrew says:

    “Aw, Benning, I just want to see if advocates of hate-crime legislation really believe in what they say.”

    I don’t think this fits into any categories that hate crime advocates point to.

  8. Lorica says:

    =)) Damn Mwalimu that was just plain funny. I was going to comment but you said it so well, how can I??? LOL :) Thanks for the laugh. – Lorica

  9. - Of course Andrew of De-Nile. They certainaly wouldn’t want to do anything that would hamstring their own “freedom to destroy property”.

    – Bang **==

  10. steve says:

    Leftwing “fanaticism” is Peace. Rightwing “fanaticism” is war. Peace

  11. G-Monster says:

    Someone needs to get out there with a video camera and get these people on video so they can be prosecuted. If they are wearing a mask, make a citizens arrest, pull off the mask and get that on tape also.

  12. andrew says:

    “Of course Andrew of De-Nile. They certainaly wouldn’t want to do anything that would hamstring their own “freedom to destroy property”.”

    If you say so.

  13. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    I don’t think this fits into any categories that hate crime advocates point to.

    I think that unfortunately you are right, andrew. It is this selective – partisan, really – nature of so-called hate crime legislation that should frighten people. Why are some groups protected by hate crime laws, while others are not?

    Perhaps it is time to face the obvious – hate crime legislation is really thought crime legislation tarted up in civil rights language. After all, it bases severity of punishment at least partially upon the perpetrator’s alleged state of mind when the crime was committed. Can punishing the state of mind itself be far behind? I would think not.

  14. andrew says:

    “Why are some groups protected by hate crime laws, while others are not?”

    Not groups. But categories. Sexual orientation is a category. Race is a category. Political opinion is a category. Gay is a group, White is a group, and left-wing is a group.

    Hate crimes are about protected categories, not groups.

  15. steve says:

    “punishing the state of mind”, we would do that how? I guess we could use the prick like they did with the witches in Salem. Or maybe the shape of the head, or color of the eyes. Just how would you know what a person is thinking? Pass the J, MD. Peace

  16. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    Andrew, a difference which makes no difference is no difference. Enforcing laws designed to protect certain “categories” (as opposed to “groups”) sounds like hair-splitting and it certainly does not make the laws just. What it boils down to in the end is that under so-called hate crime legislation some people/groups/categories/whatever are protected, some are not.

    It seem that hate crime legislation advocates have unwittingly adopted the underlying logic of apartheid – each group is different in the eyes of the law. Not coincidentally, under such a system some groups turn out to be more equal than others.

    Finally, what about the strange spectacle of the government deciding what someone was thinking when they committed a crime (i.e. they acted out of “hate”) and deciding to punish that crime more severely? Do you not see the enormous danger inherent in such a system of justice?

    I think that we have gone far astray from my original point – that if hate crime laws have any meaning, Garcia & Co. should be prosecuted under them (do military recruiters constitute a “group” or a “category”?). The fact that they are not being prosecuted speaks volumes about the unjust and partisan nature of hate crime laws – and why a democracy should abhor them.

  17. andrew says:

    “Enforcing laws designed to protect certain “categories” (as opposed to “groups”) sounds like hair-splitting and it certainly does not make the laws just.”

    No its not hair splitting. If we protect the category of race, that means that white and black people are protected when attacked on the basis of race. If we protect the group “white” that means that we don’t protect both groups.

    “I think that we have gone far astray from my original point – that if hate crime laws have any meaning, Garcia & Co. should be prosecuted under them”

    No, because hate crimes laws don’t protect against any sort of hate. They protect against targetting people based on certain categories. And status as civilian/military is not one of them. Nor is political opinion, usually.

  18. andrew says:

    “Finally, what about the strange spectacle of the government deciding what someone was thinking when they committed a crime (i.e. they acted out of “hate”) and deciding to punish that crime more severely?”

    Thats done all the time. The difference between murder and manslaughter is what you’re thinking at the time the crime is committed.

  19. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    Andrew, I think you are in error about the difference between manslaughter and murder. In first degree murder a perpetrator must have planned the act and made an effort to cover up the crime afterwards. A death caused during the commission of felony (such as arson, kidnapping or rape) can make a murder first degree, even if that was not the perpetrator’s intention. Second degree murder usually dispenses with the planning part and can happen “in the heat of the moment”. Some states make no distinction between second degree murder and manslaughter.

    Manslaughter itself is a lesser charge that involves extenuating circumstances (such as the lack of an attempted coverup) and the absence of certain evidence (such as planning to kill someone). Prosecutors have been known to reduce charges to manslaughter when there is not enough evidence to obtain a murder conviction.

    A short illustration on the difference between murder and manslaughter.

    Check this stite out of the definition of murder.

    And this one on manslaughter.

    In both cases, evidence (such as what the perpetrator said and/or did) is used, not what they may or may not have been thinking in general about a certain group/category. Anyone who plans a murder and tries to conceal it is dangerous, regardless of why they did it.

    This leads to a problem – in a real sense, just about any given murder can be considered a “hate” crime (since hate was probably involved). Why should a perpetrator’s general views on race (for example) be considered, unless the perpetrator wants them to be (perhaps an attempt to plead insanity)? I don’t think proponents of hate-crime laws have shown that existing laws against murder and other crimes are insufficient. Insufficient enforcement of existing laws – maybe.

  20. andrew says:

    “Andrew, I think you are in error about the difference between manslaughter and murder”

    No. The difference is your state of mind, which includes your deliberation.

  21. PCD says:

    Hate crime legislation is just the liberals acting out their mental derangement. They can’t punish people for not being liberal therefore they find a way with so called hate crime legislation.

    Be absolutely clear that hate crime laws do not apply to liberals. Hate crime laws were menat to give that extra kick to non-liberals when non-liberals are defenseless.

  22. Baklava says:

    Andrew chooses to be wrong again? What a shock !

    Looks like you are saying that there are people that shouldn’t be “protected” from hate…. What people against “hate” crimes are saying is that no matter… people should be protected from “hate”. If there is a crime committed then they should be PUNISHED.

    Leave it to a liberal to let the criminal have a lesser sentence…..

    Leave it to a liberal to make commercials against Bush because of James Byrd’s killers didn’t face “hate” crimes laws when they were ALREADY GETTING the DEATH PENALTY.

    Leave it liberals to be WRONG…

  23. Nahanni says:

    Hate crime legislation is just the liberals acting out their mental derangement. They can’t punish people for not being liberal therefore they find a way with so called hate crime legislation.

    Bingo, we have a winner!

  24. Noella says:

    Yeah those liberal commie pinkos are terrorists and must be put down.

  25. Noella says:

    Reality is known to have a liberal bias.

  26. andrew says:

    “Looks like you are saying that there are people that shouldn’t be “protected” from hate”

    Hate creimes legislation is about protected categories, not groups.

  27. blogagog says:

    Or, when you realize your president is not in need of defending, complain about liberals. Liberalism will not go away on it’s own, unless we complain about how ridiculous it is. Plenty of ridiculous ppl will continue to spout it’s virtues, regardless of the facts.

    By all means, complain about liberalism whenever you get the chance.

  28. andrew says:

    “By all means, complain about liberalism whenever you get the chance.”

    Whinefest your way to victory.

  29. Baklava says:

    Andrew, Some people shouldn’t be protected?

    You are looking at it backwards. Read over my posts.

  30. PCD says:

    andrew, Hate crime laws are “Barbara Streisand”, and so are you!

    I’m weasel hunting today. andrew, you are the first weasel that is target identified.