A Marine vet who served in Iraq and Afghanistan became the target of an assault while eating at a McDonald’s Friday night in northwest DC. Metro PD is now investigating the incident and looking for five suspects between the ages of 16 and 21.It being D.C. he was completely defenseless against mob violence, as the law requires.
According to the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), the group of teens started harassing Christopher Marquez while he was eating — surrounding his table and asking him: ‘Do you believe black lives matter.’ They also started calling him a racist....
[T]he manager at the fast food chain reviewed surveillance video and informed Marquez that after he walked out of the restaurant, one of the teens struck him on the side of the head knocking him unconscious. The others robbed him, taking off with his wallet, which contained $400 in cash, all his ID’s and three credit cards.
BLM can't be held responsible for everybody who claims to be acting in its name, and it has some reasonable points worth considering. They had better get a handle on this kind of thing quick, though, or it will destroy any momentum the movement has. People will be rooting for more police violence if this kind of thing becomes normal.
Couple things:
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a hate crime. Good luck getting DC to see it that way or even to take the assault seriously.
BLM can't be held responsible for everybody who claims to be acting in its name
As long as they remain silent on such things--and this is a well-publicized assault; of course they know of this one--they condone by their silence such things, actively encourage them by that silence and condoning, and share moral, if not strictly legal, complicity in such things.
Eric Hines
As long as they remain silent on such things--and this is a well-publicized assault; of course they know of this one--they condone by their silence such things, actively encourage them by that silence and condoning, and share moral, if not strictly legal, complicity in such things.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to pose a hypothetical to you and I am curious as to your answer. If a group of teens approached a man in a McDonalds and asked him if he had accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, then beat and robbed the man if he did not answer them after calling him a heathen, would you expect the local churches to condemn the incident or else label them complicit?
Now, the thing is, I expect most churches, when asked about the incident, would have no problems condemning it. But do you think it reasonable to hold them complicit for the acts of individuals who perpetrate crimes using their theology as a (supposed) motivation? Because I feel that's dubious at best. It's entirely possible (and I'd say likely) that even if the Marine had answered in the affirmative and said he fully supported BLM, he'd likely have been beaten and robbed anyway. The perps may be true believers in the cause, or not. But that really shouldn't matter.
I'm generally indifferent to what motivates a criminal to attack others, because that consideration is really unimportant. The whole concept of "hate crimes" is silly to me, because to say that it is worse to attack someone because you don't like the color of their skin as opposed to their political beliefs, or just the fact that they're a target of opportunity is ridiculous. It's enough that a crime was committed. Motive should only be of use in finding a perpetrator and linking them to the crime in court.
These would be those BLM allies that you would like to have, Grim, who you think would "obey the law" in those troublesome cities?
ReplyDeleteAs my position before and so it is now, they aren't going to follow your little "laws".
I'm not always a fan of the law myself. Still, if you want to complain that the police need to be more restrained, the right way to win public support is not to engage in beatings and robbery. Fear of beatings and robbery is just why people were willing to turn a blind eye to police heavy-handedness in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe right way is to demonstrate that the heavy-handed police enforcement is unnecessary. BLM has some legitimate complaints, but they've been going about this thing backwards from the start. If they can't keep genuine thugs from plausibly appearing to speak for them, their movement is going to get eaten alive by public anger at the violent crime associated with it.
And also, what is most tragic and ironic is that these thugs would not have lasted even minutes in the hell that was Fallujah, or in the "hell house" that this courageous Marine survived.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/17/decorated-marine-vet-attacked-robbed-at-washington-dc-mcdonalds-police-say.html?intcmp=hpbt3
It appears that the "black lives matter" theme has been taken up by mere thugs who have no greater objective than to damage people and break things. I'm not convinced that the BLM group had any altruistic goal in the first place, but whatever sympathy they MAY have gleaned from grabbing microphones from politicians and stalling traffic on interstate highways will be forever lost if they are identified with wanton mayhem and thuggery against individuals who are simply and quietly minding their own business.
I'm going to pose a hypothetical to you....
ReplyDeleteWhere in my original remark did I offer any caveats regarding "except for certain actions or organizations?"
Eric Hines
I guess I just tend to assume that just because someone claims a movement or organization is a motivator for their crimes does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteAs do I. However, that's a separate thing from an organization making the conscious decision to not disavow the actions of another entity that claims to be acting in the organization's name.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Still, if you want to complain that the police need to be more restrained, the right way to win public support is not to engage in beatings and robbery.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before, BLM Is Nation of Islam and Black Caucus backed, along with Jackson and Sharpton. You want BLM as your allies because they have "good" points, that's like having Jackson as an ally because he has "good points".
And they win public support the same way Occupy WS rapists won their support, through force and intimidation.
I wonder why people act this naive about modern America. Is it because they do not wish to confront evil, face to face, or is it merely because they think everyone around them is like their clan member and Tea Party member, all friendly and cuddly...
The issue is never the issue, with the Leftist alliance. It is always about power and domination, not justice.
BLM didn't exist when DC shot a black woman with her child in the car, executing her because they got "afraid". BLM didn't exist for Waco 1 or Ruby Ridge or when the Black Panthers failed to be prosecuted by Holder for voter intimidation.
So why is it they now exist under Hussein Obola's regime, you ever ask yourself that, Grim.
Because they think they have allies in high places who might listen.
ReplyDeleteSome of what they have to say ought to be heard. Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice are two deaths that should not have happened. If they were only two, they could be dealt with discretely. But they are only two among many. Most are justified, more or less. Some are not.
The issues about police militarization predate BLM as matters of concern, here in the Hall. The issues about police shifting from the "peace officer" model to the "law enforcement officer" model likewise. These are issues I think go deep to the strength of civil society and the decency of the Republic. I will gladly work with people who don't agree with me on every single jot and cross'd-t if we can get traction on those issues.
Still, I can criticize as freely in the one direction as the other. BLM has some good points, but it has pursued a backwards strategy that makes attaining progress on those issues impossible.