28 June, 2018

Charlottesville Rally Redux, or, Hate-Crime Laws Are Unconstitutional and Orwellian

Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' crimes, 'hate' laws, anti-White laws, anti-White themes, Charlottesville rally, constitution, constitutional rights, federal laws, federal power, federal prisons, jewed law, Orwell, rallies, Socrates, White activism, white nationalism, White philosophy, White thought at 1:04 pm | Permanent Link

I smell a rat. Why did it take the federal government one year to file “hate crime” charges against Mr. Fields over the Charlottesville rally incident? Sounds like the case against him is shaky at best.

More importantly, “hate crime” laws are baloney. They’re nonsense. You can’t have different punishments for the same crime. That’s Orwellian and unconstitutional. “Hate crime” laws punish opinions and beliefs. In other words, a White guy will get 10 years in a federal prison if he attacks a Black guy because he doesn’t like his race but he’ll only get 3 years in a local prison if he attacks a Black guy because he doesn’t like his clothes. Same crime, but different sentences due to Cultural Marxism, which champions Blacks and demonizes Whites [1]. That’s un-American. Also, a federal crime means a federal prison sentence, so the guy’s family will have a more difficult time visiting him in prison, since federal prisons are often out-of-state and far away. A local crime demands local charges and local imprisonment. Hate crime laws are anti-White and just plain ridiculous, and all such laws should be voided by the Supreme Court.

(Also: had the left-wing protesters stayed at home during the Charlottesville rally and allowed the White people to rally in peace, the outcome of the rally would have been very different).
.

[1] that type of sentencing differs from 1st degree murder vs. 2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter sentencing. Planning a murder days or weeks beforehand is different from committing a spur-of-the-moment murder or a heat-of-the-moment murder. A person not having the time to think about committing a murder vs. him planning a murder long beforehand is a legitimate legal consideration re: sentencing since sudden passions (e.g., sudden anger) can momentarily override logical thought and reason

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 09/18/18 Louisiana: More “Hate Crimes” Baloney, or, Soviet Crimes in America 100% similar
  3. 06/25/17 First, There Were Hate ‘Crimes,’ Now, There Are Hate ‘Incidents’: Congress is Trying to Create Thought-Crime Laws 75% similar
  4. 12/29/14 Jewish-Created Hate Crime Laws – a.k.a. Thought Crime Laws – Are Unconstitutional and Therefore Illegal 70% similar
  5. 01/27/12 Soviet-Style Hate Crime Laws Are Designed For Whites, Not Blacks 64% similar
  6. 08/14/17 A Talking Cat Explains the Charlottesville Rally 56% similar
  7. 3 Responses to “Charlottesville Rally Redux, or, Hate-Crime Laws Are Unconstitutional and Orwellian”

    1. fd Says:

      Hate crime is thought crime. Government agents have decided they know what the person was thinking at the time the so called offense took place.

      The prosecutor has the operation of your mind.

    2. Luke Says:

      Its been admitted – more than one time, and on camera – that the obese chick who died, died as a result of a her having a heart attack. Even a family member is on the record for admitting that she died from a heart attack.

      Granted, the heart attack might have been partially triggered by all the excitement and chaos – and probably the heat and humidity, that I am sure was present in Charlottesville in the middle of August. But, the obviously poor diet, zero exercise and obesity factors were the primary cause that lead to the heart attack.

      I still do not condone the recklessness demonstrated by the clearly panicked Fields kid – it was more than just a little bit stupid. I have to question why this kid decided to park his car so close to where all the protesting was occurring? Anyone with half a brain in their heads and who was concerned about the antifa thugs spotting his car and deciding to inflict damage on it – would have been smart enough to park it several blocks away from where the protests were taking place, so when they decided to leave – there would be little risk of anyone seeing them get into their car and casually driving away from the scene.

      From watching the several videos of the event – it is clear that the car Fields was in was being attacked by antifa counter protestors who had bats and clubs and a very good case could be presented that Fields was in fear of his life. I am not sure what sort of latitude is allowed by the law for someone who is inside a vehicle and being attacked by mobs and who is attempting to escape danger while operating the vehicle.

      My main point is – the whole incident could have been completely avoided, had Fields done the smart thing and parked his car several blocks away from the area of the protest. If he is guilty of anything, I would say he is guilty of stupidity.

    3. archer Says:

      True, but in fear of your life gives a certain latitude in a criminal hearing, he was attacked, it makes no difference or at least it shouldn’t where he parked his car. People have been dragged out of their cars before and beaten to death with bats and other things, he had clear reason not to stop but to try to get out of that environment. He was not the aggressor but a victim as far as I can tell, I think he has a good chance of beating this with a good lawyer or team of lawyers.

    Leave a Reply

    You may use the following HTML tags in your comments.

    <a abbr acronym b blockquote cite code del em i q strike strong>

    Limit your links to three per post or your comment may automatically be put in the spam queue.