Hate Crime Charge in Attack on South Bay McDonald’s Worker

A 40-year-old San Jose woman has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly attacking McDonald’s employees and calling them “stupid” and “f*cking Mexicans.”

According to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, the incident happened at 6:45am Saturday after two staffers asked Alena Jenkins to leave the Mountain View eatery because she refused repeated requests to don a face mask.

When the cashier finally asked her to leave the premises for violating the restaurant’s pandemic-safety protocols, prosecutors say Jenkins responded by saying, “F*cking Mexican! Go ahead and call the cops!”

When Mountain View police were called, as she requested, authorities say Jenkins shoved a plexiglass shield and sign at the cashier.

At that point, a McDonald’s manager intervened and echoed the employee’s demands that Jenkins leave. Jenkins, authorities say, then walked around the service counter, called the supervisor a “stupid Mexican” and swung a closed fist at his arm and shoulder.

Even after police arrived, Jenkins continued spewing racist comments about the McDonald’s workers, calling them “dumb Mexicans … who don’t know how to speak English,” according to prosecutors.

Jenkins is set to be arraigned today on misdemeanor counts of hate crime and battery.

“Targeting people because of their perceived ethnicity is not just a shame, it’s a crime,” DA Jeff Rosen said in a press release. “There is no excuse for hatred.”

A Broader Trend

The case against Jenkins comes just a couple weeks after the DA filed a hate crime charge against another San Jose resident—32-year-old Johan Strydom—for allegedly attacking an Asian-American woman on March 10 at the Diridon Station.

Reported hate incidents against Asian-Americans have dominated headlines for being on the rise since the start of the pandemic, but data show that such attacks on other minority groups have been trending upward as well.

According to FBI statistics, law enforcement-documented hate crimes rose to their highest level in a decade in the past couple years. The federal agency’s hate crimes report for 2019 showed that the uptick was slight—barely 3 percent—but that the crimes were more violent and deadly than the years prior.

According to the same FBI tally, 2019 marked the third consecutive year with more than 7,000 reported hate crimes—a level not seen since 2008.

In 2020, xenophobia against people of Asian descent skyrocketed, according to data collected by advocacy nonprofit Stop AAPI Hate, which documented 3,800 physical attacks, slurs, shunning and other apparently hate-inspired incidents in the span of the five first months of the pandemic. It marked an uptick of 800 incidents compared to those same five months in 2019, the organization found.

A disproportionate number of anti-Asian attacks have targeted women, a trend brought into stark relief when a white gunman killed eight people in a shooting rampage that targeted massage parlors largely staffed by Asian immigrants.

Six of the victims were Asian women.

The massacre sparked a national conversation about the tragic consequences of overlapping hatreds such as racism, misogyny and discrimination against sex workers.

Local Action

In the South Bay, community leaders have held multiple rallies to denounce anti-Asian discrimination. Meanwhile, some local lawmakers have introduced proposals to address the uptick in reported hate-related incidents.

On Tuesday, Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee—a Chinese-American with family roots in Hong Kong—unveiled a plan to research anti-Asian incidents in the South Bay and to create a public education campaign to discourage such attacks.

The supervisor also called on law enforcement to invest more resources into protecting Asian-owned businesses and residents, who comprise some 800,000 of the county’s 2 million residents. Lee also proposed a series of town halls to give the local Asian community a chance to talk about hate incidents that may have gone unreported because of language barriers or fear of retaliation.

County staff plans to report back on those referrals, with recommendations about how fund them, at a Board of Supervisors session in May.

Jennifer Wadsworth is the former news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth.

53 Comments

  1. “Targeting people because of their perceived ethnicity is not just a shame, it’s a crime,” — DA Jeff Rosen

    Based on the report there is no evidence Miss Jenkins entered the business intent on targeting anyone or anyone’s ethnicity, nor is there evidence that she possessed any such intent prior to being provoked by the employees directing her to leave the premises. Instead, what the evidence (as reported here) shows is Miss Jenkins targeted the employees for offending her, for telling her something she did not want to hear, about a rule she did not wish to respect.

    Angered and apparently incapable of civilized conduct (likely due to intoxication and mental instability), Miss Jenkins said some bad words (for the record, Mexican is not a bad word). She went on to commit some minor criminal mischief, making herself deserving of being arrested and charged for what she did, not for what Jeff Rosen wants us to believe was in her heart.

    What the District Attorney has done with this case is demonstrate his disgraceful opposition to free speech, his intent to wage war against it, and his frightening willingness to stockpile his political arsenal by exploiting the crazed rantings of this county’s population of drunk, drugged, and disturbed derelicts. Of course he’s not alone in this; prosecutors of his ilk, as well as law enforcement executives of both the short-sighted and obscenely ambitious varieties, know America produces nowhere near the number of legitimate and politically-useful hate crimes (i.e. not committed by black thugs) they need to fuel their agenda, so they unabashedly elevate the crazed tantrums of lunatics into headline-grabbing, hysteria promoting propaganda.

    The America Jeff Rosen wants will have the kind of speech laws common in Europe, where the standard for what can and can’t be said is governed not by the people but by powerful lobbyists (a possibility which must have the creeps at Google and FaceBook wringing their tyrannical hands).

    For a up close and personal look at Rosen’s big, scary prize check out:
    https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1742&TargetID=9

  2. To:PHU TAN ELLI

    While I would agree that we have to be very careful not to infringe on people’s First (and Second) Amendment rights. I don’t think that your argument holds water in this case. While I would suspect that the women is most likely homeless, mentally unstable (means way off her meds) and/or drug addled, she should be charged. If you are going to charge one homeless lunatic with a hate crime for similar behavior and words, you have to charge them all — even the ones in the “protected intersectional classes.”

  3. HB,

    I too think she should be charged, on the vandalism and/or assault alleged, but not on what no man has ever been credibly proven able to do, and that is to read the mind of another. The idea that the workers insulted, the cops on the scene, or the prosecutor can say with any degree of certainty why Miss Jenkins said the things she did is fantasy, perhaps with a slug of arrogance added.

    What if what Miss Jenkins had said was this: “I got death ray eyes, you stupid Mexicans, and I’m going to incinerate you.” Is the criminal justice system qualified to decide which of those fourteen words motivated her accompanying behavior? Might it have been driven by her frustration upon realizing her death ray eyes had failed her? Would that have made her assault a “frustration crime?” Yes, that is ridiculous, every bit as ridiculous as the thought police zeroing in on the supposed hate words.

    This is not a slippery slope issue, this is a plunge off a damned cliff. Give the Jeff Rosens of the world enough arbitrary authority and they’ll soon have the same power over their political enemies that Stalin had over his.

  4. This is so clearly a propaganda war to spread government authority it isn’t even funny. It is clear in the first paragraph. For all her “punching up” rhetoric, Ms. Wadsworth continuously shills for these petty tyrants and aid in their ever growing power grab. The endgame is obvious, but oh how the naïve will be disappointed when they get there.

  5. Phu Tan Elli,

    Obviously you are just using an fictiious name that is designed to sound like you are a minority.

    Bottom line, I think this place has good camera security, and very likely enough of her act was captured in it.

    Trying to make hate crimes humorous is a major insult to civil society. I do hope she does get prosecuted well, and if found guilty of a hate crime so be it.

    It thought you were a “law and order” advocate. To me this demonstrates strange behavior on your part. You defend the police when they are using strong force against protestors, and now you want to prevent them from enforcing the law. Is this a correct observation?

  6. Nobody can say what is in the heart(s), on the mind(s) or in the intention(s) of the usual grifters who inundate the San Jose Inside comments section (the reference here is N – Goldstein). On paper, he/she (they/them) is (are) sociopath libertarian(s) and social Darwinian(s). That’s all that we can infer from his/her (their) words. That’s all we have to go by. It is quite possible he/she (they/them) is (are) disciple(s) of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. But we can’t be sure–all we have is his/her (their) words.

  7. “N – Goldstein.”
    Ooh. More algebra! How smart you must be! Right in there with part time world renowned economics expert and full time parents’ basement dweller Goldstein.
    Very, very impressive!

  8. The US had 6,121 hate crimes reported in a recent year. ( not all were founded and many were only verbal in nature, which were often uttered by a drunken lout or hopped up homeless addict) We have 360,000,000 Americans. That is a rate of 1.70027777778E-5.

    There are 4,500,000 dog bites annually .
    Over 600,000 children were aborted each year.
    And, 67,367 annual drug overdose deaths.
    Which seems more important?

  9. HB,

    You can’t EXCUSE illegal actions based on hate perpetrator by a person as an ACCEPTABLE loss. That is just insanity. Given that the victim of the crime has a CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed right to NOT be offended by anyone CRIMINALLY.

    Bottom line that was not a reasonable approach, please find another rationale to justify such “hate” crimes?. In any event please provide the source of your statistic of “hate” crimes?

    Also, just understand that as we have seen in the area of criminal statistics, it is well known that the actual number of offenses are higher than reported due to intimidation.

    Just a thought.

  10. Steven:

    All people have a constitutional right not to be the victims of crime.
    I am not excusing hate crimes. They happen, they are real. I have had a hate crime perpetrated against me — a real one. Interestingly enough, while cleaning up the aftermath of the hate crime, it occurred to me that the cost and the work to clean up what The Vandals had done was exactly was the same irrespective of their motive.

    There are also plenty of hate crime hoaxes.

    https://www.city-journal.org/campus-hate-crime-hoaxes

    Read Professor Willfred Reilly’s book. Think Jusse Smolette. Al Sharpton and Ms Brawly.

    https://freebeacon.com/politics/sharpton-cant-admit-tawana-brawley-hoax/

    Having one’s car or house vandalized (which is covered by insurance. I know you are big on assessing blame on people who don’t carry insurance to cover every conceivable risk. ) should be kept in perspective.

    I don’t want to see anyone become the subject of a hate crime. Heck, truth be told, I don’t want people to even be rude to one another.

    But let’s keep things in perspective. In a 15 year period over 520 people were killed by dogs and millions of Americans suffered from the continuing trauma of a serious dog attack.
    https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019.php?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8uKansLL7wIVEz2tBh1VYgMnEAAYASABEgJYZfD_BwE

    In that same 15 year period, about 9,000,000 babies were aborted.

    Regarding the current spike in AAPI hate crimes, please provide data on the race of the of the perpetrator and the ZIP Codes were most of the hate crimes occur.

    https://trendingpolitics.com/here-is-who-is-behind-all-those-hate-crimes-against-asians-youve-been-hearing-about-in-the-news-knab/

    Perspective, my dear boy, perspective!

  11. HB,

    I guarantee you that that restaurant has video security. And you trying to make it sound like this woman’s conduct is the same as a dog bite is simply unreal. To me, it always seems that when you and your friends find yourself in a position where you are going to be accountable for your actions, you cry hoax, or attempt to justify the offenders, or just say in effect “so what”?

    Abortion is NOT a crime, and so that is simply a FALSE comparison. That has NOTHING to do with this kind of crime. Unless your saying you want the mothers convicted of murder and add a hate crime enhancement on it. You would argue that the mothers “HATE” their babies right? In effect stick to the topic, stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Maybe if we use your logic, than the woman is in fact a dangerous animal, and she should be “put down” mercifully. That’s what happens to dogs that bite people right? That is because that “gene pool” has to be stopped, our unnatural selection process deprograms the future generations from being equally likely to bite another person as a “puppy”.

    Now I really am not suggesting that once a “hate criminal” is identified that they be either “put down” or “sterilized” that is just unreasonable and irrational. So don’t even try to put that in my mouth.

    But you are constantly hounding others for things like “BLM” and the like, but when it comes to a “good person” like this woman, you say, “she is a good person, she should be allowed to act out like this, and it is justified that people will have BIAS against others for ANY reason.”

    I cannot “TOLERATE” this behavior, especially physical violence against another no matter who they are. I look forward to here trial, and if found guilty, so be it..

  12. Since this press has declined to post a picture of the perpetrator, we can conclude that Ms. Jenkins is not an eevil white person. CORRECT?

    The same press that is STILL pushing the idea that Atlanta was an anti-Asian hate crime, although there is ZERO evidence of such. Notably, I have yet to see one headline discussing possible hate crime against our Syrian Boulder shooter.
    The press disgusts me, they are propagating hate themselves. Nothing good will come from it.

  13. Steven Goldstein, thank you for bringing this back to the crime and not allowing it to be veered into some free speech la la land. It’s all free speech until someone close to you is affected. If we don’t speak out, everyone will be affected eventually.

  14. P Roppo,

    Yes it does in fact look like she actually is NOT a WHITE person.

    But again, hate does not have any exclusive issues with any race. Look at the Anti-Semitism of African Americans in New York. Unfortunately, there is hate directed to anyone “outside” your “group” because there is so much disrespect of ALL of us and it is at a critical level. I hate to say it but there is plenty of “Anti-African” sentiment in my namesake too.

    The facts are the so called “puppet-masters” of the country made a “cock-fighting” arena out of the country and is setting all of us against each other and popping the popcorn. There is only one way to stop being suckers in this, and we have to establish inclusive societies that refuse to play that game.

    The fact is HATE is just still HATE right?

    So all I can say is this person does need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent. We have to ensure that the law is EQUALLY applied given the similar situation if it was anyone doing the same thing, RIGHT?

  15. So, this means that Biden and Harris are racists, correct?
    When this was happening under President Trumps term, the media deemed him a racist.
    The same must hold for Biden. And Biden also caused the recent shootings.

    Also, when is the media going to do more stories on the horrific problem at the boarder?
    It’s becoming a humanitarian issue now. Wasn’t under President Trumps term.

    Wake up people! Your freedom’s are slowly being taken away

  16. S Goldstein,

    I am afraid you are dreaming. Yes, hate is hate no matter if directed at another race or one’s own. When my friend was killed by a serial woman killer in Alaska, the killer was not prosecuted for “hate’ crime, although for what other reason would a man kill 18 young women? If the victims had been of different colors, would the agony of being buried up to your neck in a desolate bay at low tide have been any different? No, but the press will prosecute with ink only one group today. If the McDonalds perpetrator had been white, it would be national news, as it was for another woman exhibiting the same behavior two days ago. It is the pattern now, if they ain’t white, we don’t post the picture.
    In the eyes of the press, there is only one group in Amerika who can “hate”. Jeff Rosen has clearly overextended his liberal mandate.

  17. Let’s not just single out Whites for racism.

    Recently two black men set a white man on fire, WHILE HE WAS ALIVE!
    They are being charged with a hate crime. But, it is barely covered in the news.

    Am I suppose to still feel sorry for the black men who set the man on fire? And hang BLM banners all over the place, protest, knock down statues of our history?
    Or should I feel sorry for the white man. Hang WLM banners all over the place, protest and knock down Martin Luther King statues?

    If you don’t see the very biased reporting to control the public, you need to open your eyes.

  18. So, this must mean Biden is a racist. When this was happening under President Trump, the media deemed him a racist. So, the must hold true for Biden.

    Also, when is the media going to do more stories on the boarder crisis? It’s becoming a humanitarian issue now. Wasn’t under President Trumps term.

    Wake up America, your freedoms’ are slowly being taken from you.

  19. Totally agree with you. When blacks kill whites, it is barely covered in the news.
    Where is Sharpton and Jessie Jackson when a white person is killed by blacks? Nowhere.

  20. Why MR. Goldberg why would you want to prosecute this poor miserable person when the state has ignored all kind of other volant crimes and felonies. Is this not a sanctuary town, in a sanctuary county, in a sanctuary state.
    Release her for no bail and have her promise to return at some date in the future.
    We must all be treated equally or your a “Racist”

  21. P ROPPO you wrote:

    “S Goldstein,

    I am afraid you are dreaming.”

    What was the point of that statement other than to personally disrespect the ideal of this country which is that no one is above the law. It just seems you and your friends are just trying to stir up more fights. You wrote:

    “Yes, hate is hate no matter if directed at another race or one’s own. When my friend was killed by a serial woman killer in Alaska, the killer was not prosecuted for “hate’ crime, although for what other reason would a man kill 18 young women?”

    Actually the concept of mens rea indicates there are many reasons why a serial killer kills. You should watch Mindhunter on Netflix. But it is true that some serial killers hate women, but most simply find them the easier targets. They are traditionally less able to self defend. But I have to agree in some cases you are completely right. You wrote:

    “If the victims had been of different colors, would the agony of being buried up to your neck in a desolate bay at low tide have been any different? No, but the press will prosecute with ink only one group today. If the McDonalds perpetrator had been white, it would be national news, as it was for another woman exhibiting the same behavior two days ago. It is the pattern now, if they ain’t white, we don’t post the picture.”

    The facts are the news is still processing this situation, and it is getting attention from the news reporting in the state at least. I know that because time is limited regarding “national” news, there are people like yourself that will argue that the “media” is singling out one group for higher scrutiny. If we had the ability to process audio visual communication on multiple channels ourselves instead of our limited attention and processing we have as mammals, I think it would be different. You wrote:

    “In the eyes of the press, there is only one group in Amerika who can “hate”. Jeff Rosen has clearly overextended his liberal mandate.”

    The crime itself is not “liberal” or “conservative” it is simply a “CRIME”.

    Sam you wrote:

    “Let’s not just single out Whites for racism.

    Recently two black men set a white man on fire, WHILE HE WAS ALIVE!

    They are being charged with a hate crime. But, it is barely covered in the news.”

    Good, they are charged with the HATE crime, and I also hope they get convicted in a speedy trial. I did however tried to provide the difficulty of the news coverage earlier. You are correct about one thing, in reality ALL LIVES MATTER, and I do not argue against it. But as long as any video coverage can show ANYONE being roughly handled and being in effect KILLED by any officer, they also deserve to be ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, RIGHT? But then you wrote:

    “Wake up America, your freedoms’ are slowly being taken from you.”

    That is a bit of a stretch, you need to provide some more deductive reasoning to establish that statement, that’s all. You also wrote:

    “Totally agree with you. When blacks kill whites, it is barely covered in the news.

    Where is Sharpton and Jessie Jackson when a white person is killed by blacks? Nowhere.”

    As I said before, neither are tolerable. But you are trying to bring POLITICS into a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION or PROSECUTION. The facts are Sharpton and Jackson are RELIGIOUS leaders, and do not hold any PUBLIC OFFICE, nor are the POLICE OFFICERS, or PROSECUTORS. They are not ACCOUNTABLE for the real JUSTICE of America.

  22. The attacks on the Asian community, and community in general (crime has gone up tremendously since the pandemic) shows that hate and anger come in all shapes, sizes, genders and colors. Though, the media pushes the “angry white man narrative.” Fact is, most of the hate crimes against Asians are perpetrated by other minority communities, and that is just a fact. That is not a pass for the crazy white people committing crimes – it’s an acknowledgement that there are just crazy people of all colors. Anytime a race is not listed in an article – it usually means the suspect is not white. Never will the news say “a black man attacked an asian woman.” It does not fit the narrative. Until we acknowledge that human nature is the issue, bot a particular skin-color, we won’t get very far in addressing the increases in violence.

  23. “Obviously you are just using a fictitious name that is designed to sound like you are a minority.” — Steven Goldstein @ 5:22 pm 93/24)

    “Obviously?”

    A. The legitimacy of the name under which I post is something about which you are so blatantly ignorant that for all you know you may have insulted me, in a manner so hateful perhaps it meets your standard for a hate crime.

    B. If Phu Tan Elli is in fact a pseudonym, the reason behind its design is also something for which you lack any knowledge. It may well be a tribute to a real person, a loved one even, which would render your assumption that it is “obviously” fake quite hurtful.

    C. That a screen name, even yours, will convince others to accept it as evidence of a particular race or gender is a conclusion for which you have no evidence. For instance, your screen name is masculine, yet I detect no evidence of masculine reasoning in your posts, so I keep my mind open about your gender. Furthermore, your assumption it would be to anyone, no matter their race or gender, “obviously” beneficial for them to “try to pass” by hiding their true identity is blatantly racist and sexist. Is that the kind of advice you’d give to a client?

    Feel free to use the above as the ABC’s of understanding the hazards involved in making assumptions about things you cannot know. Also, while I’m checking my screen name against that on my birth certificate (which will not take years as it did Obama), feel free to turn yourself in for hurting me so.

    Although you don’t have the charging authority that Jeff Rosen is so self-righteously abusing you do seem to have other things in common. By the way, there is no “law and order” to be had through mind reading, not even for the brainwashed and gullible Thought Police.

  24. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “A. The legitimacy of the name under which I post is something about which you are so blatantly ignorant that for all you know you may have insulted me, in a manner so hateful perhaps it meets your standard for a hate crime.”

    Really, just so you know Google does not find ANYONE that has that name. The only thing that google reports are the postings you have made online. So I just think the public here has the right to consider this in weighing the validity of an argument, when in mot cases all you do is attack others with no unbiased evidence to support you. You wrote:

    “B. If Phu Tan Elli is in fact a pseudonym, the reason behind its design is also something for which you lack any knowledge. It may well be a tribute to a real person, a loved one even, which would render your assumption that it is “obviously” fake quite hurtful.”

    Again, I think that if there was such a person, it would EASILY bee identified by Google or any other resource. To me you are getting defensive only because your being asked to authenticate yourself. That is a suspicious act isn’t it. You wrote:

    “C. That a screen name, even yours, will convince others to accept it as evidence of a particular race or gender is a conclusion for which you have no evidence. For instance, your screen name is masculine, yet I detect no evidence of masculine reasoning in your posts, so I keep my mind open about your gender. Furthermore, your assumption it would be to anyone, no matter their race or gender, “obviously” beneficial for them to “try to pass” by hiding their true identity is blatantly racist and sexist. Is that the kind of advice you’d give to a client?”

    Only if in some way you could authenticate who you are, like you have with me regarding the fact I have no fictitious name present, not making the argument yours is fictitious, but anyone who googles your name will wind up with a dead end. You wrote:

    “Feel free to use the above as the ABC’s of understanding the hazards involved in making assumptions about things you cannot know. Also, while I’m checking my screen name against that on my birth certificate (which will not take years as it did Obama), feel free to turn yourself in for hurting me so.”

    So I am actually dealing with a person self identifying as an “Obama Birther”. That is all I am going to say about it. You wrote:

    “Although you don’t have the charging authority that Jeff Rosen is so self-righteously abusing you do seem to have other things in common. By the way, there is no “law and order” to be had through mind reading, not even for the brainwashed and gullible Thought Police.”

    BUT when you have EYEWITNESSES and even better yet possibly VIDEO evidence, things can be VERY objectively proven. Again, I do hope in the end this person gets the JUSTICE they EARNED by attacking a person.

  25. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “A. The legitimacy of the name under which I post is something about which you are so blatantly ignorant that for all you know you may have insulted me, in a manner so hateful perhaps it meets your standard for a hate crime.”

    Really, just so you know Google does not find ANYONE that has that name. The only thing that google reports are the postings you have made online. So I just think the public here has the right to consider this in weighing the validity of an argument, when in mot cases all you do is attack others with no unbiased evidence to support you. You wrote:

  26. “Google does not find ANYONE that has that name…” — Steven Goldstein

    There once was a staunch nativist
    Aware of a growing blacklist
    He left not a clue
    By posting as Phu
    And it cost him his right to exist

  27. Mr Goldstein,
    “The crime itself is not “liberal” or “conservative” it is simply a “CRIME”.”
    The “hate” crime moniker is very much a liberal ideal. One directed at and most commonly used against whites. Let’s not pitter-patter around it.

    “The facts are the news is still processing this situation, and it is getting attention from the news reporting in the state at least. I know that because time is limited regarding “national” news, there are people like yourself that will argue that the “media” is singling out one group for higher scrutiny. If we had the ability to process audio visual communication on multiple channels ourselves”

    We have the ability to see multiple channels quite easily – news aggregators. Google News headlines are incredibly telling, guaranteed a black woman yelling racist rants will not make any of the national media sites. Yet here the exact same rant by a white woman makes not national, but INTERNATIONAL headlines… https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWpsNTdXZ2tvQU1FZkZSal9XQW1nRHpLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

    The news is so incredibly biased, it is disgustingly apparent with an aggregator – what gets reported, what doesn’t, for how long and in what ways…

  28. The incident happened at 6:45am. That’s pretty early for Karen to be out, hatin’ on the McDonalds employees. Glad the cops took her in, especially since Karen was throwing punches.

  29. “B. If Phu Tan Elli is in fact a pseudonym, the reason behind its design is also something for which you lack any knowledge. It may well be a tribute to a real person, a loved one even, which would render your assumption that it is “obviously” fake quite hurtful.”

    Again, I think that if there was such a person, it would EASILY bee identified by Google or any other resource. To me you are getting defensive only because your being asked to authenticate yourself. That is a suspicious act isn’t it. You wrote:

  30. HB, Facts matter, important to decide what matters most, and appreciate ones you cited. The latest CDC figures I’ve seen show a slightly higher figure for ODs – over 70K / year.

    But the largest avoidable cause of fatalities was omitted: Medical errors. Somewhere between 250K to 440K deaths per year per medical school researchers.

    The FBI figures are grossly underreported if we treat events like BLM & Antifa actions as hate crimes.

  31. “But the largest avoidable cause of fatalities was omitted: Medical errors. Somewhere between 250K to 440K deaths per year per medical school researchers.”

    Yes!

    All of these amateur “follow the science”-ist seem to just look past this. The body, well nourished, housed, regularly exercised and hygienic is by far the best doctor. Medicine has not been the boon so many of these progressives seem to claim. Doctors are human and they are both arrogant and prone to mistakes; while the limits to what we do know or what we can know is daunting. Other than vaccines, some serendipitous discoveries like penicillin or studying traditional remedies to make pharmaceuticals like aspirin, on balance the medical industry has been a life taker and a money sink, especially the people involved.

    Are you keeping your body clean? Are you keeping your teeth healthy? Are you fat? Are you sleeping? Are you drinking clean water?

    This is what matters.

    Life evolved for millions of years without $500/hour doctors. The human body follows a bathtub health curve, most die very young or very old. With attention we can probably do something about the young, certainly housing and food goes a long way. I guess one could argue vaccines help the young too, fine. But you can’t live forever. Live the best life you can with time you have and be as fit and clean as you can. Doctors can’t make you life better if you are obese with rotten teeth and skin rashes. Contrary to the hopes and dreams of the progressives, we will not invent a pill to make you fit, clean, and relaxed. A life well lived can though.

  32. Are we talking about COVID or a Hate Crime?

    Are we trying to avoid the subject?

    The FBI statistics are VERY narrow because they involve ONLY interstate crimes, by the way. They have NO jurisdiction on INTRASTATE crimes. So you are not looking at the entire picture.

    In any case drawing a false comparison to ODs and COVID on this topic is not discussion the topic itself

  33. In the meantime, DA Jeff Rosen has let out countless criminals out on the street by his no bail system. DA Rosen seems to go after low hanging fruit.

    A person can be charged because of their acts such as assault, but not because of their words. Even DA Rosen knows that fact.

  34. P Roppos you claimed that news aggregators will allow us to process more information.

    BUT the human mind is NOT a computer. When trying to say that a “news aggregator” will allow for “multiple AV interfaces into a HUMAN mind is completely incorrect.

    A reasonable definition of a “news aggregator is like this”

    In computing, a news aggregator, also termed a feed aggregator, feed reader, news reader, RSS reader or simply an aggregator, is client software or a web application that aggregates syndicated web content such as online newspapers, blogs, podcasts, and video blogs (vlogs) in one location for easy viewing. The updates distributed may include journal tables of contents, podcasts, videos, and news items.”

    A computer has PORTS in networking and the IPv4 had as much as 64,000 ports the computer could process AT THE SAME TIME via PROCCESS SHARING OR PROCESS THREADING. Given we have only 2 eyes and 2 ears regarding information that the mind can process “ABSTRACTLY” we may have as many as 4 ports of data, BUT the optical system has a clustering process meaning the mind only can assimilate the images of which the eyes can see, the ears are able to clearly accept “stereoscopic” sound but it still needs to be processed to be useful.

    Trying to make the argument that we can process more than one image and or experience at the same time is simply a error of understanding. I hope this will help you understand it

  35. Mr. Goldstein, I believe we agree on the outcome, but for different reasons.

    My understanding (easily confirmed by reading FBI UCR methodology) is that FBI statistics are compiled from local law enforcement and court reports. Many report to the FBI, but quite a few don’t.

    Typically, these are small counties or cities that lack the administrative staff to handle. We have several in CA. AFAIK, no state government or Federal grants fully offset the administrative cost to improve more accurate reporting.

    This is also a factor in the > 22,000 on CA’s Armed Prohibited Persons list. Dangerous work. Local law enforcement says it’s a state problem since they aren’t reimbursed for their fully burdened cost and left up to state law enforcement to handle. The last CA DOJ report indicates > 28 years to clear the list.

    And as you may know the recidivism rate is high “According to a 2012 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, more than 65 percent of those released from California’s prison system return within three years. Seventy-three percent of the recidivist committed a new crime or violated parole within the first year.” Source: https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/recidivism-rates/

    Perhaps a bit off topic, but believe it points to part of the problem. Even when incarcerated for hate-crime or other criminal conduct, we seem to do a lousy job of preventing subsequent criminal conduct.

  36. Dear Taxpayer: when they are in jail, they can’t commit a crime. This is the point of the three strikes type of laws. When someone has demonstrated that they are a habitual offender, give them life! By that point it’s not about rehab, it’s about protecting society.

  37. HB,

    You have a point there, but the idea of having 3 strikes means that criminals are “expecting” to be given more chances to offend, right? The point of HATE CRIME enhancement is to simply make it less an opportunity for a criminal to reoffend.

    In the real world, sometimes one strike should be enough, if you are able to be proven as motivated to offend others, and there is no chance that any “rehabilitation” would achieve anything.

    I do also like the fact that the HATE motivation is not classified as a “mental disorder” so that some “creative” lawyer would try to use it as a defense regarding “insanity” Law and Order many times discussed this in a fictional sense, but there have been many cases it was actually used as a defense. But not like the “twinkie” defense regarding Moscone and Milk.

  38. “the idea of having 3 strikes means that criminals are “expecting” to be given more chances to offend, right?” — Steven Goldstein

    The Three Strikes law may have given rise to a variety of expectations, but the “idea” of it had nothing to do with the criminal’s mindset and everything to do with the public’s exasperation with the criminal justice system. Fed up with the results produced by its reliance on the mindsets of both the government (unending tolerance for repeat offenders) and the criminal (unrepentant, habitual lawbreaking), Three Strikes aimed to remove capricious mindset from the public safety equation and replace it with simple arithmetic. It was a crystal clear statement of the will of the people, one expected to be enforced by their representatives in government, even if it was sure to go unheeded by many of the state’s worst criminals.

    Of course, as in everything else intended to improve life in California for the law-abiding, the state’s elected officials proved themselves just as disrespectful of the public good as were its habitual criminals. Many prosecutors (like the DA here in Santa Clara County) treated Three Strikes as they did their best suits: to be used for image purposes only. Their compassionate willingness to see extenuating factors when judging unrepentant career felons makes all the more dastardly their cold-hearted refusal to see any such factors (heat of passion, intoxication, or insanity) in the hurtful words of episodic misdemeanants.

    If hatred is denied the legal classification of a mental disorder then the state’s position must be it is the product of ordered cognition, which is tantamount to putting hatred in the same category as ethnic pride, political bent, spiritual belief or any other innermost cognitive holding. Thus the first intrusion has been approved, transferring the rule governing free speech and personal liberty from our venerated Bill of Rights to our vile Congress of Scoundrels. Your private thoughts are now open for interpretation (and prosecution), and if you think that’s a good idea, quite frankly, you don’t think.

  39. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “The Three Strikes law may have given rise to a variety of expectations, but the “idea” of it had nothing to do with the criminal’s mindset and everything to do with the public’s exasperation with the criminal justice system. Fed up with the results produced by its reliance on the mindsets of both the government (unending tolerance for repeat offenders) and the criminal (unrepentant, habitual lawbreaking), Three Strikes aimed to remove capricious mindset from the public safety equation and replace it with simple arithmetic. It was a crystal clear statement of the will of the people, one expected to be enforced by their representatives in government, even if it was sure to go unheeded by many of the state’s worst criminals.”

    Actually is was just a publicity stunt and an attempt at an OVERSIMPLISTIC method of dealing with criminal law. In effect say for example the case of a guy that stole videotapes, he was given a life sentence for it you can read about the case from NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114301025). Also there is the case where a VCR was stolen. Granted it seems that any quick fix has the law of unintended consequences. You wrote:

    “If hatred is denied the legal classification of a mental disorder then the state’s position must be it is the product of ordered cognition, which is tantamount to putting hatred in the same category as ethnic pride, political bent, spiritual belief or any other innermost cognitive holding.”

    Wait, “ethnic pride” is also not a defense in court. You cannot be found irresponsible for a crime based on it. So is political bent, spiritual belief, or other “cognitive holding” This seems like a lot of work to try to “justify” a criminal act. You wrote:

    “Thus the first intrusion has been approved, transferring the rule governing free speech and personal liberty from our venerated Bill of Rights to our vile Congress of Scoundrels. Your private thoughts are now open for interpretation (and prosecution), and if you think that’s a good idea, quite frankly, you don’t think.”

    Thoughts are not the only issue regarding the definition of a “HATE” crime, given that in some way like this one a assault and battery had occurred. You would be perfectly fine to argue that a “thought” cannot justify a conviction of a crime. BUT you have a CRIMINAL act so that the MOTIVE behind it is quite open for prosecution. In fact once a crime is committed any “HATEFUL “ speech is allowed to be evidence of a hate crime

    Just consider:

    “The First Amendment

    The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. But the right to free speech is not unlimited. THREATS TO KILL OR HURT PEOPLE, SOMETIMES CALLED CRIMINAL THREATS OR TERRORIST THREATS, are not protected by the First Amendment. (For more information, see Criminal Threats.)

    Although defendants have challenged hate crimes legislation on the ground that the laws violate their right to free speech, those challenges have generally not been successful, SO LONG AS THE LAW CRIMINALIZES BIAS-MOTIVATED CONDUCT, INCLUDING THREATS, ASSAULT, AND VANDALISM, AND NOT MERELY HATEFUL THOUGHTS OR WORDS. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).) In order to withstand First Amendment challenges, hate crimes legislation must be carefully drafted to avoid criminalizing thoughts or protected speech, even when that speech is offensive and hateful. For example, religious leaders who preach against homosexuality cannot be charged with a hate crime, even though such speech may be offensive and hateful. So long as the preacher does not urge violence, the speech is protected and not criminal.”

    I hope that clears things up a little.

  40. “Actually is was just a publicity stunt and an attempt at an OVERSIMPLISTIC method of dealing with criminal law.” — Steven Goldstein

    Since a publicity stunt is defined as an event to get the public’s attention, what you’re saying is that the public, as represented by voters, enacted Three Strikes to get the attention of themselves. That you would make such a nonsensical claim surprises me not in the least as it is consistent with your loopy form of logic.

    “Wait, “ethnic pride” is also not a defense in court.” — Steven Goldstein

    I pointed out that, by denying its use as a defense, the state had put hatred in the same category as ethnic pride, a statement to which you responded with the above idiocy. I suppose had I written that Harvard is now treating Asians as an equally suitable target for discrimination as whites you’d have counted with, “Wait, whites are discriminated against at Harvard.”

    “BUT you have a CRIMINAL act so that the MOTIVE behind it is quite open for prosecution.” — Steven Goldstein

    Quite open for prosecution? Towards what purpose? Would you like every hungry bread thief also prosecuted for being motivated by hunger? Are you ready to provide a list of motives deserving of enhancements? Would jealousy qualify, how about resentment, or humiliation. And how much extra time for each? Maybe we can take our cues from Sharia law?

    Anyone who thinks suppression and persecution can cleanse minds of forbidden thoughts is ignorant of both human nature and history. The only thing hate crime prosecution is going to do is what it’s already done: aggravate existing divisions. What zealots like Jeff Rosen have created is a situation in which every hate crime prosecution against a white person prompts the recital of a list of black criminals who were spared the enhancement. Result: resentment ramps up. And, of course, the effect is the same when the colors are switched.

    Hate crime laws have opened the door to victimhood for every “minority” who’s unhappy, or attention deprived, or pushing an agenda, or resuscitating a dead horse (bogus surges in anti-Asian bias, anti-Semitism, hatred for Muslims). I’m sure many of these types, and their organizations, have been happy to contribute to prosecutors the likes of Jeff Rosen.

    No one who has ever been assaulted, or had their property vandalized, has found themselves without a law on the books suitable for redress. The law has proved itself more than capable of dishing out punishment without pretending it, or any professionals, or any jury can read minds.

  41. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “ince a publicity stunt is defined as an event to get the public’s attention, what you’re saying is that the public, as represented by voters, enacted Three Strikes to get the attention of themselves. That you would make such a nonsensical claim surprises me not in the least as it is consistent with your loopy form of logic.”

    Wait did the voters pass a ballot measure for 3 strikes? THe VOTERS did not do that. You wrote:

    “I pointed out that, by denying its use as a defense, the state had put hatred in the same category as ethnic pride, a statement to which you responded with the above idiocy. I suppose had I written that Harvard is now treating Asians as an equally suitable target for discrimination as whites you’d have counted with, “Wait, whites are discriminated against at Harvard.””

    You obviously did not like the fact that even the U.S. Supreme Court calls your defense as invalid. But you are free to “think” what you will. But the courts and the prosecutors have a required code of conduct they will follow. You wrote:

    “Quite open for prosecution? Towards what purpose? Would you like every hungry bread thief also prosecuted for being motivated by hunger? Are you ready to provide a list of motives deserving of enhancements? Would jealousy qualify, how about resentment, or humiliation. And how much extra time for each? Maybe we can take our cues from Sharia law?”

    Now this was a irrational argument, given that one, a person that is “starving” is not the same as a person that attacks another just because the don’t like them. So that puts that false comparison to bed. And bringing up SAHRIA law is just a means of justifying hate, wait, didn’t a “jew” just defend either an “Islamic” or a “muslim” religion, interesting? You wrote:

    “Anyone who thinks suppression and persecution can cleanse minds of forbidden thoughts is ignorant of both human nature and history. The only thing hate crime prosecution is going to do is what it’s already done: aggravate existing divisions. What zealots like Jeff Rosen have created is a situation in which every hate crime prosecution against a white person prompts the recital of a list of black criminals who were spared the enhancement. Result: resentment ramps up. And, of course, the effect is the same when the colors are switched.”

    This is actually a case of a “AFRICAN” person committing a HATE crime. This is in fact EQAUL enforcement of public protection laws. You keep trying to make it sound like it is an attack on “CAUCASIANS”. This is really not proving your argument. You wrote:

    “Hate crime laws have opened the door to victimhood for every “minority” who’s unhappy, or attention deprived, or pushing an agenda, or resuscitating a dead horse (bogus surges in anti-Asian bias, anti-Semitism, hatred for Muslims). I’m sure many of these types, and their organizations, have been happy to contribute to prosecutors the likes of Jeff Rosen.”

    Wait, a law that is EQUALLY enforced based on the investigation of a crime, resulting in EQUAL enforcement on ANYONE with a demonstrated HATRED during the crime does not make a “MINORITY” a victim, the CRIMINAL OFFENDER causes their own legal problems especially if it can be documented by their actions You wrote:

    “No one who has ever been assaulted, or had their property vandalized, has found themselves without a law on the books suitable for redress. The law has proved itself more than capable of dishing out punishment without pretending it, or any professionals, or any jury can read minds.”

    Again, WHERE it is clearly recorded or eye-witnessed that a person was doing a criminal act, and declares their “motivation” in any way was based on HATE, so be it. There is no “READING MINDS” going on when the evidence can prove the case.

  42. “Wait did the voters pass a ballot measure for 3 strikes? THe VOTERS did not do that.” — Steven Goldstein

    Read it and weep. A fine, fair law, in my opinion. From https://ballotpedia.org

    California Proposition 184, the Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative, was on the November 8, 1994 ballot in Californiaas an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure was approved.

    The measure was designed to increase prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three-strikes sentencing model was enacted as follows:[1]

    Strike 1: persons with no prior violent or serious felony conviction who commit a violent or serious felony receive a sentence for that felony as prescribe by state law.
    Strike 2: persons with one prior violent or serious felony conviction who again commit any type of felony receive a sentence twice the term state law otherwise required.
    Strike 3: persons with two prior violent or serious felony convictions who again commit any type of felony receive a life sentence, with a minimum imprisonment of 25 years.

    Now this was a irrational argument, given that one, a person that is “starving” is not the same as a person that attacks another just because the don’t like them. — Steven Goldstein

    Using the Jenkins case as an example, the “proof” of her motive is there for all to see: she was motivated to do nothing criminal or offensive until after she was admonished regarding the mask mandate. Only then, after they had aroused her anger, did she verbally abuse and later assault the employees. Her motive was anger, and had the employees been white she might have called them ‘crackers,’ but you are so dense you’d sign on with the prosecution had the DA alleged she entered the joint for the express purpose of hatin’ on some Mexicans.

    “This is actually a case of a “AFRICAN” person committing a HATE crime.” — Steven Goldstein

    No it is not. It is a case of a black person who is ‘alleged’ to have committed a hate crime, but don’t think for a moment that among the many who will view this case as an injustice, there are blacks who believe Jenkins is being used by the DA to balance the race sheet — and they are probably right.

    “Wait, a law that is EQUALLY enforced based on the investigation of a crime, resulting in EQUAL enforcement on ANYONE with a demonstrated HATRED during the crime does not make a “MINORITY” a victim…” — Steven Goldstein

    Here’s your chance, provide me the name of a white Jussie Smollett, or Tawana Brawley, or Crystal Magnum (Duke lacrosse hoax)? False reports of hate crimes are for all intents and purposes exclusively filed by people with minority status. How is it the words “open the door to victimhood” led you to counter by citing the equal enforcement of the law? The intent behind a hoax is publicity, sympathy, revenge, or political advantage, they have nothing to do with enforcement, equal or otherwise. I’ve become convinced the only way you might possibly see the light is by someday running afoul of a hoaxer, hysteric, or ambitious prosecutor. Only then will you see how easy it is for the powerful to define your thoughts and motives and how impossible it is to defend what it in your heart.

  43. Phut Tan Elli,

    OK I did not realize it was a ballot initiative. I sincerely apologize. However you wrote:

    ““This is actually a case of a “AFRICAN” person committing a HATE crime.” — Steven Goldstein

    No it is not. It is a case of a black person who is ‘alleged’ to have committed a hate crime, but don’t think for a moment that among the many who will view this case as an injustice, there are blacks who believe Jenkins is being used by the DA to balance the race sheet — and they are probably right.”

    Again, I have to apologize, the CONVICTION has not happened, YET! You wrote:

    “Here’s your chance, provide me the name of a white Jussie Smollett, or Tawana Brawley, or Crystal Magnum (Duke lacrosse hoax)?”

    True regarding the hoaxes, especially wwhere there was law enforcement eye-witnesess or VIDEO. But in this case I feel it will come out that the croime was captured on camera, and law enforcement eye-witnessed some of it too. You cannot compare this case to the others. You wrote:

    “False reports of hate crimes are for all intents and purposes exclusively filed by people with minority status. How is it the words “open the door to victimhood” led you to counter by citing the equal enforcement of the law?”

    Because as long as this persons conduct is caught on camera and the eye-witnesses can ve proven correct with it, it clearly will never be a “false” allegation. And I suspect we just haven’t been given the footage of the video because of the “ongoing” investigation. You wrote:

    “The intent behind a hoax is publicity, sympathy, revenge, or political advantage, they have nothing to do with enforcement, equal or otherwise.”

    Again, if the video is released to the public and it shows the crime, that will be the end of this argument. Correct? You wrote:

    “I’ve become convinced the only way you might possibly see the light is by someday running afoul of a hoaxer, hysteric, or ambitious prosecutor.”

    I was confronted with an “over ambitious police officer, traffic commissioner, and county prosecutor regarding my auto decoration case, so yes it ALREADY happened. BUT, I do not assume every action from all law enforcement or prosecutors are conducting themselves the same way. So, I won’t just say, you did me wrong, and I cannot trust you or EVERYONE else. That kind of thinking is not only oversimplistic, but can result in more risk to my safety, and thus proves you wrong, right? You wrote:

    “Only then will you see how easy it is for the powerful to define your thoughts and motives and how impossible it is to defend what it in your heart.”

    I simply DEFINE my own thoughts and motives, AND actions, and I AM ACCOUNTABLE for them. There are times that what is in “YOUR HEART” winds up causing inappropriate behavior and actions, and when that happens, YES you are subject to the consequences. So you can try to make excuses for a criminal act, but it is no defense for it unless you are doing so regarding “SELF DEFENSE”. And this case doesn’t even mention such a thought.

  44. “So you can try to make excuses for a criminal act, but it is no defense for it unless you are doing so regarding “SELF DEFENSE”. And this case doesn’t even mention such a thought.” — Steven Goldstein

    Only by way of defective reading comprehension can it be said that I in any way thought Miss Jenkins should be excused for the assault committed; prosecuting her for it, for her actions that can be legitimately proved beyond a reasonable doubt, should be a decision made by her victims. But what cannot be legitimately proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the assault was motivated by her hatred of the victims’ race (real or perceived), for to do so would require the state to possess the ability to see past her uncontrolled temper, her intoxicated rage, her mental imbalance, and read her mind. And that the state cannot do.

    How is it that the same state that has proved itself so ineffective at rehabilitating criminals, drug addicts, and alcoholics — behaviors all governed by the mind, has found the one cognitive function over which it has such expertise? How is it the same state that declared Edmund Kemper “no threat to the public” on a day he took a break from his serial murder spree, has somehow mapped out the hate synapses? How is it that the same state that routinely gets wrong its parole decisions, despite having access to the convict’s past and in-custody behavioral reports, not to mention being able to interview him, can claim an infallible ability to spot hate from a mere behavioral snapshot?

    From where did the state come by this singular expertise? Is it by way of medical science? If you think so, please provide the references. But you needn’t bother looking, for the state’s supposed expertise is in reality based on nothing more than filthy, power politics. And that, Mr. Goldstein, seems to be good enough for you.

  45. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Only by way of defective reading comprehension can it be said that I in any way thought Miss Jenkins should be excused for the assault committed; prosecuting her for it, for her actions that can be legitimately proved beyond a reasonable doubt, should be a decision made by her victims. But what cannot be legitimately proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the assault was motivated by her hatred of the victims’ race (real or perceived), for to do so would require the state to possess the ability to see past her uncontrolled temper, her intoxicated rage, her mental imbalance, and read her mind. And that the state cannot do.”

    That is your opinion, but at least as far as the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest, that opinion is not ACCEPTED as current public policy. I understand to you, this is “thought crimes”, but it is not because “real crimes” are associated with the act. We shall see whether she is found gulty, or takes a plea deal. You wrote:

    “How is it that the same state that has proved itself so ineffective at rehabilitating criminals, drug addicts, and alcoholics — behaviors all governed by the mind, has found the one cognitive function over which it has such expertise?”

    As far as “rehabilitating” criminals goes, they can do what they can when they are in custody. BUT if they find no other way to survive, or their “hatred” is so pernicious, then there is no way to “rehabilitate” anyone like that. And yes we completely do not fund or provide proper services for drug addicts and alcoholics, but that is because people like yourself would punish anyone in public office if they said they needed to raise taxes to do so. That is why we have not enough “beds” or “positions” for those to get treatment. In fact, many “housing projects” designed to provide this treatment on paper wind up not providing the services. There is a great story in the San Jose Spotlight about this (https://sanjosespotlight.com/nasty-as-hell-affordable-housing-site-in-east-san-jose-has-mildew-drugs-tenants-say/#comment-47536) You wrote:

    “How is it the same state that declared Edmund Kemper “no threat to the public” on a day he took a break from his serial murder spree, has somehow mapped out the hate synapses? How is it that the same state that routinely gets wrong its parole decisions, despite having access to the convict’s past and in-custody behavioral reports, not to mention being able to interview him, can claim an infallible ability to spot hate from a mere behavioral snapshot?”

    First, that case happened in 1973, lets make sure we have the right timeline here. And YES he was a great serial offender, he learned how to manipulate people into thinking he was not going to persist killing. That in fact supports the use of “HATE” to deny a person to be given any more freedom than necessary to repeat crimes of this kind, thus so be it if they serve more time in custody. You wrote:

    “From where did the state come by this singular expertise? Is it by way of medical science? If you think so, please provide the references. But you needn’t bother looking, for the state’s supposed expertise is in reality based on nothing more than filthy, power politics. And that, Mr. Goldstein, seems to be good enough for you.”

    So first you criticize the STATE for not keeping a criminal in custody who has a known history of violence saying the STATE should have never released the person ever. Next you say that the STATE must not be allowed to take PROACTIVE steps to prevent more crimes from those that have a PROVEN HATE and committed crimes regarding it? This seems like you’re writing in a serious level of cognitive dissonance, as demonstrated by your own words.

    You say the state does not use enough power on one like Edmund Kemper, but then say they must not have the power to correct for that mistake? You are simply saying the STATE should not provide adequate public safety as a whole. I guess your approach is give everyone a gun, and let Darwinism run its course, so be it if many people wind up hurt or killed for no reason. Especially since the so called “criminals” get the most guns anyway. Oh I get it, the government will give guns away, right?

  46. “So first you criticize the STATE for not keeping a criminal in custody who has a known history of violence saying the STATE should have never released the person ever. Next you say that the STATE must not be allowed to take PROACTIVE steps to prevent more crimes from those that have a PROVEN HATE and committed crimes regarding it?” — Steven Goldstein

    First, I pointed out the fact that state parole boards make mistakes when they try to do what they cannot do: read minds. Second, I have never denied the state should take proactive steps to prevent crime, it’s just those proactive steps should be preventative incarceration (e.g. Three Strikes) based on criminal conduct, not what the state thinks it can read in someone’s mind.

    As usual the dissonance is on your side, where I assure you it will stay.

  47. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “First, I pointed out the fact that state parole boards make mistakes when they try to do what they cannot do: read minds.”

    Granted, I will agree to that. BUT with regards to a CRIMINAL TRIAL, the evidence must be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In effect that the courts when CONVICTING someone is working in the public view, using EVIDENCE to make a case, and using a JURY to make the decision. A completely different situation, and one that in many ways favored the defendant. All I can say is that if this person is convicted, so be it. You wrote:

    “Second, I have never denied the state should take proactive steps to prevent crime, it’s just those proactive steps should be preventative incarceration (e.g. Three Strikes) based on criminal conduct, not what the state thinks it can read in someone’s mind.”

    Again, if EVIDENCE can establish that a person committed a crime based solely on their DISTASTE of the victim, so be it. You are just trying to argue that a person should NEVER pay a price for their hate or discriminatory point if view. If it was just “in their minds or hearts” and not acted on in the form of discrimination or crime, I cannot make any disagreement. BUT once ANY conduct is performed based on that source, the CONDUCT is subject to EITHER civil or criminal sanctions.

    That applies to EVERYONE no matter what person you are and what TARGETS you have for mistreatment.

    Are you watching the Floyd trial?

  48. “Again, if EVIDENCE can establish that a person committed a crime based solely on their DISTASTE of the victim, so be it. You are just trying to argue that a person should NEVER pay a price for their hate or discriminatory point if view.” — Steven Goldstein

    Not arguing that at all, never have. In every case in which discretion in sentencing exists, the judge or jury can take into consideration such evidence, subject it to the standard of reasonable doubt, and respond accordingly. In the Jenkins case a competent jury would, after reviewing toxicology and mental health reports, reject outright the notion that Miss Jenkins had the capacity to target either her behavior or speech towards any recognizable objective. But with the alleged hate filed as a separate charge by the prosecutor, the jury will be instructed that as a result of the accompanying assault the defendant’s free speech rights cannot be considered, and that her words alone are sufficient proof of her motivation. It’s all but a slam dunk because the law was written not to enhance justice but to deliver much-desired power to persons and groups heavily invested in victim-hood.

    Had Miss Jenkins, in her deranged anger, called the employees “effing losers” it is not impossible that she may have been alleged guilty of perceiving them as disabled, (incapable of performing skilled work), and thus guilty of a hate crime. That is how wide a latitude the law allows. This crap helps no one, makes no one any safer and everyone a little less free.

    As for the Floyd trial, I have to pass. I don’t like watching prosecutors sell their souls.

  49. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “In the Jenkins case a competent jury would, after reviewing toxicology and mental health reports, reject outright the notion that Miss Jenkins had the capacity to target either her behavior or speech towards any recognizable objective.”

    Wait, are you an expert witness? Are you an eyewitness? Do you have any EVIDENCE to prove your claim here? Your writing is not substantiated by anything, at least YET. You wrote:

    “But with the alleged hate filed as a separate charge by the prosecutor, the jury will be instructed that as a result of the accompanying assault the defendant’s free speech rights cannot be considered, and that her words alone are sufficient proof of her motivation.”

    Wait, you are saying that a persons HATE evidence should be “DISMISSED” due to free speech. I can find case after case where no one reasonably will believe in what you are saying. Sorry but the HATE motive is not only accepted under the law, but is also not an “expression of free speech” because it occurred in the course of a violent act. She COULD say anything she wants if she did NOT touch anyone, or damage preparty. In the end that is the big difference. You wrote:

    “It’s all but a slam dunk because the law was written not to enhance justice but to deliver much-desired power to persons and groups heavily invested in victim-hood.”

    Now that is just language to attempt to say to people who have been attacked “so what, you got hurt, and so be it.” And ”Anyone that is subject to a history of violence due to some socially accepted tradition to do so should not expect any justice”. You wrote:

    “Had Miss Jenkins, in her deranged anger, called the employees “effing losers” it is not impossible that she may have been alleged guilty of perceiving them as disabled, (incapable of performing skilled work), and thus guilty of a hate crime. That is how wide a latitude the law allows. This crap helps no one, makes no one any safer and everyone a little less free.

    EVERYONE is FREE as long as they do not commit any act warranting their INCARCERATION. There is no loss of freedom occurring here. No one is LESS FREE when there is a HATE CRIME statute. You are not making any sense in that statement. You wrote:

    “As for the Floyd trial, I have to pass. I don’t like watching prosecutors sell their souls.”

    WOW! You are calling the prosecutors agents of you know who? Really? Actually they are just following the criminal code, seeing the video and the evidence and moving forward, JUST LIKE HERE.

  50. WOW!

    The Floyd trial is really something.

    His passenger in the car pled the 5th amendment, the prosecutor should offer immunity so that he can testify. But there is more to his story I think. He might have given Floyd the bad $20 bill.

    In any event, the prosecution is doing a lot of disarming the defense regarding their presentation and questioning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *