The NBC affiliate in the Tampa, Florida area, WFLA, tells us in this video about a family’s encounter with a cranky old man.
A Muslim family calls the police after a cranky man tells them to get out of his country, and that he will kill them.
By the time the police arrive, the man has already walked off, and the police tell the family not to let it spoil their day.
But since the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has cell phone video of the encounter, WFLA puts Wilfredo Ruiz, the Media & Outreach Director for CAIR-FLA, into ite news segment.
Wilfredo Ruiz says with a wry smile:
Why in this particular case when this family, Muslim family, are victims, you are dragging your feet? What is happening? Because you seem to be very effective in the rest of the crimes. What is happening this particular one?
To that point, the sheriff’s office says that sometimes cases of this kind take a while in order to find the appropriate charge for the incident.
Apparently, there also needs to be means to carry out the threat before something like this could be considered a hate crime. The man certainly was offensive and rude, but his conduct did not rise to the level of a hate crime.
In a choice bit, the police report notes that the Muslim family asked the police: “If I said I will blow up a building, is that free speech?” The officer replied that he did not think that would be a good idea.
As for the cranky man, he does not remember saying these things, is getting over an alcohol problem, and is changing medicines.
Finally, the WFLA report concludes by saying the man told police he does not have any weapons, and did not intend to hurt anyone.
If only the same can be said for Hamas-linked CAIR.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
If rudeness was considered a hate crime, a lot of muslims in this country would be behind bars. Has CAIR ever heard of this famous American cliche: “Be careful what you wish for: you may get it”?
Mike says
I second that
somehistory says
Just as bo couldn’t correctly pronounce corps, many mozlums don’t understand American English and some of the ways we speak.
Once, some mozlums were trying to extort money from me and I said, “You can’t get blood from a turnip,” it made them angry, and they complained about it. I had to laugh. I used a couple of others on them, and then walked away while they sputtered.
So telling the boobs of cair who wish to use American Laws against Americans while they break them left and right to “be careful”….they’d probably think it meant their “cair.”
Ron says
When the screaming Muslims march in the streets screaming death to America will that too be a hate crime!?!? Is that too rudeness!?!?!?
Fu***** MEMEs.
somehistory says
The man didn’t commit a crime….of hate or otherwise. It’s the actions of a crime that make it a crime; and mozlums constantly say how they are going to ‘wipe Israel,’ “kill Jews,” and no one gets arrested.
If any of the members of cair took action on these threats, then the words could be used against them at their trials.
Up until now, and hopefully it will continue to be, one person can “hate” another as long as he doesn’t do something that is written on the law books as a crime, and go home free to continue to “hate.”
mozlums want it to be that they are never told to ‘leave the country,’ ‘go home,’ or any other phrase that lets them know they are unwelcome and unwanted. When someone says those things, they want arrests and prosecution, along with prison time.
mozlums feel ‘free’ to chant about rivers and seas, striking necks, getting in the street with gluteus maximus saluting their false god and ‘preying’ that they can kill every Jew and Christian, and not be charged with any crime.
It’s the law of double standards and they lust for the time it will be that way here as it is in pakistan and other mozlum ruined nations.
the rabid mozlums make me want to puke and I abhor islam. it’s certainly ‘hate’ on my part, but thankfully no crime has been committed.
Taffy says
The current Constitutional standard of when threats cross the free speech line into unprotected speech is found in Counterman v. Colorado.
The syllabus is as follows:
Held: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had
some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature,
but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than
recklessness. Pp. 4–14.
(a) The First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of
speech in a few limited areas. Among these historic and traditional
categories of unprotected expression is true threats. True threats are
“serious expression[s]” conveying that a speaker means to “commit an
act of unlawful violence.” Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. 343, 359. The
existence of a threat depends not on “the mental state of the author,”
but on “what the statement conveys” to the person on the receiving
end. Elonis v. United States, 575 U. S. 723, 733. Yet the First Amend-
ment may still demand a subjective mental-state requirement shield-
ing some true threats from liability. That is because bans on speech
have the potential to chill, or deter, speech outside their boundaries.
An important tool to prevent that outcome is to condition liability on
the State’s showing of a culpable mental state. Speiser v. Randall, 357
U. S. 513, 526. That kind of “strategic protection” features in this
Court’s precedent concerning the most prominent categories of unpro-
tected speech. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 342. With
regard to defamation, a public figure cannot recover for the injury such
a statement causes unless the speaker acted with “knowledge that it
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280. The same idea
arises in the law respecting obscenity and incitement to unlawful con-
duct. See, e.g., Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105, 109; Hamling v. United
States, 418 U. S. 87, 122–123. And that same reasoning counsels in
favor of requiring a subjective element in a true-threats case. A
speaker’s fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat, fear of the
legal system getting that judgment wrong, and fear of incurring legal
costs all may lead a speaker to swallow words that are in fact not true
threats. Insistence on a subjective element in unprotected-speech
cases, no doubt, has a cost: Even as it lessens chill of protected speech,
it makes prosecution of otherwise proscribable, and often dangerous,
communications harder. But a subjective standard is still required for
true threats, lest prosecutions chill too much protected, non-threaten-
ing expression. Pp. 5–10.
(b) In this context, a recklessness standard—i.e., a showing that a
person “consciously disregard[ed] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk
that [his] conduct will cause harm to another,” Voisine v. United
States, 579 U. S. 686, 691—is the appropriate mens rea. Requiring
purpose or knowledge would make it harder for States to counter true
threats—with diminished returns for protected expression. Using a
recklessness standard also fits with this Court’s defamation decisions,
which adopted a recklessness rule more than a half-century ago. The
Court sees no reason to offer greater insulation to threats than to def-
amation. While this Court’s incitement decisions demand more, the
reason for that demand—the need to protect from legal sanction the
3Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)
Syllabus
political advocacy a hair’s-breadth away from incitement—is not pre-
sent here. For true threats, recklessness strikes the right balance, of-
fering “enough ‘breathing space’ for protected speech,” without sacri-
ficing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats.
Elonis, 575 U. S., at 748. Pp. 10–14.
(c) The State prosecuted Counterman in accordance with an objec-
tive standard and did not have to show any awareness on Counter-
man’s part of his statements’ threatening character. That is a viola-
tion of the First Amendment. P. 14.
497 P. 3d 1039, vacated and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
40 rounds says
Could you repeat that?
Jumpmaster173 says
LOL!!! Please no…….
Larry Estavan says
+
somehistory says
Along with other laws that govern such is the “discretion” police officers are allowed to use when speaking with someone who **may** have committed an offense. Just as there is “prosecutorial discretion”…whether or not to prosecute a case….police may decide not to arrest someone, such as the man in this account.
This “discretion” on the part of the police is often seen in traffic “warnings” instead of tickets.
40 rounds says
Is “get the eff out of my country” as bad as “get the eff off my lawn?”
libertyORdeath says
How many times does CAIR have to FAKE a “hate crime” before we just ignore them as the LIARS they are?
If free speech is so offensive to them, they should probably take the guy’s advice and just LEAVE.
rubiconcrest says
Of course when a Muslim immediately gets help from CAIR and accepts it we know they are Muslim brothers and no more than terrorists in coats and ties.
By the way Taffy the treatise on free speech law is appreciated.
C McG says
It was no doubt offensive and somewhat alarming but drunks are just folk to be avoided and their blathershite ignored. Unfortunately, here in UK now you would if you dare to offend and somewhat alarm someone from the peaceful religion they would whisk you through the judicial process only to be banged up you’re definitely suited. And if a woman here in Scotland you might have the delicious prospect of being locked up with big hairy ugly mentally deranged sex predator who happens to be transidentified male. So that’s alright then.
For me I would like to go back to my youth where in Scotland one took ‘the mince’ out of everybody including oneself, gaily, often and with abandon. A thick skin was required and all the better for it. Unless someone physically attacks we can safely ignore the rest and get our big girl pants on. I suspect many complainants are expensive disingenuous in how much alarm and distress they are suffering but if course avail themselves (why wouldn’t they) to our increasingly totalitarian system which evidently offers preferential treatment to the peaceful ones
C Mcg says
Ocht stoopid pred text
“you’re definitely suited” = toute de suite.
“Expensive”= extremely
OLD GUY says
Awe yes Lawyers playing games with words.