Lance Scarsella has a tiny gun, and also a derringer [contextly_sidebar id="b9WNRPBf5IHFiwSIN0aHvE9uslbWQJtV"]We are learning ever so many charming things about the four dudebros arrested for the shooting attack on five people attending a Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis last week. For one thing, we have learned alleged shooter Allen “Lance” Scarsella III fancied himself quite the Second Amendment hero, with lots of photos on his phone of himself posing with camo-n-guns. Scarsella, 23,
"FIRING A GUN INTO A CROWD EIGHT TIMES AND HITTING FIVE PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK." As a prosecutor-type lawyer (or a sane, disinterested citizen) might put it.
Or as Scarsella's defense lawyer will likely put it: "Three warning shots and five shots precisely aimed to wound rather than kill."
A family member is a judge who used to travel around his circuit working out of various courthouses. He carried a fringed flag with him and made sure it was prominently displayed. When the "sovereign 'citizens'" whined, he locked them up for contempt.
The prosecutor did have a good point: if the hate crimes were charged a (white) jury might convict on the misdemeanors and not on the felonies thus allowing the white criminals off the hook and still being able to say "we convicted them".
Just like the case in Fl where the white gun freak didn't get convicted of murder for shooting into an occupied vehicle but was convicted of lesser charges arising from the same act. Set up a whole second trial.
Black folks who attack whites are almost never charged with hate crimes, even when it's obviously one. When they are, it is the state laws that protect them. Federally mandated hate crime laws do not protect whites.Why does one group deserve added protection for the same thing? Its hypocrisy.
Were the black protesters who attacked people with hammers also terrorists? How about the black college student that planned to kill 16 white students and teachers for revenge? Are drive by shooters also terrorists? Will you push to have them charged the same? Nah.
"They almost never get charged," next sentence "when they are," but that is different something something, who even cares about consistency when you can push a reactive button like "hypocrisy!"
I guess I don't follow Aggrieved White Person News. I have no idea what the fuck you are even on about.
Did they plan their attacks to stir up headlines and fear? Was the goal to create a body count? Were the victims direct targets of a crime of passion or a means to an end?
Better go back to Fox News.
Around here, we have 'dem fancy edumacations and we does teh lodgic. ;)
Minnesota was never into the whole "hate crime" thing.
"FIRING A GUN INTO A CROWD EIGHT TIMES AND HITTING FIVE PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK." As a prosecutor-type lawyer (or a sane, disinterested citizen) might put it.
Or as Scarsella's defense lawyer will likely put it: "Three warning shots and five shots precisely aimed to wound rather than kill."
Now Minnesotans know what it's like to feel "Florida proud" (when fellow citizens soar past expectations for godawful stupidity).
House painter libel!
Read their bible: The Turner Diaries.
Then you will understand.
These punks always think that they are starting the Great Race War. You know, Manson without the charm.
A family member is a judge who used to travel around his circuit working out of various courthouses. He carried a fringed flag with him and made sure it was prominently displayed. When the "sovereign 'citizens'" whined, he locked them up for contempt.
A conflict where you want to arm both sides.
The prosecutor did have a good point: if the hate crimes were charged a (white) jury might convict on the misdemeanors and not on the felonies thus allowing the white criminals off the hook and still being able to say "we convicted them".
Just like the case in Fl where the white gun freak didn't get convicted of murder for shooting into an occupied vehicle but was convicted of lesser charges arising from the same act. Set up a whole second trial.
You know nothing about the story of Sen. Byrd.
It's that whole Caucasoid vs. Negroid thing. Seriously.
Black folks who attack whites are almost never charged with hate crimes, even when it's obviously one. When they are, it is the state laws that protect them. Federally mandated hate crime laws do not protect whites.Why does one group deserve added protection for the same thing? Its hypocrisy.
Were the black protesters who attacked people with hammers also terrorists? How about the black college student that planned to kill 16 white students and teachers for revenge? Are drive by shooters also terrorists? Will you push to have them charged the same? Nah.
"They almost never get charged," next sentence "when they are," but that is different something something, who even cares about consistency when you can push a reactive button like "hypocrisy!"
I guess I don't follow Aggrieved White Person News. I have no idea what the fuck you are even on about.
Did they plan their attacks to stir up headlines and fear? Was the goal to create a body count? Were the victims direct targets of a crime of passion or a means to an end?
Better go back to Fox News.
Around here, we have 'dem fancy edumacations and we does teh lodgic. ;)
He didn't think of hiding all his guns before he went on a premeditated rampage?
Be fair. These cowardly yellow spined douchenozzles are not ever the brightest bulbs in the package.