Guess The Same State As Yesterday!

[theweaselking]

Police: "No evidence of hate crime" in terrorist gassing of children at religious ceremony

"After all," police chief Richard Biehl said, "there can't possibly have been a RELIGIOUS motivation for the attack. The victims aren't from a real religion!"

Comments

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

What?!

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Inbred rednecks. They're not just for Southern states any more.

[unknownpoltroon.livejournal.com]

Hey, it was pre-emptive, them furriners are gettin ready to do something....

[zdallin.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, they've apparently changed that quote - no sign of it at that link.

But still... *rolls eyes*

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

theweaselking has been known to paraphrase for effect...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Stephen Colbert has taught me that Truthiness is more important than factiness.

[zdallin.livejournal.com]

Fair enough... Eric Bogosian taught me that assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups *grins*

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

So, does Ohio have its own Fark tag yet?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Are they tripping? How can it not be a hate crime?

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Because it didn't involve white Americans or black Americans.

Duh! (sarcasm intended.)

[zastrazzi.livejournal.com]

I don't even know why they are having a detective investigate this. If it's not a hate crime, that means the police chief knows who did it.

Because you need to know the motive to determine if something is a hate crime, and only the assailant(s) could know that. I'm highly curious as to what the spray was though. I would have laid bets it was pepper spray.

[skola.livejournal.com]

If they follow the same stupid laws as PA, if no word is said, then it's not a hate crime. You need someone to utter a racial, religious, or other slur against a minority populace during the attack for it to be a hate crime.

[jerril]

In a way, I could understand that sort of law (presuming that letters, graffiti, etc. also count, and I'd prefer that other documentation of intent displaced in time from the actual incident were admissible)... Or at least the intent behind it.

It sounds like the basic idea is to be SURE that it's a hate crime, as opposed to a personal dispute between two people or groups who happen to be from different Xs (where X is religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever). I know people who claim that any time a white man hits a black man it's automatically a hate crime, but I think that's slightly hysterical.

However, an attack on an institution is different than an attack on an individual. Short of it being a kind of "AUGH THE BELLS THE BELLS ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY" kind of situation, or possibly something complicated to do with real-estate values, I can't imagine this being anything EXCEPT a hate crime.

[skola.livejournal.com]

Agreed 100%

I think PA's laws are ridiculous, but given that PA and OH are side by side, I wouldn't be surprised that the law is similar.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I can't find a cite for the line about "a real religion". Do you have a source, or was that sarcasm?

What concerns me at this point is that since the physical evidence evaporated, they might decide the victims made it all up.

[blucrowlaughing.livejournal.com]

it was truthiness.

(look up about 8 comments)

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

The detective will determine if a crime was committed.

...I'm really hoping they inadvertently left the word "hate" out of that sentence. O_O

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

From the article, it is pretty heavily implied that the police think they may have made it all up. "No trace of chemicals", "determine if a crime was committed".