Posted on 05/12/2020 6:03:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A man accused of setting a fire that destroyed an Islamic center in southeast Missouri has been charged with a federal hate crime, the U.S. Attorney’s office in St. Louis said Tuesday.
A federal grand jury indicted 42-year-old Nicholas J. Proffitt in the April fire that destroyed the Cape Girardeau Islamic Center, the office said in a statement. Proffitt is charged with damaging religious property because of the property’s religious character, using fire to commit a federal felony, and damaging a building used in interstate commerce through use of fire. […]
A Muslim advocacy group, which had called for a hate crime investigation after the fire, on Tuesday praised authorities for charging Proffitt with a hate crime.
“This hate crime charge is a clear signal to Muslims in Cape Girardeau and beyond that U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen stands ready to protect the Muslim community and will deploy the resources necessary to do so,” said Yasir Ali, board chairman for the Missouri chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations.
Proffitt spent time in prison for defacing the same Islamic center more than a decade ago. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to state charges for throwing rocks that damaged the mosque and a vehicle in the parking lot. He was sentenced to three years in prison. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
“Hate crime” is one of the most worthless legal precedents. Let’s not forget who started this crap:LBJ. Law should be simple and no more complicated than the Ten Commandments and established legal principles. Hate Crime today is just a leftist tool to shove agenda into society.
It’s literally legislating on thoughtcrime.
And as I was made to understand, it violates the principle of equal protection of the laws.
How many churches in Saudi Arabia, the capital of Islam? Any guesses? And what happens to a Muslim who converts to Christianity there? What do you think?
I’m sorry (NOT!), but that puts a smile on my face.
“...and damaging a building used in interstate commerce through use of fire. […]”
They must have forgot other charges like not wearing a belt or not social distancing. Sheesh. We never see charges like these for firebombing a church.
It’s not explicitly what the arsonist personally had in mind — his personal motive — it’s the terror he sought to sow further than firebombing of a plot of property. That’s the difference, and it’s an amplification of the crime not against property but people. You know this.
Otherwise you’re reconciling that burning a church to terrorize churchgoers is not a bit different than an arsonist who burns a hay barn for insurance purposes. It’s all a question of money at the most?
Come on man.
They’ve found places to settle in every State. There’s another popular spot West of St Louis in a fairly rural area. Then of course in every major city in the US of course.
Nope,what I'm saying is that I don't care if someone sets an *occupied structure* (A hay barn? C'mon,man!) alight because he hates the people inside or because he just likes firemen.Doing so,regardless of the underlying motive,puts people at risk and therefore must be considered to be a *very* serious crime.
By your reasoning you could be sentenced to extra time in prison for having assaulted me because I have red hair rather than because you were having a bad day.It flies in the face of the concept of "equal protection".
If you didn’t like that analogy, do you think someone spray-painting the side of a railway car to read “Mickey luvs Gina” is no different than someone spray-painting a swastika on the side of a synagogue?
They’re both simple vandalism charges?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.