Swastika mars home of Air Force reservist

Antelope Valley Press ^ | April 14, 2003. | VALLEY PRESS STAFF

[BenLurkin]

Officials aren't sure whether the painting of a Nazi swastika on the garage door of a U.S. Air Force reservist being deployed to Germany today was a hate crime or vandalism.

The man, who has asked to remain anonymous, reported the incident at his home in the 44500 block of Sandhurst Lane about

5:45 p.m. Saturday, sheriff's Lt. Gordon Carn said.

When deputies arrived, the man already had washed off the swastika, Carn said, adding, "There was no visible damage."

Deputies were investigating the incident as a "possible hate incident," although the actual motive remained unclear Sunday.

"The man has lived there for three or four years and has never had a problem with anybody," Carn said. "He doesn't think it was because of race, ethnicity, religion or origin." The man is of Middle Eastern descent.

The man confirmed to reporters he is in the Air Force Reserve and is headed to Germany today to assist with military operations in Afghanistan. He declined further comment.

Meanwhile, state Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, is introducing legislation to protect returning troops from anyone contemplating violence against them.

Runner's Assembly Bill 187 will make it a hate crime to assault or abuse a soldier because of his or her membership in the military.

"It is disgusting that someone would even think about hurting the men and women who risk their lives for our freedom," Runner said. "We have the right to vocalize discontent with their mission, but lashing out against them with hate violence is intolerable and un-American."

Runner said she got the idea for the bill when she read about a soldier from Vermont who recently was accosted by a group of spiteful teenagers. The attackers pelted the uniformed officer with rocks while shouting epithets of "murderer" and "baby killer". Under Vermont law, the assailants can be charged with committing a hate crime against a military service person. The California statute proposed in AB 187 will be similar, creating a penalty enhancement for a hate-motivated attack against military personnel.

Violence against military personnel is nothing new. Some soldiers returning home from Vietnam were greeted with hate, as angry people threw rocks at them, spat at them and physically attacked them.

Runner said she hopes AB 187 will help send the message that to engage in hateful actions against men and women who serve the country is unacceptable. She also believes it is a strong statement of support for the military personnel overseas.

"The Assembly spent three hours discussing the best way to say that we support our troops," Runner said. "I can't think of a better way for our government to show its support than to give them additional protection from hate-motivated assaults."

AB 187 will be heard April 22 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

[BenLurkin]

The left is filled with hate for all things patriotic or American. Wheter that makes this a "hate crime" I don't know, but it is despicable beyond words IMO.

[Poohbah]

I subscribe to the theory that these folks are merely engaging in their First Amendment rights...

And that the recipients of such behavior should, in that same spirit of preserving the Constitution, vigorously exercise their Second Amendment rights back at 'em :o)

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[nanny]

The left is filled with hate for all things patriotic or American. Wheter that makes this a "hate crime" I don't know, but it is despicable beyond words IMO.

I do hope the Republicans or conservatives as we are supposed to be do not engage in the 'hate crime' lunacy.

It seems no one knows who, why, where, or whatever about this. It could just be silliness (people do that sort of thing), it could be out of anger (sadly they do that also). Unless and until we know who did it - it would behoove us to not jump on any bandwagon. If it was done out of anger, it was despicable and should be punished - if it was done out of silliness, it was despicable and should be punished. But before we began to scream 'hate crime' and lend credence to that ridiculous notion - we need to be careful. The term "hate crime" is just a buzz phrase for punishing you for your thoughts - which some people seem to be able to discern. This sort of thing needs not to be strengthen - rather we should do our best to get it totally out of our vocabulary and judicial system. It may come back to bite you in the future. There are some things you can't dabble in just because it suits your purpose at the moment.

[BenLurkin]

Well said.

It would be good to do away with the concept of hate crime altogether, if possible.

[B Knotts]

This whole hate crime thing started in the early 80s, for a cause most here would think just: to protect policemen. The legal basis for punishing crimes based upon the motivation of the attacker was laid with so-called "cop-killer" enhancements to murder laws. I knew it was a bad idea then, because under our system, all men are supposedly created equal, so the punishment for killing anyone must be the same. Alas, we are headed towards an unequal system where some people are more equal than others.

[lepton]

Officials aren't sure whether the painting of a Nazi swastika [...] was a hate crime or vandalism.

LOL. That's kinda the argument in a nutshell. What they did was bad and illegal. Exactly why they did it, they themselves might not even know.

[Petronski]

Runner's...Bill..will make it a hate crime to assault or abuse a soldier because of...membership in the military.

Delicious!

[grumple]

(snip)Meanwhile, state Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, is introducing legislation to protect returning troops from anyone contemplating violence against them.(/snip)

Welp, there you have it. More legislation introduction that makes vandalism (already a crime) and assault on one's person (also already a crime),regardless of the clothes they wear, even more of a crime.

This is criminal I tell you. But it's also a crime to defend one's self in retaliation to the newly legislated criminal act enacted to enforce the already legislated acts of criminality....if that makes any sense (read it again, it does).

Bet your bottom dollar the retaliation act would be prosecuted first...and with the greater attention and media scrutiny.

Screw this Assemblywoman who has the audacity to think she can protect the serviceman/woman. Enforcing the laws that are already written would send more of a message than enacting a new law that will probably not be enforced...

What a load of crap...

[AgThorn]

The man, who has asked to remain anonymous, reported the incident at his home in the 44500 block of Sandhurst Lane

Way to go, Media, in abiding by his request to remain anonymous ... You might have at least finished the sentence stating as much before you gave the block address of his residence. Sheesh.

[JoJo Gunn]

It's vandalism.

I also refuse to accept "hate crimes". That's a Leftist term, and we don't need to give life to the distortions of the deeply disturbed.

[nanny]

Alas, we are headed towards an unequal system where some people are more equal than others.

So right! Texas was debating the hate-crimes bill and I just could not believe it would pass. The church, then, Mayor Kirk and some other prominent black politician attended had a swastika painted on it. We saw quite a bit of publicity about that and wham-bam - the hate crimes bill got passed in Texas.

As I said, whoever did it should be punished whatever the reason - but we always need to step back and take a look at things. We can't believe we can use these wrong tactics when it suits us and not have it used against us tenfold.

[nanny]

That's a Leftist term, and we don't need to give life to the distortions of the deeply disturbed.

Exactly!!

[Ouachita]

[BenLurkin]

Whoa there, amigo! Runner is one of the good guys. Let's not reject her patriotic efforts overall due to our revulsion to the hate crime concept. Like it or not, it is the law out here; and Ms. Runner is unquestionably in the Pro-American camp.

[nanny]

Whoa there, amigo! Runner is one of the good guys. Let's not reject her patriotic efforts overall due to our revulsion to the hate crime concept. Like it or not, it is the law out here; and Ms. Runner is unquestionably in the Pro-American camp.

Pariotic she may be - but this bill is not. It is tinkering with things she shouldn't. It also smacks of opportunism, for publicity. I hate that - just hate it. I don't know this lawmaker or anything about her - but I am always leary of those who jump up to offer a bill such as this and the one wanted to disturb the graves of heroes overseas. It smells.

Everyone is getting all up in arms about this and this man is a reservist - we dont know anything about him other than that. It might have been the wrong house, for goodness sakes. IT might have been someone he cut off in traffic - it could have been any number of things. But somehow, we are ready to trash common sense and pass all kinds of bad bills and use all kinds of already passed bad bills - giving them creditibilty and we don't know anything. Worse case - even if it was someone angry because he is a reservist - what of it. It was a nutcase and should be punished as one - nothing more and nothing less.

[moyden2000]

Liberals are evil.

[Celtman]

Let's not reject her patriotic efforts overall due to our revulsion to the hate crime concept.

      So she has good intentions?  I've heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Windcatcher]

My first reaction was...WHAT?!!! Then I realized it was in Lancaster, California, not Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

I was going to say...

[grumple]

I wasn't necessarily criticizing Runner. The article said that "new legislation would be produced to protect military servicemen/women etc..."

Why are we going to introduce new legislation when this type of legislation already resides on the books under current assault and vandalism laws. To introduce new legislation just because they wear a uniform doesn't make any sense. If you're not going to prosecute the offender under the current law, what makes anyone think they'll be prosecuted under any new legislation?

"Like it or not, it is the law out there" I agree completely, but what good does it do if you're not going to enforce it? It's like gun laws...we don't need anymore for the appearance of making it look like your doing something.

Semper Fi