factbat.com

San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Lay's It On Extra Thick

In an article titled “Shooting in church should be a hate crime”, penned by Chip Johnson a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, the East Bay newspaper intends to legitimize the act of further destabilizing the rule of law in the nation by once again demanding that the courts engage in realms of extra sensory perception (ESP) and Parapsychology, areas for which it has no jurisdiction.

Johnson makes statements which appear to demand that people be held criminally liable for what are nothing more than inferences of “thought crimes,” and furthermore, attempts to use sensationalism as a means of justifying what would be a disloyal and dangerous course for any legal system to embark upon.

The United States Constitution is an explicit and conciliatory document which engages the subject of criminal intent extensively throughout its many articles and amendments, and has made clear that there is no provision whatever for such questionable assertions as “thought crimes” under the law.

As reported by the Chronicle, there was an incident in a local church where a funeral was being held for a recently murdered 18 year old gang member who was shot dead shortly after his birthday. It alleges that rival gang members attended the funeral (possibly covertly) and discharged firearms in the church, but did not shoot anyone.

Regardless of what the motive was for the alleged rival gang members to be discharging loaded firearms in a local religious house of worship -- East Oakland’s Cosmopolitan Baptist Church -- the fact is that they did so within city limits and thus the act is a crime punishable under current law. There is no need for exacerbating the primary elements of the crime by adding excessive suppositions and baseless assertions, and as well, there is no truly legal precedence for expecting them to be justified in the courts, regardless of how drastically they are represented.

Far too many law enforcement officials and bureaucrats attempt to circumvent the legal process by claiming that they must “fight fire with fire” as an excuse for acting criminally against criminals. However, their employment of such methods are actually likened to fighting fire with gasoline, since the concept of “fighting fire with fire” is that which removes the fuel, not adds to it. Fighting crime with crime will always stoke the conflagrating effects of this social disease.

This nation’s public servants must begin to bite the bullet and truly prevent crime by engaging those things in the society which serve to promote it, rather than expecting to simply mitigate the events which transpire as many of the preposterously pragmatic edicts of the current system devolve into the logical realms of misfeasance they were intended for, and that most do not want to engage, or even admit.

The writer of the article, an Afro American, even goes so far as to make mention of the Ku Klux Klan in an effort to further add shock value to the piece. He states “As a black American, it’s unthinkable to me that our youngsters are terrorizing their own communities with the same methods employed by the Ku Klux Klan” as if to infer that this incident was as much an act of discrimination against an entire group of people as are genocidal or oppressive attacks by racists.

His is a preposterous statement that attempts to drag White Supremacists into the fray, and lend credence to his assertion that this was a hate crime because the shooting occurred at a church, or possesses some paralleling similarities, albeit extremely far removed, of past acts of brutality by the ignorant and terrified members of the Klan.

Illuminatingly, however, is the fact that the mere mention of the Klan in the article exposes Johnson to be somewhat of a bombastic and perfidious racist who himself has issues with hatred against white people in general. He appears to be purposely throwing the “race card” into an incident where people of the same race and ethnic background were engaging each other in an obvious state of militarized strategy known as “the element of surprise”, which is meant to demoralize the opposition by attacking them when they are most vulnerable.

Furthermore, this strategy was employed ad-nauseam by the Chicago gangsters of the prohibition era, criminals whom the current gangs worship and pattern themselves after. Thus the act itself falls perfectly into the category of classic gang activities which are turf related.

Many gangland attacks over the decades have occurred at weddings, bar mitzvahs, funerals, christenings and various other gatherings where only families and friends congregate, not because it is at a church, but simply because those perpetrating the attack are assured of only engaging those persons who are promoters and supporters of their rivals.

Astonishingly, Johnson also states that “Firing a weapon into or inside a house of worship packed with mourners is about as direct an assault on an individual’s religious beliefs as you can get.” This is like claiming that school shootings in America, and stabbings at nurseries in China, are a broad assault on education as a whole. Even the mass poisoning of school girls in Afghanistan, allegedly perpetrated by Taliban forces who oppose the education of women in society, are not themselves and assault on education. But rather, these acts are specific assaults by an extremist organization who believes that denying education to women will somehow prevent sedition or infidelity…an ignorant and nearsighted position to be sure, but not an open assault on knowledge itself, only its accessibility.

To digress for a moment, the mass stabbings of children in China are as varied in their specificity as they are general in nature, and these incidents appear to be criminal acts of frustration committed by mentally ill persons. However, the one child policy of the Communist Chinese government cannot be ruled out as a smoldering sub-factor. Therefore, they are not actually hate crimes per se.

The ulterior motives of Johnson are blatant on the face of the article. Time and again throughout the piece he exposes himself to be an embarrassingly feeble minded purveyor of propaganda who could use a few lessons in psychology if he truly intends to be the effective tool of the plutocracy’s protracted and tortuous attempts to destabilize the nation’s system of jurist prudence, which he appears to be aspiring to.

Johnson is, however, justified in tiptoeing along the fine line between retaliation and terrorism when he states “In the modern era, only two groups are commonly associated with an assault on a church or synagogue or a mosque: military troops and terrorists -- and the five people arrested outside the Cosmopolitan Baptist Church on Tuesday are not soldiers.”

Unfortunately, there are a few problems with his statement. First, is the fact that many gang members do actually consider themselves to be soldiers, or warriors. Second, this was not an attack “on” a church, only “at” a church. Third, terrorism is an irrelevant issue in the legal system, and typically presents as an irascible ghost who has many faces. Which exposes the fact that it has no place in the courtroom since it cannot be specifically defined, and is thus an corruptible and intemperate accusation at best.

In any case, the subject of motive is only necessary for implicating probability when attempting to prove one’s involvement in the perpetration of a criminal act, and this motive does not, in and of itself, warrant prosecution. The only legitimate indictment is of the act itself, whether tangible evidence of intent, or clear fulfillment of the event. No thought can ever be proven in a court of law, regardless of what sophistry and vengeance may propose, and therefore they must remain in the dynamic realms of investigation, and out of the inuring realms of indictment.

To further add fuel to the flame, Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, a Democrat from Alameda, in blatant disregard for the U.S. constitution -- and current laws which are perfectly capable of defining the crimes -- said he plans to meet with county prosecutors to determine if the discharge of the firearms at a church fall under existing hate-crime laws or whether new legislation should be introduced.

For elected officials to be constantly proposing legislation intended to address specific issues which have already been clearly outlined by the founding documents of this nation, and ignore the fact that they have no right to side-step the legal process simply because they claim there is no other way, is not only indicative of an authoritarian and despotically traitorous leadership, it is an exacerbating obstacle standing in the way of the progress this nation was meant to create and sustain.

Swanson even goes on to claim that “Crimes against churches have historically been considered hate-crimes” but of course say’s nothing about the crimes of the church against the people, of which were some of the most brutal and racially motivated of all time. He further opines “What makes this so horrific, particularly in communities of color, is the historical significance of the church and its role as a sanctuary…it is a crime that we have to label as hate or terrorist activity and we should have enhanced penalties for it.”

Swanson actually has the audacity to cite the alleged sanctuary principal of the church, as if the average funeral exists in some deformed or derange state of indemnity, crying for portent from the bell towers of Notre Dame, hunted and oppressed. This man is an obvious politician in the most miscreant of effects, and appears to have not the compunction of a normal human being. Of course, this first assumes he is not a mental deficient, and is therefore accountable for his assertions.

Consternation, whether public or private, will never be an acceptable instigator of state or national policy, regardless of the fact that it has been the mainstay of political power for far too long in this country. The United Sates Constitution is the guidepost for the nation, not the pernicious or slanted personal cries of socially lascivious leaders. Furthermore, neither punishment nor reward are a deterrent of immoral or illegal behavior; this is one reason why crime changes like the wind. But I digress.

To have ever directed the course of the judicial system in America on a trajectory of punishment and vengeance rather than education and rehabilitation -- of or for those who are deemed criminally liable -- was one of the most destructive and delusional libations of “mono-elective” aperitif to have ever been poured from the corroded and rusty urn of ancient religiosity, and summarily forced down the gullet of the collective social mind.

The ignorance and denial of the critical contributions by every individual, that has evolved amid this turbid environment, will become irrefutably apparent as the system progresses into more abusive and perverted mutations of pseudo-freedom, and there will eventually be no other choice to be considered but the real and present relativity of slamming on the brakes and yanking the wheel to one side before the combinative carriage of this society goes careening perilously off of the proverbial cliff of tyrannical despotism.

It is time to hold the news agencies’ fear-mongering proletarians of propaganda accountable for the detestable filth and mendacity they spew, and expose the fact that intentional lies and balkanizing treachery are not free speech. Free speech is a responsibility, not simply a right, because it is intended to expose the truth, and give a clear and resounding voice to even the most timid of creatures. To continue allowing only a select few to shout over the din with their acerbic vocal flatulence, and rancorous rhetoric, aided by trusted public journals, is a debasing moral crime, and far too often employed as a tool of mass social manipulation.

There is no reason to prohibit these people from openly displaying their ridiculous rants. However, it is beyond reason to afford them such a publicly revered pulpit to pound upon.

On a side note: many of the mourners that were attending the funeral at the church were also packing firearms, and a mass brawl of over 300 people broke out afterward.

In conclusion (I grow weary of this subject)…

Shoveling manure will always be an honorable profession, but only on the family farm, and those who perform this vital service are likely none too pleased to have their work denigrated and demoralized by sophists, such as Johnson, who are given the opportunity to cultivate ignorant and turbid authoritarianism in society by spreading a deceptive and pedantic version of this pungent fertilizer across the main stream media.