• Re: Cross burning Chicago

    From BTR1701@atropos@mac.com to rec.arts.tv on Fri Jun 19 02:31:41 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On Jun 17, 2026 at 8:56:39 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    In the middle of the afternoon, someone burned a makeshift cross in the
    major park in downtown Chicago. It wasn't planted in the dirt, just
    leaning against the tree. Cops got there in time to photograph it
    burning and saw a man who had run away.

    This feels like not someone trying to resurrect the K.K.K. but a bit of
    a hoax. Since it wasn't on the front lawn of a home or in front of a
    church, I suppose lesser crimes would be charged, but nothing about
    intimidation.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/10/burning-cross-grant-park/

    https://blockclubchicago.org/2026/06/10/photo-of-burning-cross-suspect-released-by-police/

    After all politicians denounced racism, etc., and overhyped what was
    likely to be NOT a K.K.K. incident, a man told the NBC O&O that he had a
    MAGA cap on top and it was intended as a Trump protest.

    Trib then made fun of politicians for believing the Jussie Smollett
    hoax.


    https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/16/editorial-grant-park-hate-crime-burning-cross-jussie-smollett/

    As expected, they are throwing the book at the man. Four felony charges, misdemeanors, and hate crime. Hate crime is an enhancement but it didn't
    say to which underlying charge.

    Since a hate crime is a thought crime and he already told the news media
    what he was thinking -- anti-Trump protest and not a threat against a
    person in a protected class for racial reasons -- how can he be charged otherwise?

    Not commenting on arson or damage to public property since all that's obvious.

    Matt Walsh did a whole commentary on his show today, roasting Brandon Johnson and others who, even in the face of indisputable facts that this wasn't a racial attack, continue to pretend that it is.

    https://youtu.be/85UuEMxcsVc?t=1202


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam H. Kerman@ahk@chinet.com to rec.arts.tv on Fri Jun 19 03:31:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
    On Jun 17, 2026 at 8:56:39 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
    Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    In the middle of the afternoon, someone burned a makeshift cross in the >>>> major park in downtown Chicago. It wasn't planted in the dirt, just
    leaning against the tree. Cops got there in time to photograph it
    burning and saw a man who had run away.

    This feels like not someone trying to resurrect the K.K.K. but a bit of >>>> a hoax. Since it wasn't on the front lawn of a home or in front of a
    church, I suppose lesser crimes would be charged, but nothing about
    intimidation.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/10/burning-cross-grant-park/

    https://blockclubchicago.org/2026/06/10/photo-of-burning-cross-suspect-released-by-police/

    After all politicians denounced racism, etc., and overhyped what was
    likely to be NOT a K.K.K. incident, a man told the NBC O&O that he had a >>> MAGA cap on top and it was intended as a Trump protest.

    Trib then made fun of politicians for believing the Jussie Smollett
    hoax.


    https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/16/editorial-grant-park-hate-crime-burning-cross-jussie-smollett/

    As expected, they are throwing the book at the man. Four felony charges,
    misdemeanors, and hate crime. Hate crime is an enhancement but it didn't
    say to which underlying charge.

    Since a hate crime is a thought crime and he already told the news media
    what he was thinking -- anti-Trump protest and not a threat against a
    person in a protected class for racial reasons -- how can he be charged
    otherwise?

    Not commenting on arson or damage to public property since all that's
    obvious.

    Matt Walsh did a whole commentary on his show today, roasting Brandon Johnson >and others who, even in the face of indisputable facts that this wasn't a >racial attack, continue to pretend that it is.

    https://youtu.be/85UuEMxcsVc?t=1202

    That was Stacy Davis Gates, the president of the teachers' union. She
    pulls Brandon's strings.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From The Horny Goat@lcraver@home.ca to rec.arts.tv on Sun Jun 21 17:17:16 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:57:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
    <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

    This feels like not someone trying to resurrect the K.K.K. but a bit of
    a hoax. Since it wasn't on the front lawn of a home or in front of a >>church, I suppose lesser crimes would be charged, but nothing about >>intimidation.

    Indeed - given the burning cross was against a tree I'd suggest
    attempted arson as another potential charge
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam H. Kerman@ahk@chinet.com to rec.arts.tv on Mon Jun 22 00:52:35 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
    Wed, 17 Jun 2026 02:57:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

    This feels like not someone trying to resurrect the K.K.K. but a bit of
    a hoax. Since it wasn't on the front lawn of a home or in front of a >>>church, I suppose lesser crimes would be charged, but nothing about >>>intimidation.

    Indeed - given the burning cross was against a tree I'd suggest
    attempted arson as another potential charge

    See the rest of the thread. There were inapplicable charges.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2