Video: Should Stanislav Shmulevich face felony hate crimes charges?
posted at 9:33 pm on July 30, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Bill O’Reilly says yes. Michelle disagrees.
Link: sevenload.com
If the law were applied fairly, O’Reilly might have a leg to stand on only in the sense that you would have equal protection under the law. I personally believe that hate crimes laws are bad based on first principles of freedom of speech, expression and assembly, but you could at least argue that we would all face the same justice for doing the same or analogous offensive things. But we all know that that isn’t the way things work in the real world.
Desecrate a Bible and nothing happens to you. Put a crucifix in a jar of urine and you get rewarded with taxpayer funds. Promote US sovereignty security and someone, probably on the White House staff, will call you a racist. But at least you won’t face any charges. Desecrate a Koran, and get slapped with felonies. That’s not fair.
These photos were taken in New York City in February 2006. Not Pakistan. Not Tehran. New York City. Did anyone in any of these photos face any charges?
No. Nor should they have.
Now, I find these signs very offensive. They are in fact intended to offend. But no one took them up with the police, no one pressured any administration anywhere to take action, and no charges have been filed.
I don’t want the people holding them charged with crimes based on those offensive signs, and I’m not backed up by a credible threat of force to get them charged with anything even if I wanted to. I believe in free speech. For the record, the London protest sign cases were different, in that the protesters were inciting the overthrow of the British government and murder. They deserved charges based on that. Stanislav Shmulevich didn’t incite murder; he protested quietly and nonviolently.
The agitators at CAIR and in the MSA at Pace don’t believe in free speech as concerns Islam and the Koran. If they did, they would have treated Shmulevich as a protester with whom they disagreed, but who has his right to free speech including saying and doing things that they personally find offensive. They believe that we all should treat the Koran as they do in their strict and chosen way of belief, as governed by sharia. And they have the credible threat of violence backing them up, so they’re getting their way.
If we go down the road of letting the police charge felonies for putting a book in a toilet as a nonviolent protest, we are going down the road of ending free speech for anyone in this country who is not a Muslim. It really is that simple. That is obviously not what O’Reilly intends and he means well, but as the cliche says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, the road to sharia is paved with PC thinking that’s based on good intentions.
Hate ought not be a crime. It’s an emotion. Hate can lead to crimes, but so can many other emotions and attitudes that we haven’t (yet) criminalized. Greed, envy, lust, jealousy — all of these can lead to crimes just as often, if not more often, than hate does. Are we going to criminalize all of them, too?
Ironically, if the sharia pushers get their way, yes, we probably will criminalize all of those things at some point. And that, like the hate crimes laws we have now, will be done with the best of someone’s intentions. And, like the hate crimes laws we have now that create felonies out of putting a book in a toilet, we’ll get the worst of consequences.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Am I the only one that thinks our society is crumbling off its foundation when you can go to jail for putting a book in a toilet? It is right up there with the eminent domain fiasco. People like to speak about how the U.S. is based on freedom or a Judeao-Christian background or other ideals, but these are all just clichés. The real foundation of society is simply: The Rule of Law applied equally to everyone. This is breaking down and that is scary.
Resolute on July 30, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Right. As such, stuff like that pisses me off, but it’s a personal thing rather than a societal problem needing a remedy like classifying it as a “hate crime”.
How can anyone know what was in Shmulevich’s heart. Was it hate? Frustration? Just a general dislike for the Koran?
The authorities are alleging that since he tried to flush the book (which isn’t a crime) he must have hated the thing (which is a crime). Would it have made a difference is he had just muttered “screw you” while tossing it in a trashcan somewhere?
Crazy freakin’ world, ain’t it?
Oh, as usual, well done, Bryan.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 9:45 PM
O’Reilly was unbelievable. I commend Michelle for being very nice and keeping her cool in the face of such a silly argument from Bill. I was stunned.
progressoverpeace on July 30, 2007 at 9:47 PM
But remember: the only reason there’s a hate crime here is because there’s an underlying non-hate crime, i.e., criminal mischief by destroying someone else’s property. If he had flushed his own Koran, there’d be no charges. So the protesters with the signs aren’t a perfect analogy.
Allahpundit on July 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Good post Bryan, but….
Watch out you hater you! heh
conservnut on July 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM
I agree with Michelle and Byran. I don’t like the idea of ‘hate crimes’. A crime is a crime and should be punishable because the action. If we believe in freedom of expression and freedom of thought, then we should punish people for their actions not their thoughts, no matter how repulsive they might be.
If we prosecute a murder differently because motive, then we inadvertently say one life is more valuable then another. And the other things that generally fall within the scope of hate crimes are not within our power to bring justice to. ex: if the Bible is the word of God and you desecrate the Bible, I am not the one you would answer to. If it is not, then the harm is one exclusively of perception. So we are creating and labeling laws to protect emotions, basing law on presumed emotion. So, as I said, I don’t like it either.
Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Shmulevich should be charged with misdemeanor vandalism and ordered to pay the cost of the books. Because that’s what they are – books. If he flushed a library copy of Great Expectations he should have to buy the university a new one. That’s it. Payment for damages and call it a day.
I suspect he’ll be convicted but as I understand it the hate crime charge depends on a another crime, in this case destroying the university’s property. The next test case should involve flushing of a Koran owned by the flusher. Or some other form of desecration. The possibilities are endless.
I’ll ask the lawyers out there: would it be an illegal hate crime to mail a desecrated Koran to a CAIR office? Anonymously, of course.
Thomas the Wraith on July 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM
I thought the segment before that with scumbag anti-gun demagogue Fr. Pfleger, was more interesting. As much as I hate Kos, O’Reilly’s throwing stones in a glass house.
Bad Candy on July 30, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Yep, it’s the Jews. That’s the problem. Good thing we have hate crimes laws to keep those Jews in line. Stanislav Shmulevich is just another hate mongering Jewish terrorist.
D0WNT0WN on July 30, 2007 at 9:53 PM
I’m with Michelle on this one. Go figure.
When the ACLU sues a flag burner I may reconsider.
TunaTalon on July 30, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Right, but if he’d flushed anything other than a Koran, would there be any charges at all, no matter who it belonged to? I don’t see him getting charged with vandalism for putting the library’s copy of anything other than the Koran in the toilet. At most he’d have been billed for the cost of the book.
Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 9:55 PM
By those standards wasn’t ward churchles words hate speech ???’
way to go their bill
Mojack420 on July 30, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Eggs-actly. No property damage, no hate crime.
When Stanislav is convicted and there’s a wave of Koran desecration around the country we’ll see just how far CAIR will try to push these hate crime laws.
Thomas the Wraith on July 30, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Bill is a religious idiot. He is so invested in protecting religion, he will even go to bat for islam. Hate crimes are there to punish people that attack other people, not to punish people who attack inanimate objects in the privacy of bathroom stalls.
But the salient point is something that Michelle missed. And that is that “descretion” is not a crime, and has no legal definition yet Bill was stating his argument on the false notion that this man committed a hate crime by “descreting” a holy book. There is no such crime.
jihadwatcher on July 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM
I don’t think I can bring myself to watch Bill make that argument. This is a travesty.
tikvah on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM
One distinction that has to be made between some of the examples BOR and MM talk about and Mr. Shmulevich’s alleged actions is that flag burners and “[urinate] Christ” photographer were using their own materials, whereas Shumlevich is accused of taking books that belonged to someone else and flushing them. If he had had his own copy of the Koran and flushed it, there would be no reason to charge him with anything.
Burn your own flag, and that’s your right, even though I find your actions offensive. On the other hand, steal my flag and burn it, you’ve committed the crime of theft, and should be punished accordingly. But you should be punished for the act of theft, not for the reason why you did it, no matter how repugnant I find your reasons. Likewise with Shmulevich. If convicted, punish him for stealing 2 copies of a book and damaging them. But punish him no more and no less than if those books were the Bible, a Harry Potter novel, or Mein Kampf.
Bigfoot on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM
I just hope the supposed backlash comes sooner rather than later. Looking at recent events in the news and how they are covered, you would think that Muslims are the most wrongfully persecuted group in the world.
Consider me unimpressed with the things that cause their seemingly endless outrage.
PBoilermaker on July 30, 2007 at 9:58 PM
That’s the best argument against the idiotic hate crime statute I’ve ever read. Eloquent.
It’s also a novel defense for Shmulevich. Just argue he didn’t hate the Koran, he was just jealous of the attention it gets as compared to his Bible.
“I went into a jealous rage, Your Honor! Flushed the damned thing because it detracts from promoting the Gospel”.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I think O’Rielly just arbitrarily takes these ridiculous stances in order to appear fair. It wins him no points from either side, because the left will hate him no matter what, and the right loses respect for him every time he does it. It smacks of political opportunism.
Laura on July 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM
What? That’s just stupid. The “crime” of criminal damage to two worthless little books is a misdemeanor, but the “hate crime” cranks this up to felony charges?
Total BS.
Jaibones on July 30, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Well said.
Bradky on July 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
That will probably get him life!
conservnut on July 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I would bet that even if someone used their own copy of the Koran, charges of hate crimes would follow. Afterall, the hate crime idea can apply to any action that is deemed intended to intimidate. If you take your own copy of the koran and burn it for muslims to see, the State will say that you intended to intimidate them. I dare anyone to test the theory. But no need to test, cross burning, even on your own lawn, will bring the same charges.
There is no legal escape from the hate crime idea. It is all-encompassing like the Blob and it will get us all.
Unless we freeze it.
jihadwatcher on July 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
So the College Republicans who stomp on hamas/hezbollah flags guilty of a hate crime? I’m just saying before you had lawyers step in, it was considered to be a hate crime.
Sure the kid defaced/destroyed someone or organizations property, allegedly, but legally it’s not that big. So the kid, allegedly, hates muslims- GOOD FOR HIM! There’s a little thing called “Freedom of Speech”, may or may not be in the Constitution depending on if it suites your at-the-moment political beliefs apparently, which I believe prohibits the government from taking any action against “speech”.
O’Reilly tried to shut down MM with this whole “but when they put the Cross in urine they weren’t really advocating physical harm”, while convicting the kid of hating muslims. I’m somehow a little skeptical with how anti-Christians feel to believe O’R on that point.
TheEJS on July 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
“If we go down the road of letting the police charge felonies for putting a book in a toilet as a nonviolent protest, we are going down the road of ending free speech for anyone in this country who is not a Muslim.”
Does this remind anyone of the fairness doctrin?
allrsn on July 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I am just a dumb farmer so bear with me; but if i understand this correctly it is okay to blaspeme christianity but not islam because they have what ANGER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS??
bootheel on July 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
O’Reilly also thought that Shamnesty was a good idea, too. “The best deal we’re likely to get.”
Wrong, then. Wrong again.
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 10:06 PM
The whole thing is stupid.
It’s an unequal charge in weight when you compare the acts of so called
hateart against Christian religions.What’s next, justification for suicide bombers?
Kini on July 30, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I’m with Bryan on this. The vandalism of a book is meaningless, unimportant, and most times would not have ever even warranted someone at the library to call police. The entire prosection stems from his beliefs. We have arrived at a point where people are selectively prosecuted for minor or non-enforced laws because of thier beliefs.
Resolute on July 30, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Hate crime is a crime for what one is thinking.
What other thoughts will become crimes?
Who will decide? Hairy Reid?
Thought police?
It’s a lot closer than you might think, and it comes courtesy of liberals.
drjohn on July 30, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Freedom in America…say bye bye.
Time to stand up America…not to insult Muslims but to defend our First Amendment Rights!
PierreLegrand on July 30, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Absolutely wrong.
You really think the Muslim students were offended and experienced their usual umbrage because that Qur’an was library property?
Please.
drjohn on July 30, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Hatecrime will morph into thoughtcrime what’s next sexcrime. I’m going to take this up with Minipeace. Orwell really could see the future.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM
While it is convinient to blame liberals for the most of the ills of the world. Conservatives are ponying up to the Hate Crime Bar as well. Just ask
Those words were spoken by Sec of State Rice. Weeeee…well its one two three what are we fighting for…don’t ask me don’t give a damn.
PierreLegrand on July 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM
FIRST: I hate CAIR and ACLU, is that a crime?
Now for my post.
The basis for their complaint seems to be that it hindered learning. I have not seen any one argue how they are wrong in this argument.
But I would like to hear some.
From this website:
“We commend the NYPD for its appropriate handling of this case,” said CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif. “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African- American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.”
Thanks
Dersu on July 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM
You know it is easy to fall for it and be against “hate” crimes. To challege this is should be pointed out that “hate” crimes are simply a form of “thought” crime. Michelle could have gotten even more traction and skewed O’reilly if she said she was against “thought” crimes instead of using the liberal jargon of “hate” crimes.
Resolute on July 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM
It doesn’t matter why they were offended, it only matters what the statute says. If you destroy your own property then there’s no charge of criminal mischief. Period.
Allahpundit on July 30, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Yet we have criminalized only certain specific forms of thought expression. For instance, flag burning is defended by the same bunch, yet flag burning offends people of my national origin (red blooded American).
A man flushes pages of a book down a toilet. It was not his book to flush. But even had he paid for that book, Bill O’Reilly is happy to see the man felony prosecuted for de facto expressing hate for the people who like the ideas in that book. I say de facto because what if the flusher had said he was doing it out of love? Who are we to say when a man is acting from hate and when he is not?
O’Reilly is glad we have the hate crimes law because, otherwise in New York, the punishment for throwing someone else’s book down a toilet would be too lenient. Thank heavens the law was extended to criminalize the feelings of the perp. We have to analyze the actions to deduce the feelings of the perp.
If he is flushing korans, we can deduce an intent to express hatred towards muslims. That expression is obviously forbidden under penalty of imprisonment, according to O’Reilly.
If someone puts a cross in urine, I consider that the same as putting it into a used toilet. He does not flush it, but keeps it in perpetual squalor, a living insult to my faith. Why isnt that a felony?
This is why I cannot stand O’Reilly anymore. He is too far away from the land of the free, and too deeply into the land of knee jerks. Perhaps his Catholicism and my Evangelism differ, but I think I can find a few priests to take my view.
Flushing the book without malice is not a hate crime – or is it? If I as a Christian said I was flushing the koran down the drink because I loved people too much to let them read this book, then what? And what if I had bought and paid for my book? Am I to be forbidden from Flushing it? How many years in jail shall I get for flushing books?
What if I bought a S-load of korans and buried them all in a manure pile, back on the farm. Is this a hate crime? What if I stomped on them, and spit on them, and laughed and mocked them and called them names like ‘pig-skin’ is this a hate crime. What if I danced a jig on them?
This thought crime turns the Bill of Rights on its head.
It is not what we do that O’Reilly wants felonized, it is our motives. Our motives, not our crimes are now on trial, and only certain motives are felonies. Bill O’Reilly thinks he knows what expressions we should be permitted and which ones we should be jailed for.
This is downright frightening. O’Reilly does not have a clue, and his final murmur as the clip ended was a typical O’Reilly blow-off of the counter argument
entagor on July 30, 2007 at 10:16 PM
oops, this website
Dersu on July 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Bingo! It’s a tactic he uses all the time. He does it to ward off being criticized as a strict ideologue. He thens feels free to go after protected groups in more egregious cases. When they try to go after him as being a “Republican ideologue” he points to cases like this to prove he isn’t. He does it all the time.
I often have to remind myself that at least he covers stories the rest of the MSM want cover at all.
TheBigOldDog on July 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Misdemeanor vandalism or theft with deferred prosecution. Dismissal after 6 months.
Blake on July 30, 2007 at 10:18 PM
To expound on the “jealousy” v. “hate” defense:
What if he did it out of unrequited love?
What if he did it out of uncontrollable envy?
What if he did it out of perverse bibliophilic joy?
Will we have lovecrimes?
Envycrimes?
Joycrimes?
Criminalizing thought is the True Crime.
Somebody warned us about it.
“The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one.”
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Yet in one of your own posts AP, you see where this line of thought is leading.
How long until when you are “intolerant” of other religions and symbols there’s a chance of criminal charges. Except for Christianity, of course.
TheEJS on July 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Also, to pre-empt your charges, I am not condoning the destruction of property of others/organizations.
TheEJS on July 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Current Hate Crime Laws regarding expression and speech, as currently enacted and enforced, are woefully ignored by Circuit Courts and the US Supreme Court. It’s loosely interpreted poorly written draconian legislation, and the product of knee-jerk reactionary politicians.
When used to prosecute a person expressing themselves, absent physical assault on persons or real property, it’s under the guise of prosecution for specific intent actions, usually “inciting a riot” or “inciting others in a group, or groups, to cause harm to another group or groups, or individual”.
An American Citizen (or anyone else) can burn the American Flag in public, without permit or authorization from the authorities, and is neither charged for a seditious act or a hate crime. In my view, burning an American Flag is definitely a specific intent crime to incite a group or individuals of the same ilk to bring harm to the United States as a government and as a country. A country containing millions upon millions of people. In my view, that’s a no-brainer.
Islam, as a whole, has issued a “hit” on Salman Rushdie. They have gathered in groups, large and small, and have been incited to commit MURDER because the man wrote a book that expressed fact, coupled with opinion, regarding Islam. He has a price on his head (literally, his head, no other portions of his body required). The Imams and other Islamic leaders have very purposefully declared their edict, upon all of Islam, to kill another human being simply for his beliefs, and for expressing them. Of those Islamic leaders in America whom have openly supported that edict and expounded upon it, and passed on the word to their “brothers”, nary a one has been arrested and prosecuted for a hate crime for their part in inciting others in a group, or groups, to cause harm to another group or groups, or individual. At least, not that I’m aware of.
I’m in kind of a hurry to get this writ, so please excuse the brevity and off-the-top-of-my-head examples, but I’m sure you get my point.
The entire motive for this entire affair is purely Muslim appeasement. Sure, go ahead and prosecute for misdemeanor Malicious Mischief (that Qu’ran is one big turd that could so some damage to the plumbing, if flushed), if you can prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt. But two felonys for putting a book in a men’s toilet (hardly a ‘public gathering place’ and rarely visited by the entire female population of the planet Earth, if ever, I’m sure) without uttering a word of incitement, in public?
Bull pucky. It’s purely appeasement, and not one iota more.
SilverStar830 on July 30, 2007 at 10:22 PM
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Very true. Orwell’s vision was truly terrifying and I’m seeing his vision become reality. Who gets to decide what is hatecrime? Right now we have no one watching the watchers.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Screwed my post up,so I will try it again.
FIRST: I hate CAIR and ACLU, is that a crime?
Now for my post.
The basis for their complaint seems to be that it hindered learning. I have not seen any one argue how they are wrong in this argument.
But I would like to hear some.
From this website:
“We commend the NYPD for its appropriate handling of this case,” said CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif. “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African- American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.”
Thanks
Dersu on July 30, 2007 at 10:28 PM
If this chump gets a felony for his thought crime, I will buy a koran and burn it. I will of course wear a ski mask and carry a sign showing mecca with an American flag flying high.
Of course I really will not. First because they aren’t worth it. Second because I don’t want the ’s’ kicked out of me. Third, because people like O’Reilly will say I asked for it. You don’t think he would?
entagor on July 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
And Michelle would be correct. Would this be an issue if the King James version of the Holy Bible were being flushed? No, it wouldn’t, nor would the charge of “hate crime” be leveled against the perp. I really think Papa Bear knows the charge is ridiculous – he’s just trying to advocate the “other side” of the argument.
thedecider on July 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM
If we are going to be punished for what someone “thinks” we are thinking, then we’re all going to jail.
Hate crime laws are repugnant to the First Amendment, they will and do destroy freedom of speech, and they are not a deterrent to crime. If you are inclined to kill someone, in a fit of rage because you hate them, which could earn you the death penalty, you are not going to be dissuaded from the crime because the “hate crime” conviction would add a couple of years to your sentence. Nor would you even think about such a thing. Hate crime laws are the “thought police” in action and who is really able to know what a person was thinking ?
And why burden a court with trying to determine what a person was thinking if/when they committed a particular crime ? Don’t we ask enough of our courts to determine if the accused is actually guilty ? Wouldn’t the additional burden of “proving” a “hate crime” be a distraction for the court and take away from the all-important focus as to whether any crime was actually committed by the accused in the first place ?
Hate crime laws are all downside, they are dangerous to freedom and provide no benefits whatsoever.
Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
How’s that ham steak kid in school doing anyways?
Egfrow on July 30, 2007 at 10:35 PM
AllahPundit – I don’t understand why this is so? If I took my own wood and positioned it to be a cross and then went and burned it out in front of a Black person’s house, that wouldn’t be a “hate crime”, just because I used my own wood?
I thought the whole idea of the “hate crime” was “intent” or “hate”. Wouldn’t someone be charged with a hate crime if they went to a known Muslim area of public worship, put their own Koran in the toilet and then ‘did their business’ on it?
I don’t understand the whole fixation on “if it was his own property, then he has the freedom to use it in a ‘hate crime’ (putting it in an toilet and dumping on it).
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 10:42 PM
This case hinges on the Koran, obviously, as flushing no other book would have earned anywhere near this kind of reaction. But I doubt that Shmulevich would be free and clear if he had owned the book. He wouldn’t be facing felonies, but he would still be in a lot of trouble with the school and the MSA/CAIR gang. The SFSU case mentioned above hinged on the name of Allah being written on the homemade Hezbollah and Hamas flags that the College Republicans stomped on. Those college kids owned the flags that they stomped on, but they still got in a heap of “hate crime” trouble, the school adopted a “no flag stomping” resolution that condemned the CReps, etc. Had they stomped on the US flag or a state flag or any flag that didn’t have “Allah” written on them in Arabic script, it’s very unlikely that anyone, least of all the Muslims who were enraged by the Hez/Hamas flag stompings, would have reacted at all. There would therefore have been no conflict, no resolution from the school, etc.
The SFSU kids have filed a case against the school in federal court, by the way.
The cases aren’t perfectly analogous because the SFSU kids stomped on their own homemade flags, but they’re pretty close and they’re both instructive as to what’s happening wrt opposing Islam on college campuses. If you do it publicly, you’re asking for lots of trouble. The fact that the library owned the Korans in this case happened to be a convenient means of ramping up the charges.
Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I just had the best BBQ Pork sandwich ever! It was a big one. I had to drop a few Jihadis off at the pool and settled down in the john after that one. I was low on bathroom tissue so I tore out a few pages from the Koran: Sura 2, “The Cow,” verses 40-75. That helped to keep things under control for a while.
Egfrow on July 30, 2007 at 10:44 PM
The dollar amount is the issue here and Pace is the plaintiff not the students. If the cost of the restitution falls under the prescribed limits to institute a felony charge then Pace may be willing to drop all charges. Hell my brother is a plumber and will fix the water closets (toilets) for free. I’ll even help him. The state could have picked up the charges and in that case Stanislav will need representation. My other brother is…. no just kidding. The case against Stanislav is weak at best. Unless this is a witch hunt then he can beat these charges.
sonnyspats1 on July 30, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I just think that’s a stupid basis. There are a million things on the average college campus that “hinder learning” and you can’t ban all of them, or even most of them, and you wouldn’t want to if you could. Going from “hindering learning” to a felony is a very long and idiotic trip, imho.
Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
EXACTLY, Bryan! EXACTLY! Bingo. You nailed the double-standard that exists for Islam and Muslims with that case right there. Good job digging that up. I think you should add that comment as an UPDATE to this post to highlight the hypocrisy for those who are too blinded to see it.
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Should
Stanislav ShmulevichMohammad face felony hate crimes charges?YES!!!
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Hate crime legislation is just another Stalinist intrusion on our First Amendment freedoms. When we play along with them by THEIR rules, we lend legitimacy to their Stalinist measures. I don’t care how reprehensible the conduct, we should never urge prosecution under ‘hate crime’ laws.
petefrt on July 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Maybe Muhammad should be prosecuted posthumously for his hate crimes against Jews and Christians.
Connie on July 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Oldnuke-
I thought that with the fall of the Berlin Wall (I was in Europe in 1989 and was ecstatic to see it come down and even have a few chunks of it in a bottle as a memento) there would be no more need to think of George O.’s story, except as a historical curiosity.
The “hatecrime” idiocy is a new Mental Berlin Wall, resurrecting the same threat, using a different mask. (Though “Helping the downtrodden” is just the deception that Lenin used to gain power.)
Stan S.’s act is political protest, which is protected speech.
Islam, itself, is a hatecrime against all infidels, but I say- let them scream and threaten and jabber about Sharia Law and Mohammedan domination. They only expose their shocking Koranic bile more clearly to the currently Islamo-naive.
Only when their calls to hatred rise to the level of a credible terroristic threat (which, given the jihadist behavior before, on, and after 9/11, is a reasonable worry), should it be considered criminal.
Stan S.’s act is like dumping tea in Boston harbor.
A symbolic rebellion against the encroaching tyranny of expansionist, imperialistic, intolerant Islam.
Are we not allowed to express our revolt against a self-declared theocratic tyranny?
profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
sonnyspats1 on July 30, 2007 at 10:45 PM
The point is that these charges should never have been brought at all, other than lifting the books and dunkin’ em.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Hmmm, seeing women out of their burqas probably “hinders learning” as well, dontcha think? Especially during early fall and springtime, when girls are out in their tank tops and short shorts. I guess we should charge all women not wearing burqas on college campuses with felonies for “hindering learning”. Right?
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Three words for O’Reilly:
WHAT A WORM.
Call up Murdoch, tell him to get his New England ass out of there, the Boss in, and some prestige back to Fox News before they lose all their sponsors.
MadisonConservative on July 30, 2007 at 10:53 PM
No! Of course not, don’t be foolish. You’re obviously in a delusional state to even consider it. Please report to the nearest reeducation center.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Right.
But there’s a big difference between having your university’s administration or CAIR accusing you of a hate crime and the local DA doing it.
If there’s any bright side to this it’ll be shining daylight on how inconsistent and random the application of idiotic “hate” crime law can be.
If this kid gets anything other than a reprimand for stealing university property, a real crime will have been committed.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
If Stanislav Shmulevich stands trial, in court he should read from the Koran, for say about 20 minutes, that should be more than enough, one sick passage after another, and then say “Your Honor, I rest my case!”
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, and to offend. If it doesn’t, it is hollow. Inoffensive speech doesn’t need the protection of a Constitutional Amendment. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straightjacket.
Robert Spencer – Director of Jihad Watch
Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Is anger the same thing as hate? If one acts in anger, is one acting with hate? Did he do what he did because he hates an ideology or because he hates all Muslims?
Connie on July 30, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Yes, profitsbeard, “Criminalizing thought is the True Crime.”
Thank you. That sums it up.
petefrt on July 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Is anger the same thing as hate? If one acts in anger, is one acting with hate? Did he do what he did because he hates an ideology or because he hates all Muslims?
Connie on July 30, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Connie, you answered your own question, as he put a Koran in the toilet, not a Muslim.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “of”.
I always took the meaning literally. Freedom of speech, not freedom from it.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I always took the meaning literally. Freedom of speech, not freedom from it.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Silly Boy!
You are oh so Founding Fathers!!!
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:02 PM
O’Reilly was full of
*ahem*(as is often the case) on this.As I understand it, the guy DID commit a minor crime by damaging the property of someone else. What.. Five dollars to replace the evil book of mo-ham-ed? Make him pay for the book and do a week janitorial duty in the bathroom in question.
He was a dumbass for not using his own property; I always buy the Korans I desecrate (Well, actually I haven’t ever gotten around to doing that, but it is on my ‘To-Do list’)
Felony? No way Jose.
And I HATE the whole concept of ‘Hate Crimes’….. Uh Oh… Does that make me guilty of a ‘Hate Crime’?
If something is a crime, it has the same effect if done with hate as with mere dislike or without any passion at all….
LegendHasIt on July 30, 2007 at 11:02 PM
I don’t care what O’Reilly says, he is NOT looking out for US.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Heh. Guess I’m just a softy for stupid crap like freedom.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I think a lot of people are missing the point here:
Get your own Koran, or your own Bible, and put it in the toilet (and poop on it, as alleged in the criminal complaint)? No crime was committed. (With the Bible, maybe you get a grant from the Ford Foundation, but that’s not important right now.)
Steal someone else’s Koran or Bible and put it in the toilet (and poop on it, as alleged in the criminal complaint)? Petty larceny and possible enhancement to hate-crime felony–if the prosecutor decides to file the charge.
That’s the political part of this. The charging decision.
What Shmulevich is accused of doing is petty and disgusting. But I also can’t see what he did being a felony.
see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
see-dubya, I think the only one missing this point is BOR, the college and the DA, I’m not counting CAIR. Most folks here seem to be in agreement. What he did was a petty crime certainly not worthy of even being considered a felony.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Sorry! What he is alleged to have done.
Oldnuke on July 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Oh, we get it See-dub. Me, and I think many others are stunned that any DA would raise the playing field to felony level for this.
Moral of the story – make sure it’s your own damn book.
They ought to run the Da out of office if he goes through with a felony prosecution on this.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Suggested material for Stanislav Shmulevich to read in court, if he stands trial, and if so he should demand a jury trial, on why he put the Koran in the toilet:
2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in
preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to
ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you
find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah
will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.
(courtesy of someone on JihadWatch)
Get a jury trial and do that and I think that he will be OK.
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I’m curious.
If he had taken a Bible and a Koran and ripped the pages out of, and crapped on both, would it be two hate crimes, or one?
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
In crimnal law, you always take into account the state of mind of the accused. Its called mens rea. So, this thought crime argument is non-sense. I am no fan of hate crimes, but as I understand them, it simply makes some other actual crime actually committed more serious, because the crime was committed with animus towards some minority group.
This happens all the time. If you negligently kill someone, its not a crime. If you recklessly kill someone its manslaughter. If you kill someone intentionally its murder. If you kill someone to overthrow the government, its treason. If you poop on someone elses Koran its vandalism, but if you did it with animus towards a minority group (as this schmuck admitted), it is a hate crime.
O’Riley is right. MM is wrong.
If you need to poop on a Koran, use your own. Then it is expression and proptected. Pooping on someone elses Koran is not protected.
tommylotto on July 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
See-Dubya – Please explain to me why this is the case? The hate crime comes from the Koran being disrespected, not from the fact that it is someone else’s Koran being disrespected. Just look at the SFSU case. The same would apply here. Those College Republicans were not allowed to desecrate their own property, in the eyes of Muslims. Same here.
I don’t buy this reasoning at all. The “hate crime” is not based on whose Koran it is. It is based on the act.
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
ONLY A KORAN, no other book. THAT is the issue here.
I think they WOULD have charged him with something, even if it was his own book.
Ironic that the most hateful book ever written, inspiring daily murders and demonic destruction around the world for 1400 years, could be the source of such a frivolous charge because it ended up in the crapper….where it should have been tossed w/in hours of the first printing. A book that is really a chanted, memorized something or rather, that the ‘author’ never wrote but ad libbed as he went, a book for a moon god who wishes all who think, submitted to it or DEAD.
shooter on July 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I have not seen anyone make this point in all the posts I have read on this in numerous places. Am I way off in stating this?…
Islam is not just a religion, it is a political ideology. The Koran preaches not just personal religion, but worldwide political ideology.
Thus, the Koran should be able to be desecrated in the same way the American Flag can be desecrated: based on freedom of political expression.
Right?
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I’m curious.
If he had taken a Bible and a Koran and ripped the pages out of, and crapped on both, would it be two hate crimes, or one?
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
shooter on July 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM
What Shmulevich is accused of doing is
pettywonderful anddisgustingglorious. But I alsocan’tcan see what he did beinga felonyworth a medal.see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Okay, SOMEONE, PLEASE explain this to me…
If you poop on your own Koran and you did it with animus towards a minority group, it is a hate crime, right? Why do people keep saying it is not?
The hate crime is based on the ANIMUS TOWARDS A MINORITY GROUP, not based on ownership. It is the ACT.
Michael in MI on July 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I’m done with O’Reilly. I’ll watch when clips are posted here, and when Michelle guest hosts, but that’s it. He just doesn’t get it.
infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Michael in MI–it’s only a hate crime–under this specific NY statute–if someone A: commits a crime and B: does it for hateful reasons. Both A and B have to be met. If you have only A, it’s just a misdemeanor.
So here there was an A–vandalism, and they inferred from Tom Tresselt’s (the security guard’s) description of his interview with Shmulevich that he did it for hateful reasons–hence the B.
see-dubya on July 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I am still waiting for someone to desecrate a new Koran and a new Bible of their own, show proof of ownership, with Pace U. as a background, have a mask over your face and then post it on YouTube and link it to HA.
That would be irony and chutzpah all in one.
Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Ok. By that logic then, I could steal a $5 bag of kosher salt and be charged with a misdemeanor. But, if I told the cops I did it because rather than needing salt, I wanted to deprive anyone of the Jewish faith from having it, it’s now a felony hate crime?
Great.
BacaDog on July 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM
That’s a matter of debate.
SilverStar830 on July 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Maybe this New York D.A. wants to be Mike Nifong when he grows up.
Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM
No. According to the way you are interpreting it, it is the thought or intent behind the act (upon an inamimate object).
A thought crime, pure and simple. Welcome to 1984.
infidel4life on July 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
You cannot argue that Religion of Perpetual Umbrage would not have made similar demands of the school had he destroyed his own copy of the Qur’an.
I’ll wager a bucket of money that you could destroy the library Bible and not face the same felony charges.
It’s a BOOK. All they should demand of him is that he replace it. The rest is Taqiya.
And obviously it DOES matter why he destroyed it, this is a nothing case, not a federal offense.
drjohn on July 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Even if no property is involved, any act that can be deemed by the prosecutors to be aimed at intimidating a religious or racial minority will be deemed a hate crime. In fact, in Canada, “hate speech” itself is illegal, without any act of any sort on your part other than typing it and putting it on the web or publishing it in a book. In Canada, we have put people in jail for that. You guys in the States have it good. At least you have freedom of speech in that sense. Not so in most other western nations.
jihadwatcher on July 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »