When I first heard the news of the University of Chicago campus preparing to close in response to a “credible threat” of violence, it was Sunday night. Details were shockingly sparse, but after some recent shootings at the site of a Black Lives Matter protest in Minnesota and a couple of other events referenced on NBC News, the implication was clear. Some deranged white guys were out for the protesters. The campus was indeed shut down Monday morning, but when the details were finally released by the authorities the story was, shall we say… somewhat different. (Mashable)
The University of Chicago may have felt it had no choice but to take the extreme step of closing for an entire day after an online threat against whites on campus that authorities say was motived by the police shooting of a black teenager, security experts said.
The city was on tenterhooks after last week’s release of video of Officer Jason Van Dyke fatally shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald 16 times. Protests that followed, as well as heightened awareness about campus shootings elsewhere and the recent attacks in Paris, may have forced the university’s hand, said one expert. It canceled classes and activities Monday but was expected to reopen Tuesday.
“I think the university erred on the side of caution after putting the whole picture together,” said Michael Fagel, who teaches national security and emergency management at several schools, including the Illinois Institute of Technology. “They had to think: If we don’t react appropriately and something happens, there’ll be an outcry.”
An “outcry” is putting it mildly. If you had a credible threat to the safety of the students and failed to take action, somebody would be fired if not locked up in the slammer. But tragedy was averted and the police quickly traced the alleged source of the threatening messages, taking their man into custody. As it turned out, he wasn’t exactly a Klansman. (NY Times)
A student at the University of Illinois-Chicago was arrested on Monday in connection to an online threat he allegedly made that targeted the main campus of the University of Chicago.
Twenty-one-year-old Jabari R. Dean was identified as the suspect and charged with transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
The threat, which was reportedly made by Dean in a comment posted on World Star Hip Hop, referenced the 2014 shooting death of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago Police officer and warned that the poster would “execute approximately 16 white male students and or staff” as retribution.
That somewhat sterilized description doesn’t really do justice to Dean’s threat. Fortunately, a picture of the original post was made available.
Disaster averted, so well done on the part of the authorities, but a few questions remain. Just out of curiosity, I’ve heard a lot of talk from people on the left and on cable news referring to the shooting at the Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic as domestic terrorism and berating those who don’t employ the same terminology. Fair enough, I suppose, though the guy looks pretty insane to me, frankly. They’re referring to the definition of terrorism as defined by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
“(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
Not to be completely rude or politically incorrect here, but wouldn’t a mass shooting on campus which specifically targets white people and law enforcement qualify as domestic terrorism? Or are we not supposed to say that because it involves someone protesting the police? And while we’re on that general subject, wouldn’t this be, dare I say… a hate crime? I don’t believe in the concept of so called hate crimes in American law myself, but since everyone else seems to be all hopped up over the idea, this certainly sounds like one. Let’s check the FBI definition of that one, shall we?
Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
I’m so frequently left stymied by progressive politics and the way the rules seem to change at their convenience, I’m probably way off base here. But from at least a cursory reading of the rules, wouldn’t white people qualify as “a race” in this case, or doesn’t it apply? Oh well… I’m sure there must be some other explanation.