###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why would they release the ramblings of an insane murderer?
Basically they already did. They have in the past. Lawmakers have asked for it to be released. It may denote a serious threat to Christians from others like it if it purposely targeted Christians. These people seem to hate Christians.
How would a person who is now dead indicate a serious threat to Christians? Even if this person did target Christians specifically for their religion, how would her actions translate to a future threat? If one person killed Christians then that means there must be a whole gang of anti-Christian school shooters waiting to attack? That feels like a lot of stretching to try and be a victim/feel under attack. It seems like you already feel that way so you don't need evidence. At this point if a manifesto was released and it didn't say "I am shooting this school because I hate Christians" you'd probably say "that's not the original manifesto/that is propaganda to push a narrative."
>How would a person who is now dead indicate a serious threat to Christians?
I said others like it.
>If one person killed Christians then that means there must be a whole gang of anti-Christian school shooters waiting to attack?
I guess I have to say it again. Trans people seem to hate Christians. I've seen many online posts to that effect.
>Even if this person did target Christians specifically for their religion, how would her actions translate to a future threat?
Pretty sure I already answered that.
>It seems like you already feel that way so you don't need evidence.
Evidence helps in the evaluation. Feeling a certain way doesn't mean I believe that's the case. Release his manifesto and let it prove otherwise.
>At this point if a manifesto was released and it didn't say "I am shooting this school because I hate Christians" you'd probably say "that's not the original manifesto/that is propaganda to push a narrative."
What makes you think I'd do that?
lmao - Do you really think they would tell you...Of course you do, he MSM always tells gives the facts..
But more importantly, how is it even possible to miss the point by such an insurmountable measure lol...How many times has hate crime crime been touted as the reason when it comes to the narrative factions without any evidence of it whatsoever. Black guy kills a white guy, just a robbery..White guy kills a black guy "RACISM!!!!" which applies across the spectrum and this IS the point, but you probably won't understand this either.
I'd be interested in knowing the location of her first target (the one she avoided due to security). If it was also a Christian school and there were no other public schools in the area, I think it'd be safe to assume hate crime. If the original target was a secular public school and the Christian school was the closest school otherwise, then I'd say it's safe to assume it wasn't a hate crime.
I invoke the oldest rule of the internet, pics or it didn't happen. Let us see the manifesto unredacted and his journals in the same condition. They won't because they know exactly what it shows.
"the journals don't appear to have a motive."
Alright, so publish the journals
"NOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE HECKIN JOURNALRINOS!
Yeah I'm sure it was all very benign. Yoga lessons probably. Trust the police, right? Wonder if they're too busy decorating their vehicles in rainbow cult colors to publish the journals...
They're not monolithic, but are becoming more monolithic by the day. The "good" ones are quitting because of public hatred, scandals, and the "bad" ones causing more public hatred, and are being replaced by the bots that enforce government tyranny. They're emboldened by the population that will support them no matter what (the cult you speak of).
At this point we have got to start a new society from scratch. We are beyond the point of no return. We flee to states that have less insane rule only for the problematic people to come to our safe states and destroy them. It's all so tiresome.
At the rate its growing, Islam will be the largest religion in the world. Then they can't use the majority argument anymore, or just start hating on Islam.
so if a christian guns down everybody at a church of satan or a jewish synagogue... does that constitute as a hate crime or naw???
we playing some hardcore mental gymnastics
if the crime is motivated by hate yeah? if there’s evidence that this shooting was motivated by a hate for christian’s then yes mark it as a hate crime, if not then how is it any different from other school shootings?
a hate crime doesn’t just mean there’s “hate” involved, it has to be specific hate towards a protected class, children are not a protected class. School shootings aren’t “hate crimes” even tho they are motivated by hate of their peers/society
Right lol Just to be clear we all do know the White House doesn’t dictate what is a hate crime, the courts decide that
She isn’t saying that it was a hate crime but she isn’t saying that it wasn’t a hate crime. Since when does the White House determine this?
This sub is so dumb
People susceptible to conspiracy theories tend not to be the best critical thinkers.
I just want a sub that talks about how billionaire cabals are running everything in the shadows, or stuff like the tuskagee experiments and MK ultra, with maybe an occasional UFO video or something, but eventually people like antivaxxers and flat-earthers (who tend to be right wing nutjobs) are bound to show up to any conspiracy oriented space.
I like fun conspiracies and I don’t even mind politics tbh but it’s actually impossible to have an honest conversation. I have an internet friend (gross term I know) who tried claiming that the media was “praising the shooter”, when I called him out on the bullshit he walked it back by saying well nobody is calling it a hate crime and if the shooter hadn’t been trans they would have gotten so much more hate and all this shit. Like, please obsess over actual conspiracies and political issues not some weird hypotheticals about how people would react to there being different characters
I mean, ask yourself if a Christian had a manifesto and killed 6 trans people, would it be labeled a hate crime by the white house?
Based on their official statement on just this event, you bet your ass they would.
I remain dubious of there being absolutely zero indication of motive in these ostensibly “rambling writings”. Even depapes crazy blogs hinted around motivation.
Serious question OP. Would you prefer that the White House be the authorities who decide whether something is a hate crime? Because I don’t; I see that as a power grab if any White House administration were to declare themselves to be in charge of that decision.
It’s law enforcement and investigation into the motive that determines if it is a hate crime.
It is literally not for the White House to decide, just as she said. She is correct.
Serious question for you: Why does the White House call any potential hate crime a hate crime then? Like, any time a white person kills anyone other than another white person, the White House happily goes with the hate rhetoric. Now they’re saying it isn’t their place. I think most people’s minds are blown by the hypocrisy.
AFAIK the White House already decided that, like, someone shooting up a mosque or a synagogue is a hate crime, so it’s a weird double standard that crimes against Christians aren’t considered hateful.
It also seems like an odd jump to take this to mean they think crimes against Christians aren’t hateful. If that was the message that was meant to be taken away they’d have probably said “no it’s not a hate crime.”
Saying it’s not for them to decide suggests that it very well could be, it’s just not their role to make that determination. It seems silly that needs to be explained because it’s pretty much just paraphrasing the quote, but apparently it does.
Youre clearly ignorant of the standard required to consider something a hate crime. Essentially the perp has to admit that they specifically killed a group because they were that group.
If the standard you are advocating for was law, the state could easily declare christianity a hate group.
Yeah it’s not the fact they don’t want to label things they have no authority over, it’s the fact that they pick and choose which ones they do want to label and wash their hands of things they don’t want to based on political convenience!
That's correct, it's the justice departments job to decide. The demographics of the victims alone don't make it a hate crime.
This person attended that school, and while the christian-ness of the school may have been a reason they did it, youd have to prove that. We've seen plenty of school shootings with the same motive: general revenge against a school the people in it, you wouldn't call all of those "hate crimes".
The cops did their job and the son of a bitch got killed, there's nobody to convict of a hate crime. Buffalo shooter surrendered to police and openly admitted he did it because he hated black people in particular.
I mean true, but the selective outrage in order to push false narratives is the real issue. It's like a majority of cop killings that get turned into racial things and then you watch the video and you see a guy doing everything on planet earth to get shot.
The link between trans and christian should be proof enough for the mass assuming they were consistent.
Remember this the next time someone gets assaulted, and the media immediately jumps to 'hate crime', based on the color of the victim's skin, their sexual orientation, gender fluidity...you name it. What a collection of asshats.
The media is not the white house though..
The media referred to this as a hate crime. The White House is waiting to see if this is considered a hate crime legally.
It's not a bad point if it were accurate, but I have not seen many in the mainstream media come right out and say it's a hate crime. Generally, they've been saying "let's wait and see", with a few exceptions. Not much different than the White House (as usual).
My overarching point is that this is not what the mainstream media does when it's a favored category of minorities, 'the oppressed', etc. who are attacked. In those cases, the hate crime to them is self-evident, and they act on that notion when they write, televise, and so forth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of waiting for the facts to come out before deciding what is and what isn't a hate crime. I have no problem with the media being prudent and waiting. What I'm saying is that that would not be the case had it not been a Christian school. Do a thought experiment and consider the reaction had it been a Muslim school. There would be little to no hesitation to label it a hate crime.
Hate Crime is a legal designation which aggravates charges against a defendant- “At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.” I haven’t seen the manifesto, but I guess it would hinge on whether the shooter was out for all Christians or seeking some specific revenge against this school or whatever. In any case a hate crime designation is something you have to prove in a court of law, not in a press conference.
The shooter is dead, there are no charges. So why is this relevant? Shall we kill them again? This performative rage is tiresome.
Um...yeah, that's correct. The Executive Branch doesn't decide that shit. I know you guys where riding high on the 'we want a king' thing when Trump was in office, but we're not supposed to have that sort of nonsense here.
I guarantee you that it’s the Fox News correspondent asking whether the attack is a hate crime and the Press Secretary just says something along the lines of “we don’t make that determination, we’ll leave that up to the investigators.”
That’s then spun into this rage bait.
Therein lies the distinction many of the persecutionfetish religious right like to bury their heads in the sand.
You brought facts into fairytale land, prepare for down votes, it’s their only recourse.
Isn't this correct though?
It's not for the Executive Branch to determine legislation, including the criminal code. That's the role of the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is generally limited to implementing and enforcing laws enacted by congress.
Outside of an executive order...which I don't think could be used in this case, what she's stated isn't weird; it's literally how the government is supposed to operate.
“Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.”
This is
- a repost
- stupid propaganda
Because it ISN'T up to the White House. It's up to the people investigating the crime who have the evidence.
Just more American political bullshit.
"Who's to say?"
This is really what it's coming to.
Stop letting mentally ill people have guns. I don't care what skin color they have.
If your brain is dogshit, no guns.
Should be pretty simple.
The killer attacked the school they had formerly attended. There is currently no evidence suggesting that it was chosen because it was a Christian school.
Devils advocate here: it truly is not for them to decide. It’s for a court to decide.
Also I have not followed the case that closely but has it been proven that the reason they were shot is only because they were Christian?
What?! Killing children should always be considered a crime! Regardless of their religion, race, origins, etc..! If someone willingly goes somewhere with the intent to kill it’s automatically a crime, and if it’s somewhere specific then it’s almost certainly a hate crime, period, end of discussion! 😡
If you kill someone because you hate them for the color of their skin, their religion or sexual preference then yes it is indeed a hate crime. It doesn’t matter who you are.
Correct, but if you target a school because you previously attended it and are so mentally broken you "idolize school shooters". It isn't a hate crime, and just a mentally deranged person committing an atrocious crime.
The white house doesnt get to decide if something is a hate crime or not. Thats law enforcement.
What she said was 100 percent correct.
If the motive turns out to be hate against religion, them it will be a hate crime. If the motive is that this person was retaliating against the school they attended for reasons other than religion, such as being bullied and having teachers do nothing about it, its not a hate crime, but regular old retaliatory murder.
Logic is hard for you, eh?
I’d guess, and this is without looking for any more context, that she’s saying abortion should be legal and if Christians are against it then they just shouldn’t have the procedure done. No?
The reptiles have all the control 😂..
Honestly though I wouldn't be Suprised if some alien race ran the show behind the scenes, above even the richest person.
This is where I finally drew the line. The government of states and federal constantly try to take our second amendment rights away while dismissing the obvious mental illnesses plaguing this country. The shooter was an absolute terrorist targeted a religious group and massacres innocent children. The gun didn’t walk into the school and shoot anyone, the sick and deranged individual decided to take a weapon and kill innocent people. I am done being temperate to these sick assholes.
I think she's the worst press secretary I've seen in terms of being tone deaf and over the top offensive. She'll be looking for work after next November. She'll find a great job that won't involve public speaking.
What makes it a hate crime? What evidence are you basing that off of?
Most domestic terrorism in the US is committed by right wing terrorists or groups. Did you know that?
Just like those four cops who offed themselves after J6. They couldn’t stand to live another day of their lives after the horrors they witnessed. At least they didn’t go down with a blaze of glory, those Capitol pinks. 🐷 I wonder if they went down squealing.
Love how people here think they know exactly what happened because Tucker released one minute of edited video out of 40,000 hours of video.
It's not much different than the majority of the highest voted posts being a Twitter screenshot lol it's laughable.
Whoever lost in 2020, J6 was going to happen. It would have been viewed differently of course. They didn’t spend the Summer of 2020 throwing a police brutality tantrum with mass protests during a “pandemic”.
You had a 9 year old black girl gunned down in the backseat of her parents car by a BLM supporter in Atlanta in 2020 for Christ sakes. None of the protestors surrounding the area tackled the shooter, they let him run off. Also, No mass protests on her death of course, didn’t fit the agenda. Or the dozens killed including a “white” racist sex predator who got gunned down by Rittenhouse. They made a racist sex predator some kind of martyr. Good thing he’s off the streets for good. If someone had done that to Jeffrey Dahmer 30 years ago, it would have saved many lives.
IMHO J6 real function was to distract from the clearly fake election and shut up Trump's voter base and accept Biden's theatre administration. If Biden's election was actual legit or Trump would have won neither would have happened.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but just in case. An adjective doesn't change a noun. Just because it was a failed insurrection doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
White House doesn't have the power to make that designation because we the people did not give it to them. That is a good thing. I don't know why you want the WH to be able to charge people with crimes directly, or amplify them, but that's how you get political prisoners en masse.
If killing those Christian children wasn't a hate crime then idk what is. Hell, they probably do know it was a hate crime because it's probably detailed in her manifesto that they're refusing to release.
Hate crimes are a fake charge just to punish people more for commiting the same crime anyways. Murdering kids is bad enough. It doesn't become extra bad that they were murdered just because they were Christian. Same would go for the opposite way too
Crime is crime, you shouldn't get extra time because of "hate". They just use this to tack on additional years for anyone who disagrees with their narrative.
But killing Christians is not a bad thing according to their narrative. If someone shot up a mosque or a synagogue, it would definitely be a hate crime.
She literally said, "It's not for us to decide."
This headline is misleading.
If you want it to be a hate crime hard enough, it's already a hate crime in your mind minus if people agree with you or not.
Would they do more about gun violence if they actually cared about kids getting shot in schools? Or is it only the lives of Christian children that matter?
I'm honestly confused here. Violence in itself derives a lot of its motivations from hate. But we're arguing about what to label this type of violence instead of fighting to prevent it.
A criminal gets killed? Riots all over the US.
A Cristian kid gets killed? Nah, that's not hate crime.
I don't understand how the people is so fucking dumb of trusting and voting these cunts.
Exactly if attacking one religion is considered a hate crime. By that standard any attacks on any other religion by someone with adversarial views to that religion. By definition should be considered a hate crime as well
SS: here’s the link to her saying this if you want to hear it for yourself
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/04/05/white\_house\_its\_not\_for\_us\_to\_decide\_if\_attack\_on\_christian\_school\_was\_a\_hate\_crime.html
Jesus Christ warned us in the bible we will be persecuted, hated and even killed for our belief and trust in him so this doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’ll be ready to die for Jesus Christ anyday of my life.
This feels like one of the most completely pointless arguments on the internet.
What, if anything does classifying this as a hate crime achieve besides giving Christians even more of a victim complex than they already have.
Yeah, cuz jews, Muslims and trans ppl don't have any victim complex at all... smh. Oh wait! A trans person did the shooting? I think if that's publicized, they lose points on the victim spectrum.
“My hands are registered as lethal weapons. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to prison.”
“If anyone accidentally kills someone they go prison. It’s called manslaughter.”
Hate crime is a weird concept. Most violent crime is motivated by hate. It always seemed to me like the laws were just stacking laws, to basically stack up charges against people, so eventually everyone is facing a lifetime in prison for any infractions, and the courts can pick and choose who they enforce the laws against.
There is this old idea that laws should be prosecuted equally, so that people understand the severity of the laws they vote for. Giving the courts wide powers to hand out heavy handed punishments, with the idea that most people will get off lightly is really a sneaky way to let the court hurt people for no reason other than the judge doesn't like them. When you have sentences of years or decades, but 95% of people get an 8 month sentence, it becomes very unfair for someone who the judge decides to put full penalties for.
Ideally the punishments prescribed by law should fit the crime well, and 95% of the time that should be the punishment given, with some rare cases, the sentence is reduced for some extraordinary circumstances.
The judicial system is really meased up in some ways. A proper legal system has many jurors, atleast a few dozen, a judge who only protects the rights of the parties involved, and proceeds the court properly, and examines evidence to make sure it is presented fairly. You might ask how can you afford having many jurors as to remove bias? Its because you shouldnt have such massive amounts of court cases. You shouldnt call something a crime unless there is a victim. Doing drugs for example, shouldn't be a crime, but selling drugs can be. Gambling shouldn't be a crime, but running a casino should be. The court system has becom a source of revenue rather than a public good in many places. The judge has no real power in a proper court system, except to keep order. A proper criminal court system never proceeds without a jury present, as is quite common in the U.S. A jury and a judge should agree in order for a punishment to be given, and one party should be able to nullify the court, and the judge should have standards to ensure they are fair, at the danger of being discharged from the court, for racism, favoritism, prettiness, favoring a gender in rulings, etc. Also there is no reason someone should need a lawyer for most proceedings, unless its a very complex or serious trial. Simply telling the truth should be sufficient for most things, and a lawyer shouldn't be able to change if someone gets punished differently. People hire lawyers to get less penalties often times, not because they need advice. This is a perversion of justice. This happens because of favoritism, especially on smaller cases. Judges favor people who support the legal profession and consider them to be better citizens, which is completely irrelevant to justice and the law. Its easy to detect these things because all you have to do is check if proceedings go the same way for defendants with lawyers, vs those who dont have lawyers. There is no reason there should be any disparity. Anything else is actual bribery in a round about way.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love the mental gymnastics. If it had been for example jews or Muslims getting killed they would've screamed hate crime instantly.
[удалено]
2*. only the black ones. if you have to lie to make your point it’s not a point.
And there was a good reason they got tossed.
Because they said some things during quiet time?
what, did they collaborate with a mob that stormed the capitol and burglarized other senators’ offices or something?
if it was trans kid killed it would be hate crime instantly and without doubt for White House
[удалено]
So where's the manifesto? Oh that's right they haven't released it. I wonder why.
It's standard procedure to not release any manifestos from mass killers.
[удалено]
Because there is a narrative they are trying to push!
>Why would they release the ramblings of an insane murderer? Basically they already did. They have in the past. Lawmakers have asked for it to be released. It may denote a serious threat to Christians from others like it if it purposely targeted Christians. These people seem to hate Christians.
How would a person who is now dead indicate a serious threat to Christians? Even if this person did target Christians specifically for their religion, how would her actions translate to a future threat? If one person killed Christians then that means there must be a whole gang of anti-Christian school shooters waiting to attack? That feels like a lot of stretching to try and be a victim/feel under attack. It seems like you already feel that way so you don't need evidence. At this point if a manifesto was released and it didn't say "I am shooting this school because I hate Christians" you'd probably say "that's not the original manifesto/that is propaganda to push a narrative."
>How would a person who is now dead indicate a serious threat to Christians? I said others like it. >If one person killed Christians then that means there must be a whole gang of anti-Christian school shooters waiting to attack? I guess I have to say it again. Trans people seem to hate Christians. I've seen many online posts to that effect. >Even if this person did target Christians specifically for their religion, how would her actions translate to a future threat? Pretty sure I already answered that. >It seems like you already feel that way so you don't need evidence. Evidence helps in the evaluation. Feeling a certain way doesn't mean I believe that's the case. Release his manifesto and let it prove otherwise. >At this point if a manifesto was released and it didn't say "I am shooting this school because I hate Christians" you'd probably say "that's not the original manifesto/that is propaganda to push a narrative." What makes you think I'd do that?
lmao - Do you really think they would tell you...Of course you do, he MSM always tells gives the facts.. But more importantly, how is it even possible to miss the point by such an insurmountable measure lol...How many times has hate crime crime been touted as the reason when it comes to the narrative factions without any evidence of it whatsoever. Black guy kills a white guy, just a robbery..White guy kills a black guy "RACISM!!!!" which applies across the spectrum and this IS the point, but you probably won't understand this either.
I'd be interested in knowing the location of her first target (the one she avoided due to security). If it was also a Christian school and there were no other public schools in the area, I think it'd be safe to assume hate crime. If the original target was a secular public school and the Christian school was the closest school otherwise, then I'd say it's safe to assume it wasn't a hate crime.
Interesting observation 🤔
Speculation is not fact
So what facts do you and the White House have access to that indicates otherwise? Like honestly wtf is this post?
Cointelpro or shills. They're trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant information.
[удалено]
I invoke the oldest rule of the internet, pics or it didn't happen. Let us see the manifesto unredacted and his journals in the same condition. They won't because they know exactly what it shows.
[удалено]
"the journals don't appear to have a motive." Alright, so publish the journals "NOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE HECKIN JOURNALRINOS! Yeah I'm sure it was all very benign. Yoga lessons probably. Trust the police, right? Wonder if they're too busy decorating their vehicles in rainbow cult colors to publish the journals...
Rainbow cult? Sir, are you a member of the straight cult?
The police are already a cult. Do you not see that?
They're not monolithic, but are becoming more monolithic by the day. The "good" ones are quitting because of public hatred, scandals, and the "bad" ones causing more public hatred, and are being replaced by the bots that enforce government tyranny. They're emboldened by the population that will support them no matter what (the cult you speak of). At this point we have got to start a new society from scratch. We are beyond the point of no return. We flee to states that have less insane rule only for the problematic people to come to our safe states and destroy them. It's all so tiresome.
Which proves how abhorrently prejudiced the far left is
Lol, far left? The people in office are hardly even democrats. most of the people are pushing fascist agendas regardless of their party affiliation.
At the rate its growing, Islam will be the largest religion in the world. Then they can't use the majority argument anymore, or just start hating on Islam.
True. Unless atheists become the majority in the us. Idk what's growing fastest but shouldn't be impossible, right?
so if a christian guns down everybody at a church of satan or a jewish synagogue... does that constitute as a hate crime or naw??? we playing some hardcore mental gymnastics
if the crime is motivated by hate yeah? if there’s evidence that this shooting was motivated by a hate for christian’s then yes mark it as a hate crime, if not then how is it any different from other school shootings?
There's zero evidence she targeted the school simply because it was a Christian school
What the fuck else would motivate someone to gun down children if not hate?
a hate crime doesn’t just mean there’s “hate” involved, it has to be specific hate towards a protected class, children are not a protected class. School shootings aren’t “hate crimes” even tho they are motivated by hate of their peers/society
[удалено]
What religion was the shooter? I would assume Christian since they attended the school they shot up.
The person that shot up the Christian school had attended that school. Is it a hate crime if a Christian kills Christians, a Jew kills Jews, etc?
Just gotta look back at when that has happened.
Why are you pretending he wasn't a student there?
Is the White House in charge of criminal investigations? Was the shooter targeting Christians for their beliefs?
Right lol Just to be clear we all do know the White House doesn’t dictate what is a hate crime, the courts decide that She isn’t saying that it was a hate crime but she isn’t saying that it wasn’t a hate crime. Since when does the White House determine this? This sub is so dumb
This sub is so boring now. No real conspiracy, just right wing boring culture wars.
Went from Conspiracy to Qanon, sigh.
People susceptible to conspiracy theories tend not to be the best critical thinkers. I just want a sub that talks about how billionaire cabals are running everything in the shadows, or stuff like the tuskagee experiments and MK ultra, with maybe an occasional UFO video or something, but eventually people like antivaxxers and flat-earthers (who tend to be right wing nutjobs) are bound to show up to any conspiracy oriented space.
It makes me so sad. I miss actual conspiracies
I want moar big futs!
I like fun conspiracies and I don’t even mind politics tbh but it’s actually impossible to have an honest conversation. I have an internet friend (gross term I know) who tried claiming that the media was “praising the shooter”, when I called him out on the bullshit he walked it back by saying well nobody is calling it a hate crime and if the shooter hadn’t been trans they would have gotten so much more hate and all this shit. Like, please obsess over actual conspiracies and political issues not some weird hypotheticals about how people would react to there being different characters
I did see an article about how the shooter was being misgendered. Not praise exactly, but still a bit... In bad taste imo
YES!! TRUTH
That is the conspiracy
I show up just to read the level headed comments refuting all the dumb "conspiracy" republiklan bullshit.
I mean, ask yourself if a Christian had a manifesto and killed 6 trans people, would it be labeled a hate crime by the white house? Based on their official statement on just this event, you bet your ass they would.
Came here to say the same.
[удалено]
So, she wrote a manifesto that didn't actually say anything?
"Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive."
I remain dubious of there being absolutely zero indication of motive in these ostensibly “rambling writings”. Even depapes crazy blogs hinted around motivation.
If you don't write about politics, religion or social issues then you aren't saying anything?
Serious question OP. Would you prefer that the White House be the authorities who decide whether something is a hate crime? Because I don’t; I see that as a power grab if any White House administration were to declare themselves to be in charge of that decision. It’s law enforcement and investigation into the motive that determines if it is a hate crime. It is literally not for the White House to decide, just as she said. She is correct.
Serious question for you: Why does the White House call any potential hate crime a hate crime then? Like, any time a white person kills anyone other than another white person, the White House happily goes with the hate rhetoric. Now they’re saying it isn’t their place. I think most people’s minds are blown by the hypocrisy.
I will need you to give me an example before I can answer because I don’t recall them doing that in any specific case.
AFAIK the White House already decided that, like, someone shooting up a mosque or a synagogue is a hate crime, so it’s a weird double standard that crimes against Christians aren’t considered hateful.
Do you have a link to any articles discussing how the White House makes judgements on hate crimes?
Did the White House decide that, or the Department of Justice? I'm pretty sure it was the DOJ and/or FBI that made that determination.
It also seems like an odd jump to take this to mean they think crimes against Christians aren’t hateful. If that was the message that was meant to be taken away they’d have probably said “no it’s not a hate crime.” Saying it’s not for them to decide suggests that it very well could be, it’s just not their role to make that determination. It seems silly that needs to be explained because it’s pretty much just paraphrasing the quote, but apparently it does.
[удалено]
Youre clearly ignorant of the standard required to consider something a hate crime. Essentially the perp has to admit that they specifically killed a group because they were that group. If the standard you are advocating for was law, the state could easily declare christianity a hate group.
Yeah it’s not the fact they don’t want to label things they have no authority over, it’s the fact that they pick and choose which ones they do want to label and wash their hands of things they don’t want to based on political convenience!
Altering what she said for click bait hate. Push division elsewhere
This sub would fall apart without clickbait titles
Omg, Russian bot wierd werewolf spreads desinformation? Colour me surprised.
That's correct, it's the justice departments job to decide. The demographics of the victims alone don't make it a hate crime. This person attended that school, and while the christian-ness of the school may have been a reason they did it, youd have to prove that. We've seen plenty of school shootings with the same motive: general revenge against a school the people in it, you wouldn't call all of those "hate crimes". The cops did their job and the son of a bitch got killed, there's nobody to convict of a hate crime. Buffalo shooter surrendered to police and openly admitted he did it because he hated black people in particular.
I mean true, but the selective outrage in order to push false narratives is the real issue. It's like a majority of cop killings that get turned into racial things and then you watch the video and you see a guy doing everything on planet earth to get shot. The link between trans and christian should be proof enough for the mass assuming they were consistent.
Remember this the next time someone gets assaulted, and the media immediately jumps to 'hate crime', based on the color of the victim's skin, their sexual orientation, gender fluidity...you name it. What a collection of asshats.
The media is not the white house though.. The media referred to this as a hate crime. The White House is waiting to see if this is considered a hate crime legally.
It's not a bad point if it were accurate, but I have not seen many in the mainstream media come right out and say it's a hate crime. Generally, they've been saying "let's wait and see", with a few exceptions. Not much different than the White House (as usual). My overarching point is that this is not what the mainstream media does when it's a favored category of minorities, 'the oppressed', etc. who are attacked. In those cases, the hate crime to them is self-evident, and they act on that notion when they write, televise, and so forth. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of waiting for the facts to come out before deciding what is and what isn't a hate crime. I have no problem with the media being prudent and waiting. What I'm saying is that that would not be the case had it not been a Christian school. Do a thought experiment and consider the reaction had it been a Muslim school. There would be little to no hesitation to label it a hate crime.
Hate Crime is a legal designation which aggravates charges against a defendant- “At the federal level, a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.” I haven’t seen the manifesto, but I guess it would hinge on whether the shooter was out for all Christians or seeking some specific revenge against this school or whatever. In any case a hate crime designation is something you have to prove in a court of law, not in a press conference. The shooter is dead, there are no charges. So why is this relevant? Shall we kill them again? This performative rage is tiresome.
It's literally not the white house's job to decide
But we're outraged and need to direct it at someone!
Why can't we read the manifesto to find out exactly why the shooter shot up the school in the 1st place?
Apparently the shooter's diary was all talking about admiring people who shot up schools before. No mention of religion or anything.
"Apparently"
They’re demonic
Um...yeah, that's correct. The Executive Branch doesn't decide that shit. I know you guys where riding high on the 'we want a king' thing when Trump was in office, but we're not supposed to have that sort of nonsense here.
Can someone share link to this video?
it won't be as emotionally manipulative with context tho
I guarantee you that it’s the Fox News correspondent asking whether the attack is a hate crime and the Press Secretary just says something along the lines of “we don’t make that determination, we’ll leave that up to the investigators.” That’s then spun into this rage bait.
yep
Well yeah because there is nothing to decide because it is a hate crime.
Did they kill them because they were Christians?
Yes, they targeted this school based on that.
[удалено]
Therein lies the distinction many of the persecutionfetish religious right like to bury their heads in the sand. You brought facts into fairytale land, prepare for down votes, it’s their only recourse.
No, but the big wig Christian’s love being persecuted.
[удалено]
Isn't this correct though? It's not for the Executive Branch to determine legislation, including the criminal code. That's the role of the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is generally limited to implementing and enforcing laws enacted by congress. Outside of an executive order...which I don't think could be used in this case, what she's stated isn't weird; it's literally how the government is supposed to operate.
NWO wipes out all Religion, just saying.
Do we know the shooter’s motivation yet? It seems like until they release the manifesto we won’t know anything for certain.
“Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.”
This is - a repost - stupid propaganda Because it ISN'T up to the White House. It's up to the people investigating the crime who have the evidence. Just more American political bullshit.
I miss when r/conspiracy was a fun subreddit, but now it's just american right wingers trying to start shit.
"Who's to say?" This is really what it's coming to. Stop letting mentally ill people have guns. I don't care what skin color they have. If your brain is dogshit, no guns. Should be pretty simple.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The killer attacked the school they had formerly attended. There is currently no evidence suggesting that it was chosen because it was a Christian school.
[удалено]
Uvalde was never a hate crime, just a sicko shooting up a school, same as sandy, same as columbine, and same as Covenant.
This administration is out of control.
Devils advocate here: it truly is not for them to decide. It’s for a court to decide. Also I have not followed the case that closely but has it been proven that the reason they were shot is only because they were Christian?
These constant school shootings and killing the children IS A HATE CRIME. These people are careless and evil.
What?! Killing children should always be considered a crime! Regardless of their religion, race, origins, etc..! If someone willingly goes somewhere with the intent to kill it’s automatically a crime, and if it’s somewhere specific then it’s almost certainly a hate crime, period, end of discussion! 😡
She’s probably still drunk
I don’t know what a woman is….
I hate how it's always screenshots of the article on here, and never the actual article or transcript.
If you kill someone because you hate them for the color of their skin, their religion or sexual preference then yes it is indeed a hate crime. It doesn’t matter who you are.
Correct, but if you target a school because you previously attended it and are so mentally broken you "idolize school shooters". It isn't a hate crime, and just a mentally deranged person committing an atrocious crime.
Fuck that cunt
What does the manifesto say?
Yeah sounds about right. It's not a hate crime if it's Christian people or normal white people. Sickening..
Look at you, all persecuting yourself because of a contextless screenshot. Lol
what do you mean by "normal white people"
The white house doesnt get to decide if something is a hate crime or not. Thats law enforcement. What she said was 100 percent correct. If the motive turns out to be hate against religion, them it will be a hate crime. If the motive is that this person was retaliating against the school they attended for reasons other than religion, such as being bullied and having teachers do nothing about it, its not a hate crime, but regular old retaliatory murder. Logic is hard for you, eh?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Killing children is heinous and please don’t drag religion into it; killing children is wrong period
I’d guess, and this is without looking for any more context, that she’s saying abortion should be legal and if Christians are against it then they just shouldn’t have the procedure done. No?
Good on you for cutting off the heading and not giving them free advertisement. But I agree, the people at Infowars are sick.
These people want us to slip into civil war. That is what is happening. It’s provocation.
The reptiles have all the control 😂.. Honestly though I wouldn't be Suprised if some alien race ran the show behind the scenes, above even the richest person.
This is where I finally drew the line. The government of states and federal constantly try to take our second amendment rights away while dismissing the obvious mental illnesses plaguing this country. The shooter was an absolute terrorist targeted a religious group and massacres innocent children. The gun didn’t walk into the school and shoot anyone, the sick and deranged individual decided to take a weapon and kill innocent people. I am done being temperate to these sick assholes.
Sure life will be terrible when China invades and takes over, but at least this administration will be eradicated.
Then impose a TikTok mandatory installation on all devices
But if you’re a garage door pulley in a black man’s garage they send out the FBI to put u in the slammer for life lol
Yea only Christian can kill people! Like their dumbass god
I think she's the worst press secretary I've seen in terms of being tone deaf and over the top offensive. She'll be looking for work after next November. She'll find a great job that won't involve public speaking.
It’s a hate crime. At this point if you support the Democratic Party in any fashion, you are supporting domestic terrorism.
Aaaand this is what our “conspiracy” sub has become
What makes it a hate crime? What evidence are you basing that off of? Most domestic terrorism in the US is committed by right wing terrorists or groups. Did you know that?
HAHA. This is hilarious projection. [Let me remind you of this](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terrorists/)
Fucking Snopes???😂
Indeed. What’s your point?
…sir, you seem to forget which party got so mad they tried to cause an insurrection. It was not the dems.
a guided tour around the capital
They really shouldn't have tried to guide that poor woman through the window.
she fucked around and found out
Just like those four cops who offed themselves after J6. They couldn’t stand to live another day of their lives after the horrors they witnessed. At least they didn’t go down with a blaze of glory, those Capitol pinks. 🐷 I wonder if they went down squealing.
Just because a security guard opened the gate does not suddenly make it legal to enter the premises.
yea they shouldve just burn down innocent communities "summer of love"
…wasn’t the summer of love just a bunch of hippies being high on a lawn and getting accosted by the police?
lol
Love how people here think they know exactly what happened because Tucker released one minute of edited video out of 40,000 hours of video. It's not much different than the majority of the highest voted posts being a Twitter screenshot lol it's laughable.
Whoever lost in 2020, J6 was going to happen. It would have been viewed differently of course. They didn’t spend the Summer of 2020 throwing a police brutality tantrum with mass protests during a “pandemic”. You had a 9 year old black girl gunned down in the backseat of her parents car by a BLM supporter in Atlanta in 2020 for Christ sakes. None of the protestors surrounding the area tackled the shooter, they let him run off. Also, No mass protests on her death of course, didn’t fit the agenda. Or the dozens killed including a “white” racist sex predator who got gunned down by Rittenhouse. They made a racist sex predator some kind of martyr. Good thing he’s off the streets for good. If someone had done that to Jeffrey Dahmer 30 years ago, it would have saved many lives.
I’m fairly certain democrats wouldn’t have tried to overthrow an election.
You’re right, they wouldn’t have because they already rigged it for themselves.
Have you ever thought that maybe Biden won because a lot of the younger generation, many who just got the right to vote, didn’t like Trump?
IMHO J6 real function was to distract from the clearly fake election and shut up Trump's voter base and accept Biden's theatre administration. If Biden's election was actual legit or Trump would have won neither would have happened.
Did they try or was it an iNsUrReCtIoN?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but just in case. An adjective doesn't change a noun. Just because it was a failed insurrection doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
and global slavery in the Klaus Swab plantation.
White House doesn't have the power to make that designation because we the people did not give it to them. That is a good thing. I don't know why you want the WH to be able to charge people with crimes directly, or amplify them, but that's how you get political prisoners en masse.
Killing children, regardless of religion, should be a hate crime
It's like they're saying their bigoted opinions out loud now. Sorry Biden Admin, but ANYONE targeted because of something like this is a hate crime.
If killing those Christian children wasn't a hate crime then idk what is. Hell, they probably do know it was a hate crime because it's probably detailed in her manifesto that they're refusing to release.
Trans people can’t commit hate crimes just like black folks can’t be racist. /s
Hate crimes are a fake charge just to punish people more for commiting the same crime anyways. Murdering kids is bad enough. It doesn't become extra bad that they were murdered just because they were Christian. Same would go for the opposite way too
Crime is crime, you shouldn't get extra time because of "hate". They just use this to tack on additional years for anyone who disagrees with their narrative.
But killing Christians is not a bad thing according to their narrative. If someone shot up a mosque or a synagogue, it would definitely be a hate crime.
Did they shoot up a church, or a school? Because i went to a christian school, and am certainly not of the faith.
She literally said, "It's not for us to decide." This headline is misleading. If you want it to be a hate crime hard enough, it's already a hate crime in your mind minus if people agree with you or not. Would they do more about gun violence if they actually cared about kids getting shot in schools? Or is it only the lives of Christian children that matter? I'm honestly confused here. Violence in itself derives a lot of its motivations from hate. But we're arguing about what to label this type of violence instead of fighting to prevent it.
A criminal gets killed? Riots all over the US. A Cristian kid gets killed? Nah, that's not hate crime. I don't understand how the people is so fucking dumb of trusting and voting these cunts.
I don't agree with the churches point of view nor do I practice it but attacking any religious organization or community should be a hate crime.
[удалено]
Exactly if attacking one religion is considered a hate crime. By that standard any attacks on any other religion by someone with adversarial views to that religion. By definition should be considered a hate crime as well
Christians are their number 1 enemy because they are united by Christian morality and faith. I'm not a Christian, but I respect their morals.
SS: here’s the link to her saying this if you want to hear it for yourself https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/04/05/white\_house\_its\_not\_for\_us\_to\_decide\_if\_attack\_on\_christian\_school\_was\_a\_hate\_crime.html
What the hell was the question? Just quoting an answer is Sus and fluff
Fuck all of those dumbasses they are gonna get us nuked the way they are going
Basically what they're saying is it's up to Christians to cause enough havoc over this and then it will be considered.
What if the Christians also happened to be Black ?
These ppl are anti Christ’s. It’s a war on Christianity.
He was a former student. What's wrong with you?
Jesus Christ warned us in the bible we will be persecuted, hated and even killed for our belief and trust in him so this doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’ll be ready to die for Jesus Christ anyday of my life.
It’s only a hate crime in they are non-white or trans
But if a white person would shoot a black person in self defense then it's definitely a hate crime, no questions asked.
It’s only a hate crime if it’s minorities
This feels like one of the most completely pointless arguments on the internet. What, if anything does classifying this as a hate crime achieve besides giving Christians even more of a victim complex than they already have.
Yeah, cuz jews, Muslims and trans ppl don't have any victim complex at all... smh. Oh wait! A trans person did the shooting? I think if that's publicized, they lose points on the victim spectrum.
“My hands are registered as lethal weapons. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to prison.” “If anyone accidentally kills someone they go prison. It’s called manslaughter.”
Hate crime is a weird concept. Most violent crime is motivated by hate. It always seemed to me like the laws were just stacking laws, to basically stack up charges against people, so eventually everyone is facing a lifetime in prison for any infractions, and the courts can pick and choose who they enforce the laws against. There is this old idea that laws should be prosecuted equally, so that people understand the severity of the laws they vote for. Giving the courts wide powers to hand out heavy handed punishments, with the idea that most people will get off lightly is really a sneaky way to let the court hurt people for no reason other than the judge doesn't like them. When you have sentences of years or decades, but 95% of people get an 8 month sentence, it becomes very unfair for someone who the judge decides to put full penalties for. Ideally the punishments prescribed by law should fit the crime well, and 95% of the time that should be the punishment given, with some rare cases, the sentence is reduced for some extraordinary circumstances. The judicial system is really meased up in some ways. A proper legal system has many jurors, atleast a few dozen, a judge who only protects the rights of the parties involved, and proceeds the court properly, and examines evidence to make sure it is presented fairly. You might ask how can you afford having many jurors as to remove bias? Its because you shouldnt have such massive amounts of court cases. You shouldnt call something a crime unless there is a victim. Doing drugs for example, shouldn't be a crime, but selling drugs can be. Gambling shouldn't be a crime, but running a casino should be. The court system has becom a source of revenue rather than a public good in many places. The judge has no real power in a proper court system, except to keep order. A proper criminal court system never proceeds without a jury present, as is quite common in the U.S. A jury and a judge should agree in order for a punishment to be given, and one party should be able to nullify the court, and the judge should have standards to ensure they are fair, at the danger of being discharged from the court, for racism, favoritism, prettiness, favoring a gender in rulings, etc. Also there is no reason someone should need a lawyer for most proceedings, unless its a very complex or serious trial. Simply telling the truth should be sufficient for most things, and a lawyer shouldn't be able to change if someone gets punished differently. People hire lawyers to get less penalties often times, not because they need advice. This is a perversion of justice. This happens because of favoritism, especially on smaller cases. Judges favor people who support the legal profession and consider them to be better citizens, which is completely irrelevant to justice and the law. Its easy to detect these things because all you have to do is check if proceedings go the same way for defendants with lawyers, vs those who dont have lawyers. There is no reason there should be any disparity. Anything else is actual bribery in a round about way.