Man who punched free speech rally participant arrested and charged with mayhem with hate crime enhancement
sanfranciscopolice.org/news/san-francisco-pol...Posted Oct 20, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC
6828
sanfranciscopolice.org
I want to know why the mods deleted the other post. When there is no explanation given by mods it leads to distrust.
18
Because we're dude who posted it is a spammer
9
ELI5. Why is this a hate crime and not assault? I do not condone the actions, but I do not see why this was escalated.
16
Because the suspect and others with him called the black victim the N word. Can you imagine the news cycle if the political parties of all involved had been reversed?
34
I guess the video I watch had the audio off. I heard nothing of the sort. If they said the N word, thecharge was appropriate.
18
They said it loudly and often
9
[deleted]
6
Worth clarifying -- the person picked up by SFPD is Black
2
oh woah i didnt realize this. thats wild.
1
Which doesn’t actually matter - you can be racist to people that share your race/ethnicity
1
If it was reversed, it would be national news.
1
He attacked him for nothing more than his beliefs. The guy was walking away doing nothing to instigate and he battered (as well as assaulted) him for nothing more than his creed.
9†
[removed]
1
Good. May the law punish him to whatever extent possible. Piece of dog shit thinks he has the right to punch someone who is participating in a rally advocating for free speech. Does he not realize those participants want him to have his right to free speech? what a CLOWN!
15
6†
Ok that was pathetic/hilarious. Fucking losers.
6
"pretend to be victim" ? Ministry of Truth Bro, The guy was physically assaulted in broad daylight.
edit: On camera! While using his free speech rights to protest! You're in the wrong here and you know it.
3†
[removed]
4†
Just a total coincidence this was cross posted to the conservative sub, totally.
1†
[deleted]
2
422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply: (a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability. (2) Gender. (3) Nationality. (4) Race or ethnicity. (5) Religion. (6) Sexual orientation. (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. (b) “Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.
422.56. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall apply: (a) “Association with a person or group with these actual or perceived characteristics” includes advocacy for, identification with, or being on the ground owned or rented by, or adjacent to, any of the following: a community center, educational facility, family, individual, office, meeting hall, place of worship, private institution, public agency, library, or other entity, group, or person that has, or is identified with people who have, one or more of those characteristics listed in the definition of “hate crime” under paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 422.55. (b) “Disability” includes mental disability and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code regardless of whether those disabilities are temporary, permanent, congenital, or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness. This definition is declaratory of existing law. (c) “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. (d) “In whole or in part because of” means that the bias motivation must be a cause in fact of the offense, whether or not other causes also exist. When multiple concurrent motives exist, the prohibited bias must be a substantial factor in bringing about the particular result. There is no requirement that the bias be a main factor, or that the crime would not have been committed but for the actual or perceived characteristic. This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law under In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698 and People v. Superior Court (Aishman) (1995) 10 Cal.4th 735. (e) “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin. (f) “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, and ethnic background. (g) “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism. (h) “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. (i) “Victim” includes, but is not limited to, a community center, educational facility, entity, family, group, individual, office, meeting hall, person, place of worship, private institution, public agency, library, or other victim or intended victim of the offense.
422.57. For purposes this code, unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, “gender” has the same meaning as in Section 422.56.
2
[removed]
1
What is "hate crime enhancement"?
The article you linked to doesn't mention anything about a hate crime.
r/SF is being astroturfed by Trumpers, probably because of the upcoming election.
1
From the article...
“Adora Anderson was transported to San Francisco County Jail where he was booked on charges of mayhem (203 PC) and a hate crime enhancement (422.75(a) PC).”
A hate crime enhancement is added to an existing felony charge which increased the severity of the crime and the punishment.
I have no idea the circumstances, but someone else mentioned racial slurs being used before the assault.
2
I can't condone attacks on people like that unless they're literal Nazis.
-10
Good! In America you need to be free from the threat of violence when you speak in the public square.
What are you, some kind of fascist or somethin'? /s
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean free to say what you want without repercussions.
Physical violence isn't a punishment for being a dip shit.
Assaulting someone in public IS a crime. The person who punched the other guy is entirely in the wrong and should be charged.
That's right! public squares for all the fascists! Piazzale Loreto? Never heard of her! And then charge WWII vets all with hate crimes! We'll feed the Nazis a light meal after! Invite them over for dessert! Tell them to bring their hoods! Justice!