Tacking on a hate crime charge for PAINTING OVER OTHER VANDALISM is purely vindictive and designed to ruin these people's lives. Hope everyone is happy with this.

In recent days some terrific activist art projects have modified problematic monuments with graffiti and image projections.

Good. They should be charged.

Good. They should be charged.

Should the people who painted the "mural" in the first place be charged? Doesn't it seem like we're setting up a two-tiered justice system based on the political ideologies of the perpetrators and/or victims?

Should the people who painted the "mural" in the first place be charged? Doesn't it seem like we're setting up a two-tiered justice system based on the political ideologies of the perpetrators and/or victims?

Yes, the original people should be charged too.

Covering up other acts of vandalism, without the proper permission, is itself vandalism, I suppose. So yeah, go ahead and charge them with vandalism.

The hate crime charge is preposterous and indicative of prosecutorial misconduct. There is no "victim", here, who's race was the impetus for the crime, it was a political disagreement. To charge these people with a hate crime for covering up BLM vandalism is to attempt to codify the notion that disagreeing with certain politics/politicking is racist at best, and criminally racist at worst. EVERYONE should be outraged over the inclusion of hate crime charges.

I think the hate crime part of it will be difficult to prove but you are being overdramatic.

I'm gonna say that if you were the guy sitting there under such a charge you'd be a little nervous about it and that wouldn't be overdramatic.

Actually no, the original creators shouldn't be charged with anything. They had gotten it approved by the city.

Actually no, the original creators shouldn't be charged with anything. They had gotten it approved by the city.

It would be like if a far Right organization branded itself as Love Thy Neighbor. And anyone who said they didn't support loving thy neighbor was pilloried and made a social pariah.

It would be like if a far Right organization branded itself as Love Thy Neighbor. And anyone who said they didn't support loving thy neighbor was pilloried and made a social pariah.

The statement "black lives matter" isn't controversial at all. In fact I have never met a single person in my entire life who would disagree with it, and that even includes people I would consider racists. And for the vast majority of people, "black lives matter" means just that. It's simple and straightforward.

But that's the problem. Black Lives Matter isn't simply a statement that almost every American agrees with. It's an organized polictial movement, one that many, if not most people who have no issue with the sentiment being painted on public property with government approval do not support. Or wouldn't support if they knew exactly what its philosophies and goals were.

That may be true but it raises another question.

The statement "black lives matter" isn't controversial at all. In fact I have never met a single person in my entire life who would disagree with it, and that even includes people I would consider racists. And for the vast majority of people, "black lives matter" means just that. It's simple and straightforward.

But that's the problem. Black Lives Matter isn't simply a statement that almost every American agrees with. It's an organized polictial movement, one that many, if not most people who have no issue with the sentiment being painted on public property with government approval do not support. Or wouldn't support if they knew exactly what its philosophies and goals were.

It would be like if a far Right organization branded itself as Love Thy Neighbor. And anyone who said they didn't support loving thy neighbor was pilloried and made a social pariah.

Oh boy, here we go .

Black Lives Matter really isn't all that organized though.

Black Lives Matter really isn't all that organized though. That's one of the biggest issues that I have with them.

They've managed to raise a lot of cash.

The people behind the movement for police reform don't want a leader in order to be more organized or have a more coherent message.

It's a slogan. The people behind the movement for police reform don't want a leader in order to be more organized or have a more coherent message. It would give people who oppose the message an easier target for assassination and other things. Allowing anyone to be able to put a rally together makes a lot of sense when you think about it that way.

So why are these people painting over it?