CA: ‘Hate Crime’ Charges Filed Against Attackers of Larry Elder, Councilwomen – IOTW Report

CA: ‘Hate Crime’ Charges Filed Against Attackers of Larry Elder, Councilwomen

California Globe: Two women who were with Gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder in Venice Beach Wednesday say they were attacked by several protestors hurling eggs and racial epithets while walking through the Venice neighborhood. Soledad Ursua and Chie Lunn have filed police reports with the LAPD demanding the case be filed as a hate crime.

Ursua says she and Lunn, both members of the Venice Neighborhood Council, “are the only women of color on the council,” and felt targeted.

“The Elder campaign had just begun its final leg of the campaign by instituting a statewide ‘Recall Express’ bus tour on Tuesday, with stops in Los Angeles, Venice, Northridge, and Santa Barbara scheduled on Wednesday,” the Globe reported. “His Venice stop was across from the Gold’s Gym, a popular campaign stop for many politicians due to its proximity to many large homeless encampments in the area and many services catering to low-income and homeless people.”

read more

12 Comments on CA: ‘Hate Crime’ Charges Filed Against Attackers of Larry Elder, Councilwomen

  1. Whilst I don’t agree with the whole concept of a “hate crime”, I guess it applies to this incident. A crime is a crime is a crime. If the actions are criminal then a crime was committed.

    15
  2. If the alleged assailants are charged with a hate crime they’ll be allowed to plead to lesser charges. The fix will already be in place courtesy of the DA and the public defender(s) for the assailants. The entire outcome will receive the blessing of some liberal judge. Of course all this depends on whether or not the Venice PD makes an attempt to find and arrest those who hurled eggs and epithets.

    4
  3. Sauce, goose, gander.
    Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, #4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    4
  4. Cmn**Guy (Sorry, I couldn’t find the cents mark on my iPad): there was a recall of a county supervisor in Sonoma County in 1976 or so. In that vote, it was one question to recall the person. Electing the replacement was another. I don’t know if the methodology has changed, but if it hasn’t then splitting the vote among 46 candidates is not relevant to the issue at hand — if Newsome is recalled, he is recalled. He would not be one of the 46 candidates. I was not in California when Arnold became Governor so I don’t know how it worked.

    2

Comments are closed.