Radical Deconstruction of Society (Portland Stabbing Spin Off)

[BaiHu]

What the eff does a guy need to do in Portland to spend 20 to life in prison?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk




Kill 2 people while committing a hate crime?

Seriously I think a hate crime in the known liberal region may finally do the job and get him more time than the previous crimes since those may have been just "the system failing him" as the quoted post hinted to. Real or not that general thinking is too common in some areas.




You can pretty much ask that question anywhere in the country. Even in areas (at least formerly) known for being tough on crime and prosecution, the number of miscreants on the street is pretty astounding. And this despite the U.S. having the reputation of over-incarcerating its citizenry.

Must be something in the water.

Tam made an interesting comment "wondering where he was radicalized" and I thought about this last night and this morning because that offhand remark is really quite telling in many ways.

For those with a certain bent or mindset, or bent mindset if you will, it is relatively easy to connect the dots from frustration to anger to lashing out.

Think for a moment about the things that had lots of relatively sane, reasonable and thoughtful folks voting for Trump because the alternative seemed even worse. Think about some of the lies being perpetrated by so-called community leaders and soldiers for social justice such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the fringe elements, (to be charitable), of the BLM movement in how they characterized, demonized and marginalized masses of folks of a differing skin tone to achieve and accomplish their ends. The truth was a victim in much or most of their invective.

(I use those individuals and group as an example because they offended my sense of truth and justice most recently. White supremacist, racist, nationalist groups, as well as similar Muslim groups could also be used for the illustration. Hell, even commentators on certain news outlets were a step short of calling for counter-insurrection.)

I clearly remember how angry this political rhetoric and the inciting of violence made me and how I'd walk around for days on end deeply disturbed by what I saw happening across my country. A country I love and have dedicated most of my adult life to serving.

Now think of the response to the same bombardment by a mind somewhat less sound, less capable of reining in an emotional response, more inclined to take marching orders from leaders or speakers who have decided to dehumanize and make villains and targets of the opposition. What you get is a dangerous and potentially lethal cocktail of seething emotions blindly acted out upon despite an actual, legitimate target not being in focus.

No side can claim to be free of this fringe element and only the center can do its best to hold the line and try to keep things from spiraling out of control. The answer is clearly not a simple one. Things need to be addressed from nearly every angle of our daily lives...from child rearing and education to our cultural and government institutions.

Just a few thoughts. Nothing earth shattering, but some of what has been on my mind in the wake of all these tragedies.

Much of it because of the simple question..."I wonder where he was radicalized?"

I'd love to have a big discussion on this, because it effects every aspect of our lives. I can't respond in detail to what blues wrote yet, but I will.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[1slow]

At what point are the violence inciters criminally guilty ? It seems that leftists never have to bear responsibility for the hate they preach.

[blues]

At what point are the violence inciters criminally guilty ? It seems that leftists never have to bear responsibility for the hate they preach.

Honestly, I don't think any one side has a monopoly on this...though some may appear louder and get more coverage in the msm.

I'm pretty much equally offended and wanting to lash out at those who would promote "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon", "ship all blacks back to Africa", "kill the Jews and mud people", and those who identify Mexicans and Muslims as somehow less good or less human based upon the twin accidents of birthplace and the families they were born into.

If we arrested all those with malice, hatred or plain ignorance in their hearts there would be very few of us walking around...

...but, those who foment violence bear watching at the very least and prosecution when the line between first amendment rights and inciting a riot can be ascertained.

Sticky stuff.

[1slow]

I agree one side does not have a monopoly and inciting a riot is evil no matter who does it. It does seem the leftists currently get by with it more without penalty.

[blues]

I agree one side does not have a monopoly and inciting a riot is evil no matter who does it. It does seem the leftists get by with it more without penalty.

I think what bothered me most, recently, in light of your observation was there being no arrest in Ferguson when (I believe it was the step-father) called for violence and burning it down. (If I have the identity or locale incorrect forgive me, it's easy to confuse similar uprisings over the past couple of years.)

The other one that pissed me off royally was that female agitator in Berkeley who was allowed to physically assault that jackass white supremacist without being stopped, let alone arrested.

Folks who think that the first amendment only applies to themselves and the right of free speech does not extend to others with a different viewpoint are a very dangerous breed.

I generally try not to see things in terms of "left" and "right" but rather right and wrong. (And by "wrong" I do not mean to imply "left".)

Just as I feel that neither side has a monopoly on misdeeds, I don't believe that either side has a monopoly on truth or ethical / moral foundation.

The truth lies somewhere between and I've always felt that "labeling" does far more harm than good. I'm tired of us branding ourselves into subgroups of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans etc. I'm for us all being Americans. I don't believe in the ideology of the left or right, Republicans or Democrats. I believe in being an independent and an independent thinker.

(And in saying the above I am not in the least disagreeing with your perception of the wrongs being committed. I hope that's clear.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is not true in the history of the USA. Violence from extremists of the left and right is not unknown through our history. I'm old enough to remember the terrible racist violence of the past. If you study history, during WWI, there was terrible and organized government and vigilante violence against those who opposed our entry in WWI (a position that had some merit). Oregon had a history of racism long before our current times. In fact, the total number of violent incidents today is mild compared to the past. Of course, we have the media presentations of those. In WWI days, there were no penalties for some pretty hideous things.

As far taking responsibility and excusing violence, people make moral decisions based on various principles. There is the abstract moral and legal view. Then there is supporting your own social group and tribe. If the tribe does it, even it violates some abstract moral view, the action is excusable and correct. Most people are in this category. Free speech - not for the other tribe, violence against the other tribe - OK.

Civilization is very thin.

[octagon]

Very good posts Blues. I agree that all sides bear some responsibility.

My issue or concern that I posted in the other thread about how these violent acts are labeled is a problem because too often the label is a tool for a group to comfortably exclude themselves from responsibility or other group to use the label as a political tool to attack or denigrate an alternate view. There are differences between similar acts when the motivation is considered even if the outcome is also similar. Take for instance the drunk who drives into a crowd and kills 8 people compared to the terrorist who does the same compared to the angry violent criminal who does the same. In each case there are the same amount of people killed and suffering families and victims. The difference is motivation or lack there of and the effect on greater society.

In my opinion there is a difference between terrorist act that targets all people and has the desire to instill fear in everyone opposed to the terrorist ideology. The hate crime is similar but specifically targeted the group hated by the perpetrator and others likely don't feel as threatened if at all. Then the general criminal who doesn't focus their act of violence on any specific group based on race,religion,ethnicity etc. just the vulnerable or easier target. In each case the results directly related to the act are quite similar, however the larger response to society as a whole are quite different. I think they all should be punished severely if death and great bodily harm occur but terrorism should have even greater penalty as an added component since it intentionally targets and threatens society. Hate crimes should also have the added penalty over just that of death or great bodily harm.

However as Blues stated this gets sticky when a crime is committed and the person involved may or may not have been committing such act as an act of terrorism, hate crime or just a crime without added elements of motivation.

An example is the person who went to a protest and either pulled a gun or shot someone and claimed self defense. The investigation showed they made social media posts about their disdain for the other side indicating at least some bias and forethought of intent. I don't recall the details of that incident to post a link.

The guy in MS who killed 8 family members and a LEO. He had plenty of hate and anger and deserves harsh penalty for his actions but the effect on society who wasn't targeted to instill fear or attacked because they fit into a specific group is so much less.

[Totem Polar]

Tam made an interesting comment "wondering where he was radicalized" and I thought about this last night and this morning because that offhand remark is really quite telling in many ways.

For those with a certain bent or mindset, or bent mindset if you will, it is relatively easy to connect the dots from frustration to anger to lashing out.

Think for a moment about the things that had lots of relatively sane, reasonable and thoughtful folks voting for Trump because the alternative seemed even worse. Think about some of the lies being perpetrated by so-called community leaders and soldiers for social justice such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the fringe elements, (to be charitable), of the BLM movement in how they characterized, demonized and marginalized masses of folks of a differing skin tone to achieve and accomplish their ends. The truth was a victim in much or most of their invective.

(I use those individuals and group as an example because they offended my sense of truth and justice most recently. White supremacist, racist, nationalist groups, as well as similar Muslim groups could also be used for the illustration. Hell, even commentators on certain news outlets were a step short of calling for counter-insurrection.)


Not much to add, save for this matches my thoughts and experiences. From listening to the way many older males talked to younger males while waiting for the sun to go down during Ramadan when I lived in the ME as a kid, to experiencing small town raciscm growing up in the rural PacNW, to having a local seat for the Aryan shit show in the Hayden Lake region, to watching the whole "hands up don't shoot" and other viral offshoots, I'm still just the same 9-year old I was in Amman, going "WTF" whenever I hear exaggerated demonization of the other. I see more similarities between the Aryans of the early 90s and the BLM'ers of the 20-teens than differences, from my observation portal on spaceship earth.

I'm a "behaviorist"; when i see someone behaving like an asshole, then they're an asshole... doesn't matter what color, creed, or cause they identify with. Simple, really.

What's not so simple is mitigating this unseemly underpinning of human nature. First person to discover and bottle a solution wins the final nobel prize.

[ssb]

At what point are the violence inciters criminally guilty ? It seems that leftists never have to bear responsibility for the hate they preach.

Currently, it's quite difficult to convict somebody of incitement -- especially when the waters are muddied by political rhetoric. Whether it should (or shouldn't) be is another issue.

As to leftists, I think more and more of them have started to see violence as an answer -- but only for the "right" people. The OK-to-punch-a-Nazi phenomenon verbalized (picturized) a sentiment that, in my opinion, has been breeding for quite some time, particularly on college campuses. This young woman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObYK4C9TxRs) was pepper sprayed because she wore the wrong hat and played for the wrong team; all she was doing was giving an interview. The thing is, these people view their actions as a form of self-defense. They stopped buying into the whole marketplace of ideas thing we've historically adhered to. Bad speech isn't something to be countered; it's something to be made to stop, as it represents "violence" against them.

Personally, I don't think these sorts of people have any business being near the legislative pen should we start re-defining what incitement is. We go down that road, there's a fair chance they will be.

[1slow]

Age 59, I grew up in a time when prejudice was more prevalent. Until recently (2008), I believe progress toward less prejudice has been made. I do not want to see the USA go backwards.

I believe the hatemongers are creating a real problem.

If you are a member of group A, and group B is being told to attack you and deny your rights, it is hard not to see group B as a threat. I do not care who the attackers are, it is wrong that they are encouraged to attack you.

There is a saying about "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind." We do not need any of the politics of hate. These hatemongers can lead to a situation where things escalate hugely.

[1slow]

Currently, it's quite difficult to convict somebody of incitement -- especially when the waters are muddied by political rhetoric. Whether it should (or shouldn't) be is another issue.

As to leftists, I think more and more of them have started to see violence as an answer -- but only for the "right" people. The OK-to-punch-a-Nazi phenomenon verbalized (picturized) a sentiment that, in my opinion, has been breeding for quite some time, particularly on college campuses. This young woman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObYK4C9TxRs) was pepper sprayed because she wore the wrong hat and played for the wrong team; all she was doing was giving an interview. The thing is, these people view their actions as a form of self-defense. They stopped buying into the whole marketplace of ideas thing we've historically adhered to. Bad speech isn't something to be countered; it's something to be made to stop, as it represents "violence" against them.

Personally, I don't think these sorts of people have any business being near the legislative pen should we start re-defining what incitement is. We go down that road, there's a fair chance they will be.

Agreed.

[critter]

"hate" is meaningless here. It's an emotion and not an action. 'Illegalizing' emotional content, in reality, is an effort in futility, idiocy and narrative control. "Hate speech", "Hate crime" -- these are so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless because the terms may be defined, redefined, and applied at will. Same with idiotic terminology such as "Islamophobia" -- because it is applied, by design, to label and shut down anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam. "Homophobia" is another as well as other labels of silencing. These are all part and parcel of leftist shitbaggery designed to push leftist agenda, comrades. It's textbook leftist intolerance under the guise of promoting tolerance.

What did this utter dickwad on the train actually do? He infringed upon the liberty and rights of another(s). Period. Off to Fuckery Island with his sorry ass. In fact, had he been Fuckery Islanded when he should have been, he would not have been present at the scenes for any of his ensuing illustrious criminal career.

Personally, I value neither humans nor human life categorically. Some individuals are simply defective for whatever reasons. Nothing to do with race, gender, sexual preference, etc -- asshat fills the spectrum as do those who respect the rights of others.

[1slow]

Agreed, we are responsible for our actions. An emotion is not an action.

[octagon]

"hate" is meaningless here. It's an emotion and not an action. 'Illegalizing' emotional content, in reality, is an effort in futility, idiocy and narrative control. "Hate speech", "Hate crime" -- these are so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless because the terms may be defined, redefined, and applied at will. Same with idiotic terminology such as "Islamophobia" -- because it is applied, by design, to label and shut down anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam. "Homophobia" is another as well as other labels of silencing. These are all part and parcel of leftist shitbaggery designed to push leftist agenda, comrades. It's textbook leftist intolerance under the guise of promoting tolerance.

What did this utter dickwad on the train actually do? He infringed upon the liberty and rights of another(s). Period. Off to Fuckery Island with his sorry ass. In fact, had he been Fuckery Islanded when he should have been, he would not have been present at the scenes for any of his ensuing illustrious criminal career.

Personally, I value neither humans nor human life categorically. Some individuals are simply defective for whatever reasons. Nothing to do with race, gender, sexual preference, etc -- asshat fills the spectrum as do those who respect the rights of others.

I disagree with the first paragraph you wrote and so does society. Our laws are written with hate as an element. Manslaughter or negligent homicide have different elements and different penalties than 2nd degree murder which requires malice and 1st degree murder which requires malice of forethought or pre planning of some sort. Terrorism and hate crimes can and do have different effects on society than regular crime of the same action because of intent and outcome. Murders in Walmart or the mall parking lot don't stop or effect people shopping but a terrorist attack at the same place can and if serious enough does even if it is short term or less than a large effect. Killing a police officer is often adjusted to have harsher penalty than killing of a person who is not a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO life is more valuable or important it means society looks at as an attack on society not just an attack on an individual.

The actual labeling by media and public opinion can and often are biased. The labeling for criminal purposes shouldn't be as defined by our written laws but unfortunately have been.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been reading the book 'Shattered' about the failed Clinton campaign. One thing becomes clear is that the use of data analytics aimed her campaign at maximizing the turnout of specific groups in such numbers as to win the primaries and get delegates. General appeal outside of minority voters was ignored. It won the primary season along with the superdelegates. However, the ignored subsection of the population lost the election in the states that turned on her.

Point is that politicians are trying to maximize subsection of the voter issues by pushing fringe issues to become candidates. This increases group polarization and moves these fringes towards violence. It is feature of both parties.

Fighting for bathroom rights vs. shutting down Planned Parenthood will get no one a good job or keep the country safer. But it will lead to folks punching each other. That's overly simplistic but that's the best our candidates can offer.

Trump and Bernie emphasized economic issues for the average schmuck. However, that has fallen by the wayside.

[critter]

I disagree with the first paragraph you wrote and so does society. Our laws are written with hate as an element. Manslaughter or negligent homicide have different elements and different penalties than 2nd degree murder which requires malice and 1st degree murder which requires malice of forethought or pre planning of some sort. Terrorism and hate crimes can and do have different effects on society than regular crime of the same action because of intent and outcome. Murders in Walmart or the mall parking lot don't stop or effect people shopping but a terrorist attack at the same place can and if serious enough does even if it is short term or less than a large effect. Killing a police officer is often adjusted to have harsher penalty than killing of a person who is not a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO life is more valuable or important it means society looks at as an attack on society not just an attack on an individual.

The actual labeling by media and public opinion can and often are biased. The labeling for criminal purposes shouldn't be as defined by our written laws but unfortunately have been.

Yeah, I do get that. ;) Can you define 'criminal hate'? What is it exactly? What is 'hate speech'? What are the precise criteria for its application? How does it differ from 'intense lingering anger'? or even 'delusional anger'? I could hate a fellow white individual or groups of whites enough to kill him/them with malice or malice aforethought but that wouldn't be considered a hate crime though solely precipitated by my emotional hatred, and/or perhaps delusional, ideologically inspired hatred. Still, white on white is not hate crime even with all criteria being identical.

[octagon]

Yeah, I do get that. ;) Can you define 'criminal hate'? What is it exactly? What is 'hate speech'? What are the precise criteria for its application? How does it differ from 'intense lingering anger'? or even 'delusional anger'? I could hate a fellow white individual or groups of whites enough to kill him/them with malice or malice aforethought but that wouldn't be considered a hate crime though solely precipitated by my emotional hatred, and/or perhaps delusional, ideologically inspired hatred. Still, white on white is not hate crime even with all criteria being identical.

Here is how the law defines it in MI where I used to work.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qh1ifi02px0a3apvm0agzlwl))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-750-147b

Each state and the feds have their own definitions but all are fairly similar. The issue isn't so much how it is defined but how it is applied both by prosecutors,judges and juries if it ever gets that far.

My opinion only matters if I am part of the system involved in prosecuting a person directly otherwise it means almost nothing. One thing we all must be careful of is attaching hateful general thoughts or speech to actions when they are not always connected. Ugly and often hateful speech is what our 1st amendment rights protect. It is action directly related to the speech that becomes a problem. There almost always needs to be both or we will have the thought police conundrum.

The last line was difficult to determine exactly what you meant but if a white person kills another white person because they were a gay,Jewish or Muslim white person and the killer was not it certainly could be a hate crime. White Christian that kills a white Jewish person could be a hate crime if they are shown to have committed the act because of the difference but not if the different religions were not a factor.

An example that may be relevant but is ongoing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/16/chapel-hill-killings-muslims-parking/23514293/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chapel_Hill_shooting

[critter]

Here is how the law defines it in MI where I used to work.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qh1ifi02px0a3apvm0agzlwl))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-750-147b

Each state and the feds have their own definitions but all are fairly similar. The issue isn't so much how it is defined but how it is applied both by prosecutors,judges and juries if it ever gets that far.


Thanks for the link... and that's kinda my point. It can be applied at will. Perhaps my use of 'defined' is erroneous here, though I don't think definition can be separated because definitions are stretch or massaged for specific application.



My opinion only matters if I am part of the system involved in prosecuting a person directly otherwise it means almost nothing. One thing we all must be careful of is attaching hateful general thoughts or speech to actions when they are not always connected. Ugly and often hateful speech is what our 1st amendment rights protect. It is action directly related to the speech that becomes a problem. There almost always needs to be both or we will have the thought police conundrum.

Definitely agree here. IMO, we already have the thought police, or perhaps more aptly, 'Narrative Control Police' -- and that's directly related to the Radical Deconstruction of Society (Portland Stabbing Spin Off).

Of course, my opinions are worth exactly what I paid you all to read them.

[OlongJohnson]

Worth a listen in context:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/persuasion-and-control

[BaiHu]

Awesome posts by the whole lot of you. I think this thread is the exact 'spirit of humanity' that is being lost in society today. The 'radical deconstruction' of our society began with the deconstruction of language - ie political correctness, trigger warnings, hate speech, mansplaining, etc.

As 1slow said, "I believe progress toward less prejudice has been made. I do not want to see the USA go backwards. I believe the hatemongers are creating a real problem." This is the crux of the matter. Simultaneously we've seen prejudice greatly reduce while 'tribalism' greatly increasing. Couple that with the radical deconstructionism (RD) that allows for 'all things to be relevant' and you have a perfect stew of chaos.

Let's just reconstruct the psycho in Portland as an example of the larger issue since it is what spurred this thread.

1. The RD has turned criminality on its head. What once was 'mitigation' is now complete 'personal narrative' excuse making so that anyone's 'lifestyle' choice can be seen as acceptable. Whence I've coined the statement, "when you try to protect every blade of grass, you kill the lawn."

2. Once you make 'criminality' a victimhood 'lifestyle' that isn't by choice, but rather a foisted upon weight by a white, cis-gendered, male patriarchy of religious dogma, then the criminal is no longer responsible for their actions.

3. Now look at the types of people foisting the above 2 points upon society. They are typically in the political class, teacher's union class, legal/grievance class, political pundit class and the class that continues to come up with excuses to riot in order to keep the aforementioned 4 classes well paid. Remember that many of the 5 classes I mentioned above will and do have children and/or teach/influence children.

4. Now scraping the bottom of the roots and getting to the 'soil', let's look at the modern day child and how many of them are being 'raised' and how their habits are forming around the above. Entitlement in the ghetto or the 'burbs'? Check. Entitlement in the classroom and on the field? Check.

Take my 4 points and add in a dash of "Useful idiots" (Russian statement attributed to Lenin, but possibly incorrectly) and John Stuart Mill or Edmund Burke's statement that, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." and you have a perfect recipe for chaos.

Looking forward to further discussion.

[BaiHu]

Something relevant to my above points.
https://yourot.com/parenting-club/2017/5/24/what-are-we-doing-to-our-children?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Totem Polar]

Something relevant to my above points.
https://yourot.com/parenting-club/2017/5/24/what-are-we-doing-to-our-children?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

I like that article.

[BaiHu]

I like that article.
Glad you did. It's like the 4th rail of discussions - lol!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[critter]

Worth a listen in context:

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/persuasion-and-control

Indeed it was worth a listen. Some very interesting observations. The 'Rabbit hole' algorithms are quite intriguing. Which explains why YT continues to drive me toward "Lizard people control world government", etc. I thought they were sneaking a peak through my camera and assumed I could relate. ;)

[Totem Polar]

Glad you did. It's like the 4th rail of discussions - lol!


I've seen rails that were more like particle accelerators, this is nothing... :D

[Zincwarrior]

What is the point of this thread? Crazy racist shouts at two women (shouting Arabs back to Saudi Arabia and other crap). Others stand up and he stabs them. Investigate to make sure he's not part of a link. Charge him with murder and hate crimes if they have the laws and illegal weapons and any other damn thing that will stick and throw him under the jail. What else is there to discuss?


"Lizard people control world government",
As long as it is not the cat people. My wiener dog tells me he will not tolerate cat people in control.

[BaiHu]

What is the point of this thread? Crazy racist shouts at two women (shouting Arabs back to Saudi Arabia and other crap). Others stand up and he stabs them. Investigate to make sure he's not part of a link. Charge him with murder and hate crimes if they have the laws and illegal weapons and any other damn thing that will stick and throw him under the jail. What else is there to discuss?

As long as it is not the cat people. My wiener dog tells me he will not tolerate cat people in control.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic and I get that, but to answer you genuinely:

What have we allowed to happen in society that we no longer jail people?

We could say that there's nothing new under the sun, but we have traded shadows cast by dinosaurs with shadows cast by moral relativism. So there's that.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Perhaps you were being sarcastic and I get that, but to answer you genuinely:

What have we allowed to happen in society that we no longer jail people?

We could say that there's nothing new under the sun, but we have traded shadows cast by dinosaurs with shadows cast by moral relativism. So there's that.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

No sarcasm meant. Apologies but I don't understand your question. I believe this gent has been charged with-multiple counts of murder and the local version of hate crimes which act for additional sentencing. Can you clarify further?

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/29/accused-portland-stabber-liked-nazis-comics-and-pot

He was charged with aggravated murder, intimidation — the state equivalent of a hate crime — and being a felon in possession of a weapon and was scheduled to be in court Tuesday.

[BaiHu]

No sarcasm meant. Apologies but I don't understand your question. I believe this gent has been charged with-multiple counts of murder and the local version of hate crimes which act for additional sentencing. Can you clarify further?

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/29/accused-portland-stabber-liked-nazis-comics-and-pot
Maybe you missed this in the original thread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_suspect_in_2_slayings.html

The guy has weapons charges, kidnapping, etc already under his belt. Guy should've been in jail, not stabbing people.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Maybe you missed this in the original thread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_suspect_in_2_slayings.html

The guy has weapons charges, kidnapping, etc already under his belt. Guy should've been in jail, not stabbing people.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

OOOOOOH! Thanks that helps!
Yes I did not see that thread.
Gotcha. In that case, yea why is he not already growing old in a penitentiary?

[voodoo_man]

Maybe you missed this in the original thread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_suspect_in_2_slayings.html

The guy has weapons charges, kidnapping, etc already under his belt. Guy should've been in jail, not stabbing people.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Google says Ted wheeler is the mayor who is a democrat.
And according to Wikipedia the last time a right leaning mayor was in office was in 1980.

All you need to know about why crazy people with violent criminal charges are allowed to be out and about.