Ohio Republican Pushes TERRIBLE Hate Crime Law

So right now, at this moment, there is a debate going on in the Ohio State legislative body,

and this is whether or not the state of Ohio should in fact adopt a hate crime statute,

because that state is among very few states in this union that does not actually have a hate

crime enhancement in their law. Now, of course, this is not exactly 100% true. If you actually

examine Ohio law, what you ultimately end up finding out is that they have a hate crime or

ethnic intimidation law, but that's a specific crime. However, what they're trying to do is what

many states in the union actually have, which is essentially say, if the motivation behind your

crime is evil white racism or any kind of ism, whether it's disability, ism anti-gayism,

islamophobia, ism anti-semitism, ism, then that somehow makes it more of a serious crime,

and therefore there should be larger enhancements to those particular punishments. And the thing is,

while normally we would expect this kind of statute to be proposed and championed by the democratic

party, it's actually being pushed right now in this moment by a member of the Republican Party,

and while many of you probably are thinking that this is somehow related to anti-semitism and how

the Republicans kind of betray all their principles when it comes to the issues of Jewish people,

in reality, in actuality, it actually has absolutely nothing to do with that. It turns out that we

have a black Republican representative who says that he has had the N word hurled at him a bunch

of different times. Therefore, Ohio needs to break with their tradition and actually insert one

of these particular laws that makes killing somebody a really bad crime, but killing somebody while

calling them the N word an ultra double meany exclusive bad crime that is deserving of greater

punishment. So this is what we're going to talk about today. This is what we're going to discuss,

but before we get into that, I want to thank everybody who supports this channel via actualjusticewarrior.com

slash join. Give me the money. Give you. Give me the money. Okay.

So like I said, in the open of this particular video, it turns out that this bill is being pushed

as a bipartisan bill as a member of the Republican Party appears to be one of the champions behind

this. Now, of course, we are going to do a deep dive into this particular proposed legislation

in just a moment. However, I will point out for everybody out there in the audience, and I don't

mean to create a hate crime against the gays that may be watching this, that Kate Usen, this lady

right here that you can barely see in this local news segment, is in fact a very attractive lady.

In fact, I looked at this other local news segment in order to, you know, investigate this story

fully. And what I found out is that this woman's cat-like eyes are in fact fascinating, attractive.

And if I didn't say anything, if I didn't dig up this extra video of this woman, then you guys

out there in the audience, the ones of us that be perverts, we're definitely going to say something.

But of course, we got to get into whether or not this is a good idea, which is this new hate crime

legislation. So let's hear a little bit from the local news full segments linked in the

description, by the way, go support your local news media outlets. They desperately need you.

Look, as a black man in America, I've been caught in word a lot of my life.

Federal data shows that hate crimes are increasing more than I'm a politician that's black as a

Republican than I've ever been in my life. So already, and I mean all, and then ready, I see a bit

of a red flag right here in that this is not only trying to add in some criminal responsibility

for these perceived hate crime motivations, but also they're trying to open the door in order to

have a bunch of these different various lawsuits where you could sue people for civil hate crimes,

whatever that means. And considering this guy's experience has led him to this point of allegedly

being called the N word and specifically for being a black Republican, to me, I don't know if I'm

really going to get on board with this. I think we need to examine this proposal a little bit more

because I find it to be a tiny bit sketchy if I'm being perfectly honest with you guys out there

in the audience, even though again, you have a Republican, along with some Democrats, but the chief

advocate for this at this moment in time is a Republican that is pushing this particular bill.

So we go to this particular bill and we actually end up looking at section A1. And what we see

right here is that they're saying they want a prohibit intimidation by threat of violence,

which includes both of the following, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a

peace officer or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person is engaged in

unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the

claim or the report is false with reckless disregard for truth or falsity of the claim of the

report to distributing materials on private property without authorization with the purpose

of terrorizing the owner or occupant of the private property. The definition of terrorize is

means to cause a person of ordinary emotions and sensibilities to fear for that person's personal

safety. So to me, it is rather odd at the beginning of this bill that you actually see something

in relation to making false reports to the police about an individual because in reality,

it is already illegal in every state in the union to make a false police report on somebody.

If you know what you're alleging in said police report is in fact false. This leads me to believe

that what's actually going on here is that they're trying to institute one of those woke laws that

was proposed in the city of San Francisco, where somehow calling the police on a black person that

you suspect of committing a crime is going to be considered illegal and prosecutable. And that

right there, I am not interested in in addition to that. We have the other section that I just read

right there about the terrorization of somebody with materials being distributed on their private

property. And it is very important for you guys to understand that this already would be illegal

under Ohio's ethnic intimidation statute. Again, the one thing that they have in their law that is

not hate crime legislation, but it's specifically related to ethnic intimidation is already in effect

and would cover this at least partially, although I will point out that the materials being extended

to all private property to intimidate the owner rather than just, you know, the business of that

person if you're like burning across or something or their private residence seems a little bit sketchy

in my humble opinion if I'm being perfectly honest. But again, let us read further to see if this

bill is starting to make sense. A subject to division B of this section, no person shall terrorize

another person by violence or by intimidation or by threat of violence committed against the person

or the person's property for any of the following reasons, the person's political affiliation,

the person's race color, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry, the person's age,

familial status, military status or disability, as those terms are defined in section 4112.01 of

the revised code, the person's position in a labor dispute, the perception of the person having a

political affiliation, characteristic or position described in divisions 1 to 4. And of course,

this does not apply to statements of positions in a labor dispute when that's actually going on

in the picketing process. Now, look, even though this proposal is in fact a hate crime proposal

and there are many Democrats that are on board with this, you could tell in part that this is

written by a Republican because the first thing that was actually set up right there was political

affiliation and remember our representative that is pushing this particular legislation says that

he's been called the N word in relation to him being a Republican repeatedly. So obviously,

if that's what he's trying to address, his political affiliation being used as a scapegoat

for the racial discrimination, he says he's being experiencing is what he's trying to avoid as a

defense from other individuals. But the thing is, you're allowed to call out people for their

political affiliation, you're allowed to go after them, the fact is that there's a bunch of people

that are outright communists and they deserve to be disparaged. So to me, this is going

afar beyond what should be allowed. However, some of the Democrats who are usually on board with this

have a different objection because if you look at all the innate characteristics that I talked about

earlier on, there seems to be one according to the left wing that's the most sacred of all that

happens to be missing. Why are we clearly considering every other group or identity, including our

political identities now, but not gender expression, gender identity? I don't believe someone that can

change something about themselves on a whim on a daily basis is constitutionally protected.

So look, I'm not a fan of these special protections in law and obviously the idea that you

would do special protections for the transes and the non binaries who again consider being called

the wrong pronoun, an active hate crime doesn't make any sense. And I totally understand the rationale

from the Republican that is pushing this particular legislation. But the thing is, I understand that

and I would apply that to the same degree to political affiliation or to somebody's religion

because these are also things that you could technically change each and every day. Like you can flip

flop on all your political positions. It happens all the time. So the idea that one is considered

frivolous and people linking it to their identity is absolutely questionable, but the other isn't

is just not true. And again, this brings me to the core issue with this legislation that I think

should be addressed, which is if you're going to say that this stuff should be illegal, it should be

illegal to assault them period regardless of motivation. I don't need the hate crime enhancements

because even if you leave out gender expression at this moment in time, it is only a matter of time

before you have a court ruling or another legislative body in the future decide that they're going

to enact this anyway and they're going to use this as the basis for it, which is exactly what

happened with civil rights legislation meant to protect black people or meant to protect women.

And that has been stretched to protect LGBT that has been stretched to protect transes. And whether

or not you think that is good policy to eventually do makes no matter in my opinion, the fact is

you have to pass additional legislation in order to get to those goals. However, the new thing that

we do in America is just stretch old legislation in order to fit whatever the common thing is. And I

think that is what is being missed by this Republican representative right here. And it's what's

being outlined by Republican opposition in the Ohio State legislature. Central Ohio Republican

Ryan Stewart questioned the bill saying he doesn't understand why motive is important in a violent

crime. Why do we care? The offense is the same. Why should the penalty be any different? So yeah,

overall, I definitely agree with that individual while you could say that they're just trying to

align Ohio with the modern era and whatnot. The fact is that these hate crime laws and hate crime

enhancements give way too much latitude to prosecutors to charge in some cases, but not others. And we

see this time and time again where you have clear anti white motivations and yet there are no

charges there at all whatsoever. But then you have edge cases or cases that don't even actually

have racialized motivations where they're immediately pushing to add these enhancements because

they don't like the optics of that particular case. So not having this option available in my

opinion is perfectly fine. And it also goes against the entire purpose of our criminal justice

because while you might watch a show and a lot of people focus on motive and they'll say you

need motive to sell a jury on a specific thing. In reality, motive is not necessary for conviction.

In fact, motive is something that we completely disregard from a legal context. You can introduce

motive, but in reality, all you need is men's ray, which is evil intent and actous ray, which

is evil act in order to get a prosecution. And the reason we do this is because mind reading is

absurd. The idea that we're going to say, oh, well, this person who killed his wife and her

boyfriend because she was cheating on him with that particular guy. Well, that guy was black. So

maybe there was a racial element to it. Maybe that's a hate crime rather than, you know, maybe he

just hated the fact that he was getting cheated on by that particular woman. Again, these lines

of mind reading and obsession with this idea hurts this country. It undermines the criminal justice

system and it ends up in a scenario where we look at somebody who commits a crime like the one

that I just described, but if the person is white that was sleeping with his wife or whatever

and he kills that individual, even though it's the same crime with the same result, there's the

prospect for a significantly lower sentence than if it were another race person or something of

the sort or maybe the wife was actually a lesbian gay. So he ended up being mad that she was

hooking up with the woman. And therefore, that is somehow weighted higher. When in reality,

the motivation is still pretty much the same. And by the way, we don't factor in motivation. We

just factor in the evil intent and evil act when we're prosecuting these cases. But you know what,

those are just my thoughts. I want to know what you guys think down in the comments below.

As per usual, if you liked this video, show them by leaving a like, subscribe for more content,

follow me on the social medias, support me via the support links in the description of this video.

This has been me talking about black Republicans pushing for hate crimes. Until next time.