Two Women Indicted on Hate Crime Charges for Allegedly Stealing Young Boy’s MAGA Hat, Attacking Trump Supporters
“Violence in any form is unacceptable, but harming another person — let alone a child — because of the expression of their views betrays the principles on which our country was founded.”
Olivia Winslow and Camryn Amy, both 21 and from Wilmington, DE, face numerous charges after a video allegedly shows them confronting and terrorizing supporters of President Donald Trump.
One supporter was a 7-year-old boy.
The grand jury indicted the two women on charges of:
- Second-degree robbery
- Second-degree conspiracy
- Endangering the welfare of a child
- Third-degree assault
- Attempted third-degree assault
- Offensive touching
- Felony hate crimes
The video shows people protesting Joe Biden’s nomination for president when the women allegedly ripped up signs and snatched a MAGA hat from a 7-year-old boy.
The video also shows one of the women allegedly punching a man who tried to get the hat back.
Outside the DNC Convention tonight, radical leftists attacked a 7 year old boy.
Why?
Because he was simply showing his support for President @realDonaldTrump.
Truly shameful.pic.twitter.com/rBFzlg2WFu
— Students For Trump (@TrumpStudents) August 21, 2020
Three charges “are felonies and collectively are punishable by 15 years in prison.”
The other charges could also lead to time in prison. The hate crimes carry the most weight:
Delaware law states that a person is guilty of such when they commit a “crime for the purpose of interfering with the victim’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege or immunity protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or commits said crime because the victim has exercised or enjoyed said rights.”
The two women are out on bail. Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said:
“Violence in any form is unacceptable, but harming another person — let alone a child — because of the expression of their views betrays the principles on which our country was founded.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Why they do it?
Because years of support, encouragement, incitement, even financing, from democrat party politicians and the media have made them believe that they are safe in doing so, that there will be no consequences.
They know it’s wrong. They know it’s illegal.
But they have grown accustomed to impunity.
Let’s hope things start to change.
All true observations, but, let’s simplify the analysis — these are infantile, narcissistic, goose-stepping, vindictive, self-righteous totalitarian bullies, empowered by their arrogance and their fallacious sense of moral/intellectual superiority.
lord–says a lot about our country that these two women weren’t dealt with on the spot–hope the prosecution is successful and they do a stretch behind bars but am amazed that when they extended their nonsense to include a seven year old child, they weren’t dropped right there with a few broken bones/dislocated shoulders/elbows/wrists
This isn’t the country it was. For at least half a century, we’ve been brought up with the one being bullied is punished by the principal for fighting back. Don’t think for two seconds that if this child’s mother or father had administered on-the-spot streetm justice that it would be the end of it. The women would be off scot-free and the parent in jail; the child thrust into the clutches of Child “Protetive” Services.
They should definitely be charged and pay the penalties. However, I think about the mother who put her child in this position. I don’t like Biden either, but I’m not going to take my son wearing a MAGA hat to a Biden rally to counterprotest and put him in a position to be assaulted and harassed. I’m sure the whole experience was pretty traumatic for a 7-year old. You don’t know what kind of Leftist crazies will confront him. Shame on the mom for putting him in this position and standing back to film it while it happens.
agree a poor parenting decision but there is a surfeit of folks in this world that should not have procreated
regardless, this is an assault on a child by two adults–simply cannot believe there is a jury in this world that would convict a parent for protecting/defending their children
I hear you, and in normal times, would argue the same point. But today, I can support the mother’s possible decision to teach her kid what dignity, rights, and a civil society really mean.
Maybe the mother doesn’t tend to think in our default — call it a higher-reasoned, risk-averse, safety-first — manner; or, maybe like me, she does so usually, but not in these anomalous, specially teachable days.
Whatever the case of her general and particular disposition — and for contemporary need and argument’s sake, I’d find the latter mindset more interesting and utile — she appears to me to have 1) made a calculated and important decision for her child and herself, and takes full responsibility for its consequences (if they are to be viewed in connection with that decision); 2) acted quite civilly, calmly and nonviolently during the assault (from which I’d infer that she didn’t come to the political event with a violent predisposition about those afflicted with any form, silent or expressed, of TDS, or a violent response to any such harassment); and 3) stood up bravely and resolutely against the attackers for her rights in front of her child.
I would go on to presume that she wanted him to experience the political event, in all its color, regalia, and cause for excitement, and, when all those social and political feelings really count, learn how his mother responds to such an inexcusable attack on her and his sacred, unalienable rights.
In this sense, the mother reminded herself and taught her child to understand that these are not normal American times, but are, rather, unusual, exceptional and, w/r/t our freedoms and other rights, dangerously threatening days.
More power, then, to her especially, along with her child for taking a stand against long-standing judicial and social tyranny (as in Friendly Grizzly’s sense, above), and social mayhem generally.
And were I a juror at the defendants’ trial, based on the prosecution’s presumably evidence as so-far revealed, I’d not hesitate to convict, in order to punish these deranged, amoral, and malevolent perps — one small, corrective measure to help get us all back to a more generally peaceful and civil life.
Got it.
Blame the victim.
I believe you have gotten to the heart of the commenter’s case. I concur with others who have replied, also.
Have we descended so low that you can’t bring your child to a political demonstration? The mother should have been carrying and defended her child from the fascists.
I don’t have a problem with taking a child to a political event. I have a HUGE problem with the mother exhorting the child to get his hat back from those harpies. That was grossly inappropriate and that mother needs her head examined. I would be perfectly fine with HER taking the hat back forcibly, but to expect a 7-year-old to do so? HELL, no.
Okay. I am going to say it. I still don’t believe in the term Hate Crime. It requires someone to be judged upon their motives and not their actions.
Go ahead and slice and dice me now.
I’m firmly on your side of this argument.
I agree. It is a thought crime which can be morphed into anything by Big Brother.
But it serves another purpose. The left dehumanizes individuals into interchangeable members of abstract groups. The victim is a member of a group, not an individual. Groups can be exploited, demonized, or “disappeared” based on political power or lack thereof. What a lovely thought says the Marxist/Democrat.
I’m with you on this, but from the article it sounds like Delaware defines a hate crime as deliberate suppression of someone else’s First Amendment rights, which I can get behind. It seems an odd definition though.
I am in agreement. The whole “hate crime” shtick looks and feels like a protection racket where favored groups get special favors while the exact same crimes against others get downplayed or ignored. Worse still is the quickness of the Joseph Goebbels media to label as a “hate crime” anything that is politically useful (example: Matthew Shepard was killed in a drug deal gone bad by one of his gay ex-lovers, yet the crime was exploited as a Horst Wessel-type incident by the militant homosexual lobby).
Hate crime laws do not favor any groups. If a crime committed because of the victim’s race is classified as a hate crime, that is so regardless of which race that is. It applies just as much to a crime committed because the victim is white as it does to a crime committed because the victim is black. And yes, that is the way it works in practice.
Hate crimes are not SUPPOSED to favor one group over another.
Crime is supposed to be an offense against the entire community. “Hate crime” laws open the door to the deadly notion that crime is an offense against a particular group. I rebel against that.
Moreover, there are lawyers, politicians, prosecutors and judges who are 100% convinced that it is impossible for whites to be the victim of bias committed by blacks*. Any illusion about how they will twist “hate crime” laws for their own ends? Better they don’t have the weapon in the first place.
* – I refuse to use the asinine term “African American”. My wife is a beautiful black African woman born and raised in Africa. Most black Americans have never set foot on the continent of Africa, let alone know squat about the people, language and culture. Ninakataa kuwasaidia kuwadanganya watu.
OK, I get that “hate crime” is a complicated topic, hard to qualify, etc., etc.
But don’t you think that there ought to be some legal difference between trespassing (i.e., when a guy comes onto my property without permission) and doing something politically motivated (i.e., when a guy comes onto my property and tears down my Trump sign)?
Otherwise, there is no deterrent to prevent one side (left or right) from infringing on the other’s right to free speech (to express his/her political view).
Trespassing is one thing; trespassing with the intent to prevent someone from expressing his/her political view is something more serious.
Or at least it should be.
Make violations of the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights serious federal felonies.
Our legal system has always made motive a factor in sentencing. There has never been a time when that was not so. And there’s no reason it should ever not be so. Motive is extremely relevant to how serious an offense is, and how severely it should be punished.
For that matter, state of mind is an element of almost all crimes. Mens rea is required, not just actus reus. And many crimes further require as an element of the crime that it be done for a specific purpose. Take incitement, for instance: it must be not only objectively likely that the speech will cause someone to immediately commit a crime, that must also be subjectively intended. Without both intent and likelihood, there is no incitement and no crime.
Dare I say it? The biggest threat to domestic peace and stability in the US is liberal, college educated, white female trust babies.
It was recently revealed that 52% of young adults aged 18-29 live at home. Time for their parents to finish the job of parenting and throw them out of the nest. If they put have as much energy and passion in looking for a job, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
How many more examples do we need to see where white BLM “peaceful” rioters are harassing and/or attacking black citizens? And why are so many of them white women?
“The biggest threat to domestic peace and stability in the US is liberal, college educated, white female trust babies.”
Sheltered and clueless, and without any purpose in life, they are susceptible to the lies of the left. The common street panhandler know far more about lies and frauds and scams and con games than these sheltered, arrogant, self-righteous women will ever know. And, these fools are all Democrats.
By the way, it must be noted that in this era of utterly vile, partisan-zealot, Dhimmi-crat prosecutors who are all-too-happy to look the other way, and/or, hand out slap-on-the-wrist charges/sentences to Dhimmi-crat jackboot lawbreakers, AG Jennings deserves some credit, here.
It seems strange to praise an AG for doing what the law requires, and, for bringing charges supported by evidence, but, such are the times we live in.
Hopefully the message sent and received is ‘be careful how you talk to people’. Your actions could result in criminal or civil charges an on the spot was kicking or more severe consequences. The bottom line, IMO, is as long as you are willing to assume the risk of your actions then be me guest, if not then you should probably STFU and leave people alone.
The Grand Jury indictment expresses the anger or frustration that most Americans feel towards the mindless violence in our Democratic ruled cities. More on election day!
It isn’t difficult to find instances of adults harassing minors wearing Trump paraphernalia. It is also interesting that many of them come from Texas. Kino Jimenez took a MAGA cap off a teen’s head and threw a drink in his face at a Whatabuger in San Antonio. He got three years deferred adjudication. Then there was the West University Place (Houston) councilwoman accused of yelling obscenities at teen wearing Trump shirt. She is no longer on the West University Place city council, so there is at least that consequence.
I do not recall such harassment of minors wearing Obama or Hillary
paraphernalia.
Perhaps one difference is that many Demos view Trump and his supporters as evil, whereas Pubs tend to view Demos not as evil, but as mistaken.
“Pubs tend to view Demos not as evil, but as mistaken.”
Speak for yourself. I consider them both, as well as stupid and uninformed. You can be any or all of the other three and be harmless, but the harm always comes from the evil part.
My proposed legal consequence is for them wear MAGA caps while confined to stocks in a public square and be subjected to people screaming at them for a limited period of time – a half hour? Ten minutes?
If they like harassing people wearing MAGA caps, they should experience that same harassment.
I like the idea of putting them in stocks for public humiliation. Not a half hour but two hours every afternoon for a week. And give them the choice 30 days in the hole (Thanks Humble Pie) or 7 days @ 2 hrs a day in the public square with citizens throwing non harmful bags of rotten fruit and who knows what at them. Way cheaper than jail and I bet they will never repeat their miscreant behavior. Probably cruel and unusual though.
Damn I went to add something and instead of reply I downvoted myself.
If given a choice maybe not cruel and unusual.
The kid needs to sue both of them for battery and conversion – and emotional distress.