Racism Hoax: Black High School Student Identified As Vandal Behind Racist Graffiti
“I do not believe they were hate crime or hate speech. Part of it quite honestly is because the admitted perpetrator is a young African American woman.”
A black female high school student was identified on surveillance video writing “white” and “colored” over water fountains at her Sacramento, CA high school. Upon seeing the video, she admitted to the race hoax but claimed it was some sort of prank. What sort of “prank” this could possibly be is not clear.
Once again, the demand for racism exceeds the supply. pic.twitter.com/8TlMXtS3UT
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) February 20, 2022
The stunning thing about this particular hoax is the response by the ::: checks notes ::: “community liaison,” Mark Harris. He claims that because the perpetrator is black, the hateful, racist graffiti is not racist, nor is it hateful. I kid you not.
A black female high school student has admitted to scrawling racist graffiti over the drinking fountains at her high school, district authorities said Friday, telling them that it was a ‘prank that went sideways.’
The vandal inked the words ‘colored’ and ‘white’ over two water fountains at McClatchy High School in what appeared to be a reference to segregated drinking fountains found during the era of segregation in the Jim Crow South.
The unnamed girl was caught on video and confessed to the act. The school district has said she will still be disciplined.
It was a prank that went sideways is my characterization of what the young woman said in her confession,’ Mark Harris, a community liaison for the Sacramento Unified School District, said at a press conference.
He said that he didn’t think that the girl was motivated by racism or hate.
‘I don’t believe those words that were on those water fountains were racist,’ Harris said. ‘I do not believe they were hate crime or hate speech. Part of it quite honestly is because the admitted perpetrator is a young African American woman.’
Apparently, there are numerous instances of racist graffiti under investigation in this school district. Any bets on these being similar non-racist, non-hate crime pranks?
Watch the report:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
All of these hoaxes need to be ignored and the perpetrators need to be tried like that Juicy Smolliet character in Chicago.
How can she be tried like that guy? She didn’t make a false report to the police, did she?
NO, but she DID VANDALIZE a school building and her intent (I know you’re going to respond that I don’t know her intent, but I’m not a brainwashed liber like you so I can plainly SEE what these “FAKE HATE CRIMES” are MEANT to do!) was to start a “race” investigation or RIOT over a “prank”! Now if the video had shown a WHITE student writing that I’m sure The Milhouse would be up in arms to charge with a HATE CRIME! But you’ll say “what IS a HATE CRIME?” knowing full well that there is no such thing! Is it a HATE CRIME to write two words?? It depends – whether the author was white or black! And yes, Juicy was charged with filing a false Police Report, but like this OTHER little girl, his intent was to stoke RACIAL hate!
You are a ****ing liar. How dare you attack me like that? Did I attack you? Did I accuse you of anything? You know nothing about me, and make such a ridiculous accusation that nobody could possibly believe. Go jump in the lake.
Yes, she committed vandalism, and will be disciplined for that. But she did not make a false police report, which is what Smollett did and was prosecuted for. So she can’t and shouldn’t be prosecuted like him. Graffiti is bad, but making a false report is a whole nother level of bad.
And there’s no ambiguity about the definition of a hate crime. Whether a crime qualifies depends entirely on the criminal’s motivation. Nothing else. A hate crime is a crime that is motivated by hatred for a subset of the population, not one that is intended to stoke such hatred in others. Whether any specific crime was motivated by hate can’t be determined until the perpetrator is identified, which is why going off before that happens is stupid and wrong. And once they are identified, yes, their race/sex/whatever is very relevant in determining their motivation.
Had a white person written these things it still wouldn’t prove that they were motivated by hatred, but it would make it more likely. If they had a history of supporting segregation then it would make it very likely indeed. But knowing that the perpetrator is black makes it very unlikely that her motive was hatred. Instead, her motive was likely to stir up trouble, and she should be punished for that. But by definition it is not a hate crime.
What is a hate crime depends on exactly who commits the crime. If a white person were to write “colored” and “whites” above the drinking fountains all holy hell would break loose in that school. There would be full investigations. There would be the rending of clothes. There would be all the pusillanimous little shits howling in outrage to the sky over the matter. It’s a damn sure thing Mark Harris wouldn’t be calling it just a “prank gone wrong”. He’d be condemning it as a racist hate crime and no excuse would be good enough to redeem the perpetrator. Get out the torches and pitchforks and crucify that racist whitey.
But oh wait, never mind. Nothing to see here. It was a black that perpetrated the hate crime. It was all just a prank gone wrong. Again, nothing to see here. Please go about your business as normal.
See the difference?
(And to add, if it were any other two words than “colored” and “White” that this person wrote on the wall above the drinking fountains then perhaps I’d accept the “prank gone wrong” excuse. But it wasn’t. It was two words used in a specific setting to stir up racial tension & animosity. And to me that should be classified as a hate crime.)
What is a hate crime does not depend on who commits it. But in determining whether it is a hate crime, the criminal’s identity is highly relevant evidence. If a white person had done this, “hate crime” would have been one of the likely explanations. Far from the only one, but it would have been a reasonable possibility. The fact that the perpetrator is black makes it very unlikely that this specific crime was motivated by hatred; it does not mean she is incapable of or unlikely to commit other hate crimes. And what she did is still a crime.
You have no idea what Mark Harris would be saying in some hypothetical case, and no basis for speculating. Unless you know something about him besides what is in this story.
Again, where did you get the ridiculous idea that ascribing it to a prank means “nothing to see here”, or that a prank does not deserve and will not get serious punishment. We are told she will be disciplined; you have no way of knowing what kind of discipline that will be.
And no, an intent to stir up racial animosity and tension does not make something a hate crime. The definition of a hate crime is specified by law and you can’t just make up your own definition. Unless you’ve read the California statute, and it supports your position; I haven’t read it, but I’ve read several other states’ definitions over the years, and none of them do.
Wow, you are off the wall. You say: “What is a hate crime does not depend on who commits it. But in determining whether it is a hate crime, the criminal’s identity is highly relevant evidence.”
That’s total nonsense. If this girl hadn’t been quickly identified, this would have been classified a “hate crime”. PERIOD It would have been used to stir up racial division in that community. AND, there is no question that was her intent. She claims she didn’t know the relevance, but that’s total BS. She put those particular words over drinking fountains, exactly as they did in the old south. You don’t arbitrarily do something like that. It was clearly meant to provoke hateful feelings. The fact that she got caught has nothing to do with her intent. That she did is good for the district and goes down as another “fake hate crime”, which btw, most of them seem to be. Was anyone guilty of a hate crime in the Bubba Wallace noose incident? Well, as it turned out, not there wasn’t, but that was only because there was video evidence and photos that happened to show that “noose” had been there for at least a year, and probably longer. It went on only a few days, but it stoked racial divisions that still persist to this day. If you don’t believe me, go to a racetrack. Hey look, it made the top of the list. https://fakehatecrimes.org/reports
Not ignored. Exposed. The more the American people see just how phony the “hate crime” hoax industry is, the better.
At least Mr. Harris is not employed to design bridges or aircraft.
He designs excuses.
What sort of “prank” is this? Starting a race war is no prank. Pushing narratives of racial animosity is our society is a means of furthering the neo-Marxist takeover of America is no prank.
These racist, useful idiots perpetrating these frauds need severe punishment. If the law won’t do, then they need their skulls cracked open.
It’s a prank just like pulling a fire alarm, or calling in a bomb threat, or “falsely shouting fire in a theater”. It frightens people, and the prankster can derive pleasure from watching them react.
And those “pranks” are also crimes.
Yes, of course they are. How on earth did you get the idea that I implied otherwise?
Are you serious?? Writing two words over water fountains is NOWHERE near the dangerous CRIME of calling in a bomb threat! How about YOU conduct an experiment – go into any building and write those two words over two water fountains and the step back and call in a BOMB THREAT! Actually, that would be great for you to do that and record it so you could show us all how smart you are! I think you’d find out very quickly which one is a “prank” and which one will have you in a cell!
Yes, I am serious. Calling in a bomb threat is no more dangerous than writing those words on the water fountain. The harm each causes is very similar. Actually the harm caused by the graffiti is probably greater, if it permanently makes the school’s curriculum more woke.
But the point is that both are pranks.
Vandalism, like when Enrique Tario’s idiots decided they wanted Trump to lose the election so burned BLM signs in front of a black church could easily cross the line into felony behavior.
On the contrary, it’s expressive action, and the constitution demands that it be treated no differently from any similar vandalism, such as those done during BLM riots. Tario’s treatment by the DOJ and the courts was a travesty. BLM signs deserve to be vandalized wherever they are found, because they are an endorsement of vandalism. Burning them is like stealing Abbie Hoffman’s book Steal This Book.
In principle I agree hate crimes shouldn’t be a thing there is no such thing as a love crime.
But hate crimes is a thing, it is a thing in every state and faking hate crimes is in order to increase race hatred, which very much makes a hate crime and so does qualify for the hate crime enhancements.
In this case the crime is vandalism, done in order to increase race hatred so there should be the hate crime enhancement.
I did not write, and do not believe, that “hate crimes shouldn’t be a thing”. On the contrary, I support the passage of hate crime laws. I believe a crime motivated by hatred of some larger group to which the victim belongs (or to which the criminal perceives the victim as belonging) deserves a penalty enhancement, because it is a crime not just against the immediate victim but against everyone who shares that characteristic with them.
But the purpose of faking hate crimes is usually not to cause hatred of people who are like the person we are supposed to think did it. The purpose is usually far different. But even where that is indeed the purpose, it’s still not motivated by the perpetrator’s own hatred for that group, so it’s still not a hate crime.
Hatecrime is Thoughtcrime.
Change my mind.
Mark Harris says the words were not racist and the act can’t be racist partly BECAUSE the perpetrator is black. According to current leftist dogma, blacks CANNOT be racist, which is a false premise. How can you not see that? It remains to be seen if the act was motivated by racism. Or maybe it doesn’t, because blacks can’t be racist. lol.
I don’t give a shit what current leftist dogma is. Why would I, since I’m the diametric opposite of a leftist? Nor do you have any reason to suppose that this Mark Harris person said what he did because of leftist dogma.
Of course black people can be racist, and many of them are. A higher percentage of blacks than of American whites are racist. But it is very rare for someone to be racist against their own kind.* So the fact that this crime was committed by a black person is very good evidence that it was not motivated by hatred for black people.
And that’s really the only kind of group hatred that was ever likely to have motivated it. Therefore it was most likely motivated by something else. And one notable possibility is a teenage desire to prank people, just for the sheer malicious thrill of it. The same motive that would induce someone to falsely cry fire in a theater.
Had it been anti-white graffiti, or anti-Asian, or anti-gay, then the perpetrator being black would not serve at all to rule out hatred as a motive. On the contrary, it would make such an explanation more likely.
* The only major exception I can think of is Jews; most Jews, of course, are not antisemites, but a significant percentage are, so the fact that a crime was committed by a Jew isn’t enough to rule out an antisemitic motive.
“Prank” my ass. Let’s have those “accountability and consequences” the NAACP demanded until they fond out the prep was black.
Because if a white kid had done it all hell would have broken loose by now and their lives would be over… prank or not.
Mmmmm hmmmm.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a prank.
I don’t know how you got the impression that all pranks are harmless.
FROM YOU!
Liar.
Another self-loathsome person that suffers from Jussie Smollett Syndrome.
I’m cynical enough to find a simpler reason. The girl is a troublemaker who got caught. She has a black authority figure to make excuses for her.
It’s supply and demand. When actual hate is hard to find, a lazy Affirmative Action candidate will come to the rescue.
‘I don’t believe those words that were on those water fountains were racist,’ Harris said. ‘I do not believe they were hate crime or hate speech. Part of it quite honestly is because the admitted perpetrator is a young African American woman.’
And as we all know, young African American women can’t be racist, commit hate crimes, or utter hate speech. Only whites can do that.
They were hate crime and hate speech against whites. As victims, we demand accountability.
Nonsense. He didn’t say that, didn’t imply it, didn’t indirectly hint at it. What he said was pure common sense; the fact that she is black makes it extremely unlikely that this crime was motivated by racial hatred. Of course young African American women are capable of racism, hate crimes, and “hate speech”; but they almost never do so against their own kind.
No, they were not. There is nothing anti-white about the writing, and no reason to suppose her motive was hatred for white people. It would be a weird thing to do out of hatred for white people. There are many things one could do with such a motive, but this is not one of them.
Is inciting racial hatred a hate crime? Asking only because she was very clearly inciting racial hatred.
Only if it is in the commission of a crime which in this case (Vandalism) it was.
No, inciting racial hatred is not a hate crime. The definition of a “hate crime” is a crime (which this was) committed out of hatred of some identifiable group. So writing “white” and “colored” on water fountains because one actually supports 1950s-style segregation and wants it to come back, would be a hate crime. Doing it with no hatred in ones heart but rather as a deliberate and cold-blooded act of racial arson would not be. At least that’s my understanding; I guess the real answer would be to look at the specific language of the relevant California statute.
Trying to frame people for racism because you know based on the color of their skin is what class?
There is a political and racial hatred element to every hate crime hoax, because the effects are they do increase race hatred, and that is their intent.
Yes, but as I understand it that is not the element that makes something a hate crime.
Trying to frame specific people would still not be a hate crime, unless the reason the criminal wanted to frame them was because they were white. In this case no individuals were framed, so the criminal couldn’t have hated them. Nor was she defaming “white supremacists in general”, because such people (who are in very short supply) actually do support segregation. Her likely motive was to make people think such people existed at the school, when in fact they almost certainly don’t. That’s not hatred.
Bullshite. This crime was motivated purely by racial animosity. If she had written any other words than “colored” and “Whites” on the wall then I might agree with you, But she didn’t. She specifically chose two words that have negative racial connotations (colored & Whites) and put them above a drinking fountain. The whole of which has very negative racial connotations for blacks.
If she had written any other words than “colored” and “Whites” then I might agree with you. But she didn’t. She chose two words and a setting that has racially negative connotations for blacks. Why? Because she hates whites and wanted to stir up racial tension and animosity at the school. Nothing more. Nothing less.
There is nothing at all to indicate that she hates whites, let alone that she was motivated by that hatred. Her intent was to stir up trouble. Yes, racial tension and animosity. Had such animosity led anyone to commit some crime, that would have been a hate crime. But her intent does not make it a hate crime.
Aw, shucks. Not the same school.
I was thinking this was going to be the fastest $10K I ever made.
I may be wrong in this, but I seem to notice the only blacks to these hoaxes. It didn’t it never seems to be an Asian or Hispanic. At least not to my knowledge…
No, there have been plenty of Moslems, Hispanics, white leftists seeking to “raise consciousness”, gay people, and even Jews staging these things. I can’t recall any done by East Asians, but it’s probably a matter of time.
As they say, there’s a shortage of real hate crimes, so the market supplies the demand.
I could not find any locally, but sound some on line.
snarl.amazon.com
Perhaps you are not familiar with the term “blood libel “?
Sorry, Griz. Reply was intended for the apologist above.
The classic blood libel was not a hate crime hoax. Suppose the libel were true — suppose Jews really had murdered a Christian child to obtain his blood for the matzos; that would not have been a hate crime, because it would have been motivated by vampirism, not by hatred for Christians or for children. Thus the false accusation that they had done so was not a hate crime hoax.
Now the closely-related libel that Jews kidnapped and tortured the crackers that Catholics imagined to be their god, that would probably count as a hate crime if it were true, so the accusation would count as a hate crime hoax. And the results of that hoax were often deadly.
These “pranks” will continue until there are consequences that hurt. The black female is receiving a pass because the school has a low behavioral standard if the student is black. She did this act because she has been taught that she is a victim even when she isn’t. The damage being done to these black students is appalling. Perhaps Harris is a product of the same system so he gets on a track to be a “community liaison” rather than productive job.
The black female is receiving a pass Huh? Where did you get that from? The post says the opposite.
I teach at Florida high school with a majority black population (I am “EuroAmerican”).
I HATE it when students–usually males–call each other the “n-word” and I will not allow it in my classroom.
I told them that either everyone can use a word or no one can–anything else is injustice.
These teenagers GOT IT.
“Did you bring enough n-words to share with the whole class?“
LOL! I just want to help establish UNITY.
I think we had more actual unity in the day is a formal segregation then we have now. When push came to shove, we were all Americans.
Careful not to dox yourself, a lot of school administrators are political fanatics.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1494387168692752398
Students at @WestChesterASD
were given a detailed survey inquiring about their parents’ political views including who they voted for in 2020 and where they get their news from. Why would the school need to know this?
I guess for GRADING purposes!! It’s time to put “TEACH” back into TEACHER!!
Of course it fucking was.
Has there been ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of ‘racist graffiti’ in the last 10 years where it was actually a white person?
Probably. There are a lot of white people in this country, and not every case gets headlines. So I assume it does happen occasionally that racist graffiti is written by white people. Sometimes out of racial hatred, and sometimes not. Having it done by a white person is close to a necessary condition for it to be classed as a hate crime, but it is insufficient. Many times, even when it’s done by a white person, it’s motivated by something other than hatred.
Sorry, what’s stunning about that? It’s obviously correct. Given who did it, it’s extremely unlikely that she did it because she hates black people, or because she wants to bring segregation back. There are several possible motives she might have had, including the one suggested in the story — that it was simply a prank, to make people afraid for no good reason, so she could laugh at them. But racial hatred is not one of those possibilities. That doesn’t diminish her offense. It’s just a simple fact.
Nonsense.
It’s just like a “prankster” stealing your stationery, writing “THE BOSS IS A PEDOPHILE” on it, and posting it on the company bulletin board. And then excusing him because “he didn’t do it because he hates the boss.”
I didn’t excuse her, and neither did the “community liaison”. He simply pointed out that her motive was not hatred, it was something else. That doesn’t excuse her or her crime.
I would like to think that you will read what SallyMJ, below, wrote: “she [the young woman] was specifically trying to make white kids look racist.”
That, my friend, is racial hatred. It may not be ‘racism’ the way progressives define the word, and therefore I’ll just stay away from that. But it is most certainly racial hatred. The young woman wants to discredit all white people — why? Because she hates them.
Now you may argue that it isn’t hatred but ‘something else’ — a prank. Okay, but turn it around — suppose a white girl had written something that was racially derogatory at the fountain. Would we (e.g., you) even begin to argue that it was a ‘prank’, and if we did, wouldn’t we see right away that the ‘prank’ had a deeper, darker message behind it?
That’s what this is — call it a ‘prank’ if you like, but the message behind the prank is nothing less than hate. And that’s why it’s rubbing raw nerves even more raw.
I don’t think there is any evidence that she hates white people, or that she sought to discredit all white people. It’s pretty clear that she sought to make people (including or even especially white people) think that the dreaded “white supremacists” were present in the school, and be afraid of them. White supremacists definitely do exist, they are not a myth, but there are almost certainly none of them at that school.
What can I compare this to? Suppose, in the days when the Zodiac killer was out there somewhere, she’d concocted a note that seemed to come from him (or her), and left it somewhere in the school where it was sure to be found, thus making people fear that the killer was at the school. That’s the sort of prank this girl was pulling.
Could it be that she did it because she listens to left wing “teachers” and left wing media and left wing demented Presidents?? And WHY should it be considered a “prank” and no harm just because she’s black?? Why is it ok for blacks to litter their speech with “n8888R” but it’s almost a death sentence for a white person to say it?? If it’s OFFENSIVE then NO ONE should say it!
No, what she did was a “prank” that was to elicit emotions and further divide the whites and blacks – just like the democrats want!
You idiot. Who said anything about “no harm”?
I’m going to call a textual BS. The word “Colored” was not remotely random. She knew exactly what she was doing, and yes it WAS racist. She was specifically trying to make white kids look racist. Black kids to make hoax racist attacks need to be held to the same standard as if a white kid had done it.
When I was in high school in the late 70s, a guy I knew a couple years ahead of me are used to tell me how awesome he thought it was at his college, when people pulled fake bomb threats. He would be over the moon about this racist hoax.
Of course it was not random. But no, it was not racist. There is nothing to indicate that she intended suspicion to fall on any specific white kid, let alone on all the white kids. Let alone that she did so because she hates white people.
Yes, fake bomb threats is exactly the correct analogy. And those are not usually motivated by hatred of anyone; they’re done out of a spirit of sheer vandalism. They are pranks. Like “falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic”. That is also a prank, but rarely motivated by hatred of anyone.
she used racial descriptors–her intent was clear–the only thing that “went sideways” was that she was caught on film–yet she will supposedly be “disciplined”
right
Her punishment will be mandatory counseling sessions with a highly trained woke therapist that supports this insanity. She will write a reflective paper on ways she can better evade suspicion in the commission of these acts in the future. By college, she should be a well-trained “prankster” ready to start riots, culture wars, demonstrations, firings, and demand lists all through her own actions.
What a great rehabilitation plan!
Maybe. And that would be a bad thing. But we don’t know. What we do know is that the school is acknowledging that what she did was wrong. And that’s a good thing. We can only hope your prediction of the penalty is not realized.
The appropriate penalty would be whatever would have been done to the hypothetical “white supremacist” perpetrator, had one been found.
on that we agree…I just don’t share your optimism.
Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, engenders a progressive condition that breeds adversity. Roe, Roe, Roe… Lose your religion. #HateLovesAbortion
“Once again, the demand for racism exceeds the supply.” Brilliant.
in my 58 years, I believe 90% + of the nooses, swaztikas and other “hate graffitti” where the perp was identified, turned out to be a hoax. when caught they always say “they were just trying to raise awareness” and they NEVER get punished.
Well, the story here says that this girl will be punished. It doesn’t say how, so we can hope it’s suitably harsh.
I’m sure it will be on a par with what the perpetrators of the Fast & Furious hoax got. Which was two years to let the heat die down, then into the round file.
Justice must be color blind, particularly in an educational setting.
Let me give you a more difficult hypotheical. Suppose a student spray painted “kill all faggots” on the school wall. Later, the student is identified from the video and confesses. However, he asks for clemency because he claims to be “gender fluid.” What will Mark Harris say? “It can’t be a hate crime because I can just tell by looking at the student.”