Lafayette College Student Arrested For Faking Attack By Trump Supporter

magaThere is a story out of my old stomping grounds of Lafayette, Louisiana (where I lived during my judicial clerkship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for Judge W. Eugene Davis). A female student at the University of Louisiana reported that she was attacked by a man in a white Donald Trump cap and another men. She said that the men hit her with a metal object, ripped off her hijab and took both her wallet and the traditional Muslim head-covering. The incident caused a national outrage but it now turns out that she made up the entire incident after police became suspicious of her accounts.

The 18-year-old woman of Middle Eastern descent said that the men “were saying ugly stuff to her” but gave no other information.

Many saw the incident as proof of anti-Muslim movement given voice among supporters of Donald Trump. Yet police were struck by inconsistencies and generalities in her account: “The victim describes the suspects as white males, but has not given a definitive clothing description. There were no witnesses or video surveillance on the scene.”

She reportedly confessed to the lie.

However, there is no indication of a charge for filing a false report and the University of Louisiana said that federal law prevented the release of any information on any internal actions to be taken against the students.

42 thoughts on “Lafayette College Student Arrested For Faking Attack By Trump Supporter”

  1. Why does your headline say she was arrested? In the article itself you say no charges were brought. Which is true?

  2. Your intern needs to change the bloody headline. The student was not enrolled at Lafayette College (which is in Pennsylvania) but at the University of Louisiana (which is located in Lafayette, La). The headline would only be appropriate in a local paper down there.

  3. She needs to put her “big girl” panties on and get back to studying. Or if she really needs attention get a job as a pole dancer.

    1. issac,

      You come to this conclusion that has nothing to do with the facts. The woman made a false report. No one took her scarf and no one is saying it should be taken.

      Meanwhile, I heard no complaint from you when Obama had the FBI knock on the doors of completely innocent Muslim families before the election to see if they were planning any terrorist attacks. That is a president using a law enforcement agency in an illegal manner which would scare the crap out of any family. Where was your outrage at this profiling and completely illegal, terrifying act of hate based on religion?

      1. You are equating some of Obama’s perhaps necessary moves with Trump’s rantings and ravings. Jeeze. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Or perhaps you will never be able to see nothing yet.

      2. Trump won’t rule out special ID for Muslim Americans noting their religion
        ‘Some people are going to be upset’ Republican frontrunner says, adding he would consider warrantless searches of Muslims and surveillance on mosques

        Donald Trump would not rule out tracking Muslim Americans in a database or giving them “a special form of identification that noted their religion”, Yahoo news reported on Thursday in an interview with the Republican presidential candidate.

        “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” Trump told Yahoo.

        “Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule.”

        He said he would consider warrantless searches of Muslims and increased surveillance of mosques. “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy.”

        Asked whether this might mean registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion, the candidate would not rule it out.

        “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

        Earlier this week, Trump suggested police surveillance of mosques, and praised a controversial program by the NYPD to spy on Muslims as “great”.

  4. The Police should charge her with falsifying a Police report. More and more will be coming from the “Sour Grapes” party of America.

  5. I’m not sure if this is the exact quote by Reagan but the principle of it sound, “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” Incidents like this that go “untaxed” are effectively “subsidized” and we’ll get more of them. It is not unreasonable to believe the spray-painting of statements (hate speech) purported to be coming from the pro-Trump crowd are actually coming from the anti-Trump crowd instead, with the obvious intent of stoking more fear, violence, vandalizing, etc.

  6. Hate crimes are so prevalent that the Left has to make them up to prove it’s true.

  7. In my experience, an independent investigation not by any southern bigot laced police farce may discover that the woman has also been terrorized by a blame-the-victim standard police policy.

    Maybe that’s why a lot of innocent police officers are being killed by those who have become as frustrated as I have with this standard threaten-bully-stonewall-blame and otherwise dismiss the victim.

  8. The school owes the rest of the student body the duty of permanently expelling her.

  9. She should be charged with making a false report. Making false reports of this kind raises the level of danger to everyone.

    1. As does demonizing leaders of other countries and propaganda, but they are nevertheless widely used because they are effective and not punished.

  10. This woman should be expelled for a semester IMO and do community service IMO. Maybe then she’ll get a grip. The more I read about these fake attacks, students having meltdowns and regressing to childhood the more I fear for the future of my niece and nephews as they will have to deal with these infantile folks?

    Do any of these students even realize today is Armistice Day? Will they have a moment of silence to honor the terrible sacrifice made?

  11. Any objective observer sees the vast majority of hate comes from the left. Republicans now rule the 3 Federal Branches, 34 governors, and the majority of state legislatures. We are, and have been, a center/right country for generations. But, the airwaves and print are controlled by extreme leftists. Their vitriol has simply pushed this countries politics further right.

  12. There have been multiple instances now in colleges where supposed hate crimes occurred only to find out later that it was entirely fabricated. And the student offender is allowed to either quietly leave campus or continue with unspecified sanctions. But almost always with retaining anonymity.

    This is the type of action that led to trump’s win. The double standard when it comes to the academic and political elite and how they treat crimes committed by a SJW (because it COULD have happened) and everyone else. Yes I see the hypocrisy in complaining about a dual austen for punishment. But it seems that colleges, and increasingly the real world are excusing behavior as long as it’s done with good intentions. Look no further than Jackie in the UVA case and the media continuing to use air quotes instead of her real name.

    1. I find it offensive that our colleges and universities cannot teach the students to be better criminals.

  13. This is a good example of how and why we who wanted change have to acr and conduct ourselves in a very civil manner. We are not the gutter dwellers, they are.

  14. As our host mentions I agree that the worry to express for Donald Trump might have skewed some of the poll results that in the end proved to be inaccurate once the voters actually entered the privacy of the polling booth.

    We’ve seen several examples, and at least one article here if I remember where it mentioned the left was twice as likely to approve of censoring information found objectionable, where those holding pro-Trump / conservative / republican / Christian views are scored and attacked for doing so.

    The more left wing the locale, the less tolerance there is toward voicing dissenting views. My wife sees this at her employer.

    I suspect, and hope, that after the President-elect assumes office some of this intolerance of others will begin to diminish. The high-level support platform has been fractured in the loss of the political machine that created this monster. People are going to slowly feel emboldened to freely speak their ideas or announce their alignment without physical abuse or verbal attack on a systemic scale. Small events will always happen on either side but the wholesale repression is at the betting of its end.

  15. How far was she prepared to take this? Because this was a hate crime against her intended victims. If a couple of white guys wearing Trump hats were arrested, would she have gone through with it? A hate crime against two men for their race and political affiliation?

    She should be charged with filing a false police report. Without consequences, this will embolden more people.

    This seems to be the thing now. If you are not lucky enough to actually be a victim, make it up to get attention for your cause.

    1. I thought that would be an interesting test Karen of whether hat crime laws will apply when a person makes a false accusation against an alleged assailant on basis that that person’s race. It would have to go beyond making a false report and when a race is mentioned it is only a means of identification, on equal par with claiming the assailant was wearing a red shirt.

      I believe what would be necessary to prosecute a hate crime enhancement of a false reporting crime it would be necessary to prove that the false accuser claimed a racially motivated attack had been made against her person, on order for the accuser to falsely blame the assailant to punish them because the accuser wanted to cause harm as a result of the person’s perceived membership in a protected class. I know this sounds confusing, and I haven’t helped in dispelling this shroud, so I will make an example.

      Hypothetical Event: Suspect claims she was called a n____r and beaten up by Asians. An Asian male matching the description but uninvolved in the alleged crime, happened to be found two blocks away and was taken into custody.

      Sample Intention 1)

      The suspect made the false report because she wanted attention and hoped to become famous for her story.

      Sample Intention 2)

      The suspect hated Asians and said to a friend the day before she would take delight in seeing an Asian man thrown in jail because “zipper heads” deserve prison.

      In the hypothetical event the same facts are alleged. But it was the design for which a hate crime happens.

      Under Sample Intention 1, there is no hate crime because there was no intent to persecute a person or class of persons. The intent was to garner fame.

      Under Sample Intention 2, the intent was to cause harm to an individual or class of individuals in prominent part due to their membership, or perceived membership in a protected class. The harm was being accused of a crime for which the suspect hoped the victim would receive jail time.

      In the case of the woman mentioned in the article it could be argued in her defense that the White Men in Trump hats were an abstraction and her accusations were not directed specifically at white people. She did not target anyone specifically But what might aggravate her case into a hate crime is that if she committed her crime in order to punish whites for a perceived injustice she received at the hands of others. In order for this to be successfully prosecuted the hate crime would have to be completed with a “suspect” being brought before her, she falsely identified the person, and then declared through either actions or words that a white man getting falsely arrested went according to her plan. This would be difficult for the prosecution to achieve.

      Still, a curious situation worth thinking about.

  16. If the information is proven then I believe she should be charged with a false reporting crime. The PD doesn’t have the time to run some snipe hunt looking for attackers who do not exist.

    Luckily in this case, there didn’t happen to be two white males wearing Trump hats who might have been detained or worse arrested and then become international pariahs subject to scorn and hatred for having done nothing.

    That is the reason false accusers of crimes should be charged themselves. The case before us is not a case of a good faith mistake or misinterpretation; where a person should be protected when making reports they believe to be just. Actual malice is intended here. And it should be punished according to the law.

    1. Should punishment also apply to international false flag events like the Reichstag fire, the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the “attacks” on US warships cruising along victim country borders? Or is it just “strategy” when done my military goons?

        1. Doglover – the arsonist of the Reichstag confessed and was actually caught still in the building, the Maine was not a false flag but a bungled investigation, we know the number of the German submarine that sank the Lusitania (the British had been monitoring it by its sinkings for several days), the US actually struck the first blow at Pearl Harbor by sinking a miniature sub, but the Japanese carried out two attacks on Pearl Harbor (the would have tried a third but they did not know where our carriers were and that worried the fleet commander), I am not sure about Tonkin Gulf, I am not even sure if that was a real attack.

          1. Paul Schulte-
            The first Gulf of Tonkin attack did occur; years later that was confirmed by the Vietnamese military leadership.
            The second attack probably never happened.
            The ships radar operators and other crew members were “hyper-vigilant” afte the first attack c. 36 hours earlier, and likely misread normal “blips” that they saw on the radar screen.
            LBJ himself is quoted as saying that “hell, those sailors might have been shooting at flying fish” of the putported 2nd attack.
            It was after the 2nd “attack” that LBJ asked for, and got, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
            Some U.S. ships were involved in assisting South Vietnamese commandos in raids against North Vietnam coastal facilities.
            The U.S. ships were in international waters and the the North Vietnamese PT boats did attack them in the first incident.
            If the NV suspected-rightly or wrongly- that the ships were somehow involved in those raids, that may have prompted the first attack.

    2. In New Jersey, this would have been a felony.
      N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4: “A person who knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer with purpose to implicate another commits a crime of the fourth degree.”

      Fry her a$$.

  17. Yikes, Squeeky, I can’t even reply to your post cause it’s so accurate.

    Election results have consequences. Just ask B. Obama. This is his quote.

Comments are closed.