Police Arrest Black Man For Burning African American Church In Mississippi After Spray Painting “Vote Trump”

636179312460850440-andrew-mcclinton-copyOn the heels of the hoax by a Muslim college students who claimed to have been attacked by Trump supporters, Mississippi police have arrested Andrew McClinton, 45, an African American man who allegedly spray painted “Vote Trump” on his own church and then burned it down.

Greenville police accused McClinton for setting Hopewell Baptist Church on fire. He is now charged with one count of first degree arson of a place of worship.

Hopewell Bishop Clarence Green said that McClinton is a member of the congregation.

Greenville Mayor Erick Simmons called the fire a hate crime, but the question is whether it would still be defined as a hate crime if set by an African American. If so, what is the difference between that and other intentional arson?

24 thoughts on “Police Arrest Black Man For Burning African American Church In Mississippi After Spray Painting “Vote Trump”

  1. When they passed the plate on Sunday he had no money and was offended when the pastor told him not to come back empty handed. So he came back with a torch in his hand.
    It is not a hate crime. It is barely a crime. Most churches need to go away.

    • Sure Jack. Let’s rid this nation of Churches and their superstitious Ten Commandments; one of which is ““You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor”, which this arsonist has clearly attempted to do. You know, those moral laws intended to guide man’s sinful human nature in civil society. Yeah, we don’t need those laws because that nature has evolved, just ask a progressive. Instead we’ll rely on government to be our god and in their infinite wisdom will pass their own laws that everyone else but them must obey. Yeah, I’m sure the further we put those Christians in our rear-view mirror the better off we’ll be.

  2. It is a hate crime against Trump and Trump supporters, but he’ll never be charged. The government has decided that only white people can be charged with hate crimes.

      • RTB,
        TIN’s statement would “seem” to be at the very least a stretch of the truth but honestly, can you provide any evidence to support your own statement that “non-whites are charged for hate crimes all the time”? I can think of many times they clearly should be but I’m not aware of any that have.

  3. Hate crimes depend on the motivation of the perpetrator not the race of the perpetrator.

    It would be interesting to know what this guy was thinking.

    This crime could have been committed for the must mundane of reasons – anger at the congregation, or to cover up evidence of some other crime.

    • BFM: As any lawyer knows, a statute can be written as racially neutral, but applied in a discriminatory manner. The fact is, no non-white person has ever, ever, ever been charged with a hate crime. Show me one instance of a minority being prosecuted for a hate crime and I’ll show you the man in the moon.

  4. I do not agree this is a hate crime. It is an arson with a diversion to assign blame to a political cause identified with a particular person. There clearly is no evidence that the crime alleged was intended to give the impression that Donald Trump himself caused the conflagration; obviously. I do not see how court scrutiny will allow a hate crime element to be successfully argued. If it was intended to attack Trump due to his race or “whitey” in general those two have suffered no damage (or being victims) which otherwise would make a hate crime prosecution more plausible.

    The attack was not a direct means to cause injury or duress toward a group of individuals or an individual himself based upon that person being, or perceived to be, a member of a protected class and the intended harm was furthered due to the membership of the victim(s).

    The most likely intent on behalf of the alleged actor is going to be difficult to prove as being specifically of a design to harm the individuals along racial lines. While harm due to arson is a solid charge in my view, proving a hate crime is too difficult to consider.

  5. I agree that it is a hate crime. Although I see where Darren is going, I disagree. When you blame Trump and his supporters for burning down the church and he has more white than black votes,than yes, it is a hate crime. And it is arson. And his mother should have brought him up better, burning down a church.

  6. I would like to see this country get rid of the Thought Police Hate Crime Squad. It seems LT. Frank Drebbin leads it. The MSM can sensationalize their fake news stories w/o hate crimes being on the books.

    • I agree, get rid of all hate crimes. Did a person perform or incite the performance of an act that cause harm to people? that is the the standard, not whether I like the person, love the person, am indifferent to the person, or hate the person.

  7. It does not appear the church was occupied when this fake hate crime occurred. First degree arson, from my experience, means there was a person in the structure when it was torched. Mississippi must have made the arson of a church, a first degree offense, regardless of occupancy. With their history, I can abide that.

  8. Oh come on, Darren! Do you seriously think that if a white person burned a church in Mississippi that the White House and the MSM wouldn’t have immediately declared it a hate crime, and the FBI wouldn’t have agents going through his kitchen cabinets and underwear drawer in a desperate search for any evidence of racial motive? But with this black perp, not a word about possible bias, despite his attempt to implicate white voters!

    • My comment was that the state would have great difficulty proving a hate crime in this case. I made no social commentary otherwise.

  9. The whole idea of a hate crime, with extra penalties, flies in the face of American ideals and equal protection. A crime is a crime. In this country we criminalize actions not thoughts. A person who commits murder should be charged with murder and punished accordingly. A person who commits arson should be charged with arson and punished accordingly. The thoughts or reasoning behind the crime is irrelevant other than as a means of showing motive. We should punish the actions not the thoughts behind them.

  10. No surprise. I told some liberal schmuck on Twitter back when this happened that it would be a black perp, who was a member of the congregation who either did it for the insurance, or because either the Preacher or choir director was having an affair with his wife.

    Squeeky “Cassandra” Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  11. The concept of hate crimes is ridiculous. Most people who commit crimes have hate. It is my right to hate. But there may be consequences such as I have less friends because I hate. A crime is a crime. A man who rapes because he hates all women because he was sexually abused has hate. He committed a crime. Justice is for the crime, not the motivation. Who started this whole hate crime nonsense?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s