UC Riverside Student Charged With Grand Theft After Swiping MAGA Hat Of Fellow Student



UCR-490x315University of California -Riverside student Edith Macias achieved a degree of fame (or infamy) when she was involved in an ugly incident in September with a fellow student wearing a Make America Great Again hat.   Macias ripped the hat off the head of student Matthew Vitale and then spouted profanities in a college office.  Now Macias is looking at a charge of misdemeanor grand theft with the possibility of jail time.

Macias tore the hat off Vitale’s head on campus and, in the video below, is shown going into the student services office in a full rage.  She screams at the staff that Vitale should not be allowed to wear the hat. The charge was filed after UC Riverside student Matthew Vitale, the student who had his Make America Great Again hat stolen from off his head, decided to press criminal theft charges against Macias.

Macias reportedly told police that she took the hat because it represented “genocide of a bunch of people” and wanted to burn it.

In a now-viral video of the incident, Macias stormed into a student services office with the hat and declared: “UCR is letting people wear this shit on campus? Make American Great Again, really? There were lynchings and genocide and mass deportations . . . I fucking hate this country . . . And I am not leaving . . . We need to get rid of all ya’ll.”

When Vitale reasonably asked for his hat back and defended his right to free speech, Macias declared “Fuck your freedom of speech boy, your freedom of speech is literally killing a lot of people out there, your hats like these that promote laws and legislation that literally kill and murder people of color.”

Macias shows the open hostility toward free speech that we have seen in many college protests, including signs denouncing free speech as a form of white privilege or repression.  The utter contempt shown free speech is reflective of the dangerous rollback on campuses as more and more speech is barred as insensitive or declared to be a “microaggression.”


Initially, the charge of “grand theft” seems excessive for a hat. This is a “wobbler” crime that can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor.  However, the provision below drops the $950 threshold value criteria when property is taken off a person’s body:


CHAPTER 5. Larceny [484 – 502.9]

  ( Chapter 5 enacted 1872. )


Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases:

(a) When the money, labor, or real or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b).

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), grand theft is committed in any of the following cases:

. . .

(c) When the property is taken from the person of another.

(d) When the property taken is any of the following:

(1) An automobile.

(2) A firearm.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 618, Sec. 7. Effective January 1, 2014.)

As a first offense, jail is rare as opposed to informal probation for up to three years.  Nevertheless, it is surprising to see a formal charge over a $25 hat. Yet, the video has gone viral and prosecutors may have felt the need to deter such violent and intolerant conduct on campuses.

There of course remains the question of what disciplinary action has been taken by the University of California.  The UC system has a rather poor record on criminal acts committed against conservative students or protesters.  We followed the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Younga with pro-life advocates on campus. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women. Thrin Short, 16, and her sister Joan, 21, filed complaints and Miller-Young was charged with criminal conduct including Theft From Person; Battery; and Vandalism. Miller-Young was convicted and sentenced in August. Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline.

In this case, a student not only stole the property of another student off his person but denounced his right to exercise free speech.  One would have hoped that the school would take immediate and stern action in such a case.  Instead, Kim A. Wilcox, University Chancellor, issued an equivocating statement that “coequal to our dedication to mutual respect, is our commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.”  Ok, but what about the student who ripped a hat off another students and declared that he has no free speech rights?

116 thoughts on “UC Riverside Student Charged With Grand Theft After Swiping MAGA Hat Of Fellow Student”

  1. I’ve walked through the UC-Riverside campus a few times. White/males are a distinct minority from my observations. All campuses have a good number of Asian students but this school has more than any I’ve seen.

    1. Just looked up UC Riverside student demographics. Hispanics are the majority @ 41%, followed by Asian @ 34%. Whites, well they be 12%. ‘Nuff said.

  2. Sounds like so many cases of “walking while being a white male”. There are so many instances of assault and often battery and other bullying tactics used to intimidate and hector white men on college campuses and elsewhere. These racist violent bullies somehow feel entitled to violate the rights of free speech and freedom of expression of people they disagree with. They need to be careful what they do and what they ask for and what they tolerate and don’t tolerate because they will have that same behavior turned back on them in abundance…case in point the Sexual Harassment revelations that are coming out about the same self righteous bullies who pointed the finger at others when they themselves were the biggest violators and offenders.

  3. Macias may learn a very important lesson, private property rights and where one’s own freedoms end. She believes that she has a personal right to determine what another person can own and wear. She has not learned to be civil or how one acts under the law.

    Perhaps the judicial system will provide a better education than her university has done to the present.

  4. This woman seemed to indicate that she is illegal and that she is here to overthrow our government. It is suicide to keep people like her here. Throw The Bum Out Now!

  5. Having to watch this video through to its conclusion is grating and reminds me of so many gruesome videos one has to endure from start to end, knowing that probable cause has already been established, but diligence requires that every second be evaluated and suffered.

    Unfortunately in this video, we the audience are not afforded the psychological release of seeing her arrested. Such frustrations are the risk in offering legal blog commentary.

  6. No Issac, may be Trump should have traded this girl to the Chinese for the basketball players!

    1. Bab

      You missed the point. This mutt is so off the beam that the only rational response is one of humor. But if you want to make it serious, as in arguing that black is black or white is white, then knock yourself out. For me, it is so stupid it is hilarious. This student is not a contender as far as opinions go.

      1. Issac, assault and battery are serious. That is how the violence begins, but I guess leftists are so used to violence just stealing someone’s hat off their head has no meaning.

    1. “the provision below drops the $950 threshold value criteria when property is taken off a person’s body”
      CHAPTER 5. Larceny [484 – 502.9]
      (c) When the property is taken from the person of another.

    2. This statement is indicative of those that have not learned logic and are not able to put their emotions away when thinking of criminal acts.

  7. I am glad that the authorities decided to prosecute. Many things about the world are unfair, but they don’t excuse political violence.

  8. Kathleen Frankforter,

    I hate what she did, stealing a hat from someone wearing it. I am a liberal that hates kids screaming about micro aggressions. But what you said was just as horrible. “Looks like she just came over the border and that we are paying for her education” make you look like a racist. Are you sure she is from Mexico. When did your ancestor arrive to steal the land from the Native Americans. A fact you don’t like. We are all immigrants. So don’t be the privilege elite. It make you look bad.

    1. Ben mans – we paid Mexico for the land her school is on. She says she is born here, but she has an accent, there is no reason for that, even in CA, unless she spent significant time in another country or they only spoke another language at home.

      The other thing is I don’t understand her underlying argument. She gives no evidence for it, but she makes it about 20 times. I don’t think that is going to fly with the judge, although it is CA and it might.

        1. Ben mans – we offered to buy the land but could never make a deal with a stable Mexican government before they attacked us. We both had troops on the border and theirs crossed the border to attack ours, thus setting off the war. Now we could have overlooked it, as we have with other incidents when it has been in our national interest, but we didn’t. We went to war.

          Frankly, the Mexicans had as good a chance to win most battles as the US did and fought bravely and with honor. Still, when the US won, we paid Mexico for the land we took, at the original purchase price, and then the final purchase was the Gadsen Purchase which we needed for a southern railway across the southwest.

    2. You probably live among reasonable people. You are not a typical Liberal because most Liberaks are not as reasonable as you seem to be. I say that because I worked 53 years in various places among both Conservatives and Liberals before retiring 10 years ago. There are haters on both sides but Liberals are usually more violent (example Antifa).

        1. Look up the history of the KKK and you will find them to be comprised primarily of Democrats. The neonazi movement is founded on the principles of socialism, a liberal political idealogy if there ever was one. They may want to include only a certain group of people in there ideal society, but they are liberal none the less.

          1. Liberal don’t believe in hatred and keeping groups of people disenfranchised. Please,read your history books.

            1. “Liberal don’t believe in hatred and keeping groups of people disenfranchised. Please,read your history books.”

              Woodrow Wilson a hero of Liberalism was a racist and shortly following his Presidency came the Klanbake where the KKK was widely represented in the 1924 Democratic Convention.

              The story of Liberal hatred and disenfranchisement of others continues.

              1. Allan – Woodrow Wilson’s review of Birth of a Nation helped get the KKK back up on their feet and thriving. He also segregated the Armed Forces. He was as racist as you get and still be president of a college.

    3. She should be charged for a hate crime. Her twitter page talks about how her mother is here illegally and that she hates all white people which shows motive. She believes all white people are privileged and feels that she is justified in physically assaulting him by physically removing his hat. And the definition for assault is included for those who will claim that this is not assault: Definition of assault. 1 a :a violent physical or verbal attack.

      1. “She believes all white people are privileged and feels that she is justified in physically assaulting him by physically removing his hat.”

        White privilege is being promoted and that is creating a lot of hate. Karen, if you are on this particular thread do you see the result of your type of rant?

        1. Allan:

          White privilege is radical bullshark. Tell me what privilege a white kid from the trailer park has over a black kid with two wealthy parents? Answer: none. Quit the race baiting. Nobody’s buying who believes anything MLK stood for.

          1. Mespo, I hope you realize that above I was advocating that Karen quit such activities and quit espousing her white privilege trash.

    4. Ben Mans:
      We may be “all immigrants” but some of us are legal and others of us are criminals who displace the benefits we legals are entitled to under the law. As a good liberal, you do believe in the rule of law, right?

  9. There was a time (a long time ago) when college students were really classy intelligent people, where did that all go. Anyone know if this person is a “dreamer” and how much does She pay toward her tuition?

  10. I am not surprised by this. This is the climate out there. God forbid you have a different view on things- you get called a racist. How dare her refer to Genocide…really? Who are being marched off to gas chambers? She probably knows ZILCH about the Holocaust and REAL Genocide. She sounds like she just came over the border and we are probably paying for her to go to the University… That was disgusting to watch. I was in shock as I listened to her. She was clearly a bully! This is how they act. So so horrible to watch. I’m 64 yrs old and the profanity from her mouth alone should have landed her in trouble. Such disrespect..

  11. Forget the hat theft, she should be punished for denying a fellow student his right to express himself. Battery is a thought too since the offensive touch of something closely associated with the person clearly occurred. Anyway, I’d make the student sit through continuous loop showings of HBO’s John Adams. Maybe then she’d get the vetting for citizenship she obviously avoided. If not, Tijuana is nice this time of year especially when traveling by trebuchet. 🙂

    1. I think battery should been included. She followed through on her action. Action = battery, threat = assault. Thus assault and battery.

    2. The flinging of a cow by means of a trebuchet was established by French invaders during the reign of King Arthur, Lord of the Pythons. No reason it couldn’t work on today’s heifers.

      1. Darren Smith – they have a trebuchet contest every year. Distance and accuracy. Still, a couple of hundred yards is the best they can do with a pumpkin. As skilled as the French were against the Pythonestasias of King Arthur, that cow did not travel very far. 🙂

        1. That sounds fun.

          Now, they only need to add a steam roller, an M2 heavy machine gun, and a magnesium engine block with blow-torch & a water hose. That would be a weekend you’d never forget.

            1. Now that would be a rig. Actually I was thinking of how much fun you could have with each of them.

              Oh, and a five story tower.

              1. Darren Smith – and the tower is covered with wetted cow skin? Good times. 🙂 I have read the descriptions of the Romans rolling up some of their siege equipment and darned if I know how they did it. When you read the description of the siege tower and figure the weight and how big the wheels must have been, and then to push the darn thing uphill to engage an enemy fortress, I am in awe. You know they pushed a siege tower up a human-built ramp at Masada to take the fortress. Looks to be about 40 degrees of grade. Think how in shape you would have to be. 😉

  12. Who does she think she is. O my gosh. She should be in jail. A and B. Slandering the President of the United States with out factual proof should be punishable by law. Inciting violence. This girl was wrong and so many levels. This behavior should not be gotten away with. This behavior and attitude is why this country is the way it is. No boundaries. She spoke of hatred towards her own country but won’t leave it because she has something to say about fixing it. I suppose this is how see things it will get fixed by violence, Spewing trash talk About our president. This is so offensive in so many ways.This is absolutely disgusting. MAGA

    1. Slandering the President of the United States with out factual proof should be punishable by law. Inciting violence

      Oh, merciless Hell, stop. Please stop. If we jailed people for slandering the President, our current President would probably still be in jail for having slandered the previous President. Remember the whole “birther” fiasco?

      And no, saying things that offend you are not “incitement”. Imagine for a moment how most university campuses would deal with conservative speaker if that really were the standard.

  13. What Darren said.

    What Macias lacks in personality, she makes up for in looks………………………………………………….NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Fascinating to watch how the individuals, at the university, stand there, motionless and petrified, of this fat, illiterate, inarticulate, belligerent and bellicose bull-dike, who can barely speak English. A testament to how much we, in general, have been so weakened, so de-balled, that no one dares–dares–raise a voice and tell this putrid and vile waste of oxygen, standing in their midst and using profanity, that she can’t snatch property away from someone on campus. That she is not allowed to steal another person’s property. How simple would that have been? Right. Simple, yet in a different time and place. No longer simple. Watch them. They are terrified by her. Rendered impotent by her. All out of fear. Terror. A legitimate and real sense of fear that if they dare–dare–to state the obvious. . .that LARASA will bolt in, demand their heads and jobs, for standing up to a piece of garbage–garbage that needs to be thrown back onto the other side of the border. I assume that this little misunderstanding will not get her booted from the school. Of course, not. Perish the thought. She will, most likely, be named on-campus president of LARASA, where mutants, like this, are hailed as heroes. A real Hispanic Rosa Parks.

      1. Olly – the people at the university were trying to de-escalate the situation, which they eventually did. I thought they did a great job, under the circumstances. They got the hat back, they got the cops there and they did not make the situation worse. And they got the hat back to the owner. The MAGA hatless person with the phone did a great job because he defended his rights without punching her lights out. He actually stated his case with evidence, which she didn’t.

        Actually, I think this falls under the hate crime category.

    1. It’s like invasion of the body snatchers but they are also to blame. If one dared to stand up to her, the remaining staff might just raise their arms pointing to that staff member and emitting a piercing pod scream.

      1. Lol! They looked like Children of the Corn. . .glassy-eyed. . .immobile. . .expressionless. . .blank stares. . .a bunch of zombies, too frightened to discipline the blob.

      2. That’s great! The woman was being completely irrational and no one seemed able to do anything for fear of some backlash. How many out there are so mentally unhinged that taking someone’s property and verbally assaulting them is the minimum of what they find justifiable?

  15. The actions displayed by this aggressor student in my opinion constitute grounds for a suspension from the institution.

    The subject of what was written on the hat has no bearing as to whether it constitutes a theft or just bad manners. The statutory interpretation as to this being an elevated charge by reason of it being taken from the person of another is certainly met when the victim was wearing the evidence.

    The victim student would be within his rights, I presume under that state’s law, to obtain a restraining order against the suspect and effectively bar her from the university since many orders are constructed to cover place or residence, employment or education and not just a set distance.

    On another note, the effect of the climate generated in this country by those intending to fan the flames of discord for their own self-interests is that weak minded individuals such as Ms. Macias fully subscribe to rhetoric and as a result of their own anger suffer the consequences of their ill-informed actions. And it works well since the puppets suffer while their handlers relax and get what they want.

    When encountering a person such as Ms. Macias in the state she is in as displayed in the video, it is pointless to discuss the matter or reason with them. For the police response they are best dealt with firmly and without argument. It’s either give the hat back to him or go to jail. Then comes the resistance and mouthy behavior. Repeat the order and if she does not comply cuff her up. If the probable cause is there and she does not afford any immediately identifiable affirmative defense, her actions are a matter for the courts not for wasting resources trying to convincer her of her unlawful actions. This is simply not a disagreement between two reasonable parties who cannot reach a conclusion. She presents a matter that is entirely different and should be resolved accordingly. 90% of people you deal with on the streets benefit from discussion of their case, this one does not.

    1. Shouldn’t she have been charged with assault and battery? Snatching something off the body of a person would constitute a battery under common law. The grand theft charge seems questionable, as those hats are being sold right now by sidewalk vendors in D.C. for about $10. The way the statute is written, it is technically valid, but I would think a judge would be more convinced by an A&B charge…

      1. Actually the battery charge is more difficult to prove since there has not been an allegation of injury to the victim. I will have to defer to someone with more experience in California’s criminal code and common law but in our state we define Assault by the common law definition (unlawful touching) since it is not defined by statute per se. However, there is the issue of evidentiary value of the touching. Someone that claims to have been simply touched unlawfully compels the state with the burden of proof. Seeing no visible sign of injury or pain without any other corroborating evidence makes proving assault difficult.

        Now one can argue that the person was unlawfully touched for the purpose of obtaining unlawfully the hat. Typically, when the difference between a theft from a person and robbery constitutes either an actual battery/assault, the production of a weapon, or a threat of bodily harm and the implied use of a weapon. The legislature crafted the law to differentiate between the two, else every time a person touched another with the intent to remove property from them it would automatically be a robbery. But, in this case it seems that the law is construed to punish for simple theft, punish for simple theft from the person of another, and punish for robbery by reason of inflicting harm. I believe in our case here the legislative intent is to provide a middle ground in what the aggressor his was charged.

        Again, perhaps someone with California experience can weigh in.

        1. Darren, Thanks for your explanation. I agree, it is a matter of how each state crafted its criminal statute. I went to law school in CA, and I’m familiar with the common law definition of battery (“a harmful or offensive touching”), which the case law extended to include something attached to the body, as in grabbing something out of someone’s hand. And assault is putting someone in fear of the above. But as to the actual criminal statute, I don’t recall….it was 25 years ago. Although it seems like only last week, lol.

    2. “Repeat the order and if she does not comply cuff her up.”

      Darren, For her to have been arrested by the police officer would the MAGA hat owner have to complain or would the actions of the woman viewed by the police officer be enough for arrest for assault and battery? How does the police officer in cases similar to this determine when to arrest someone for assault and battery?

  16. Well, it is nice to see they are finally taking a stand. Now what will be their recommendation on sentencing?

    1. Paul – I would sentence her to a two year welding course at a tech school. She doesn’t have the intellect for college and is a waste of that opportunity which could go to a more suitable candidate. Hmmmmm, on second thought, scratch welding….she shouldn’t be allowed near fiery hot tools. Plumbing would work; floundering around in sewage would give her something to legitimately curse about and she wouldn’t be a danger to others.

      1. ITIN – considering that she wants to destroy the USA from within I would not place her near any sharp objects or any that creat fire. 😉

Comments are closed.