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. )

487.  

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?

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

  1. This video is, sadly, the pluperfect example of the twisted mentality of an ever-growing rapacious segment of society. Listening and watching for just 60 seconds of Macias’ diatribe is painful in its lucidity, in part because of its stunning underscoring of the garbage-level public zeitgeist we’ve gone out of our way to encourage. We reap what we sow.

    This woman is a poster child for a seriously ugly, ever-growing, intolerance of the most tolerant nation on the planet. She is an ingrate on steroids. Macias has managed to put a face on the millions who despise the very existence of a country that foolishly, not merely allows violent confrontation with the law-abiding, but fails to see the idiocy of funding the caustic damage we are inflicting upon ourselves.

    At some point, mad-woman Macias may even achieve a 4-year degree, to be used against the “enemy” and paid for by people she hates. In her mind, what could be a more perfect way to give the finger to the USA she despises? And who in their right mind anticipates that she will ever – EVER – appreciate what she has been given? Not gonna happen.

    Here is a concept Macias – and countless thousands of her ilk – cannot wrap their small minds around: What her pals confuse as “racism” has literally nothing to do with ethnicity whatsoever. Not a whit.

    What millions of we citizens DO abhor is the abject, in-your-face, burn-the-town, cuss you out, preposterous display of Hispanic entitlement.

    And this daily middle-finger flip-off by the fastest growing demographic, absolutely guarantees a continually dysfunctional nation, crippled by its confounding drive for “diversity” at all costs. We are being appallingly stupid.

    • Albert Macias – I get the impression she is an “anchor baby” and under current policy is a US citizen. She cannot be deported, except by accident. There is a very funny Cheech and Chong movie where Cheech is accidentally deported to Mexico and cannot convince anyone he is a US citizen. So he has to sneak across the border. If you can find it, it is worth the view. Thought provoking and funny.

  2. Regardless of jail time (or expulsion), if found guilty she permanently loses her DACA status and would be collected and provided with a free one way bus ride to Mexico.

    Something tells me this administration may make sure these changes don’t “fall through the cracks”, but are carried out efficiently and expeditiously.

  3. I have yet to have explained how anything Trump or any conservative proposes can be understood as leading to genocide.

    She was the only one making race an issue. She is a racist bigot.

    Anyone explain how enforcing racially-blind immigration laws is racist or genocide.

    This kind of non-thinking, anti-empirical nature of Leftism is what is destroying freedom, Liberty, Right To Life and Civil Order.

  4. If she had taken the cap or anything else from the right person, violence would have quickly followed. Maybe that is what she intended, to promote violence but four quick jabs to the face may not be what she wanted. What she did was a crime of violence and should be prosecuted as such. Do not engage a person like her in conversation, repeat “I want my hat back” as loud as possible and ignore anything that she says.

  5. An odd charge, since “grand” would imply theft of a high value item. The charge should be unarmed robbery. A more serious crime and, well, that’s what she did.

  6. She’s needs to be arrested just for spouting such stupidity on a college campus. Please nueter her so she can’t produce equally stupid offspring.

  7. “COEQUAL to our dedication to mutual respect, is our commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.” “Coequal” is redundant. Is there a type of equal that is not, in fact, “coequal?” By definition, “equal” is “coequal,” particularly in the context of that sentiment. Also, there is no need for the coma.

    It’s an embarrassment that a chancellor would release a statement written like that. What a toilet of a college Riverside must be.

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

    Hopefully she’ll be expelled for being a moron too.

    • Yup. The genocide she is tacitly referencing probably are the folk that are being cared for for eons and their offspring by the American society. She references “genocide’ is what the hat denotes because it’s relevant to her ilk .CA shells out 120 million dollars to care for. She is merely concerned about the means to an end when Americans say No More.

  9. Diworsity. Who’s idea was that? Once beautiful Riverside and California have been invaded by hyphenates, turned into ghettos and destroyed. Americans were told that America WON World War II. What really happened? The world won America. Where do Americans go to get their country back?

    • It would be a horrible precedent if Macias got off easy. Some jail time and expulsion from the college are called for. Indignation (faux or real or mix) isn’t a legal defense.

      • I agree,
        Both jail time and expulsion from the college is called for.
        Listening to her vocabulary, she sounds like an M13 thug.
        Obama Dreamer that will not be missed.

  10. Free speech is “literally” killing people? She’s a college student? She does not understand that if he does not have the right to free speech, then neither does she.

    I am interested in how the university handles this. If another student threatens or interferes with a student’s speech, then she should be suspended or expelled, depending on their general policy. There is no double standard in a just system.

    I think grand theft and jail time is overcharge. However, I wonder why he pressed charges. Did the school fail to respond appropriately?

    • It seems a bit high-handed to me, too. But,perhaps she refused to give his hat back. Also, her lack of tolerance for his right to free speech probably made him decide he had no reason to show her tolerance or mercy for actually taking his hat off his head.

      Tolerating or showing mercy for these actions will only perpetuate them, I fear.

      • Better she is arrested it might help her and others learn how to live with different people and how to act. She doesn’t necessarily have to go to jail or even have this remain on her record. She needs a stern lesson or she will end up in worse trouble later in life.

        • Allan,
          I agree. I thought maybe the grand theft charge might be too heavy-handed, but this nonsense is getting out-of-hand. A few hours in jail might not be enough to snap some sense into her. I suspect her ideology is wrapped around her identity, which will make it difficult to even temper, let alone dislodge.

          • Yes. I blame the community created by the leadership of the university along with an overabundance of leftist policies promoted by too many leftist politicians and the media.

    • Karen S – the school called the cops, they show up barring the door at the end of the video. All he has to do it upload the video, let it go viral and she is toast.

  11. looking at jail time fine but why was being expelled not mentioned? Universities and Colleges that cannot keep their operation safe for their students should not be getting federal funding but that money could be diverted to the extra costs carried by local emergency, medical, judicial and police requirements.

        • ) – her argument made no sense. She had no evidence to back it up, just continued to repeat and point at the hat. I really think they need to tack on hate crime to this. She thought he was white and therefore a vulnerable target. Her cause was righteous.

    • I saw nothing in the article about geon?icide did you mean genocide? Or the other two idiot remarks. Robo Clone Collective your programmer needs to change meds if they hope to keep the Stupid Party functioning. The only comments like that were from the deranged assailant perpetrator in the crime commited. Or were you being facetious?

  12. Our CRAZY Legal system. What ever happened to truth in labelling? Yes, I think she is very wrong. Grand Theft is for high dollar items – like a car (old time horse theft) not a baseball cap. ——— Make her buy him 5, and walk around with a sandwich board in public saying I am a hat-snatcher for two hours.

    • AJL – I would have considered petty larceny until I saw the statute. She held on to that hat a long time more than she had to, she had to have her extended rant first with the prop (stolen hat). I would go with grand larceny now. The key is whether they are going to let her pled to a lesser because the charge is iffy.

    • California law provides for grand theft in a number of circumstances where the monetary value is low. For example, if you steal something that is necessary to a person’s livelihood, like a carpenter’s tools, even a single hammer. As to stealing off a person’s body, would you rather it be assault? It certainly qualifies as that.

      • I feel there is also a significant difference in theft from a person’s body compared to just stealing when they are not around. The act is more brazen and likely has a more profound impact on the victim. While there may be no physical harm done to the victim the intent of her crime is not just simple theft and should be classified differently.
        It sounds gnarly, but grand theft, in my opinion, is a fitting charge. I don’t believe she intended to physically harm him, but her intent was not just simply to steal it for herself either.
        I am glad to see that she may get a bit more than a slap on the wrist for her actions. This kind of intolerance for other people’s opinions is becoming harmful to our society and culture.

    • Did u watch the video? Just for the amount of aggravation she put him through, I am surprised that he didn’t strike her as much as she incited him. She threatened him with violence. She deserves to be charged with a felony. Just think if a woman was walking down the street and a man stole her hat and harangued and verbally abused her while she filmed it, do you think that he would not have been charged with a felony.

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