Alleged white supremacists start brawl at Lynnwood bar; 9 arrested

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Alleged white supremacists start brawl at Lynnwood bar; 9 arrested

LYNNWOOD, Wash. -- A big brawl broke out at the Rec Room Bar and Grill in Lynnwood at 12:40 a.m. Saturday morning.

According to witnesses, a group of about 15 to 20 alleged white supremacists used racial slurs and assaulted a black DJ, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office reports. Some of the DJ's equipment was damaged during the fight.

Initial reports state that shots had been fired, but the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office has yet to confirm this.

The 27-year-old DJ was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. All suspects are ages 20 to 40.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“…12:40 a.m. Saturday morning.”

It should be either 12:40 a.m. Saturday or 12:40 Saturday morning – copy editing is a lost art.

Otherwise, if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about the assailants being white supremacists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe they were racist, but actual white Supremacists are kind of rare. I personally have never met one, though I have met several white segregationists and dozens of bigots.

But not every drunken loud mouth that throws around N-bombs is a full fledged white Supremacist, most called that are just rude idiots that need a good ass-whoopin.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then...

...it’s called a night in da ‘hood.

 

[aaronleland]

But not every drunken loud mouth that throws around N-bombs is a full fledged white Supremacist, most called that are just rude idiots that need a good ass-whoopin.

Whoa! There's no reason to bring me into this.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But not every drunken loud mouth that throws around N-bombs is a full fledged white Supremacist, most called that are just rude idiots that need a good ass-whoopin.

Whoa! There's no reason to bring me into this.

I suspect you have had the AW treatment many times in your life to no affect, lol.

Me too. :/

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol...guy puts a bar fight in CURRENT EVENTS

 

[sparky]

well i share thier contempt for DJ's , but i would not have 'effed the guy up over it

~S~

 

[Auld Phart]

“…12:40 a.m. Saturday morning.”

It should be either 12:40 a.m. Saturday or 12:40 Saturday morning – copy editing is a lost art.

Otherwise, if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about the assailants being white supremacists.

if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about the assailants being white supremacists.

Really?

anyone that uses a racial slur to a black man is a White Supremacist?

 

[Taz]

“…12:40 a.m. Saturday morning.”

It should be either 12:40 a.m. Saturday or 12:40 Saturday morning – copy editing is a lost art.

Otherwise, if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about the assailants being white supremacists.

if racial slurs were used and a black DJ assaulted, then there’s nothing ‘alleged’ about the assailants being white supremacists.

Really?

anyone that uses a racial slur to a black man is a White Supremacist?

Some White Supremacists simply have a black stereotype of the cool but menacing looking big black guy with an afro in their avatar.

 

[Weatherman2020]

#nothinggoodhappensaftermidnight

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I always find it interesting to see what other people see as the take-aways from a news story.

The original news story which I saw on TV emphasised that it was a group of males whom they identified as "skinheads" who traveled to this location. They didn't say "for the purpose of" getting into a fight with the African American DJ but that was the result. The newscaster also mentioned that the individuals were being charged with "malicious harassment" which is a class C felony. It is the malicious harassment component which makes it slightly more than "just a bar fight" and the reason I put it in current events.

RCW 9A.36.078
Malicious harassment—Finding.

The legislature finds that crimes and threats against persons because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicaps are serious and increasing. The legislature also finds that crimes and threats are often directed against interracial couples and their children or couples of mixed religions, colors, ancestries, or national origins because of bias and bigotry against the race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin of one person in the couple or family. The legislature finds that the state interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias goes beyond the state interest in preventing other felonies or misdemeanors such as criminal trespass, malicious mischief, assault, or other crimes that are not motivated by hatred, bigotry, and bias, and that prosecution of those other crimes inadequately protects citizens from crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias. Therefore, the legislature finds that protection of those citizens from threats of harm due to bias and bigotry is a compelling state interest.

The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.

The legislature also finds that a hate crime committed against a victim because of the victim's gender may be identified in the same manner that a hate crime committed against a victim of another protected group is identified. Affirmative indications of hatred towards gender as a class is the predominant factor to consider. Other factors to consider include the perpetrator's use of language, slurs, or symbols expressing hatred towards the victim's gender as a class; the severity of the attack including mutilation of the victim's sexual organs; a history of similar attacks against victims of the same gender by the perpetrator or a history of similar incidents in the same area; a lack of provocation; an absence of any other apparent motivation; and common sense.
[ 1993 c 127 § 1.]​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Odium, why is my original post funny to you?