Replies

Good Evening All-

"...This act of dishonesty shows someone who is in no position to be honest with students. This professor should be fired and never hold a teaching position again..."

WOSG, this person hasn't even been charged with anything, much less found guilty. She is being slammed for her weight, her clothing, and her parents, but she could just as easily be COMPLETELY innocent.

There is NO evidence to suggest the professor committed this crime except for secret testimony from anonymous people who think they saw her. We're ain't talking O.J. Simpson-caliber culpability here. FReepers are clear-thinking conservatives, not knee-jerk leftwingers. I would think we would give her due process.

If guilty, the full weight of the law would fall upon her. Let all the evidence be gathered and presented first.

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~

Read the article again, BJ. The cops caught her lying.

2 witnesses and she gave inconsistent statement. Plus if you read the Claremont college newspaper, you have your motive: She's an utter extremist who wanted the students to get more motivated about this stuff. With this incident they shut down classes for a whole day and had a huge rally.

Whoopdee-doo. Create all that fear and hate and divisiveness, just for a rally to say "We hate hate" ?!?!

What a maroon!

We are not a court of law, we are a message board.

She did it.

There is NO evidence to suggest the professor committed this crime except for secret testimony from anonymous people who think they saw her.

No evidence?

What do you call inconsistent statements during the two interviews by law enforcement, and the two witnesses?

Innocent people do not make inconsistent statements.

There is NO evidence to suggest the professor committed this crime except for secret testimony from anonymous people who think they saw her. We're ain't talking O.J. Simpson-caliber culpability here. FReepers are clear-thinking conservatives, not knee-jerk leftwingers. I would think we would give her due process.

Here's why her story is fishy, even before the recent allegations:

1. How did the alleged attacker know which one was the professor's car?

2. The car was discovered vandalized just after the owner happened to be giving a speech about hate speech. Mighty big coincidence.

3. The car had, among other things, the word "kike" on it. As someone else pointed out, that word hasn't been a popular slur in a long time -- it's up there with "dago" and "wop" as the type of words Archie Bunker used to use 30+ years ago. It's not a current slur.

4. I notice that whenever there's a fake hate crime, it's something involving words -- somebody gets something written on themselves, or some offensive words are written on property. When real "hate" crimes, like those committed against Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, were committed, the perps didn't waste any time writing slurs on their victims -- they just tortured and killed them!