Two Shot At Hollywood Shul

Two Jews were shot in the legs in the parking lot of a synagogue in North Hollywood, Calif.

Two shot at California synagogue

(JTA) -- Two people were shot in the legs in the parking lot of a synagogue in North Hollywood, Calif.

Los Angeles Police said the African-American suspect approached a man entering the Adat Yeshurun Valley Sephardic Synagogue for morning prayers at approximately 6:20 a.m. Thursday, according to media reports. The assailant shot that man in the leg with a handgun, then fired again and hit another man in the garage. The synagogue is located in the San Fernando Valley's Orthodox community.

The victims, both Jewish, were reported to be in stable condition after being transported to a local hospital.

A man was detained near the facility shortly after the shooting, but police now say they don't believe he was involved in the crime.

Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime, and the Los Angeles Police Department has stepped up patrols around city Jewish institutions. The Secure Community Network, the national network coordinating security for the Jewish community, said it was urging Jewish institutions to remain vigilant and revisit the security procedures they have in place until more information about the incident is known.

Comments

[FN]

And People Are Surprised. This is a sad day indeed. Ignorance again rears its ugly head.

[Michelle]

B"H

I've been there. It isn't an obvious synagogue. If you aren't looking for it, you wouldn't see it.

This was planned.

[A. Nuran]

Investigations are to figure out who did what to whom for how many cookies. Until it grinds through this is all speculation.

[Yerachmiel Lopin frumfollies.wordpress.com]

Shocking. I could see why they would investigate the possibility this is a hate crime. But I agree with Nuran, I sure don't have enough facts to know.

I assume that the police are competent and are keeping an open mind. If it was not a hate crime they could miss other suspects. We all know that crimes are conmnitted for many reasons besides anti-Semitism. Like yes, Jews have been known to shoot Jews. Also, not all non-Jewish thugs who shoot peoople in the legs are antisemites.

[Asa]

Thank God they weren't too seriously injured and are in stable condition.

[itchiemayer]

I really am uncomfortable with hate crime legislation. So someone who murders a Jew could be subject to additional incarceration than someone who merely murders a white, christian male. I have problems with this. I understand the concept, but I don't think it is a good idea, not at all.
Hey, my Uncle was murdered walking home from shul on Kol Nidre night, many years ago. Murder is murder, period.

[effie]

I really am uncomfortable with hate crime legislation.

Yes and no. It makes me uncomfortable because I've seen it used against the mentally ill who seem to be targeting certain groups but it is really part of their illness.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable when it is used properly. It discourages people and groups from targeting certain people which is a good thing. Jews - because of the history of antisemitism, blacks because of the history of racism, the elderly, etc.

[yidandahalf]

As always, itchiemayer redeems this place with common sense. I am in complete agreement with him. A miserable evil person bludgeons an old pensioner to death for a few bucks or rapes and stabs an elderly woman would not be convicted of a hate crime. Somehow these crimes would be lesser, less "hateful", more "reasonable".
I feel badly for these two yids. Paying for some blindslimes like madoff and lubinsky and all those dirtbags.

[effie]

yidandahalf: Not at all. The goal of hate crime legislation is to increase punishment to act as a deterrent. I am unaware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have laws that increase the punishment for crimes against the elderly. Same result, different name.

[Yerachmiel Lopin FrumFollies.wordpress.com]

I favor the idea of a hate crime and special additional penalties.
1. This does not reduce the penalty for the other aspects of a crime. So the person convicted of a hates crime gets the same sentence as someone else convicted of a crime plus a bonus for the hate component
2. Hate crimes are more dangerous. They create the seeds of an attitude that if it spreads can have catastrophic consequences. The holocaust was a hate crime writ large.

[Yerachmiel Lopin FrumFollies.wordpress.com]

favor the idea of a hate crime and special additional penalties.
1. This does not reduce the penalty for the other aspects of a crime. So the person convicted of a hates crime gets the same sentence as someone else convicted of a crime plus a bonus for the hate component
2. Hate crimes are more dangerous. They create the seeds of an attitude that if it spreads can have catastrophic consequences. The holocaust was a hate crime writ large.
3. I agree with itchiemayer that there should be no difference between crimes directed at whites and blacks. And most hate crime legislation does not refer to minority status. It speaks about things like crimes motivated by hostility to a racial or ethnic group. So if someone kills a white because of racism against whites they get the penalty for a hate crime.

[yidandahalf]

Ah yes, increase the punishment so the hate goes underground. It becomes subtle and less dangerous. Would that be a conjecture one could make about the reasoning behind this type of legislation? Wonderful, it will do much to curb anti-semitism which will no doubt oblige us by completely going away. Wake me up when we get all the way to the abyss. I'm tired of waiting around, I intend to jump right in and get it over with.

[effie]

I'm not even going to try to make sense of what you posted, yidandhalf.

[seymour]

on the news just now they said it might have been a personal issue the shooting

[Yoel B]

We were all children, and we all hope to become elderly; there's some universality in protecting those groups. But hate speech and hate crime laws say that person X's blood is redder than Y's because of race, religion, who they sleep with. It's a truly perverse system. The flip side of the existence of a protected group, for example, Aryans in Germany in 1939 automatically means that other groups are singled out for attack.
The history of Canada's "Human Rights Commissions" should be a lesson to all of us.

[from the UK]

Crime is a crime.

I was raised as a gentile but have orthodox family members. After numerous warning by my so called own ( gentiles ) I was raped and left for dead for having the audacity of ignoring the warnings.

Never in a thousand years would any gentile have believed what would happen next. Jews nursed me back to full health, they supported me when life was diabolical and stood by me for the court case - not gentiles.

Many years later we discovered I am Jewish and I've now been frum for 6 years.

My point is any hate crime should be treated as such, race shouldnt come into it, after all who could have claimed my sexual assault was anti-semitic?

[effie]

If there was evidence that your rape was motivated by bigotry or bias towards Jews and your rapist perceived you to be a Jew, whether you were or not, it is a hate crime.

Also, the US protects speech. Hate speech is not a crime.

[from the UK]

Effie, it was motivated by bias towards Jews. The people who did it hated Jews but they actually thought as my immediate family did I was a gentile. So is that still a hate crime?

[effie]

If you were attacked because of your association with a person or group who was or was perceived to be Jewish, it is a hate crime. IOW, yes.

[from the UK]

Thanks effie

I didnt know that

[Jason]

A. There is absolutely no evidence that hate crime status deters anyone from committing a crime they would have otherwise have committed. The deterrence argument in this case is absolute rubbish.

B. Hate crime legislation (for better or for worse) federalizes crime and often gives the Federal government a second bite at the apple if the state court does not convict. It creates serious problems of double jeopardy, because if the state court fails to convict, the Feds can always swoop in and try the suspect for "hate crimes."

C. Why should the perpetrator's state of mind have anything to do with the punishment? If I kill someone thinking he's a Jew (or gay, or Latino, or any other minority group)but he turns out to be just a generic white Christian, should I be tried for murder (b/c I killed a Christian) or for a hate crime (b/c I thought that victim was a Jew)?

[effie]

a. Prison always deters crime. Crime is at an all time low because of 3 strikes and other sentencing enhancements.

b. I doubt it gives automatic juridiction to the feds. I was citing state law - not federal. And in the cases where the feds file after a state mis-trial, it is not double jeopardy in that they file different charges with different elements that need to be proved.

c. It's not the state of mind - it's the acts that make it a hate crime. People are free to hate whomever they want and this being the US, we can say and/or print it, too.

[Mr. Apikorus]

So if two Jews, one religious and the other not, get into a fight over religion, is that a hate crime? I beg to differ.