Justice Schlomo Rules against Asian in Discrimination Case against BLMer who used Racial Slurs

Yahoo News:

Terrell Harper’s racist tirade, which was partly caught on video, lasted for over 15 minutes and left Det. Vincent Chung “disgusted” since the incident occurred during a protest denouncing racism.

Harper, who was a protester at the event, allegedly spat on Chung’s face, chanted “soy sauce,” called him a “goddamn cat eater,” asked, “You going to judo chop me?” and threatened his mother.

In a virtual hearing on Monday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shlomo Hagler reportedly acknowledged that the video “speaks volume.”

“Justice Schlomo.”

There’s an oxymoron for you. Lemme look up this Schlomo.

Justice Schlomo Hager

“The obscenities, the diatribes, the hateful and obscene words were said, there is no doubt to that. Such conduct should be condemned and has no place in a civil society,” Hagler said, according to the New York Post.

Hagler ultimately tossed the suit, saying Harper was protected by his First Amendment rights and encouraged Chung and his lawyers to take the issue to the legislature.

“I do believe the legislation should go back and review whether they should protect racist and hateful speech as part of the civil rights law,” he added.

Can’t help but think that if the races were reversed, Justice Schlomo would have no problem finding the Asian guilty of hate crimes. In fact, let me look up New York hate crime legislation.

Sorry in advance for the formatting problems.

New York Senate:

485.05 Hate crimes.

1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified
offense and either:

(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is
committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part
because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion,
religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person,
regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or

(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in
whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding
the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or
expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual
orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception
is correct.

2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender
identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or
sexual orientation of the defendant, the victim or of both the defendant
and the victim does not, by itself, constitute legally sufficient
evidence satisfying the people’s burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of
subdivision one of this section.

So basically, if you commit a crime against someone, you can then be charged with a hate crime. But it has to be a specific crime, which they detail below.

3. A “specified offense” is an offense defined by any of the following
provisions of this chapter: section 120.00 (assault in the third
degree); section 120.05 (assault in the second degree); section 120.10
(assault in the first degree); section 120.12 (aggravated assault upon a
person less than eleven years old); section 120.13 (menacing in the
first degree); section 120.14 (menacing in the second degree); section
120.15 (menacing in the third degree); section 120.20 (reckless
endangerment in the second degree); section 120.25 (reckless
endangerment in the first degree); section 121.12 (strangulation in the
second degree); section 121.13 (strangulation in the first degree);
subdivision one of section 125.15 (manslaughter in the second degree);
subdivision one, two or four of section 125.20 (manslaughter in the
first degree); section 125.25 (murder in the second degree); section
120.45 (stalking in the fourth degree); section 120.50 (stalking in the
third degree); section 120.55 (stalking in the second degree); section
120.60 (stalking in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.35
(rape in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.50 (criminal
sexual act in the first degree); subdivision one of section 130.65
(sexual abuse in the first degree); paragraph (a) of subdivision one of
section 130.67 (aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree); paragraph
(a) of subdivision one of section 130.70 (aggravated sexual abuse in the
first degree); section 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment in the second
degree); section 135.10 (unlawful imprisonment in the first degree);
section 135.20 (kidnapping in the second degree); section 135.25
(kidnapping in the first degree); section 135.60 (coercion in the third
degree); section 135.61 (coercion in the second degree); section 135.65
(coercion in the first degree); section 140.10 (criminal trespass in the
third degree); section 140.15 (criminal trespass in the second degree);
section 140.17 (criminal trespass in the first degree); section 140.20
(burglary in the third degree); section 140.25 (burglary in the second
degree); section 140.30 (burglary in the first degree); section 145.00
(criminal mischief in the fourth degree); section 145.05 (criminal
mischief in the third degree); section 145.10 (criminal mischief in the
second degree); section 145.12 (criminal mischief in the first degree);
section 150.05 (arson in the fourth degree); section 150.10 (arson in
the third degree); section 150.15 (arson in the second degree); section
150.20 (arson in the first degree); section 155.25 (petit larceny);
section 155.30 (grand larceny in the fourth degree); section 155.35
(grand larceny in the third degree); section 155.40 (grand larceny in
the second degree); section 155.42 (grand larceny in the first degree);
section 160.05 (robbery in the third degree); section 160.10 (robbery in
the second degree); section 160.15 (robbery in the first degree);
section 240.25 (harassment in the first degree); subdivision one, two or
four of section 240.30 (aggravated harassment in the second degree);
section 490.10 (soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism
in the second degree); section 490.15 (soliciting or providing support
for an act of terrorism in the first degree); section 490.20 (making a
terroristic threat); section 490.25 (crime of terrorism); section 490.30
(hindering prosecution of terrorism in the second degree); section
490.35 (hindering prosecution of terrorism in the first degree); section
490.37 (criminal possession of a chemical weapon or biological weapon in
the third degree); section 490.40 (criminal possession of a chemical
weapon or biological weapon in the second degree); section 490.45
(criminal possession of a chemical weapon or biological weapon in the
first degree); section 490.47 (criminal use of a chemical weapon or
biological weapon in the third degree); section 490.50 (criminal use of
a chemical weapon or biological weapon in the second degree); section
490.55 (criminal use of a chemical weapon or biological weapon in the
first degree); or any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
foregoing offenses.

So let’s see. Harper spit on Chung, which is clearly assault, and therefore he can be charged with a hate crime. As always, these are political crimes. Maybe an Asian would have access to them, but not if the perpetrator was a BLMer, and there were political implications.

Now there’s one more thing I have to show.

During the proceedings, Harper’s lawyer, Remy Green, had also acknowledged that their client had used “some extraordinarily offensive language” but argued that “hate speech is free speech.”

Remy Green

This is Remy Green, born Jeremy Green. It works for the National Lawyers Guild, which is also the (((outfit))) that Roberta Kaplan wages lawfare from. Apparently being a jew isn’t enough, you have to also be a disgusting pervert.

And in case you were wondering what was up with this Harper guy…

In late January of this year, Harper made headlines again for making threatening remarks directed at the police following the death of 22-year-old officer Jason Rivera.

“That’d have been a wet dream to f*ck that funeral up, bro,” Harper said in his Instagram Stories. “I can’t wait. I’m looking for the next cop funeral. I’m gonna f*ck it up, bro. I’m gonna f*ck that sh*t up. That’ll make news ASAP.”

Terrell Harper

Chung’s team are appealing the decision, which is patently ridiculous. I wish them the best. They’re fighting against Schlomo’s golem after all.