City of Irvine cries wolf on "hate crime"
The people of Irvine want victimhood status so much that they jumped at a chance to cry "hate crime" without any evidence of it. We want to be knights in shining armor that fight for social justice. We want all our friends to know what heroes we are.
The Irvine police cut out the most important parts in their first video, which caused a lot of outrage. The mayor also did her part in spreading the false narrative. While she never stated "hate crime", she certainly implied it by bringing race into it and then allowing the outrage to follow without following up.
Here is the unedited second video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8iloz4W8k
Once the second video was shared, the chain of events became clear as to what happened. A boy was running with his husky dog, without a leash. While he was ahead of his husky dog, and it was behind him, the husky approached an older man with a small dog. It appeared to the old man to be threatening, and whether it was or not, it was bothering the old man and he felt the need to fight it off. The old man then hit the husky multiple times. While the old man was hitting the husky, the boy turned around to witness it. He then got mad, and knocked down the older man and hit him a few times and kicked him.
The old man then went to the ER due to a cut that was bleeding.
Why was the initial part of the video cut out when shared?
Why was the police so irresponsible here?
Why did the mayor share the victim's race?
Why was the mayor irresponsible here?
Why are the people of Irvine so quick to condemn this as a hate crime?
Why after seeing the full evidence, do the people still want to call this a hate crime?