Dylann Roof and the Treatment of Whites by the Legal System

The latest developments in the Charleston shooter case and their implications for our future

by John I. Johnson

State Criminal Case

AFTER HIS arrest last month, Roof (pictured) confessed, allegedly stating that he wanted to start a race war. He was charged with nine counts of murder, one for each person killed. These are state (South Carolina) charges. He was also charged with a weapons offense, evidently “possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.” On July 7, new indictments were added: three attempted murder charges relating to people who survived. Additional state charges can be added in the future.

The female prosecutor, Scarlett Wilson, is a White Republican. Republican South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa to Sikh immigrants from India, has called for the death penalty. She also seized the opportunity to eliminate the Confederate flag. Probably at some point displaying or even possessing a Confederate flag will become a crime for which White Americans will be fined and/or jailed.

Federal Criminal Case

As always in criminal cases where whites are charged with “racism” or “anti-Semitism,” federal charges are usually preferred simultaneously. The legal-(istic) excuse is: “Nothing prevents competing state and federal agencies from bringing similar criminal charges arising out of the same act against a single defendant so long as a crime can be charged at both the state and federal level. The Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time.”

So Roof, or any other White racialist, can be separately charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for the same crime(s) by two “different” branches of government.

The question right now is whether the regime will bring “hate crime” charges against Roof. The odds are overwhelming that they will. But, as noted, they needn’t restrict themselves to such charges.

The concept of “hate crimes” was developed over several decades by Jewish organizations and Left-wing academics associated with them. Subsequently the idea was enacted into law.

“Hate crimes” are a precursor to explicit hate speech laws against Whites that already exist everywhere else, and will certainly be implemented here. Actually, they are de facto, back door hate speech laws. Jews, Blacks and other non-whites routinely receive far lower criminal sentences for the very same crimes Whites commit, whenever Whites are convicted under hate crime laws and non-Whites are not. That is the purpose of such “laws.”

Civil Lawsuits

After being hit with both state and federal charges and/or sentences longer and more severe than non-Whites receive from just one branch of government for identical racial acts (the System has no desire to prosecute non-Whites twice over, state and federal), Whites are next subjected to civil lawsuits brought by victims or their families, typically represented by Left-wing and Jewish lawyers. They can win enormous damages. The SPLC, for example, specializes in such cases. Where Left-wing ideology and anti-White racism are motivating factors, lack of assets does not matter. It is simply another form of punishment. Moreover, they can seize assets and income acquired in the future. As time goes by perhaps they’ll confiscate prison money, or financially penalize White family members (e.g., parents).

The enemy has lots of time and money to pursue such cases, and does so. The SPLC has bankrupted and financially damaged numerous White individuals and organizations using this end run around the First Amendment. Nothing that they do would be permitted by the System if it were used against Jews or other non-Whites under identical fact patterns and laws.

It is a one way street.

The Upshot

All of the devious and racially discriminatory criminal tricks enumerated above (recall the ostensible existence of “equal protection,” “due process,” and “non-discrimination” laws and principles) can be used against any Politically Incorrect White person. You don’t need to be a spree killer. For example, most of the White policemen Jews, the Left, and media have targeted for several years now — even instigating the murders of several in the process — can be subjected to the same racially discriminatory treatment.

In the jail where Roof was initially detained, his cell-block neighbor was Michael Slager, the former North Charleston policeman charged with first-degree murder in the shooting of Negro Walter Scott.

Dow Jones article on Roof follows:

Dylann Roof Indicted on 3 Attempted Murder Charges in Charleston Shooting
July 7, 2015 12:50 PM ET (Dow Jones)

COLUMBIA, S.C. The man accused of killing nine people attending Bible study at a historic black church in Charleston has been indicted on three new charges of attempted murder, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Prosecutor Scarlett Wilson said Tuesday that 21-year-old Dylann Storm Roof had been indicted on the state charges, stemming from people who survived the June 17 attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Mr. Roof was arrested last month and charged with nine counts of murder, one for each person killed. He also faces a weapons charge.

Roof’s defense attorney didn’t immediately return a message Tuesday seeking comment. Mr. Roof is next expected in court in October on the murder charges, and online court records didn’t show any additional dates for the new charges.

A state judge already has been appointed. Federal authorities haven’t said whether they will pursue hate crime charges against Mr. Roof.

The news of the new charges comes as South Carolina state lawmakers move closer toward possibly removing the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds. Mr. Roof, who is white, appeared in photos waving Confederate flags and burning or desecrating U.S. flags, and purportedly wrote of fomenting racial violence. Survivors told police he hurled racial insults during the attack.

State senators gave final approval Tuesday to a bill that would remove the flag from its pole in front of the statehouse. That sends the proposal to the House, where it faces a less certain future.

* * *