Connect with us

Crime

DOJ Holds Local Hate Crime Forum

THE TENNESSEE TRIBUNE — It’s been six months since the racially-motivated desecration of Walnut Grove Missionary Baptist Church, another incident in a growing trend of such crimes over the past few years.

Published

on

By Ashley Benkarski

MURFREESBORO, TN — It’s been six months since the racially-motivated desecration of Walnut Grove Missionary Baptist Church, another incident in a growing trend of such crimes over the past few years.

This isn’t the first time a place of worship has been attacked here—the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was the target of a hate crime in August 2010, an act that garnered national attention and was featured on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” It was vandalized again in 2017. 

To address the community’s concerns over safety in places of worship, the Community Action Committee of Rutherford County and the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service hosted a forum Mar. 5 at Middle Tennessee State University’s Tucker Theater that featured attorneys, federal, state and local law enforcement officials and local religious organizations. Attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions between panels to encourage open dialogue between congregations and the law enforcement community. 

“No threat should be taken lightly,” Frank Haera, ATF supervisor, said. He added that congregations should be made aware and plans put in place for safe and effective emergency management in the event of a violent act. Law enforcement speakers stressed the importance of cameras and good lighting as deterrents as well as helping identify perpetrators.

The forum is one part of the CRS initiative to protect places of worship through educating the community about hate crimes and providing guidance for safety in the event of violence, such as bomb threats, arson or an active shooter situation. CRS also “works with communities in conflict to help rebuild relationships, facilitate mutual understanding, and encourage the development of local solutions.” It was established by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its mandate expanded in 2009 via the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

A hate crime is defined by the FBI as “a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole in or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” with statutes varying by state. In Tennessee, a crime has to satisfy one of two requirements before it can be classified as a hate crime: 1) the act violated the civil rights of another via intimidation or coercion and 2) the act was committed against a place of worship. Hate crimes statutes are applied as enhancements to other offenses, such as vandalism, if the crime was motivated by bias against the victim. Victims are allowed input on the offender’s sentence—houses of worship are known to ask for hate crime charges to be dropped in an act of forgiveness—but the decision is ultimately up to the judge. 

The existence of such hatred is a sad reality. “We are living in a strange time,” said ICM spokesperson Dr. Saleh Sbenaty, adding that “the political climate is not helping to heal the wounds” of the divided nation. “We are all God’s children,” said Rev. Richard Sibert of Walnut Grove.

The TBI’s 2017 report on hate crimes notes that anti-black bias was the motivation for the majority of crimes against persons and property, with crimes against persons being the most reported bias-motivated offenses. Intimidation, simple assault and aggravated assault were the most reported incidents against persons, with aggravated assault incidents reported at 38 in 2017, up from 19 the previous year. Destruction/damage/vandalism have been the leading reported crimes against property for the last 3 years; however, the number of incidents under this category has decreased 13.2 percent from 2016-2017. 

If you or your congregation receive a threat, report it immediately by calling 911. For more information on hate crime statistics across the state, visit https://crimeinsight.tbi.tn.gov.

This article originally appeared in The Tennessee Tribune. 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of September 30 – October 6, 2026

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of September 23 – 29, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of September 23 – 29, 2026

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Community

Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins’s Bill Would Pause Law Enforcement’s Use of Shock Gloves Pending Study

The device at the center of the debate is known as the G.L.O.V.E., an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of the gloves, which are designed to deliver an electric shock through an officer’s hand.

Published

on

Asm. Dr. LaShae-Sharp Collins (D-San Diego). File photos by Antonio Ray Harvey. April, 29 2025.

A bill temporarily prohibiting law enforcement agencies from using electric shock gloves in California is awaiting action by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2760, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), passed the Senate 29-9 on Aug. 31. The Assembly concurred in Senate amendments the same day on a 55-16 vote.

The bill would prohibit state, local and federal law enforcement agencies from using wearable electroshock devices in California until Jan. 1, 2030. It would also bar agencies from using state funds to purchase the devices and require them to update their use-of-force policies accordingly.

Traditional handheld devices, including tasers and stun guns, are exempt.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.

Sharp-Collins introduced the measure after reviewing information indicating that the devices could cause serious injury or death if used without adequate safeguards and training.

“AB 2760 draws a line that public safety technology must be proven safe and accountable before it is employed. Not after someone is killed or injured,” said Sharp-Collins, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).

“Our commitment is to protect our communities, especially the most vulnerable. That is what AB 2760 is about and that is what AB 2760 will do,” Sharp-Collins told her colleagues.

The device at the center of the debate is known as the G.L.O.V.E., an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of the gloves, which are designed to deliver an electric shock through an officer’s hand.

During the Assembly debate, Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton), also a CLBC member, thanked law enforcement representatives for helping negotiate amendments to the bill.

“This is something new to us (and) it’s something that absolutely should be studied,” Ransom said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature to figure out if this is an appropriate tool to be used.”

Neither the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department nor the Los Angeles Police Department has reported using electric shock gloves. However, the Santa Monica and El Monte police departments have obtained devices for testing.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office purchased 10 shock gloves as part of a $35,000 acquisition that also included 10 remotely activated shock bands. Sheriff’s officials had been developing training and policies for the devices before AB 2760 advanced.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) opposed the legislation, arguing that it would unnecessarily force agencies to change their use-of-force policies and could compromise public safety.

“I don’t disagree with the author that the electric shocks are not a great option, but at the end of the day, I think it’s important to understand that we need to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves safe and the community safe,” Strickland said.

Supporters countered that wearable electroshock devices have not been sufficiently studied and could pose particular risks to immigrants, children, older adults and other vulnerable groups.

“People who are Black or Brown could be test subjects for these gloves of torment,” Mark González (D-Los Angeles) said. “I appreciate law enforcement for agreeing to work with the legislature.”

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.