BELFAST, Maine — Police are asking for the public’s help as they investigate the weekend shooting of a church sign on Route 52.
Someone took a half-dozen shots with a .45 caliber handgun at the Faith Temple Church of God sign sometime after 4:30 p.m. Saturday, March 10, according to Detective Sgt. Bryan Cunningham of the Belfast Police Department.
The shooting would usually be considered criminal mischief, he said Thursday morning, but because of where the shooter was standing and the direction he or she was shooting, it might be considered reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.
“There’s a house down there,” Cunningham said. “We’d love to get some information out of it, if we could.”
Efforts to reach a church official Thursday were unsuccessful.
If anyone has information, they are asked to contact the Belfast Police Department at 338-2420.
6 shots and nobody heard anything?
It’s Waldo County…the constant drone of chainsaws, barking dogs, and gunshots make for a joyous melange of background noise.
Hey, that was funny!
How is that any different than the rest of Maine?
You won’t hear it in Cape Elizabeth.
Think of all that they are missing in Cape Elizabeth. Kind of like the wild, wild West around here sometimes. Sure keeps you on your toes.
Ya, but they have “Silly” Cindy Dill to keep them entertained.
He said “Maine”
Used a silencer!
Nothing to see here, folks………move along, move along….
(Now, of course, if this had been the sign in front of a MOSQUE……………ayiyiyiyi!!!)
Yup…. sell more guns to more Morons… 2nd Amentment! My civil rights to shoot at anything, anywhere at anytime!
Nope, my civil right to have one to protect myself from the morons who will get one regardless of how many laws there are and shoot at anything, anywhere at anytime.
Don’t even bother with them TF. People fit into 3 categories, there are those that make things happen, those that watch things happen and those that wonder what the heck happened.
When our freedom as a nation is gone you are going to see a lot of people wonder how the heck did that happen. It is up to us pro gun, pro 2nd amendment, pro constitution Americans to prevent our freedom from being stolen from us. The other side only sees it one way and that is the wrong way. They believe the constitution is a legal document that prevents them from passing their socialist/communist agenda. The worst part is that most of them have a lot of time to manipulate the facts because they don’t have other responsibilities except gathering the handouts from us tax paying citizens. They are experts in biting the hand that feeds them. Well, enough is soon to be enough.
I expect to see your comment that we should ban cars on the next article the BDN runs about a car crash. Because irresponsible people only own guns, and no other machines. We should make driving while intoxicated illegal, and also driving without a license. Oh, wait…
Sounds like a hate crime to me. Oh wait, it’s a Christian church, not Muslim. My mistake.
I don’t think you understand the what or why of hate crime legislation…
Obviously I understand better than you.
haha what? There is nothing obvious about it and certainly nothing “beteer”
Another spelling Nazi I see. When you have nothing else left, pull the race card, and if that does not fit, pull the spelling card.
Written like a true saint…….
What? You call me a nazi and I am some how wrong because you don’t know what you are talking about w/r/t hate crimes?
you are BOTH wrong. This is not the Oxford Dictionary online, so spelling does not count as long as we understand the point, and calling someone a nazi is about the biggest insult there is. I am quite sure that perifunl has NOT gassed six million people today.
How can you be sure?
That’s right; it’s only hate if certain people are victimized. You got it.
Actually yes hate crime legislation exists to prosecute crimes that go un-prosecuted due to tyranny of the majority type situations.
So yeah, hate crimes are when certain people are victimized compared to others.
I know that the Constitution is such a PAIN to people like you, but it was actually designed (and amended throughout the years) to reflect that all Americans would be held to the same standards and laws. Therefore, hate is hate- despite creed, color or gender. A straight teen who is bullied would get the same protection as a gay teen who is bullied. And a Christian who is threatened would get the same protection as a Muslim who is threatened. But for whatever reason, liberals have decided that separation is a better idea than unity. Hate crime law is a perfect example of this attempt to divide in the name of so-called “fairness”.
You are only half right. Everyone has always had the same protections legally speaking. The application of those protections wasn’t and isn’t always there due to prejudices. Hate crime legislation allows for federal prosecution of crimes to circumvent the lack of local prosecution because some backwater DA might not care if a black person is victimized compared to a white person.
A christian church being vandalized doesn’t need hate crime backing because it will be prosecuted just fine. A mosque in the deep south might though because the local law enforcement might not care due to prejudice.
Hogwash.
So much for intellectual conversation
When will that start?
Oh, so thats what you were trying to be… Intellectual? You fell a little short.
So you are saying there IS a double standard
when it comes to hate crimes?
Hate crime legislation exists to protect minority victims by design so if you want to call that a double standard then yes. If you want to apply critical thinking to the situation then you would realize that it offers equal protection for everyone so there is no double standard, only a single standard.
In a white christian majority your idea of minority protection is “people different than you” but if the tables were turned hate crime legislation would benefit you. There is no double standard.
Stop talking, you’re wrong. Hate crime legislation applies to ALL. If you’re Christian and you’re a victim of a hate motivated crime — you’re protected. It protects all colors, sexual orientations, ethnicities, beliefs, etc, real or perceived.
I never said it didn’t apply to everyone. I think you are misunderstanding or just flatout ignoring what I am saying.
Hate crime legislation exists to allow the federal government a foot in the door to prosecute crimes that would otherwise go unprosecuted due to prejudices in the law enforcement community where the crime occurs. This would be a “tyranny of the majority” type situation so by design hate crime legislation is designed to protect the “underdog” or “minorities” because a “majority” person will be otherwise protected by local and state level laws as it is and they will not require the federal government to intervene in order to ensure fair prosecution.
Majority/minority has nothing to do with it. A white straight Christian male can be a victim of a hate crime and utilize the recourses that hate crime legislation provides.
You are missing the entire point of WHY hate crime legislation exists. WOOSH over your head. Give it up.
No, I understand the legislation. Keep your wooshes to yourself.
Apparently not because you seem to think equal protection under law equates to equal protection in real life. Hate crime charges exist solely to ensure that equal protection occurs in real life which in practice means being applied to crimes involving the victimization of minorities.
Okay pumpkin, no one is talking about the legislative history that came before its enactment.
The conversation began by someone suggesting that the legislation ONLY protects minorities and that simply isn’t a true. A black person can be charged with a hate crime as can a white person. It is tacked onto crimes that are motivated by hate due to the basis of ethnic background, sexuality, religious beliefs, etc.
Period.
The purpose isn’t to be an additional punishment at all. The purpose is to ensure there is some punishment period. In a predominantly white christian state where a white christian group is victimized there is no need for any hate crime charges because the crime will be adequately investigated and prosecuted. Cries that if this was against brown or black people it would be a hate crime are right, but for the wrong reason. Hate crimes bring in the feds and when that happens local prejudice goes out the window because the feds don;t play that game. That is why there is hate crime legislation and that is the appropriate application of it.
You need to start at the beginning and read from there because you are lost in the sauce.
No. I know the law. Enough with your condescension. It is applied to crimes committed due to bias of protected characteristics. That’s it. There is no preferential treatment towards specific characteristics.
I have never said it didn’t provide by law protection to everyone against bias motivated crimes.
I said that historically it exists to ensure prosecution occurs and when local laws provide adequate prosecution there is no need for hate crime laws to come into play.
I also said that because minorities are you know… minorities and that those are typically the protected groups that hate crime legislation typically covers crimes that victimize minorities.
Now go back to the beginning and start reading if you know how. I am starting to doubt your ability to comprehend the words you see on the screen.
“Sounds like a hate crime to me. Oh wait, it’s a Christian church, not Muslim. My mistake.”
That’s the beginning, implying that hate crime legislation isn’t applied equally.
You can apologize to me now.
Do you give classes on how to be as pedantic as you?
Hate crime protection is NOT limited to minority groups. Utter hogwash, as another commenter pointed out. Hate crimes are committed in bias against any group laid out by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and others added throughout the years (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, veterans, disability, etc). There is nothing that limits hate crime protection to minorities. In fact one of the landmark Supreme Court cases supporting hate crime sentencing was of a young black man who violently attacked a young white man. Go figure! So, you are quite misinformed about hate crimes. I’m not surprised though, because most liberals are. That’s why so many of us are frustrated with the whole process– because it’s been completely misrepresented by people like you. Christians, males and whites CAN be victims of hate crimes under the law, whether you like it or not.
Show me where I said it is limited to minorities, please. I have said that the protections apply to everyone. I also laid out the history of why we have hate crime legislation to begin with and why it isn’t necessary to prosecute things as hate crimes when they do not need to be.
I am sorry you do not comprehend this, maybe you should not give up your student status for awhile.
That’s a lie. Hate crime legislation protects all religions. You have to prove that the crime was motivated by hate though.
Thank you F Lee Bailey
The Organizer-in-Chief would apologize if it meant one hundred votes.
First and foremost this is not a hate crime. Some donkey choose to shoot at a sign and just because said sign belongs to a church does not make it a hate crime and I don’t care what sort of church it is. It could have been a sign that belonged to the church of the flying spaghetti monster and it still would not be considered a hate crime and yes, Pastafarianism is a real religion. /rAmen
Nobody is ever on the news or screaming hate crime when an atheist billboard or sign gets vandalized and it happens often, sadly. Often atheist billboards are defaced with Christian messages but you won’t see us atheist screaming hate crime when it happens.
Again, this is just some donkey that choose to shoot a sign and nothing more. If they had defaced it with anti-Christian messages, then it would be a hate crime but dropping some rounds into it is not a hate crime.
Someday you should post something relevent to the story.
Do you know how hard it has been to live up to your expectations?
My apologies I meant the MLK assassination.
In 1999 the Martin Luther King family sued one of the assassins of Martin Luther King in civil court. They did this because the department of justice would not reopen the investigation after the Martin Luther King family uncovered evidence that the FBI, CIA, and Memphis police had assassinated Dr King. The King family also wanted to enter their evidence into a public record so it could be accessed.The jury returned a verdict in favor of the King family and juror members held a press conference saying it was a clear cut case of the FBI assassinating Dr King. There was a media blackout of the trial. Details of the trial can be viewed here or by reading the book called ACT OF STATE THE EXECUTION OF Martin Luther King
written by the trial attorney William Pepper.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/mlk-conspiracy-exposed.html
BDN: I’m getting sick of these distracting, off-topic posts. When will msfreeh get banned?
You actually still read them?
you disagree with msfreeh so you want her banned? I disagree with msfreeh but i respect their right to hold their opinion.
the Captain is relevent only to himself.
Gotta love that thinking, it couldn’t be the Budweiser or Bailey’s bunch, it has to be a godless liberal atheist. Does that mean we get to blame you for every act of violence against abortion clinics, violence in or around Mosques, or hate crimes committed by those fair minded Christian groups like the Klan?
The KKK was conceived and run by Democrats, to prevent black people from voting.. I think you guys have the upper hand on Hating… Check your history.
Yea you should check yours as well, the lovely little hoods and robes they wear are modeled after the Christian Knights, because the Klan holds Christian values like slavery is OK. Not sure there are too many liberals today that hold those same values…
You are correct.
Like that U.S. SENATOR, Robert Byrd (aka The Grand Kleagle), who was a Christian.(What party was he in again?? I forget).
We’re going to live in lalaland and pretend that political parties have never changed? That select minorities are representative of the whole? Come on.
more than likely some drunken tea party boy exercising his “right to bear arms.
Check your history and while you’re at it, check out reality. Democrats don’t hold racist and hateful beliefs so you can quit it with your smears.
Lies! There are racists in ALL political parties. Political party is not an indicator of racism or lack thereof. It’s foolish to suggest otherwise. Democrats have a dark, dark history of racism that should never be forgotten. Lyndon B. Johnson, beloved Democrat, fought vehemently against military integration and black voting rights. JFK, too, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Al Gore’s Democrat father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And remember FDR? A quintessential Democrat who made prisoners of thousands and thousands of Americans simply because they were Japanese? Open your eyes… and a history book, for that matter.
Dude, no. My point was that you don’t get to pluck an individual from obscurity and claim that he/she is representative of the whole. I can point to a couple bald guys and highlight them, but it doesn’t mean that all or even most guys are bald.
Excuse me, but I didn’t pick an individual. I pick three of the MOST well-known Democrat presidents. How is that obscure? Are you serious?
amazing how deluded these liberals are. Dr. King’s ideology is in line with todays Republican party.
He thought that women should be forcibly brutalized by the state in order to make sure they feel properly ashamed for having sex?
You’re kidding. For one thing, you’re completely off-topic. VeazieDavid is discussing MLK’s dream of a colorblind society, which liberals clearly despise. Second, your comment is so out of touch with reality. Republicans were completely satisfied with the current status of birth control access. Democrats decided to stir a NON-EXISTENT debate by messing with free exercise of religion. Republicans aren’t trying to make birth control illegal. They simply care more about the First Amendment than free birth control.
Liberals do not despise MLK’s dream. You’re disgusting for suggesting so.
He did not want people to be judged by their color or creed. He wanted equal protection across the board. NOT special laws, NOT special quotas. And he would be absolutely disgusted with the fact that someone, like yourself, would suggest that there are no racists Democrats. How can you say something like that?
Hate crime legislation isn’t special laws. You’re a liar or misinformed if you say so. A white person can be a victim of a hate crime just the same as a black person can.
I didn’t say there were no racist Democrats. You said that liberals as a whole despise MLK’s dream and that IS IN FACT a lie. Liberals as a bunch are not racist. You can pick out racists from each and ever group, but that doesn’t mean they represent the whole.
“Democrats don’t hold racist and hateful beliefs so you can quit it with your smears.” — You.
I obviously meant as a party.
9 times out of 10 these thing turn out to be an internal affair. Of course that will not stop the wingnuts from blaming the rest of the world.
No, Bush did it.
Not if Cheney taught him how to fire a gun…couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn door, but a hunting companion is an easy target.
See if people wasnt allowed to have guns this sign would of only been hit by a baseball bat !
What exactly did the sign say? It’s hard to tell by the picture. Maybe the shooter didn’t like what it said.
Click on the picture and you can read the whole text.
“There’s a house down there,” Cunningham said. “We’d love to get some information out of it, if we could.”
Ever think about knocking on the door?
Oh wow! is all i can say!
Edit: Was supposed to be a reply, not a new post.
Still not a hate crime.
Maybe the person who shot the sign can’t read?
it’s next to a middle school and the ymca
probably a drunken teaparty boy out exercising his right to bear arms.
Let the police spend the time investigating this equal to the amount of taxes paid by the “victims”.