The nature of the assault and robbery committed in that Texas Burger and Chicken restaurant in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn calls for a closer look.
I wrote about the group nature of much of black crime before, here. This crime fits that pattern perfectly. There were five people involved. And they may not even have known each other.
First, there were the two guys at the restaurant who evidently didn't have the money to pay for their meal. (Who goes into a restaurant and orders a meal they can't pay for?) The white guy, perhaps in order to save them from embarrassment, offered to pay. Somehow, they took offense at this, and started beating him with his own cane. Once he was down on the floor, they started to kick him.
Two more guys -- who just happened to be passing by -- saw what was happening through the restaurant window, and decided to join in the fun. So they came in and stomped him some more. (Why should the first two have all the fun?)
Then, a fifth guy entered the scene, and, seeing his opportunity, went through the pockets of the victim to steal what he could.
When whites commit a crime like this, it's almost always one or maybe two sociopaths. But this incident followed a not uncommon pattern: whatever blacks happened to be in the vicinity at the time, joined in.
You have to wonder what set off the first two. Their white victim offered to pay for their meal, which they somehow found so infuriating that they had to start attacking him? Were they insulted that he thought they were unable to pay for their own meal? (They were a couple dollars short.)
Given that the man whom they assaulted was gay (this article points out that he has AIDS), it's likely he has "gay voice." Perhaps the two blacks felt that he was coming on to them somehow. So the most likely scenario seems to be that it started out as a gay bashing.
But the second set of two guys wouldn't have heard the victim's voice, and probably wouldn't have known he was gay. They just saw a white guy getting stomped and wanted their share of the action.
So the incident was a twofer: the guy was first picked on for his sexuality, then for his race.
Shockingly, there have been no demands from the New York Times as yet demanding that this beating be prosecuted as a hate crime.
(I don't approve of the concept of "hate crimes" in the first place, since we can't read minds, but if you're going to have such laws, they ought to be applied evenly.)
It almost goes without saying these days that if the races were reversed in such an incident the sky would come falling down; but this case seems particularly egregious. Most of the MSM has simply ignored it. Imagine if some black gentleman had offered to help two whites pay for their meal, then those two whites had taken offense and stomped him. Then imagine that two more random whites had come into the restaurant to join in the fun.
Then imagine a fifth white guy had robbed the black man, who was lying on the floor with multiple broken bones.
The hue and cry that would ensue would be deafening. The various news networks would all cover the crime, and act properly aghast at the fiendish nature of the crime. The New York Times would scream for an investigation by the Department of Justice, and would wail about how racism is alive and well in the age of Trump. They might even say that Trump had implicitly encouraged the crime with his encouragement of violence at his rallies and his exclusionary policies.
But, the crime was not white-on-black. So, crickets.