By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kevin Colantonio pleaded guilty to setting fires around Shiloh Gospel Temple, a predominantly Black church in North Providence, Rhode Island, in February. The arson was deemed a hate crime, motivated by the church’s congregants’ race and religion, as evidenced by writings found in Colantonio’s home. Swift action by first responders prevented catastrophic damage, though property damage did occur. Colantonio faces up to 56 years in prison and a $1 million fine on four counts, including obstruction of religious practice and assault on a federal officer.
Read the original article here
A man, Kevin Colantonio, admitted to setting fires at the predominantly Black Shiloh Gospel Temple in North Providence, Rhode Island, early on February 11th. He purchased a lighter and gasoline before igniting several fires around the church’s exterior. The incident has sparked significant online debate, primarily focused on the lack of terrorism charges despite the clear act of violence targeting a religious institution.
This absence of terrorism charges has fueled considerable discussion regarding the discrepancies in how similar acts are prosecuted depending on various factors, most notably the location and the victim’s profile. Many online commentators pointed out a seeming double standard, referencing the case of another individual, Mangione, who faced terrorism charges in New York for a different crime. The contrast between Mangione’s case and Colantonio’s fuels the perception of uneven justice application.
The anger surrounding the case stems from the belief that Colantonio’s actions, intentionally targeting a Black church with fire, constitute a clear act of terrorism, regardless of whether or not there were injuries or deaths. The very act of using fire and violence to intimidate and instill fear within a community fits the commonly understood definition of terrorism. The fact that the victim was a predominantly Black church strongly suggests a hate crime motive.
The core of the online debate centers around the differing legal interpretations and statutes between states. One prevalent argument is that the lack of terrorism charges in Colantonio’s case isn’t a matter of preferential treatment but rather a consequence of Rhode Island’s laws, which differ from New York’s, where Mangione’s case unfolded and where other acts of violence have drawn terrorism charges. Several commenters explicitly stressed that New York’s terrorism statutes do not apply to Rhode Island. The disparity in legal frameworks between states makes direct comparisons complex and contributes to the sense of injustice.
The Buffalo supermarket shooting, where a white supremacist targeted and killed Black individuals, served as a recurring point of reference in the online discussion. The perpetrator in that instance faced terrorism charges under New York State law. This example is used to further highlight the perceived imbalance in how such crimes are treated, depending on the state and possibly the victim’s profile. Commenters pointed out that the Buffalo victims were neither wealthy nor white, underlining that wealth wasn’t the determining factor in those terrorism charges.
The online discussion also touched upon the federal legal system and its role in these cases. Commenters questioned why federal terrorism laws weren’t applied, given the potential for federal jurisdiction in hate crimes targeting religious institutions. The federal Hate Crime Statute, as well as the Church Arson Prevention Act, clearly provide avenues for prosecution beyond state-level terrorism charges.
Despite the lack of terrorism charges, Colantonio pleaded guilty in federal court to “damage to a religious property, malicious damage by means of fire,” which is a hate crime under the Church Arson Prevention Act. He faces a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 56 years in prison, a $1 million fine, and three years of supervised release. This outcome, while acknowledging the severity of the crime, still leaves many unsatisfied, viewing the lack of terrorism charges as a major failure of the justice system.
The case underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation and application of terrorism laws, the inconsistencies across different jurisdictions, and the impact of state-level statutes on cases with potentially wide-reaching consequences. The public outrage, evident in the many online comments, highlights the feeling that a significant injustice has been committed, and the anger regarding this perceived disparity in the treatment of crimes appears deeply rooted. The case raises questions about the broader understanding of terrorism and its legal application within the American legal system.