7 charged with attacking KKK members at rally

[struggle4progress]

Posted: Friday, July 1, 2016 6:46 pm

FULLERTON, Calif. — Seven people who allegedly beat and stomped white supremacists at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Southern California in February were charged Thursday with assault, battery or resisting police ...

http://www.phillytrib.com/news/charged-with-attacking-kkk-members-at-rally/article_74434f1a-2eeb-546c-8f33-a37571c416d4.html

[BlueNoMatterWho]

1. I was under the impression that it was the other way around.

[EL34x4]

2. What gave you this impression?

Violence at KKK/white power rallies is almost always perpetrated by protesters who massively outnumber them and show up looking to bust heads.

It's been the same playbook for years now.

[struggle4progress]

3. There have been conflicting reports about how the melee here started

[Igel]

6. Not really.

Just confirmation bias + reading the reports.

Most of the reports just said the two groups fought. They said that the KKK had knives. We'd naturally side against the KKK and for the "Black Hawks" and the other group, I forget its name. We peaceful, they violent. Everything after that was assumptions about what the ambiguous reports said--they tried to be evenhanded and just say "fighting was done", with lots of people posting that the KKK must have started it and done most of it. The OPs seldom even hinted in that direction.

It's called the "halo effect." If a person is good at one thing, if you approve of them for something, you assume that they're good at other things and are generally better. Examples from the psych lit are bank tellers considered more trustworthy because they donate to a cause that the manager approves of, patients figuring a doctor is more competent because of his landscaping or waiting room decor and cleanliness. Standard examples are that the kids in a class who show they are smarter or more competent early on are graded more easily than those who don't show this--the assumption is the smart kid made a careless mistake, but the other kid is just stupid and didn't know the material. Halo effect is the enemy of critical thinking. (It's why I grade papers from the back forward. I see the name on the first page, and I'm biased. I grade 3 pages before I get to the first page and only then see the name, so I know that the kid sucks at that assignment or not based on performance not reputation.)


The KKK had knives, all legal, and expected violence. They certainly responded to the violence, knives against the sticks and clubs that the protesters managed to find. (Some of the "sticks" were the flagpoles carried by the KKK. Ever serve as flag bearer? Those aren't 1/4" dowels. You get hit by a 6' 1"-thick rod and it hurts like hell, you'd almost think they could be used in an actual fight. Oh, wait. They are. Such a pole used to be called a quarterstaff and was used in stick fighting in England, still used in a variety of martial arts. You can ban swords and knives and guns. But a walking stick?) Was it personal for the KKK? Sure. Was it personal for the social activists who want to take back their streets? Oh, yeah.

There were reports of stabbings. Detailed reports indicated that some of the stabbings were the result of "clever" use of the finials on the flagpoles. If you want to carry a flag in a parade with violent protesters, make sure your flagpole isn't topped by a sharp wood (or even worse, metal) tip.

I'd be sore surprised if some of the KKKers weren't also charged. Hard to use force just against those attacking you and not turn your attention to their supporters and preemptively go after poential but not yet actual threats.

[struggle4progress]

7. Yes, really.

There were reports that the protesters attacked the klanners without provocation. There were reports the protesters attacked the klanners after the klanners stabbed somebody. Some klanners were originally arrested but were later released on the theory the acted in self-defense. The recent criminal charges against the protesters now occur much after the event; the charged here also claim to have acted in selg-defense

I don't know what actually happened, but several differing accounts have been floated

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Fascists and racists are an existential provocation.......

The government can't take away their right to "free speech", even if that speech is about killing their political enemies and other races and ethnicities in the streets. But anti-fascists can damn well use our free speech to shut that shit down. You can't allow this mindset to grow and get a hearing, it has to be fought where it lives in the streets.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

5. Just from what I read here. Looking into it now, I see articles with pics of the victims.

[underpants]

4. Hell I'd put that on my resume

Okay maybe not but if asked I'd say "Yes I am not normally violent but it was the Klan." And then smile.

[yeoman6987]

9. Nobody would hire anyone who is violent regardless of why or who

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. I sure wouldn't.

In fact I interviewed a guy for a job about two months ago. His felony was assault and battery. I asked him to tell me about it and he shrugged and said "guy pissed me off".

I thanked him for his time and told him I'd give him a call.

If he told me "They were KKK and needed an asswhoopin' for marching down the street", I'd have said the same thing.

[yeoman6987]

14. I agree

To me it's a sign of not having control. What if this person finds out one of the coworkers voted for trump. Would he go off and endanger others in the process. Too risky and not worth it.

[ailsagirl]

17. Exactly-- "hair trigger temper" is a huge red flag

I wouldn't hire that person, even if his other qualities were sterling.

Too scary

[LeftyMom]

26. I would.

Substance abuse issues that weren't a long time ago? Nope. Any kind of fraud or theft? Violence against vulnerable people? Hell fucking no.

Beat up a klansman? When can you start?

[yeoman6987]

27. Your risk

If he flies off the handle at your place of employment, you'd be sued. You have to look at everything and not just fuzzy feelings.

[LeftyMom]

28. Hiring is always a risk.

I've had to let people go in two different companies for using racial slurs. One gold plated idiot did it ON A CLIENT'S VOICE MAIL.

Amazingly those idiots didn't get either employer sued. At least I know that hypothetical beat up a klansman applicant isn't going to do that in a million years.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. Wow

Violence is OK, so long as it's against someone with whom you disagree?

[rug]

36. I was arrested and charged with affray at a May Day demonstration in Boston.

I put it on my law school application.

[Meldread]

8. Jury Nullification.

The KKK used it in the South to get away with their crimes. What goes around comes around.

[linuxman]

10. Sort of validates the first instance then, doesn't it?

No thanks.

[Meldread]

11. That's like saying...

...that because you believe in privacy and strongly defend the Fourth Amendment that you want to protect criminals. Obviously, if you defend the Fourth Amendment there will be some criminals who get away with the crime. However, the goal is to protect individuals and their privacy from the government--the guilty and the non-guilty alike.

Jury Nullification is no different. The South used Jury Nullification to let people who engaged in lynchings go free. However, the North also used Jury Nullification to prevent sending escaped slaves back to their "owners" in the South as a result of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Are you saying that, were you alive at the time, that you would have voted to send escaped slaves back to their "masters"? Or would you have voted to nullify?

If you want to make the argument that we should respect the rights of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's go ahead. However, don't hide behind an opposition to jury nullification unless you are really opposed in all cases.

[linuxman]

13. That's exactly what I'm arguing.

I support the rights of the kkk and neo-nazis to protest with the same legal protections as anyone else, regardless of my view on their stances.


I'm also not opposed to jury nullification. I just believe that jury nullification should apply only to oppose unjust laws, not the prosecution of someone under a law that is just, just because I don't like the person it's protecting. A law against assault is not unjust, and every citizen deserves the same protection under it.

[Meldread]

15. That would be true, except...

...the entire purpose and the reason for the existence of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's is to recruit like minded people who will then engage in violence against others.

It is the equivalent of having a kid come up to you and say, "Hey there are a group of bullies gathering together to hunt me down, beat me up, and possibly kill me." With your response being, "Well they haven't done it yet, have they? We can't do anything about it until they actually attack you first."

Imagine living in a time when it was legal to own slaves. Would you have been justified in attacking, even killing, slave owners in order to free slaves? I would say the answer to that is yes. What the law says on the matter is not relevant. If the government wishes to protect slave holders, then it is morally incumbent upon the people to resist the government, and overthrow it if necessary. People are not required to obey unjust laws, and similarly, people are not required to support or protect unjust people.

Now, let me be clear here. I am not advocating for violence against these people. I think there are more effective non-violent ways to resist them. However, neither would I vote to convict someone who attacked them, because while I disagree with the means, I agree with the goal. That goal is to purge these people from our society, whether that is by making them feel unwelcome, harassment, or through other means--the end result is the same. Their attempts to recruit and rally is an act of terror and violence against the communities which they target as well as the communities in which they recruit. In my mind, this makes it an act of self-defense.

Going back to the bully analogy, it's like a kid getting in trouble because he stood up to a bully. The bully was threatening to attack him, the bully had attacked others, and rather than waiting to be attacked the kid stood up and beat the bully up first. Was that the ideal way to deal with the situation? No, but the kid isn't the aggressor the bully is the aggressor.

[linuxman]

18. Except assembling and exercising speech aren't aggression.

Disagree with someone all you want, but the second you lay hands on them, they have the right to do the same in turn, though their act will be justified. I'm not about to say that there should be an exception because of the particularly vile nature of someone's speech. Where does it end? Is it morally justifiable for someone to attack a pro-choice rally? I mean, in the attacker's head, those people are advocating the murder of children. What is deemed sufficiently upsetting speech to justify attacking someone? Fuck that. That's exactly why we have these laws governing assault and free speech without qualifiers; Because people realized that if your laws don't protect the worst of us, they really don't protect any of us.

“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

[Meldread]

20. That is why we have courts.

...and that is why they are being prosecuted. Because they broke the law. It is then up to them to make their case to the jury why they were in the right to break the law. If successful, it would result in Nullification.

I am not saying they shouldn't be prosecuted--THEY SHOULD. They broke the law. I am just saying I wouldn't vote to convict. The same way I wouldn't vote to convict a father who ended up beating to death someone he caught raping his five year old daughter. This falls in the same category.

It cannot be ignored that they are not merely assembling to exercise their right to free speech. They are there to intimidate, to threaten, and to recruit for future violent acts. Attacking a pro-choice rally would only be equivalent, if those in a pro-choice rally were threatening to capture, torture, and force abortions onto women who didn't want it. Not only that, they would have to have a history of actually doing it--making the threat creditable.

It's not the fact that they are engaged in offensive or disliked speech that is the problem. It is the fact that they are there to actively recruit people in a hopeful attempt to terrorize, attack, and even kill others. It is no different than if ISIS wanted to have a free speech march. Yes, under the law they are totally free to do it. They have every right to stand on the corner and try and recruit people to their warped version of Islam, and then encourage those people to attack and kill other Americans. They have every right to do that, and I would even defend their right to do it--opposing government attempts to shut them down. However, they shouldn't be shocked when in the process of doing that people--their would be victims--get angry and attack them.

[Straw Man]

21. You're missing a major point.

Attacking a pro-choice rally would only be equivalent, if those in a pro-choice rally were threatening to capture, torture, and force abortions onto women who didn't want it. Not only that, they would have to have a history of actually doing it--making the threat creditable.

To radical pro-lifers, the pro-choice rally is promoting and enabling murder of the unborn. Would you allow their moral interpretation to supersede law? That's the door you're opening here. What ultimately comes through that door is murder in the name of morality. And you'll find that morality can be frighteningly variable.

[Meldread]

22. Is that an argument against...

...jury nullification or against their actions?

As I said to a previous poster, if you are going to attack jury nullification then you have to be willing to say that you would have opposed it when people used nullification to refuse to return slaves to their "masters" as a result of the Fugitive Slave Act.

I am not promoting what they did. In fact, I think the problem with what they did is that they made the KKK the victims and it allows them to gain sympathetic in the eyes of the public. This is why I oppose violence against hate groups--I want them to be hated, reviled, and marginalized as much as possible. Ideally, they could / would be purged from our society.

It is not the same as the pro-choice rally, as while the anti-choice crowd may perceive the pro-choice people advocating for the murder of the unborn, they are not actually targeting anyone. The pro-choice really is not there to intimidate. It is not there to terrorize. It is an example of two groups of people in disagreement--no different than disagreeing over the death penalty.

The only way to make the pro-choice rally equivalent, is if the pro-choice crowd were actively threatening to murder already born children ("the unaborted&quot , and threatening to force any woman who is pregnant to have an abortion. Then that threat would actually have to be creditable, meaning that the pro-choice group in question would actually have to have a history of doing it. This means that the people have every reason to be afraid that the group, which is promising to do awful and horrible things to them, will actually carry out the threat.

This is the important distinction in my mind. It's not the speech that is the problem, it is the implied or direct threat behind the speech. If someone is threatening you, and you have every reason to believe that they will carry out that threat, then it falls within the domain of self-defense. The alternative means that we have to wait until the individual making a threat is actively planning or has already carried out said threat.

A group of people who are knowingly part of a hate group with a long history of violence should not be shocked when people respond to their calls for violence with violence of their own. Now that doesn't make the act of violence against them right. It is still illegal. The question before someone sitting on the jury, though, is whether or not they can morally convict someone who was being threatened with violence for engaging in violence themselves. For me that answer is no, and the reason is that the person making the threat is the aggressor.

[Straw Man]

23. It's an argument against jury nullification for violent acts.

I guess that wasn't clear.

Every group thinks that their violence is morally justified. Either we have rule of law, or we fight it out in the streets, like Weimar Germany. You might not be happy with who wins.

[Meldread]

24. Okay, so--

Okay, so let me put this to you then. If you are opposed to jury nullification for violent acts, would you have supported the execution of someone who killed a slave owner to free slaves?

I ask this because unless you are a pacifist, there is some point in which you consider violence to be an acceptable and legitimate act taken by a non-state actor.

[Straw Man]

25. Here's the thing ...

Okay, so let me put this to you then. If you are opposed to jury nullification for violent acts, would you have supported the execution of someone who killed a slave owner to free slaves?

I ask this because unless you are a pacifist, there is some point in which you consider violence to be an acceptable and legitimate act taken by a non-state actor.

Slavery is illegal. If I lived in a time when it was not, I probably would not support the execution of the killer of the slave owner. Slavery is so egregious and directly harmful to human beings that I would place my moral judgment over the immoral law that permitted it.

Street demonstrations for hateful beliefs don't rise to that standard. The right to free speech is not an immoral law, but is one of the underpinnings of a free society. I can't condone attacking Neo-nazis just for being Neo-nazis. Honestly, while there are many laws that I don't agree with, I can't think of any currently in place that would justify violent opposition. The kind of political streetfighting that you describe serves only to destabilize society, and unstable societies lend themselves to creeping fascism.

[Meldread]

29. We agree more than we disagree.

I probably would not support the execution of the killer of the slave owner. Slavery is so egregious and directly harmful to human beings that I would place my moral judgment over the immoral law that permitted it.

...and therein is the point I was trying to make. At some point we both agree that moral judgement supersedes the law, even in a case where another human being is murdered. So, we are not actually having a fundamental disagreement here. The difference between us is to what degree and in what circumstances moral judgement should supersede the law.

I think this is important to draw out this point, because earlier you said the following:

Either we have rule of law, or we fight it out in the streets, like Weimar Germany.

You do this again here:

The kind of political streetfighting that you describe serves only to destabilize society, and unstable societies lend themselves to creeping fascism.

The simple truth is that if people nullify trials against people who attack Neo-Nazi's and members of the KKK the United States is not going to collapse into a lawless hellscape where people fight each other on the streets. We have seen juries nullify trials for far more horrific as well as far more noble reasons, and yet the rule of law stands.

What will actually happen is that groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazi's will begin to live in fear of being attacked without the protection of the law. It is important to remember that they are now the minority and the marginalized group. They may have the power to terrorize, but they do not have the power to mount significant political opposition against us.

Let me address the other significant point that you make, which I think better encapsulates our disagreement:

The right to free speech is not an immoral law, but is one of the underpinnings of a free society.

My thinking on this is different. First, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment. It is the reason that I would fight even for the right of American members of ISIS to have the right to publicly organize and express their views. However, this is only in relation to government oppression. The First Amendment is designed as a restraint on government power--it is an attempt to deny the government the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. I believe that is absolutely vital to a free and democratic society, and must be defended at all costs. That includes the government allowing the KKK and Neo-Nazi's to publicly organize.

However, where we differ is whether this notion of 'free speech' carries over to private citizens. I do not believe that there is an inherent obligation on citizens to tolerate or accept any form of speech. Citizens are free to react to speech in whatever way they deem appropriate--within the limits of the law, of course (i.e. no violence).

...and shockingly, I don't think we are even really in disagreement here. For example, I can't imagine that you would be opposed to the people who sometimes dress in "angel" costumes and counter protest the Westboro Baptist Church. They use their "angel wings" to block their signs, and they frequently sing either really loudly or use megaphones to drown out the WBC's hateful chants. They frequently show up at funerals of gay people and others that the WBC is protesting, and work to provide some cover for the families and those grieving so that they do not have to see or hear the WBC's hateful message.

Now, this undeniably denies the WBC's ability of free speech. These people are blocking their ability to speak by covering up their signs and speaking more loudly than them. Yet, I don't think you would be opposed to them and their actions. In fact, this is how I think the KKK and Neo-Nazi's should be handled--block their rallies, drown out their voices, and in general disrupt and make it impossible for them to achieve their goals publicly. Attacking them only makes them victims, and we never want the KKK or Neo-Nazi's to appear as victims for political reasons. Outside of that, go after them economically, and make their lives individually and collectively as difficult as possible until they renounce their ties to such organizations and work to make amends for their past deeds.

So, I don't even really think we disagree on the notions of free speech or the First Amendment. What we are disagreeing on is whether or not the jury should nullify a trial against them. As I said previously, I think they should, because their rally was an implicit if not an explicit threat against others. Most of the terrorism in the United States happens as a result of these types of groups. As I said earlier, I would support ISIS holding a "peaceful" rally on First Amendment grounds. However, I would fully expect that rally to be attacked, and with good reason--because they are attempting to recruit people to terrorize and murder others. While they may not be violent at that moment, they are threatening to be violent in the future, and it is because of that threat that they are attacked. It has nothing to do with the fact that they happen to be members of ISIS, the Neo-Nazi's, or the KKK that should result in nullification. It is because they are the aggressors in the situation.

For example, if I threaten you and your family, and you get angry and punch me in the face--who is in the wrong? You may have committed assault, but I am the one who made the threat. Should you be punished when I was the one who was the aggressor? Or should you be punished for responding to my aggression with violence? What if you perceived my threats as serious and creditable? At what point does self-defense become acceptable? Do you have to actually wait until I am actively carrying out my threat against you and your family, or can you act at some point prior? To me, this is the real question being raised by this case.

[Straw Man]

31. You've got some fundamental errors here.

Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

The simple truth is that if people nullify trials against people who attack Neo-Nazi's and members of the KKK the United States is not going to collapse into a lawless hellscape where people fight each other on the streets. We have seen juries nullify trials for far more horrific as well as far more noble reasons, and yet the rule of law stands.

If juries began to nullify charges for attacking protests, there will be more attacks on protests. How do you square this with the contention that the rule of law will still stand?

What will actually happen is that groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazi's will begin to live in fear of being attacked without the protection of the law. It is important to remember that they are now the minority and the marginalized group. They may have the power to terrorize, but they do not have the power to mount significant political opposition against us.

I think you are very wrong on that -- dangerously wrong. First of all, you're conflating political opposition with streetfighting. Of course Neo-nazis are unlikely to be elected to any public office and are a marginalized minority. But I think a far more likely response to being repeatedly attacked with impunity would be to arm themselves and unleash lethal violence like what was done by the KKK in Greensboro in 1979.

vimeo.com/131346220

It would be playing into their contention that the powers-that-be are allied against them and that they have to look out for themselves.

I do not believe that there is an inherent obligation on citizens to tolerate or accept any form of speech. Citizens are free to react to speech in whatever way they deem appropriate--within the limits of the law, of course (i.e. no violence).

And I believe that there is. No one has to listen to it. The answer to hateful speech is more speech, but shouting matches just legitimize their "victimhood" and are likely to lead to violence, as we already saw. And by saying that counter-protesters should stay "within the limits of the law," you're contradicting your earlier point about jury nullification. It would encourage lawless behavior, as I mentioned above.

Westboro Baptist will never attack anyone. They're looking for people to sue; it's their bread-and-butter. They would love to be physically attacked and collect a fat settlement. I have no problem with anyone counter-protesting them non-violently.

Attacking them only makes them victims, and we never want the KKK or Neo-Nazi's to appear as victims for political reasons.

Exactly.

While they may not be violent at that moment, they are threatening to be violent in the future, and it is because of that threat that they are attacked. It has nothing to do with the fact that they happen to be members of ISIS, the Neo-Nazi's, or the KKK that should result in nullification. It is because they are the aggressors in the situation.

You need to tread very carefully here -- you're justifying violence against people based on what one thinks they might want to do. No one is an aggressor until he/she plots or executes an act of violence. I think you'll find that the contemporary hate groups are very careful not to do that publicly. So you're left excusing acts of violence against people solely on the basis of abhorrent beliefs. And that is unacceptable for a free society under rule of law.

[Straw Man]

32. Aggression.

For example, if I threaten you and your family, and you get angry and punch me in the face--who is in the wrong? You may have committed assault, but I am the one who made the threat.

We are both guilty, I of assault and you of making a "terroristic threat." The legal system will sort out the punishment.

Should you be punished when I was the one who was the aggressor? Or should you be punished for responding to my aggression with violence? What if you perceived my threats as serious and creditable?

Yes, I should. Until you actually launch an act of violence against me or my family, I have no legal -- or moral -- right to attack you physically.

At what point does self-defense become acceptable? Do you have to actually wait until I am actively carrying out my threat against you and your family, or can you act at some point prior?

Self-defense becomes acceptable when physical violence has been undertaken or is undeniably imminent, like you have broken down my front door with a baseball bat. "I'll kick your ass!" doesn't cross the threshold. I can act at some point prior, but not with physical violence: restraining orders, harassment charges, etc. are appropriate.

[ailsagirl]

16. Even if it's the disgusting KKK being targeted, it's NOT OK to perpetrate violence

IMHO

[struggle4progress]

19. +

[840high]

30. .+1

[IronLionZion]

34. I'm with you

I don't agree with their hateful message, but that's not a reason for the mob mentality to punish them.

It's an example of well-intentioned people becoming what they hate. The KKK used mob mentality to "punish" people for BS crimes. That's the whole premise of lynching. They claimed they were doing justice somehow.

[ailsagirl]

39. The mob mentality is frightening

Regardless of whose side they're on

"Well-intentioned people becoming what they hate"-- well put.

[Hoyt]

35. Hope they get a decent attorney. Personally, I'd call a Klan rally as inciting a riot or

at least a huge mitigating factor.

[Mendocino]

37. Orange County

Anaheim and Fullerton are both conservative cities in a conservative county. The klan had a strong presence in local politics back in the 20's. It doesn't surprise me that they are being coddled now.