What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

White Nationalists march on University of Virginia (4 Viewers)

Homer J Simpson said:
Did you catch that he had to chamber a round? And that he said "Hey n###er" before firing?
Click to expand...
I noticed him chambering a round which certainly goes to establishing intent.  I did not catch him saying "Hey " since I was at work and did not care to have my volume on.  That would also go towards intent.  Also tends to show intent towards a specific target or targets as opposed to the crowd as a whole.

 
Just took a quick look at Virginia's criminal code.  They have some interesting charges for violent conduct by persons in a mob.  That might make an interesting charge.  Also I could see a possible charge for attempted second degree murder here depending how the facts develop.  

As a prosecutor one does not want to overcharge so enthusiastically that one creates opportunities to plea to certain offenses and have that plea preclude other higher offenses.  One needs separate or distinct acts for each charge.  In this case it seems the shooter may have been part of a mob, under Virginia law, and that he attempted an act of violence as part of that mob.  He brandished his weapon, then discharged it in a public place within 1000 feet of a school.  he did so in apparent anger and after some deliberation, and did so in the general direction of someone with whom he had a confrontation, but after that confrontation had ceased.  As a prosecutor I think the mob thing is the most interesting, but would be the hardest to argue under the circumstances. (A mob or a concerned American engaged in public protest) Unquestionably he brandished his weapon and then discharged it.  Those counts are gimmes.  That he did so in a crowded public place is a gimme so one has disorderly conduct if one wants it. I would not give a jury that out.  I would charge attempted second degree murder for his discharge of the weapon being directly in line with a person mere yards away, a person with whom he had a confrontation.  I person he returned to confront.  I'd let him or his attorney argue that it was merely a warning shot recklessly close to a human to make his point, that he was angry and would not tolerate someone else in a public demonstration seeing matters differently than did he.  Let him make that case, if he could.

Interesting in my quick perusal of Virginia law I did not see a reckless endangerment count.  I presume I just missed it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Just took a quick look at Virginia's criminal code.  They have some interesting charges for violent conduct by persons in a mob.  That might make an interesting charge.  also I could see a possible charge for attempted second degree murder here depending how the facts develop.  
Click to expand...
That guy should be looking at multiple felony convictions, lengthly prison sentences and the loss for his 2nd amendment rights for life at the very least.

 
Now its Woz's turn, or Henry Ford's.  They will point out that Americans exercising their first amendment rights do not constitute a mob.  They will point out that their client can hardly be  said to have brandished the weapon separately and apart from having shot it.  I mean one must draw a weapon to fire it, can that really constitute then a separate and distinct act?  They will get a forensic reconstructionist to extrapolate the flight of the bullet from the angle of the gun to show that the bullet, while traveling generally in the direction of the antagonist clearly was aimed at a safe place in the ground, or relatively so.

Even this individual is entitled to a defense and to the benefit of the facts, dispassionately analyzed.  Good defense attorneys would provide that defense regardless of their personal beliefs and passions.    That is why I gave up defense work.  I chose to not want to do what good defense attorneys are sworn to do.  Now, in the twilight  of my career, I might go back to that side, I might be the devil's advocate again for a time.  Intellectually I liked deconstructing arguments more than constructing them.  Emotionally I knew I could not do so an entire career, particularly after two experiences early in my career working that side of the aisle.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
Reminds me a bit of all the stories going around of hijabs being ripped off and symbols being painted on churches or college campuses.  Almost all of them turned out to be fake too.

The desire to be a victim, and to make your opponents evil, is strong in many people.
Click to expand...
That is an overgeneralization which I don't believe is true. Some turned out to be fake but not "almost all of them".

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Missouri Dem. She refuses to resign. Neat representation in Missouri. 
Click to expand...
Called for assassination? Ahh...yes, Id be so proud to have such deep thinkers run my state.  Then again, Im in TN...we have quite a few idiot lawmakers here too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Called for assassination? Ahh...yes, Id be so proud to have such deep thinkers run my state.  Then again, Im in TN...we have quite a few idiot lawmakers here too.
Click to expand...
At the very least she should have been arrested and questioned but I keep forgetting that rules are only for us plebes. 

 
squistion said:
adonis said:
Reminds me a bit of all the stories going around of hijabs being ripped off and symbols being painted on churches or college campuses.  Almost all of them turned out to be fake too.

The desire to be a victim, and to make your opponents evil, is strong in many people.
Click to expand...
That is an overgeneralization which I don't believe is true. Some turned out to be fake but not "almost all of them".
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to find out the truth on this if anyone has clear info.  Almost all cases I remember hearing about that were egregious and made national news seemed to be fake.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
As a prosecutor one does not want to overcharge so enthusiastically that one creates opportunities to plea to certain offenses and have that plea preclude other higher offenses.
Click to expand...
Huh?  I feel like you are referring to a defense attorney arguing a lesser included offense to the jury, but that has nothing to do with a prosecutor overzealously overcharging.

 
It sounds like the nazis have figured out a way to generate a conversion wave without trump being removed.  The plan appears to be to create "flash" alt right rallies in cities (without a permit).  They will argue this is needed because the rulings on permitted rallies are unjust.  The goal is to get a bunch of alt right people arrested and hopefully beaten and publicly shamed.  That will be usd to generate a conversion wave of nazi converts by arguing it proves we are in a leftist police state that destroy you over a rally.  

It sounds like a strong plan.  The left cannot do anything right so far.  This week we have Zuckerberg acting like a moron by debating in favor of the dream act with individual facebook users. The goal should be to take the immigration issue off the table.  Instead,  zuckerberg is sharpening the edges of the issue which is exactly what the nazis want.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just watching both sides its like the nazis are playing chess and the left is pooping itself. Eventually the nazis are just going to find their vector and win this thing.  

 
Riversco said:
It sounds like the nazis have figured out a way to generate a conversion wave without trump being removed.  The plan appears to be to create "flash" alt right rallies in cities (without a permit).  They will argue this is needed because the rulings on permitted rallies are unjust.  The goal is to get a bunch of alt right people arrested and hopefully beaten and publicly shamed.  That will be usd to generate a conversion wave of nazi converts by arguing it proves we are in a leftist police state that destroy you over a rally.  

It sounds like a strong plan.  The left cannot do anything right so far.  This week we have Zuckerberg acting like a moron by debating in favor of the dream act with individual facebook users. The goal should be to take the immigration issue off the table.  Instead,  zuckerberg is sharpening the edges of the issue which is exactly what the nazis want.  
Click to expand...
You're one step short. It's all playing right into Antifa's hands, actually. In two years we'll have a Communist worker state as they convince everyone that they're the only remaining alternative to Nazi genocide and white nationalism. Truly scary stuff. 

 
Riversco said:
Just watching both sides its like the nazis are playing chess and the left is pooping itself. Eventually the nazis are just going to find their vector and win this thing.  
Click to expand...
So by your "logic" so far, the left's best maneuver is to acquiesque on everything that the Nazis want to do, thus ensuring that the Nazis don't get what they want. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

 
I love how certain posters refer to certain elements as "they", meanwhile spouting "their" propaganda and most certainly sporting "their haircut." 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Homer J Simpson said:
So by your "logic" so far, the left's best maneuver is to acquiesque on everything that the Nazis want to do, thus ensuring that the Nazis don't get what they want. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Click to expand...
No.  I'm saying Bill Clinton was very effective in destroying Ross Perot because he correctly identified the issue driving his campaign and took it off the table.  Clinton became a proponent of debt reduction.  He didn't do much in that regard, but in trying to do something about it he wiped out the Perot movement.  This is what must be done today.  The nazis are a growing force but they can be put down by the democrats pledging to build that wall.  Had Bill Clinton and the establishment politicians ignored Perot's grievance about debt reduction, he would have wound up president.  If everyone keeps ignoring the wall issue and failing to act, the nazis are going to win.  So the democrats must pledge to build a wall.  They need to get something done there.  It doesn't have to be permanent.  Tear it down in 10 years.  The goal is to stop the nazis not actually build that wall.

This is how you play politics.  The dems and republicans inability to play politics is giving the nazis a lot of power.

 
We don't have much time to get this right.  I'd say right now the nazis have won over about 15%-20% of the population.  They are definitely well over 10%.  I think if they hit 25% they can spur a revolt regardless of what is going on.  I don't know if you've ever seen psychology experiments done on nazism but once their belief system get rolling it can convert a lot of people very quickly.  Its highly highly dangerous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Building the wall with prevent Nazi's in America? Do I have this way of thought correct? Cause, if I do, that is crazy talk and downright a dumb attempt at some reverse psychology. 

I do find it odd that many Repubs want blacks, Muslims, and other groups to "take care of their own problems". Well, the rise of these fringe Nazi's are on the Repub side of things and here I see above, the Democrats can take care of the Nazi's by building the wall? Take care of your own problems and subdue the anger on your side of the aisle.

Also, it's funny I see above saying the Dems can take care of the Nazi problem by doing what the Repubs want. I thought you guys were against handouts and Big Government. Now, you're telling the Dems to step in. Take care of your own problems. 

 
Riversco said:
We don't have much time to get this right.  I'd say right now the nazis have won over about 15%-20% of the population.  They are definitely well over 10%.  I think if they hit 25% they can spur a revolt regardless of what is going on.  I don't know if you've ever seen psychology experiments done on nazism but once their belief system get rolling it can convert a lot of people very quickly.  Its highly highly dangerous.
Click to expand...
What's highly dangerous is that much of our population is okay with jumping on board with a movement of pure hatred and bigotry simply because of "politics."   This is the root of the problem, not the politics game you keep parroting.  

 
urbanhack said:
The bigger problem is with people like you who marginalize the white supremacists and align their ideology with the false equivalency of the people who are fighting back against them and their message of hate and bigotry.
Click to expand...
who has NOT spoke out against hate and bigotry other than the ACLU ? 

name me someone

 
Stealthycat said:
who has NOT spoke out against hate and bigotry other than the ACLU ? 

name me someone
Click to expand...
The ACLU supported the white supremacists right to march in Charlottesville, but condemned the rhetoric and the violence.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-charlottesville-violence-and-demonstrations

August 12, 2017

The following is a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union on the violence and demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia:

“We condemn the voices of white supremacy heard in Charlottesville today, and all violence. Our hearts are with those killed and injured.

“Participants like KKK leader David Duke made it clear why white supremacists took to the streets of Charlottesville — they applaud President Trump’s policies and wish to intimidate Americans who are working for equality and liberty in the United States. We, like counter-protesters & others around our country, won't be intimidated. We work daily to fight systems & policies of white supremacy.

“The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech. For this reason, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ right to march. But we will not be silent in the face of white supremacy. Those who do stand silent enable it. That includes our president.”

 
white racists were not the only violent ones FYI 

the above was a good statement .......... imagine if Trump had said the same words? ya'll would have went BONKERS on him 

 
Stealthycat said:
white racists were not the only violent ones FYI 
Click to expand...
No, but they were the only ones that said:  "jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil"   I'm sure a few them are good people that only mouthed the words without actually saying them out loud.

 
urbanhack said:
16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

white racists were not the only violent ones FYI 
Click to expand...
No, but they were the only ones that said:  "jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil"   I'm sure a few them are good people that only mouthed the words without actually saying them out loud.
Click to expand...
Along with carrying torches reminiscent of a Klan rally,

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
590
(HULK)
(HULK)
massraider
CPAC Hungary and other bits of racism and authoritarianism
Replies
33
Views
979
Grace Under Pressure
Grace Under Pressure
E
Separate but Equal, Again - Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education
2 3
Replies
125
Views
4K
ekbeats
E

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top