Why were 20 people shot dead and 24 injured in El Paso today, and what’s causing the recent trend since the 90s of mass shootings and massacres.

[Elfdude]

I mean it really depends here on what is being said, where and how. US Law is not cut and dry on that as you seem to be stating. Personally I would acquit anyone for punching a nazi if I was to sit on a Jury and criminal convictions usually require a unanimity to agree beyond a shadow of a doubt.

e.g. If I call someone a racial slur and they punch me, it's not protected speech, them punching me is actually protected.

e.g. If I incite a population to stop the [insert racial or ethnic group] take over through hostile action, I can be cited and arrested.

e.g. If I give anyone reason to fear bodily harm through my words or actions, I can be cited and arrested. Additionally they can defend themselves to a reasonable degree.

[Cope]

I mean it really depends here on what is being said, where and how. US Law is not cut and dry on that as you seem to be stating. Personally I would acquit anyone for punching a nazi if I was to sit on a Jury and criminal convictions usually require a unanimity to agree beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You wouldn't be the first person to acquit a defendant on the basis of personal views rather than the law, but even in such a case I imagine it would be contextual.

[Elfdude]

You wouldn't be the first person to acquit a defendant on the basis of personal views rather than the law, but even in such a case I imagine it would be contextual.

Your attempt to poison the well with regards to my view is noted. Regardless, juries are an important part of American Law and American Law is built to take personal views into account for a reason, many assault/battery charges (not just those between random nazi A and random dude B) are not tried or are downgraded to misdemenors for exactly this reason. For example, it's technically assault and battery if two kids get in a fight in HS. It's unlikely to be treated that way without significant circumstantial considerations. You may want the world to exist in black and white but the view that something is either right or wrong absolutely is childish.

[Cope]

Your attempt to poison the well with regards to my view is noted.

A rather paranoid interpretation of what I said.

Regardless, juries are an important part of American Law and American Law is built to take personal views into account for a reason, many assault/battery charges (not just those between random nazi A and random dude B) are not tried or are downgraded to misdemenors for exactly this reason. For example, it's technically assault and battery if two kids get in a fight in HS. It's unlikely to be treated that way without significant circumstantial considerations. You may want the world to exist in black and white but the view that something is either right or wrong absolutely is childish.

I've stated that you wouldn't be the first person to acquit a defendant on the basis of personal views rather than the law; I didn't pass a specific comment on whether that was necessarily a positive or negative thing. In fact, I explicitly stated that it would contextual.

[Elfdude]

My point was that my view fell perfectly within the law and that your distinction was both inaccurate and mildly insulting.

[Cope]

I didn't say that your "view" fell outside of the law; what I said was that if the law wasn't entitled to use force then neither would a private citizen be. In all instances of incitement, fighting words, or threatening language, the police would have a basis for using force against a suspect.

[Elfdude]

You clearly juxtaposed personal views and "the law" referring to me. Dance about it as you like, you words, whether true to your intended message or not (who knows what that was) were quite explicit.

[Aexodus]

You clearly juxtaposed personal views and "the law" referring to me. Dance about it as you like, you words, whether true to your intended message or not (who knows what that was) were quite explicit.

He’s got a problem with you approving of people punching Nazis, so much that you’d let them off if you were on a jury.

[mongrel]

He’s got a problem with you approving of people punching Nazis, so much that you’d let them off if you were on a jury.

You are right, justice must be seen to be done.

Winder faced a maximum possible sentence of a year in jail and a $2,500 fine for the punch, which was caught on tape by the local NBC affiliate. He appealed his misdemeanor assault conviction, and while the jury upheld the guilty verdict, they determined that he should serve no jail time and should only be fined $1, sending a clear message that Winder was justified in lashing out at Kessler.

Winder’s attorney, James Abrenio, argued that Kessler brought the punch on himself by holding a press conference while the city was reeling from the so-recent death of Heyer, arguing that he was “going out of his way” to “profit off tragedy”

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...nalist-719985/

[Cope]

You clearly juxtaposed personal views and "the law" referring to me. Dance about it as you like, you words, whether true to your intended message or not (who knows what that was) were quite explicit.

You juxtaposed yourself with the law when you stated that you would "acquit anyone for punching a Nazi". That quite clearly implies that you would ignore the law (in this specific context) were you in a position to do so. I did not claim that it would be illegal for you to do this (I've never heard of a juror being convicted for finding one way or another) and I didn't argue that your view fell outside of the law. I have no idea why you're getting so defensive about it.

[Aexodus]

I find it bizarre that people are justifying assault outside of self defense, but here we are I suppose.

[Heathen Hammer]

Because nobody sympathizes with neo fascists HH. I dont respect political rights of racists who dont even attempt to hide their bigotry.

Because in the eyes of law there is no difference between you or me or a communist or a Neo-Nazi, as everyone is allowed to hold their own political views. If an antifa member assaults someone for waving a flag with NSDAP symbol, that antifa member should be arrested and charged with assault, and if roles were reversed (National-Socialist assaulting antifa member for waving Maoist flag) same should apply.

Nice, Dayton Ohio shooter had a stalinist manifesto? An antifa manifesto?

Oh he retweeted some antifa posts on twitter... he had a hit list and a rape list. Def not social justice type but sure we can call him a leftist.

As for your second sentence, I said what I meant.

What you meant was justifying an act of violence for purposes of political intimidation. I hope you do realize that it does, in fact, fall under conventional definition of what "terrorism" is.

The first amendment only protects you from government sponsored consequences to your speech. People can still call you a dick and if they're willing to risk a charge punch you in the face.

You do realize, that this is illegal, right?

[Vanoi]

I find it bizarre that people are justifying assault outside of self defense, but here we are I suppose.

You can justify assault outside of self-defense. The justification just won't hold up legally.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Back to topic:

Norway

Mosque attacker shows Hitler salute in court

He killed his stepsister, invaded a mosque and fired shots there: a young Norwegian has now been brought before the examining magistrate. He used the appointment for a propaganda campaign.

A 22-year-old Norwegian who killed his stepsister at the beginning of August and then attacked a mosque near Oslo does not feel guilty. His defense attorney told the Norwegian broadcaster NRK on the sidelines of an appointment to the examining magistrate: "He said that from his point of view, he had to do something that was necessary and for which he felt responsible." He considered it a kind of emergency response. "

The hearing was held in camera. Before the journalists had to leave the hall, the 22-year-old lifted his right arm for Hitler salute. The terrorist Anders Behring Breivik had done that when he was in court for murdering 77 people in 2012.

The Norwegian had admitted killing his 17-year-old stepsister on 12 August. He then entered a mosque in Baerum and fired numerous shots. Two older men had managed to overpower him without being hurt himself.

The Oslo court decided on Monday to extend the pre-trial detention for another four weeks. In November, the man is to be judged by three psychologists. He is under suspicion of murder and terror.

(with Google Translator)

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...a-1285980.html

Most of this mass shootings have their roots in the far right "Great Replacement" / "Eurabia" / "Latino Invasion in US" theories. As long as this hidden call for violence is protected as free dumb of speech and not persecuted as incitation of hate crimes, those killers will justify their deeds as "necessary emergency case".

[Vanoi]

I can only think of five shootings around the world that involved far-right connections. The El Paso shooting, Charleston shooting, New Zealand shooting, and the Norway shootings. Thats only five out of dozens.

Free speech is not to blame for these shootings.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I can only think of five shootings around the world that involved far-right connections. The El Paso shooting, Charleston shooting, New Zealand shooting, and the Norway shootings. Thats only five out of dozens.


Free speech is not to blame for these shootings.

I think what people push back against is the whole “free speech” defense used by the far right as a cudgel to demand uncritical Rave Dubin reception of their views. Free speech is a two way street. Nazis have the right to rant about Jews, and everyone else has the right to tell said Nazis to off in no uncertain terms, ridicule them in perpetuity, etc.

[Vanoi]

I think what people push back against is the whole “free speech” defense used by the far right as a cudgel to demand uncritical Rave Dubin reception of their views. Free speech is a two way street. Nazis have the right to rant about Jews, and everyone else has the right to tell said Nazis to off in no uncertain terms, ridicule them in perpetuity, etc.

Best way to combat Nazis and such is to let them speak. Easier to find out who the extremists are if they are vocal about it. They can speak about their Nazi beleifs and i can criticize them and belittle them.

[Elfdude]

You juxtaposed yourself with the law when you stated that you would "acquit anyone for punching a Nazi". That quite clearly implies that you would ignore the law (in this specific context) were you in a position to do so.

What I said does not ignore the law. It's a part of it. The law provides that if one is convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for the crime of assault and battery they will serve X punishment. The law also provides a methodology and process for proving that crime. Part of the considerations of that process include damages and harm both to the person and society at large. I.E. should this behavior be permissible, to what degree etc. Like I had pointed out despite the technicality of two HS punching each other in a fight potentially violating the law, the two are unlikely to be convicted as the punishment does not fit the crime, they may be charged with a variety of minor misdemeanor crimes which may better suit the actions, or they may simply have their dispute resolved out of the courts entirely. This is how our law is supposed to function. There is nothing "ignored" about it. Assault and battery is a conviction handed down after a successful trial which looks at a variety of factors which exceed whether or not someone was punched in the face. You seem to be dancing around this fact and keep trying to summarily oversimplify the reality of this interaction.

Once again, your statement is full stop incorrect. It is not ignoring the law, because the law is not what you seem to think it is.

I did not claim that it would be illegal for you to do this (I've never heard of a juror being convicted for finding one way or another) and I didn't argue that your view fell outside of the law. I have no idea why you're getting so defensive about it.

I'm getting defensive of the truth which you have generously attempted to ignore which has built a foundation now for numerous people to pile on and make stupid comments. Your words have reinforced views here and you seem either entirely unaware of that or you intended it in the first place and are playing the fool. One should take a moment to think through their statements before making them.

This is all a sidebar to a point made because someone tried to claim leftists were worse when the reality of what caused the attacks discussed in this very thread is far right white nationalism. The claim that leftists are worse is BS. The attempt to link Antifa to the Soviet Union and Communist China is BS. The attempt to equivocate punching a nazi in the face to shooting innocents is BS. The attempt to poison the well by claiming I'm ignoring the law is BS. Ultimately this entire chain of logic is built upon a house of cards which is absolutely fallacious.

We. Know. Why. The. Shooter. Did. What. He. Did. Or at least we know why he said he did it. We know far-right sentiments have been the bulk of the recent upsurge in mass shootings in the US. The far right is violent and murderous at a disproportionate rate. Why? I don't know, read fight club.

[Cope]

What I said does not ignore the law. It's a part of it. The law provides that if one is convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt for the crime of assault and battery they will serve X punishment. The law also provides a methodology and process for proving that crime. Part of the considerations of that process include damages and harm both to the person and society at large. I.E. should this behavior be permissible, to what degree etc. Like I had pointed out despite the technicality of two HS punching each other in a fight potentially violating the law, the two are unlikely to be convicted as the punishment does not fit the crime, they may be charged with a variety of minor misdemeanor crimes which may better suit the actions, or they may simply have their dispute resolved out of the courts entirely. This is how our law is supposed to function. There is nothing "ignored" about it. Assault and battery is a conviction handed down after a successful trial which looks at a variety of factors which exceed whether or not someone was punched in the face. You seem to be dancing around this fact and keep trying to summarily oversimplify the reality of this interaction.

Once again, your statement is full stop incorrect. It is not ignoring the law, because the law is not what you seem to think it is.

All of this is rendered irrelevant by your use of the word "anyone" which implied a total disregard for context if the alleged victim were a Nazi. This is what juxtaposed you with the law. To put it another way, the criminal justice system does not (nor does it intend to) "acquit anyone for punching a nazi". Nevertheless, at the time I gave you the benefit of the doubt by specifically stating "You wouldn't be the first person to acquit a defendant on the basis of personal views rather than the law, but even in such a case I imagine it would be contextual."

This is all a sidebar to a point made because someone tried to claim leftists were worse when the reality of what caused the attacks discussed in this very thread is far right white nationalism.The claim that leftists are worse is BS.

I don't recall anyone in this thread trying to argue that "leftists" are "worse" than white nationalist terrorists.

The attempt to link Antifa to the Soviet Union and Communist China is BS.

That depends how they're being linked. Everyone knows that the more militant aspects of Antifa (the controversial element) has a strong communist presence which includes people who favour violent revolutionary methods.

The attempt to equivocate punching a nazi in the face to shooting innocents is BS.

Which is not an equivocation which I tried to make and I shan't be defending it.

The attempt to poison the well by claiming I'm ignoring the law is BS. Ultimately this entire chain of logic is built upon a house of cards which is absolutely fallacious.

As shown above, it is not.

We. Know. Why. The. Shooter. Did. What. He. Did. Or at least we know why he said he did it. We know far-right sentiments have been the bulk of the recent upsurge in mass shootings in the US.

I don't recall anyone in this thread having contested the motives of the El Paso terrorist. It certainly isn't something I have done. There was some discussion about the the supposed motives of the Dayton killer which lead to a more general discussion about Antifa, communism and so on.

The far right is violent and murderous at a disproportionate rate. Why? I don't know, read fight club.

It is certainly more murderous. I don't know about violent.

[Heathen Hammer]

. The claim that leftists are worse is BS. The attempt to link Antifa to the Soviet Union and Communist China is BS. The attempt to equivocate punching a nazi in the face to shooting innocents is BS. The attempt to poison the well by claiming I'm ignoring the law is BS. Ultimately this entire chain of logic is built upon a house of cards which is absolutely fallacious.

And your source is... what?
So far your line of argument went from justifying violence for purposes of political intimidation (which de-jure falls under definition of terrorism) when its done by the left and then immediately claim that accusing left of doing that "is BS". So not only did you make a claim with no evidence, you contradicted yourself at the same time. How embarrassing.

We know far-right sentiments have been the bulk of the recent upsurge in mass shootings in the US. The far right is violent and murderous at a disproportionate rate.

Also another baseless statement. It is fair to point out that in the last 30 years liberalism via foreign policy of certain countries has claimed far more lives in the whole "ideology behind violence" aspect then any other set of beliefs.