[Discussion] Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Fascism

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Don't even have to ditch the 1st. It doesn't allow you to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one, and if a theater said it was ok to do so it would be shut down in a heartbeat. So it seems there's a pretty clear precedent to not allowing people to yell "stolen election" when there wasn't one, and to shutting down any platform that believes it's ok to allow that.

i wish people would stop using this analogy. This comes from a court case just prior to WW1, but there was never a theater or a fire or any such thing. the 'theater' was the united states, and the 'fire' was a German American writing a pamphlet suggesting America shouldn't enter into WWI. it's a forced analogy by a sh*tty racist judge used to strip the rights from a German American for using his free speech to advocate against the war.

Schenck v US

thrawn82 wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Don't even have to ditch the 1st. It doesn't allow you to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one, and if a theater said it was ok to do so it would be shut down in a heartbeat. So it seems there's a pretty clear precedent to not allowing people to yell "stolen election" when there wasn't one, and to shutting down any platform that believes it's ok to allow that.

i wish people would stop using this analogy. This comes from a court case just prior to WW1, but there was never a theater or a fire or any such thing. the 'theater' was the united states, and the 'fire' was a German American writing a pamphlet suggesting America shouldn't enter into WWI. it's a forced analogy by a sh*tty racist judge used to strip the rights from a German American for using his free speech to advocate against the war.

Schenck v US

huh TIL. thanks for the correction!

mindset.threat wrote:
Natus wrote:

I think you've totally hit on it. The reason there are endless excuses, hugs, gift baskets, and extending the olive branch towards the MAGAS, QAnons, and actual Nazis is nothing more than shared whiteness. Look at the language: "they're ordinary people...they're human...they're our neighbors." It's not just people in this thread, it's my family members too, who manufacture apologetics based on class and economic status to explain the insurrectionists. But it all boils down to a feeling of "they can't be that bad, they're redeemable, they're just like me."

Hard pass.

I can't emphasize this enough. I'm black, my wife is white. With the exception of her younger brother, the rest of her family (parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins etc etc) are the very definition of white evangelical. The sort that will decry anything related to minorities (ie BLM) yet fall all over themselves with excuses when it comes to far right supporters and the last president.

We got to a point when our daughter was born that we were just done. No amount of logic or reason or fact will penetrate their complete inability to think critically. So rather than play their game by tap dancing around these issues, we cut them off. Completely. If anyone wants to sit down and have a legit discussion at some point in the future, we're open to that, but they'll never admit how wrong they've been. So, f*ck em.

Good for you. It must be deeply awful to go through that. I am taking the same tack with my family members, who aren't Trumpers but isn't it funny the convolutions they'll go through to excuse the insurrectionists on absolutely nonexistent class or economic grounds. It's truly amazing how the very presence of Trump has really compelled people to reveal their sh*ttiest selves.

Typical... " Hey, Hey! I was only kidding about the fascism stuff!"

(CNN) defiant asshole Sen. Josh Hawley insisted on Thursday that he never intended to overturn the presidential election by objecting to President Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania -- despite previously suggesting that Donald Trump could stay in power if Congress acted.

But Hawley has said he has "no" regrets, telling CNN: "I was very clear from the beginning that I was never attempting to overturn the election."

"I think that the liberal onslaught of lies to twist and misconstrue and attack me, it doesn't matter what I say or what I do, they're going to tell the lies no matter what," Hawley said as he walked through the halls of the Capitol. "They are going to say you wanted to overturn the election, they are going to say you incited violence, all of which are lies."

Hey Dimwit- They're saying this because YOU ARE LYING AND YOU DID SAY YOU WANTED TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION.

Every sitting congressperson should tell him to crawl back to his office and that governing is for people who don't incite sedition.
No unity with people who want Democrats murdered.

Mixolyde wrote:

Every sitting congressperson should tell him to crawl back to his office and that governing is for people who don't incite sedition.
No unity with people who want Democrats murdered.

They need to make sure there is enough room for them to crawl into because a lot of those sitting congress people need to follow suit. See "MTG", McCarthy, Cruz and so on..

The Republican chair of Arizona's House Ways and Means Committee has decided that America's little experiment in democracy has gone on long enough which is why she introduced a bill that allows the Legislature to override the state’s certification of election results and appoint presidential electors of their own choosing.

The absolute worst part about this is that there's a non-zero amount of her fellow GOPers who are going to think it's an excellent idea and she will suffer absolutely no consequences for proposing something so deeply anti-democratic (likely this will elevate her status among conservatives).

OG_slinger wrote:

The Republican chair of Arizona's House Ways and Means Committee has decided that America's little experiment in democracy has gone on long enough which is why she introduced a bill that allows the Legislature to override the state’s certification of election results and appoint presidential electors of their own choosing.

The absolute worst part about this is that there's a non-zero amount of her fellow GOPers who are going to think it's an excellent idea and she will suffer absolutely no consequences for proposing something so deeply anti-democratic (likely this will elevate her status among conservatives).

worth noting her husband is an associate justice on the Arizona Supreme Court...

Chairman_Mao wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The Republican chair of Arizona's House Ways and Means Committee has decided that America's little experiment in democracy has gone on long enough which is why she introduced a bill that allows the Legislature to override the state’s certification of election results and appoint presidential electors of their own choosing.

The absolute worst part about this is that there's a non-zero amount of her fellow GOPers who are going to think it's an excellent idea and she will suffer absolutely no consequences for proposing something so deeply anti-democratic (likely this will elevate her status among conservatives).

worth noting her husband is an associate justice on the Arizona Supreme Court...

But but we live in a republic not a democracy and this is what the founding fathers wanted in the first place.

Some people just need to at least join the mid 20th century. Is that too much to ask?

OG_slinger wrote:

The Republican chair of Arizona's House Ways and Means Committee has decided that America's little experiment in democracy has gone on long enough which is why she introduced a bill that allows the Legislature to override the state’s certification of election results and appoint presidential electors of their own choosing.

The absolute worst part about this is that there's a non-zero amount of her fellow GOPers who are going to think it's an excellent idea and she will suffer absolutely no consequences for proposing something so deeply anti-democratic (likely this will elevate her status among conservatives).

I wonder when someone will bring this up to them (emphasis mine):

The 14th Amendment, Section 2 wrote:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

("Male" because women couldn't vote until the 19th Amendment.)

I wonder how the people of Arizona would feel about losing some of their seats in the House because the State decided that their votes for electors just didn't count.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

worth noting her husband is an associate justice on the Arizona Supreme Court...

Jesus, the rot of the GOP runs deep.

Black people in America have been brutalized, marginalized, deprived of basic rights, and hell just about everything and anything terrible and yet still have not been radicalized to the degree white Americans have been. White America storms the Capital looking to execute Democrats and install a dictator because they felt that 8 years of a half black President was enough to abandon the somewhat illusion of a democratic republic.

White Americans literally have no grievances outside of fabricated propaganda and hurt feelings and yet are responsible for more domestic terrorism than any other race in America.

We spent 400 years making sure white people were made to feel 100% not responsible for anything and here we go again cautioning against going to far to punish.

The reality is that we should treat Trumpers and other right win radicals like Joe Clark in Lean on Me. They are expunged.

Via the NY Times:

Canada Formally Declares Proud Boys a Terrorist Group:
The designation could see bank accounts linked to the group frozen and assets seized, while also expanding police investigative powers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/world/canada/canada-proud-boys-terror-group.html?smid=wa-share

His lawyer's claiming the family moved to a 'safe house' and he wanted the DA to seal the records so no one knew.

The DA sent him this response so they just moved and didn't tell anyone.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/V5ZRBwr.png)

Sounds like his next safe house should be the big house.

Cry me a river, snowflake.

So it looks like Democrats have to, yet again, clean up the Republican's mess because of feckless leadership (and calling it leadership is being too kind).

McCarthy and the Republican leadership think that leaving Marjorie Taylor Green on committees is just fine but have to take a secret vote on whether to remove Liz Cheney.

The cynic in me says that this is all a ruse in order to continue the drum beats of "Democrats are taking away your freedom!" and collect even more money for the mid-terms. The rest of me is just horrified that one side of our governing leadership clearly doesn't give a sh*t about anything other than themselves and retaining power.

If this is the death rattle of the Republican party can we speed things up with a MyPillow over it's face or something?

JC wrote:

If this is the death rattle of the Republican party can we speed things up with a MyPillow over it's face or something?

Unfortunately not. This is just a reorganization of the party away from any ideological principals (free markets, small government, low taxes, etc.) towards unambiguous white supremacy, conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and fascism. The GOP is now openly hostile to democracy and hostile to being part of a multicultural nation.

OG_slinger wrote:

His lawyer's claiming the family moved to a 'safe house' and he wanted the DA to seal the records so no one knew.

The DA sent him this response so they just moved and didn't tell anyone.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/V5ZRBwr.png)

Sounds like his next safe house should be the big house.

An update to this is that a captain at the Kenosha Police Department told Rittenhouse's lawyer he "‘absolutely should not‘ provide the address of the physical location of the Rittenhouse Safe House on the form, but to instead provide his home address in Antioch, Illinois.”

Some of those who work forces and all that.

I know that I always want my lawyer to take advice from the police on when to commit perjury.

So is there any hope that Rittenhouse’s antics will be introduced at trial? I’m really hoping so because as it stands now we could have another Zimmerman case on our hands.

I'm assuming that he won't even get any punishment for lying to the court about his address.

It seems unlikely that he would, if his lawyer can provide hard evidence that a police captain told them to do that.

edit: I mean, it's corrupt as hell, but punishing someone for doing what the captain told them to strikes me as a bad precedent. It's not like it's obviously and terribly wrong, it's just one line on a form, and the policeman's word is likely to carry a lot of weight with the court, no matter how wrong he was.

That would also be true of any potential jury, I suspect, and the prosecution is not likely to bring this up at trial if Team Rittenhouse can prove the captain issued the advice.

edit: I originally said "chief of police", rather than a lower-ranking captain. I still think the argument applies, even though it's weaker coming from a mere captain.

Malor wrote:

It seems unlikely that he would, if his lawyer can provide hard evidence that the police chief told them to do that.

edit: I mean, it's corrupt as hell, but punishing someone for doing what the chief of police told them to strikes me as a bad precedent. It's not like it's obviously and terribly wrong, it's just one line on a form, and the chief's word is likely to carry a lot of weight with the court, no matter how wrong he was.

Captain not chief, it doesn't name the guy so we can't check, but at most the guy could be he commander of a precinct house but not likely. This isn't upper leadership giving the instruction.

Why wouldn’t his lawyer get in trouble for doing illegal things, regardless of whether a policeman told them to? Know who should know law things? Lawyers.

thrawn82 wrote:
Malor wrote:

It seems unlikely that he would, if his lawyer can provide hard evidence that the police chief told them to do that.

edit: I mean, it's corrupt as hell, but punishing someone for doing what the chief of police told them to strikes me as a bad precedent. It's not like it's obviously and terribly wrong, it's just one line on a form, and the chief's word is likely to carry a lot of weight with the court, no matter how wrong he was.

Captain not chief, it doesn't name the guy so we can't check, but at most the guy could be he commander of a precinct house but not likely. This isn't upper leadership giving the instruction.

Yeah, I caught and corrected that mistake just before you posted. I still think the argument applies.

I know police are protected by a immunity by way of belief system in this country, but i don;t think that protection extends to people who aren't officers. If an officer tells you wrong, that wrong is still on you even if it wouldn't be had the officer done so himself.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Why wouldn’t his lawyer get in trouble for doing illegal things, regardless of whether a policeman told them to? Know who should know law things? Lawyers.

Somehow Rudy hasn't been disbarred yet.

thrawn82 wrote:

I know police are protected by a immunity by way of belief system in this country, but i don;t think that protection extends to people who aren't officers. If an officer tells you wrong, that wrong is still on you even if it wouldn't be had the officer done so himself.

The judge's reaction may depend very strongly on whether Rittenhouse turns up promptly. If he actually is evading the court, which seems likely, I think things may not go well for him. Police advice works as a defense as long as he's willing to show up again in court, but if he stays away, I think that defense will crumble.

edit: I mean, obviously the lawyer knows where he is. Assuming that the court is actually playing this fair instead of accidentally-on-purpose bollixing the case, they'll instruct him to retrieve Rittenhouse and things will proceed from there.

If, on the other hand, the court starts hopelessly wringing its hands and has no idea how to handle such a terrible problem, then we'll know the fix is in.

thrawn82 wrote:

Captain not chief, it doesn't name the guy so we can't check, but at most the guy could be he commander of a precinct house but not likely. This isn't upper leadership giving the instruction.

The affidavit of Rittenhouse's lawyer embedded in the article identifies the officer as "Captain Tim Schaal." A quick google shows him to currently be the 3rd shift commander for the Kenosha PD's Patrol Division. An org chart for the Kenosha PD shows that there are four captains--one for each patrol shift and one for investigations--who report to the Inspector of Police, who reports to the Deputy Police Chief, who reports to the Police Chief. That might not quite be "upper leadership," but it's pretty damned close.

It seems that earlier in his career Sgt. Schaal was the Administrative Sergeant serving the police chief (2015) and by 2018 he was a Lieutenant who served as the department's public information officer, professional standards officer (ironic), and webmaster. His promotion to captain must have happened recently because newspaper articles from November 2020 still have him listed as Lt.