LATime.com Neo-Nazis didn't start the violence at state Capitol, police say

[Destino]

 

A series of violent clashes this weekend involving neo-Nazis permitted to rally at the state Capitol was initiated not by the white nationalist group but by counter-protesters, a law enforcement official said Monday.

 

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

 

The Traditionalist Worker Party had a permit to hold a rally on the Capitol grounds at noon, Granada said.​​​​​​​

Waiting for them were counter-protesters, including members of the anti-fascist organization Antifa

 

Sacramento, which had promoted a “Shut Down Nazi Rally” event on its website leading up to Sunday.

 

A similar melee broke out in Anaheim earlier this year when members of the Ku Klux Klan announced they were holding a rally at a park. Counter-protesters showed up early and waited. When the first Klansmen arrived, they were set upon by the group.

 

Three people were stabbed at the Anaheim rally. At the Sacramento rally Sunday, seven people were stabbed and nine were hospitalized.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html

 

Are we ready to accept this sort of left wing violence is becoming a trend and isn't just a few kids on campus acting unruly?  College speakers disrupted violently, legal demonstration disrupted violently (10 people stabbed as a result), Trump rally invaded and violently forced to be called off.  This is all in the past calender year. 

 

I'm a democrat, let me be clear on that, but to me this looks like it's growing and gaining acceptance.  Have we moved beyond the idea that words and ideas are not an excuse for violence? 

[Burgold]

To answer your question, I don't look at violence as an acceptable practice of free speech. I think it hurts and delegitimizes the cause. I have some sympathy for those who get pissed off at NeoNazi speech or Trumpspeech (not always the same thing), but there's a clear and clean line. You can yell back. You can wave posters. You certainly ought to vote and mount countermarches and protests. Violence is not the answer. Violence causes people to shut their ears to reason even when it seemingly is the only way to force people to take notice.

 

Even when the Trump guys hit first and Trump egged his people on and promised to pay medical bills, I thought the retaliation or those who went to the next Trump rally looking to pick a fight were wrong. It doesn't take a lot to set tinder ablaze. Hopefully, cooler heads prevail.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Hmmm...so, if one opposes a Nazi rally one automatically gets lumped into "left-wing violence"? So be it...you can clutch your pearls, I'll be shining up my pitchfork.

[Destino]

Hmmm...so, if one opposes a Nazi rally one automatically gets lumped into "left-wing violence"? So be it...you can clutch your pearls, I'll be shining up my pitchfork.

 

I was clear in referring to violence and not simply opposition.    

[Larry]

I was clear in referring to violence and not simply opposition.

Well, you were ALSO

1). Trying to take people who have a problem with the Nazis and the Klan in with the entire political left.

2). And then going from there, to trying to paint the political left as terrorists.

However, I will also concede that recently, it sure does seem, to me, like yes, this sort of **** DOES seem to be happening. A whole lot. Far, far, too often. (Heck. ONCE is too often).

Now, part of me does want to try to push the theory that maybe part of the reason for this surge, might be because the political right (and Trump's campaign, specifically), has recently made it glaringly obvious that yes, a whole lot of the support, on the political right, comes from a whole bunch of people with some very ugly motivations.

BUT, the rational part of me is choosing to suppress that part of me, as being Wrong. Giving in to that rationalization would be defending people who are committing wrong.

The folks attacking these events are the ones who are wrong. I think the label "terrorists" fits.

[DogofWar1]

Larry, you can condemn the violent actors on the left while acknowledging that the animus that has led to this violence stems from the Trump political wing.

 

I mean, how many elections have we had where we haven't seen even a small fraction of this much violence occurring?  The things that happened at Trump rallies would, individually, be enough for a ton of press in any other cycle, but at this point it's become routine.

 

For example, remember back when some unofficial BLM demonstrators rushed the stage at a Bernie rally?  It was a BIG DEAL for a few days, and there wasn't even any violence.  The first time someone at a Trump rally attacked someone, it too was a BIG DEAL, but since then violence has become a daily thing.  It's gone from front page worthy to probably page 8 "the usual," news.

 

Anyways, violence is bad, it shouldn't come from either side.  The left now has a problem with it happening, but I think to not tie it back to the clear roots it has with Trump's campaign is misleading at best.  That doesn't excuse these individuals, but let us not hack at the branches while ignoring the roots.

[Destino]

Well, you were ALSO

1). Trying to take people who have a problem with the Nazis and the Klan in with the entire political left.

2). And then going from there, to trying to paint the political left as terrorists.

"BAMN - Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary".  I think it's fairly easy to figure out that the group is both political and belonging to the left end of the spectrum. 

 

There is nothing subtle about calling your group "by any means necessary" show up looking for a violent confrontation, and then give a TV interview about how you were right to do it.  Really does take some of the fun out of it though... I mean call me old fashion but political violence should leave something for the imagination.

[Destino]

Anyways, violence is bad, it shouldn't come from either side.  The left now has a problem with it happening, but I think to not tie it back to the clear roots it has with Trump's campaign is misleading at best.  That doesn't excuse these individuals, but let us not hack at the branches while ignoring the roots.

We sure that's the clear root?  When did the notion of forcefully disrupting and refusing to allow right wing speakers on campus start?  When did college kids start believing that hate speech should not be protected speech as the polls are showing now?  I have my doubts that the ideology of forceful confrontation of insulting political views started less within the last year with Trump.

[zoony]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html

Are we ready to accept this sort of left wing violence is becoming a trend and isn't just a few kids on campus acting unruly? College speakers disrupted violently, legal demonstration disrupted violently (10 people stabbed as a result), Trump rally invaded and violently forced to be called off. This is all in the past calender year.

I'm a democrat, let me be clear on that, but to me this looks like it's growing and gaining acceptance. Have we moved beyond the idea that words and ideas are not an excuse for violence?

I thought about starting a thread on this exact thing

i think its a general intolerance of anything deemed unPC. It should be a concern for us all

[Burgold]

We sure that's the clear root?  When did the notion of forcefully disrupting and refusing to allow right wing speakers on campus start?  When did college kids start believing that hate speech should not be protected speech as the polls are showing now?  I have my doubts that the ideology of forceful confrontation of insulting political views started less within the last year with Trump.

That's not entirely fair. I think it started with reports of protesters getting beat up by Trump supporters. After it happened and the candidate not only failed to denounce the actions, but encourage them... the other side began picking up their pitchforks.

 

I stick with my first post on this subject, but you can't ignore the role the other side played in pouring gasoline, spreading tender and flicking sparks.

[Destino]

I thought about starting a thread on this exact thing

i think its a general intolerance of anything deemed unPC. It should be a concern for us all

 

Feels a little bit like a religious movement.  The righteous will no longer suffer the unclean.

[Predicto]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html

 

Are we ready to accept this sort of left wing violence is becoming a trend and isn't just a few kids on campus acting unruly?  College speakers disrupted violently, legal demonstration disrupted violently (10 people stabbed as a result), Trump rally invaded and violently forced to be called off.  This is all in the past calender year. 

 

I'm a democrat, let me be clear on that, but to me this looks like it's growing and gaining acceptance.  Have we moved beyond the idea that words and ideas are not an excuse for violence? 

 

 

I'm willing to accept your argument, sort of.   We have been dealing with Occupy Oakland out here in the Bay Area for years, and there definitely is a core group there that is simply anarchist assholes who take every opportunity to show up at legitimate protests and just destroy stuff like petulant children.  They have gone full nihilist under the cover of attacking the establishment.  

 

With that said, I think that the overwhelming majority of people (on all sides of the political spectrum) do not take that approach.  

 

There is a reason that this is happening now with Trump and his followers, in a way that it didn't happen with Romney, or Rubio, or even Ted Cruz.  There has been a gradual ratcheting up of hostilities, and Trump himself played a large role in it. 

[Destino]

That's not entirely fair. I think it started with reports of protesters getting beat up by Trump supporters. After it happened and the candidate not only failed to denounce the actions, but encourage them... the other side began picking up their pitchforks.

 

I stick with my first post on this subject, but you can't ignore the role the other side played in pouring gasoline, spreading tender and flicking sparks.

 

Why is it not fair?  If people believed that they had the right to stop speech they disagree with, even if that means trespassing and refusing to leave (which is not protected speech), then violence is inevitable.  And they certainly believe it.  Read the pages that support these groups and you will see them calling their own actions free speech.  The common argument is that they are not the government, so their forceful interventions are not denying anyone any rights.  That they have the right to react as they do. 

 

You can't really expect the other side to simply agree to go away quietly every time right? Trump is a lunatic and he reacted to attempts to disrupt his meetings by happily supporting a forceful response.  He's a lunatic and he's definitely the gasoline, but it seems fair to say that the embers were glowing before he arrived on the scene. 

 

To be clear, I'm not absolving Trump.  He played his part and he personally encouraged violence. 

[DogofWar1]

We sure that's the clear root?  When did the notion of forcefully disrupting and refusing to allow right wing speakers on campus start?  When did college kids start believing that hate speech should not be protected speech as the polls are showing now?  I have my doubts that the ideology of forceful confrontation of insulting political views started less within the last year with Trump.

 

Of the violence?  Most of it, certainly.  There will always be random pockets, but we haven't seen this kind of consistency before.

 

And with regard to campus stuff, my understanding is that we were discussing violence, not simply opposition.  

 

It's a bit of a broad stroke to lump together individual instances of (usually non-violent) opposition to certain objectionable speakers and/or groups on college campuses (even where there are concerning 1st amendment issues), and the recent violence surrounding the political climate.

 

And framing it as you have largely absolves Trump of any responsibility, which is silly.

 

To put it simply, pre-2015, most opposition activities were non-violent (and thus not newsworthy) and mostly confined to college campuses.  Post-2015, we're seeing more and more actual violence in places that aren't college campuses.  What has changed?

[zoony]

I'm willing to accept your argument, sort of. We have been dealing with Occupy Oakland out here in the Bay Area for years, and there definitely is a core group there that is simply anarchist assholes who take every opportunity to show up at legitimate protests and just destroy stuff like petulant children. They have gone full nihilist under the cover of attacking the establishment.

With that said, I think that the overwhelming majority of people (on all sides of the political spectrum) do not take that approach.

There is a reason that this is happening now with Trump and his followers, in a way that it didn't happen with Romney, or Rubio, or even Ted Cruz. There has been a gradual ratcheting up of hostilities, and Trump himself played a large role in it.

I wonder if you're vastly underestimating the issue

Sure, it would be a small percentage of people who would throw punches. That we all agree on. However, I wonder if you polled the streets of San Francisco and asked "did the nazis deserve it?". What would the results be?

Because I think that is the real issue nowadays

[s0crates]

If only all the angry people could get on the same page . . .

[Taylor703]

Just seems like normalcy anymore. Stupid people meet up with other stupid people who happen to hate each other and then they do stupid stuff.

[Larry]

I liked it a whole lot better when the Left's response to the Nazis, was an ACLU lawyer, going to court on behalf of their right to hold public marches.

[Predicto]

We sure that's the clear root?  When did the notion of forcefully disrupting and refusing to allow right wing speakers on campus start?  When did college kids start believing that hate speech should not be protected speech as the polls are showing now?  I have my doubts that the ideology of forceful confrontation of insulting political views started less within the last year with Trump.

 

 

You are conflating two very, very different things in a way that isn't really honest, IMO.  The colleges may be overly PC, but the use of violence has rarely if ever been a part of it.  

 

Combining these two bogeymen together in this way makes both problems seem larger and more overwhelming than either of them actually are.   

[Duckus]

If ISIS had a rally in Montgomery, Alabama, how would that go?

 

Trump rallies and campus violence I agree with you 100% - violence is absolutely unacceptable. Nazis? Ahhh, that is a stretch for me. They are a terrorist organization.

[Predicto]

I wonder if you're vastly underestimating the issue

Sure, it would be a small percentage of people who would throw punches. That we all agree on. However, I wonder if you polled the streets of San Francisco and asked "did the nazis deserve it?". What would the results be?

Because I think that is the real issue nowadays

 

 

It would depend on how you asked the question, as it always does.   And I doubt the answer would be very different than it was 5 or 25 years ago.  

 

(by the way, the answer to that question is "I wish it hadn't happened, and the people who attacked them were wrong to do it, but of course the Nazis DESERVED if because they are the biggest assholes on the planet and they do DESERVE to get their asses kicked, even if no one ever actually should do it and we should not condone violence in any way.   But holy hell, of course they deserve it.   They also deserve to get a horrible case of poison ivy and to be forced to eat every meal at Olive Garden.   They are white supremacist scum.  They have the lowest level of spiritual karma that any group can attain.   But their free speech rights must be protected and violence is bad - even toward these scum of the earth that so richly DESERVE the worst of everything.)

[Bang]

I think it exists, and i think it always exists within every dichotomy.

I also see that more and more of them are getting louder and louder.

Nazis are rallying.

Anarchists are starting more and more trouble. Given the opposition are nazis, maybe a percentage feel as though they are' fighting back'.
Trouble comes in all forms,, standoffs against cops and feds, brawls and riots at rallies. Both disrupt the peace and both do nothing but incite more division..

Extremists are lighting fires in as many places as they can, and are goaded on through social media and, and i use the term loosely, news.

Propaganda for both is completely out of control.

 

I have a feeling a lot more violence is coming.

 

 

Ready?

 

~Bang

[Mooka]

 

Nazis are rallying.

Anarchists are starting more and more trouble. 

 

~Bang

 

 

JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY!!!!!!!

[Kilmer17]

People are going to die in the US in the near future.

[tshile]

If only all the angry people could get on the same page . . .

Or boat.

People are going to die in the US in the near future.

People are going to start showing up to these things with weapons to protect themselves from the protestors.

I imagine the first time that happens the protestors will start showing up with weapons.