In his decision, a judge agreed that the alleged white nationalists were being selectively prosecuted instead of 'far-left extremist groups, such as Antifa.'
Which order do people think the laws are there to protect? Anyone shouting about law and order should bring a chill to your spine. Nothing good will come of it. Conservatives shouting about law and order..... It's passed time to grab and use your weapons against them.
When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it's not worth the trouble to bring him back alive.
Nothing will change until organization takes place. Assuming you're in the USA, join your local climate activist group. Nearly any group will do, or if you're inclined you could start your own. You will meet like-minded people in a driven atmosphere. Can't make meetings regularly? Go when you can, even if it's just once every other month. Like a true democracy, collective thought and action is the only true way to stomp out fascism. We need to band together beyond our devices for our voices to be heard.
There seems to be little doubt that Defendants, or at least some members of RAM, engaged in criminal violence. But they cannot be selected for prosecution because of their repugnant speech and beliefs over those who committed the same violence with the goal of disrupting political events
That's actually part of the judge's decision. "These people are guilty, but since you didn't prosecute those other people, too bad."
“I don’t believe it’s warranted that Mr. Rundo spend one minute more in custody, so I’m going to release him forthwith,” Carney said. “I feel very comfortable in the decision I’ve made.”
Of course he feels comfortable with that. He's one of the white supremacists.
Rundo was accused not just of organizing the violent confrontations, but also of attacking protesters and police officers. After Rundo was ordered by police to stop attacking a “defenseless person” during the Berkeley protest, he allegedly punched an officer twice in the head, according to an arrest warrant.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of this judge's supporters have Thin Blue Line bumper stickers and still support this decision.
I've brought this up before but I'll say it again: I have never met a member of a group of violent and organized far left extremists, or anyone who identifies as Antifa, to the point that I have trouble believing they exist. I've met some far left wackos, but none claiming to be organized or in cahoots with other far left wackos, and most of their violence was in speech only.
But I've met way too many far right knuckleheads who'd be all too happy to shoot someone.
Similarly, the only time you would hear someone described as 'woke' just a few years ago is if one black person talked about another black person about being aware of racial injustice.
And then there was "social justice warrior," which, like antifa, is not actually a thing. But if it was, the #1 candidate would be their hero Jesus.
I’ve done nonviolent antifa. It’s not something you are, but something you do. I am anti fascist, and sometimes I need to march against fascists because jackasses try to march in hoods and swastikas sometimes where I live.
The reason you don’t know anyone who identifies as antifa and actually does anything though is usually they’ll either identify with a group like the jbgc or sra or they’ll practice opsec. Black block only works if you shut your damn mouth. Also because usually it’s in a defensive or reactive action.
I'm certain other judges will be stoked to see people cite this in future cases. "You can't punish me because other people did similar things and aren't part of this trial. Here's an earlier case where the court has decided that way."
Grade A conservative legal reasoning right there. I assume every single convict who had a co-defendant take a plea deal is getting their release papers signed right now because they got selected for prosecution over people who did the same things as them /s
So the charges, crimes, evidence, and jury don't matter. It's all cleared because bOtH sIdEs nonsense. Hey judge I have an idea, if other people commit crimes then prosecute them. I wonder if he's close to realizing why you don't see much on the 'other side' (the why is that there is no violent far left committing crimes. Or if you want to be pedantic, it's incredibly, vastly minuscule compared to the violent far right.)
I'm starting to understand better and better how countries fall into strongmen and fascism. It's unreal.
“Prosecuting only members of the far right and ignoring members of the far left leads to the troubling conclusion that the government believes it is permissible to physically assault and injure Trump supporters to silence speech,” Carney wrote in his order.
Did he just say the far right and Trump supporters are one and the same? Lolol.
I'm not necessarily saying there should be a violent far left committing crimes. . . but the right keep trying to both-sides their terrorism shit, that's how you get a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rundo was accused not just of organizing the violent confrontations, but also of attacking protesters and police officers. After Rundo was ordered by police to stop attacking a “defenseless person” during the Berkeley protest, he allegedly punched an officer twice in the head, according to an arrest warrant.
I have a feeling if someone with "far left" beliefs showed up in his courtroom with the same charges, he wouldn't hesitate to throw the book at them. This decision seems ripe for overturning on appeal, since he literally says in his decision "there's no doubt they committed these violent acts."
Yeah I'm not even really sure what constitutes "far left" in the American political spectrum. Like, I do believe food should be a right, but that's along the lines of "no one deserves to starve if we produce more food than we need" and that doesn't feel radical to me.
And when his white supremacy became public in 2020, he just stepped down from being the Chief Judge but got to keep being a judge and making rulings enforcing white supremacy for the obvious systemic reasons that you'd have to be a willfully ignorant to not see at this point.
Of course there is a bias against neo-nazi fascists in this country. See, there’s this little thing called World War II that we all learned about in school where millions died and the world joined forces to put a stop to nazis. So I suspect a vast majority of adults these days think nazis are scum of the earth. And rightfully so.
Commenting again because I don't want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same--which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done--is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I'm afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
"When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it's not worth the trouble to bring him back alive." To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I'm an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don't have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don't want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
It's pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.
We can't simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.
It's a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.
I didn't see the removed comments but I wanted to mention something.
There's a difference between "addressing it openly" and fetishizing violence. One says: "this may happen" or "this did happen". The other says "check this out, think about it more often like I do!".
I think we have all seen news articles that do one or the other. It's relatively easy to tell the difference by the words or tone used. You're not being slick if you pretend to do the first while actually doing the second.
The Good - White-supremacist who had to be chased to Romania after fleeing, will go back in jail (if caught), after an emergency appeal from the state
The Bad - A District Judge released an all-but-convicted violent Nazi, citing checks notes “both sides”, and SET NO CONDITIONS FOR THAT RELEASE, despite the prosecution’s protests and his proven track record of running from the law:
“Due to the district court’s order, Rundo will be released imminently, at which point he will be under no bond conditions or travel restraints,” according to the motion by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bram Alden, who is chief of the Los Angeles office’s Criminal Appeals Section.