On Monday night, as I noted yesterday, someone (or more than one someone) shot five Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis. Witnesses to the shooting and others who have been following the protest say that the shots came from a small group of white supremacists who had been hanging around the protest for days. .
We still don’t know who pulled the trigger, but it is growing increasingly clear that most if not all of the small squad of racists at the protest were 4channers associated with the /pol/ and /k/ boards, the first a politics board overrun with racists and conspiracy theories and the second a hangout for weapons enthusiasts.
But a lot has happened since my last post, so here’s a roundup of some of the more significant developments.
The police are holding four men — all white, and all in their twenties — allegedly involved in the shooting.
According to local newspaper, police have arrested 23-year-old Lawrence “Lance” Scarsella III, who is one of the two masked men shown driving to the protests in this video last week. (Here’s what appears to be a video of the arrest.)
Ironically, Black Powder Ranger, as Scarsella is apparently known online, was not the one brandishing the gun. BLM activists say that SaigaMarine, the gun-toting racist driving the car and spouting racist epithets, was the somewhat older Hispanic man arrested and released yesterday because he evidently had an alibi for the night of the shooting.
Two other men — identified as Daniel Thomas Macey and Nathan Gustavsson — turned themselves in to police yesterday. Newsweek reports that the police are also questioning a fourth man, Joseph Backman.
While we still don’t know the details of the shooting, someone — apparently one of the 4chan gang — sent a video to a local radio station that appears to show what happened in the minutes immediately before the shooting, in which a group of BLM protesters confronted the 4channers filming their protest. Unfortunately, the video has no sound
Videos of the racist gang at the protest — there are several making the rounds on YouTube — make it abundantly clear that they are either 4channers or others intimately familiar with 4chan lingo. One of the gang even sports a /k/ patch on his jacket.
Much of their conversation consists of little more than repitition of 4chan memes and coded language (e.g. “cultural enrichment”) that they apparently thought would conceal their racism from the Black Lives Matter crowd. No such luck for them: BLM activists figured out relatively quickly that the small group of masked men talking amongst themselves as they not-so-secretly filmed the crowd were up to no good.
Here’s one of the videos of them at the demonstration:
While the racist gang at the protests is clearly connected to 4chan, it’s not clear if any of its members are connected to broader hate movements or subcultures, from GamerGate to the militia movement.
But they are certainly steeped in racism and in America’s gun culture. Digging through the limited information on the internet about the 4chan contingent at the protests, Raw Story notes that they seem to share “a fascination with guns, video games, the Confederacy and right-wing militia groups.”
The cover photo on Scarcella’s Facebook page, for example, shows what’s known as the Bonnie Blue Confederate flag. One of his Facebook likes is OAF Nation, a veterans’ group so right-wing that it has attacked other veterans’ groups for distributing what it called ” f*ggoty ass yard signs” asking those lighting fireworks to not do so near the homes of veterans with PTSD.
Gustavsson, one of the men who turned himself in, brandishes a rifle in his Facebook profile picture as well.
SaigaMarine — apparently the man arrested and released — also posed for his Facebook profile “armed and donning full military gear, the StarTribune reports. “He describes his occupation simply as ‘Saving the Constitution.'”
I will post more when I know more.
Please email me, or post in the comments below, if you see something.
Yeah, that about sums it up. Alan, I don’t actually think you support all the things you keep defending, but I do think you’re a piss-taking bro who would happily devil’s advocate any evil behavior without caring about the consequences your words might have because none of it affects you anyway.
An analysis of what the law is and how it would apply to a possible account of events (the only one we have) seems like a useful contribution to the discussion.
I appreciate Alan explaining the law. I take his defense to be of the law, his passion, not the people or their actions since, his comments came after others began mentioning legal topics. At no point was he playing devils advocate or opposing people’s condemnation of this mass shooting just giving his, hopefully wrong opinion, that that these shooters can find lawyers capable of any defending them effectively.
Now personally I don’t surf /pol/ and I quit /k/ around the time /operatorchan/ was started up. Wanna know why? Because a bunch of assholes literally spammed the whole board with threads written in faux ebonics about how they’re African-Americans and how they’d like to commit crimes. /k/ always has been about white US American’s fantasies about nonwhites, but that apparently was too much for enough people to warrant founding a whole seperate page.
The claim to internationalism on 4chan is like the biggest #not your shield maneuver online in any case, because it’s pretty crass to see how hard US-style antifeminism and racism picks up on boards like /co/ and /tg/ during US after hours while it’s only sparsely present during the rest of the day. The culture war between the US right and other international proponents of rightist ideas also is a thing on /pol/, I think. They at least got memes to derail Swedes and other Northern-Europeans and Hindu-Nationalists.
@ WWTH and Katz
I have *never* said anything to support the “bad guys”. All I have done, as part of the questions here about what’s likely to happen to them, point out why it’s likely that they will be acquitted.
This isn’t “playing Devil’s advocate”, (please find me any example where I’ve ever done that) it’s using my experience in this field to predict the most likely outcome. That result may be something no one wants, but that doesn’t change the reality.
As I mentioned before though, it’s really common when people comment on legal things for people to adopt a “shoot the messenger” approach. You forget/ignore that I have no responsibility for making these laws.
I deal with this area of law all the time; it’s my speciality and I’ve been doing it for years. I’ve done literally hundreds of court cases involving use of force and I lecture to the police, military and other similar organisations on this, so please don’t suggest I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve offered to provide you with more info if you wish. However instead you’ve just made your own assumptions about the legal factors involved; and those assumptions are incorrect.
All I can do here is give an indication as to what is the most probable outcome. If someone described medical symptoms here and a doctor said that the prognosis was bad, would you be accusing the doctor of supporting cancer?
Law isn’t medicine, Alan. Medicine is science. Law is often a lot of politics. “Legally,” Darren Wilson was cleared by a grand jury in Ferguson. Legally, women couldn’t vote or own property or be considered autonomous persons for the longest damn time. Lawyers choose who they represent and how they argue. Don’t pretend it’s so cut and dry, or that it’s set in stone, or that bigotry doesn’t impact laws, arguments and outcomes…including yours.
Legally, the “gay panic” defense has stood up in court. Legally, the “she couldn’t be raped because she wasn’t a virgin,” defense STILL stands in some parts of this country.
And over, and over, and over again, “I was afraid for my life because BLACK PEOPLE.,” has legally excused the crimes of murderous white men.
I don’t believe for one second that you’d be making these arguments if we were talking about two black men who shot FIVE random white people in a crowd because ONE of them got punched after provoking someone to punch him intentionally. You don’t get to go on and on about the rights of the punchee to not get punched, ever, then say with a straight face that the shooting of five innocent people in response was somehow defensible.
Furthermore, i don’t have to be a lawyer to tell you that your experience in England doesn’t make you an expert on what goes on this side of the pond. You’re the first lawyer I’ve ever heard try to make the claim that they know what’s likely to go down in another damn country. (Hell, around here our lawyers stay out of business that isn’t in the same state!). The fact that you don’t even make so much as a nod in the direction of acknowledging that limitation on your knowledge, ever, makes me think that what you’re doing is just so much puffery.
(I mean, for Chrissake, you don’t even have legal rights to own guns over there. This alone puts you hugely out of your depth.)
@ LG
You’re making exactly the mistake I highlighted, assuming that predicting a result is endorsing a result.
Ironically you then go on to make my point for me with your reference to those cases. They illustrate how the law works in the real world. I got a lot of similar accusations when I predicted the Ferguson result. As if I was in favour of that result rather than just pointing out it was inevitable.
To answer your specific points.
I do have a grounding in the various US state and Federal laws. I work with a lot of US lawyers on this subject.
Over here barristers can’t pick and choose clients.
We can own guns. We just have a bit more control over who is allowed to buy them.
And I would very much be making the same arguments if the ethnicities were reversed. I’ve done it in the real world often enough.
Pfft. Horse shit. If you’re talking bigotry and how that impacts decisions, make it clear that you’re talking bigotry. But you haven’t done that, you’ve phrased everything as though it would be perfectly reasonable, legally, for these guys to get off scot-free.
“And I would very much be making the same arguments if the ethnicities were reversed. I’ve done it in the real world often enough.”
You’ve defended two black shooters who shot five white people after one provoked someone to punch him? Often?
PS – anyone who’s paying attention can predict what the outcome will be in a racist justice system for a racist cop who shoots a black kid in a place like Ferguson. I can’t believe for one second that the regulars here are naive enough not to know that and to get all afluster just because you’ve told them what was likely – in fact, I know they’re not. I’m guessing they got upset with you for claiming that there was no strong case to be made against Wilson and strongly implying that he probably was acting in self-defense.
“Over here barristers can’t pick and choose clients.”
We’re not. Talking. About. Over. There.
I would think that knowing which sorts of laws specifically are used or abused to acquit and clear people with clearly malicious intentions would be helpful in attempting to have them changed so that justice can be served in future cases.
Alan’s defense of said laws (the comments about how without them protestors for progressive causes would be vulnerable- as though the system doesn’t already discriminate against people of oppressed demographics) are not great, but the majority of what he’s saying doesn’t seem to be terribly problematic to me? I’m not sure I understand why he’s being dogpiled like this.
Alan,
We know that privileged people usually get off with no consequences when they commit violence against marginalized people because society will blame the victim every time. We’re not fucking stupid. But when white supremacists come into my city and start shooting people, this is the one place I figured I could count on people to not claim it was legitimately self defense. Because it was so clearly a hate crime and an act of terror. Not self defense and I haven’t been hearing attorneys around here saying it was justified.
Unless you have information beyond some screen caps that racist trolls are passing around internet, maybe hold off on pontificating about it? Especially if it’s upsetting to people who actually live here.
This is a blog comments section. Not your job. Just be a human being and be in solidarity with the victims of the shooting instead of trying to dream up the ways the criminal justice system could screw them over. Because we already know that might happen. Maybe you think we’re stupid, but we aren’t. We do actually know that.
Because he’s saying that it’s defensible to shoot five people who didn’t do anything to you because someone punched your buddy when your buddy was trying to get punched. And that’s just nonsense.
And because he has a habit of this sort of thing.
Catalpa,
Because this is entire conversation was sparked by a post a racist troll made. He just took that as fact and ran with it. And he’s in one of the Scott Adam’s threads saying Adams shouldn’t disavow bigoted harassment on the part of the commentators. And he’s done similar types of things before here. There was no comments about how horrible this was or how sorry is he is or how bigotry is upsetting to him or anything like that. He just jumped right into playing armchair defense attorney for the shooters.
Maybe I’m just being sensitive here. but it’s making me uncomfortable.
What Alan is saying about the legal duty to retreat may be true in his experience (I wouldn’t know), but that’s simply not how the law is set up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
” In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. Elements of acting reasonably include that the defendant had first avoided conflict and, secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.”
Self-defense as an argument requires REASONABLE use of force. Pulling out a gun and shooting randomly into a crowd over a single punch is not reasonable.
And while punching someone who provokes you with white supremacist antics is still assault, these guys had been trying and trying and trying to provoke someone without success for a while, showing up on multiple evenings. The fact that they FINALLY got ONE person to do it (maybe) did not magically turn the entire crowd of people into rabid mad dogs likely to maim and kill.
The only other people I have seen saying that this was “self-defense” have been internet trolls who go on to talk about fried chicken or “dindu nuffins” or the like in their next sentence.
I agree that is is potentially possible for someone to shoot five unarmed people and have it qualify as justified self-defense. I am, however, rather dubious that actually happened. It would require that they were not reasonably able to escape and that they remained in physical danger until they shot the fifth person. Those both seem highly unlikely. It’s the only defense their lawyer can reasonably attempt, but that does not guarantee it will work.
Besides…if Alan really understood the American criminal justice system as well as he claims to, he’d know that the most likely outcome for these guys is some kind of plea bargain, unless they can afford an expensive lawyer. Public defenders in this country are so insanely overworked that they rarely have the time to work on defense arguments for their clients.
OH, my bad. Alan did say “assuming there’s even a trial” first time round.
“…this is entire conversation was sparked by a post a racist troll made. He just took that as fact and ran with it.”
It contradicts every other witness accounts I’ve seen thus far. Might have been a good idea to start with that.
Ah, I see your points more clearly now. That’s understandable; I hadn’t been paying attention to what kicked with all off. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
Way late here but Alan, I almost always defend pedantry, this isn’t that though, you’ve strayed from “this is what the law says” to defending yourself without anywhere saying that the law, as written and applied, is shit. Also, you know damned well that arguments from authority are a very touchy thing for lawyers to engage in, I could, easily, go into detail about how legally questionable it is for a lawyer to misrepresent himself as an expert. Now, you’re not over that line, but if I broke down exactly where that line is, without hinting that you’re not over it, you’d be a bit grumpy about it yeah? That’s what you’re doing here — claiming, with questionable may be facts, what the law says on a matter that you have no personal involvement in.
Yes, self defense laws are highly detailed things, but those details vary, and how they’re applied is damned near always racist (when it’s interracial), nitpicking over details you don’t, and can’t, know, isn’t legal pedantry, it’s speculation. And, frankly, no one gives a shit whether you can go looking for a fight, get punched, and then fire off a gun at anyone who you think is threatening — maybe, depending, possibly, given unknown (and unknowable to us at present) facts, it might be legal, but no one here gives a fuck cuz it’s morally and ethically reprehensible.
So, and I’m asking this nicely, please step back and consider what you hope to achieve here.
You’re also defending Scott Adams being a douchebag, which wasn’t even a legal case to begin with, so either you’re stupid enough to think that him being arrested and charged with inciting his fans to do something is the “most likely outcome” or you’re stupid enough to think we’ll buy that as an excuse, but all that aside, this is taking a piss. Nobody asked you to tell us what the most likely outcome was; nobody needs your brilliant legal expertise to tell us what happens in court when white people attack black people. To the rest of us, this is a horrific, serious act of terrorism, but to you, it’s an excuse to play Fantasy Courtroom.
You don’t feel the need for niceties like sympathy or human decency, you just sit there playing your little game and coming up with your clever, clever legal defenses that invariably just happen to defend white guys behaving like assholes. When people call you on it or have the temerity to point out something you’re wrong about, you double down and act like you’re so much smarter and rational than the rest of us and keep banging on no matter how many people ask you to stop, until you finally flounce with some “Well, I’m right, but I can see no one is prepared to accept my brilliance” comment. And then you do it again in the next thread.
I am really not interested in your lawyer excuse for why your behavior is acceptable. It isn’t. It needs to stop.