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.
Please take pictures!
Oh, ninja’d!
Who said I’m so impatient I didn’t read all the comments before making the joke?
Shut up, Woody
If it helps, I’ve never noticed it from our dogs, cats, or pigs. The pigs were farting up a storm two days ago while we added straw to their pen, its -15c so we should have seen something.
Well then, that’s even weirder. The clothing theory was logically sound, but apparently false. Which leaves my only other theory: breath air is warmer than ass air. Except when taking someone’s tempature, anal’s higher than oral… hmm… the moisture content of salvia? Any potheads wanna test this while suffering epic cotton mouth?
Man I wish I could test that one, getting high for science…
@LG
Well as you went through the thread you’ll have seen I did offer to put up the link but I was told not to bother; but here you go. You can follow all the citations to the relevant law reports.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oH0F_YHbzYYeksFVcuyQvBufsiWjdLXogvhzOMPWtWY/edit?usp=sharing
Well, it wasn’t unsolicited. People were commenting on the likely outcome, I added my take, then when people had follow up queries I responded. You didn’t like what I was writing, but as you misrepresented what I was saying (falling into the common trap of conflating analysis with endorsement) then I don’t think your criticisms are valid. Other people have said they do find the comments appropriate and helpful. I’m not familiar with the hierarchy here so I don’t know who gets to choose what is allowed; David presumably. If he has a problem with the material then I’m happy for it to be deleted. His gaff, his rules.
@ Katz
*Checks if Alan is saying “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”*
See above. Again you’re complaint seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that I’m somehow endorsing the predicted result. I made it clear from the start that I wasn’t. So nothing to apologise for. I had said I was happy to drop the issue (notwithstanding other people had found the comments appropriate) so I’ve only been responding to the follow up posts
I know people don’t like the idea that the men will likely get away with their actions, but burying your head in the sand and ignoring the reality doesn’t help. The first step to correcting an injustice is to identify how it comes about. Saying stuff like “I can’t believe that this is defensible” doesn’t get you anywhere. You have to deal with the reality that exists, not some imaginary just world where things are fair.
This is not what you are expected to apologize for.
People are requesting you to reflect if this is a time and place appropriate for you to explain this stuff, based not only on whether it is correct or not, but also on the news being published, the effect it has on all of us, and the general feeling that condemning the vile violent acts is a priority over technical legal details.
This goes well beyond “not endorsing the predictable result” and into “please don’t keep making articles about violence against us all about how those committing the violence have legal stand to get away with it.”
Most people here have a very limited ability to actually help regarding white cis terrorism in general, and mostly we’re using it to full capacity. We are not doing more because there’s nothing more we can do.
This is not a place to “fix” issues, this is a place to mock misogyny and sometimes to respectfully share thoughts and feelings about terrible acts of violence.
I’m kindly and personally asking you to understand this isn’t a great place to discuss this knowledge, not because it is wrong, but because it is unnecessarily hurtful and disruptive to the people who hang out here and use this blog to process the already horrible things that are happening.
This is not because we would rather live in some imaginary world instead of facing the facts. It’s about us dealing with violent misogyny and racism at our own pace and in our own terms.
@ Lux
Fair enough. I have reflected on the appropriateness of the posts. I think they were appropriate, as did other commentators. Some people expressed a different view.
I’m happy though to take a ‘black ball’ approach if that’s helpful. If there’s a topic that upsets someone I’m content for them to have a veto if that makes this a safer space.
I’m happy to move on anyway and hoping for another open thread soon as there’s some interesting dinosaur news.
Charges are expected today. So there’s that. One of them confessed to a police officer friend and when his house was raided, it was full of weapons and tactical gear.
Jesus Christ, there it is again: “Obviously I’m in the right, but if everyone else can’t handle my truthbombs, I can stop dropping them.”
Frankly, at this point, what Alan needs to apologize for is his inability to admit when he’s wrong. Recognizing when you make a mistake and apologizing for it is a basic social skill and you can’t be a constructive member of a community without it.
(You can, however, be a lawyer. *rimshot*)
By declaring that being acquitted on self-defense grounds is the likely and legally appropriate outcome, you have thus implied that the shooting qualified as legal self-defense in Minnesota. Note that Minnesota has recently had a man convicted of murder for what inarguably started as self-defense because he continued shooting after the threat was gone. You based this on witness testimony from someone who did not see the shooting, and well before it could reasonably be concluded that there was no other available evidence.
As it happens, charges have now been filed. The shooter is facing five counts of assault and one count of second-degree riot, and the other three are facing one count of second-degree riot. So no, they aren’t going to be acquitted on self-defense grounds, because it’s not even applicable to one of the charges.
Charges have been filed. Several counts of assault for the shooter and rioting for the others.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/11/30/charges-possible-against-4-men-in-4th-precinct-protest-shooting/
With the case being so high profile, I really doubt any charges would be brought if there was a good chance that self defense would hold. Also, the federal government is investigating and additional hate crime charges might apply
@ Katz
I think, once again, you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said. It isn’t “everybody else”; you have one view, some other people have a differing view. In the interests of harmony I’ve said I’m happy to nevertheless drop the matter if some people find it upsetting.
I think that’s a fair compromise.
@ BVH
I’d prefer to drop this but just to respond to your specific points:
Not sure the case you refer to is that relevant to the points I originally made. In your case there would likely have been an acquittal had the defendant not dragged an unconscious person somewhere and then shot them in the head. That was an execution so it’s hardly surprising self defense failed.
As to the charges under Minnesota law self defence can be a defence to a charge of riot as the statute specifically states that only unlawful use or threat of force of is an element of the offence. Unlawful has a specific meaning in the statute.
But if we can drop this now. If you want further details you can read that link. If you want to debate further we can wait til an open thread.
Alan, I have held my tongue up until now because I’m pissed at you for something entirely different and so didn’t trust myself to be reasonable; but I think I should join in with katz, M, LG and Luz in saying that I find your attitude to be problematic.
A lesson that took me a long time to learn is that when you speak, you form idea A in your head, then idea B comes out of your mouth, which is interpreted as idea C in your listener’s head. The only part that matters is C. If that’s offensive, then you weren’t misinterpreted: you miscommunicated in a bad way, and that’s on you.
We’re your friends. We want to help you not offend us, because we appreciate your company. However, you need to stop taking the very defensive stance on this and accept that you fucked up.
(Also, I’m not claiming that I am by any means a good role model. I’m the whitest, malest, speak-from-authority-est person out there.)
@ EJ
I appreciate what you say and I’m always willing to apologise when appropriate but we’re going to have to disagree on this, sorry.
It won’t help matters to go over why I don’t accept your premise, but as I’ve said I’m happy to drop the subject unless anyone has any specific points.
What’s the other thing btw? Not trying to rake just curious. If it’s something you think I need to think about I’m happy to.
Oh for fuck’s sake. I’m so over this splainy I’m never wrong attitude. Pretty much the 1st rule of being an ally is listening and not being defensive. Someone who has been here a while should already know this.
And I don’t think just dropping it is sufficient because the same thing will just happen in another thread.
@ WWTH
I’ve never had that attitude. There are plenty of occasions when I’ve stood corrected and apologised. In this instance though I don’t accept I’ve done anything wrong. Some people said they thought a discussion about the law was inappropriate. Others however said they thought it was appropriate and they found it helpful.
So, who gets to choose what is permissable?
I said that I was happy to drop the subject, despite some people finding it appropriate, if it upset anybody. Like I say, I think that’s reasonable.
Soooooo… any other theories on why farts don’t steam the way breath does?
Or why chalk in a ripped callus is so immensely painful? Cuz I totally did that yesterday. Didn’t realize it ripped until I went to chalk my hands (yet again), which means neither rope nor the tape the bar is wrapped in hurt. Otoh, locked gazelle drop into angel = nailed it! And remain surprised that the trapeze artist in Victor Frankenstein didn’t do that trick, she did both parts of it but the camera cut in between.
Also, I seriously don’t get the reviews. No, it isn’t the Frankenstein story we all know, but it’s good in its own right and Radcliffe and McAvoy working together is fucking magic, they’re great. Some pacing issues? Sure. Not worthy of even two stars? Oh screw you, it’s got at least a solid three.
@ Argenti
If that is indeed the case then maybe it’s something to do with exhaled breath mainly being Nitrogen and bottom burps being mainly methane?
Would that affect condensation? Is there some nucleation or thermodynamic thing going on?
Or maybe it’s just people tend to wear pants when it’s cold so we don’t notice they do in fact steam.
Guys, this is why people say you’re “mean.” I didn’t want to jump in to defend Alan because I’ve been smacked down for defending people before, but this holier-than-thou crap is becoming cringe-worthy. Accept the apology that the subject matter was inappropriate. Don’t force him to admit he’s a racist scumbag because he gave his legal opinion, which in the past people on this blog have been all too happy to ask for.
Maybe we should add to Da Rulz a few lines on how to apologize properly.
http://blog.mailvu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/TimmyWandaPoof_and_Da_Rules.jpg
He hasn’t apologized. In fact, he has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t need to apologize and denied any possibility that his actions might be wrong unless he, himself, decides they are. We can’t move past behavior he is still actively engaging in.
I thought the First Rule of Holes was already in there.
Alan — the pants theory was debunked, assuming pig farts are a valid corollary.