Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Ziggurat]

I'm justifying jury nullification as an important (and often neglected) component of our legal system

Do you think it's capable of being misused?

If the guy who punched Spencer gets arrested and charged, do you think it should be used for him?

Funny term, that. I don't recall hearing it even once in all those incidents where someone got punched at a Trump rally.

Then perhaps you should have used the term yourself. It would have been appropriate.

 

[theprestige]

I'm justifying jury nullification as an important (and often neglected) component of our legal system, this "rule of law" you keep talking about.

Funny term, that. I don't recall hearing it even once in all those incidents where someone got punched at a Trump rally.

Probably because nobody put much effort into defending such incidents as righteous blows for democracy, or much-needed vigilante justice in the face of tyranny.

I mean, I totally get wanting to punch Nazis in the face. Do the crime, do the time, and you'll get precious little complaint from me. Hell, I might even be inclined to show leniency in sentencing. What's disturbing here is how quickly and casually--arrogantly, even--some people are to encourage violence in response to speech. And how quick they are to dismiss the social institutions we generally rely on for justice, equality, and peace.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Do you think it's capable of being misused?

Sure, just like it's possible that there are unjust laws.

If the guy who punched Spencer gets arrested and charged, do you think it should be used for him?

Yes. That is what I said. I would not be morally comfortable convicting a man for punching a Nazi. Killing a Nazi, permanently injuring a Nazi, or murdering a Nazi, tanning his skin and fashioning it into a Captain America costume? That's a little too far. But a punch I'm fine with.

Probably because nobody put much effort into defending such incidents as righteous blows for democracy, or much-needed vigilante justice in the face of tyranny.

Neither am I. I just think Nazis have it coming.

And how quick they are to dismiss the social institutions we generally rely on for justice, equality, and peace.

Jury nullification is a part of those institutions. Literally. Lawyers and judges don't like it and will never suggest it, but it's a power that juries have. You don't have to insist that they do whatever time is attached to a crime. You're not betraying any American principle by it.

 

[theprestige]

Jury nullification is a part of the rule of law and of due process. If you were to punch a Nazi, submit to arrest, and have your guilt nullified by a jury, I would consider that an outcome worth debating.

But this is just naked vigilantism. You're not a jury. You haven't been empaneled by a court of law to deliver a verdict according to due process. You're just a guy who's advocating the use of violence to suppress speech. Which, the more the imploding left pushes on this idea, the more I'm asking myself "what if they have a point?" Maybe it's time to put the 'iron' into 'ironic violence against distasteful political speech'.

 

[Pacal]

And what did that law-breaking in the North help lead to? A complete breakdown in civil society: the Civil War. Now, there's a good case to be made that the Civil War was necessary and worthwhile to get rid of slavery. But nothing like that is at stake here. The degradation of civil order now has no commensurate benefit. So the fact that similar actions have been done before isn't really any sort of justification for doing them now.

It is of course true that tension was created by the issue of fugitive slaves in the antebellum American Republic. But it was not a important cause of the Civil War.

As for breaking the law. Well the problem was that some slaves insisted upon running away and trying to become free. The slave south imposed and used a whole coercive system of control to minimize that from happening and to apprehend the law breakers who committed the crime of stealing themselves. That some people might be reluctant to return someone to bondage is of course not surprising.

So the "breakdown of civil society" was started by the slaves. Also the law breaking in the North, resistance to the fugitive slave acts, wasn't the only law breaking.

For example armed slave Masters would go North and in violation of local laws grab people in the street, claiming them has runaway slaves. Further there existed people who would in both North and South who would kidnap free Blacks and sell them into bondage. Southerners willing bought such slaves. Apparently the numbers involved exceeded slaves escaping from the South to the North. Also several Southern states had restrictions on the interstate slave trade. Restrictions that were routinely violated by slave traders.

And then there was the international slave trade. After its abolition some people, from time to time, engaged in the international slave trade bringing their "cargo" to the South to sell. In fact before the Civil War there was a notorious case involving such illegal "imports" and the result was the jury ignored the law and acquitted the accused. (The case was in South Carolina I believe) Further some slave owners insisted upon bringing their human "property" into Northern states that absolutely forbade slavery. Also in violation of the laws various Southern states violated freedom of speech and the press.

I could also put in the various ways servile insurrection, or simply rumours of such, were dealt with. (It involved extra-judicial executions, torture etc., frequently.)

The law breaking wasn't confined to the North and further if you want to compare law breaking the South comes off worst.

 

[dudalb]

It is of course true that tension was created by the issue of fugitive slaves in the antebellum American Republic. But it was not a important cause of the Civil War.

As for breaking the law. Well the problem was that some slaves insisted upon running away and trying to become free. The slave south imposed and used a whole coercive system of control to minimize that from happening and to apprehend the law breakers who committed the crime of stealing themselves. That some people might be reluctant to return someone to bondage is of course not surprising.

So the "breakdown of civil society" was started by the slaves. Also the law breaking in the North, resistance to the fugitive slave acts, wasn't the only law breaking.

For example armed slave Masters would go North and in violation of local laws grab people in the street, claiming them has runaway slaves. Further there existed people who would in both North and South who would kidnap free Blacks and sell them into bondage. Southerners willing bought such slaves. Apparently the numbers involved exceeded slaves escaping from the South to the North. Also several Southern states had restrictions on the interstate slave trade. Restrictions that were routinely violated by slave traders.

And then there was the international slave trade. After its abolition some people, from time to time, engaged in the international slave trade bringing their "cargo" to the South to sell. In fact before the Civil War there was a notorious case involving such illegal "imports" and the result was the jury ignored the law and acquitted the accused. (The case was in South Carolina I believe) Further some slave owners insisted upon bringing their human "property" into Northern states that absolutely forbade slavery. Also in violation of the laws various Southern states violated freedom of speech and the press.

I could also put in the various ways servile insurrection, or simply rumours of such, were dealt with. (It involved extra-judicial executions, torture etc., frequently.)

The law breaking wasn't confined to the North and further if you want to compare law breaking the South comes off worst.

The main tirgger of the Civil War was the attempt by the Southern States to expand into the Western Territories;many Northerners who were willing to tolerate slavery iwhere is existed very unwilling to let it expand.The Fugitive Slave laws were secondary to the the expansion of slavery issue.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The main tirgger of the Civil War was the attempt by the Southern States to expand into the Western Territories;many Northerners who were willing to tolerate slavery iwhere is existed very unwilling to let it expand.The Fugitive Slave laws were secondary to the the expansion of slavery issue.

Bleeding Kansas and the admission of California were the primary catalysts.

 

[trustbutverify]

And what did that law-breaking in the North help lead to? A complete breakdown in civil society: the Civil War. Now, there's a good case to be made that the Civil War was necessary and worthwhile to get rid of slavery. But nothing like that is at stake here. The degradation of civil order now has no commensurate benefit. So the fact that similar actions have been done before isn't really any sort of justification for doing them now.

Not quite yet, but a lot closer than even a year ago. The American electorate just selected Alex Jones' spirit-brother president. There's a sharp trend-line pointing to some bad possibilities.

 

[theprestige]

Not quite yet, but a lot closer than even a year ago. The American electorate just selected Alex Jones' spirit-brother president. There's a sharp trend-line pointing to some bad possibilities.

Better start punching people!

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. That is what I said. I would not be morally comfortable convicting a man for punching a Nazi. Killing a Nazi, permanently injuring a Nazi, or murdering a Nazi, tanning his skin and fashioning it into a Captain America costume? That's a little too far. But a punch I'm fine with.

You're fine with a punch. Even though a punch can kill. Which really means you're fine with potentially killing.

You're an advocate of vigilante justice. The dividing line you imagine exists between this case and others doesn't.

Jury nullification is a part of those institutions. Literally.

That doesn't make it morally acceptable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not quite yet, but a lot closer than even a year ago.

If you climb up a ladder, you'll get closer to the moon.

Spencer is never going to achieve his stated goals. He's never going to get close. He's never even going to get a large following. And actions like punching him don't even limit him.

There's a sharp trend-line pointing to some bad possibilities.

There is indeed some trend lines pointing in bad directions. One of the most disturbing of those is increasing political violence, and the acceptance of that. Do you honestly imagine that political violence is what will stop Nazis from taking over here? Of course not. Furthermore, if the Nazis ever did get significant popular support, they would use political violence committed against them as an excuse to commit political violence of their own. By far the best defense is to not tolerate political violence at all, and unless you want to avoid being hypocritical, that requires that you not accept it from your own side.

 

[Thermal]

You explicitly condone a violation of the law.

So did MLK. Another of your enemies of society?

 

[Noztradamus]

I think you think that you're being clever.

But you're actually just being a regressive waste of human tissue.

You know who else called people "a regressive waste of human tissue"? Nazis

 

[Ziggurat]

So did MLK. Another of your enemies of society?

Even aside from the obvious fact that King advocated nonviolence and you're de facto advocating violence, you're ignoring two other critical aspects of what he actually said:

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
...
In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.​

So first, you have never made the case that the law prohibiting assault is unjust. Nobody here has. Second, you are explicitly advocating that people who break this law evade it, that they do so in secret, and with a desire to escape any penalty. That explicitly contradicts King's vision of civil disobedience.

You cannot rightly claim that your position matches that of Dr. King's. It does not. Your position is radically different.

 

[Thermal]

But you suggest tolerance of violations of the law.

No. I suggest that as a nazi wishes for fundamental principles of law and rights be dismantled, he should expect no one who values these to lift a finger to help him.

That has a corrosive effect on society. The police are never, ever sufficient to uphold the law on their own. They always need the majority of citizens to support them in their efforts. If you choose to not support the law here, do you honestly think that will be the last of it? That it will never go further?

Ordinary citizens have no obligation to engage in law enforcement. Police need not enforce all laws either. They have discretion. I am exercising my discretion in not offering assistance where it is not required by law to do so. Are you suggesting that I must go beyond my legal obligations to assist someone against my will? Your argument seems to ignore my rights in favor of providing additional privileges to a nazi.

Yes, Spencer is morally wrong. But he still operates within the confines of the law. Which means the response to his wrongdoing must operate within the confines of the law too, or it is not merely legally wrong, but morally wrong as well, because again, going outside the law to try to counter him has a corrosive effect on the concept of law, which civil society needs to function.

Agreed. But my suggestion is not to go outside the law (I said earlier that I would've tried to stop the attack if possible), but to afford him the absolute minimum required, and not a damn thing more. I'd like to think I would chase down a purse snatcher, or otherwise endanger myself for another's benefit, but not for a nazi. If they detest American ideals so much, they can fend for themselves, without citizens extending good will efforts to them.

 

[Thermal]

Even aside from the obvious fact that King advocated nonviolence and you're de facto advocating violence, you're ignoring two other critical aspects of what he actually said:

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
...
In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.​

The comment being responded to claimed I was wrong for advocating a violation of law. The MLK response was obviously underscoring the imprecision of the comment. Trying to extend my position into general vigilantism is unnecessary and unproductive.

You, theprestige, and the other Obey-the-Law posters are reading way too much in. I have no legal obligation to intervene in an assault, or, as it has been pointed out elsewhere in this forum, to even report it. My position is fully compliant with law; as a law-and-order supporter, what logical objection can you really have to it?

So first, you have never made the case that the law prohibiting assault is unjust. Nobody here has.

Of course not. No one, save a certain cave dweller, suggests any such thing.

Second, you are explicitly advocating that people who break this law evade it, that they do so in secret, and with a desire to escape any penalty. That explicitly contradicts King's vision of civil disobedience.

I do not. I have said repeatedly, not to help or hinder, within the confines of law. This is civil obedience in a nutshell. Again, what specific lack of compliance with law do you find in my position?

You cannot rightly claim that your position matches that of Dr. King's. It does not. Your position is radically different.

As said above, the MLK comment was pretty obviously to highlight theprestige's goof. No one would seriously consider Dr. King to be an enemy of society. Obviously.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hateful speech can be disruptive to these things. But setting aside the rule of law is, in my opinion, just as bad or even worse. What I find most distressing is that the punch-defenders seem incapable of even acknowledging that rule of law is a valuable thing, and that it costs us as a society to set it aside, even for a moment.

So we need to start focusing on the free speech rights of islamic clerics who are trying to radicalize muslims to commit violence. Killing them is clearly a far bigger infraction of the rule of law than simple assault in large part because it is the government doing it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It was about a lot of things. But if you don't think that was a contributor, you're kidding yourself. And you aren't justifying punching Spencer or letting the punch slide by appealing to those slave laws either.

Yes exactly, is was about how the federal government was oppressing the northern states by forcing slavery on them. The south rebelled to fight against states rights.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're fine with a punch. Even though a punch can kill. Which really means you're fine with potentially killing.

The proper way to censor people who radicalize terrorists is by assassination via drone. Not simple assault.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you climb up a ladder, you'll get closer to the moon.

Spencer is never going to achieve his stated goals. He's never going to get close. He's never even going to get a large following. And actions like punching him don't even limit him.

Exactly he needs to be assassinated. It works well against muslim terrorist radicalizers so why not nazi terrorist radicalizers?