site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32024 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Patriot Front's Conspiracy to Riot in Coeur d'Alene Idaho

This is another post in what has become a series covering widespread lawfare against dissident-right activists, previously I have covered:

The arrest of the Patriot Front men on their way to protest in Idaho (seen here from their perspective) became a big news story, with the dox and mugshots widely published and applauded, even as anti-hate NGOs admitted that rioting was not the M.O of the group. At the time, even I didn't think the charges stood a chance of going anywhere, even if police wanted to argue for probable cause there was no way a prosecutor would dig a little into the group, see quite clearly they intended to protest in the exact way that have been documented to protest over a dozen times, and then claim that these men came to riot. But I was wrong, and charges were pursued on a single count of "conspiracy to riot."

30 out of 31 members pled Not Guilty and opted for jury trials, 1 member pled guilty to a lesser charge of disturbing the peace and was sentenced to 180 days in jail with 179 days suspended. The first jury trial of 5 members who pled not-guilty to conspiracy charges was concluded last week, where a jury of 6 unanimously found them guilty of conspiracy to riot. They were sentenced to 5 days in jail with 2 days served and banned from downtown for a year.

Having followed the trial in various news stories, the evidence provided by the prosecution seemed to solely entail potentiality, as in "these shields could be used to bash people, and the flagpoles could have been used to hit people from behind the shields." It was noted that the shields the men were carrying had scratches on them and the flagpoles were longer than normal as suspicious, even while the testifying officers admitted that other protestors were open carrying, and it is not illegal to have a shield.

It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle. All indications are that they planned to march in the exact manner they have done many times before. My confusion, even after following the coverage, is whether or not the prosecution is alleging that this behavior would have constituted a riot, or if they solely relied on speculation for how the shield and flag poles and such could have been used to riot. If the Patriot Front had made it to the park and marched, would they have been arrested for rioting? I don't think so, somehow stopping them before they even had the opportunity gave the prosecution more leeway to plant in the minds of the jury all the things they could have done when they got to the park. It's not clear how this conviction will impact the other trials.

Needless to say, civil rights organizations are not lining up to defend these men (in contrast, the "civil rights conspiracy" Charlottesville lawsuit was concocted in a Manhattan office with a multimillion, NGO-funded war chest, with a lead attorney who compared the lawsuit to the Warsaw ghetto resistance). The PF men have relied on public defenders and faith in the jury process.

FBI Whistleblower Reveals Malfeasance In Patriot Front Trial (?)

The one form of institutional opposition to this prosecution has come from an article published last week by the Idaho Tribune. This trial is only the tip of the iceberg. Not only were PF men arrested, doxed, and charged with conspiracy to riot, but their phones were handed over to the FBI by the State for data extraction. The prosecution claims it cannot present the phones to the defendants in their conspiracy cases, as the State no longer as possession of the evidence. It turns out, nobody from the State ever saw a warrant for those phones before, or since, handing them over to the FBI. Not only that, but according to a whistleblower an FBI SSRA in Idaho was removed from his position because he refused to a sign a warrant for the phones due to lack of probable cause:

“I have friends who are in Couer D'alene who refused to write a Search Warrant for PF [Patriot Front] phones because the PC [probable cause] didn't exist. FBI HQ removed the supervisor from his position.” ...

A second source that will remain anonymous confirmed to the Tribune that Shoffstall was asked to write a warrant to procure data in the phones of the detained Patriot Front members.

After Shoffstall refused, he was punished. Sources tell the Tribune that he was sent on a “special assignment” to work at the FBI’s National Threat Operation Center, which is essentially a call center, where Schoffstall would ride a desk, instead of continuing his work in the field.

The Idaho Tribune was able to speak with Special Agent Schoffstall, who confirmed that he is no longer assigned to the Coeur d’Alene office because he is on a “temporary assignment,” and that he cannot disclose any further information...

In a court proceeding held on Tuesday July 18th, Thomas Rousseau’s public defender Kinzo Mihara vigorously argued that his client should be able to get data from his phone that depicts “the dress rehearsal from the day before” the events of June 11th.

However, the prosecution in all of these cases has not made these phones, nor the warrant that allowed the FBI to perform data extractions on the phones, available to the defense.

Mihara argued saying:

"We want media files from that phone… We have no evidence from the state of what was done, who did it when they did it, why they did it…

“Where is this search warrant? What search warrant? Which judge signed the search warrant? What was the material to be seized, the information to be looked for? Why don't we have it back? In a recent case I have search warrant from here signed by your Honor. It's to seize a black box out of a truck. They seized the black box, they left the copy of the warrant. If you're gonna grab physical items, our constitution demands it being pursuant to a warrant. And the criminal rules, both federal and state, cited to the court demand as copy of the warrant be turned over. We had no warrant from the state and we have no, we have no communications from law enforcement, which another judge in this court, judge Randalls expressly ruled to that. That's fair game. We asked for it. We want it, your Honor. We asked for it way back in February and it hasn’t been turned over.”

IANAL, so I cannot tell how serious this issue is, but reading through this brief it seems Rousseau's attorney is claiming the phones contain potentially-exculpatory evidence and that the State has "parked" the evidence with an FBI based on a warrant that nobody has ever seen and has not been provided to the defense.

The State's argument in this case is dangerous. Any time it wishes to shield exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant, the State merely needs to have a law enforcement officer "park" the evidence with a federal law enforcement colleague and claim that it cannot produce such evidence ... taking it out of reach of a criminally-accused defendant. This is antithetical to due process and embodies the very tyranny our forefathers saw in their British masters.

In these cases, from what I can tell the public defenders have done a good job and they are receiving a good defense, though maybe not the best money could buy. But I'm not sure what exculpatory evidence could be on the phone: it seems the prosecution wasn't even denying that they planned to march in the way they've done every other time, they were just arguing that their actual plans constituted a plan to riot.

Lessons Learned

So you're right wing, but anonymously shit-posting online isn't enough for you, you want to organize IRL. Maybe you want to march with your friends against a Pride event. Well you better be prepared to be arrested, doxed with your face plastered in national news, charged with a conspiracy, and have your phone be handed to the FBI. Some people on the DR argue that it's an "overly online" movement, but this case shows that IRL activism is at the moment not worth the risk.

Patriot Front has some cringe optics, Rousseau's speeches are really cringe, but if their activism is accomplishing anything, it's exploring the boundaries of legal right-wing expression, which is not where you would expect it to be based on 1A protections.

Given the actual rioting, actual destruction, and actual deaths that I watched during the Antifa/BLM years, this seems to be a clear-cut case of rules for thee but not for me. Which is another way of saying that the de facto rule and the de jure rule have diverged until there is little similarity between them. This would be bad enough alone. However, it is made worse by the fact that this is an inversion of the spirit of law; the idea that there exists a neutral set of criteria by which behavior will be judged. This is important because it is this sense of objectivity from which much of law and order draws it's legitimacy. If one tribe, or both tribes, come to feel that a court of law is not a (mostly) objective mechanism through which decisions are arrived at by following a series of legible, impartial procedures, then they will arrive at the alternative conclusion: that a court of law is a mechanism by which to attack the opposing side using the resources of the state.

I think a major part of PF's issue is that they don't seem organic at all, so they get no support from the right wing.

Every time they come up in my circles, everyone starts screaming "FED! FED!" and until they deal with those optics they are going to be left out to hang.

Every time they come up in my circles, everyone starts screaming "FED! FED!" and until they deal with those optics they are going to be left out to hang.

Funnily enough, this FED-screeching happens in both relatively normal freedom-loving libertarian and neo-nazi groups.

I don't think there are any particular reasons to believe PF are "feds" (presumably meaning: led by federal informants?) beyond them being a group that does IRL protests. Which is a decent reason to believe they have informants, but not a decent reason to believe that they, as a group, are primarily lead by feds.

I don't think there are any particular reasons to believe PF are "feds" (presumably meaning: led by federal informants?) beyond them being a group that does IRL protests.

The issue is that their uniform looks like the stereotype for "off duty cop" or "soldier in civilian clothes" and they would show up with riot shields out of a police catalog when they first started.

I mean that and they seem almost universally in the kind of shape that you’d expect from cops or feds — the median American is overweight and not fit, the median member of PF is fit, and looks like they spend significant time in the gym lifting. They’re also remarkably clean cut and clean shaven for civilians. In short, not only is their equipment very cop like, but their demeanor and appearance is very similar to military feds and police.

A much simpler explanation is they explicitly ask their members to look good and work out because they want to seem optical or w/e

That used to be a tactic of the OG natsoc's where they specifically tailored their clothes, put the fitter, taller more attractive men in the front of their parade/protest groups and when producing video of events like rallies used some camera tricks and staging to keep putting the hero prop level attendees in view with the more typical extras in the back out of focus.

Exactly. The demographics of a real right wing fringe group are going to look a lot more like this than this.

They're clearly selecting members to go out and protest based on fitness, though? All of the 'PF are feds' arguments just seem like a cross between conspiracy and cope (not parent specifically though)

I just never see anything approaching that level of organisation in other groups. There's someone with the job of going and reviewing members to make sure they're in the right physical shape to protest. There's someone ensuring they have matching outfits. There's someone procuring matching riot shields. When the protest is done they all leave together at the same time at the same subway station, with a police escort the whole way.

This is just completely foreign to any experience of politics I've had. Even mainstream parties attract a ton of crazies. Niche groups are overflowing with them. Things are haphazardly thrown together, individual members go and get arrested for absurd nonsense acts. But these guys have money and structure.

I just don't buy that it's genuine. It's a law enforcement trap to suck in the nazi-curious and catch them before they do anything violent.

I just never see anything approaching that level of organisation in other groups

If you take a dozen or so samples from most distributions, you'll find a few outliers. The modern far-right has a strong emphasis on physical appearance and masculinity and aesthetics. It makes sense that some of them would come together to form a group. That, notably, is not true about mainstream democrats or republicans. If you have a hundred thousand people in the US who watch webms of nazi rallies approvingly (which there are! Hitler is becoming very popular online), you can probably scrap together a few thousand of them who'll want to imitate it, a few hundred of which will be fit.

See also the Ambercrombie and Snitch meme from 2021.

This reminds me. I need to go visit my local police surplus store. I’m told it’s one of the best places to get a well-used Remington.

Why do you want a well-used remington?

Because the ones produced throughout the 2000s and 2010s (they haven't produced any in 2020 because they went bankrupt, of course) have shit quality control and the earlier ones don't?

Not that I'd ever recommend a Remington shotgun even with the best QC in the world because their design is sub-par compared to Mossberg's (safety location is better, consumable small parts can more easily be replaced if you need to, no stupid loading door) unless you want a detachable magazine (where it's the 870 that's the better design) or want a pistol grip (Mossberg's tang safety is in the wrong place for that), but y'know.

They're priced accordingly, and I don't yet own a shotgun.

The only evidence I’ve seen has been

  1. Some journalist sifting their comments. I can’t really tell what he’s linking because Twitter is a trash website.

  2. None of them are morbidly obese.

It’s, uh. Not exactly a knockdown argument.

The arguments that I've seen for Patriot Front being federal agents have nothing to do with them not being morbidly obese - the general neonazi position on matters of physical fitness are that if you are representing the movement at all you need to be physically capable and impressive. The real reason as to why people think they're feds is that they're directly advocating for a form of protest that leads to people who join them getting doxxed and prosecuted, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to achieve meaningful political change. Organisations like PF are worse than useless at achieving political goals in the current climate, and carry an incredibly high risk of permanently ejecting the people involved from mainstream society. For the record I think that argument is actually somewhat convincing given just how many cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing and creating terror plots so they can arrest some isolated losers.

I’m not going to get into what Nazis actually think about fitness. But as I pointed out above, these guys, if you met them on the streets outside of the actual protest, would absolutely look and act like official muscle. Super-fit, 25-30 tops, dressed in polos and khakis and carrying riot shields. Nobody can go from the typical incel physique to military levels of fitness in the timeframe in question. If they’re joining and within 6 months look ready for deployment, there’s definitely something off here.

The other thing is that in the arrests, it’s very obvious that the feds had very clear ideas of exactly where they’re going to be such that the government can immediately stop them on the way to their protest. As has been pointed out above they never reached the event, and never actually rioted. And given that they’re driving to a protest in a U-haul that’s not immediately obvious, it seems somewhat weird to me. There’s no reason that the government should be able to find a single U-Haul out of however many are rented in a day, going to a specific site and know which route they’re taking. Unless someone on the inside told them about the u-haul and the specific route, it’s simply not possible.

Nobody can go from the typical incel physique to military levels of fitness in the timeframe in question.

IF they're not morbidly obese and they're fairly dedicated, plus or minus some "help" of questionable legality, they probably can. A sedentary untrained young dude who works out hard can get to benching 185 and running a 7 minute mile in six months. He'll need to work his ass off, but if he spends a bunch of time doing pushups and running with other guys in his Neo-Nazi group? Plausible. Hard, but plausible. And there are probably a few guys who work manual labor or go to the gym or something joining, too.

I was under the impression that Patriot Front didn't even let you join if you weren't in good shape so I wasn't really surprised by their fitness levels - but I freely admit that I might be wrong here. Also I totally agree on the importance of the fact that they never actually reached the event, and knowing what I do about FBI conduct I have to assume that was on purpose too.

Also I don't think there's anything weird about the government finding them at all. Someone else has already mentioned Snowden's leaks, but you don't even need those. The leader of the Proud Boys was a federal informant, and even if I assume that PF didn't start out as a fed honeypot there's no way that an organisation like that wouldn't be crawling with agents from the get-go. Given just how much hyperventilating there's been in the press about the dangers of far right terrorists, there's no way that the FBI weren't on that group like flies on shit. I'd bet a decent chunk of change on there being at least one informant in the van, and I think they would have been live-tracking every single phone in there as well.

Not to detract from any of your points, but as a 20-year US military veteran, I believe you have a gross overestimation of "military levels of fitness" and "ready for deployment". Add caveats of "specops" or "infantry" or "Marine" and I'd agree, but holy shit you would not believe the fatbodies I've had to work with in a warzone.

And given that they’re driving to a protest in a U-haul that’s not immediately obvious, it seems somewhat weird to me. There’s no reason that the government should be able to find a single U-Haul out of however many are rented in a day, going to a specific site and know which route they’re taking.

You might want to ask Edward Snowden about that one.

I mean there are parts of that story that absent someone texting them and handling them information don’t track for me.

First of all, this is a rental vehicle and thus unless you know which vehicle they’re renting from which rental place, you are not really able to put out the information or put trackers in the vehicle. You also need to figure out where they’re coming from and specific routes if you’re going to have assets in place to stop them en route. Even having the information of renting uhauls doesn’t help with tracking as there’s no way to pick out PF from dozens of people moving stuff around by uhaul. Even having the lísiense isn’t enough unless you get super lucky and happen to have your persons of interest drive past a cop car. Technology can’t help you find something you don’t know anything about.

First of all, this is a rental vehicle and thus unless you know which vehicle they’re renting from which rental place, you are not really able to put out the information or put trackers in the vehicle.

Did they rent the vehicle with cash? If not, they could easily be tracked. Even if they did, rental companies have internal databases, which could well be penetrated.

It's most likely there were informants. But they don't actually need them.

More comments

Point 2 is in fact a knockdown argument (though I'd emphasise age over weight). Young, fit men are a tiny fraction of the politically active population. Politics is an old people thing!

Both my extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing friends mostly are fit, and many of them actively go to the gym and lift weights! This is just not true. That's probably representative of the kinds of people I'm friends with ... but then there's no reason PF can't pick its members from similar kinds of people.

Even if they started as sincere neo-Nazis, they would have ended up teeming with feds in no time.

I'm curious what the jury instructions were. Here's the bit of criminal code that covers riots: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/

And here's the statutory definition of riot: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/sect18-6401/

RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE 18-6401. RIOT DEFINED. Any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in: (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (c) a disturbance of the public peace; is a riot.

This quote in the OP's article makes it sound like they were being accused of conspiring to disturb the peace, not to injure someone or damage property:

Ryan Hunter, deputy city attorney, told the court Thursday the masked men, carrying shields and flag poles, planned to storm out of the U-Haul outside the park, potentially deploying smoke and using a bullhorn. They intended to engage in a “tumultuous manner” with Pride attendees trying to enjoy the park, he said.

Here's the statutory definition for disturbing the peace: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH64/SECT18-6409/

18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/536

The statute at issue in this case, as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, is unconstitutionally vague in its overly broad scope. The statutory crime consists of two elements: (1) congregating with others "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned," and (2) a refusal to move on after having been ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer. While the second part of this offense is narrow and specific, the first element is not. The Louisiana Supreme Court in this case defined the term "breach of the peace" as "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." 244 La., at 1105, 156 So.2d, at 455. In Edwards, defendants had been convicted of a common-law crime similarly defined by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both definitions would allow persons to be punished merely for peacefully expressing unpopular views. Yet, a "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech * * * is * * * protected against censorship or punishment * *. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.

The key in Cox was "as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court." In a post-Cox case, the CA Supreme Court interpreted a statute very similar to the Idaho one ("Section 415 of the Penal Code provides in pertinent part: "Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct ... is guilty of a misdemeanor,") to apply to loud shouting "only in two situations: 1) where there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence and 2) where the purported communication is used as a guise to disrupt lawful endeavors." in re Brown, 9 Cal.3d 612 (1973).

Overall, I would be very surprised if, in the almost 60 years since Cox, any state has not interpreted their disturbing the peace statute to comply therewith.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana:

Doesn't matter, because these cases aren't going to be reviewed by a higher court.

Are none of the defendants going to file an appeal?

I doubt they could afford it, and no NGO will touch them

You know, plenty of right wing NGOs exist. And there is such a thing as a defense fund. If everyone here who upvoted OP's post threw in $100, the attorney's fees would probably be covered.

People lost their jobs for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund, so donating to the defense of actual white supremacists who are borderline neo-Nazis seems like a very risky proposition. Can't imagine a "right wing" NGO wanting to be associated with them either.

It takes a neutral civil rights intermediary like the ACLU of yore to handle stuff like this.

People lost their jobs for donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund

  1. Is that actually true?
  2. I don't know why such donations cannot be made anonymously.

At least one case was publicized: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10222207/Virginia-cop-fired-anonymously-donating-25-Kyle-Rittenhouse-fund-demands-job-back.html

The donation actually was supposed to be anonymous but the donor list was exposed by hackers and The Guardian ran an article about the donors.

More comments

Is that actually true?

Yes.

I don't know why such donations cannot be made anonymously.

Hacktivism. The donation was made anonymously and then exposed by a hack.

More comments

I expect any right-wing NGO attempting to fund a legal defense would find themselves de-banked, and any hotshot right-wing lawyer attempting to provide pro-bono services would find themselves investigated very throughly (in the Cardinal Richelieu sense) for professional ethics violations.

I want you to know that your tireless coverage of previous issues has led me to assume, prior to reading any details:

Good.

It’s very kind of you to link your previous essays, reminding me of precisely why I was unconvinced. There exists no small injury, only existential threats to truth, justice, and the American way. Truly a terrifying place to live.

Now, reviewing the evidence rather than making a knee jerk reaction, I have to say:

Good.

It’s nice to see the jury system working as intended. Not a hung jury, no technicality. These guys obviously violated the letter and spirit of the relevant statute. A five-day sentence is appropriate for such a mild crime.

The real lesson learned? If your plans for a wholesome right-wing rally includes arming up to beat your opponents…don’t. Problem solved.

  • -34

This is a strategy has been standard playbook by the police in Europe. The police let antifa attack right wing protests and harass them. There is no reasonable expectation for a nationalist group to expect the police to effectively defend them. If the nationalists take measures to defend themselves, then they are arrested for rioting, conspiracy and similar crimes.

That's arguably what happened to the Proud Boys, even though their nationalism was rainbow colored.

Doesn't work, because the media says "good" and slanders you in death.

As opposed to the Romans, who were quite fond of the Christians they murdered...?

At least in some recorded cases the Romans seemed to feel quite sorry for the Christians they killed. There are a bunch of accounts of Roman judges basically pleading with Christians not to make them sentence them to death, saying things to the effect of "listen, nobody cares if you want to worship your god, just go through the motions of paying obeisance to the emperor's genius and be done with it." The Christians would often be given long periods of time to reconsider their obstinacy and save themselves from the lions. The Romans generally didn't see true belief as a necessary component of religion, it was all about the ritual, so couldn't understand why Christians wouldn't just go through the motions like everyone else.

The killing of Aaron Danielson had approximately zero effect on protests in the Portland area. Unless you count the increase from the fallout of the death of his killer during a police incident.

What increase? As far as I can tell, there wasn't even any fallout. I can only assume that local antifa were told by their FBI handlers to let the whole matter rest.

There were a couple of extra protests at Police stations beyond the normal level over the death of Reinoehl. Forgot to add the "minor" qualifier to the increase.

"beyond the normal level"...lol

Didn’t that pride event get shut down by something involving local Christians?

It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle.

I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but it is important to note that this is NOT notable. in Idaho, as is the norm:

"[A] conspiracy is established upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an agreement between two or more individuals to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in the furtherance of the illegal purpose. . . ." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 787, 391 P.3d 1252, 1257 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 384, 630 P.2d 665, 671 (1981)), reh'g denied (Apr. 20, 2017). Thus, an overt act must be (1) committed by one of the coconspirators (i.e., someone who is a party to the agreement) and (2) the act must be done in furtherance of the illegal purpose.

State v. Medina, 447 P. 3d 949 (Idaho: Supreme Court 2019).

Hence, IF they agreed to riot, then the crime was complete the moment that anyone committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That includes acquiring weapons, or a car, or many other acts. See State v. Averett, 136 P. 3d 350 (Idaho Court of Appeals 2006) ["In State v. Brown, 113 Idaho 480, 745 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1987), this Court stated that, "the overt act requirement is satisfied by slight evidence," and that the "act in furtherance of the conspiracy need not itself be criminal." Brown, 113 Idaho at 493, 745 P.2d at 1114. It is not required that there be a direct connection between the overt act of legally purchasing items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the criminal act of producing methamphetamine. The legal act of purchasing items necessary for the manufacture of the methamphetamine is sufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."].

Hence, it does matter that, as you note, "it is not illegal to have a shield."

Saying it's "NOT notable" is just flatly wrong, it is a notable fact of the case, even if it is technically true that a conspiracy doesn't require waiting until the act is carried out.

It's notable because, in an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot. So it's notable that the case is easier given that they did not have an opportunity to demonstrate that they were there to protest. It seems unlikely to me they would have been arrested for marching if they had made it that far, only stopping them before they could start gave the prosecution a case here.

You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious. You based that on ostensibly "notable" evidence which is in actuality legally irrelevant.

an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot.

This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken. Have you ever advocated that in any other context, in which members of your team were not the ones being arrested?

  • -17

That's an extremely low bar, because nearly any human activity can be part of a plan to commit a crime. Visit a bank - maybe that's evidence you're casing it and plan to rob it. Go to work - maybe you're planning to sell drugs to someone you know at work. Buy a 2l soda bottle - maybe you're planning to turn it into a illegal silencer. Given the correct context, basically anything can be evidence of acts that haven't occurred yet. Maybe this is by design - certainly it would make the job of police and prosecutors a lot easier if they can convict based on a Minority Report-style supposition about what people 'intended' to do.

If you visit the bank, and stock your trunk with balaclavas and zip ties, and text your friends about how great it would be to have more cash on hand…maybe they should?

Jurors aren’t automatons. They are capable of judging intent, just as you are when you assume these protestors had the purest of intentions.

  • -10

Visiting banks? Desiring money? Owning an extremely common item like cable ties? This sounds like it could cover literally millions of people.

No, it is not an extremely low bar. Because first there needs to be an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and its existence has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, there has to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Although circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of an agreement, And here is what CA jury instructions say about circumstantial evidence:

before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.

Someone visiting a bank might be casing the place, but that is hardly the only reasonable conclusion. So, your concern is misplaced.

  • -10

The trouble here is that if you’re of the right frame of mind, or can be convinced as such by the prosecutor, almost anything that a person says can be taken as pointing to a the reasonable conclusion that there’s a conspiracy.

Me going to a bank, when I have money problems, and perhaps talking or texting about banks and money problems can be taken several ways. And especially if the crime in question hasn’t been committed at all, it’s really hard to prove they were going to commit the crime.

Aren't you ignoring this part: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence"?

And that would depend on the framing the prosecution uses and the quality of the jury. If you select properly, choosing people who aren’t able to tell the difference between vague discontent and an actual plan. It’s not at all clear that the usual retirees and unemployed who usually populate jury pools are going to make the fine distinctions that would allow that standard to actually hold. Especially given that the PF imagery and public statements would be off putting to most jurors. If the prosecutor is smart, when he’s talking about the flag poles, he’s going to make sure that the fascist symbols are clearly visible. Those kinds of things can be provocative in the minds of jurors.

To go to the bank example, if you and I visit a bank, and then I text you about money problems, and how a sudden windfall of money would solve my problems, and you say something like yeah that would be nice, in the hands of a good prosecutor, that’s motive right there. Now either one of us caught with common items that could have some use in a bank robbery are potentially in actual conspiracy. After all, why would an innocent person have these items in their trunk.

More comments

You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious.

They are legally dubious because the evidence is that they were going to protest in the exact same way they have protested in many other cases with the exact same uniform, shields, flag poles... I didn't say the arrests were dubious because police have to wait for a crime to happen before making an arrest. You are responding to an argument nobody has made.

This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken

We are not talking about an arrest, we are at the point where it has supposedly been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were conspiring to riot. I am saying it would have been harder to have made that case if they had started the march before being arrested.

I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event. They were going to leave the U-haul, form a column with flags, march and chant and then leave. That's what they have done in every single case. They don't even let the rank-and-file talk or interact with counter-protestors during the march precisely for these reasons. Arresting them before they even started made the job of the prosecution much easier, that was my point.

If the situation had unfolded, the prosecution would have had a harder time making case.

I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event.

No, you believe that. You don't know it. Note that the jury, which actually heard the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Perhaps a little humility is in order.

  • -18

They had written plans showing that this is what they were going to do. They've done many protests with the same U-haul, uniforms, and shields and that is exactly what they have done every time. There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot this time in contradiction with every single other protest they have done in the past few years. A jury can get things wrong, you know, especially if the prosecutors and courts are biased against a defendant.

Rousseau's attorney claims that one of the phones which was handed to the FBI (without anybody having seen a warrant apparently) contained footage of the dress rehearsal of the march the day before... you have written plans showing an organized protest, a history of organized protest with the exact same uniform and materials, potential footage of the dress rehearsal of an organized protest... yes, I can say I know they they were not planning to riot and the jury got it wrong.

There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot

So, you have read the trial transcript? Can you provide a link?

A jury can get things wrong,

Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.

  • -18

Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.

Wasn't part of the controversy the seizing of the phones? Doesn't look like your theory of juries applies to this case at all.

More comments

Content aside, I find the repeated use of massively over-sized font as an attention seeking measure in your posts obnoxious and wish you'd just format them normally.

  • -10

We need more formatting around here. Clear headers breaking up sections of long text, bullet points or numbered lists, etc.

As someone who find his posts obnoxious in general, I don't have any problem with the formatting. I actually wish more people would format longer posts like this since they're much easier to read and navigate than a wall of text.

I'm not familiar with formatting standards here it seems pretty case-by-case. It's a long post with 2 issues, the jury trial and the Idaho Tribune article, so I used a Markdown header to separate them.

Edit: Changed to a smaller header format.

I wonder if jury trials are not a smart move for them. Maybe a resident lawyer knows, but I always got the sense that jury trials could just turn into a mood affiliation thing. Not liking someone makes you more likely to think of them as guilty.

Bench trials tend to be frowned upon in criminal courts. As a defendant, you're odds are automatically better if you have to convince twelve people as opposed to just one. It can complicate things if there are evidentiary issues. A jury will never be aware of the existence of inadmissible evidence; a judge will have to rule it inadmissible and then pretend he didn't see it. And the making the judge also the trier of fact makes appeals horrendous.

A criminal defendant typically has a right to a jury trial, but in most states and the federal system the defendant does not have a right to a bench trial and requires consent by the prosecutor for a bench trial. IIRC, Idaho follows the majority and requires mutual stipulation in order to have a bench trial in a criminal case.

I recommend watching this brief video from the PF leader published yesterday as a response to the convictions if you want to get a sense... they are true believers in Americana and they are betting on the average Joe rather than a Judge. I've wondered the same thing, as a Judge would be sticking his or her neck out there with a guilty verdict without a Jury to provide for cover.

But the Judge didn't dismiss the charges, and sentenced them to jail. Although the prosecutors were calling for the max 1-year sentence and mandatory volunteering at a Civil Rights NGO, and the judge actually provided a much lighter sentence than that.

Did the prosecution really ask firm mandatory civil rights NGO time?

That’s re education.

https://cdapress.com/news/2023/jul/21/patriot-front-members-jailed-banned-cd/

Prosecutors had recommended the maximum fine of $5,000, as well as the maximum sentence of a year in jail, with 10 days of actual jail time and 40 hours of community service.

Wes Somerton, chief criminal deputy city attorney for Coeur d’Alene, suggested the Patriot Front members could be made to volunteer at a human rights organization in order to show them other viewpoints.

“Other people’s rights and voices do have a place in the fabric of America,” Somerton said.

In court Friday, the defendants each addressed the court, saying they respected the jury’s decision but maintained that their intent was to peacefully protest in Coeur d’Alene, not incite a riot.

I find that entirely repugnant. It is one thing to do community service by say picking up garbage. That seems hard to argue it isn’t community service. But forcing people to basically engage in political action is to me beyond the pale and the lawyer should face discipline.

I don't really like to watch videos.

Given that you are posting this story, and they are protesting a pride parade I just figured they were thinly veiled neo Nazis. Probably not very sympathetic to a jury.

  • -10

They are, and don't do much veiling. Their logo is literally a fasces copied from Mussolini's original fascist party logo with the same distinctive orientation and blade type, and leaks show they reject applicants whose idea of American nationalism is based on adherence to cultural/ideological positions rather than based on someone's racial ancestry.

In another revealing question, interviewees were asked whether they subscribed to the “civnat” or “civic nationalist” position. Civic nationalism is a form of nationalism that is based in classical liberalism, and couples a virulent nationalism with some level of ethnic inclusivity—positing that a nation is composed of all those who adhere to its constitution or founding principles. All interviewees who were accepted expressed their opposition to this ideology, typically stating that “there is an ethnic component to being an American” and that “nationhood cannot be bestowed to those not of the founding stock.”

One interviewee, who was rejected for membership, said that he “isn’t comfortable judging an entire culture. Is more comfortable with Japanese migrants than Cuban migrants. Thinks that an ethnostate may not be achievable, unless everyone gets really tired. It isn’t the hill he’d die on.” Although this response may be considered racist by mainstream standards, for Patriot Front interviewers it indicated an excessive level of flexibility around ethnicity. Incorrect responses to this question appear to be the most common reason interviewees were rejected (although interviewees were also rejected after being deemed “obese” and “gay” by group leaders).

When they recently attempted to crash a MAGA rally they got their asses kicked by the attendees. Not a particularly popular bunch even among the demographic they're trying to target for recruiting and persuasion.

Having read that link, I’m not impressed by the quality of the research here. It’s a bunch of statements by random, unidentified people, none of the details being double checked, no person has attempted to contact the group under cover to see if any of these random stories check out, or if the people they’re using as witnesses were actually trying to get into the group. HI12345 might be a real recruit. Or he might be someone pretending to have been a real recruit. It’s not clear.

When they recently attempted to crash a MAGA rally they got their asses kicked by the attendees. Not a particularly popular bunch even among the demographic they're trying to target for recruiting and persuasion.

Well, that's not Patriot Front in that video...

They were arrested for trying to protest a drag event, which has become popular in conservative circles. I'm not sure that a judge would be more sympathetic than an average person.

Wait are you saying drag is popular in conservative circles or protesting drag events are popular?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats