Advisor to conservative group forced to resign after making reference to self defense

[Jake Featherston]

Originally Posted by MrA

Yes it does, although that's not the point I wanted to explore. He issued a counter threat, he has a gun and he'll use it, or else why make the statement at all?

Stating an intent to defend yourself from an unlawful assault in your own home is not a "threat." I can't say I'm particularly surprised you don't understand what that word means, however. If you say "Jake, I have your home address, and I am going to fucking kill you," and I say "I'm not going to let you murder me without attempting to defend myself," I have not threatened you. How can any rational adult dispute that?

Originally Posted by MrA

Anything that can cause harm fatal or otherwise will be classified as a threat.

Maybe in some Orwellian nightmare version of reality.

Originally Posted by MrA

Is the action he stated justified given the threat?

Are you asking if its justifiable to shoot people if they break into your house and launch an unprovoked, criminal assault upon your person? Of course it is.

[Jake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Daryle Lamont Jenkins

North Carolina is number two on the East Coast, actually. South Carolina is number 1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ownership.html

Well, it certainly had to be one or the other. I would have thought it was North Carolina, since it has a more rural, small town character than South Carolina; western North Carolina is part of Appalachia.

Originally Posted by Daryle Lamont Jenkins

You're probably right, but this is not a pro-Obama group. Expected disingenuous rationales aside, this was a white nationalist student group led by people who are in white nationalist circles that were pushing an agenda that made enemies who were not of European Heritage. Things were already dicey, and this advisor makes remarks that didn't help much. Besides, there are pro-Obama people that have made statements that they should not have made and were blown out of the water for.

I'm not convinced they are a White Nationalist group (a lot of their stuff seems pretty neo-con to me, and they don't limit their membership based on race, or anything like that), but even if they are, so what? White Nationalism is not illegal in the USA. The First Amendment draws no distinction between pro-Obama groups, and White Nationalist groups, nor do typical conceptions of the notion of academic freedom.

[MrA]

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Stating an intent to defend yourself from an unlawful assault in your own home is not a "threat." I can't say I'm particularly surprised you don't understand what that word means, however. If you say "Jake, I have your home address, and I am going to fucking kill you," and I say "I'm not going to let you murder me without attempting to defend myself," I have not threatened you. How can any rational adult dispute that?.

That's not what was said, lets put it this way, he was informed that his address and photo were beign circulated, which could constitute an indirect or implied threat, not directly made by someone too him. He wasn't told " I have your home address, and I am going to fucking kill you,"

Now using your example;
"Jake, your home address is being circulated, you could be in danger" and you say "I have a gun and know how to use it" implies self defense if it's required but even the threat of self defense is still a threat. i think your just being obtuse mate. Threats and counter threats have been the stuff of history.

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Maybe in some Orwellian nightmare version of reality..

Qualify your remark, if you threaten to punch me, I could threaten to stab you, you could then threaten to shoot me. They're all threats, nothing Orwellian about them at all. Whether they're justified is another matter

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Are you asking if its justifiable to shoot people if they break into your house and launch an unprovoked, criminal assault upon your person? Of course it is.

No I'm not asking that. I'm asking if someone decides to distribute your personal details publicly with the possibility that it could cause you harm are you justified in making threats to harm or kill to counter it.

[Jake Featherston]

Originally Posted by MrA

That's not what was said, lets put it this way, he was informed that his address and photo were beign circulated, which could constitute an indirect or implied threat, not directly made by someone too him. He wasn't told " I have your home address, and I am going to fucking kill you,"

True, but that doesn't really detract from my point. If a person states they intend to defend themselves, in their own home, from any unlawful attack, even if its apropos of nothing at all, that person still hasn't made a "threat."

Originally Posted by MrA

I'm asking if someone decides to distribute your personal details publicly with the possibility that it could cause you harm are you justified in making threats to harm or kill to counter it.

Stating an intent to defend yourself within that context is A) not a threat, and B) completely justified. It certainly violates no U.S. law.

[Daryle Lamont Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Well, it certainly had to be one or the other. I would have thought it was North Carolina, since it has a more rural, small town character than South Carolina; western North Carolina is part of Appalachia.

North Carolina has slightly more liberals. It's a trend that's been going on for a few years now.

I'm not convinced they are a White Nationalist group (a lot of their stuff seems pretty neo-con to me, and they don't limit their membership based on race, or anything like that), but even if they are, so what? White Nationalism is not illegal in the USA. The First Amendment draws no distinction between pro-Obama groups, and White Nationalist groups, nor do typical conceptions of the notion of academic freedom.

Well, they can't limit their membership on race. In this situation, it would be illegal. The University has an obligation to all of its students, not just the ones who want to use the university to pick fights with the ones they hate. First Amendment would not protect them in this case - and didn't. Not only that, but this group was started by Leadership Institute members, and that organization was once successfully sued for only trying to reach out to whom they considered conservatives. Once bitten, twice shy.

[il ragno]

It's all part of the reigning gestalt - the slow-motion Ludovico treatment - intended not to keep the peace or maintain civil order but to win a war of attrition by conditioning passivity into one group through reward/punishment - by favoring the aggressor.

It's a little like modern baseball; if I throw at your head, the ump steps out to immediately warn both sdides that any further aggression on either side will result in immediate, bilateral ejections/suspensions. On the theoretical ledger sheet, "order" hasd been restored; in the real world, I've just committed an act of aggression sans any fear of punishment or reprisal. In other words: whoever throws the first punch, wins.

Sort of.

Because, while we all know where this kind of thing - criminalizing self-defense - eventually leads..... here's the beauty part. In real-world terms, only the already-demonized face any actual sanction. If an "anti-racist" group posts the home addresses of their ideological targets, the target is warned against reprisal. If a "racist" group does so, they are eventually hauled into court and bankrupted, via legal fees, defending themselves from charges that the First Amendment clearly denotes as unconstitutional in the first place!

Lord knows I have no love for Bill White, but he perfectly illustrates the double standard at work.

[MrA]

Originally Posted by Jake Featherston

Stating an intent to defend yourself within that context is

A) not a threat, and B) completely justified. It certainly violates no U.S. law.

A) yes it is and B) Yes it is. I never said it was illegal..

[MrA]

Originally Posted by il ragno

If an "anti-racist" group posts the home addresses of their ideological targets, the target is warned against reprisal. If a "racist" group does so, they are eventually hauled into court and bankrupted, via legal fees, defending themselves from charges that the First Amendment clearly denotes as unconstitutional in the first place!

Lord knows I have no love for Bill White, but he perfectly illustrates the double standard at work.

Actually there's a site called Redwatch that's run by fascists over here. They post information about their ideological opponents and are never prosecuted. The Brit' racialists are aware of it I just wondered if they thought it was justifiable to do this and if the persons on that site should issue a threats of "self defence" in response....

[Richard]

Originally Posted by MrA

Actually there's a site called Redwatch that's run by fascists over here. They post information about their ideological opponents and are never prosecuted. The Brit' racialists are aware of it I just wondered if they thought it was justifiable to do this and if the persons on that site should issue a threats of "self defence" in response....

I do not, and never have supported Redwatch. I personally do not believe Redwatch is run for the benefit of Nationalists.

I should not need to remind you that redwatch is not alone in publishing the details of its so called ideological opponents.

Your lot are at it too Mr A.

[The American]

Originally Posted by Richard

I am perhaps a little more qualified to speak about this than some of you. Myself, my family and my home have been threatened by violent anti-nationalist thugs. Thugs who are believed to have blown up a car less than 3 miles away from where i live (linky). This came about after Matt Single spitefully placed confidential BNP membership/supporter lists on the internet and anti-nationalists took it upon themselves to target the people who were named on those lists. I wasn't a BNP member at the time and had not been for a few years but my details were on the list and I was targeted.

It was not a pleasant experience. I have a disabled relative living here who was also being threatened. The police were about as useless as a rice pudding and offered no support.

I can honestly say that during the few weeks while we were being threatened if anyone had tried to enter my home during the night they would not have left in a good condition.

I will never forgive or forget that me and my family was targeted and threatened by anti-nationalists.

I am sorry that happen to you. I don't believe in violence in anyway, except for self defense.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is a coward and not a hero; and a uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not a voice of reason. Violence on either side only makes matters worst and not better.

People on both sides send people on the other side nasty comments, implied threats and even in some cases actual acts of violence are committed. People on both sides can tell their stories of how the other side threaten them.

It is not right, but sometimes the innocent get caught in the crossfire.