After one solid clock to the jaw, now memed into perpetuity, Dick Spencer is afraid to show his Nazi face in public. Direct action gets the goods.
People still asking “so this means I should punch anyone I disagree with, then?”
No, it means you should punch nazis because they disagree with other people living.
Also worth noting, here’s an excerpt from the 1939 book Fascism and Big Business by Daniel Guérin:
If in the beginning, when the Hitler bands were still weak, the workers’ parties had answered them blow for blow, there is no doubt their development would have been hampered. On this point we have the testimony of the National Socialist leaders themselves.
Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”
And Goebbels: “If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly…. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work.”
Punch them. Make them afraid to spread their poison. Oppose them in every avenue available to you because we know what happens when this goes unchecked.
For people pretending that anti-fascist violence is the real problem, we’d ask: How do you expect people trying to keep themselves, their families, and their friends from being hospitalized or murdered by fascists to react? Where is your outrage and condemnation of fascist violence?
“Is Black genocide right, and if so, what is the best way to dispose of Blacks? I am afraid of being punched when I go out to dinner now though because THOSE kinds of people (punchy antifascists) are about and about :( “ sure is a take, alright
I realized that a bunch of my favorite vines are ones I haven’t seen in any vine complications and I was afraid of losing them to the void so here you are (plus some classics that I couldn’t leave out)
people in the notes suggesting it was “improper” for the juror to do this or that it “introduced bias” to the court proceeding 🙄 the ice agent in question accused a moc of assaulting him / resisting arrest. how is the agent being a white supremacist not relevant. what universe are you living in
As a member of the world’s SECOND oldest profession, I assure you this is just one of many ways the justice system is systematically fucked up.
For anyone who wants to know how to fact check something you are told while on jury duty without getting fined:
First, you need to understand that the rule that jurors can’t just google things is coming from a good place. Like imagine that you are on a jury that’s considering, say, a medical malpractice lawsuit and one of your fellow jurors comes into the jury room and says to you, “I think the victim’s expert was lying because WebMD totally contradicts everything they said.”
And you might be like, “But WebMD is notoriously unreliable website and the expert you’re talking about is a researcher from Mayo Clinic.” But this person cannot be swayed.
Like, we can all agree that would be bad.
So even though these rulescan contribute to unjust outcomes as in the case above (and seriously, the fact that the defense attorney didn’t fact check that is probably grounds for legal malpractice), they also prevent jurors from just looking up bullshit online and taking it more seriously than the actual experts the court has put on. And I think in the era of anti-vaxxers/QAnon/COVID denial/etc., we can all understand why it’s a bad idea to trust that people can tell fact from bullshit online.
So in light of this, how do you as a juror fact check something?
The key here is that you have to ask the court for information. Jurors can ask questions of the court during deliberations, so if something you said sounds off to you, you can ask for more information.
The key term you want to use here is “credibility.”
The job of a jury is to decide what are called “questions of fact.” Long before the trial even starts, lawyers will have hashed out all the “questions of law” — like, what the statute of limitations is; what laws, exactly, were allegedly broken; whether the court you’re in even has jurisdiction; stuff like that. Jurors are responsible for deciding which side’s version of the facts has more credibility.
For instance, if the prosecution’s witness says X and the defense’s witness says Y, the jury is responsible for deciding which is true, X or Y. And you do this by weighing which one is more credible.
So in this case, if the juror had known to, he could have told the judge, “In order to properly assess the ICE agent’s credibility, I need more information about his tattoo. I have doubts about whether he was telling the truth about it, which would impact how credible I would find his testimony. Can the agent please provide evidence that it really is what he says it is?”
There are a lot of problems with our legal system, and I think one of the biggest is that jurors aren’t educated about what they can and can’t do. Juries have a lot of power, if (and only if) they know how to use it.
What we should talk about: HRT access, queer self-defense, the failure of respectability politics, building up community resources
What we talk about: Is it valid to be bi? Is it valid to be pan? Is it valid to be queer? Is it valid to be kinky? Is it valid to be ace? Is it valid to be trans? Is it valid to be non-binary? Is it valid t
