Jury Finds “Unite the Right” Organizers Liable For Damages

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m sure it will be reduced on appeal.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      Half of it is against Fields, who has been in prison since he was 20 and had/has too many mental disorders to list. His job before that was a security guard where he earned $10.50 an hour. Pretty heinous guy ideologically and various other ways but whatever.

      He well deserves a very large fine but will never be able to pay it.

      Other than that I can’t tell who did what and how much they need to pay.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      In order to get an appeal, you need to put up a bond of the damages. I’m not sure that the defendants have the assets to do so. This is largely a symbolic victory.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Future assets are also at risk, yes? And who knows how much idiots might donate over a period of years to a GoFundMe?

        I read today that there will likely be a whole set of lawsuits over who gets Rittenhouse’s $2M cash bail now that it’s going to be returned. Kyle’s lawyers say it belongs to Kyle, period. One of the fundraisers seems to be saying a bunch of it belongs to the fundraiser, for repurposing. And yet another says it ought to go back to the individual donors, minus a nominal fee for arranging that.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Hopefully not too symbolic, lest the next Spencer simply ensures he has no assets to risk.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          Isn’t the overall idea here that Spencer expected violence because his crew would meet counter protesters at some point? Or maybe that the narrative would inspire Fields?

          I haven’t done a deep dive on this one (so can be off on the facts) but I can think of other protests turned violent which we-society probably doesn’t want to hold the organizers liable.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        The bond requirement can be waived upon a showing of good cause, no?Report

  2. Anton Sherwood
    Ignored
    says:

    I remark in passing that this is a strange use of the phrase “Over the course”. At least, I had not previously heard that Fields spent more than a little time driving into a crowd.Report

  3. Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Those counterprotesters had no business being there.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      What demonstration doesn’t have them? This is a very strange assertion.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        He’s pointing out that the big argument against Rittenhouse was he had no business being there. Ergo he had no right to self defense and could just be attacked and killed by the first guy (who was seriously heinous).Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Dark Matter
          Ignored
          says:

          I suppose that’s a fair critique as the general discourse goes; I wish that the OP had been more explicit about it.

          This then opens the door to compare-and-contrast arguments to determine whether the throwback is a legitimate critique. How are the situations alike, how are they different?

          I think they’re materially different because I don’t think the Charlottesville counterprotestors went there not-so-secretly hoping to find themselves in a situation where they could use deadly violence against those with whom they disagreed politically, nor were they assuming the role of vigilantes. I’ve indicated in other fora here on this website that I think Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim was likely legally valid despite its morally dubious circumstances; I don’t see similarly morally dubious behavior on the part of Charlottesville counterprotestors.Report

          • Aaron David in reply to Burt Likko
            Ignored
            says:

            Rights should never be diminished nor penalized due to people not liking the people exercising said rights.

            Seeing “counter-protesters” attack legitimate speakers, no matter what one thinks of their speech, being rewarded in cases like this is rank, and shameful in the first degree.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David
              Ignored
              says:

              These kids today!
              Why, back when men were mensch they knew how to counter-protest the alt-right!

              Lansky rounded up some of his tough associates and went around New York disrupting Nazi meetings. Young Jews not connected to him or the rackets also volunteered to help, and Lansky and others taught them how to use their fists and handle themselves in a fight. Lansky’s crews worked very professionally. Nazi arms, legs, and ribs were broken and skulls cracked, but no one died. The attacks continued for more than a year. And Lansky earned quite a reputation for doing this work.
              https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/gangsters-vs-nazisReport

          • Dark Matter in reply to Burt Likko
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t think the Charlottesville counterprotestors went there not-so-secretly hoping to find themselves in a situation where they could use deadly violence against those with whom they disagreed politically…

            I think we don’t know Rittenhouse’s political views. He’s made statements supporting BLM (much to their annoyance).

            Both the Left and Right want him as a symbol, but that doesn’t mean anything. He attempted to flee from every encounter and could reasonable have been there purely to help make sure his father’s city didn’t burn down.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *