There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Charges against alleged white supremacists are tossed by a California judge for the second time

For the second time in five years, federal charges against alleged members of a violent white supremacist group accused of inciting violence at California political rallies were dismissed by a federal judge who found they were selectively prosecuted.

Federal prosecutors said members of the Rise Above Movement conspired to riot by using the internet to coordinate traveling to political rallies and attacking demonstrators at gatherings in Huntington Beach, Berkeley and San Bernardino in 2018. The group also posted videos to celebrate violence and recruit members.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney first tossed the charges against Robert Rundo and Robert Boman in June 2019. The two were charged with conspiracy to violate the Anti-Riot Act and rioting.

On Wednesday, Carney again granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing that Rundo and Boman were being selectively prosecuted while “far-left extremist groups” were not.

Custoslibera ,

I’m certain the Nazis won’t see this as a green light and be emboldened by the pseudo support this judge is providing them…

djsoren19 ,

Find me the far-left extremist groups then, judge Carney. Show me where the left in the U.S. is encouraging stochastic terrorism. Show me the militant leftist groups using empty U.S. states as training grounds.

Really hope federal prosecutors keep up the fight until a non-Nazi judge can make a decision on the case, and I hope this fuck can get voted out from his position over this.

A_Random_Idiot ,

Far left groups are doing even worse things.

They are trying to get homeless people fed, americans paid fair wages, and hold politicians accountable for their actions. GOD CAN NO ONE STOP THIS NIGHTMARE OF LIBERAL TERRORISM.

Tremble ,

Does this mean any left leaning defendant who has been prosecuted under this judge deserves a retrial?

MagicShel ,

Which far-left extremist groups are those getting away with inciting violence? PETA?

PhlubbaDubba ,

PETA’s hardly a far left group, they fill their kill shelters by kidnapping pets from poor families of color

bramblepatchmystery ,

How much did Tyson Chicken pay to put up the website you heard that from?

PhlubbaDubba ,

When the campism is so strong you’ll stan an org led by a psycho who thinks male dogs humping your leg means they can consent to top you.

bramblepatchmystery ,

I’m not aware of that particular claim.

I just don’t think their euthanasia program is what you have made it out to be. I would be willing to look at it with you if you are entirely sure what you are saying is unvarnished truth.

PhlubbaDubba ,

apnews.com/…/0c70f8d7635c4addbd94df0173fcc36e

jezebel.com/ingrid-newkirk-is-the-worst-person-in…

bramblepatchmystery ,

So your first link literally states that PETA accidentally picked up what they thought was a feral dog, as part of a program they run for the community.

Your second source is literally a blog.

Aldehyde ,

It doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t dismiss a case because other people get away with the same crime.

MagicShel ,

I mean yes, of course, but I don’t even believe it’s true. Name a violent left-wing organization. Antifa? They aren’t organized at all. BLM? While there is an organization, it’s awfully damn loose and not everyone at a BLM protest is actually part of the organization.

trebuchet ,

Seems like letting authorities choose to treat people differently when everyone is violating a law is pretty dangerous.

It’s been observed that the body of modern law is so vast that nobody could possibly stay on the right side of the law all the time. Unenforced laws together with your principle would give the authorities the ability to legally attack anyone they don’t like such as political enemies or even entire racial groups they hate and then defend their actions by pointing out that those bad people did, in fact, violate the law regardless of what other people are doing.

thefartographer ,

Is this that Judge Carney who called a black colleague “street smart” and then privately doubled down by trying to explain to her how it’s a compliment?

shalafi ,

Don’t know the context, but “street smart” was a compliment in my day. Nothing to do with race, it was meant to convey wisdom and experience vs. raw intelligence.

I’ve never had either. YMMV.

meyotch ,

Calling a highly educated person in a profession that requires that education ‘street smart’ denigrates that education and that person’s accomplishments.

shalafi ,

I did say I wasn’t aware of the context. I even led with that statement.

wahming ,

Interesting how things are perceived so differently across cultures. In Asia that’s a compliment regardless of profession

meyotch ,

It is interesting. I think the negative perception here comes from the fact that ‘street smarts’ are often contrasted with ‘book smarts’. It is frequently expressed along with other anti-intellectual sentiments and is too often racially-tinged.

Calling a minority that in a ‘book-smart’ profession in the US is a tone-deaf party foul at best. I think the term ‘back-handed compliment’ is apropos.

dugmeup ,

So did they break the law? Because last I heard that is the job of a judge. To run Court proceedings, not to see if the DA was prosecuting others… Yeah judge I killed that dude, but the gangs kill people all the time and I don’t see them here so you should dismiss the case.

bramblepatchmystery ,

This is the next step.

Telodzrum ,

Selective prosecution is a cause for dismissal. It was the motion argued and sustained here. The judge is indeed doing their job.

dugmeup ,

Is it? Where is the precedent? Cause a lot of cases are going to be dismissed if that is the case

dugmeup ,

In United States v. Armstrong (1996), the Supreme Court ruled the Attorney General and United States Attorneys “retain ‘broad discretion’ to enforce the Nation’s criminal laws”[4] and that “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”[5] Therefore, the defendant must present “clear evidence to the contrary”,[5] which demonstrates “the federal prosecutorial policy ‘had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.’”[6]

So did they present clear evidence to the contrary?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •