Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police find man they say defaced Black Lives Matter banner at Arlington church; will seek 'restorative justice'
By adamg on Thu, 12/03/2015 - 12:51pm
Arlington Police report they've identified a 23-year-old man they say slapped a sign reading "All" atop "Black" on a "Black Lives Banner" at the First Parish Unitarian Church on Nov. 25.
In a statement, Police Chief Frederick Ryan says:
Instead of arresting and prosecuting the suspect, the Police Department, after consulting with Communities for Restorative Justice (C4RJ) and church leadership, has decided to seek a community-based restorative justice solution, whereby the suspect will be required to make restitution to the church and perform community service in order to avoid a criminal charge of Destruction of a Place of Worship.
Police say they were led to the man, whom they did not identify, by a witness to the sign vandalism, who took down the license-plate number of the pick-up truck the guy got into when he was done.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
my life
matters to me more than yours
That's all you get out of Black Lives Matter?
Do you think people who wear pink ribbons think breast cancer is more important than, say, heart disease?
That
And "we hate white people!"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321190/F-filthy-white-s-Black-L...
Now its moved to kids demanding forced segregation on college campuses and restriction of free speech.
The BLM movement has turned into a circus.
Did you read the entire article?
Like down to the part where it said the group who did that was only a part of the original demonstration?
That opinion attributed to only one interviewee
- Charlie Lundquist, a white male student who originally was part of the protest, but by his own admission left early because of the aggresive acts of the protesters.
I don't see how he was qualified to declare (or you to assume) that only a small number of the protesters were eventually complicit in behavior that according to other reports, continued to escalate.
I also think that you would hardly be so quick to offer an apologist gloss had the Dartmouth fracas been something like a Tea-party(*) event where only some participants yelled racial epithets at bystanders. (Or an anti-abortion protest(*) as BostonDog suggests below).
Just because the ends are just (exposing general racial bias and specific institutional racism), that doesn't forgive means that are violent and contemptible. To believe otherwise would exonerate the very police who have illegitimately killed unarmed citizens in the name of 'public safety'.
(*) - Ftr, I am not a supporter of the teapoopers or the anti-abortion crowd, and I support exposure of racial (et al) bias in society. But Barry Goldwater was full of shit - extremism in the defense of liberty is usually a vice.
Anti-Abortion
So if some anti-abortion supporters advocate violence against Planned Parenthood is that an indication that anyone who is pro-life is also a violent radical?
I would say it's radical for
I would say it's radical for people who are not doctors to force their views on women's healthcare.
If they are present at the same event? Yeah!
If there were an anti-abortion protest where some of the participants threatened women and staff memebers of a health facility with violence, actually put hands on them, - and the other protesters did nothing to stop them... then yeah, I would say that everyone present at that protest was at the very least tacitly supporting violent radicalism in the name of their cause.
Disagree
So I guess everyone who is pro-life and walks by those idiots holding signs of fetal pigs and calling women names must also agree with their tactics? If you don't oppose you must agree?
I'll agree that in a small group they should either call out the radicals or end the protest at that location. But we're talking huge protests where the "I hate Whites" group is often off to the side. These people exist to egg on the media. These hotheads represent their own egos, not the movement.
Not just 'walking by"
Active participants in the same event.
Also, the even at Dartmouth was hardly 'huge' - about 150 people by several accounts (perhaps all using same referent). And by accounts it seems the violent participants were right in the mix.
And these people represent the national movement?
I fully support BLM and I'm opposed to violence. But implied by you (and other posters) I must be condoning the violence whenever I don't do whatever it takes to silence these radicals. Sorry, not buying it.
It's a big, nation wide movement. Like all big movements there will be those who try to subvert it for their own radical views. The fact these radicals exist doesn't diminish the valid claims which are the basis of the BLM movement.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I never said that. Can we just leave the strawman stuff to scum et al?
Dartmouth stated...
... that no students made any complaint of being harassed (much less roughed up) during this incident. All the most lurid reports come via decidedly (sometimes nastily) right-wing sources -- mainly the Dartmouth Review (and far right wing sites that simply passed along the DR's reports). Absent any independent source of information, it is very hard to know what actually happened.
That's just not accurate Micheal
Not accurate. I referenced this first hand account by protest participant Charlie Lundquist which is pretty explicitly detailed. The Tab cannot by any measure be considered "conservative"!
And the Washington Post, while no longer the "Pravda on the Potomac", is hardly a right-wing rag.
And this broader, editorial piece by Alan Derhowitz in certainly left-of-center NY Daily News also references the Dartmouth protest while discussing a possible crisis of free speech taking place at many US college campuses (although I would never characterize Dershowitz himself as a liberal).
no
i never said that, you did. nice try though you sensationalist dillweed. clearly that was the mindset of the person that altered the signage.
i expect an apology.
Really?
Given Adam is a "sensationalist dillweed" you seem to like his personal website an awful lot.
i dont like our governor
but i like massachusetts. what is your point exactly? jackasses can be in charge of decent institutions
and maybe you would feel differently if he had manufactured words/thoughts to put in your mouth instead of mine- which is startlingly relevant to my original comment, isn't it
UHub is not a goverment
If you can't see the difference between disliking or disagreeing with a public official verses someone on their own private website then you are a moron. Adam IS Uhub. Calling him names on something he gives you for free is childish.
A moron...
...and a jerk.
Off topic - UHub not free
Not to excuse scumquistador's obnoxious language, but I feel the need to point out that almost all viewers of UHub explicitly pay Adam a little something, and/or implicitly produce income for him by contributing time and personal info to the site's advertisers. And we all give up some opportunity cost by spending time reading the site.
I love Adam too, but you might as well claim that the only persons entitled to complain about things like broadcast or freely distributed media (eg local TV news, Boston Metro, GlobeDirect et al) are the people who actually own them.
Not at all
There is a difference between disagreeing with and complaining about. I disagree with Adam from time to time. But I'm not about to complain about him on his own site. If I felt that strongly that he sucked I'd just wouldn't go to this URL.
I agree - although it can be a fine line...
...between disagreeing and complaining.
I wasn't supporting scum's wahwah posts, so much as pointing out that the 'it's free, so you have no right to find fault' is not wholly accurate.
Deep breath
Honestly, I really have no idea what you think you're battling, but you seem to be swinging for the fences and hitting people who aren't your enemies. Do yourself a favor, take a break, come back when you're calmer.
i have no enemies dude
that would imply some sort of tangible consequence to anything that was said here
Really?
Then why the immense hostility and gratuitous attacks you're putting out today?
Step back. Take a deep breath. Get some perspective.
I won't insult you with a non-apology apology
But will offer a suggestion: If you're posting on a topic you know is particularly controversial and not easily summed up in four words, you might want to explain yourself a little better for those of us who don't instantly grasp the subtleties of what you're trying to say.
as far as i see it
the topic of the article is about a man that defaced a slogan and my comment was about that topic, next time i'll be sure to indicate that my comment is directed at the topic of the article though, good advice
If there was ever a time for public shaming punishments...
Now is it. Make the guy stand outside holding a BLM sign for 8 hours a day for a week straight.
I'd like to see him assist
I'd like to see him assist in bringing some Syrian refugees into the country, seeing as "All Live Matter" as he put it himself. But then he and everyone spouting that "yeah, but all lives matter!" nonsense would have to be logically consistent. Which they aren't.
So...
Syrian lives don't matter?
Nice try
All lives do or should matter. Syrian included. White, black, non dangerous Iraqis, Jordanians, Canadians, everyone who isn't evil. Has nothing to do with letting thousands of Syrians into America. A for effort though.
Has nothing to do with
I'll keep my eyes out for your alternative showing of compassion. #AllLivesMatter after all.
Yeah, because that's sure to make him repentant
I wonder if you would have said the same thing about the bro's who defaced the mosque a little while back
Yeah, I would have
...after he paid for clean-up.
I think a great punishment is not to quietly pay a fine or go on probation but to come out in the open and let the world seem them for the bigots they are. Let this guy's buddies see him promoting the very thing he hates.
Nothing will make him repent. But a shaming will make him not do it again.
They Identified A Man They Did Not Identify
( At least, it wasn't by a spokesman who wasn't authorized to speak. )
No, really, English is my first language
How about: They figured out who the guy was, but since they're not bringing criminal charges against him, they're not public identifying him.
Publicly
Sorry. :P
Gah
Time for me to order a new box of adverbial endings.
And what about All Latinos'
And what about All Latinos' Lives Matter?
Yeah what about it?
Go protest for that if you want. No one will stop you.
1st amendment?
Is this 'vandalism' and 'defacement,' or a counter-protesting act of public speech?
the former
the former
you cant just go on private property and do whatever you want lol.
I know, let's try it on you
If you're seriously asking this question, and not just disingenuously stirring shit, please post your home address. I'm sure we can get people to come to your home and deface, excuse me, express themselves with "public speech" on your car, your house, your lawn, your dog, your favorite jacket, and any other items belonging to you.
ill do it
just point me in the right direction
I'm a week late, sorry
definitely more than Mondays
definitely more than Mondays
Sigh.
Those who claim "all lives matter" (well, of course they do, silly!) first and foremost miss the point of the "Black Lives Matter" movement. The sad part, for me, is those that claim "all lives matter" can't see how that comment makes light of the the very real reason why the movement was started in the first place.
Just curious, did the church
Just curious, did the church JP press charges, too, when their sign got torn down? I'm sure if a neighbor across the street from these churches put up a huge sign that says "All Lives Matter" on their front lawn, that sign, too, would be vandalized and people would complain. Nobody's happy.
In that particular part of JP?
I'd love to see that.
I'm going to assume that before the Baptist Church presses any charges, they'd have to identify (publicly or not) the person who did it. Have they found that person?
Did I say they pressed
Did I say they pressed charges? Or found the midnight rambler? I don'tbelieve they did.
Help me out with this
So, help me to understand: if someone comes onto your property and vandalizes something -- "expressing" themselves in the process -- you'd have no problem with it? But you WOULD have a problem with anyone who complained about it?
Legal question.
Is this really criminal defacement? In this instance this man put a sign over a sign. It doesn't strike me as destructive of property as in the other instances of vandalism that entailed spray paint and marker on the actual BLM sign.
IANAL, but
IANAL, but I don't think I'd be entitled to walk up to you and slap a sticker on your T-shirt with a message that I consider more tasteful and appropriate than the one already on it.
"Slapped a sign"
I don't condone what the guy did.
But "slapping a sign" over another sign (assuming he didn't damage anything). is about the most mild form of vandalism I've ever heard of.
Yes, I realize it's a charged discussion. But its a discussion, nonetheless. Glad he didn't steal the sign, or spray paint it. Etc.
"charged discussion"
I'm confused about what you're referring to -- can you clarify? Are you saying that the act of going on someone's property and "slapping a sign" over one that they have there is the "charged discussion", or were you referring to what we're doing here?
Hypocrites in Arlington
A Trump sign wouldn't last a week before some card carrying ACLU member or Arlington Democrat would tear it down! Every election season Republican candidate lawn signs get knocked down or stolen. Some kid non-destructively taped over with a more inclusive message rooted in the bible, and the media whores are seeking all the press they can get.
Big, ugly signs that violate zoning bylaws of T-shirt slogans and Twitter hashtags are statements of white guilt by the whitest church around, giving Mormons a challenge. I'd love to see them put their money where their mouth is and get a black minister and grow some black members.
Put up or shut up
So, try it and report back to us, Skippy. Put a cam on it, though, so that if it does get removed, we'll know that it was a "card carrying ACLU member or Arlington Democrat" doing it, and not your ridiculous ax-grinding self.
some kid non destructively
trespassed and then altered signage on private property that happened to be a house of worship
are we finally going to get to the part where you admit you're a sociopath? you have absolutely zero regard for laws that don't directly protect or apply to your lifestyle.
UU church has zero regard for town zoning bylaws >1 year
The people of Arlington have been extremely tolerant of the church's really tacky billboards.
See Section 7.03(J)
http://www.arlingtonma.gov/home/showdocument?id=26504
explain to me
the relevance of that with regards to what happened please? are you in favor of vigilantism?
your remark doesn't even make sense. if this was done because of a bylaw they would have removed the thing in its entirety lol.
The church had a BLM banner up for over a year
If the Town had enforced its bylaws against ugly signage, unlawful acts would never have taken place. There is a legal process for filing a bylaw complaint, but stupid kids don't know that and the town doesn't care to take it upon itself to enforce rules against the politically favored/powerful in town, just the underprivileged.
You are such a major....
...{vulgar term deleted}. And you just keep getting worse and worse.