--> -->
Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police find man they say defaced Black Lives Matter banner at Arlington church; will seek 'restorative justice'

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: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

matters to me more than yours

up
Voting closed 0

Do you think people who wear pink ribbons think breast cancer is more important than, say, heart disease?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Like down to the part where it said the group who did that was only a part of the original demonstration?

up
Voting closed 0

- 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.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

I would say it's radical for people who are not doctors to force their views on women's healthcare.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

I never said that. Can we just leave the strawman stuff to scum et al?

up
Voting closed 0

... 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.

up
Voting closed 0

All the most lurid reports come via decidedly (sometimes nastily) right-wing sources

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).

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Given Adam is a "sensationalist dillweed" you seem to like his personal website an awful lot.

up
Voting closed 0

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

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

...and a jerk.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

...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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

that would imply some sort of tangible consequence to anything that was said here

up
Voting closed 0

i have no enemies dude

Then why the immense hostility and gratuitous attacks you're putting out today?

Step back. Take a deep breath. Get some perspective.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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

up
Voting closed 0

Now is it. Make the guy stand outside holding a BLM sign for 8 hours a day for a week straight.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Syrian lives don't matter?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Has nothing to do with letting thousands of Syrians into America.

I'll keep my eyes out for your alternative showing of compassion. #AllLivesMatter after all.

up
Voting closed 0

I wonder if you would have said the same thing about the bro's who defaced the mosque a little while back

up
Voting closed 0

...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.

up
Voting closed 0

     ( At least, it wasn't by a spokesman who wasn't authorized to speak. )

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry. :P

up
Voting closed 0

Time for me to order a new box of adverbial endings.

up
Voting closed 0

And what about All Latinos' Lives Matter?

up
Voting closed 0

Go protest for that if you want. No one will stop you.

up
Voting closed 0

Is this 'vandalism' and 'defacement,' or a counter-protesting act of public speech?

up
Voting closed 0

the former

you cant just go on private property and do whatever you want lol.

up
Voting closed 0

Is this 'vandalism' and 'defacement,' or a counter-protesting act of public speech?

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.

up
Voting closed 0

just point me in the right direction

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU2Y6CSUEAAm7Km.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

definitely more than Mondays

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

Did I say they pressed charges? Or found the midnight rambler? I don'tbelieve they did.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

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?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

A Trump sign wouldn't last a week before some card carrying ACLU member or Arlington Democrat would tear it down!

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

...{vulgar term deleted}. And you just keep getting worse and worse.

up
Voting closed 0