None of them ever have a racist bone in their body

The stories of the suspects in the Black Lives Matter shooting are trickling out now. You won’t be surprised to learn that they’re all saying they aren’t racist at all.

His dad says of one that he’s a poli-sci major, and “these kinds of social-political things really interest him, and he was just there to observe”. Right. Just there to observe, while hanging out on 4chan, wearing a mask, taunting the protestors, and watching as a friend flaunts a pistol and starts shooting. I suppose it’s possible his crime was just having really shitty friends, but in that case, I’m sure he’ll helpfully testify against those other racists he was running around with.

You know, I’m a guy who is really interested in creationists, a group of people I despise, and I also care about observing them and learning more about what they’re doing. But my strategy is to be open about who I am, clearly state my position, and observe politely without interfering — I’ve gone to creationist events with friends and students, and what I always tell them is to be polite and non-disruptive and learn…and also document. I guess I’ve been doing it wrong. Maybe if I were a poli-sci major, I’d know to disguise myself, yell slurs at the audience, and maybe take a few pot shots at them.

Also, one of my kids was a poli-sci major, and if he were involved in something like this, I wouldn’t be making excuses for him. This was a crime, and a stupid crime at that, and the perpetrators were all fully grown men in their twenties. You do not learn responsible adult behavior on 4chan.


  1. says

    Has anyone tried a “They were right to shoot, because the BLM members had guns!” defense yet? Because of course, not being right wing white dudes, no one connected with BLM has any legitimate right to being armed, no matter where they’re protesting.

  2. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Oh, but you see, they are not real racists, because they prefer to identify as trolls, and trolling is all fun and games even when you end up shooting people, because megalolz.

  3. says

    Didn’t you know? Just because somebody commits a crime against a racial minority because that person is a member of said minority doesn’t mean they’re racist, let alone “a racist”. Also, calling somebody a racist is much worse than shooting people, so you should be ashamed of yourself.

  4. starfleetdude says

    If the poli-sci major was my kid, I’d tell him that he had a choice: either turn your life around and make amends for past racist behavior, or go to work for Donald Trump after doing your time.

  5. Hoosier X says

    So ,,, he’s a political science major, and that means that he can’t be a racist. Magically. Somehow.

    Did he try that out on anybody before saying it out loud where the press could hear?

    That’s some Ben Carson-level sophistry. He should have said something like “My political-science-major son doesn’t have time for all that political correctness” while standing smugly at the police station waiting for the cops to set them all free.

  6. says

    So first it’s White Supremacists but since one of the suspects is Asian I guess the BLM victim narrative has to change.

    Now it’s they are racist.

    I wonder what will happen when it is shown at trial that the shooters were recording the event when BLM protesters punched them, chased them, punched them again, then pursued retreating persons.

  7. starfleetdude says

    Jeff Chang, if you do some checking out of the background of the four who were arrested, you’ll find they previously have said and done things that are racist in nature. To only say they were merely recording the event is not the complete picture.

  8. Great American Satan says

    They knew the creeps were masked, armored, and armed with guns, and they still beat them and chased them away? Assuming you’re even telling the truth and not vomiting some nazi shit you eagerly gobbled up in your desire to justify hating black people? Sounds pretty brave. I’m down with any group of unarmed people who try to drive out armed racist fuckfaces with nothing but their own bodies.

  9. says

    I will grant what you say is true. But PREVIOUSLY is the key term here. I don’t care what they have previously done, I care about the events that have transpired at the event in question.

    If you care so much about the PREVIOUS actions of individuals, I am sure you oppose efforts to “ban the box”.

    That said, if a mob attacked a Westboro protest, it’s members fled, and then used firearms to defend themselves does that justify the initial violence against Westboro?

    If so, may we just club the Fred clan when they show up to an event?

  10. says

    That was the witness account from a person of color at the BLM protest via Raw Story.

    So you support the use of physical violence (punching, kicks, beatings, etc) on persons saying things that are hateful?

    I am sure then you would have supported a single White student at the library where BLM protesters verbally harassed Whites, for being White, to use similar violence?

    Or would that disrupt your narrative?

  11. starfleetdude says

    Here’s what we know about the incident:

    What do the charges say?

    The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office filed charges against four suspects Monday. Allen L. Scarsella III, 23, has been charged with one count of second-degree riot while armed and five counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon. The other three — Nathan Gustavsson, 21, Daniel Macey, 26, and Joseph M. Backman, 27 — are also facing second-degree riot while armed charges.

    According to the charging document — read in full here — in the days prior the shooting, the men posted videos to social media using derogatory terms to describe black people and declaring their intentions to do some “reverse cultural enriching.” The men went to the protest and Scarsella shot five people. A few hours later, an acquaintance of Scarsella, who worked as a police officer in another jurisdiction, told Minneapolis police that Scarsella had called him earlier and admitted to shooting five people. “The officer was aware that Scarsella owned and carried guns and that he had very intense opinions, which the officer described as being a sovereign citizen and pro-Constitution,” the complaint says. “He knew that Scarsella had negative experiences with and opinions about African Americans.” The officers raided Scarsella’s home that night. On his phone, they found several incriminating texts between him and the other suspects, as well as photos of Scarsella with guns and a Confederate flag. Police arrested all four men last week and they’ve all confessed to being present at the during the shooting incident.

    I’m guessing they weren’t there just to shoot the breeze with the protesters.

  12. rustybrown says


    “they previously have said and done things that are racist in nature.”

    You know that’s protected under the first amendment, right?

  13. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You know that’s protected under the first amendment, right?

    Yep, but it means that anything the claim about the incident should be subject to extreme skepticism. And I apply that to everything they claim.

  14. says

    Given the “divergent” viewpoint I suspected the BLM and suspect could have had, I doubt they were completely innocent.

    But, take it from me that ran a campus LGBT club and volunteered for No on 8 that I have had a good deal of harassment too with persons that were very antagonistic, yet I NEVER thought it was okay to throw the first punch, pursue fleeing protester, nor continue my physical violence as the harasser fled.

    Physically assaulting someone, then having a group of persons that are significantly bigger than the harassment group chase them as the were retreating, while continuing to assault them is inexcusable.

    Unless you support physical violence for offensive speech.

    Here is the excerpt from RawStory:

    “Witnesses say the gunmen were trying to record demonstrators’ faces on cell phone video shortly before opening fire, and the two groups argued.

    Then a group of protesters charged at the men and demanded they remove their masks, but witnesses said the men shouted back, “f*ck no,” and continued recording cell phone video.

    A demonstrator, who spoke on camera with a mask covering his face, said one of the men was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign.

    The witness said a demonstrator came out of the crowd and punched one of the white men, and another man stepped back and reached toward his waistband.

    “I was like, he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun,” said a second witness, who also covered his face on camera.

    The demonstrators said the three men then walked away from the crowd and through a gate, where another protester punched one of the men, and the three men ran off with several protesters behind.

    “I was like, they’ve got a gun — don’t follow them,” the second witness said. “Don’t chase them — they’re reaching for a gun.”

    The witnesses said the men then stopped in an area where no cameras were present, turned around and opened fire on the six protesters who had been chasing them.”


    An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.

  15. starfleetdude says

    rustybrown, if the four had only said racist things on 4chan and youTube, they wouldn’t have been arrested. So much for the free speech excuse.

  16. starfleetdude says


    If you’re trying to rationalize the pulling of a gun and shooting five people after an altercation, I think you’re missing the obvious here.

  17. brucegee1962 says

    So he’s a sovereign citizen. What a surprise.

    Can we anticipate an exciting trial, then? Is there going to be a motion to move this to Admirality court, or come up with something about the tassels on the courtroom flags?

  18. says

    So you do not accept the narrative the BLM makes of prejudicial police persecution?
    @ 19
    A large group is chasing a much smaller group at night after physically assaulting them. Then the smaller group uses firearms against the larger that is self defense.

    Btw, What is the obvious point here?

    That the suspects were antagonizing them, BFD. My LGBT studies professor was part of ACT-UP NYC, you know the ones that stormed the Catholic Church during mass and used extreme tactics for spreading the message, I would be outraged if the Catholics punched then chased the ACT-UP protesters.

    Just like how I am outraged that persons attacked a BLM protester at a Trump rally. Being disruptive does not mean that others can physical assault someone.

  19. starfleetdude says

    Btw, What is the obvious point here?

    That the escalation of the altercation that resulted in the shooting of five people was why the four have been arrested. It wasn’t self-defense given they’d already retreated and didn’t need to shoot anyone to protect themselves.

  20. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Wait, how the fuck does someone throwing a punch contradict that these fucks are clearly, transparently, as a matter of actual record, racists?

  21. starfleetdude says


    Here’s what one of the shooting victims had to say yesterday about the incident:

    After the 1½-hour hearing, Martin described what happened the night of the shooting: Protesters confronted several suspicious men in masks and asked them to leave. They were moved a block away from the precinct when the protesters heard “the N word” from one of the men, Martin said.

    “I was shot in the leg and my buddy was shot in the stomach and is still in the hospital,” Martin, 18, said. “These guys should definitely be charged with more serious crimes.”

    It’s not surprising that precise details differ, but the impression I get is that they weren’t being pursued and were leaving the area when the shooter turned and fired his gun at the protesters.

  22. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    They retreated but where being pursued.

    Irrelevant in Minnesota, which, being a rational state, does not have “stand your ground” laws. They shooters, if they had egress, which they did, must keep retreating. Stupid of them not to know the law.

  23. Rowan vet-tech says

    Jeff Chang: Why did those men bring guns with them in the first?

    I suspect your answer will be something along the lines that they were ‘afraid’ of the people they were going to be antagonizing.
    Except, if you’re afraid, you aren’t going to go out of your way to antagonize people.

    I’m quite comfortable with stating that I suspect these idiots wanted to get into a scuffle like that, just so that they could shoot some people they were bigoted against.

  24. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @28 Rowan
    Isn’t that exactly what people in some 4chan channels were planning? Provoke and inflame, then when there are consequences to deliberately doing that, the excuse to shoot is served…

  25. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Good to know that Minnesota doesn’t have a stand your ground law. The only mitigation for the use of deadly force is when all other alternatives are closed. Any standard less than than that and it becomes possible to engineer a situation where murder can be committed without repercussions. By say, and I’m just putting this out there as a pure hypothetical you understand, provoking people until they respond rashly.

    So, Chang, what’s your narrative? That the shooter was backed into a corner and couldn’t run? Where’s your evidence for that?

  26. Bob Foster says

    When confronted with something that just doesn’t compute, I always try to go back to basics just to make sure I’m not missing something obvious. So, I looked up the dictionary definition of racist, it reads:

    A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. (synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist)

    So, if these guys are saying that they don’t feel they are superior to another race, in this case blacks, then what is their motivation for shooting up a primarily African-American gathering? Target practice? Big game hunting? A drinking game gone bad? A real life Hunger Games?

    I’d go with the last one. A good lawyer might get them off by blaming Hollywood’s insidious influence on impressionable young minds. I know Fox News would approve.