Toronto Escorts

4 men charged in connection with violent 2017 Charlottesville rally

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
4 men charged in connection with violent 2017 Charlottesville rally

By Ray Sanchez and Carma Hassan, CNN

Updated at 8:17 PM ET, Tue October 2, 2018

(CNN) — Four alleged members of a militant white supremacist group have been charged with inciting rioting and assaulting counterprotesters at last year's deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to court documents.

A criminal complaint filed in US District Court for the Western District of Virginia identified the California men as Benjamin Drake Daley, 25, of Redondo Beach; Michael Paul Miselis, 29, of Lawndale; Thomas Walter Gillen, 34, of Redondo Beach; and Cole Evan White, 24, of Clayton.

US Attorney Thomas Cullen described the men as "serial rioters," saying they also engaged in acts of violence at California political rallies last year in Huntington Beach, Berkeley and other cities.

The four men are accused of traveling from California to Charlottesville for the rally "with intent (a) to incite a riot, (b) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, and carry on in a riot, (c) as having 'participated in violent encounters in Charlottesville,'" the complaint said.

They're accused of being 'among most violent individuals' at rally

The defendants were identified in the complaint as members and associates of the Rise Above Movement, a militant white supremacist organization based in Southern California.

The criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday called the defendants "among the most violent individuals" at the Charlottesville rally.

The men face riot and conspiracy charges, with maximum prison sentences of five years on each count, according to Cullen. The prosecutor said the investigation is ongoing, and additional arrests are possible.

The violence at the August 2017 event began ahead of a planned rally that the Southern Poverty Law Center described as the "largest hate-gathering of its kind in decades."
On their way to the Unite the Right rally in Emancipation Park, Daley, Miselis, Gillen and White had "hands taped ready to do street battle, committed multiple acts of violence, including punching, kicking, headbutting and pushing numerous people," the complaint said.

Their victims included an African-American man, two women and a minister wearing a clerical collar, Cullen said. Some were seriously injured.

Photo and video footage in the complaint show White apparently head-butting a man in a clerical collar and a female counterprotester. The woman suffered a severe laceration.
Gillen, Daley and Miselis are shown assaulting multiple counterprotesters, the complaint said. In other photos, some of the men are seen apparently kicking and slamming counterprotesters to the ground.

Complaint includes photos of defendants engaging in violence at rallies

Cullen said investigators spent months reviewing digital evidence in the case, including social media posts, photos and videos.

White allegedly used a torch as a weapon and Daley boasted on social media of hitting five people at a torch-lit rally, the complaint said.

Rise Above Movement members openly identify themselves on social media as "alt-right" and "nationalist" and frequently post videos and photos of them performing physical training and mixed martial arts street-fighting techniques "in order to prepare to engage in fighting and violence at political rallies," the complaint said.

RAM openly espouses anti-Semitism and violence toward those who "hold opposite ideologies to their own," according to the complaint.

Three of the defendants were expected to appear in federal court later Tuesday. It's unclear whether they have attorneys.
The complaint includes numerous photos of the defendants engaging in violence at rallies.

Scuffles and fistfights broke out over that weekend before a man drove a silver Dodge Charger into a crowd, killing Heather Heyer, 32, a local paralegal whose father said she was always fighting for others.

An Ohio man accused of driving the car was charged with second-degree murder in Heyer's death.

CNN's Eliott C. McLaughlin and Emily Smith contributed to this report.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/charlottesville-rally-inciting-riot-charges/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
If the U.S. Attorney's Office have the goods on them (which it sounds like they do) then they deserve the sentence they receive.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Anyone else curious about why it took over a year to charge them?

A number of counterprotesters were also charged, and some convicted of various offences, Corey Long, as an example: https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/...cle_73bebb1a-6b93-11e8-be35-1f7666f3511e.html.

Some others were recently charged in connection with protesting Long's conviction.

As another example, a teacher was charged with assaulting Jason Kessler at a press conference he held the day after the Unite the Right rally: https://www.newsleader.com/story/ne...rged-assault-charlottesville-rally/664152001/

Clearly, there were violent people there, on both sides of the protest.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,588
69,528
113
Anyone else curious about why it took over a year to charge them?

A number of counterprotesters were also charged, and some convicted of various offences, Corey Long, as an example: https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/...cle_73bebb1a-6b93-11e8-be35-1f7666f3511e.html.

Some others were recently charged in connection with protesting Long's conviction.

As another example, a teacher was charged with assaulting Jason Kessler at a press conference he held the day after the Unite the Right rally: https://www.newsleader.com/story/ne...rged-assault-charlottesville-rally/664152001/

Clearly, there were violent people there, on both sides of the protest.
And Bud Plug once again gives a legal opinion.......

Bud, why don't you do the classy thing and agree - just for once - that the alt right is a collection of violent assholes who pose an increasing danger to our society, which in time will likely surpass the threat of Muslim extremism.

Who cares why it took a year to charge them - aside from you? If this was a weak case, you might have a point. But these clowns are on multiple videotapes assaulting and beating people. It appears a very strong case. (Cue the 14 pages of Buddy trying to argue that the videotapes aren't really videotapes and that he can prove Heather Heyer actually rose from the dead, disguised herself as the accused and committed the assaults.)
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
And Bud Plug once again gives a legal opinion.......

Bud, why don't you do the classy thing and agree - just for once - that the alt right is a collection of violent assholes who pose an increasing danger to our society, which in time will likely surpass the threat of Muslim extremism.

Who cares why it took a year to charge them - aside from you? If this was a weak case, you might have a point. But these clowns are on multiple videotapes assaulting and beating people. It appears a very strong case. (Cue the 14 pages of Buddy trying to argue that the videotapes aren't really videotapes and that he can prove Heather Heyer actually rose from the dead, disguised herself as the accused and committed the assaults.)
And, once again, Oagre makes no sense, because my post doesn't include a legal opinion.

Why don't you do the honest thing, for once, and define who you think the "alt right" is? Is it all conservatives? Is it anyone who believes in freedom of speech, even for white nationalists (like the ACLU do)? Are the Proud Boys alt-right? Once you define the group, I'll tell you whether I think they have violent intentions and/or violent members. And then we'll talk about whether there are groups on the left who are equally, if not more violent and dangerous.

When will you ever get tired of making incorrect predictions? Maybe your problem is wading in with "it appears a very strong case". Do "strong cases" of common assault usually require a year of investigation before charges are laid? What evidence have you reviewed yourself? Unlike the Heyer case, where a lot of the same video evidence the police would have looked at was also made publicly available, I'm not aware that any of the evidence against the 4 people recently charged is publicly available. Do you have access to it? I don't have any concern if these individuals are convicted. Lots of people assaulted other people on both sides at this protest/counter protest, and everyone involved on either side should be charged and convicted. But the handling of this entire incident by the police and the FBI smells bad and was bad, so I'm curious why a case of common assault took them a year to investigate and lay charges. You're not? I hope you show a little more curiosity when it involves your clients!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Good
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,473
17,805
113
And, once again, Oagre makes no sense, because my post doesn't include a legal opinion.

Why don't you do the honest thing, for once, and define who you think the "alt right" is? Is it all conservatives? Is it anyone who believes in freedom of speech, even for white nationalists (like the ACLU do)? Are the Proud Boys alt-right? Once you define the group, I'll tell you whether I think they have violent intentions and/or violent members. And then we'll talk about whether there are groups on the left who are equally, if not more violent and dangerous.

When will you ever get tired of making incorrect predictions? Maybe your problem is wading in with "it appears a very strong case". Do "strong cases" of common assault usually require a year of investigation before charges are laid? What evidence have you reviewed yourself? Unlike the Heyer case, where a lot of the same video evidence the police would have looked at was also made publicly available, I'm not aware that any of the evidence against the 4 people recently charged is publicly available. Do you have access to it? I don't have any concern if these individuals are convicted. Lots of people assaulted other people on both sides at this protest/counter protest, and everyone involved on either side should be charged and convicted. But the handling of this entire incident by the police and the FBI smells bad and was bad, so I'm curious why a case of common assault took them a year to investigate and lay charges. You're not? I hope you show a little more curiosity when it involves your clients!
Still defending neo-Nazis at Charlottesville, bud?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
So??? The situation was tense, tempers flaired and people got hurt, even died. That's what happens in those situations. And now, it's time to pay the piper.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,190
6,447
113
Room 112
Anyone who resorted to violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
70,588
69,528
113
So??? The situation was tense, tempers flaired and people got hurt, even died. That's what happens in those situations. And now, it's time to pay the piper.

If you read the the article, you'll learn that these losers went to many demos and each time prepared for violence and were seen assaulting spectators, etc. Reading stuff helps, JC. I know you're an angry old fellow, but still... read.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Anyone else curious about why it took over a year to charge them?

A number of counterprotesters were also charged, and some convicted of various offences, Corey Long, as an example: https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/...cle_73bebb1a-6b93-11e8-be35-1f7666f3511e.html.

Some others were recently charged in connection with protesting Long's conviction.

As another example, a teacher was charged with assaulting Jason Kessler at a press conference he held the day after the Unite the Right rally: https://www.newsleader.com/story/ne...rged-assault-charlottesville-rally/664152001/

Clearly, there were violent people there, on both sides of the protest.
However there wouldn't have been any counter-protesters at all, violent or otherwise, without the initial demonstration, complete with its violent participants, and rife with the symbols of hatred and genocide.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113

If you read the the article, you'll learn that these losers went to many demos and each time prepared for violence and were seen assaulting spectators, etc. Reading stuff helps, JC. I know you're an angry old fellow, but still... read.
So??? I've gone to many demos when I was young. I'm familiar with the dynamics. Seen a crowd beat a cop to death, once. Seen a cop, riot pig-but still, fearing for his life draw his pistol and empty it into the crowd. Thousands of angry people are unpredictable.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
However there wouldn't have been any counter-protesters at all, violent or otherwise, without the initial demonstration, complete with its violent participants, and rife with the symbols of hatred and genocide.
If you really want to use the "but for" test, there wouldn't have been any violence, but for:

1. The decision by counter protesters (who had no permit) to directly confront people engaging in a permitted public protest in a designated public space, or

2. The decision by the police to declare the permitted protest an unlawful assembly (in direct violation of a court order), simply because a large counter protest group arrived at the permitted location, or

3. The decision of the police/mayor to empty the park of permitted demonstrators by a single exit point in direct contact with the counter protest group, and then stand down during the inevitable physical scuffles that ensued. That was so stupid, it cost the chief of police his job.

Your argument really strikes at the right to free speech. Essentially, you are saying that no one would have lost their minds and engaged in violent behaviour if there had been no free speech permitted. Sorry, but that kind of thinking is how you BREAK democracies, not how you preserve them. It's the responsibility of citizens not to lose their minds simply because someone says something they vehemently disagree with.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
…It's the responsibility of citizens not to lose their minds simply because someone says something they vehemently disagree with.
However, as you said, there are such violent and irresponsible citizens of every political persuasion. However, if they stay in their own homes and don't assemble to celebrate violent action, the rest of us and the police we task to deal with violence, are usually unaware and unbothered by them. But the violent Charlottesville nazis and KKK boys wanted people to notice; it is why such assemblies are called 'demonstrations'. And they got just what they wanted— although they likely hoped they'd 'win'.

All your police/permit stuff is just the usual government bureaucracy bungles. We're told that by eliminating government almost entirely, everything run practically perfectly.

Oddly enough here in Ontariaryo, making government smaller seems to mean hiring even more police, but fewer Councillors to make better decisions, or — as in C-ville — to take responsibility for them.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
However, as you said, there are such violent and irresponsible citizens of every political persuasion. However, if they stay in their own homes and don't assemble to celebrate violent action, the rest of us and the police we task to deal with violence, are usually unaware and unbothered by them. But the violent Charlottesville nazis and KKK boys wanted people to notice; it is why such assemblies are called 'demonstrations'. And they got just what they wanted— although they likely hoped they'd 'win'.

All your police/permit stuff is just the usual government bureaucracy bungles. We're told that by eliminating government almost entirely, everything run practically perfectly.

Oddly enough here in Ontariaryo, making government smaller seems to mean hiring even more police, but fewer Councillors to make better decisions, or — as in C-ville — to take responsibility for them.
You may be overlooking one significant aspect of democracy - the Government is US! As a result, the government doesn't own anything in its own right. It only holds property on behalf of the people. As a result, public spaces belong to all of us. That's why anyone can freely speak in them, just as they would in their own homes.

If you don't believe in these concepts, you just might not believe in democracy.

Of course, the right to speak doesn't translate into the right to be listened to. However, organizing a huge counter protest ensured massive media coverage, thereby assisting neo-nazis in disseminating their message and ensuring future similar demonstrations. Who would stop doing something before it stops working? Even though the counter protests were counter productive (misspelling for literary effect), perhaps the allure of all that attention for virtue signalling was to irresistible to that group?

But there is also a difference between advertising and sales. Neo-nazis may have gotten attention and spread their message, but just how many new dues paying members did they recruit? At the end of the day, without money, there is no prospect of political power.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
You may be overlooking one significant aspect of democracy - the Government is US! As a result, the government doesn't own anything in its own right. It only holds property on behalf of the people. As a result, public spaces belong to all of us. That's why anyone can freely speak in them, just as they would in their own homes.

If you don't believe in these concepts, you just might not believe in democracy.

Of course, the right to speak doesn't translate into the right to be listened to. However, organizing a huge counter protest ensured massive media coverage, thereby assisting neo-nazis in disseminating their message and ensuring future similar demonstrations. Who would stop doing something before it stops working? Even though the counter protests were counter productive (misspelling for literary effect), perhaps the allure of all that attention for virtue signalling was to irresistible to that group?

But there is also a difference between advertising and sales. Neo-nazis may have gotten attention and spread their message, but just how many new dues paying members did they recruit? At the end of the day, without money, there is no prospect of political power.
And there would have been no violence had they not assembled to provoke a response.

Already said. Ditto for: And they got one.

Your democracy stuff supports the same right to assemble and make response to the original 'speech'. If you don't believe in that concept, you just might not believe in democracy.

I bolded the essential, as valid as ever and in no way disproven by evidence or logic.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
And there would have been no violence had they not assembled to provoke a response.

Already said. Ditto for: And they got one.
As you already know, the limit on free speech (in the US, anyway) is that you can't advocate violence. The demonstrators didn't cross that line. They just hold a bunch of views that others find intolerable. Their principal offensive chant (on the night before the Unite the Right rally) was "You will not replace us". That chant is easily interpreted as an anti-immigration message, as well as an intent to deny political power to other groups, but it is not a literal call to violence. Everyone is obliged to have enough self control to refrain from violence just because they find particular views to be intolerable.

If it were otherwise, there would be rumble every time TERB members got together!
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
As you already know, the limit on free speech (in the US, anyway) is that you can't advocate violence. The demonstrators didn't cross that line. They just hold a bunch of views that others find intolerable. Their principal offensive chant (on the night before the Unite the Right rally) was "You will not replace us". That chant is easily interpreted as an anti-immigration message, as well as an intent to deny political power to other groups, but it is not a literal call to violence. Everyone is obliged to have enough self control to refrain from violence just because they find particular views to be intolerable.

If it were otherwise, there would be rumble every time TERB members got together!
And the demonstrators failed to control their violent responses to others who disagreed. Wiser thinkers would have planned to keep their violent people peaceful. There would have been no violence had these violent people simply articulated their message. They were there to provoke and they succeeded.

'Nuff said.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
And the demonstrators failed to control their violent responses to others who disagreed. Wiser thinkers would have planned to keep their violent people peaceful. There would have been no violence had these violent people simply articulated their message. They were there to provoke and they succeeded.

'Nuff said.
Maybe enough said, but perhaps not enough thought. A future where protesters may not speak their views in public out of concern of offending someone with no self control (including someone such as the government of the day) is straight from the pages of 1984.

I can't speak to who exactly threw the first punch in which particular scuffle, but I find it likely that there was an equal distribution of those who believe that might makes right. The only protection any of us EVER has against such behaviour is sensible policing. Unfortunately, in Charlottetown, the petulant mayor (having lost in court) and his chief of police seemed intent on making a point by ENSURING there were physical confrontations which the police could have EASILY prevented.
 
Toronto Escorts