Man accused of fracturing 13-year-old’s skull for not removing hat during national anthem

[ZiprHead]

https://wgntv.com/2019/08/06/man-accused-of-fracturing-13-year-olds-skull-for-not-removing-hat-during-national-anthem/

“Dude come up and grabbed him by his neck, picked him up and threw him to the ground head first,” Keeler told KPAX.

Witnesses said Brockway tried to justify his actions because the boy was disrespecting the flag by not removing his hat during the national anthem.

“He’s deathly afraid of strangers. He doesn’t remember anything. All the witnesses I have talked to said this was completely random,” Keeler said.

“There was no exchange — nothing! He targeted Wally and took him down,” she added.

The boy was flown to Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital in Spokane after receiving temporal skull fractures.

 

[dismal]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So ... beating up children while the national anthem is playing DOESN'T disrespect it?

 

[laughing dog]

We don't know why this child did not remove his hat, so it is a bit early to judge whether this is violence against speech.

From the article, this man has a conviction for threatening to kill someone. Yet he served no time. He is clearly a danger to the community.

 

[cycomiko]

"In that 2010 incident, Brockway pulled up to a parked vehicle, got out and pulled a gun on a family and stated he was going to kill them."

Perfect time for those red flag laws (or whatever we're calling them) to swing into action. This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I don't always remove my hat during the anthem and have never had anyone say one cross word to me. It's just a song and not sure why anyone would care. I'm also not a 13 year old boy for some cowardly tough guy to pick on.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Secret Service, are you listening? Keep this guy in your sights next time Trump bear-hugs the flag or delivers on-camera political insults at the Normandy cemetery.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Every morning at 0800, for 20 years, if iwas where the anthem was playing, i had to have my hat ON for the duration. Weird priorities people have....

 

[Gun Nut]

This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

I'm also not a 13 year old boy for some cowardly tough guy to pick on

This tough guy is not going to do so well in prison. They don't take kindly to the type of criminals that target children.

 

[ronburgundy]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

What is getting out of hand if your false equivalence between people attacked for speech designed to cause violence versus people attacked who are not even speaking but just standing there and not "properly" engaging in rituals of authoritarian nationalism.

Violence against those who use speech to promote violence against innocent people is not something that the law should allow. However, no remotely decent human being would find that violence as ethically objectionable as violence against people innocent of anything other than lack of "proper" mindless conformity to nationalistic pride. In fact, violence against promoters of violence against the innocent is not even as immoral as speech that promotes violence against innocent people, even if that latter is not a crime (b/c the law and morality are distinct and often unrelated).

Speech is itself an action that can and does cause events that lead to physical harm. While that added step of another's action does largely shield the person from legal responsibility of the ultimate consequence, it does nothing to reduce moral responsibility if that consequence was a known and intended likelihood.

 

[Jarhyn]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

Violence in response to nonviolent speech or behavior IS certainly getting out of hand. I do not accept your blind 200 year old just-so worship of the idea that all speech, including violent speech, is to be protected.

This was definitely violence in response to nonviolent speech/behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

I'm also not a 13 year old boy for some cowardly tough guy to pick on

This tough guy is not going to do so well in prison. They don't take kindly to the type of criminals that target children.

No, most Dems see the world with more complexity than through binary lenses of "mentally ill" and "mentally well". The fact is, there is no hard line between these two things.

As such, I can recognize that given a bad enough day, even the most sane of people may find themselves being unnecessarily violent or threatening given the means to do so and a situation that is complicated enough to drive a panic response, and that panic responses when Guns are involved can lead to bodies on the floor, and that this is a bad thing.

 

[cycomiko]

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

Being a violent asshole isn't necessarily a mental illness. He may just be a moron and laws can't typically fix people stupid enough to be conned into the blind patriotism that may be the actual root cause of this incident. I do agree we need to do more about mental illness but saying that is the cause of all of this violence is also dangerous.

This tough guy is not going to do so well in prison. They don't take kindly to the type of criminals that target children.

hopefully he actually does time for this. i'm not sure how this part of the law is applied but could this be attempted murder or manslaughter or something?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The right doesn't believe in any solution whatever based on detecting mental illness. That's simply a catchphrase to avoid doing anything about gun registration or classifying certain weapons as military-only. It's as empty as their thoughts 'n' prayers.

 

[PyramidHead]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

Violence in response to nonviolent speech or behavior IS certainly getting out of hand. I do not accept your blind 200 year old just-so worship of the idea that all speech, including violent speech, is to be protected.

This was definitely violence in response to nonviolent speech/behavior.

Wearing a hat with a racist slogan in support of a white supremacist who inspires the mass murder of immigrants is no different from being an adolescent and not taking off a hat. Both involve hats. I am very smart.

 

[ronburgundy]

This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

Name a single Dem who doesn't believe in mental illness or who opposes the mentally ill getting access to guns. What they oppose is the illogical and antiscience lie that such illness is the sole causal factor and that easy access to weapons designed to kill as many humans as quickly as possible plays no role in people killing other people easily and quickly.

They also oppose the anti-science lie that mentally ill people are not causally impacted by others promoting irrational hatred and fears and encouraging them to engage in criminal violence against people, especially when those people are in positions of cultural influence, such as the president.

This tough guy is not going to do so well in prison. They don't take kindly to the type of criminals that target children.

Eh, he is very likely a white supremacist, as the majority of white conservatives are, especially the sort of fascist who'd get upset about "disrespecting the flag". So, He'll have the protection of the Ayran nation.

 

[ronburgundy]

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

Being a violent asshole isn't necessarily a mental illness.

Correct. And since conservative ideology inherently promotes authoritarian violence, he is likely simply a conservative who painted slightly outside the lines that even most conservatives think is "too far"., but only because it was a white child. There have been countless thousands of conservatives on social media promoting violence against "flag disrespecters" in relation to anthem protests, including the president who threatened them with the inherently violent consequence of deportation (which cannot be accomplished without actual or threatened violence).

 

[ronburgundy]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

Violence in response to nonviolent speech or behavior IS certainly getting out of hand. I do not accept your blind 200 year old just-so worship of the idea that all speech, including violent speech, is to be protected.

This was definitely violence in response to nonviolent speech/behavior.

Wearing a hat with a racist slogan in support of a white supremacist who inspires the mass murder of immigrants is no different from being an adolescent and not taking off a hat. Both involve hats. I am very smart.

That's a bad example in reference to Pyramidhead's point about speech that actively promotes violence . While those two hat-wearers are not morally equivalent, violence against either would and should be both illegal and treated as morally reprehensible. There is way too much assumption and uncertain inference to go from "he's wearing a hat that people who voted for Trump wear" to "therefore, he's knowingly promoting violence against other people."
The person needs to at least rather directly promote ideas that encourage violence or say things that enable others to target people with violence (such as the doxing Ngo is accussed of), before any violence against them becomes ethically "understandable". And even then, that violence should still be treated as illegal (not all ethically understandable acts should be legal, just as not all unethical acts should be illegal).

As to Pyramidhead's point, I only partly agree. I agree that there is a big moral difference between violence against speech that promotes immoral harm to innocent people and violence against speech that you merely disagree with. And much of conservative ideology (especially white supremacy) promotes harm to innocents, which includes the harm of unequal rights, and the harm caused by having one's poor outcomes caused by the injustice of others be treated as one's inferiority (e.g., that blacks are poor or more prone to crime due to some innate quality). Basically, punching a person who expresses Nazi views is somewhat like the dad of a rape victim who attacks the rapist who just got off on a technicality. In both cases the attack on the fucking asshole is and should be illegal, but I wouldn't personally hold it against them morally or likely interfere (unlike acts that are both crimes and seriously immoral).

But I disagree with the insinuation in "violent speech" that such speech is itself actual violence and therefore, as violence, should not be legally protected. Suggestions that breaking a law might be warranted should not be treated by the law as a though the law was actually broken. That is extremely dangerous and will lead to far greater injustice and harm to innocents than the speech it's trying to eliminate. Unless you have some form of soundwave superpowers, speech is never in itself "violence". It can be a causal factor in promoting violent acts by someone, but an cause of something, especially an insufficient cause like speech itself is, is not the thing itself. Since a person must choose to act on the speech, the prevention of the violence can be accomplished by prohibitions on the physical action. So, only in those rare circumstances where the actor themself has been so coerced (such as with threats) that they essentially did not "choose" to act, is the speech then enough of a direct cause do hold the speaker legally responsible. That has no bearing on holding them morally responsible, since morality isn't really about actual outcomes but about intended outcomes and if one intends harm by one's speech, no matter the mediating mechanism, then one is morally responsible for that harm.

 

[Playball40]

Don't BELIEVE IN MENTAL ILLNESS?? Are you fucking serious?

BEING A VIOLENT ASSHOLE WITH A GUN DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS! Do you get that or are you intentionally being OBTUSE?

This guy should not have a gun. Period. Because he's an ignorant and violent twatwaddle. Not because he's depressed or bipolar.

This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I agree.. it's a shame that so many Dems don't believe in mental illness, though, and are unwilling to entertain new laws that address this root cause of violence

I'm also not a 13 year old boy for some cowardly tough guy to pick on

This tough guy is not going to do so well in prison. They don't take kindly to the type of criminals that target children.

 

[PyramidHead]

Wearing a hat with a racist slogan in support of a white supremacist who inspires the mass murder of immigrants is no different from being an adolescent and not taking off a hat. Both involve hats. I am very smart.

That's a bad example in reference to Pyramidhead's point about speech that actively promotes violence . While those two hat-wearers are not morally equivalent, violence against either would and should be both illegal and treated as morally reprehensible. There is way too much assumption and uncertain inference to go from "he's wearing a hat that people who voted for Trump wear" to "therefore, he's knowingly promoting violence against other people."
The person needs to at least rather directly promote ideas that encourage violence or say things that enable others to target people with violence (such as the doxing Ngo is accussed of), before any violence against them becomes ethically "understandable". And even then, that violence should still be treated as illegal (not all ethically understandable acts should be legal, just as not all unethical acts should be illegal).

As to Pyramidhead's point, I only partly agree. I agree that there is a big moral difference between violence against speech that promotes immoral harm to innocent people and violence against speech that you merely disagree with. And much of conservative ideology (especially white supremacy) promotes harm to innocents, which includes the harm of unequal rights, and the harm caused by having one's poor outcomes caused by the injustice of others be treated as one's inferiority (e.g., that blacks are poor or more prone to crime due to some innate quality). Basically, punching a person who expresses Nazi views is somewhat like the dad of a rape victim who attacks the rapist who just got off on a technicality. In both cases the attack on the fucking asshole is and should be illegal, but I wouldn't personally hold it against them morally or likely interfere (unlike acts that are both crimes and seriously immoral).

But I disagree with the insinuation in "violent speech" that such speech is itself actual violence and therefore, as violence, should not be legally protected. Suggestions that breaking a law might be warranted should not be treated by the law as a though the law was actually broken. That is extremely dangerous and will lead to far greater injustice and harm to innocents than the speech it's trying to eliminate. Unless you have some form of soundwave superpowers, speech is never in itself "violence". It can be a causal factor in promoting violent acts by someone, but an cause of something, especially an insufficient cause like speech itself is, is not the thing itself. Since a person must choose to act on the speech, the prevention of the violence can be accomplished by prohibitions on the physical action. So, only in those rare circumstances where the actor themself has been so coerced (such as with threats) that they essentially did not "choose" to act, is the speech then enough of a direct cause do hold the speaker legally responsible. That has no bearing on holding them morally responsible, since morality isn't really about actual outcomes but about intended outcomes and if one intends harm by one's speech, no matter the mediating mechanism, then one is morally responsible for that harm.

I don't have any interest in the legality angle, as the United States is an oppressive nation with oppressive laws that nobody should use as a benchmark for anything except by coincidence. So, contrary to what many people here accuse me of, I have no strong opinions about state prohibition of violent speech nor state sanction of violence against it. That is not and has never been of primary importance; the nature of the problem (rising fascism in a colonial capitalist nation that participates in and materially abets it) places the issue outside of the institutional mechanisms of government power and into the purview of popular resistance. I continue to find it ironic that the professed libertarians among us are apparently unable to conceive of popular mobilization and autonomous action, independent of the government, as a legitimate defense against threats the government fails to acknowledge. In the same breath, they will insist upon our right to amass a stockpile of firearms in case we need to overthrow the same government or defend ourselves from it.

This reveals the selectivity of libertarian concerns about one's rights being trampled upon. If said trampling is being done by a state power, everything up to and including lethal force is acceptable as a means of resistance. But if the state merely turns a blind eye to trampling by other parties, libertarians suddenly lose the capacity to critically evaluate the government's role, and become bootlicking sycophants for police authority and the criminal justice system. The problem with violence against white nationalists who organize in public, to the ideology that normally rails against the government as a burden on our freedom, is that it's against the government's rules. It's as if there are no standards with which to evaluate human behavior except those that are handed down by whatever government is in power.

 

[fast]

Why shouldn’t a violent asshole with a gun not have a gun? I know many (and boy don’t i mean many) violent assholes with guns. There’s a few that most certainly shouldn’t have guns, but it’s not because they’re violent assholes with guns.