Report: Chapel Hill Police Chief Ordered Officers To Stay Back As Protesters Tore Down Confederate Statue

We recently discussed the latest destruction of a statue in North Carolina and I expressed my skepticism over the inaction of police as well as the absence of significant arrests for a crime committed openly in public while surrounded by officers.  Now, WRAL-TV obtained text messages and emails that showed Chapel Hill Police Chief Chris Blue actually ordered his officers to back off as protesters were destroying a century-old statue.  

The destruction of the Confederate monument known as “Silent Sam” followed a familiar pattern. Earlier this year, I was critical of the handling of the prosecution of various protesters in North Carolina who torn down a statue in public and then celebrated their criminal acts in broad daylight. Because the statue of a civil war memorial, the act of property destruction was condoned by many and Durham District Attorney Roger Echols caved to the pressure in dropping all charges against everyone.  It was effective immunity for a popular criminal act — a dangerous concept in any legal system.

The recently discovered messages from Blue shows the same special protection afforded those who are committing popular crimes.  Blue ordered his officers to give the protesters “lots of space” and “stay way out.” At one point, he even chastised officers for being “too close” to an unfolding crime in front of them.  Some, like Thom Goolsby, a UNC Board of Governors member, criticized the police for a lack faction.

Despite the open commission of the crime by multiple people, only three face misdemeanor charges of rioting and defacing a public monument.  Of course, even misdemeanor charges were dropped eventually by Echols in the earlier case when he buckled under public pressure.

The fact that such destruction would be a misdemeanor rather than a felony is bizarre.  In North Carolina, a Class H Felony Larceny charge is used for any property or services valued at over a $1000.  Yet, you can openly destroy a century old statue and caused far greater monetary damage but only face a misdemeanor?

Under G.S. 14-288.2(e), a person is guilty of a Class F felony if he or she (1)willfully (2) incites or urges another (3) to engage in a riot, and (4) the inciting or urging is a contributing cause of a riot which (5) results in (a) property damage of $1,500 or more or(b)serious bodily injury.  Yet, this charge was not brought in a coordinated effort to destroy a public memorial or art work.

The low number of arrests and minor charges naturally raise suspicions that prosecutors and police are shielding people who commit popular criminal acts.

What do you think?

148 thoughts on “Report: Chapel Hill Police Chief Ordered Officers To Stay Back As Protesters Tore Down Confederate Statue”

  1. Silent Sam needs to be put in the Wilson LIbrary as part of an exhibit about the Jim Crow era in the South and UNC’s role in slavery in the state. And Mr. Carr’s entire speech, given at the dedication of the statue, should be prominently displayed. That way, the racists can come and pay homage to the statue and the era it represents, if they’d like. And people who would like to be educated about that period in our history will find what they need, as well.

    A good substitute for Sam would be a statue of Dean Smith and Charlie Scott.

    1. that’s a reasonable suggestion at least better than vandalism

      iconoclasm is the impulse of the worst kind of political hoodlums

    2. And you support using illegal force to achieve your preferred ends? Or do you support the law? That is the point of JT’s article.

      1. I support the law. Arrest them, charge, them and give them significant community service.

  2. The destruction of the statue is a victimless crime. It was on school property, not private property, so there was no private owner who suffered damages. If the school does not believe it was victimized, then it makes sense not to press charges.

    The perpetrators can be fined for the destruction of the property, but police resources and jails should be reserved for victimizers. They should concentrate on thieves, con artists, murderers, rapists, assaulters, and other criminals who victimize private citizens.

    Destruction of a statue is small potatoes compared to what else is going on in the country.

    1. Good analysis, Mary. Professor Turley hadn’t thought of that. If the school didn’t care to prosecute, there ‘is’ no victim for purposes of prosecution.

    2. If an officer is observing an obvious act of public vandalism, then the default response from a public peace officer is to stop it. A presumptive exception, for example, would be some authorizing document giving permission to do so.
      The apologist theory that “the school” didn’t press charges, belies the fact that no one at the school had actual authorization to permit the ‘dismantling’ of the statue, and that in either case they did not give prior permission to do so.
      Finally, the school’s property was indeed owned by someone, and lacking a full due process decision, by a school board or other collective administrative procedure, the destruction of it did take real property from someone, even if the property was owned collectively or by proxy.

      1. Gary Trieste – I would think the Great State of NC owns the university and the property and the statue. They would be the ultimate complanant. I would think any member of the public or an alum could sue for damages or file charges.

      2. Good post Gary.

        There is a real victim in all this and it’s a culture that is losing it’s grip on the rule of law.

          1. JJ, he along with half a dozen others on this site just think that their authoritarian anti democratic views should be a proclamation that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

            1. Don’t blame others for your inability to put forth a legitimate argument proving you are right and everyone else is wrong.

            2. Fishwings, what has Trump done while President that is outside of the Constitution and law. Please list. Don’t just blabber

            3. You and your crew are fascist/marxist to the core. You are the enemy of law and order…of democracy. Look at all the comments defending a gross violation of the law. If you want to remove a statue then there is a straight forward lawful/democratic way to do it, but you don’t. Your position is indefensible. Those tearing down statues and their supporters are acting like the Taliban.

          2. I oppose and support policy consistent with my values and beliefs. Above that however, I always defend the rule of law and separation of powers. If I’ve defended President Trump, it is where I agree with his actions that are within his constitutional authority.

      3. It’s clear that there is no riposte to your argument. Peter Hill and the others here have no response because their argument is wholly disingenuous. They’re also not intelligent.

      4. Gary, most major universities have their own campus police force. And those forces have police powers within the school’s jurisdiction. But I don’t think Turley’s report makes any mention of them.

        1. yes they do and they often abuse them
          there’s hardly any more rich and powerful institutions in the US than unversities
          strip them all of their phony NFP status i say and retire the national debt!

    3. There are people here who still call the Civil War, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

      1. a valid viewpoint in light of the dubious, yet legitimate and widely held position at the time, that the US Constitutional process, by virtue of the compact among the states, allowed the states to likewise secede.

        I don’t share that view but observe that it was a political issue resolved with organized violence. Another word for that is war and war is by definition, aggression.

        Basically the north ended the “peculiar institution” by force of arms where democratic processes could not deliver the abolitionists’ wishes.

        and you can see that even today, now that all official laws concerning chattel slavery and even racial segregation have long been dismantled, that some crazies keep on with the premise that the democratic processes are inadequate and they have a right to break law and initiate violent action.

        that is exactly the premise of Antifa and they are anarchists and lawless hooligans who should be culled from the herd by any legal means necessary.

  3. It would appear that Newton’s Third Law of Motion is driving our culture, law and politics. Somewhere in all of this is the sweet spot where reasonable and rational people can effectively debate how we move forward. So what’s the root cause?

    I don’t believe the true center of the Democrat or Republican Party is the extremes that they appear to being pulled to. Aren’t we supposed to be anchored by the security of natural rights? Isn’t this why we were founded in the first place? Isn’t that why our government was established? That’s supposed to be our center, our anchoring point.

    The reason so many of these stories seem completely outrageous is because they are the example of a culture being dragged away from that center and opposing forces are planting their flags in those extremes. Where does it end? Either very badly, or with some leader that rises up as an Independent and effectively communicates the need for us to return to that center and restore the rule of law.

  4. Violence is acceptable and even necessary when tearing down the vestiges of our evil, oppressive society! The normal rules do not apply. Everyone knows that, right? But if you deface a MLK statue, that’s a 15 year hate crime!

  5. We have bear statues all around New Bern. “Bern” is a town in Swissland. Some Swiss came over and founded New Bern. “Bern” in German means bear in American. Someone stole a bear statue from a store front here in New Bern. The bears are up in arms. Which is why I favor the Second Amendment and believe in the right to arm bears.

  6. The idiots that go around tearing down the things they don’t like lose the most precious part of their argument, history. The answer to this nonsense is to attach a statement, explaining that this soldier fought for the continuance of slavery regardless of his feelings about state’s rights or serving his people, to statues of this sort.

    The fog of the past invites any explanation or belief.

      1. It is accepted among those that are not racist or delusional that collectively the South fought to retain their economy which was designed on slavery. As with today, those in power economically and politically have the most to gain or lose and end up making the decisions for all. In that time and place most people relied upon links to their place for identity and security. When one’s place is attacked one typically goes to war to defend it, regardless of the core reasons.

        1. i see some value in this comment by Isaac. observe that a lot of poor white non-slave owning soldiers died for the institution of slavery. not just among the Southerners but among the Northerners and not a small number were in fact Irish immigrants who died like so many flies as raw conscripts.

          You can say the poor whites fought for the benefit of the rich Southerners, and that is true. But at least the rich Southerners rallied to lead men in battle, which compared favorably to the cowards among the Yankee industrialists who sent others to die in order to make them even richer and thus to perpetuate the more economically efficient institution of wage-slavery.

          It should give us all a moment of pause at the verge of every new propaganda war against the hated enemy to ask CUI BONO?

          Ask that of the vitriolic rhetorical battle against the supposedly omnipresent influence of “Putin” the bete noire of our day… now that the other bete noires like Bin Laden, Hussein, and Qadaffi are vanquished, and Assad has proven beyond reach.

        2. The vast majority of those fighting from the South fought because an army entered their state and made war when their state decided to leave the Union which was their right. They definitely were not fighting to defend slavery per se. Only a very small percent of those in the South owned slaves. They fought because war was brought to them. That the effect of their actions was in at least in part to prolong the practice of slavery is obvious, but the Confederate soldiers themselves were not risking their lives so that they could enslave black people.

          That said, the black slaves had the over-riding natural right to overthrow and kill the men who enslaved them. This gross injustice clouds our ability to discuss other legal questions.

          The important Constitutional questions of whether or not the North had the legal right to make war to change the law/Constitution and whether or not the States have the right to secede from the Union are never debated. On the first, my answer is a clear no. Fort Sumter gave the North an excuse to make war…to circumvent the law. On the second, my answer is a clear yes. Every State in the Union entered under the same terms as the original thirteen. Secession is clearly a right reserved to the States as per the 10th amendment.

          1. Ivan

            In the end, after all is said and done, the South tried to separate from the North in order to not have the North impose upon them the abolition of slavery, which would hinder if not severely reduce the economy of the wealthy Southerners. They saw it coming and made a choice. If the issue of slavery was not there, one way or another, there would have been no attempt at separation and no Civil War. The legal and moral mumbo jumbo is nothing more than an attempt to give some credibility to this disaster. There were reasons for slavery, but never justifications. Some things in the course of human history are not justifiable; they just happen. Chalk it up to evolution.

            1. if there issue of slavery was not there?

              you might as well say that if the Crown was not in England

              remember the original constitution enumerated the population counting black population at 2/3 the rate of others. so there was at the inception a fundamental compromise on slavery. how soon people forget eh? and some don’t forget

              not so much legal mumbo jumbo; one might say that is all a constitution ever is. I suppose Stalin saw it that way, are we on his level?

              1. Mr Kurtz – the Founders kicked the can down the road on slavery, hoping they would all be dead when it came to a head. I think they were.

                  1. OLLY – are you saying they did not kick the can down the road? Or that they shouldn’t have kicked the can down the road?

                    1. You said they did so because they were hoping they would all be dead when it came to a head.

                      I called BS; meaning your reasoning is false. So I asked you, what options did they have if they were to establish this new nation?

                    2. OLLY – do you think they wanted it come to a head while they were alive. The job of any large organization is to push the problem down the road to the next guy. Madison died in 1836. Jefferson died ten years earlier. The War of Northern Aggression does not start until 1861.

                    3. The job of any large organization is to push the problem down the road to the next guy.

                      I believe that’s in the Department of Education’s mission statement. And every public employee union’s guiding principles.

                      do you think they wanted it come to a head while they were alive?

                      What’s wrong with you? Why do you continue to dodge the question? Didn’t you teach this stuff? Is that the crap you taught your students?

                      The #1 priority for the framers was to finish what they committed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor over; for 13 states to become one independent nation. If they failed to get the constitution ratified, then it didn’t matter whether they wanted to deal with slavery or not. They would’ve lost that right, along with everything else. Ratifying the constitution put this nation on the path to end the practice of slavery once and for all.

                    4. OLLY – at what point in the Constitution does the institution of slavery end? Now, there is an actual date for the end of the importation of slaves. However, there is not a date for the end of the institution.

                    5. at what point in the Constitution does the institution of slavery end?

                      The 13th amendment in 1865 legally ended the slavery. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The unbolded portion recognizes the natural right. The bolded portion is the actionable area where our justice system has failed the first part.

                    6. OLLY – yes, and 500,000 people were dead, including the Founding Fathers. The original Constitution does not cover it. As I said, they kicked it down the road, knowing other people would have to deal with it. When you teach American History, you teach how they dealt with it. I realize it was a compromise, but I also realize they made it someone else’s problem.

                    7. Paul

                      The founding fathers didn’t simply kick the can down the road. The issue of slavery as it came to a head in 1861 would have made it impossible to beat the British in 1776. The revolution was primarily about the economy and who would profit from the boundless riches of New England. The colonial areas were expanding quickly, becoming enriched, the war with the French and Indians was over, they didn’t need the British to guard them, therefore they demanded more freedom, money, control, etc. You have to scratch the surface of the sacred words to understand human nature. John Hancock’s and his uncle’s ship’s chandlery outfitted several British ships, for profits, that were used to transport the Acadians out of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to far off ports, not long before 1776. Thousands saw their homes burned as they sailed away, families separated, some drowning as ships were lost in storms. They had been there longer than most of those in the thirteen colonies, since the 1500’s. It was business and business was at the heart of the American Revolution. Slavery was good for business and kept the colonial forces strong enough, with the aid of the French, to win the war. The only question worth asking is would the founding fathers have abolished slavery if they could have. They obviously couldn’t have abolished slavery and fought the revolutionary war and won.

                      Britain was still using slaves in 1776 and could have easily sided with those Southern states that would have surely objected to any intent to abolish slavery coming from Northern states; just as they did in 1861.

                      The deck was stacked against any noble moves.

                      On a similar note, Bush got in again because of 9/11. You can fight a war against terrorists or bounce an idiot from the Oval Office, but not both.

                      Trump got in the same way; by lying about the economic reality, that was doing well on a steady climb, enough times to pull a chicken little. It’s human nature.

                    8. issac – there are free blacks that fought on the rebel side in the Revolution, but were screwed over by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation doesn’t even mention slaves or blacks. Although, the Articles does allow for Canada to become a state or states.
                      Even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed blacks in rebel held states, not Northern states. So Southern blacks will be freed before Northern blacks. Funny about that, hunh.
                      Actually, it was Northern states who first talked of session, not the Southern states.

                    9. The original Constitution does not cover it.

                      You get answers to your questions that you don’t like so you keep rewording the question.

                      Why don’t you just admit your “kick the can” comment is what weak-kneed history teachers tell their students when they want students to regurgitate their version of history rather than critically-think about what actually happened?

                    10. OLLY – au contraire. I always wanted my students to discuss the topic with me or debate with me or each other. You are probably more offended at the analogy than at the actually act of the Founding Fathers avoiding the issue and handing it off to future generations. The Founding Fathers are not gods.

                      Do you think we could say that those original compromises, plus all the compromises that came after eventually led to the deaths of 500,000 brave soldiers on both sides? And we are not counting civilians, especially in the South, who died during the sieges.

                1. Paul, That is a BS argument and you should know it. People compromise for a reason. In this case the compromise was for survival not kicking the can down the road which is an insult to their legacies.

                    1. Allan – what survival? They were sent there to modify the Articles of Confederation, not write the Constitution of the United States of America.

                    2. The Articles of Confederation didn’t provide a federal system strong enough to provide the desired security.

                    3. Allan – you understate the obvious. The Articles are for a confederation not a federal system. The people who met in Philadelphia were supposed to tweak the Articles, not build Trump Towers. It is like sending you wife out for the groceries and she comes back with a brand new Corvette.

                    4. “The Articles are for a confederation not a federal system.”

                      That is right but they weren’t working as well as expected and there didn’t seem to be any light in the tunnel so they turned to a federal system. But, we are getting off topic. They turned to a federal system for security knowing that likely the states wouldn’t survive independently. The compromised for a reason, not to kick the can down the road.

                2. A misreading of the historical record. They didn’t “hope they’d all be dead.” Rather, they hoped issue would become solvable through external influences in later times. The issue of slavery was intractable to the Founding Fathers. Another amazing accomplishment of those to whom we owe all that we (are) (were) (will become) is that they were able to cobble together an agreement undesirable to all yet at the same time barely acceptable to most. I have no doubt whatsoever that every man in the room at the time fully believed that the issue would need to be dealt with again–with the distinct possibility that it wouldn’t be done peacefully across a conference table. However, they hoped that (Providence?) historical changes in circumstances would ameliorate the set-in-stone positions occupied by the slave and non-slave states. American history between 1800 and 1860 is absolutely littered with incidents, conflicts and fiery oratory pertaining to the great question. The fact that it took until Fort Sumter for lead to fly is more a testament to the negotiating ability of a critical few historical figures rather than any semblance of true agreement between the opposing factions.

                  On a related note from something I saw in this thread, no one, and I mean no one, should ever conflate the unmitigated bravery and military prowess of the Army of Northern Virginia with the abhhorent position of the Confederacy’s support for slavery. To paraphrase a famous war quote from a more modern conflict: “Never have so few done so much with so little.” As in all American wars, the grunt infantry was composed of “just people.” They were fighting for their State, home, and family. After all, the war was for the most part composed of various invasions of the South by “Yankee hordes.” I’ve been to Gettysburg, I’ve made that near-mile walk that Longstreet’s Corp made under a hail of point-blank grape-shot and minnie ball which would likely have ended the war had they been able to hold Cemetery Hill. It’s just another manifestation of the tenacity, bravery and will to win of the American soldier. The identical type of courageous competence is shown by “just people” at Khe Sanh, Tarawa, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Belleau Wood and other flashpoints of American military history too numerous to mention.
                  It was the recognition by (most of) the Northern victors of these intrinsic American characteristics of the defeated Southerners which made the pardons such an easy call.

                  Similarly, Americans rarely hold the vanquished foot-soldier responsible for the foibles of his government. Witness the treatment of the soldiers of all of our defeated enemies. Hell, West Point even studies and teaches the exploits and strategies of Erwin Rommel and Nathan Bedford Forrest, just to name a few.

                  this missive was originally a response to paulie’s “can” comment

                  1. Mark M. – I agree with everything except the first two sentences. Why don’t you write this way all the time?

                    1. I’m an appellate lawyer; I write this way all the time. My contributions here are–as I’ve repeatedly stated–for my benefit. Again, I’m not trying to turn a stripe into a solid. Anyone who thinks the day glo bozo is an appropriate captain of the “last, best hope of Earth” has some sort of (probably) incurable intellectual, ethical, mental, or moral defect for which I hold nothing but contempt. I merely point out the ridiculous position of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan-wannabees, pocket traitors and grifters on the make who have enabled such an incompetent, imbecilic buffoon by using…wait for it..ridicule.

                      to paulie

                    2. Mark M. – you could add to this blog instead of detract from it. Or does being a troll get rid of some of the tensions of the day, like playing the original Doom? I would much rather have a discussion with you where we disagree than troll each other. So we disagree, big deal. Western Civilization is not coming to a roaring halt.

                      I hope you decide to join the conversation.

                    3. “Anyone who thinks the day glo bozo is an appropriate captain of the “last, best hope of Earth” has some sort of (probably) incurable intellectual, ethical, mental…”

                      Mark, it sounds more like you have an emotional rather than an intellectual attachment to your positions and you might have to argue with your own intellect in order stay on your stated side of the line.

                      Think of it in this fashion Mark. We are all fallible but for the most part most are seeking the same ends and differ more on the means than the end. You seem to be missing intent and perhaps missing the finer understanding of human nature and the political economy.

                    4. Allan,
                      I believe to understand Mark’s commentary on this blog is to know it’s no more complex than this: Mark’s a lawyer and he’s smart enough to know he doesn’t have a legal argument to make on most of the posts we discuss. So his trolling is a reflection of that. I believe what we’ve seen out of him this past week are 3 things: 1. He knows (but won’t admit it) this entire Mueller investigation was based on lies, corruption and collusion at the highest levels of agencies within the executive branch and in coordination with the Clinton/DNC machine. 2. He can actually put together thoughtful and passionate posts. 3. Trolling is entertaining to him.

                    5. I think you have a bunch of good points, Olly. Sometimes it is hard to get one’s emotional arguments to meet their intellectual ones. I deal with a lot of people that I believe have quite high intellects but can’t argue in favor of the ideological beliefs they hold. Some of them go out of character screaming like idiots, some make stupid and ignorant comments and some are smart enough to stay completely away from the subject.

                  2. Mark, a surprising but excellent set of comments that links the entire question into a neat and tidy ball. You ought to get out more.

                    ***“The fact that it took until Fort Sumter for lead to fly is more a testament to the negotiating ability of a critical few historical figures rather than any semblance of true agreement between the opposing factions. …no one, should ever conflate the unmitigated bravery and military prowess of the Army of Northern Virginia with the abhhorent position of the Confederacy’s support for slavery. …The identical type of courageous competence is shown by “just people” at Khe Sanh, Tarawa, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Belleau Wood and other flashpoints of American military history too numerous to mention.”***

                    The discussion revolved around these soldiers that some today, apparently on your side of the ailse, wish to destroy because of their lack of understanding what those statues represent. There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to politics and your typical response does little to help all sides see the common interests that exist.

                    1. Or maybe, in response to olly (there was no “reply” option there), just as one doesn’t reason with or persuade one to abandon a cult, I similarly believe that anyone who could rationalize supporting the day glo bozo for any elected post above dogcatcher is not being honest with himself; hence my “stripe into a solid” comment. Any rational observer would notice quite easily that he’s barely fit to handle the TV remote, much less the leader of this “last, best hope on Earth.” So whomever can gin up supporting him has some sort of alternative goal or rationale, which generally falls among being a gullible rube, dupe, klan-wannabee, pocket traitor or grifter on the make. Hence, I’m not trying to persuade, convince, cajole or dialogue with anyone who can (purportedly) believe he’s fit to be president of all Americans. This is so just as I don’t dialogue with clients who have poppycock beliefs that the fringe on the flag in the courtroom has an effect on jurisdiction, or who fashion themselves “sovereign citizens” such that the criminal laws, regulations or statutes don’t apply to them. Rather, I merely motion to have a pscyh exam.
                      The same principle applies here. I see Olly purports to believe that the Special Counsel’s investigation is unfounded. Such rationale (if authentic), reveals the lack of legal training and the extreme and unrealistic wishes of a “true believer” and one whose frame of reference is alien to that which objective realists operate in. So, I post here for my benefit–and the other aficionados of “telling it like it is.”

                      In regards to the statues, I think the ones that are place in non-battlefield locations will eventually have to come down. These were almost universally erected long after the conflict, for the sole purpose of celebrating Jim Crow-style white supremacy. On the other hand, I will go the mat for every single monument or statue placed on any battlefield in any state. For these statutes memorialize the soldiers–ALL of whom were Americans–and what they did in that spot and how so very
                      many of them “gave the last full measure of devotion.”

                    2. Marky Mark – you are still making emotional arguments, again. You had one flash of sanity, then it went away. I really was so hoping. Please come back to us, I am pleading now

                    3. Given the fact there are a multitude of legal experts with polar opposite opinions regarding the basis for the SC, it stands to reason there is something other than the law at work here. What evidence in your legal opinion exists to support the appointment of the SC? Do you believe the actions of the FBI and DoJ are within those agencies operational guidelines?

                    4. Mark, your rationalizations of your position leave a lot to be desired and paints a picture of half a man. Why should anyone try and convince you otherwise. To you a dime has only one side and that anyone suggesting that the other side of the dime has a different picture is committing a blasphemy.

                      Your dime doesn’t exist. Mine does, so who is “not being honest with himself”? Who has that ” alternative goal “ and therefore is the ” gullible rube, dupe, klan-wannabee, pocket traitor or grifter on the make.”

                      I somewhat agree with you regarding where such statues belong and the problems behind why some statues are where they are. I agree some would be better elsewhere or not at all. Unfortunately you seem to associate more closely with those that do not believe in the law, are violent and do not believe that bad free speech is fought with more free speech.

                      Yes, I supported Trump because he was the better candidate, not because I liked him or disliked the other. I continue to support the President because I believe he has done well to date and he will lose my support if he fails. I can argue why I believe some things he has done are successful. I’m not sure what you believe and I don’t know that I care. After all, you don’t recognize either Roosevelt or the Olive branch (1946) since to you there is only one side to the dime.

            2. The point is that the actual soldiers did not fight for slavery. They saw an army coming and therefore they fought for their country. That is honorable. To denigrate the three hundred thousand dead Confederate soldiers for the sins of the State is not right. It’s simply more of the same pretend moral posturing that is destroying our nation.

              Should we denigrate our soldiers for fighting in Vietnam?

    1. Issac, not all soldiers of the Confederacy fought for slavery. The reasons Lincoln pardoned all was to make the country whole again and permit those of the south to rejoin the union and support on flag and one Constitution. You seem to prefer tribalism in all areas of life.

  7. Time and place. Days of old have gone by. NC is in The South. Yet: Chapel Hill is in a more moderate area than most of you folks in Up North areas can understand. A police chief in Chapel Hill would be under more fire if his cops opened fire on some protestors tearing down a piece of stone. But people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.
    The individuals, the schools, business owners, towns, states all have the right to display any statue which they wish. Hitler has his place. What would the bark on this blog be is some Yorkies tore down a Hitler statue in New York?

    1. The “bark” would be: we don’t tolerate lawbreakers no matter how sincere they are in the motive for their crime. Really self-evident unless you’re blinded by ideology.

      1. i come to believe that on a certain level there is no politics which is not antagonistic.

        wiki says this of the work of the German jurist Carl Schmitt, entitled “the Concept of the Political” :

        “For Schmitt, the political is reducible to the existential distinction between friend and enemy. [2] Schmitt attacks the “liberal-neutralist” and “utopian” notions that politics can be removed of all warlike, agonistic energy, arguing conflict existed as embedded in existence itself, likewise constituting an ineradicable trait of anthropological human nature. Schmitt attempts to substantiate his ideas by referencing the declared anthropological pessimism of “realistic” Catholic (and Christian) theology. The anti-perfectibilist pessimism of Traditional Catholic theology Schmitt considers esoterically relevant to the inner ontological being of politics and political activity in the contemporary world, modern people subconsciously secularizing theological intellectual ideas and concerns. Schmitt criticizes political “radicals” as basically ignorant, deluded, pseudo-messianic in mentality, and oblivious to the stark, hard knowledge of unveiled human nature, its esse, encoded in ancient theology, wherein Original Sin held central, axial place, intertwining his own ideas of meta-politics with a reformulated “metaphysics of evil”.[3]”

        I think there is something to that in play here. And the law and order arguments coming from Americans who value our history as a people, with a definitive shared background, place and culture, may fail to grasp that there is an enmity in play which is warlike and will either fail or end up redefining law, against us. I admit that I am a law and order guy too; but i often wonder if that is sufficient to the challenges that lie ahead?

        The idea that a free exchange of ideas, and a neutral state, can bring about the best outcome for all, is a relic of the Enlightenment, however ingrained in our culture it may be. We need to move beyond this to prevail in securing our own destiny.

        So in a way, we might welcome these kinds of timid acts of political lawlessness, in order to harden and prepare for the more dramatic events that are sure to unfold. At some point we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by ideology either– recognizing that “law and order” is itself an ideology of bourgeois liberalism that may be entirely insufficient attitude to defend against the likes of BLM, antifa, and the ruthless actors who may direct them from obscurity.

    2. Hitler was a German and not an American. Not an apt comparison
      By contrast look at Spanish monuments to Franco. All removed, but not by vandalism.
      The funny thing is Franco won. What kind of country takes down statutes of a winner?
      He won, at least for a few decades.

      1. Mr Kurtz – Hitler was an Austrian who came to Germany and survived by selling painting of houses.

        1. i know but he was a German Chancellor, obviously, it’s fair to call Hitler a German I think

          1. Mr Kurtz – since he served in the German Army during WWI, winning the Iron Cross twice, I think he changed his citizenship. So, he is an Austian-German. 😉 At least he did not have to learn a new language. 🙂

  8. I wonder if the “chief’ had orders himself. In either event, he should be fired.

    1. a wise surmise, but he probably won’t be, because then he might get mad and expose the workings behind these things. maybe eased into retirement the slick way

  9. Disregard for the law is a hallmark of the violent left fascists that have taken over the liberal Democrat party. And it’s despicable to see the hypociitical dem politicians continue to excuse unlawful behavior – illegal border crossers, fascist Antifa violently burning down universities, criminal drug activity and gang membership. And worse is the press actually hiding this behavior so that Americans remain ignorant of the facts. The ignorant populace is the weapon they left uses and it has certainly become a hallmark of the Democrat party.

  10. I can not believe a police officer act irresponsible today where is the love for this country…. usa look like lawless country… law and order

  11. They’re hardly popular crimes except among the criminals themselves. What do I think? I think civilization dies by suicide more times than murder. Anybody watching that spectacle think Hobbes and his “state of nature” description is wrong?

    1. I agree, especially when it seems to be A-OK for those responsible for upholding the law to apply it as it seems fit in this type of case. It’s another example of how the thread that acts to bind a nation together at the most basic level has deteriorated. Just awaiting the Visigoths, by any other name, to roll in now and look at what is left of our achievements in blind wonder.

      1. The parallels to Ancient Rome are fascinating. Are we in the late Republican Age or the late Imperial Age? Are the new Democrats the Gracchi? Are the Salafists the Visigoths?
        The left asks is Trump Ceasar?, etc. Sure feels like it’s time for our own Social War.

        1. Here is one aspect that defies such a parallel.

          Rome was a land power and America is a sea power.

          Thus the geopolitical factors are profoundly different.
          I think a better analogy is to Great Britain

          in many ways the UK was the standard bearer of capitalism & liberalism as its political ideology, and the US has taken over where it failed during WW2.

          And there was an existing rivalry with the authoritarian land power Russia that was around back then as well; though today the authoritarian land-power that seems to have taken the lead is China.

          Do we fool ourselves that all our ideology is a test of good versus evil or is there something in the organization of capitalist society that lends itself to trading seafaring empires?

          One wonders if there isnt even an analogy there to Athens and Sparta.

          But nobody here will stop moralizing long to wonder.

        2. Haha. such foreboding, such “end of days” nonsense. The real question is why do you not recognize that every generation thinks they’re approaching a “Rubicon” moment, just as every generation throughout recorded history has lamented the following generation’s inability to cope with the world. Somehow, someway, we muddle through. There’s a famous quote that’s appropriate here: “this too, shall pass.”

          this is to “but he’s from Kenya and running a coooouuuuuupp……!!!!” ivan

  12. What do I think? It’s another piece of evidence for the “Liberal = Double-Dealing-Passive-Aggressive-Twit” file. The Democratic Party is unfit to govern, any time anywhere.

  13. The Chief is really more a politician than a law enforcement officer. He has his finger to the wind in every decision he makes, and goes with what will enhance his popularity, or will at least ruffle the fewest feathers. Same with the District Attorney.

  14. I suspect the school didn’t want furious blowback from parents of arrested students. Felony charges can have a life-altering effect. Said charges would have enraged parents and possibly endangered support from alumni.

    While I don’t encourage the destruction of public sculptures, the future of confederate monuments doesn’t look too bright. More than likely they will go the way of lawn jockeys.

    1. Peter Hill – if they were drunk black football players, they would have been hit with a felony.

      1. Paul, you’re saying we need to charge more White people with felonies as a form of Affirmative Action..??

    2. Were all those thugs students? I think not but am not sure. They should definitely be given a harsh sentence. AS for the students there is no problem in arresting them and charging them while looking at their past history. The worst can always face penalties and have the situation expunged from their records if they behave in future years. The reason to convict is to prevent others from doing the same and to teach them to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Doing otherwise destroys a society.

      I’ve been involved in protesting, but never would cause harm to another or destruction of property. That is self defeating in a civil society. A backlash can occur and I think the election of Trump is part of the backlash to prior violence.

    3. the universities now charge boys guilty of sex with a drunk girl with felony rape on a regular basis, deny them of due process, and hang potential sex offender status around their necks for a lifetime. if they want zero tolerance then they should execute zero tolerance. this is strategic tolerance. it’s the kind of thing that is liminal to civil war. that’s when public officials begin to disregard law and believe they serve some other master. a rival master. who can and sometimes does become a rival sovereign. so, don’t think it can’t happen here: this icon was a relic of it.

      maybe the next secessionists will be left-secessionists in California, and then, it will be all fun and happy to see the federal army go in like Sherman and lay waste to prove a point about Federal Supremacy?

      you never know, maybe the foot will be on the other shoe next time!

  15. This group would take down statues of Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson given the chance.

  16. This group would probably take down statues down of Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson given the chance.

    1. they will avoid going after Jefferson due to his propaganda value, equality and all that, especially since they have already soiled him with the Sally Hemmings thing.

      Washington, will be a landmark for them, when they think they are more powerful than the United States itself. That is unlikely since it has been the US backing them pretty much all the way, at least until of late. So we shall see.

      As for Lincoln, he said say that even if he was in favor of abolition, that he didnt want to elevate blacks to the same social level of whites, and he did say he wanted to export them to Liberia. They is considered vile racism on both counts so one would think his day is coming too, except again, he was the one who was a strong enough tyrant to go to war over this and be responsible for the deaths of a many hundred thousands on both sides.

      Did you guys know a lot of countries just voted to abolish slavery? Not all at once, but slowly by democratic processes. Even big slaveholders like Brazil, 1888. It could have happened here too given time, and, a lot of hundreds of thousands of dead men need not have died.

  17. Chief Chicken Blue, but he has figured out which way the wind is blowing.

    This kind of selective enforcement breeds contempt for both the law and for the police.

    Chief Blue is a disgrace.

    1. My name is Steve Fleischer.

      Don’t know why it came up as “Anonymous”, but when I express my contempt for somebody, I want them to know my name.

  18. If it could be argued that these officers have an official duty to intervene, then it could be argued they are aiding and abetting these felonies by omission.

    1. Darren Smith – I think the UNC-Chapel Hill could easily sue the police department as co-conspirators.

    2. You must know that the police don’t owe any individualized protection from crime to anyone. The Supremes have spoken.

      1. If you are referring to Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales or DeShaney v. Winnebago County, these rulings applied specifically to cases regarding personal restraining orders and the questions of a duty to protect that individual. If the police in this case were contracted with the college to protect the school’s property then the omission of failing to stop the vandalism is a dereliction of duty and hence it could be argued they abetted the felonious acts.

Comments are closed.