Home / Education / Man Wearing Swastika Explains Why He Came To Turlington Plaza
Protesters confront Michael Dewitz (in middle in black) for wearing a Nazi armband today at the University of Florida's Turlington Plaza. After standing there for almost three hours and drawing a crowd of a few hundred, Dewitz left with two university police escorts. (Monica Humphries/WUFT News)

Man Wearing Swastika Explains Why He Came To Turlington Plaza

By , , and

Updated, Jan. 27, 2017, 12:37 p.m.

Michael Dewitz, the 34-year-old man who wore a swastika armband at the University of Florida on Thursday, said by phone that it was never his intention to “maintain or support racism in any way, or support violence in any way.”

He said he returned to the campus after receiving a message from a woman who encouraged him to go to Turlington Plaza to answer questions. Asked about why he decided to wear swastika, he added: “I can’t really give you an answer of why exactly.”

“Everyone was yelling at each other,” Dewitz said. “No one truly agreed with the whole situation. Everyone was in opposition to me.”

He said he does not plan to come back to the campus, adding that he thinks protesters should not have threatened his life.

Updated, Jan. 27, 2017, 12:23 p.m.

Two men were arrested for allegedly attacking and stealing a swastika-adorned jacket from 34-year-old Michael Dewitz.

Daniel Schexnaydre and Alex Flinchum were arrested on Thursday on charges of robbery and conspiracy, according to Alachua County jail records. Schexnaydre was also charged with tampering evidence.

As of Friday afternoon, both Schexnaydre and Flinchum remain in jail in lieu of $15,000 bond.

Updated, 4:38 p.m.

University of Florida President Kent Fuchs released the following statement after a man wearing a swastika armband at the university today drew a crowd of 200-plus protesters.

Dear Students, Faculty and Staff,

As the University of Florida continues to support the peaceful gathering of students at Turlington Plaza in response to the man with a swastika on his armband, I want to be clear that I do not accept such symbols of hate.

As noted in Tuesday afternoon’s university statement, swastikas are symbols associated with the Holocaust, which exterminated six million Jews as well as multitudes of individuals from other persecuted groups on the basis of their race, religion or sexual orientation. The University of Florida encourages inclusion, respect and empathy for others, not hate.

Many people have contacted the university to ask that the individual be removed from campus. While I decry and denounce all symbols of hate, the individual, who is not a faculty, staff member or student, was expressing his First Amendment rights and we could not legally remove him from public areas of campus.

The UF administration, staff and campus police continue to monitor the situation closely. I encourage everyone at the university to participate in open and civil dialogue as we continue to support each other and build a caring community.

As always, if you are aware of members of the UF community in distress, please contact U Matter, We Care at umatter@ufl.edu. If you are a victim of a crime or see something suspicious, please report it to the police.

Warm regards,
Kent

Kent Fuchs President, University of Florida

Updated, 3:48 p.m.

A man who wore a swastika armband at the University of Florida today and drew a crowd of 200-plus protesters was attacked shortly after he left the site of the protest.

Michael Dewitz, 34, was “jumped” shortly after 2 p.m. by two men who got out of a red pickup truck on Northwest 13th Street at Eighth Avenue, struck him, and stole his jacket and swastika armband, said Ben Tobias, a Gainesville Police Department spokesman.

The men then got back in their truck and headed northbound on Northwest 13th Street, Tobias said, adding that police are searching for the vehicle and suspects.

Dewitz suffered minor injuries.

He was initially escorted from the protest site by university police, but the officers left his side shortly after he was away from the crowd.

Original story

A crowd of 200-plus protested a man wearing a swastika armband on the University of Florida’s Turlington Plaza this morning and afternoon.

The man whom the Independent Florida Alligator identified as 34-year-old Michael Dewitz didn’t respond much and remained largely silent even as protesters came within inches of his face, waved makeshift signs and yelled chants like, “No more Nazis! Never again!”

One protester even attempted to remove the armband from him.

Dewitz, who isn’t listed as a student at the university, remained there from about 10:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. before walking away with two university police escorts. He was first seen wearing the armband while riding his bike on the campus Tuesday.

After he arrived in the plaza Thursday, about 50 or so protesters quickly gathered around him, but that number mushroomed into the small hundreds.

UF students look on from Turlington Hall. (Cecilia Lemus/WUFT News)
UF students look on from Turlington Hall. (Cecilia Lemus/WUFT News)

“I think we did a really good job of staying peaceful and keeping things fairly civil and staying united,” said one protester, Thomas Moseley, a telecommunications student at the university, who stood next to Dewitz for most of the protest.

Clothed in all black except for the swastika armband, Dewitz stood on a bench above the protesters.

As the crowd grew, so did the tension, especially when he performed a Nazi salute.

Shouting matches broke out among protesters over whether those gathered should be quiet enough to let him speak. At one point, a man spit on Dewitz’s shirt.

Protestors wave makeshift signs at Dewitz. (Cecilia Lemus/WUFT News)
Protesters wave makeshift signs at Dewitz. (Cecilia Lemus/WUFT News)

Almost three hours after Dewitz arrived, the crowd parted when he responded yes to a protester wearing a yarmulke asking him if he wanted to leave. The police then escorted him through the crowd out to Newell Drive.

Moseley said he thinks this may not be the last time Dewitz makes an appearance at UF.

“I can’t help but feel like this might just be a drop in the bucket,” he said.

About Kirsten Chuba

Kirsten is a reporter who can be contacted by calling 352-392-6397 or emailing news@wuft.org.

Check Also

Florida’s Auditor General Puts Focus On Student Data Protection

In the past two years, state auditors have found that at least one-third of education employees who had access to student Social Security numbers did not need them.

99 comments

  1. Great example of a community defending itself. Keep up the good work, and to the red truck heroes: Good Job!

    • Defending yourselves against what, exactly?

      How does someone standing quietly and keeping to themselves constitute a threat?

      OK, you don’t like how he dressed. He DARED — GASP — to display a symbol of an ideology you find repugnant.

      So what.

      If every atheist who ever had an issue against Christianity decided it was perfectly fine to just start beating up people displaying a cross — or vice versa, every Christian decided to beat up anyone with a “darwin fish” on his car — we’d have one hell of a problem out there.

      If you think this comparison is not apt, think again. Atheists routinely refer to the historical pursuits of Christians regarding the crusades, Inquisitions, and early colonial witch-hunts, as proof of how vile and reprehensible they and their “superstitious and intolerant” ideology “really” are. Christians routinely refer to the mass slaughters of communist powers over the past century and point to atheism as a central feature of these countries, as proof of how vile and reprehensible THEY and THEIR “godless” ideology “really” are.

      As “J C” points out in a comment below, “an assault must [remain] an assault in the eyes of the law. Picking and choosing who can and cannot be a victim of a crime is a dangerous road to go down.” I will add to his or her astute remark by pointing out in no uncertain terms that it is the road that leads precisely to the exact same thing people say they are worried about coming from “nazis”. It will not be “nazis” leading a totalitarian dictatorial blacklisting, vilification and round-up for torture or extermination at this rate, but all you supposed “heroes” fapping to these ludicrous fantasies that you will, by doing the very thing which makes you afraid of “Nazi-ism” in the first place, somehow “stop nazis.”

      It’s pathetic as hell. Seriously.

      • Hey here’s a question: How did we get rid of nazis the first time around? Was it through love?

        • I’m not suggesting you have to “love” people you oppose. But the first time around, it was war. It wasn’t random people with an ideology you find distasteful wandering around wearing symbols of the beliefs. it was soldiers on battlefields being bombed and shot at and they bombed and shot back. None of us have the authority to just “declare war” on people at random whenever we feel like it just because we don’t like what they express.

          • I appreciate you describing my remark as astute, and will now return the favor. I agree with your statement, wholeheartedly ,and, indeed, tried arguing a similar point with this Wussypillow down below (to no avail it seems). False equivalency seems to be this person’s favorite way to “argue.” Saying this neo-nazi is in some way the same as WW2 Nazis, and deserves the same response is baffling to me, and also minimizes what actually happened in WW2. If you want to disdain this guy (the neo-nazi) for his beliefs, go right on ahead, but to say that we should openly attack and assault someone physically for their beliefs is simply wrong. I also tried to make the point that actively condoning and calling for violence against these people will actually help legitimize (at least to neo-nazis and their sympathizers) the narrative they have spun of them being victims who need to fight back so “whites have a chance,” etc.

            I do have to ask, because I am now curious, what your feelings are on this whole cultural argument? I personally, would like to see a day when when neo-nazis and the like don’t exist anymore. Not because they were physically exterminated, as we have both already touched on how that’s wrong, but because the ideal itself will have died off as an obsolete obstacle to our society’s functioning capacity. We are all humans, and I hope one day that common bond we all share will take precedent over the arbitrary differences we try to create for ourselves.

          • I don’t agree with you on all points, primarily because I don’t believe the whole globalist/multiculturalist push is working well for anyone. Especially anyone white. And I don’t believe it’s OK to just hate on whites now — those who think it is have learned nothing, and the very things to which they point to justify this nonsense are the very things that condemn them for pulling it, because if you look at something done to your people, your ancestors, whatever, and are angry or hurt by it, and thus can see it is wrong, your first duty is to not repeat it. To anyone. Including those who you think did it first. Ever. Period. Or else you basically are either a hypocrite, didn’t learn a thing from any of it (meaning your ancestors suffered in vain and you are disrespecting their sufferings not honoring them), or by your actions proving you and yours actually deserved what befell you because of your own willingness to do likewise. This falls in line with my basic principle that it is the actually-violent who deserve violence, if anyone does (and we can of course argue that nobody does).

            I don’t mean “you” PERSONALLY in any of that above, just the generic second-person “you” meaning “anyone to whom this applies”.

            I do believe we are in agreement on the most crucial matters of this instant issue, though — with regard to how nobody deserves violence for simply holding beliefs or ideas no matter what we might think of those beliefs. As you have said, disdain those ideas all you want, with words, but nobody deserves to be attacked literally and physically assaulted for thinking thoughts, having feelings, or perceiving life in ways another does not like or approve. Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments; it is nice to know neither of us is alone in that awareness, and in my opinion, even nicer given that we may not see eye to eye in other areas, but on this one critical point, we do agree, and that by itself is enough for people to have to live in peace.

          • No, with stand your ground and the Malheur verdict our society had has explicitly surrendered the governments monopoly on force. So yes, I can punch a nazi.

          • Then may the next person YOU decide is a “nazi” (never mind truth, that doesn’t matter to useless violent scum like you) meet your pathetic cowardly little sucker punch with full scale force and teach you a lesson you desperately need to learn — one that clearly brute savages like yourself cannot be taught with things you are incapable of comprehending, such as words and logic.
            See how that works?

          • Clearly you don’t. So maybe instead of squawking about “nazi” this and “nazi” that you should try actually studying history and find out what the real problem was that actual National Socialists had with the Jewish demographic in Germany at the rise of the Third Reich. Instead of just playing violins and assuming they were just big meanies and bullies who wanted to pick on little hook-nosed hymie for wearing taped glasses or something.

      • He wanted to shock and he did. I wish he had his shit beaten out. This “shock attempt” came at a very low price for him, so shut up.

        • “Shut up”?? For real? How about no. No, I will not shut up. I will continue to speak the truth. If you don’t like it, block me.

          • You misunderstood the valuable advice I give, instead you will keep on “speaking that truth” and embarrassing yourself. Go ahead.

          • I am not at all embarrassed to stand for non-violence and freedom of speech. It’s what differentiates me from … well, from those who think it’s perfectly fine to go around assaulting those they disagree with. Hmm, which group of people was generally considered to be doing that back in the 1940s, again?

          • Yep, there we differ. I am glad older folks fire bullets instead of “oh let’s try to dialogue with the fascists”.

          • In a wartime situation, I agree, it is not the time to try to dialogue with those you name your enemy.

            We are not in a wartime situation yet. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that by advocating violence, people are trying to prematurely escalate to one — on some really shaky ground, too.

            There’s still time for dialogue.

          • “We are not in a wartime situation yet”. Exactly, YET. When does the action start, when they conquer power?

            Have you ever seen the actions of neo-nazi groups? If you haven’t, I strongly suggest you Google some, really. They are “up to dialogue” at all.

            And do you realize that, these guys’ triumph could the very end for me? I am not a Jew myself, but I am not white either. Now, answer me honestly: if one head is going to get a bullet, mine or theirs, what do you think I should chose?

            Too many questions I know, I’d like your honest answers, please, because really, I can’t see how dialogue can help here.

  2. Yarmulke, not yamaka.

  3. “One protestor even attempted to remove the armband from him.”

    This is not accurate. While someone did attempt to remove the armband, he was *not* part of the original protest group, which had been there for well over an hour. More importantly, both a professor and myself (mostly the professor) talked the man down to prevent him from escalating. In other words, said man, who may or may not have been a “protester,” was prevented from removing the armband by other protesters who wished to keep the protest peaceful. And, surprise, aside from some very minor issues such as a couple people trying to start something, the protest was, indeed, peaceful. Very loud, but peaceful.

  4. It is okay to punch a Nazi.

    • No, he is trying to get as much attention as possible. Punching him would get you arrested, which only gives him what he wants. Is it worth putting your academic and career future at risk just to punch some idiot that’s desperate for attention?

      • Some things are worth going to jail over

        • Then by all means — do let your stupid ass end up there. Just don’t sit there whining about how assaulting people for wearing an armband you dislike is “just” and “fair” and “right” and “heroic” somehow. Go be an autistic LARPer somewhere else.

      • PrincessOfTheCrystal

        most of these Nazis are pretty cowardly. so it actually makes them afraid to stick their heads out again. it also makes them look weak. their whole message is based on dominance and superiority. it’s an overall good for sure.

        • I understand, but now the people who attacked him are being searched for by the police. The man who wore the swastika said he was doing it as a social experiment (which I am not defending). I think he just wanted attention, which is exactly what he got. I would feel very ashamed of my self if I threw all my hard work out the window by getting an assault charge on my record. This guy was not worth it, but hey, if y’all disagree, be my guest. Go punch these wanna be Nazis all day. Just don’t be shocked if you regret it later.

      • Nah, it’s okay to punch a Nazi.

  5. Kind of ironic… I dont agree with you *attacks. #hypocrites

    • It’s not, as fascism calls for not only the subversion of democracy and rights, but also violent enforcement. Saying that fascism cannot be tolerated in an open society is simply knowing history.

      • It doesn’t matter what you think “fascism” supposedly “calls for”. If you are attacking someone PHYSICALLY merely for their beliefs — someone who is not in power, who has no institutional, administrative or systemic power to back up those beliefs or put them into effect — then you are “punching down” as they call it, and that makes YOU the bully/abuser/oppressor … NOT them.

        In the very same words you folks have shoved down the throat of decent working class Americans for a decade now, it’s systemic, so your individual experience doesn’t f’n matter. Well, OK then, systemically you have the power; a believer in fascism does not. Not in this nation and not in this era. It’s that simple. Punch them, and go about crowing over it and pretending it makes you some sort of “heroes”, and all you are doing is shooting holes in the feet of every cause you espouse which relies upon the argument of “it’s a systemic/institutionalized issue, not an individualist one!” Congratulations: you have become the oppressor. You have now fully justified and proven everything your “enemy” believes, everything you HATE him for believing, to be 100% TRUE — BY YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS.

        WAY TO GO, GENIUSES.

        • “someone who is not in power, who has no institutional, administrative or systemic power to back up those beliefs or put them into effect” – you mean like someone who works under the current power behind the throne, Steve Bannon?

          Yeah, that’s not punching down.

          “you folks have shoved down the throat of decent working class Americans” – who are we folks, again?

          “Well, OK then, systemically you have the power” – like most fascist movements, the American right wing simultaneously pretends they’re disempowered and that their opponents are weak and corrupt. Given the GOP is run by its radicals, and has all 3 branches of government, it’s pretty obvious the left does not have the power.

          “Congratulations: you have become the oppressor” – dear god.

          • Oh, so you are claiming the man standing on campus with the armband is Steve Bannon? That’s interesting.

            “You folks” — shit buddy if you don’t know who you are by now I can’t help you there. How about — just for starters — everyone pushing this crap that any disagreement with the violent extreme left or any idea right-of-center, somehow automatically equates with “nazis” or “fascism”.

            “simultaneously pretends they’re disempowered and that their opponents are weak and corrupt.” — that’s your bucket of fucktards you’re describing there, bud. I hate to have to remind you #itsthecurrentyear again but shit, it’s the current year. Stop living in the 1990s and making 1990s references and 1990s arguments. The left has been in power literally for the past 8 years and paradigmatically for far longer. Sorry your ilk was too stupid to realize that when you could have! That’s just part of how you lost it. The rest of that story is intricately entwined in the story of how you lost me … but unlike you morons I keep my private bubble to myself; I don’t demand the entire world accommodate it, so we won’t be going there.

            Got any more useless bile to spew or are we good till you find a competent exorcist?

          • “Oh, so you are claiming” – I’m claiming Milo, who works for Bannon, is indeed connected to him. That’s interesting to you?

            “everyone pushing this crap that any disagreement with the violent extreme left or any idea right-of-center” – except that’s nobody outside your head. My problem with Spencer and Bannon is that they explicitly DO embrace fascism. It’s not a term I use lightly.

            “The left has been in power literally for the past 8 years and paradigmatically for far longer.” – right. A centrist president and a GOP congress for 6 years is the left in power. Meanwhile the GOP has currently all 3 branches, and that’s somehow not them in power.

            Start dealing in facts.

          • I will when you will. If you consider Milo a “fascist” let alone a “nazi” it is clear you are not even remotely acquainted with what his views are or what he thinks.
            I’d venture to say the same regarding Bannon — but I am not fully acquainted with all his views. At least I admit that, instead of claiming the simple fact he used to be with Breitbart is sufficient to make assumptions on the scale you are making.
            Now, Richard Spencer, you might be able to make a valid case as some of his views are extreme enough to potentially be classified that far right. However, you still cannot make a valid case for assault upon individual persons who do not have any kind of power to make their personal political views binding law upon the entire nation.
            So don’t give me this shit about how it’s “nobody outside [my] head” or how you do not “use the term lightly.” If you apply the term to Milo that’s light enough. But if by extension you then apply it to the people who want to hear him speak? Then yes, you are completely part of the problem yourself, dealing in spin and lies and not facts at all.

            FFS dude you lay out this whole argument about how these few individuals qualify as fascist and how it’s all in my head that the label is being applied to anyone right-of-center and how you personally “do not use the term lightly” and then finish off by referring to the GOP in congress as evidence of fascism being in power? Really? REALLY?? The entire GOP is “fascist” now — but somehow that doesn’t equate to calling anyone right-of-center “fascist”??

            Yeah, we are done here. You have nothing to say that matters or should be taken seriously.

            Bottom line: if I decide to wear a swastika armband that’s my f*cking business. If you decide to assault me over that, you’ve committed a criminal act and belong in jail, unless I assaulted you first. That’s how reality works. Your fanciful conflations, exaggerations and baseless self-justifications are not, and all of those need to “F” off and die, last century.

            F*cking BULLSHI-vik.

          • Milo, along with the rest of the alt-lite, is quasi-fascist, not completely like the alt-right (Spencer and the like). They’re primarily nationalistic and trolls. Bannon, on the other hand, has a long history of such. Like I said, I’m not using that term casually.

            Nor did I call the GOP fascist. I said that the left is not in power, as you seem to be claiming. Nor have they been since 2010, when the right got the ability to shut down the government.

            As for swastika armbands and the like – sure, assault is a crime. It’s also one worth committing IMHO against neo-nazis. I’ve never claimed otherwise, so you can calm the fuck down.

          • Shove your “calm the fuck down” up your own ass. Don’t play those pathetic word games with me. I am calm. You’re the one pretending to be “reasonable” while you pretty much just basically called the entire GOP (ergo, anyone right-of-center) a fascist in your earlier comment. If you don’t understand how to use language properly don’t blame that on me. We are done here.

          • Learn to read.

            “Given the GOP is run by its radicals, and has all 3 branches of government, it’s pretty obvious the left does not have the power.”

            I’m not saying the entire GOP is fascist. I’m saying there’s fascists in the GOP.

          • Your case is weaksauce. You claimed fascism is in power, has the power, period. You equivocated over a few people you view as “fascists” having influence and spread that over the matter of a GOP-controlled congress. To say that indicates fascism is “in power” is patently false. Anyone espousing genuine fascism is in a very small minority of the population and frankly the moderate right won’t even hear of it let alone entertain it.

            And regardless, even if that were not the case, even IF fascism were in power, there is no excuse nor justification for assaulting individuals in the street — ever. I don’t give a fuck what their beliefs or political preferences are and frankly nobody can claim to know another’s mind or heart just by them wearing a fucking armband.

            Don’t agree? Fine — keep being stupid and wrong — but we are done, because this is where I stand and nothing you say is going to change that. If you think it’s OK to assault individuals in the streets for disagreeing with their beliefs or political views, you’re fucking wrong, end of issue, nothing more to discuss. You clearly refuse to listen to reason to the contrary so again, end of issue, nothing more to discuss, game over.

          • “You claimed fascism is in power, has the power, period” – please go read what I wrote, as I did not. I claim that there’s fascists, such as Bannon, in power.

            “even IF fascism were in power, there is no excuse nor justification for assaulting individuals in the street” – yeah, no. Bye.

  6. Hope the attackers get caught and prosecuted

  7. https://www.youcaring.com/danielschexnaydreandfriends-745217
    This is the legal defense fund for the men who ‘allegedly’ attacked him. They are facing unnecesarily harsh felony charges. lets show our support for these young men!

    • They’re facing felonies? Really? For taking an armband off a Nazi you get charged with a felony? Guess I should expect that from the place that has always let itself be the gathering point for Klan action.

      • Well, it was technically a strong armed robbery. While I couldn’t care less what happens to a Nazi, an assault must be an assault in the eyes of the law. Picking and choosing who can and cannot be a victim of a crime is a dangerous road to go down. We win this argument by being right, not by getting rid of those who are arguing with us.

        • agreed.

        • Finally, first bit of sense I’ve heard in weeks on the subject from anyone among those who would typically condone this crap because “omg its a nazi, it deserves this!!!11”

          THANK YOU for speaking the truth.

          • I appreciate the words. I understand the tendency of people to get emotional about this topic (I chuckled at this and feel no ill will towards the perpetrators, and I do feel that the victim, as well as any other “nazi”, are cowardly, ignorant pieces of trash). But if we start saying certain people’s are not protected by the law (as well as some people are in some way above the law), we risk certain parts of history (like a certain time period that the victim in this story likely idolizes) repeating themselves.

          • I personally think the neo-bolsheviks (as I call them) are the real ignorant trash, but hey, that’s freedom of speech in action. We can call those we dislike and disagree with whatever we want — it’s our right — what we don’t have the right to do is perpetrate criminal violence against them for their points of view.

            The problem is, these “punch a nazi, it’s so heroic!” morons are basically being goaded into giving people grounds to retaliate. And I don’t think they have given much thought to what form that retaliation could take. Anything immediately after being punched is easily acquittable. Anything with more long-range planning is a war they are neither prepared nor trained to win.

        • 1. no one’s “getting rid” of anyone. tho perhaps that is deserved. because… 2. How about we stop thinking of Nazis as a different opinion and realize they are TERRORISTS. I see no difference in punching a nazi vs punching someone publicly PREACHING support of ISIS. they are terrorists, and you are an apologist…

          • Ok, so a few things. Like the school’s president, I, in no way, condone the ideals or even the existence of this person. In fact, just like with Richard Spencer, I chuckled and felt 0 pity or sorrow for the bad things that happened to them. BUT, and this is important, regardless of my feelings about them, the law defines what those two (the possible protesters, not the neo-nazis) did as a strong armed (i.e. without a weapon) robbery, and if the evidence shows that is indeed what happened, they should be held accountable for those actions. We cannot start redefining the laws in this way, where if you disagree with someone (and please know, I wholly disagree with these monsters), they are not protected by the law, or if a crime is committed against an unsavory person, then they (who committed the crime) should be exempt from any consequences. This is a slippery, terrible slope, that would lead to huge civil rights violations (and, again, while I believe these people are about as nasty as you can get, you CANNOT fight for the civil rights of people on one hand, and deny them to other people on the other hand). I am not, in any way, an apologist for neo-nazis, or anyone for that matter, but am, in fact, defending the ideal that everyone is equal under the law, which I am assuming is an ideal you would normally agree with and fight for. This whole situation is a cultural argument. Do these ideals (racism, nazi-ism, etc) belong in our society? No, I think not. But, as I said before, the way we win this argument is by being right, and NOT by silencing the opposition through violence, or the taking away of rights. You might say, “Well, they commit violence and hatred towards others!” Indeed, they do, and that is why they are the ones who are wrong. So we cannot, MUST not sink to that level, because then we are wrong, too.

          • We cannot start redefining the laws in this way

            But we already have. ‘Stand your ground’ and what not. It’s already happened. America ended a long time ago, but you’re insisting on propping up the corpse and getting in a huff that we aren’t serving it tea with you.

          • “Stand your ground” (which i disagree with) is a legal justification to use normally unlawful force to defend one’s self from a “threat”. While obviously flawed, this does not equate to the stripping of one’s rights based on a difference in ideology or opinion. The one-liners you’ve gone through and left in the comments are little more than failed, substanceless attempts to, I’m assuming, sound clever. See, I don’t mind, in this instance, making an assumption about your character, as you first made a baseless assumption about me. For one, the only “corpse” of America is that of a time where civil rights didn’t exist for a large amount of our population, and it should stay buried and forgotten, not propped up. Secondly, I can’t stand tea; I am definitely a coffee person. Three creams and five sugars for me. I know, I know, it’s bad for me, but eh, what isn’t these days? Anyways, if you do so happen to come up with a sound argument, and not another false equivalence, please, by all means, let’s have a discussion. Oh, and leave out the ‘zing-ers’, they make you sound like a jerk, and I’m SURE that is definitely not your intent. Right?

          • Punching nazis is fine.

          • “Punching nazis is fine.” Why? Because we don’t like them? Because they’re bad? Is that your reasoning? Sounds kinda familiar. Pretty sure nazis would say “punching ____ is fine” (insert a number of different nouns that apply) and their reasoning would be “because we don’t like them and they’re bad.” They might have come to these conclusions because of propaganda, false information, and a heavy dose of confirmation bias, but their reasoning is the same. Guess what? Punching (assault and battery) anybody for their BELIEFS is never ‘fine’, regardless of how disgusting their belief might be. If they punch first, and you do so back in reaction to their ACTION, fine, but otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

            P.S. I figured you’d respond with another little one-liner. It’s disappointing, really. I thought we might actually be able to talk about this topic. I assume, now, that if I even get a reply back, it will be another one-liner… maybe even just “punching nazis is fine” again. Well, I’ll leave you with this. If you really dislike nazis and nazi-ism, you shouldn’t advocate for violent crime to be committed against them. See, the neo-nazi, white nationalist movement, to its core, paints itself as the victim. “Us whites are being oppressed, and we gotta fight back!” This is obviously a huge crock. BUT, if society starts to advocate for this type of violence towards them, we will actually be supporting their narrative, and this, likely, would help their cause more than hurt it.

          • Yeah, pretty much because they are bad.

          • Hey wussy (you called yourself that, so it’s not a slur), care to answer as to what’s going on with this woman’s comments then? And if she’s not high-ranking enough for you I have plenty of videos from others who are.

            It’s barely over one minute long, literally just a quote, won’t take much time to see.

            https://youtu.be/85BKDj_1vVU

            Have you seen what’s going on in Europe lately?

          • and you are a fool who relies upon the logical fallacy of false equivalency.
            (1) Nazis were not terrorists. They were the ruling party in Germany prior to the Allied genocide of that nation.
            (2) You may dislike and disagree with their political system & theory all you wish–that is your perogative–but in their day they were hailed as the saviours of their people. The National Socialists liberated and empowered their nation, and held administration within it. They got the German economy back on its feet after it had been savaged (wrongfully, an objective study will yield) with demands for reparations from WW1.
            (3) Far from terrorists, they were for a very long time the first and frontmost line of defense against the incursion of Stalin, against Bolshevism, against a true ruthless monster who starved his people, literally taking the harvest from the hands of peasants, and issued written orders to murder his own POWs as though they were traitors — among other things. The National Socialist armies fought to defend Europe and to push socialism back across eastern Europe to Russia from whence it had emerged.
            (4) There’s an awful lot about that period of history I’d wager you haven’t been permitted to study and probably are not even aware of that as the case, either. You should be asking what and whom you’re not allowed (and I do mean literally, by law, in some countries — ironically Germany being one of those) to question.
            (5) At any rate, actual “Nazis” — as in the reigning German party prior to the end of WW2 — no longer exist. To locate one you will need a time machine.
            (6) Ergo, nobody by merely wearing a swastika armband, is the equivalent to a 1930s-1940s German National Socialist, REGARDLESS of what he personally believes. He does not have power in this nation to exercise National Socialism, or to make it the law of the land, or to install rulers who uphold it, or to compel others to submit to such rule.
            (7) There is therefore absolutely NO justification, logical basis, or rationale for pretending a random person wearing a swastika poses whatever threat you believe National Socialist Germans would pose if they were alive AND IN POWER (important point) today.
            None. Whatsoever.
            (8) All arguments and justifications made upon such a basis are therefore null and void, utterly useless, worthless LARPing, and unworthy of thinking, sensible human beings in a civilized world. Period.
            (9) There is no #9 and there is no refutation of the above. No I don’t care how you feel about that. Your feelings are not an argument.

          • Wearing an armband is a terrorist act?

        • We win this argument by being right

          No, apparently we don’t.

        • I’d believe that if this didn’t happen in the same place that let the KKK get away with shit for decades, including kidnapping a priest from campus, in broad daylight, beating him, castrating him, and leaving him for dead on the steps of a catholic church in the next county over. Study some of Florida’s history and you might not be as forgiving of the “law” around Gainesville, or anywhere in Florida for that matter. It was people who thought like you who let Rosewood happen. That let lynch mobs drag black bodies through the streets. And it was also people who didn’t want to make waves and didn’t want to break the law who let their neighbors be dragged away to death camps under the Nazis. You have a moral duty to fight against immoral laws. If no one had been willing to take a stand against slavery, simply because it was the law, where would we be right now? Stop being a coward and take a stand.

          • So let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, you are in favor of behaving pre-emptively in the precise same terrorist fashion of which you report the KKK having behaved — against innocent people solely for their beliefs — in order to prevent — what again? Oh, to prevent — ostensibly — those innocent people from doing that to you, or someone else. Or rather, to punish those innocent people for bearing ideological resemblance to someone who actually got violent. You know, the same way people are racist because someone bears skin-tone resemblance to someone else who did bad things.

            Doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t see how it can make sense to you, unless you really just want to admit you have no moral high ground here and are purely advocating for “my side getting your side first before your side can get us even though your side isn’t actually doing anything against us except pointing out our rank hypocrisy.”

            Yeah, that doesn’t fly with thinking people … though I’m sure you can con a crowd of 80-something IQs into thinking you’re incredibly smart with that.

    • I support them going to jail. Dude can wear whatever he likes. Other dudes have NO right to harm him just because they don’t like what he was wearing. NONE AT ALL. They broke the law and should now be punished. Personally I think being held down by cops while swastika guy kicks the crap out of them is too good for them, but we do hopefully still have rule of law in this land, not rule by vigilante justice. Oh wait …..

  8. You can’t be for freedom and then jump the guy. I hate Nazis as much as the next person but he has the right to stand there unmolested. You can’t be for freedom if you attack him.

  9. The guys who did it are sitting in jail and need help with bail. Follow this link to donate.
    https://www.youcaring.com/danielschexnaydreandfriends-745217

  10. It should be illegal to even be a nazi, as it is in Germany.

    • Only (((one of you))) would make such a disgusting, despicable statement.
      The whole world has been under your vile spell of malicious lies for 70+ years. Isn’t that enough to satisfy you, asshole?

  11. “The men then got back in their truck and headed northbound on Northwest 13th Street, Tobias said, adding that police are searching for the vehicle and suspects.” But not searching a whole lot.

  12. Hate speech is not FreeSpeech. citizen’s have a right to break the law when the law encourages hatespeech.
    swastika didn’t lend him in jail, Freedom is a state of mind, liberty is a freedom with responsibilities.
    hate speech is toxic, would you keep something toxic in your house?

    • you don’t get to make up laws based on how you feel. freedom of speech exists precisely to protect unpopular speech (that which people may be offended by). popular speech (that which people have no issue with) does not need protection because nobody questions its right to exist.

      what the law does not protect is direct incitement to literal violence or crime. so to illustrate with an example, someone has the right to say they think all group X are horrible people who lie about everything. They do NOT have the right to say “there’s someone from group X now — grab him and pound him into the dirt!” any more than they would have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

      I’m told for similar reasons, if you are greeting a friend named Jack in the airport, do not yell your greeting down the corridor … ;)

  13. skinnercitycyclist

    Moron wanders the campus wearing a swastika and wonders what all the fuss is about. Are all Nazis this dumb?

    • ^ the moron is the one who assumes everyone should just give up on freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and expression and button up their unpopular ideas or harmless expressions thereof because the goon squad told them to.

      • skinnercitycyclist

        In what way can you draw your response from what I wrote? I never said he had no right to be a moron, but when Nazi assholes parade their assholery around in public, people hve a right to respond, not with violence, but with: fuck you, Nazi.

        Oh, did I mention: fuck you, Nazi.

        • I’m fine with “fuck you Nazi”. That’s freedom of speech.
          I’m not fine with claiming unprovoked violence is OK, regardless what somebody’s views are. I think SJWs are fucking morons and I don’t mind telling them so, but I don’t go around punching them for being commies.
          If you were not advocating the violence, I apologize for assuming you were.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            “Moron wanders the campus wearing a swastika and wonders what all the fuss is about. Are all Nazis this dumb?”

            Was what I wrote. The moron I referred to was not assaulted, and, no, I do not approve of assaulting even Nazis. I approve of ridiculing them mercilessly when they show their snouts. And I think RWNJs with no reading skills should practice more.

          • OK I’ll bite … what does “RWNJ” stand for? Never seen that one before.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Right wing nut job. The kind of person who uses the acronym “SJW.”

          • SJWs invented the term (and hence the acronym) for themselves. I hate to break it to you but it wasn’t invented by right-wingers as a pejorative. Your pejorative acronym, on the other hand, is pure fabrication. We are done here.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Yes, we are done here, Cletus.

          • Just have to have the last word, is it? How about a binky instead, crybaby. When I say “we are done” that means done you stupid shit. It doesn’t mean respond.

          • skinnercitycyclist

            OK, have it your way.

  14. The guys wears a swastika armband, and then, it was never his intention to “maintain or support racism in any way, or support violence in any way.”.

    I feel sorry for those guys whose brains are barely functional, but before the sorrow, I feel more like seeing them being punched.

    • Before I give a shit about anything you have to say, I would like to see you be punched. Just because I don’t like what you said.
      See how that works?

      • Why so butthurt? It’s tempting to just guess you’re one of the nazi scum, because of your eager to defend this, but I will just take that your “sense of justice for freedom of speech is above anything else”.

        And when I said the nazi should be punched, I think he should have what the Soviets gave to the original nazis, which is a little more than just a punch.

        • Stop looking in the mirror pretending you’re talking to me, for starters. The one who is butthurt here is you. I’m simply correcting your egregious error in thinking your butthurt equates to any sort of viable moral justification whatsoever.

          You can guess whatever you wish because frankly, it doesn’t matter who I am or what I really, truly, actually believe or think, or even more importantly, WHY. That’s the whole problem right there with idiots espousing the kind of moronic self-exonerating horse shit you’ve been [whatever-it-should-be-called]-splaining. You don’t care what people actually think or more importantly why they think what they think. You’ll just slap your label and take your shot anyway.

          This is precisely why you and all those who think like you are not only wrong, but hypocritically so, and have zero moral high ground whatsoever. And I only say zero to be generous, and to work around the mathematical difficulties of invoking something like “negative infinity” in a casual conversation.

          • Big text. Didn’t read. Don’t care: if punching a nazi is an option to me, that will be done.

          • Then if punching you is an option for me, it will be done.

            Was that IQ-less-than-86 friendly enough for you to read?

          • It’s very easy on the internet, but if, god knows how, we ever come across, come and get it.

          • I’m actually not interested in punching you. Or anyone.
            I’m simply trying to provide an object lesson in how that kind of escalating talk really looks.
            I actually have, as my default setting, a belief that most people want to do the right thing, and would not knowingly choose either a double standard or hypocrisy.
            I have been proven wrong numerous times on that, but alas, it persists.

          • And it’s not about IQ, it’s about saving time from reading pretty much bullshit. Time management, baby.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *