- Nov 16, 2000
- 15,168
- 1
- 0
Mayor Blames Gangs for Anti-Nazi Violence

The article is mostly uninteresting, I just found the title ironic...
s for me!
The article is mostly uninteresting, I just found the title ironic...
At least 65 people were arrested on charges including assault, vandalism, failure to obey police and failure to disperse. The white supremacists had left hours earlier, Navarre said.
"We frankly could have made a couple hundred arrests easily," Navarre said. "We just didn't have the resources on hand to arrest all of them."
Organizers said [the Nazis] were demonstrating against black gangs they said were harassing white residents.
Is there truth to this blame and lack of responsibility?Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march in the first place. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.
Originally posted by: Howard
Is there truth to this blame and lack of responsibility?Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march in the first place. "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.
The mayor had appealed to residents the night before to ignore the march. He said the city wouldn't give the Nazi group a permit to march in the streets but couldn't stop them from walking on the sidewalks.
...they were given the right to march...
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.
bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good
What, raciest?Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.
bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good
D'oh! you said it!
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.
bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good
Originally posted by: Howard
What, raciest?Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: waggy
wow.
bad situation. on one hand this proves what they were marching about. on the other say that you get labled raciest. heh not good
D'oh! you said it!
Originally posted by: LordMaul
...they were given the right to march...
The article states that they were refused the right to march, but weren't prevented from doing a little legal sidestepping of the refusal, in a way. That is what I don't understand...why was the permit refused in the first place? Or was it really not refused, and your friend got it right?
...they were refused to protest in the street...
Originally posted by: LordMaul
...they were refused to protest in the street...
...Exactly. Why? Isn't there some sort of "right to assembly," (mentioned above) and that being a public place, etc. itwould mean they automatically had the right to do march, sans permit? Or am I missing something here?
