The group left in a U-Haul box truck that was driven out of the county, police said, indicating the demonstrators were outsiders.

A small group of neo-Nazis marched in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday, drawing a few vocal opponents and ultimately leaving following a “challenge,” police said.

The demonstrators, all men, wore red, long-sleeve T-shirts and black pants, and some carried black Nazi flags, according to verified social media video from the scene.

“Neo-Nazi demonstrators … carried flags with swastikas, walked around the Capitol and parts of downtown Saturday afternoon,” Nashville police said in a statement.

No arrests were reported, and the group left in a U-Haul box truck that ultimately exited greater Nashville, police said, indicating the demonstrators may have been from out of town.

“Some persons on Broadway challenged the group, most of whom wore face coverings,” the department said. “The group headed to a U-Haul box truck, got in, and departed Davidson County.”

  • @apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    99
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Police doing police shit: “They drove away … indicating that we think they were outsiders.” Uhauls can be rented and picked up anywhere. Pigs won’t lift a finger to stop nazis.

    • @Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -124 months ago

      It’s not their job, our constitution protects nazi protestors the same way it protects climate protestors. The right to assembly.

      Confronting these things is our job, as citizens. Not the police’s job. If they weren’t causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.

      • @nottelling@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        524 months ago

        I think the thing in this case is that it is the job of police to pull over a box truck full of human cargo. The implication here is so you think they’d have let a truck they knew was full of immigrants just drive away?

          • @thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            144 months ago

            not just tickets but checked for outstanding warrants and plain ol’ pressured to ID themselves before being allowed to leave

            JUST LIKE THE COPS DO TO LIBERALS PROTESTING

            • @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              54 months ago

              They would at the least be booked on charges that will obviously not stick, so that there face and name becomes public data and they get added to lists by political rivals. This was the MO throughout 2020, there were several popular twitter accounts that would just post the mugshots and names of people arrested, the majority of which weren’t charged or often weren’t even part of the protest but ended up doxxed and harrassed by chuds.

      • @mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        36
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s not cops job to pull over dozens of people not following traffic laws like wearing a seatbelt?

        Sure seems like it’s literally their job, but they just didn’t want to do it when it Nazis. Wonder why that is?

      • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        254 months ago

        If they weren’t causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.

        It’s neat that this is a consideration now that it benefits nazis.

      • @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        Nazi ideology is explicit violent and encourages murder of non-white people and others, there is no constitutional protection for literally threatening someone’s life even if only through words.

        If you menancingly say to someone “I’m going to kill you” you can be charged with a crime for that in the US. Supporting Naziism is little different than saying “I encourage the murder of Jews and other non-Aryans.”

      • @apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You’re almost there. Yes their primary role is to protect capital interests through systemic oppression. They selectively enforce certain laws over others.

        They will beat down peaceful leftist and progressive demonstrations through the enforcement of petty law breaking like jay walking. I’ve been witness to this. They could do this here but they choose not to because capitalism requires systemic racism.

        • @Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -64 months ago

          Their primary role is whatever the local governance makes it. There is no universal set of regulations governing local police. Though we might need some.

          Additionally, what one person witnesses and attests to is not a sound basis for making policy decisions.

          All that said, I do agree that leftist protestors frequently get treated more harshly than right-wing protestors, and that is a problem we need to address.

          • @apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            5
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Thanks for invalidating my experience and those of black and brown people across the US. It is a systemic issue, their job is policing capital interests. History books and plenty of fields of study show this.

            • @Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -54 months ago

              I didn’t intend any offense, but validating individual personal experiences is not what policy is for. It’s a statistical thing. Those fields of study are vastly more valuable than any anecdotes, which can be subject to a lot of different potential problems.

              Particularly on the internet, which is absolutely full of people saying shit that is not actually true, and pretending to be things they are not.

              It’s not personal, it’s very coldly impersonal. On purpose. I would discount an individual experience regardless of who the person was, or what they said.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        54 months ago

        Nazis marching are an explicit threat to all minorities and queer people. It should be treated as any other threat of violence is- as a violation of the law and disallowed.

      • You are right of course.

        I don’t think the Constitution should protect them. Hell, I don’t even think laws against murder should protect them.

        But they do. If they break the law, throw the book at them. Until then, it’s our job to try and change the law or fight them on other fronts, such as in civil court, like they are doing in Massachusetts.

      • @KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        -14 months ago

        Childish take.

        Tolerance will never extend to protect intolerance. Hate and violence will never be considered protected. It’s not “for better or worse” douche, it’s for WORSE because they are a violent hate group that wants to kill. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

        • @Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          lol No, it’s not. However, the law is not subject to any kind of broader ethics. It’s subject to laws written by people, whoever those people are and whatever they want, and the interpretations, which are again, done by people.

          The law is not inherently “good”, so the ethical interpretation of it is just one consideration. The law is blind.

          If everyone voted for nazis, and those nazis made laws banning being jewish on pain of death, then that is what the law would do. This is why we need to rely on ourselves, as citizens, to fight this battle and not merely hope in the law.

  • @designatedhacker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    814 months ago

    Nobody thinks it’s weird they didn’t rent a bus? They rented a UHaul box truck and just piled in and sat on the floor? Folding chairs? Like this sounds like some low budget human trafficking cosplay.

    • @Red_October@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      744 months ago

      It’s because they want to be able to hide. You see a bus, not only do you know it’s full of people but you can often see through the windows, and they can see you. A box truck is a stealthier way to move those people, and it also prevents a bunch of wanna-be tacticool fascist shitfucks from seeing the crowd telling them to emulate their hero and kill themselves.

    • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      574 months ago

      It seems like a really reckless way to travel. Those things don’t open from the inside. If their driver was somehow incapacitated or if someone were to put a lock on the back latch, the nazis in that uhaul would be in serious jeopardy.

      But even without that consideration, the idea of getting into a cramped unventilated vehicle that wasn’t designed for humans and trusting a nazi to transport you anywhere seems ill-advised.

    • @Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      204 months ago

      Which seems illegal. Why couldn’t they have been pulled over and at least cited for not wearing a seatbelt?

  • @0xb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    574 months ago

    Among the seriousness of the situation, I just want to say that I find hilarious that after these things happen, nazis online always go “well those aren’t real nazis because look how fit they are, they are all in good shape, and are marching! they must be feds because of all the walking and going outside! we real nazis could never!”

  • Bappity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    564 months ago

    the fact they’re not in jail atm is a failure of the system

    • @mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      The system is working as intended, it was always since its inception a tool of oppression and control.

      The fact that they are not in jail atm is an indicator of solidarity between fascists and police.

    • @7u5k3n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -44 months ago

      Man you know… Thats the thing… I support their right to march and voice their opinion. Is it a shit opinion? Yes. Does middle Tennessee have a Nazi problem? Yes.

      But I don’t want the government to stop them from marching. Because if they can’t march… Then the groups I support and agree with can’t either.

      It sucks. But it’s how it should be. :/

      • @echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        514 months ago

        the American government and many more literally went to war with the nazis once, it’s okay. It’s okay to say “the Nazis must not have a voice”, and giving the nazis a voice, and a platform, is not how it should be.

        if you don’t stop it now, it will get worse.

        • @mellowheat@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I don’t think people recognize how much and how strong of an opposition is required to stop the problem in that way. Pre-WW2 germans didn’t just sit on their asses while nazis took over. They fought against it. They fought with politics, demonstrations, strikes and violence. But they lost.

          I think our weakness is that for several decades, ridiculing nazis was the absolutely correct way to fight against them. It worked. They had no leverage beyond comedy. It seems that somehow that doesn’t work anymore.

          • @mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            04 months ago

            They fought against it at every stage they could.

            Lol no they didn’t, the common german wholeheartedly embraced nazi ideology early on as their national identity was damaged and their economy brittle af.

            SOUND FAMILIAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

        • @orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -134 months ago

          It’s the slippery slope problem. I agree in general with everything you said, but struggle with figuring out a way to define that problem that isn’t open to abuse by determined bad actors. Imagine for instance that we already had such a law on the books when Trump was in office and consider what he might have been able to do with it.

          • @echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            254 months ago

            It really isn’t. many countries have dealt with this. Consider Germany’s outright outlawing of Nazi symbolism and rhetoric entirely.

            the slippery slope, if anything, is allowing the Nazis to be open and free Nazis inside your own country.

          • @snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            174 months ago

            You are promoting a slippery slope fallacy.

            Punishing murderers is not a slippery slope to punishing someone for saying mean words.

            Denying nazis the right to March when their entire ideology is based on racial superiority and hatred is not a slippery slope to denying marches for positive things like equality. Hell, there is already a history of positive protests being squashed, so why would we ever waste out breath defending nazis when instead we should promote the ability for positive messages and focus on only denying it when the message is actually harmful.

            • @orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              -34 months ago

              I’m not promoting anything, I’m just bringing up the very real threat that the GOP represent when provided with anything even vaguely related to restrictions on rights. I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t ban Nazis, in fact I very explicitly said I agreed with that, I’m just saying it’s not a simple problem. Any such law would need to be very carefully crafted to make absolutely certain it couldn’t be twisted into a weapon to target a group other than Nazis.

          • @Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            84 months ago

            Laws can be pretty specific. Consider, if you will, a law against Nazis. It can’t really be abused in any way because it’s only targeting Nazis. It’s the same reason why murder is illegal but handshakes aren’t.

            • @orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              -34 months ago

              The abuse is really simple, they just redefine Nazi to mean something else. Suddenly they’re arresting BLM protesters because they’ve declared BLM to be a Nazi organization. I’ve already had literal arguments with people claiming that BLM are Nazi supporters, as mind bogglingly stupid as that sounds.

              It’s probably not impossible to craft the law in such a way that it isn’t able to be weaponized, but the trick would also be in leaving it flexible enough that it isn’t easily bypassed. A German style ban on Nazi imagery would probably be a good start but as we’ve seen in Germany that doesn’t actually stop the ideology, it just removes the “brand” which isn’t nothing, but falls a little short of the goal.

              • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                64 months ago

                We should be enforcing current restrictions on “fighting words”, which are insults that incite violence. Right now calling someone a racial slur is protected speech, or at least not illegal. Even if the point of that speech is to incite violence, courts have not interpreted that as the fault of the speaker.

                This is the original idea:

                The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

                In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[1] It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

                Here’s a more modern revision:

                In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court held that cross burning is not ‘fighting words’ without intent to intimidate.

                Like what?

                • @orclev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  44 months ago

                  It’s an interesting idea. I think I’d be fine if they just redefined fighting words as slurs. It seems like slurs would pretty easily meet the definition of fighting words without bringing in some of the more problematic cases like calling police fascists.

              • @Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                54 months ago

                That’s where the specificity comes in. Like you said, the imagery bans etc. I’m not sure the ideology will be easy to get rid of but we can at least implement some common sense laws to help curb it. In Australia we had some nazi rallies and we made it illegal to do the nazi salute or display nazi symbols. We’re a bit backward and racist most of the time, but I’m glad we draw the line at literal nazis.

      • @snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        184 months ago

        Everyone deserves a voice unless their message is one of hatred and in support of violent oppression. That is the line, and nazis are on the wrong side of the line.

      • @Lianodel@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        94 months ago

        If you value freedom of expression, that doesn’t mean you need to extend that to people who fundamentally oppose it. To maximize freedom of expression, you can’t tolerate the people who would outright destroy it.

        It’s also a slippery slope argument. We can just crack down on Nazis. And as for the government cracking down on other groups… they already do that. We see crackdowns on plenty of other demonstrations, with more repression and violence. Tolerating Nazis isn’t helping the good guys, because people in power don’t care about applying the rules evenly. Besides, even if we took the slippery slope seriously, then we have to consider what happens when we just let literal Nazis go about their business.

        • @thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          Slippery slope argument is not a real counter argument. You support positive change and resist negative change on a case by case basis. If you want to argue about balance of power between branches of government that is fine but it’s separate from the conservative slippery slope means we can’t have nice thing argument.

      • @mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        No.

        Fuck nazis

        This isn’t a ‘matter of opinion’.

        There is NO middle ground between genocide and peace. And their ideals ALWAYS lead to that.

        The only good nazi is a dead nazi, the fact our country gives them freedom to speak proves how far we have slipped down the fascist ramp.

      • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        464 months ago

        Nazis are a blight on society, any time you give them a finger they take the whole arm, tattoo it full of swastikas and feed it to their ravenous dogs.

        You don’t need to be tolerant to the intolerant. They are the ones who broke the social contract by ascribing themselves to an ideology that is literally about genociding any group that doesn’t conform to their view.

        The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. No exceptions.

      • @PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        Not for folks who openly advocate against it themselves.

        The rights of a democracy ought not be permitted to protect acts fully intended at undermining the democratic rights of the people.

      • @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        Encouraging an explicitly genocidal political movement is not protected free speech, similar to how a person can be charged with a crime for threatening someones life.

      • cum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        Nazis are literally trying to take the free speech away from others

        • @Pratai@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          04 months ago

          Who else do we know that wants to imprison people simply because of their beliefs?

          Now, before you accuse me of “bootlicking,” or “sympathizing,” know that I find Nazis to be among the most abhorrent people that have ever existed- but I also also recognize that simply having a belief- regardless of how shitty it is- should never be a punishable offense.

          Lest we become what we hate in others.

  • DigitalTraveler42
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Now the right wingers are trying to say that the two Democrats who were previously expelled from the state house are the ones who invited Polhaus and his Nazi clown car, which is absolute bullshit, but it just shows that right Wingers continue to refuse to take responsibility for their rhetoric and actions.

    • Red Army Dog Cooper
      link
      fedilink
      24
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      who cares about legality, lets talk about morality, it is 100% moral to punch a nazi and beat the tar out of them, it is also your duty to violate immoral laws, therefor its your duty to beat the tar out of nazis. no self respecting jury will convict…

  • flicker
    link
    fedilink
    284 months ago

    I live in middle Tennessee and I assure you the only reason they were there is because they didn’t friggin tell us they were. And I’m ridiculously disappointed I missed the opportunity to meet them.

  • @Carvex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    264 months ago

    And were followed to wherever they parked their mom’s cars, and were shot, thrown in a pile, and burned, as is customary with Nazis and Fascists right?

    • @FarFarAway@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      Theyve been riding around in uhauls for a few years now. They did arrest an uhaul full of patriot front members in Idaho a couple years back. But they all got charged with conspiracy to riot not lack of safety violations.

      Guess the police have gotten so used to truck fulls of these idiots making appearances, they escort them out and just let em go…

        • @FarFarAway@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          I almost had a thought about one article I saw about how patriot front was seen being helped into the trailer by the local police force. Of course the article went on to conclude that PF must be FBI in disguise… They couldnt possibly be the same that burn crosses.