Protester faces off against man with AR-15 under defaced Confederate memorial in North Texas

[TexasTowelie]

Source: San Antonio Express-News

Protesters defaced another Confederate monument in Texas early Monday morning. The message was clear: “This is racist” was spray-painted in a deep red over a memorial in Denton to Confederate soldiers.

Later that day, a 69-year-old Denton man named William Hudspeth went to the statue with cardboard signs that read "Please move the statute to a confederate museum," the North Texas Daily reported. Another resident met him there armed with an assault rifle. Oklahoma State student and Denton local Stephen Passariello brandished the loaded AR-15 while entering into a verbal altercation with Hudspeth.

Passariello asked Hudspeth why he wasn't protesting the monument months ago. Hudspeth responded that he's demonstrated at the statue some 50 times since 2000. He told the newspaper reminds him of what the Confederacy "did to my father's father."

Hudspeth called the Denton County Police on Passariello. Authorities told him he could open carry the weapon, but preferred he put a sling on it so that it was secure to his body. The gun-toting student left the area soon after, the newspaper wrote.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/houston-texas/article/Confederate-monument-in-North-Texas-spray-painted-6397223.php

---

Cross-posted in the Texas Group.

[font color=330099]Sincerest apologies to Oklahoma since this loon went to college in Stillwater.[/font]

[LonePirate]

1. I wonder if Passariello believes guns are the solution to everything he deems to be a problem.

I hope he is able to control his rage and anger.

[Sunlei]

3. was loaded! does the open carry allowed loaded?

[Sunlei]

2. "Please move the statute to a confederate museum" or move to Texas Perrys Painted Rock Ranch.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. If he used his weapon as a threat that is typically the crime of "brandishing".

Texas doesn't have an explicit brandishing law but if he was using the weapon to menace or intimidate he could be charged with disorderly conduct.

[heaven05]

5. Passeriello?

Another dylaan roof, george zimpig in the wings? #Black Lives Matter and that flag and the monuments to the forced bondage and murder of millions of POC says they don't.

[Paladin]

6. I guess having to shoulder that AR-15 was too much for that punk student.

I'm glad nobody got killed over something as worthless as a confederate monument.

[jtuck004]

7. Lol. I bet half of those of those at OSU paying attention are cheering the gun holder.

Whole state is infested with racists and gun nuts. And in Stillwater they think they are smarter racists and gun nuts.

[Snow Leopard]

8. that ain't too cool

defacing a monument to the common soldier. Heck, the French have WW2 German burial grounds on their lands.

Doesn't excuse the dipshit with the AR15 though.

[blackspade]

9. A monument is distinctly different from a cemetery.

Confederate soldiers were not heroes or any other clap trap.
They were traitors who took up arms against their fellow citizens so that rich southerners could keep their slave economy.
They deserve no memorials at all.

[Telcontar]

10. Wrong answer.

By law and custom, they are United States Soldiers and afforded all honors due them.

[Jeb Bartlet]

12. By law and custom

they were traitors and should have been hung to a man just like any other traitor who actively took up arms against this country.

[Telcontar]

14. What a silly response

You would extend the war decades, as there's no incentive to ceasr fighting.

[blackspade]

13. No honor is due them. At all.

And they are CSA soldiers and died to keep black people in bondage.

[Telcontar]

15. The fought for the CSA, but are US Veterans

If you never served, you can't understand.

[blackspade]

16. No, they are not.

But thanks for trying to whitewash the Civil War.

[Telcontar]

17. I'm sorry reality doesn't conform to your wishes

US Code, Title 38

Look it up sometime

[blackspade]

19. Actually, by definition they are not US veterans.

They are classified as “Civil War veteran” as specific category for CSA military.
The reference you are referring to deals with pensions anyway, a rather magnanimous gesture by the US Congress.

So no, they are still not US veterans and still don't deserve 'honors' for their service to the oppression and death of People of Color.
Again, thanks for trying.

[bigworld]

20. Most of the common men doing the fighting

had very little to do with the slave-holding class. They were drafted, they fought, they did what they were told was their duty, not unlike US draftees sent to Vietnam.

The slaveholders largely did not enlist and if they were drafted, paid a proxy to take their place on the battlefield.

The common grunt CSA soldier, IMHO, is not whom we should be attacking. We shouldn't celebrate them -- but they aren't the folks responsible.

[blackspade]

21. I'm not attacking them per se

I'm attacking the idea that they are somehow honorable and deserve memorials as if they were members of the US armed forces.
Regardless of how they came to serve the CSA, they served under to banner of slavery and oppression and should be remembered that way.
Not as some noble supporters of 'States Rights" or whatever other bullshit excuse people want to throw against the wall these days.

[Telcontar]

24. Reading comprehension trouble you? Google-fu fail?

Here, look this up. Try reading slowly.

U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929

[blackspade]

29. Your desperation is showing....

Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Now you have a new law?

It's interesting that the google links all go to RW websites blasting liberals and whining about Southern 'heritage.'
And if it was 1929 it would be the 70th or 71st Congress not the 17th.

Here are the Acts from these two Congresses:

70th United States Congress

March 10, 1928: Settlement of War Claims Act
May 15, 1928: Flood Control Act of 1928 (Jones–Reid Act)
May 22, 1928: Merchant Marine Act of 1928 (Jones–White Act)
May 22, 1928: Forest Research Act (McSweeney–McNary Act)
May 22, 1928: Capper–Ketcham Act
May 28, 1928: Welsh Act
May 29, 1928: Revenue Act of 1928
May 29, 1928: Reed–Jenkins Act
December 21, 1928: Boulder Canyon Project Act (Hoover Dam)
December 22, 1928: Color of Title Act
January 19, 1929: Hawes–Cooper Act
February 18, 1929: Migratory Bird Conservation Act (Norbeck–Anderson Act)
March 2, 1929: Increased Penalties Act (Jones–Stalker Act)

71st United States Congress

February 18, 1929: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, ch. 257, 45 Stat. 1222
June 15, 1929: Agricultural Marketing Act, ch. 24, 46 Stat. 11
June 18, 1929: Reapportionment Act of 1929, ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21
June 17, 1930: Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, ch. 497, 46 Stat. 590, (including Plant Patent Act)
March 3, 1931: Davis–Bacon Act, ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494

So which act does this 'law' come from?

[Scootaloo]

26. The confederate army was not a volunteer force

Whether an individual supported what the confederates were fighting for or not, the fact is that if he evaded conscription, or deserted, he would be tortured, imprisoned, and odds were good he would be killed. And if word got back home that he did this, there were officers and "minders" who would be sure to visit some amount of retribution on his family.

To cast the men on the field as all being rabid proponents of human bondage is as ignorant as to cast them as noble freedom-fighters struggling against tyranny. Some were, others were not, but the fact is they had little choice except to be there on that field, because men who WERE volunteers, men who had picked the fight, had a gun at their backs.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

22. Wrong. They were soldiers of The Confederate States of America - TRAITORS to the USA!

[Telcontar]

25. See below

Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

27. Below where? Can't you link to it?

[Telcontar]

28. Do you need me to read it to you too?

Copy

Open DuckDuckGo

Paste

Hit enter

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. Copy what? Christ, man...

[Telcontar]

32. My apologies

Left a bracket off.

Please forgive me, fat thumbs and small cellphone keys.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

36. Oh, believe me I hear you on the cellphone keys. I have really fat fingers too.

[blackspade]

30. The only link is to RW websites....

[bigworld]

34. Don't know a thing about the 1929 law, but here from 1958....

Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 (H.R. 358) 72 Statute 133 states – “(3) (e) for the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ‘active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such forces.”

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg133.pdf

Perhaps this is only in regards to pensions and such, but there you go.

[blackspade]

35. It is in regards to pensions.

Which was my comment up thread.

I don't think that the 1929 law exists. It appears to be a RW meme that ha been spewed all over teh Googles.

[bigworld]

38. I think you are right.

[Judi Lynn]

11. The truth couldn't be clearer. Thank you. n/t

[bigworld]

18. FWIW Many Confederate soldiers were drafted

... not all wanted to be in a war into which they were thrust.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. They could have traveled north and enlisted with the Union forces.

[bigworld]

33. Easier said in 2015 than done in 1863.

For many families, the meager army pay they received from their men at the front lines was all they had to survive upon. You couldn't just pick up and move.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

37. No problem. Just take mass transportation.

You never heard of the underground railroad? I guess that was kind of an early subway system.

[blackspade]

39. I hope you are being sarcastic....

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

40. Me too, believe me!