Barney Cox
Cantwell posted an article he wrote via the CopBlock page. He's a moderator there.
In posting the article, he repeated his belief that it was good news that there were "two less police in the world." He posted this AS COPBLOCK, NOT as Christopher Cantwell.
OK so if the president of Coca-Cola decides to advocate pedophilia, and people stop buying Coke because of that, it's the public's fault?
No, Mr. Cantwell merely commented upon his thoughts on CopBlock by posting there as Christopher Cantwell. Conversely, if he had edited or censored other’s posts on CopBlock, he would have acted upon the behalf of Copblock as one of their moderators. Mr. Cantwell is not CopBlock’s founder, but a moderator and member. Ergo, the line-supervisor of your nearby Taco Bell does not represent all Taco Bells throughout the globe.
If the president of any company advocated anything contrary to its articles of incorporation or mission statement, then the board of that company would likely dismiss that president, hire a new president, who would then send out an apologetic press-release, and life would go on, the sun would shine, flowers would bloom, bees would buzz, etc, etc, etc.
Regardless, if a company’s customers boycott anything of their own willpower so as to protest against another’s thoughts, then yes it is the fault of those customers, because they took such an action solely on their own behalf and are thus responsible for the consequences of those actions; however, in result of cause and effect the company is likely to suffer financially as a result, while its customers will suffer in avoidance of products they otherwise need or enjoy.
Perry St
…it is possible that it can become internal justification from LEOs for fatal run-ins with CopBlock members during their evening surveil of police activities. …but when liberty movement members have adverse standing compared to society at large, positions can be taken out of context and utilized against them (and sometimes that falls back on innocent people).
It already has, all LEO need to do is utter their magical terms of their profession: made furtive movements, acted suspiciously, being evasive, challenged their authority as an officer of the law, impeded an investigation, obstructed justice, resisted arrest, appeared to be pulling out a firearm, concerned that a cell-phone case was being used to conceal a firearm within it, feared for officer safety, intended to Taser them in the back while handcuffed on the ground with nearly a dozen other officers present, yet standing around, but pulled out sidearm in error, the force was used in accordance with departmental policy, the LEO tripped and bumped their head sustaining a concussion that resulted in them unwillingly beating in the face of the their prisoner, the prisoner’s recording violates felony wiring tapping laws, the government’s CCTV was offline that day, etc.
