« What a Real Outing Looks Like | Main | Don't let Janet Reno hear about this case »

Unhinged Anti-War Liberal's Attack On College Republican

I found this fascinating, and scary, post by Michelle Malkin linked at the Conservative Grapevine. It is about a College Republican who was stalked and attacked by a liberal anti-war nut. Michelle got a first hand account from Reed Pannell, who was attacked in his home.

"I was taking a shower a little after 5pm while two of my housemates were cooking dinner. A man (Stone) came to the door asking for Reed Pannell. He was very polite and had some military literature with him so the housemates assumed he was either a recruiter or a friend of mine from class. As they were waiting for me to get out of the shower, Stone came inside, sat down in our living room, and quietly read the paper while he waited. I rushed out of the shower, came down with just a pair of jeans on and shaving cream still on my face.


At this point, Stone politely stood up, shook my hand, and told me that he had found my address on facebook. He asked if I was a College Republican as it said on my account, I told him yes. He then asked me "Oh, so that means you support the war, right?" and I responded with a yes. He then said that since I was for the war, if I was interested in signing up for the army. At this point I was sure he was a recruiter, and I told him that I'd definitely look into it as soon as I graduate (I'm a junior political science/econ major right now at UMW). This is where something changed in his eyes and he started getting aggressive. He took a step towards me and said that I support the war, yet don't want to fight in it.

Then the guy got physical. Read all of Pannell's account in Michelle's post. The post also contains pictures and screenshots of the intruder's Facebook page and some nasty emails he sent. Michelle also posts the media report, which ended with the following quote, "It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting."

Comments (26)

I am a recent graduate from... (Below threshold)
Deas:

I am a recent graduate from college, and my peers laugh at me when I say that (mishandled) social networking sites (and the internet as a whole) can be dangerous. I admit, I hate Facebook and the rest more for the idea that someone else can shape and permanently impact my web presence without my consent (by posting dumb pictures, etc). But stalking? That's gotta be another strike against them. Seriously.

I'm not blaming Facebook for this, though, obviously. That would be dumb. It is, after all, a user updated and controlled site. Maybe we should think twice about including so much contact information on these sites. Had the groups not been easy to sort through, a yearbook with club pictures and a school directory would have the same effect for someone as driven as the aggressive "recruiter" in the story. Yikes.

Does anybody remember the Facebook RSS feature that launched stalker's paradise accusations? Or how about MySpace's frequent newsworthy cases? They're a cool tool when used responsibly, but there is always a flip side. Anyway, I'm just glad that guy wasn't alone in his apartment, like he mentions at the end of his story. Scary.

Glad to see yet another tol... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Glad to see yet another tolerant (and peace loving) liberal, practicing what he preaches.

Certainly this is antisocia... (Below threshold)

Certainly this is antisocial, criminal behavior. Don't misunderstand me, it's reprehensible and should be prosecuted vigorously to the full extent of the law.

Still, a part of me respects the psycho. Most of the antiwar types don't have the testicles for confrontation unless they are part of a large enough group to maintain anonymity as they throw eggs, or rocks, or feces, or vandalize property.

I'm glad the outcome wasn't as bad as it might have been. Another reminder of why we need large dogs, and guns.

Lorie, this has been @ LGF ... (Below threshold)

Lorie, this has been @ LGF for a while...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24508_When_Moonbats_Attack#comments
Not sure if you knew already but throwing it out there...

"Michelle also pos... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Michelle also posts the media report, which ended with the following quote, "It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting."

This is what the Democrat party of perpetual fraud is all about. Outright lies by omission.

"...when an unhinged stranger--a raving leftist who had tracked him down on social networking site Facebook--barged in and attacked him and his roomies after impersonating a military recruiter."

"Pannell wrote me last night with the bizarre and unnerving details not yet reported (or misreported)."

"This is one of the Facebook groups credited to Stone and titled, "Republicans are Cowards:"

Wake up America! Our Country is being raped by the criminal democrat Party and doing it with a patented plastic pelosi smile on their face. Democrats are going to completely destroy this Country with their fiendish lust for POWER. They must be exposed and publicly humiliated , every single last one of them . They will not dare show their face in public when over 60% of the population laughs at them and knows them for the frauds that they are. This OUR Country , not the Psuedo-Crats.

Here's some reading compreh... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Here's some reading comprehension assistance for the conservatives among you. In reference to the MSM report Lorie wrote -- "Michelle also posts the media report, which ended with the following quote, "It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting."

And here is the "report" referenced by MSM article, the police report on the incident:

900 block Marye St, 2/17 5:30 pm. A resident reported that a male subject came to his door and started to argue with him about his political beliefs. Neither the resident nor his roommates had ever met or had any contact with the subject previously; however the subject had apparently found the resident's name on a Republican website. The subject was repeatedly asked to leave and refused to do so. All three roommates were struck multiple times by the subject when they attempted to escort him out the door. The subject continued to be aggressive and disorderly even after the officer arrived on the scene. Andrew Stone, 23, of Fredericksburg was arrested and charged with three counts of assault and battery. The magistrate released Stone on his own recognizance and he was additionally ordered to have no further contact with the victims.

See, the clue that was missed was in the second paragraph" of the MSM report "According to a Fredericksburg police report..." and, as the MSM correctly stated, there is no indication in the report as to "what political agenda Stone was supporting".

It's clear he hates some Republicans, but it isn't clear what agenda he supports. All the MSM did was accurately report the news.

Lee, it is not clear to yo... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Lee, it is not clear to you what agenda he supports? Based upon his questioning to Pennell before becoming aggressive, it's equally as likely to you it's just a personal thing he had against Pannell alone?
Hypothetically: if he had asked Pannell if he were gay and Pannell said yes and this guy started to get aggressive toward him, it wouldn't be due to a general homophobia, it would be due to the fact that Stone felt that Pannell specificallly shouldn't be gay?

Question Lee - Do you think... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

Question Lee - Do you think this man (Andrew Stone) is unhinged or at the very least in need of some serious counseling?

Good points DaveD, and note... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Good points DaveD, and note please that I'm not guessing as to what this guy's agenda is -- it is irrelevant with respect to my point that the jab at the MSM attempted by Lorie and Malkin was a clean miss.

I don't want a newspaper to make up and decide on their own what political agenda this nutcake supports - - unless they label it as opinion or commentary. Lorie and Malkin, it seems, just can't resist attacking the MSM - especially if they can smear liberals in the process.

Sometimes their jabs are justified, or at least have a factual basis -- but here they cleanly missed their mark.

I... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:



It's clear he hates some Republicans, but it isn't clear what agenda he supports

ROFL!!! Only someone so dim as Wizbang's resident moron (Lee) would attempt to claim that the assailants political agenda was discernible!

I'm guessing that he was probably upset at the support for drilling in ANWR... that's why the assailant was talking about 'the war' (probably just slang for ANWR).

Sometimes their jabs are... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

Sometimes their jabs are justified, or at least have a factual basis -- but here they cleanly missed their mark.

The MSM article was not based on the police report. The police will not release the report. It was based upon a brief police summary of the incident. So the MSM was just being disingenuous.

This has been the M.O. of u... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

This has been the M.O. of unhinged campus leftists for years.

When I was in ROTC, one of my fellow cadets, a woman of 5-foot nothing tall and all of 115 lbs, told me how a big loud leftist, over 6 feet and 200 lbs, came over to her and shoved her off her seat in the Student Union.

All these people lack are nifty brown shirts and those cool armbands with a mystic rune on them.

There is a difference betwe... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

There is a difference between choosing not to make a determination about the guy's agenda in the news report and specifically stating that it was "not clear," (even if just from the report) what the aganda was. But I guess that depends on what the definition of "clear" is. If the news report just stayed mum on what the motivation or agenda might have been, that would have been one thing. But the reporter went further and specifically told readers it was not clear what the agenda was. I am not saying the reporter was sinister or anything, just a bit clueless. For those still unclear -- it was an anti-war agenda.

By the way, I apologize for... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

By the way, I apologize for the really awkward post title. It was really late last night when I was posting. I should have put the word "An" at the beginning or changed the title altogether.

Lee, agreed.... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Lee, agreed.

Lorie: "But the reporter... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lorie: "But the reporter went further and specifically told readers it was not clear what the agenda was..."

No, that is factually incorrect, again. I realize we're just dancing with words here, Lorie, but the words matter -- what the reporter said was that it was not clear in the report what the political agenda was -- referencing the police report. If you read that police report (quoted above) you'll see that reporter's statement is 100% accurate.

Everyone has an opinion as to what his agenda was, but the MSM piece cited by Malkin and you was a news report, not an opinion piece - and there is a difference. And if you don't know the difference you have no business criticizing the media, since you don't understand what the media is, the role of media in our society, and the difference between "opinion" and "news".

We had creeps like this at ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

We had creeps like this at the University of Texas. They usually ended up very bloody, and in need of emergency care.

This is my favorite part of... (Below threshold)
mantis:

This is my favorite part of Malkin's post:

This campus anti-war attack is no isolated incident.

She's right; Stone is part of the grand conspiracy of Iran-loving liberals trolling facebook and picking fights with college students. This was just the opening salvo in the great facebook-Republican offensive of 2007. I fully expect a flood of these reports, with each of the offenders identifiable by their Ahmadinejad tattoos. It's an international network, you know.

Boy does Lee have it totall... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Boy does Lee have it totally ass backwards today. (Then again that's normal, isn't it?)

It is kinda fun, though, to see the overwhelming levels of twisting, spinning, and parsing the left will reach while attempting to deny the obvious. If you set aside the tremendous evils they foster and encourge, the fabricated reality based community (a.k.a. "the left", or "democrats") can be an endless source of ammusement.

"I realize we're just da... (Below threshold)

"I realize we're just dancing with words here, Lorie, but the words matter - ..."

I'm bookmarking this, Lee, because I have a sneaky suspicion you'll need to be reminded of it.

The point, because you've obviously missed it so completely, is that the reporter, whether factual or not, added something so totally ridiculous that all one can do is laugh.

Just laugh, Lee. It's okay.

Seriously Oyster,A... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Seriously Oyster,

Asking Lee to laugh at yet another example of obvius MSM bias would be like asking a Muslim to laugh at a cartoon of Muhamed or a Catholic to laugh at an example of Papal hypoctracy.

It ain't gonna happen-- it's a religious thing.

You gotta give it to ole Le... (Below threshold)
Jo:

You gotta give it to ole Lee. It's virtually impossible to try to defend and spin for the crazy moonbat lefties and their cohorts in the MSM, but oh how he tries.

However some things are just not "spinnable" and Lee should realize that. You just end up looking like a fool.

Mantis, That it's not isola... (Below threshold)

Mantis, That it's not isolated doesn't mean that individuals aren't acting independantly. Does someone argue otherwise?

Personally I think it's a reaction to modern (and liberal) ideas of manhood completely unrelated to any specific political issue. Firstly, men aren't supposed to be manly anymore. They're supposed to be like girls but with man-parts. Some people reject that balony but others, generally of the progressive and liberal sort rather than the conservative and neanderthal sort, accept the view that all the man-things are bad... competitive, confrontational, physical, stuff is bad. Womanly virtues, conversation and connection, are good.

(The cultural reaction to that is the soaring popularity of fight shows, martial arts schools, and some awesomely funny local radio commercials for Giant gas and convienience stores.)

Okay, so what counts for a 6 foot plus guy physically assaulting a 5 foot nothing female ROTC student or this fellow Stone who takes the time to find someone, goes to his house, and begins a physical confrontation? If you asked either of them, would they identify with the sort of hick who watches NASCAR, buys beer at a Giant gas station, and views bar fights as a great night out?

Fighting for fun isn't allowed. I don't understand it, but guys seem to like to fight for fun. It's all external posturing, chest pounding, and a contest to see who the big dog is, but fun. But in order to be with their group they have to reject that sort of primative BS.

They've got to have a cause. An excuse. Look at Stone. Follow the links. The guy expressed incredible violence. Why was that okay in his mind if war, if the military, is bad?

Partly it's because the human ability to be violent is denied. Something denied isn't and can't be under control. Partly it's identification with the group over the individual. Ones own actions aren't an issue for identity so the fact that he's a violent fruitcake doesn't impact the virtue of his group membership.

Why do "peace" protestors vandalize recruiting offices? Why do "liberal" students shut down the speech of others and prevent access to other students. Why would a college teacher in Colorado kick someone in the leg because they expressed different politics than she liked?

So two things. Group membership identity trumping responsibility for one's own behavior, and denying, therefore not dealing with, human nature.

(BTW, men being like women is bad because women don't fight for fun. We're freaking scary, scorched earth neverforgotten vindictive. It comes with physical vulnerability. Our solutions have to be final.)

(All gender stereotypes pro... (Below threshold)

(All gender stereotypes proved by the exception, of course.)

Here we have an example of ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Here we have an example of extremism at work, and it illustrates the problems of reactive, irrational, unbalanced political views. Stone's behavior perfectly illustrates the problems of maintaining stereotypical views of some political "enemy."

He was completely in the wrong, period.

His actions also show what happens when stereotypes form the basis of your political ideology. Instead of talking to Conservatives and forming real-life understandings of who and what they are, he formed his opinions based upon fictional creations. He then acted upon his unbalanced ideology, with this result.

The lesson? Well, to me this whole ordeal is case in point for something that I keep going around saying all the time: DO NOT BUY INTO THE PREVAILING POLITICAL STEREOTYPES.

The only way that any progress is going to happen here politically is when Americans put down their Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, and Sean Hannity books, and they start talking amongst themselves.

Remember: the more we all keep fighting, the more certain people sell books, certain people get elected, and certain things do not get dealt with.

The whole Red State vs. Blue State/Conservative vs Liberal debacle has gone way too far.

My hope is that Wizbang readers might be able to digest this story, WITHOUT buying into the Michelle Malkin reaction, which is to attempt to link this to ALL LIBERALS, and therefore continue adding fuel to the partisan fire.

So if you read this, make an attempt to set it into some kind of overall context. Make an attempt to figure out where Stone sits relative to the rest of the "Liberal" side. Do you really think that his behavior is representative of the majority of Liberals? Really?

My honest opinion is that a great deal of this so-called "politcal divide" is in our heads, and that Liberals and Conservatives aren't as divided as they all think they are.

In my opinion, and from my political experience, it seems to me that Stone fits in with a fringe of the far left...a reactive, irrational, and flagrant fringe which goes around preaching peace and doing the exact opposite. I did my undergraduate work at a California university and had first hand experience with the politics of that segment of the left. I was not impressed (understatement).

But I also know that the same fringe exists on the right, and that they are just as irrational, irresponsible, and flagrant. People who bomb abortion clinics and purport to be "pro-life" are a good example. I understand that these people are called "the fringe" for a reason. They are called extreme for a reason. I would never assume that if one person, or group, or faction, of the Right does something violent or criminal that THE ENTIRE POLITICAL RIGHT BEHAVES OR THINKS IN THAT MANNER. That would be completely irresponsible on my part.

Stories like the account of what this kid did to a College Republican are real, and they should be dealt with. They should not be ingored. But I hope that people are able to avoid the trap, which is when they read this and then use it to build or add to their stereotypes of the OTHER side.

We're never going to get anywhere if we keep dealing with one another through stereotypical understandings. This kind of thing is, in my opinion, a very damaging and counterproductive aspect of contemporary American politics.

Thats what I think, for whatever it's worth.

Synova:Why do "... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Synova:

Why do "peace" protestors vandalize recruiting offices? Why do "liberal" students shut down the speech of others and prevent access to other students. Why would a college teacher in Colorado kick someone in the leg because they expressed different politics than she liked?

Those are some damn good questions you're asking there.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy