I don't have "my side" in this and I'm not trying to advance anything politically for one or the other... Let me just say, I really don't think armed groups in the street are a good idea, no matter what they claim to stand for.

I'm just saying I would cut the guy some slack. When Gavin realized where things were headed he basically said, "you know what guys, this isn't worth it" and walked away—and I can respect that. Even though it couldn't help those in jail, it meant the remaining people in the group would understand that associating as a group any longer would be dangerous. I don't know what you think he should have done differently?

Bodyguards don't exist to start the violence, but sadly it seems bodyguards are a necessary thing in political speech lately. (I would always blame the side attacking before the side defending, personally.) We're at the point where if someone doesn't like an opinion today they feel entitled to make them feel the "consequences" instead of making a reasoned response or just ignoring it. We've learned that women speaking in Hyde Park need bodyguards now, too. How far tolerance has progressed...

I'm also not sure what you mean by "letting them rot in jail". Gavin's not the judge who can change that. I just think he realized the whole situation was out of his hands (including public perception) so the last thing he would want to be seen as, is the leader of an organized Anti-Antifa gang. Obviously for his own skin, but also for everyone in the group. As I remember, that court sentence was mainly because the Proud Boys were recognized as an identifiable organization—so officially disavowing and asking to break it up was at least the minimum he could do.

Even now, people argue about whether or not Antifa itself are organized or "just an idea, man"—but at least they're smart enough to stay cagey about that for plausible deniability.

Paradoxically, I also wonder whether taking away the Proud Boys' leadership & official status turned out to be counterproductive: it means they're now effectively the same as the anarchist groups on the other side and there's nothing you can point to, like an official website or a sanctioned speaking event to say, see this is what they actually stand for—in order to make your case against it. We can't actually know what these disorganized groups stand for today, but the people in them haven't gone away. It's a hydra now.

We've cancelled every remaining venue for controversial speech & debate so now we shouldn't be surprised at disorganized mobs having street battles and getting each other killed. None of this is really just about Gavin or the Proud Boys or Antifa, and I couldn't care less about who's right when these are the means we're left with.

Somehow we need to discover actually listening to each other again, especially where we disagree. So back to your point about claiming to know motivations: discourse only happens when you leave an opening that assumes the other side has good intentions. Anything less is dehumanizing.