The Antifa Myth

[nightfighter]

And to underline my position; We sorely need leadership in the current environment, covering the pandemic and the social response to Lloyd's murder. I support the right to protest peacefully. But I fully include all said protesters in the problem when violence, rioting, and looting occurs. And I further question their contribution to the spread of the Covid-19 virus by choosing to gather in protest during what science has called a worldwide pandemic. Guess we will see in two weeks when/if the numbers spike.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

And to underline my position; We sorely need leadership in the current environment, covering the pandemic and the social response to Lloyd's murder. I support the right to protest peacefully. But I fully include all said protesters in the problem when violence, rioting, and looting occurs. And I further question their contribution to the spread of the Covid-19 virus by choosing to gather in protest during what science has called a worldwide pandemic. Guess we will see in two weeks when/if the numbers spike.

If you include all protesters in the problem based on the rioting and looting of a small number of people who have used the protests to shield their actions, what is your feeling about America’s police force given that a small number of its ranks use their badge to do things like abuse the public they have been entrusted to protect and serve? I don’t believe you can have it both ways here...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You've been misled by the wacko media
Connor Betts, a misguided fool killed 9 people.
Patrick Crusius, another misguided fool killed 22 Mexicans in a Walmart and you're casting him as Antifa.
And Santino William Legan, another misguided fool killed three people at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.
There's your 34 and here is the source for the number.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton...t-mass-killer/
Do you really believe every disturbed kid is Antifa?
That people finding kindred misguided souls on social media is a conspiracy?
Next it will be that Charles Manson started Antifa and every wacko since has followed in his footsteps.
The white suburban misfits should just stay home, everybody would be happier.

November 2019

FBI Director Christopher Wray on domestic terrorism in America:
“The majority of racially motivated violent extremist attacks are fueled by some kind of white supremacy.”

No mention of “antifa”.

And now we haven't heard from Tweety for hours.

The White House, dark.

Tweetie's hiding in the basement.

Trump's advisors, panicked.

And what is Tweety worried about?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
6m
“Trump” is leading in all swing states. Heavily biased Democrat Poll, just like 2016. Biggest “enthusiasm” lead ever!

The rest of the world can see how incompetent this administration is.

Sorry - was working off poorly remembered numbers on how many people Betts killed. The point is we KNOW people on the Left and Right currently and historically have used violence to sow chaos or oppress others.

Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?

I call out White Supremacists, Anti#^&#^&#^&#^&x, Neo Nazis, and Little Commie agitators. But so there is no lack of clarity I will spell it out for you:

When you are hard left or hard right and you are peacefully assembling in legal protest, I may not like what you say but I support your right to peacefully protest - as much as I hate what you are saying. When you take the reigns to injure your fellow citizens, burn, loot, and cause mayhem LEFT OR RIGHT

Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?

Originally Posted by spence

I believe it's around 98%.

Antifa isn't a myth but I think its significance is vastly overstated. So John saw someone dressed in black on TV and Antifa is burning our communities down. Yea right. Everyone needs a boogeyman.

I'd note that the state governments are pointing to white nationalists, criminal gangs and international actors yet the primary issue is with Antifa? Just more putting politics ahead of the interests of the people.

Spence, Antifa / Black Bloc / Anarchists are the types that do this as do Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. The dem mayors and leadership in Minneapolis were saying White Supremacists were doing this. The President is saying it is Antifa. BOTH of them are doing it, and BOTH of them should be prosecuted. (See Wayne: both.)

Good to know, Jeff, that you are willing to over look them when they are on the left.

IF White Supremacists are cracking skulls and lighting up fires, they should be arrested and prosecuted.

IF Antifascists are cracking skulls and lighting up fires, they should be arrested and prosecuted.

See how that works?

Ideology does not trump actions. When you break the law you get judged by your peers - should not matter left or right.

https://wjla.com/news/local/richmond...y-night-antifa

And yes, some articles are listing Far Right Militia members in crows but they have not (yet) been arrested for causing mayhem (yet). In the next few days and weeks we may just see it and when they are arrested they should be prosecuted.

Originally Posted by nightfighter

And to underline my position; We sorely need leadership in the current environment, covering the pandemic and the social response to Lloyd's murder. I support the right to protest peacefully. But I fully include all said protesters in the problem when violence, rioting, and looting occurs. And I further question their contribution to the spread of the Covid-19 virus by choosing to gather in protest during what science has called a worldwide pandemic. Guess we will see in two weeks when/if the numbers spike.

^^^^

Originally Posted by Ian

If you include all protesters in the problem based on the rioting and looting of a small number of people who have used the protests to shield their actions, what is your feeling about America’s police force given that a small number of its ranks use their badge to do things like abuse the public they have been entrusted to protect and serve? I don’t believe you can have it both ways here...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Police Unions are probably the number one thing protecting bad cops. Tell me how we get around that one?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Sorry - was working off poorly remembered numbers on how many people Betts killed. The point is we KNOW people on the Left and Right currently and historically have used violence to sow chaos or oppress others.

Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?
No, there have always been bad actors taking advantage of situations and it is hard for the large majority of peaceful protesters to stop them, in some cases they have.

I call out White Supremacists, Anti#^&#^&#^&#^&x, Neo Nazis, and Little Commie agitators. But so there is no lack of clarity I will spell it out for you:

When you are hard left or hard right and you are peacefully assembling in legal protest, I may not like what you say but I support your right to peacefully protest - as much as I hate what you are saying. When you take the reigns to injure your fellow citizens, burn, loot, and cause mayhem LEFT OR RIGHT

Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?

No, the problem is tagging all with the sins of a few and then attacking them as Tweety did in front of the White House last night with tear gas and rubber bullets, a half hour before curfew. So to put it simply, the federal government launched tear gas at protestors who were peaceably assembled to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There was no curfew in place. These were not looters. It would be difficult for Tweety to violate the Constitution more directly.

Police Unions are probably the number one thing protecting bad cops. Tell me how we get around that one?

Get rid of qualified immunity.

There was actually a great article in The Bulwark a couple of days ago, here is a portion with the link below.

In determining the relationship between government and governed, one of the most important decisions a society can make is how accountable those who wield official power must be to those against whom that power is wielded. Congress made a clear choice in that regard when it passed the Enforcement Act of 1871, which we now call “Section 1983” after its location in the U.S. Code. Simply put, Section 1983 creates a standard of strict liability by providing that state actors “shall be liable to the party injured” for “the deprivation of any rights.” Thus, if a police officer walks up to your house and peeks inside one of your windows without a warrant—a clear violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches—he is liable to you for the violation of that right.
But many conservatives do an odd thing: In their preference for a more forgiving policy that gives police and other government officials substantial leeway in the exercise of discretion, they abandon their stated commitment to textualism and embrace an “interpretation” of Section 1983 that is utterly divorced from its text. The vehicle for this conservative brand of what we might call “living statutory interpretivism” is the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, which judicially amends Section 1983 to provide that the standard for liability will no longer be the deprivation of “any rights”—as Congress expressly provided—but rather the deprivation of any “clearly established” rights.
As documented in considerable detail on Cato’s Unlawful Shield website, those two words—“clearly established”—do an extraordinary amount of work in keeping meritorious cases out of court and ensuring that plaintiffs whose rights have been violated by police or other state actors will receive no recovery unless they can find a pre-existing case in the jurisdiction with nearly identical facts. But that is plainly not the statute that Congress wrote, nor is it the standard of accountability that Congress chose. Moreover, as Professor Will Baude demonstrates in his masterful article, “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?,” there is no credible textual or historical basis for the qualified immunity doctrine; it is a blatant act of pro-government judicial policymaking—activism, if you will—and nothing more.

http://www.californialawreview.org/p...nity-unlawful/

https://www.unlawfulshield.com/

https://thebulwark.com/to-make-polic...fied-immunity/

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Police Unions are probably the number one thing protecting bad cops. Tell me how we get around that one?

Start the conversation without all the BS noise about how the conversation gets invalidated by riots

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by Ian

If you include all protesters in the problem based on the rioting and looting of a small number of people who have used the protests to shield their actions, what is your feeling about America’s police force given that a small number of its ranks use their badge to do things like abuse the public they have been entrusted to protect and serve? I don’t believe you can have it both ways here...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I sure can...if you really want to make that ridiculous comparison of a voluntary assembly of citizens to protest that turns into violence with a countrywide police force whose primary service goals are to serve and protect. Don't forget, I said voluntary. They chose to be there, at the scene, where the violence took place. No assembly, no violence. When the #^&#^&#^&#^& hits the fan at your house Ian, who are you going to call??????? No tolerance for the bad eggs, anywhere. No more hiding behind a badge.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I sure can...if you really want to make that ridiculous comparison of a voluntary assembly of citizens to protest that turns into violence with a countrywide police force whose primary service goals are to serve and protect. Don't forget, I said voluntary. They chose to be there, at the scene, where the violence took place. No assembly, no violence. When the #^&#^&#^&#^& hits the fan at your house Ian, who are you going to call??????? No tolerance for the bad eggs, anywhere. No more hiding behind a badge.

Missed this one, this thread got busy and it got lost.

I want to answer it, but I’m not entirely sure I get all the dimensions of the point you were intending to make. In order to do justice to your original point here with my response, would you mind clarifying? Not pandering or anything, just not 100% clear on the way the thought was closed out and you asked me what I would do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device