“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Stout]

But all a red herring anyway. The Orange County counter-protestors only claimed that they were going to form a wall to a journalist. They evidently did not, so going back to your original comment: the protestors certainly could claim self-defense, as they had not assaulted the marchers, contrary to your claim.

Here's a news article that says the protesters actually did block the march.

The fights appeared to start in the early afternoon when around a dozen anti-Trump protesters dressed in all black refused to move from a bike path to allow a larger group of pro-Trump supporters taking part in the Make America Great Again rally to pass. The confrontation escalated into a fight with more skirmishes quickly breaking out.

 

[Thermal]

I was simply referring to your hypothetical. Are you now asserting that they did not form a wall? Then why did you say it was a "legal protest"?

I think this part is the confusion. The Orange Co article reports that 'the protestors claimed that they were forming a human wall'. I shortened this to 'the protesters were going to form a human wall'. I am not claiming they did so one way or the other, but that the on-site reporting suggested they did not.

A small counter protest would be legit one way or the other though, wouldn't it?
Why would the counter-protestors not be able to claim self-defense against an assault by the marchers, as you originally claimed?

 

[Thermal]

Here's a news article that says the protesters actually did block the march.

Fair enough, I had seen the Reuters article too. But I cited the LA Times article because it had first hand reporting from eyewitness journalists on the scene. Reuters makes no such claim, and is worded as if it is second-hand reporting. Is it reasonable to give more weight to the on-site journalists?

 

[The Big Dog]

I think this part is the confusion. The Orange Co article reports that 'the protestors claimed that they were going to form a human wall'. I shortened this to 'the protesters were going to form a human wall'. I am not claiming they did so one way or the other, but that the on-site reporting suggested they did not.

A small counter protest would be legit one way or the other though, wouldn't it?
Why would the counter-protestors not be able to claim self-defense against an assault by the marchers, as you originally claimed?

well it has been established that they did indeed physically block the march.

 

[Thermal]

well it has been established that they did indeed physically block the march.

By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?

 

[The Big Dog]

Fair enough, I had seen the Reuters article too. But I cited the LA Times article because it had first hand reporting from eyewitness journalists on the scene. Reuters makes no such claim, and is worded as if it is second-hand reporting. Is it reasonable to give more weight to the on-site journalists?

In fact the author of the Reuters piece is credited as the photographer as well and thus was, as you say, on-site.

 

[The Big Dog]

By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?

Your second hand reporting claim is false.

You are not reading my claim correctly.

The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.

 

[Stout]

I think that caveman1917 is saying that fascists are the raison d'etre for antifas, and the latter would have no reason to exist without the former.

Yea, maybe. Like I said the quote reads weird and that would be a very generous interpretation.

We could also look at one of the antifa's claims for the reason behind their being there, which was to crush the conservative "revolution"

“We aren’t going to start fights, but we are going to try to stop them from completing their march,” said Byron Lopez, a counter rally organizer who expects 100 to 200 supporters from an array of groups.

<snip>

Lopez said if there are any violent clashes his group would try to “de-escalate” the conflict.

“We’re not looking to start anything,” he said.

Asked about the reason for the counter rally, Lopez said, “Because this is where the conservative revolution came from. With the rise of Trump has come the rise of hyper-nationalism and we aren’t just going to let that happen.”

Building a human wall to try to stop a patriotic celebration isn't trying to start something ? Blasting off chemical weapons is deescalating ? Interesting use of language that is.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.



The primary definition of 'legitimate' (linked below) is: according to law; lawful. Isn't it odd that you make such a strong distinction between that and 'legality'?

Interesting. I tend to think of that definition as somewhat archaic, except in specific contexts. However, I will gladly defer to dictionary.com on this matter.

In which case, forming a "human wall" is not a legitimate form of protest, because it prevents people from accessing public property which they have a right to access. If I don't want you to use a park, I do not have the right to stop you from using a park. The same goes for a bike path, a road, whatever.

In an article linked below, Berkeley students form a human wall to prevent only white students access to a bridge leading to campus, forcing many to hop from rock to rock across a stream to cross. In the included video, you may note that police were on scene throughout. While I am not familiar with Cali law, it would seem that restricting freedom of movement as a form of protest is in perfectly legal...

What is legal and what the cops will enforce in a particular situation are two different things. More often than not, if no one is getting hurt, the cops won't stop a protest, even if it happens to be illegal, because it could escalate to a riot and all sorts of bad things can happen. So if you block the streets to whine about your favorite pet cause, the cops will probably let you do it because busting up your protest might lead to greater injury or property damage. However, if you do it often enough, or are enough of a nuisance, and there are few enough of you that they can dispose of you without too much grief, you are breaking the law and are subject to arrest as a result.

Not a trick question, but I think you missed it's point. TBD said you cannot claim self-defense if you are attacked when you have knowingly exposed yourself to a 'threat'. I disagree with this, and a sit-in serves as a good illustration: just because you engage in protest, it does not give others the right to assault you or negate your ability to claim self-defense against an assault.

Got it. You are correct. The "he was asking for it" defense against an assault charge pretty much never works anymore. It might convince a prosecutor or the police to ignore you, but if it gets to court, the assaulter will lose.

Applying this to sit ins, if you assault some sitters, you will lose. On the other hand, if you call the police, and the police arrest the sitters, possibly using violent force against resisting sitters, the sitters will lose.

If there are enough sitters, though, and they aren't causing too much trouble, the police and prosecutors will probably just let you hang out for a while to make your point, as long as no one gets hurt.



Where it gets really tricky is when people have a right to be where they are, but then a fight breaks out. Now exactly who do you blame, and possibly arrest, for the violence? In this case, I have insufficient data to say who ought to be charged. However, if one side has a parade permit, and the other side has masks and pepper spray, I'm going to be immediately suspicious of the masked folks.

 

[Thermal]

In fact the author of the Reuters piece is credited as the photographer as well and thus was, as you say, on-site.

Your second hand reporting claim is false. You are not reading my claim correctly.

The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.

Good catch, I stand corrected. What is not clear is whether the bike path was blocked by 'a dozen or so' protestors first (it would seem that there would be photos of this), or if the Times is correct in reporting that the pro-Trump supporters were the aggressors. If the marchers were the aggressors, as reported, then you suggest that non-violent standing in a bike path warrants assault?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the point about the threat is all about the idea of preemptive self defense.

In colloquial terms, there are times when you can throw the fist punch, but claim it was self defense. If you can convince the jury that you had reasonable fear of a pending assault, the fact that the assault has not yet occurred does not prevent you from claiming you were defending yourself.

If your claim is that you felt threatened because you were surrounded by scary people, and therefore had a right to whip out the pepper spray in self defense, you will likely lose if you deliberately surrounded yourself with scary people. In order to win the case of preemptive self defense, you would have to say that you were present and conducting yourself in a civilized manner, when a mob started threatening you. If you were engaging in any sort of aggression yourself, you are not likely to be able to claim the right of preemptive self defense.

 

[The Big Dog]

If the marchers were the aggressors, as reported, then you suggest that non-violent standing in a bike path warrants assault?

Non-violent standing in the bike path?

You know, there comes a point where spinning the facts to make one side seem innocent really becomes a waste of time, doesn't it?

They were not non-violently standing in the path, they were, as the organizer said they intended to do, physically blocking the path and as such, asserting that they could reasonably claim self defense where they intentionally initiated the physical confrontation is specious.

 

[Stout]

By second-hand reporting. Still, your original comment was that you cannot claim self defense if you are assaulted when you put yourself in a possibly confrontational situation. Am I reading that correctly?

Maybe you would prefer something first hand then, OK, how about something from the 21 year old intern at the OC weekly , someone who was actually there.

As it headed south, counter-protesters formed a wall along the bike trail, holding a banner and trying to block the coming crowd. Trump supporters began pushing through gaps, and a struggle ensued.

Interesting use of language in that article as well. It goes on and on about the bad breath of some woman at the march ( three mentions ) "tokens", fat people, middle aged, white people. It's almost like it was written by an SJWs who hate Trumpers so much they let their professionalism get away from them and if that's the case, no wonder yourn Tristan got himself involved in the fracas.

ETA....Forgot the funniest part of that article, the one where the antifa chant "All the walls have to go, Palestine to Mexico." and then they go and build their own wall.

 

[caveman1917]

The counter-protesters initiated the physical confrontation by physically blocking the march.

If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there

 

[Ziggurat]

If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there

Oh, the irony of an anarchist trying to appeal to the legal system for his protection.

 

[sadhatter]

If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.



Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.



Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?



What equivalent of online wanted posters?

If only group a didn't exist group b wouldn't have to be so violent.

Where have I heard that before?

 

[caveman1917]

Shifting the burden of proof, I see.

It's not shifted, it was your burden all along.

Non-sequitur. We are not discussing respective propaganda presentation. We are discussing the purpose of posting personal information of protestors, complete with bios, employment, and pictures. You seem to claim that antifa are maintaining a 'Who's Who' socialite gossip page. Do you have another reason to post the personal information of specific protestors? 'Feel free to present your evidence' of what legitimate service these postings provide.

The context of the comment you replied to was general. Protesting and demonstrating for your political and social beliefs are a cherished right for many of us. Posting detailed personal information about opposition members (not even public leader type figures) serves no reasonable purpose other than to target them. 'Feel free to present evidence' that it serves some legitimate purpose.

Well a couple of pages ago in this thread someone expressed concern about their protest being disturbed by so-called "Trump supporters" and asked about whether pepper-spray would be a good deterrent. Then knowing what your local fascist clubs tend to be up to, and who they are, is useful information. Whether they just stand across the street shouting at you, or are well-armed and tend to stab their opponents with knives is useful information if you are responsible for the safety of the people at your protest.

Want to have your privacy, and not have your information compiled and made publically available? Don't be a nazi who goes around assaulting and stabbing people.

No, you said 'What Wanted posters?' when I specifically addressed what I was referring to. Just present your argument bro, stop with the rhetorical pretense of innocence/ignorance.

Yeah I call BS on your determination that these constitute "Wanted Posters" hence...what wanted posters?

 

[sadhatter]

If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there

A legal system that does not let someone bar someone else from doing something legal is pretty Ace in my book.

The alternative of letting the biggest ******** control what people do would not be something I support.

 

[caveman1917]

A legal system that does not let someone bar someone else from doing something legal is pretty Ace in my book.

Good to know then, if you stand somewhere on a sidewalk you think it's pretty Ace for people to assault you because you are blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under your feet. After all, it's not like the counter-protesters were blocking more than the bit of sidewalk under their feet, the marchers could've easily just gone around them to wherever they were heading.

 

[The Big Dog]

If I stand somewhere on the sidewalk then anyone can assault me, because I am blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk right under my feet? Nice legal system you got there

what an utterly insipid analogy.

Organizers plan to rally near Warner Avenue and PCH, then walk along a roughly two-mile stretch of the bike path.

Organizers of a counter rally said they plan to create a “human wall” to prevent that.

“We aren’t going to start fights, but we are going to try to stop them from completing their march,”