That wasn't an Antifa group. That was Patriot Guard Riders (PGR). They aren't associated with Antifa and they have completely different tactics than Antifa. I can't find any instance of anyone who claims to be Antifa forming a human wall to shield anybody.
I will admit to the possibility that I'm wrong about who did it there, but as Pixel42 noted them identifying as antifa, especially around the time it happened, would be no surprise. It's been quite a while, after all. Also, with Westboro Baptist, there's probably more than one event that it could easily be. With that said, though, on a quick googling of "antifa human wall" I got this -
An "Antifa human wall" is a protest tactic where activists form a physical line or human chain to block or disrupt far-right demonstrations, events, or speakers
.
This tactic is a form of "direct action," a core philosophy of the anti-fascist movement which prioritizes immediate, physical intervention over traditional policy reform or dialogue to confront what they perceive as fascism, racism, and white supremacy.
Key aspects of the "human wall" tactic:
- Purpose: The primary goal is to prevent opponents (such as white supremacists or neo-Nazis) from marching, holding rallies, or speaking, thereby "shutting down" their ability to spread their message.
- Method: Activists link arms or stand in dense formations, sometimes using shields, to create a physical barrier.
- Context: This tactic is often employed in street confrontations at high-profile events where Antifa groups counter-protest right-wing gatherings.
- Associated tactics: Participants often wear black clothing and masks (a "black bloc" tactic) to conceal their identities from opponents and law enforcement.
Antifa activists justify these actions, including the potential for physical confrontation that can arise from forming such barriers, as necessary self-defense and a means to prevent the growth of fascism, arguing that hate speech is not protected free speech
The method and usage is pretty much exactly the same.
No, the challenge to me was not to prove that breaking storefronts, looting and rioting are good reasons to condemn a group. The challenge posted to me was to prove that Antifa exists and participates in violent conduct. That's all that example was intended to demonstrate. You should concede me those points.
The immediate challenge that wasn't really being forwarded seriously, perhaps. Anti-Fa existing was never in true dispute and nor was that they have been involved in violence. That your attempted arguments to that effect were valid and reasonable arguments was more in dispute, perhaps, but that's a notably different thing that you didn't seem to catch.
Again, this was an example of the Proud Boys - a very right group - causing trouble and violence. People, including people who identify as antifa, fought back instead of just letting themselves be punching bags. "Antifa participates in violence" is quite the spin on the event.
People who identify as Antifa certainly have committed crimes, yes, but your "proof" is not actually helping you.
The court sided with him.
He was assaulted. Assault is a real crime, at last check. Of course the court sided with him that he was assaulted.
The list explains itself; a group of rioters who were arrested and charged. You can look up their backgrounds if you wish.
No. It's not that, either. You didn't pay attention to what it was in the first place, got things wrong, and are now trying to get me to do the work to prove that you're actually right for you?
No.
It's a data point, one of several I posted, and a small fraction that are easily findable on the Web, if you actually cared about facts.
It is a data point. Just not a data point that actually supports your arguments.
Except that I've shown that people who are affiliated with Antifa groups have been arrested, charged and convicted. Your denials are typical of Leftist/Liberal dishonesty, and that's why I vote for Trump.
Your remarkable lack of reading comprehension again here does make me utterly unsurprised that you voted for Trump, yes.
www.wweek.com
.