“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[caveman1917]

what an utterly insipid analogy.

It's perfectly accurate. If I stand on the sidewalk then you'd expect someone to go around me en route to their destination rather than assault me for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under my feet. Yet when it's those so-called "Trump supporters" you pretend as if it's normal for them to assault people for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under their feet, rather than go around them en route to their destination. Again, nice legal system you got there

 

[The Big Dog]

It's perfectly accurate. If I stand on the sidewalk then you'd expect someone to go around me en route to their destination rather than assault me for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under my feet. Yet when it's those so-called "Trump supporters" you pretend as if it's normal for them to assault people for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under their feet, rather than go around them en route to their destination. Again, nice legal system you got there

So disingenuous,

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

But you have created a ridiculous analogy and are not going to let the facts stand in your way.

 

[Stout]

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

Where have I heard that before?

It looks like my request for clarification on the first sentence is being ignored so I'll just have to put it down to what it reads as...victim blaming and terrorist apologetics.

 

[sadhatter]

It's perfectly accurate. If I stand on the sidewalk then you'd expect someone to go around me en route to their destination rather than assault me for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under my feet. Yet when it's those so-called "Trump supporters" you pretend as if it's normal for them to assault people for blocking their access to the bit of sidewalk under their feet, rather than go around them en route to their destination. Again, nice legal system you got there

Is called a sidewalk, it's for walking, one group was walking one wasn't. Why should they not use it for its intended purpose so others can use it for a purpose not intended?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Did the marchers instigate the altercation? Did they assault the counter-protesters?

ETA: I'm going to go out on a branch and say that the marchers didn't instigate the altercation, and that it was the counter-protesters who assaulted the marchers. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that 4 people were arrested, all of them counter-protesters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-idUSKBN16X009

Four counter-protesters were arrested, three for illegal use of pepper spray and one for assault and battery, Kevin Pearsall, a spokesman for the California State Parks Police said on Saturday evening.

 

[caveman1917]

ETA: I'm going to go out on a branch and say that the marchers didn't instigate the altercation, and that it was the counter-protesters who assaulted the marchers. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that 4 people were arrested, all of them counter-protesters

That's one tiny, even just imaginary, branch you're moving on, as if the cops aren't generally with the fascists in these kind of things. Here's a video of part of the events, where you can see the cops work together with the fascists against the counter-protesters. Also compare the primary reporting of the LA Times (the fascists started by attacking journalists) with the claims by the police as in the article originally linked to by varwoche (no such reports, only claims of "counter-protesters pepper-spraying pro-Trumpers").

But none of this is in any way surprising, the cops are always with the fascists. The main distinction between the cops and the fascists at such events is whether they are on- or off-duty.

 

[Thermal]

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"



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.

Could the human wall be considered a legitimate form of protest to the march, symbolically resisting what the protesters see as the advancing of fascism? Not asking you to agree with their views, just that their form of protest has a political/social purpose as opposed to random troublemaking.

Re: chemical weapons, has there been any report on the circumstances of their use? As in, were they used with preemptive aggression or in response to assault? I think it's a fair question to consider before assuming the protesters are the 'bad guys'.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's one tiny, even just imaginary, branch you're moving on, as if the cops aren't generally with the fascists in these kind of things. Here's a video of part of the events, where you can see the cops work together with the fascists against the counter-protesters. Also compare the primary reporting of the LA Times (the fascists started by attacking journalists) with the claims by the police as in the article originally linked to by varwoche (no such reports, only claims of "counter-protesters pepper-spraying pro-Trumpers").

But none of this is in any way surprising, the cops are always with the fascists. The main distinction between the cops and the fascists at such events is whether they are on- or off-duty.

Type fascists again.

When did we absolutely suck the meaning out of that term anyway?

Say, the black bloc scum took a beating. Score one for the fascists.

 

[The Big Dog]

Could the human wall be considered a legitimate form of protest to the march, symbolically resisting what the protesters see as the advancing of fascism? Not asking you to agree with their views, just that their form of protest has a political/social purpose as opposed to random troublemaking.

Re: chemical weapons, has there been any report on the circumstances of their use? As in, were they used with preemptive aggression or in response to assault? I think it's a fair question to consider before assuming the protesters are the 'bad guys'.

No, the wall was not symbolic. It was a wall intended to physically stop the original protest.

You know that fascism is not illegal in the United States, right?

 

[Thermal]

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.

While that is gracious, you raise a valid point about the normal use of 'legitimate'. Perhaps we can agree to legally meaning 'complying with law', and legitimate meaning 'in accordance with established rules, principles or standards'?

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.

I think that much like a sit-in, a human wall can be seen as a legitimate form of protest. The human wall can be a symbol of resistance and solidarity against the march of tyranny, or whatever.

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.

Agreed. Police ultimately want to keep the peace, and letting a questionable protest run it's course may ultimately be more peaceful than a showdown with the Po-Po.

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.

Agreed again. And although illegal, I consider a sit-in a legitimate means of protest, as it has been used in peaceful protest for decades. The human wall seems to me essentially a 'stand-in', as opposed to anything menacing. I am not clear on why so much malice is seen in this passive protest (the circumstances of the pepper spraying are unknown AFAIK).

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.

Keep in mind- both sides are photographed as wearing masks, and the pro-Trump marchers are reported to have been the aggressors, beginning with attacking the journalists.

 

[The Big Dog]

Building a human wall to physically stop a march is not remotely akin to a sit in.

It is a physical confrontation, pure and simple.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Disagreed. If I block someone's way on a sidewalk, even belligerently, it does not give them the right to assault me, nor does it negate my right to defend myself if assaulted, nor does it waive any right to claim self-defense. Are you relying on any, I don't know, legislation or anything to support your position, or does it just kind of feel right?

 

[Meadmaker]

Agreed again. And although illegal, I consider a sit-in a legitimate means of protest, as it has been used in peaceful protest for decades. The human wall seems to me essentially a 'stand-in', as opposed to anything menacing. I am not clear on why so much malice is seen in this passive protest (the circumstances of the pepper spraying are unknown AFAIK).

I think it's the association with the people from Berkley. I don't like masked rioters, and the people in this incident seemed to be emulating those others.


Of course, I don't much like any of these protestors, really. I can't recall this sort of protest (i.e. the pro-Trump marchers) before. In America, we hold rallies during elections, or to protest government actions. Getting together for a "We Love the President" day is....kind of weird.

 

[The Big Dog]

Disagreed. If I block someone's way on a sidewalk, even belligerently, it does not give them the right to assault me, nor does it negate my right to defend myself if assaulted, nor does it waive any right to claim self-defense. Are you relying on any, I don't know, legislation or anything to support your position, or does it just kind of feel right?

Are you relying on "legislation" to support your claim that someone can initiate a physical confrontation such as blocking a legal permitted March, and then after initiating that physical confrontation, claim that they are entitled to assert self defense?

Answer: no you don't.

It is bizarre, have you never had anyone belligerently block your way?

I have and I can certainly understand why these black bloc asshats took a beating.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Oh, I linked reporting from the LA Times upthread, who also reported that pro-Trump marchers were the aggressors. and had attacked a photographer and journalist for the day's first violence.

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.

Indeed, actually sounds like a bit of bias in the reporting, some clear anti-Trump vibe there. The Times seemed more objective.

 

[Thermal]

Did the marchers instigate the altercation? Did they assault the counter-protesters?

Um, actually yes to both. At least two sources from journalists who were at the scene claim that pro-Trump marchers were the aggressors and they attacked journalists, of all people, first.

ETA: I'm going to go out on a branch and say that the marchers didn't instigate the altercation, and that it was the counter-protesters who assaulted the marchers. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that 4 people were arrested, all of them counter-protesters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-idUSKBN16X009

I'll go out on a branch too and say you are wrong, according to reporting. Have you reviewed the videos? Pro-Trumpers assaulting protesters left and right, and protesters in full retreat. Just look at the vids, it's not subtle.

 

[Thermal]

No, the wall was not symbolic. It was a wall intended to physically stop the original protest.

Estimates of the size of the counter protest range from a dozen or so to thirty participants. Can you explain how they were going to physically stop two thousand marchers?

Better question: there were multiple photographers on the site, professional and cell phones (just look at the videos to confirm their presence). Have you seen even one picture of this alleged human wall that only Reuters reports? I haven't. Seems an odd omission, no? Incredible omission, even?

You know that fascism is not illegal in the United States, right?

Never said it was.

 

[Stout]

Could the human wall be considered a legitimate form of protest to the march, symbolically resisting what the protesters see as the advancing of fascism? Not asking you to agree with their views, just that their form of protest has a political/social purpose as opposed to random troublemaking.

Re: chemical weapons, has there been any report on the circumstances of their use? As in, were they used with preemptive aggression or in response to assault? I think it's a fair question to consider before assuming the protesters are the 'bad guys'.

I don't think the wall was in any way legitimate in this case.

Sure, stand there with your megaphones and yell your chants but physically trying to prevent the event from happening as planned is outta bounds. I could see the wall being used legitimately if there was some sort of truth to power element involved but there wasn't one here. This was John Q. Public vs John Q Public with the antifa being the initial aggressors by showing up with the sole intent of telling the MAGA marchers that they suck.

Funny how people who set told that they suck tend to respond in kind. Antifa wanted to get physical, so things got physical.

No doubt Antifa was a little dismayed by the low activist turn out.

There's lots of conflicting and missing information out there on exactly what happened with the chemical weapons and I'll accept it if it turns out that they were used defensively but at this stage of the game, that doesn't look too likely.

It sure would suck if we were to have a skeptics/atheist picnic and a bunch of religious fundamentalists show up, screaming that we should be burned at the stake for heresy and started "bumping into" barbecues to knock them over. A few people might get pinched with barbecue tongs.

 

[The Big Dog]

Estimates of the size of the counter protest range from a dozen or so to thirty participants. Can you explain how they were going to physically stop two thousand marchers?

Better question: there were multiple photographers on the site, professional and cell phones (just look at the videos to confirm their presence). Have you seen even one picture of this alleged human wall that only Reuters reports? I haven't. Seems an odd omission, no? Incredible omission, even?



Never said it was.

Yes, I have. Did you even read one article even one where the black bloc scum admitted that they tried to stop the March? You have not? Stunning omission!

They are out there, do a bit of research.

 

[Thermal]

I think it's the association with the people from Berkley. I don't like masked rioters, and the people in this incident seemed to be emulating those others.

^^^Nail on the head^^^ The Berkeley crew were well organized and appeared to know what they were doing. The Huntington protesters look like wannabees who dramatically underestimated just how violent some Trump supporters can get. They certainly found out.

Of course, I don't much like any of these protestors, really. I can't recall this sort of protest (i.e. the pro-Trump marchers) before. In America, we hold rallies during elections, or to protest government actions. Getting together for a "We Love the President" day is....kind of weird.

You're on an insightful roll now. I think that's why the counter-protests are so intense; there is a perception of a rabid mentality among some of the President's fans...and it really is scary at times.