State (OR) v. Strickland: Journalist Convicted of Self Defense


G. Halek
GH is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and has served as a defense contractor in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His daily concealed carry handgun is a Glock 26 in a Lenwood Holsters Specter IWB or his Sig Sauer SP2022 in a Dara Holsters Appendix IWB holster.
by G. Halek
PORTLAND, OREGON (2-13-17) — Prosecutors successfully argued before Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan that concealed carrier and independent videographer-journalist Michael Aaron Strickland, 37, did not have reasonable fear of his own life when he pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and attempted to withdraw from a Black Lives Matter and Don’t Shoot Portland demonstration.
According to Oregon Live, Strickland was found guilty of 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and second-degree disorderly conduct. Sentencing for Strickland’s trial begins in May.
This case had plenty of video evidence. Strickland, himself a videographer, had recorded parts of the incident in which he was surrounded by members of two organizations and allegedly pushed around and given express threats to harm his life.
At one point, he drew his handgun and told those blocking his exit to “get back!”
No shots were fired and he did not resist Portland police when they arrested him. He was legally licensed to carry a handgun.
We’re not lawyers but I picked out a law that the prosecutors likely used to dismantle Strickland’s case.

2015 ORS 161.219¹


Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a personNotwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
In order for Strickland to walk away from this scene, the prosecutors needed to prove there was no chance anyone in either crowd of protesters was about to commit a felony involving physical force against Strickland.
Apparently, they convinced the judge.
Before we hear the arguments about he never should have been there to begin with, let’s also consider that Strickland’s occupation may require him to cover active demonstrations. There is no legal reason why he can’t be at those demonstrations so long as he is not provoking the crowd or otherwise violating the law.
Oregon also has a weird interpretation of its legal definition of use of force or deadly force.
According to ORS 161.209,
“…a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]”


This type of wording is horrible for law. What one man believes is completely reasonable, another may find to be unsuitable.
Strickland is getting hamstrung.
Even if he manages to avoid serious prison time — which doesn’t appear to be the case — he’s never going to be able to legally possess firearms again.
That’s an exceptional loss for covering a news story.
News reports suggest that Strickland was being called names, pushed around, and probably had a reasonable degree of fear for his well-being. None of those things, though, stood up to the prosecuting team’s arguments that he overreacted and used excessive force.
This is something concealed carriers REALLY need to become aware of — especially as we head into more tumultuous and ridiculous times.
  1. Get good legal counsel — first and always.
  2. Know the state’s law in regards to justified use of force. Get a lawyer to explain it to you if you can’t understand how it’s written — preferably before you run into a situation where you need to knowThat’s not me calling anyone dumb. State laws are legitimately hard to read sometimes.

As sad as it is to say, Strickland is going to get comfy in Oregon’s state prison system. As concealed carriers, we can EASILY avoid a similar fate by simply knowing the law. The law is what we are tried upon. Regardless of our own personal ideas of how we feel society should operate, all of that means nothing when you’re standing before a judge. The judge doesn’t care. Your family certainly will.
But if you feel I missed something pivotal in this case, please do tell us in the comments below. We’re opening this up for debate because, to be honest, perhaps I missed something that would change my opinion. Make your arguments below and keep carrying concealed.
(Finally Unsealed Video) Michael Strickland himself here. Here is a multi angle video that I put together with commentary to explain what had happened.
From OFF Oregon Firearms Federation:
By now many of you know that Mike Strickland, a pro-gun, freelance journalist was convicted of 21 counts of self defense on Friday, Feb.10.
Strickland had been attacked by a mob in Portland while covering a “Black Lives Matter” protest. The attack was planned and coordinated in advance.
You can read more about it here. Victoria Taft has done an outstanding job of documenting the attack and the trial and you can see that here.

In truth, Mike was convicted the moment he was arrested by Portland Police for defending himself against the same kind of mobsters who have trashed Portland repeatedly. Their criminal actions are rarely punished by a county “Justice System ” that encourages rioting and looting but creates political prisoners of people who attempt to defend themselves from criminal attack.

From the moment he was arraigned it was clear the fix was in. As soon as the D.A.’s office in Multnomah County realized who Mike was, they began to assure he would never get a fair trial. And they succeeded.
Mike’s bail was set at an astonishing and unprecedented quarter of a million dollars!

The D.A.’s office made open and absurd accusations about him to the press. They said he was a “white nationalist” and a “racist.” All of it was lies. But what would you expect from a county whose D.A. is a rabid advocate for gun restrictions? D.A. Rod Underhill has testified in favor of gun control bills in Salem and is a proud member of an anti-gun prosecutor’s organization.

Multnomah County is also home to Judge Kenneth Walker who said (in open court) “If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean. Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them.”
All complaints about Walker’s clear bias against the Constitutions of the United States and Oregon were dismissed. Oregon’s Commission on Judicial Fitness found nothing wrong with Walker’s outburst.

When it came time to seat a jury it became clear very quickly that the chances of getting impartial jurists in Multnomah County were almost zero. Only two of the potential jurors believed it was ok to have a firearm for self protection. Both would be eliminated by the prosecutors. Michael’s lawyers made the decision to dispense with the jury and opted for a bench trial. They understood their only hope was a fair and honest judge. They hoped for too much.

As the trial proceeded, everyone: Michael, his lawyers, and supporters in the courtroom were optimistic and confident. The prosecution witnesses either admitted their criminal plans or were quickly proven to be liars.
There is even video of the perpetrators physically assaulting Michael, from his own camera. That video has been ordered SEALED by the very judge who presided over the trial and will likely never be seen by the public.
Everything seemed to be going Mike’s way. But, after all, this is Multnomah County, the county that says your car and your front porch are “public places.” The county that rewards rioters and elects child molesters.

On Thursday, it appeared the trial was over. A use of force expert had testified that Michael’s actions were reasonable. Everyone was sure that Michael would prevail. Then the Multnomah County D.A. announced that they were going to have another surprise witness on Friday to testify that Mike’s use of “force” was criminal. The observers, and Mike’s lawyers were stunned by this last minute ambush witness.

Keep in mind that Mike’s “criminal” actions consisted solely of drawing a lawfully possessed firearm in the face of a mob of armed attackers and backing away without ever placing his finger on the trigger.

The ambush witness was Ryan Rasmussen, a Gresham cop who was not at the scene of the attack but agreed (for reasons yet to be determined) to come in at the 11th hour and testify that drawing your gun in the face of an attacking mob is not “reasonable.” Rasmussen testified that all of the training that he had received and that he teaches centers solely around law enforcement or military, and that none of it applies to civilians. He even testified that police are held to a higher standard than civilians.

Within a minute of the closing arguments, after Rasmussen finished his attacks on Strickland, Judge Thomas Ryan found him guilty on all 21 counts. Mike, his lawyers, and supporters were astonished.

Keep in mind, in Oregon there is no duty to retreat from attackers. But the D.A. and their hired gun witness said Michael’s behavior was criminal because he did not run away. In fact, multiple videos of the event show very, very clearly that Strickland was making every attempt to back away. Michael has had knee issues in the past and has trouble running. Add to that he was weighed down by his backpack full of computer and camera equipment, as well as the tripod with his camera on it. It would have been impossible for him to run away, as he would surely have been tackled behind by the mob.

Incredibly, the DA attacked Mike because, after he felt he was safely away from his attackers, he holstered his gun.

A Portland Police Sgt. who was part of the squad that arrested Michael told us he thought everything Mike did was correct. But none of that mattered. Strickland’s long history ofexposing the hypocrisy and tyranny of the left in Oregon meant he had to be made an example of. They had the power to silence him and chill anyone else who dared shine a light on them and they used it.

This case is about so much more than Mike. If this conviction stands, self defense in Multnomah County, and soon all of Oregon, will be a dead issue. The prosecution attacked Mike because he had backup ammo! They attacked him because he did not “run away” when in fact he did. They told lies about him to taint the jury pool and build up hatred for him in the press. Who among us is next?
If ever there was a clear cut case of self defense, this was it. But a leftist, activist judge in a leftist county decided to ignore the facts and the law and condemn Mike for doing what any rational person in his position would have done.

Multnomah County has sent a message loud and clear. If you riot, attack people and destroy property, you will be protected. If you try to defend yourself from criminals, you will be convicted and jailed. It is simple insanity. What Judge Ryan and D.A. Underhill have said is this. “If you come to Multnomah County and a gang of thugs attacks you, lie down and take the beating. If you are not killed, you will be better off than if you defend yourself and we get ahold of you.”

Because of many generous donors, OFF was able to contribute generously to Mike’s defense. Now we have no choice but to appeal. If we don’t, no one is safe and a precedent has been set for the rest of the state. Politically motivated judges and D.A.’s can ignore the law with impunity. We will sink into anarchy.
Hello, Michael Strickland himself here. Just wanted to offer some clarification.
I was trying to flee. Immediately upon the attack initiating, I started backing away. I was backing up the block for 40 seconds while the mob continued to pursue and accost me. Trying to flee did not deter them. I issued verbal commands, that didn’t deter them. I employed a non lethal option (my monopod), and that did not deter them. Finally they started to converge upon me from multiple angles again, and that was the decisive moment when I knew I had to draw, or get flattened into the pavement and be robbed of my camera and computer gear.
Furthermore, Oregon is a defacto Stand Your Ground. While not codified, it is case law, State v Sandoval, where the state Supreme Court ruled that there is no duty to retreat.

EPILOGUE: Michael Stricland Loses Mens Rea Appeal


State (OR) v. Strickland

State (OR) v. Strickland
The Oregon Appellate Court decided Michael’s broken arm incurred during an attack in the course of his filming in public on a previous unrelated occasion wasn’t relevant to his self defense argument raised at trial, preferring instead to interpret abstractions while applying them to weasel words such as ‘reasonable’.

WIKIPEDIA’s Take:


Michael Strickland is a conservative blogger for the Progressives Today blog and shares video on his YouTube channel called “LaughingAtLiberals”.

Whiteness History Month


At Portland Community College (PCC)’s Whiteness History Month in April 2016, Strickland attended several events to produce film for his YouTube channel LaughingAtLiberals. A PCC spokeswoman said he was routinely “pushing buttons” and posting heavily edited videos about the events.

Race and Sexual Orientation Based Harassment


Law enforcement say that Strickland has a past police report alleging “possibly race-based threats” against an attendee at a Portland vigil for the victims of last month’s nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida.[4] Strickland, who also participated in Portland State University’s PSU for Trump group, was alleged to have participated in online harassment campaigns against lesbian and transgender students and also filmed and mocked students and activists along with PSU for Trump members.

Don’t Shoot Portland rally gun incident


At a Black Lives Matter rally in Portland, Oregon, on 7 July 2016, Strickland pulled a Glock 26 pistol and pointed it at protesters, including an undercover police officer. Portland police reported that Strickland’s pistol was equipped with “an extremely large magazine” and had a round in the chamber.[9][10] The police also reported Strickland was carrying five extra magazines for the pistol, all loaded. Strickland claims he was surrounded by several anarchist protesters who pushed and shoved him, and that he feared for his life.
Portland’s police chief, Mike Marshman, said Strickland’s actions at the rally were “fully unacceptable”, stating, “I’m very, very proud of the members of the Police Bureau who cautiously and safely enabled the protest to continue on. That’s how it should be. To the men and women of the Police Bureau, please continue to do what you do.”
Portland police arrested Strickland at the scene, charging him with menacing and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. Law enforcement officials then processed Strickland through the Multnomah County Detention Center and released Strickland on his own recognizance.[13] The next day the state added two additional charges of unlawful use of a firearm, a class C felony. At Strickland’s arraignment, the judge set bail at $250,000, with Strickland being released after posting the required bail on July 18. A Multnomah County district attorney sought the high bail amount partly based on alleged race-based threats, including harassing texts and phone calls, reportedly made by Strickland at a previous 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting vigil.
In response to the incident and based on his activities on campuses, Portland State University banned Strickland from its campus for two years, and Portland Community College indefinitely banned Strickland from its campus.
On February 10, 2017, Strickland was found guilty of all 21 counts: 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and one count of disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to 40 days in jail, 240 hours of community service, banned from taking video of people or events for at least 2017, and is also banned from owning guns.  During the hearing the court discussed finding in a pre-sentence investigation that Strickland had Autistic tendencies or Aspergers.
On April 1, 2020, Michael Strickland’s conviction was affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeal which rejected the arguments of Strickland, noting that the facts of the case were undisputed.
An Oregon lawmaker took to the barricades in support of a man convicted of pointing a handgun at a crowd during a “Don’t Shoot” downtown Portland protest in July 2016.

Wearing a suit and tie, conservative blogger Michael Strickland sat silently at the desk of Sen. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, during the short speech inside the statehouse on Thursday, March 21.
“He acted in self defense but was treated like a criminal,” Thatcher told her colleagues. “Free speech is free speech. We as a body should honor the Constitution’s explicit protections set aside for that.”
Thatcher specifically spotlighted Strickland’s treatment during a recent guest lecture organized by the College Republicans club at Portland State University. The Tuesday, March 5 encounter inside the student union building was derailed by a counter-protester who stood in front of a projector while ceaselessly ringing a cowbell.
Video of the incident lit up conservative corners of the internet with questions about why a PSU campus police officer stood by idly and didn’t intervene during the hour-long disruption. (The university later released a statement saying the guard “used his professional judgment” in order to not “escalate a potentially unsafe situation.”)
Fox News host Laura Ingraham went on to label the viral occasion as another example of conservatives being “deprived” of their free speech rights on campus.
Strickland’s criminal conviction is currently being tested by the Oregon Appeals Court, who heard oral arguments in October of last year regarding the guilty verdict for 21 counts of felony unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and second-degree disorderly conduct during a bench trial in 2017.
Strickland’s attorney, L.A. lawyer Robert Barnes, says appellate courts affirm trial court outcomes about 80 to 90 percent of the time.
Michael Strickland

“This case boils down to can you defend yourself? Can you assert your Second Amendment right to assert and protect your First Amendment rights? And will the State of Oregon recognize someone’s personal life experience or will they reward the Black Bloc of Portland again?” Barnes said after the appeals hearing Oct. 12.
Strickland maintains he was threatened by a crowd of anti-fascists who were advancing on him, while prosecutors pointed out that no one was touching Strickland during the encounter and he had space to run away.
Court documents from the time say the then 36-year-old was standing outside the Justice Center when he unholstered a Glock and held it at chest level while pointing it “in a sweeping motion” across the crowd for four or five seconds.
Police later found he was carrying a pocket knife and five extra magazines of ammunition. The handgun was equipped with “an extremely large magazine” and had one round in the chamber.

Journalist Michael Strickland Speaks:



No, Michael–What the judges said was the standard for a self defense argument wasn’t what YOU believed, but what a fictitious ‘reasonable’ person would believe in a split second crisis with life hanging in the balance. Such a person doesn’t exist except in the abstract world of judges who haven’t been butt fucked. Nor have they been mobbed–obviously.
They also appear to believe that fear was unreasonable because you had yet to be battered regardless of your prior real world experience and a multi-fracture broken arm arising from street photography which the justices hinted was illegitimate because it was surreptitious despite the fact such techniques are widely deployed by mainstream media and surveillance cameras. Essentially, the justices more than revealed their biases hostile to the 1st and 2nd Amendments. You’re a fool if you don’t appeal this to the federal courts on that basis. Oregon’s interpretation of the admissibility of a self defense argument as well as the 1st & 2nd Amendment is ‘unreasonable’. (The favorite weasel word of attorneys, prosecutors, and judges when they prefer to ignore common sense/the law.)
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ANTIFA: The Truth Behind The Mask


A look into the domestic terror organization ANTIFA and how it is attempting to take over the current peaceful protests of the George Floyd death.
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups” – George Carlin
So…could ANTIFA be the dirty tricksters of the 21st century? i.e. Agent provocateur supporters of Trump? It’s been done before–a false flag operation?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cops & Guns —> Death



Atlanta police officer shoots unarmed man dead at a fast-food drive-thru: Unarmed black man struggles to resist arrest, flees, and is shot dead by white cop
On 6.12.20, according to eye witnesses on the scene, another UNarmed black man was killed by police in Atlanta, GA at the Wendy’s on University Avenue & Pryor St.

Activist struggles to express outrage under threat of Youtube censorship:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stars, Stripes & Bars Forever


Confederate Battle Flag

American Flag

Mississippi State Flag

Hawaii State Flag

Washington (6-10-20)
BLM protestors are tearing down Confederate symbols, flags, and war memorial statues across the South. The U.S. military has banned even bumper stickers bearing the Confederate battle flag on base, and hastened to rename those bases bearing the names of Confederate historical figures from the Civil War. NASCAR has banned Southern/Confederate symbols.
Members of the Mississippi legislature have moved to change the State’s flag in response to BLM protestors clamoring for the removal of the Stars and Bars from it. The symbol has come to represent the oppression of Black Americans in the minds of many due to its adoption by some White Supremacist hate groups. Still, we do not hear of Hawaii’s State flag being defaced because it includes the Union Jack–Great Britain’s flag who we were at war with at least 3 times in our history. (War of Independence, of 1812, and the pig war in the San Juans)
Not so long ago, our federal legislature passed a law making the burning of the American flag a felony. It was a wildly popular law with both the American public as well as Congress–only 3 representatives voted to oppose it…the recent Washington Governor Mike Lowry being among them. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, nevertheless…5 to 4, I believe. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant Gregory Lee Johnson‘s act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Gregory Lee “Joey” Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, beer cans, soiled diapers and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.
When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases as, “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under,” and, “Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III.” No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended.  A spectator, Daniel E. Walker, gathered the remains of the flags and buried them in the backyard of his home in Fort Worth.
Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that prohibits vandalizing respected objects (desecration of a venerated object). He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.
The court said, “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol.” The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.
Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision.
The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion being authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by Justices Thurgood MarshallHarry BlackmunAntonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. In addition to joining the majority opinion, Kennedy also authored a separate concurrence. The Court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.
The First Amendment specifically disallows the abridgment of “speech,” but the court reiterated its long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was concluded based on the 1931 case Stromberg v. California, which ruled the display of a red flag as speech, and the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which ruled the wearing of a black armband as speech.
The Court rejected “the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,” but acknowledged that conduct may be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether “an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.”
The Court found that, under the circumstances, Johnson’s burning of the flag “constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.” “Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent.” The court concluded that, while “the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word,” it may not “proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements.”
Texas had conceded, however, that Johnson’s conduct was expressive in nature. Thus, the key question considered by the Court was “whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson’s conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression.”
At oral argument, the state defended its statute on two grounds: first, that states had a compelling interest in preserving a venerated national symbol; and second, that the state had a compelling interest in preventing breaches of the peace.
As to the “breach of the peace” justification, however, the Court found that “no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson’s burning of the flag,” and Texas conceded as much. The Court rejected Texas’s claim that flag burning is punishable on the basis that it “tends to incite” breaches of the peace, citing the test from the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio that the state may only punish speech that would incite “imminent lawless action,” finding that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The Court noted that Texas already punished “breaches of the peace” directly.

Kennedy’s concurrence


Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence with Brennan’s opinion Kennedy wrote:
For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases. . . . Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.


Rehnquist’s dissent


Brennan’s opinion for the court generated two dissents. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O’Connor, argued that the “unique position” of the flag “justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.” Rehnquist wrote:
The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another “idea” or “point of view” competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

However, the Johnson majority found the lack of evidence for flag protection in the Constitution that necessitated the claim of “uniqueness” to counter indicate protection of the flag from free speech. They answered the “uniqueness” claim directly: “We have not recognized an exception to [bedrock First Amendment principles] even where our flag has been involved. … There is, moreover, no indication—either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it—that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone…We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.”
Rehnquist also argued that flag burning is “no essential part of any exposition of ideas” but rather “the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others.” He goes on to say that he felt the statute in question was a reasonable restriction only on the manner in which Johnson’s idea was expressed, leaving Johnson with, “a full panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression to express his deep disapproval of national policy.” He quoted the 1984 Supreme Court decision in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, where the majority stated that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places.”

Stevens’ dissent

Justice John Paul Stevens also wrote a dissenting opinion. Stevens argued that the flag “is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations. . . . The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured.” Stevens therefore concluded, “The case has nothing to do with ‘disagreeable ideas.’ It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset,” and that Johnson was punished only for the means by which he expressed his opinion, not the opinion itself.

Subsequent developments


The Court’s decision invalidated laws in force in 48 of the 50 states. More than two decades later, the issue remained controversial, with polls suggesting that a majority of Americans still supported a ban on flag-burning.  Congress did, however, pass a statute, the 1989 Flag Protection Act, making it a federal crime to desecrate the flag. In the 1990 Supreme Court case United States v. Eichman, that law was struck down by the same five person majority of justices as in Texas v. Johnson (in an opinion also written by Justice William Brennan). Since then, Congress has considered the Flag Desecration Amendment several times. The amendment usually passes the House of Representatives, but has always been defeated in the Senate. The most recent attempt occurred when S.J.Res.12 failed by one vote on June 27, 2006.
Yet the antebellum South continues to be seen as emblematic for the proposition of slavery and the root of the Civil War. Little heed is given by modern historians to the fact the South fired the opening shot of that war on Ft. Sumter, a federal island fort guarding a southern port.
What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?
A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states’ rights.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was largely committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, of whom many were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.
Today, the Lincoln Memorial pays homage to a man reputed to be The Great Emancipator. If so, it was a long time in coming…1-1-1863 to be exact, when the Emancipation Declaration, intended to cripple the South militarily as much as advocate for human rights, was ordered. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln is known to have greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, with “Well, if it isn’t the little lady who started the War!” Nor did the Proclamation ban slavery in the North, but in the South only.
On August 1862, Lincoln stated to Horace Greely: “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”–hardly the words of a committed abolitionist.
The vast majority of Confederate soldiers were poor white farmers who did not own slaves or have designs to. They were, however, zealously loyal to their home states and families. The privations, maiming, and deaths they suffered defending these were of Biblical proportions. Shelby Foote, a venerable Southern historian tells the story of a Confederate foot soldier being interrogated by by his Union captors. “What are you fighting for anyway, Reb?” they demanded. “Because y’all are down here,” he drawled. That’s not a bad answer to a foreign invader.
So here we are today in the midst of emblems, symbols, semantics, and the thought police–either self appointed, or requisitioned. Even cameras or journalists in public venues are no longer politically correct among militant leftists despite their utility in revealing incidents like the Rodney King beating or death of George Floyd. One has to wonder whether Civil War reenactments will be next to face political opprobrium? Jeeze, people, they’re just fricking rags, not sacred relics!
Many symbols, memorials, statues, and hymns stir the emotions. The English conquerors once banned bagpipes in Scotland for that very reason. Those emotions and the inclination to express them are as sacred as any human rights can be. They are not to be censored, censured, banned, or prohibited by government, popular appeal, or private intimidation/bullying as they belong to each of us as part of the human condition, our inalienable natural rights. Anything less is unAmerican.
Some of us are familiar with the Battle Hymn Of The Republic. A sadder Civil War song was Come Rally Round The Flag, also known as the Battle Cry Of Freedom. But Southern soldiers had their own equally passionate version of this tune. Listen to it before dismissing Southern talismans as racist or oppressive. What freedoms we have must be regularly exercised if we are to preserve them. Or as Benjamin Franklin opined when asked by a woman as he exited the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, “Mr. Franklin, what have you brought us?” “A republic, Madam,” he replied, “if you can keep it!”

Perhaps one black American woman put it most aptly when asked what she thought of these Civil War reenactments, especially by Southern enthusiasts. “They can refight that war as often as they please,” she drawled, “Just as long as they remember: They lost!”
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

White ‘Karen’ Spits on BLM Child Protestor, Arrested — Twice!


Lawyer spits on black teen during Wisconsin protest, kicks cop in groin
by Yaron Steinbuch, et ux (6-9-20)
64yo Stephanie Rapkin, esq mugshot

A white lawyer in Wisconsin has been arrested for allegedly spitting on a black teen protester — and then again after she was caught in another video shoving a college student who had been writing protest messages in front of her home, according to a report.
In the first case, Stephanie Rapkin, 64, showed up at an anti-racism rally in Shorewood on Saturday, parking her car in the street to block the march, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
When demonstrators told her to move her vehicle, she spat on 17-year-old Eric Patrick Lucas III, who helped organize the event, according to the report.
She was booked into the Milwaukee County Jail on Sunday and faces charges of battery and disorderly
conduct, but community leaders have called for stronger action — including being disbarred and being hit with a hate crime charge.
Her bail was set at $950.
“I continue to be mentally and physically shaken. To be assaulted by an adult in my own community during a pandemic was traumatic,” Lucas said, the Journal Sentinel reported.
“Again and again, I am viewed not as a child but as a color,” he added.
Rapkin later was captured on cellphone video in an altercation with 21-year-old Ithaca College senior Joe Friedman, who had been writing protest messages in chalk on the sidewalk in front of her home, the paper reported. “Be better than this” and “I spit on a child. How dare you!” Friedman wrote, among other messages, according to the outlet. Shorewood resident Debra Brehmer on Sunday posted the footage of Rapkin confronting Friedman, her son, and several other people who had joined him.
Friedman, who was holding the camera, captured their argument over the spitting incident.
“You spit on a child,” he says.
“You people are so incredibly stupid, it isn’t funny,” Rapkin responds. “I spit on a man who attacked me.”
“He did not attack you. How did he attack you?” Friedman says.
She then storms over to Friedman, saying, “I said I was sorry, but when someone comes over to you like this” — and appears to shove the young man in the chest.
“I am explaining how it happened!” she says.
“You just put your hands on me,” Friedman says in response. “That is assault right there. Wow, I just got that on video, ma’am.”
“You are f—- bat—– crazy,” he adds as his mother says they will call the cops.
As she was being arrested in the incident, Rapkin allegedly kicked a cop in the groin, authorities said.

“The victim in today’s incident reported he was peacefully protesting on the sidewalk in front of suspect’s home, when the suspect came out and engaged in a verbal altercation with the protesters,” police said in a statement.
“The victim reported the suspect then slapped both of her hands on the victim’s chest and physically pushed him,” they added.

Police are pursuing charges of battery, disorderly conduct, battery to a law enforcement officer and resisting/obstructing an officer.

Michael Maistelman, an election law attorney, has filed a complaint with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation asking it to investigate Rapkin for possible professional misconduct, the newspaper reported.

Meanwhile, Shorewood schools chief Bryan Davis denounced Rapkin’s behavior and praised Lucas and the other protest organizers.

The incident “exposed the horrific, overt racism that still exists in our community” and was an “appalling display of racial hatred,” Davis told the Journal Sentinel.

He called on the Milwaukee County DA’s Office to also charge Rapkin with a hate crime because her behavior was more than just disorderly conduct — it was “racial hatred aimed at disrupting a peaceful demonstration.”

“If we, as Milwaukee County, are going to treat racism as the crisis it is, we must make sure that law enforcement and our criminal justice system look at these types of incidents through a racially motivated lens,” he said.

On Monday, Urszula Tempska, a neighbor of Rapkin’s, said she believes the attorney acted out of fear when she left her car in the street, not knowing her shopping route would put her in the path of a protest.

“I understand why everybody has decided that she is a conscious racist” and “jumped to the conclusion that she was there to stop the protest,” Tempska told the paper. She said that based on conversations she has had with Rapkin over 15 years, she believes the suspect is “not a conscious racist.”
Stephanie Rapkin, esq. goes full Karen on Black BLM protestor:

Black teen Eric Patrick Lucas III explains his reaction to Karen assault:


Yet another racist bigot goes full Karen on a Filipino-American woman in a public park:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Joe Bologna, Inspector w/Philly PD assaults BLM youths



Cops Saluted And Applauded An Officer Facing Assault Charges For Beating A Student Protester.
video by Brendan Lowry @Peopledelphia peopledelphia@gmail.com
Dozens of Philadelphia police officers saluted and applauded Staff Inspector Joseph Bologna on Monday as he prepared to turn himself in on aggravated assault charges for allegedly beating a student protester and severely injuring him. Many of the officers and supporters gathered outside the union’s headquarters clapped and cheered for Bologna as he walked past them, with one woman patting him on the back.
A spokesperson for FOP Lodge 5 said there were “several hundred active police officers, retirees, and other supporters at FOP in support of Inspector Bologna” on Monday.
“This is a very sad day for the Philadelphia Police department as one of our most decorated officers was formally arraigned on felony assault charges for doing his job, trying to keep our great city safe during recent unrest,” the union said in a statement Monday.
“Just shows the support he has and how he’s being railroaded,” FOP Lodge 5 President John McNesby told 6ABC.
Bologna, 54, is facing charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person.
The 30-year police veteran was seen in viral videos using his metal police baton to strike 21-year-old Temple University student Evan Gorski in the head and arrest him during a protest against police brutality last week. Gorski suffered “serious bodily injury,” including a large head wound that required around 10 staples and 10 sutures, according to District Attorney Larry Krasner.
A similar show of support was seen for two Buffalo police officers who were charged with second-degree assault for knocking over a 75-year-old man at a protest.
Dozens of people in police uniforms and “Blue Lives Matter” flag T-shirts cheered when the two officers, Aaron Torgalski, 39, and Robert McCabe, 32, left the courthouse after being released on Saturday.
Soon after the two officers of the Buffalo Police Department’s Emergency Response Team were suspended without pay following the incident, all 57 members of the unit resigned from the tactical unit, the Buffalo News reported. (They did not quit the police department.)

Joe Bologna, Philly PD Inspector

Gorski (the 21 year old student victim) was arrested at the scene and detained for more than 24 hours for allegedly assaulting an officer, his attorney told the Philadelphia Inquirer. Krasner said that after reviewing video and other evidence, he declined to charge the student.
“Instead, Inspector Bologna will face prosecution for his role in the incident,” Krasner said in his statement.
Bologna is facing charges of aggravated assault, simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person.
The videos shows Bologna — wearing a white shirt and sunglasses — grab Gorski as the student is trying to intervene between other officers and a protester.
Bologna is then seen striking Gorski’s head with his baton and tackling him to the ground, after which another officer places his knee on the back of Gorski’s head and neck for a few seconds.
Bologna was taken off street duty and handed in his gun on Thursday, the Inquirer reported.
“This moment demands a swift and evenhanded response to violent and criminal acts based on the facts and evidence,” Krasner said in a statement. “Americans are taking to the streets to demand a remaking of political, economic, and legal systems that serve the powerful at the expense of citizens’ health, welfare, and lives. There can be no safety or peace without justice. My office will continue to hold people who cause harm to others equally accountable.”
Philadelphia’s Fraternal Order of Police union said in a statement that it would “vigorously defend” Bologna against “these baseless allegations.”

The union described Bologna as one of the city’s “most decorated and respected” police leaders.
“He was engaged in a volatile and chaotic situation with only milliseconds to make a decision,” the union said.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Your Death = Profit$



by Douglas Rushkoff (3-24-20)

Medium member since Nov 2018
Author of Team Human, Present Shock, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, Program or Be Programmed, and host of the Team Human podcast http://medium.com/team-human
Have you heard the good news? Donald Trump is suggesting our freeze on businesses as a measure to curb coronavirus may end as soon as Monday. Yes, allowing people to go back to work could lead to more widespread infection, but the deaths of a few hundred thousand — if not a few million — more of us is a small price to pay for rescuing the American economy from collapse. In the president’s words, “we can’t have the cure be worse than the problem itself.”

Trump’s message is clear: The economy is not here to serve human beings; human beings are here to serve the economy. Those of us who die in service to the Dow Jones Industrial Average are mere externalities to the higher priority of capital growth. Like the destruction of the environment, our illnesses and deaths are a necessary cost of doing business. We cannot surrender to the depressing verdicts of doctors and scientists, lest we deflate the hope and optimism that make America great.
Those who will benefit most from our sacrifice — the billionaires whose fortunes are based almost solely on the economy’s continuing ability to grow — are already preparing for their escape. They’re booking private jets, ready to depart for their isolated doomsday compounds once they feel they themselves are at genuine risk.
Robber Barons



It’s a variation on the “insulation equation” I wrote about a couple of years ago after meeting a group of billionaires who wanted advice on how to maintain security for their doomsday bunkers in the event of societal collapse. The object of the game, as they see it, is to earn enough money to insulate themselves from the very damage their ventures have both directly and indirectly created in the first place. It’s a self-perpetuating nightmare: The more environmental and social damage they do, the more money they must earn to protect themselves from the devastation they leave in their wake. And the more committed they become to saving their asses and leaving the rest of us behind when a real crisis emerges.
Like the destruction of the environment, our illnesses and deaths are a necessary cost of doing business.


To be fair, this worldview is a natural extension of a market ideology that already accepted human casualties as a metric on the balance sheet. As Trump fairly argued, “you look at automobile accidents, which are far greater than any numbers we’re talking about. That doesn’t mean we’re going to tell everybody, ‘No more driving of cars.’” We calculate the relative cost of human lives every day as we go about our business, and we accept the trade-off between, say, the cost of making an automobile safe and the need to make it profitable.
This is, in certain respects, the American way. As Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick told Tucker Carlson on Monday, “No one reached out to me and said, ‘as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’… If that’s the exchange, I’m all in.” The underlying premise is simple: Our coronavirus shutdown stalls the God-ordained expansion of the U.S. economy. It is a misguided preservation of the weak and elderly. Are we really going to let our great market go belly up?
This is a quasi-fascist worldview, where we stop forcing ourselves to make decisions on behalf of the losers, and start making them on behalf of the winners. Besides, as Ayn Rand taught us, the more we cater to the weak, the more we weaken ourselves as a society and gene pool. This is natural selection.
Of course, most of the people arguing we take these public health risks are themselves in little or no danger at all. They’ve got private concierge doctors working around the clock to obtain the necessary tests and ventilators should they not make it to their hideaways in time. No, the risks are entirely borne by those of us who can’t afford such measures. It’s a lot easier for the wealthy to hang on to their positivity.
To be fair, though, there’s an internal logic to this approach — one as old as the American spirit of optimism. When Trump tore into a TV reporter who asked that he respond to Americans who fear for their lives, he wasn’t simply obfuscating. He was chastising the press for undermining America’s ability to apply positive thinking to the crisis. “You ought to get back to reporting instead of sensationalism,” Trump replied crossly.
Remember, Donald Trump was raised in the church of Norman Vincent Peale, author of the massively influential The Power of Positive Thinking — source material for every bootstrapping spiritual movement from the “prosperity gospel” to The Secret. From the age of six, Trump sat in the pews with his family at Peale’s Marble Collegiate Church listening to his sermons about how we can create the success we want through visualizing it — as Peale tells it, “formulate and staple indelibly on your mind a mental picture of yourself as succeeding” — and never giving in to “fear thoughts.”
At least for Trump and his ilk, the choice to talk and act positively in the face of all evidence to the contrary is not a cynical one. As late as 2009, when he was more than a billion dollars in debt and facing foreclosure, he depended on “the power of being positive.” He told Psychology Today that year, “What helped is I refused to give in to the negative circumstances and never lost faith in myself. I didn’t believe I was finished even when the newspapers were saying so.”
Seen in the very best light, Trump is attempting to apply the power of positive thinking to both the economy and the virus. As far as the stock market is concerned, there’s some sense to this. Markets are emotional. There’s nothing like hope for the future to justify high price/earnings ratios, stoke consumer spending, and spur investment.
But can hope kill the virus? We know the placebo effect is real. Can we think and grow healthy the way Napoleon Hill told us to Think and Grow Rich? That would be reason enough to keep a doom and gloom scientist like Dr. Anthony Fauci off the stage at the press conferences.
But not even Trump is enough of a true believer to believe positive thinking can wipe out the virus single-handedly. It can, however, galvanize our resolve — however foolishly. That’s why he is calling on us to make sacrifices, and to essentially wish the virus away.
For those titans of industry depending on perpetual economic growth, an extended shutdown actually poses a greater risk than meets the eye. The longer we pause from business as usual, the more time we all have to reevaluate the economy we’ve been born into. Yes, we need food, water, shelter, and maybe a communications infrastructure. But not a heck of a lot else. At times like this, we can see the value in farmers, teachers, and doctors… but all those guys in suits going to the city to trade derivatives, make marketing plans, and coordinate global supply chains? Not so much. The real danger here — what the billionaire preppers understand — is that any one of these “black swan” phenomena could be “the event” that destroys our willingness to keep running on the hamster wheel. They want us to go back to work, but for what?
They say it’s to save the economy, but they’re not talking about the real economy of goods and services. The American economy they’re concerned about is based primarily on debt. Banks lend money to businesses who then pay it back, with interest. Where does the interest come from? Growth. Without growth, the whole house of cards comes down, along with the wealthiest among us. We all have to believe in order to keep the hope alive and billionaires in their bunkers.
As far as the ultra-wealthy are concerned, the virus to be afraid of is less a medical challenge than a memetic one. We are waking up to the fact that we’ve been slaves to an exponential growth curve for the past 40 years, at least, and really much much longer. And we’re witnessing how the same exponential growth that gave the billionaires their fortunes is responsible for the fact that 40% of Americans have less than $400 in the bank for an emergency. The need for exponential growth also explains how we surrendered basic manufacturing and food resiliency to tenuous global supply chains. Sure, we can go back to work, but we can’t even make our own respirators.
Imagine if our main reason for returning to work was to make and do the things people actually needed to live good lives, instead of simply doing our part to keep the wealthy safely protected from the rest of us.
Now that’s some positive thinking.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rose City ANTIFA’s Culture of Violence


Shadowy Secretive Terrorist disorganization plots mayhem, arson, treason, and the violent overthrow of government, indeed–society itself, which it considers the enemy and itself at war with.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LAPD Vehicular Assault & Violence against BLM Protestors


By JAMES QUEALLYKEVIN RECTORRICHARD WINTON JUNE 4, 2020
In one video, at least eight Los Angeles police officers surround a woman lying in a Hollywood street as the buzz of a Taser fills the air. People scream from apartment balconies for the officers, who appear to be firing the stun gun at the woman, to stop.
In another video, an LAPD vehicle barrels into a crowd of protesters in Pershing Square, nearly driving over one before backing up and speeding away as protesters throw objects at the car.
On Tuesday, footage of a curfew arrest in Hollywood ends with the unarmed arrestee held at gunpoint and pleading for mercy as a police radio squawks with orders for officers to take anyone they see into custody. In L.A. County, sheriff’s deputies in one video appear to shoot pellets out of a moving vehicle at young men on the street, and those in another video punch and knee a young man on the ground in Compton.
An LAPD officer chases a suspected looter in an alley behind Hollywood Boulevard earlier this week.

With cellphone cameras everywhere and social media providing a livestream of unprecedented protests against police brutality, there has been a steady stream of new videos showing troubling police behavior.
It will take time for a full assessment of how police in Southern California performed and how widespread cases of misconduct have been. Protesters and some civil liberties activists have slammed the police tactics as unacceptable. And even city leaders admit there have been problematic incidents and have called for investigations and reforms based on what has emerged.
Mayor Eric Garcetti said the LAPD would reduce the use of foam rounds after many complaints from protesters who were hit by the projectiles. The mayor also said Wednesday that he would support the creation of a special prosecutor to review officer criminal misconduct cases, a longtime demand of activists.
The Times reviewed more than a dozen videos and shared several with police officials for comment. Josh Rubenstein, a police spokesman, said officers had been responding for days to “dynamic and at times dangerous situations” and had had rocks and bottles thrown at them.
But Rubenstein declined to provide explanations for the specific actions of officers caught in videos that have gone viral, including several in which officers can be seen aggressively beating non-violent protesters with their batons.
The Rodney King beating 29 years ago and riots the following year sparked major reforms in the LAPD that continued over the last few decades. That includes rules around the use of force, restrictions on holds and using flashlights as weapons and, more recently, deescalation training designed to make officers less likely to get into violent altercations with people. Even some longtime LAPD critics have said the department has made progress.
LAPD cruiser fires at fleeing BLM pedestrians
More info of #LASD shooting at unarmed law abiding teenagers in Hollywood with rubber bullets:
From an eyewitness account:
“June 1st 7:35 PM Mansfield and Higman Avenue between Fountain and Delongpre. The kid with the skateboard was hit in the back of the leg.”
But the protests of the last week show much more needs to be done, they said.
“It’s nothing but a confirmation of what black activists have been saying for decades — that police abuse and excessive force is real,” said Najee Ali, a longtime South Los Angeles civil rights leader. “Now, with the spread of social media and everyone having a cellphone, we can actually document what we feel is abuse.
“We finally have the proof.”
Ali said he and other leaders planned to gather outside LAPD headquarters Thursday morning to demand an audience with LAPD Chief Michel Moore and L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, to share videos community members have gathered so that officials can launch investigations.
They aren’t alone in demanding answers.
In recent days, the Police Commission and two City Council members have called on the department to review its use of force during the demonstrations. The department’s tactics also have come under fire from business owners, who say responding officers have repeatedly opted to arrest nonviolent protesters instead of looters at various scenes across the city.
Amid nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, former President Obama urged every mayor in the nation Wednesday to review their cities’ police use-of-force policies and commit to needed reforms.
LAPD uses gun to assault innocent pedestrian heading home
My friend got arrested for WALKING. HOME. TODAY. On Hollywood Blvd where most people WALK HOME from work (Including myself sometimes) Listen closely to what the officers are saying on the speakers in the background.
While Moore, Villanueva and Garcetti have largely commended officers for their handling of the unrest in recent days, they too have acknowledged that problems have arisen. Moore has said internal affairs officers are working around the clock to investigate specific incidents — including the one in which a patrol vehicle was driven into protesters.
The LAPD issued a statement Thursday acknowledging the footage and urging the public to contact Internal Affairs investigators or the department’s Office of the Inspector General if they believed they had been the victims of unjust force or misconduct
“We are aware of individuals who have posted videos online and on social media depicting encounters with the police that they believe constitutes excessive force or misconduct during these demonstrations,” the statement said. “We will investigate each instance thoroughly and hold any officer who violates department policy accountable.”
Rubenstein said complaints could be filed with the department’s Professional Standards Bureau toll-free at (800) 339-6868, or with the inspector general at (213) 893-6400 or (213) 893-6464, or by e-mail at oigcompl@lapd.online.
Villanueva said his department was investigating misconduct allegations and videos of potential misconduct. He said the scene in Compton came after an officer “narrowly escaped being killed by fleeing looters” in a vehicle, and the one in which officers are seen shooting out of a vehicle — which was retweeted to millions of people by rapper Lil Nas X — involved pepper balls being deployed. Both incidents are under investigation.
Some protesters and other police reform advocates say a reckoning is needed, beginning with the ouster of Moore — who was forced to apologize this week after he said looters were as responsible for Floyd’s death as the officer who had his knee on Floyd’s neck — and continuing with criminal charges for officers caught assaulting people. Garcetti and some police commanders have expressed support for Moore.
There is no question officers face unusual challenges. Though the vast majority of the protests have been peaceful, some people have thrown objects at officers, and more than two dozen officers have been injured. One had his skull fractured. It’s unclear how many protesters have suffered injuries. Looters hit scores of businesses, smashing windows and stealing merchandise.
But several witnesses say the police actions have been intentional and inexcusable.
8 LAPD cops mob & tase prostrate woman
My friend lives on Hollywood & Argyle. He just sent me a video of a pile of police taser-ing a woman. The police are now shooting rubber bullets at anyone who comes out over the overlook to stop filming of the incident. Police brutality needs to end.
Nicholas Flickinger, a 29-year-old social worker who recorded the video of officers in Hollywood piling on top of a woman, said he had had to call police for help multiple times at work. But, he said, images like the one he recorded Tuesday left him feeling an animosity toward law enforcement he’d never felt before.
“The way the LAPD has dealt with everything, I’ve never felt so anti-police or -LAPD,” he said. “I’ve always been of the opinion that there’s good and bad in every group … but even if there’s a majority of good officers, they’re not doing anything. It sounds like the cliche, canned thing, but they’re all complicit in what’s going on.”
Jonathan Uttenreither, 48, of Hollywood said he was near a police skirmish line on 3rd Street in the Fairfax District on Saturday when police started advancing, firing foam rounds “indiscriminately” into the crowd.
“They were not aiming low, that was clear,” he said.
As he started to flee, he saw a young woman also running away suddenly drop to the ground. Rushing to her aid, he realized she had been hit in the back of the head with one of the police projectiles. As blood ran down her neck and he and another man tried to carry her away, rounds popped off the ground around them, one grazing his arm.
“I realized the police were still firing on us as we were attempting to carry this wounded woman off the street. They were intentionally shooting at us,” Uttenreither said.
The fact that such actions are part of an orchestrated police response is outrageous, he said.
“It crushes hope that there’s any intention from the police to force themselves or the politicians that control them to have any accountability,” he said. “It’s like the police putting themselves at war with the population they are supposed to be serving rather than attempting to deescalate and solve problems.”
At least 2,500 people were arrested by the LAPD from Friday through Tuesday, and Moore has acknowledged that only 200 of those people were taken into custody on suspicion of looting or burglary offenses. The figures jibe with complaints from lawyers and activists, who contend the department used curfew violations and dispersal orders in recent days to squelch protest rather than ensure public safety.
“It was just a colossal expenditure of time and money that didn’t have to occur while you could have been dealing with other much more serious activities,” said civil rights attorney Carol Sobel, who has successfully sued the department in the past over its handling of protests.
Although not commenting directly on use-of-force incidents, Moore has said the department needs to become more aggressive in response to sustained looting and mounting injuries to officers.
Police have also been increasingly set on edge by reports of serious violence against officers in other cities. A Las Vegas police officer was shot in the head while responding to a protest on the Strip on Tuesday night, and three New York City officers were stabbed and shot Wednesday in Brooklyn. The NYPD officers are expected to survive.
But in L.A., many fear the LAPD is escalating an already tense situation with each misstep.
Flickinger said he and his boyfriend had been part of a march in Hollywood on Tuesday night but decided to get off the street rather than risk arrest due to a curfew violation. Around 7:30 p.m., he saw a woman walking away from a group of police officers on Argyle Avenue near Hollywood Boulevard. The officers had been yelling at her to stop, but the woman did not appear to be carrying anything or armed, according to Flickinger, who said the woman was then taken to the ground.
“One officer went at her and then seven people piled on top. As you can see in the video there’s six or seven officers all pressing their knees on her,” he said, evoking imagery similar to Floyd’s last moments. “They had their hands behind her back and you can hear the sound from the video of just them continuing to Taser her and Taser her. That’s why everyone started screaming, myself included.”
Brooke Forston, a woman who says she was among the protesters struck by an LAPD cruiser in Pershing Square on Sunday, has filed a notice of claim against the city and accused the officer behind the wheel of escalating an already tense situation.
“Tens of thousands of peaceful protesters gathered to have our voices heard and the driver of this LAPD vehicle chose to create chaos where there had been peace,” her attorney, V. James DeSimone, said in a statement. “At no point did Brooke attempt to harm anyone, and instead the LAPD turned a peaceful march into something dangerous for everyone.”
Lexis-Olivier Ray, a 30-year-old reporter for L.A. Taco, is one of several reporters who say they have been injured by police covering Southern California protests in recent days.
Ray was reporting from a skirmish line between police and demonstrators at 3rd Street and Fairfax Avenue on Saturday afternoon, near where Uttenreither had been, when officers began lashing out with batons without having given any dispersal order, he said. He was struck in the stomach.
“I was staying out of their way and I was working peacefully and just doing my job,” he said.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bronx/St. Louis Cops Shot/Runover 6-1-20


by Chris Irvine (6-1-20)
Chris Irvine

Police officers across the U.S. were targeted in shootings and vehicular attacks Monday night as protests continued in major cities for the seventh night despite President Trump’s vow to clamp down on violence.
The demonstrations on Monday marked a week of unrest since unarmed black man George Floyd died when a white Minneapolis officer jammed his knee into the back his neck in a shocking incident caught on video. Despite tens of thousands marching peacefully in demonstrations against police brutality and systemic racism, protests over Floyd’s death have been nonetheless overshadowed by violence, looting and vandalism that has engulfed U.S. cities.
In St. Louis, Mo., Monday night, four police officers were shot during protests in the city’s downtown area, two in the leg, one in the foot and one in the arm.
Police Chief John Hayden said they were hit by gunfire by “some coward” while standing on the side of a police line.
“As we speak we’re trying to get control out of this city, still hearing gunfire and everything,” he said. I don’t know what else to say. This is horrible. Thank God, they’re alive.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that all of the officers were conscious and breathing after being rushed to the hospital.

In Las Vegas, Nevada, an officer was shot in the head at the Circus Circus Hotel and Casino on the Strip. A source told 8News Now that the officer was in a fight with another suspect when someone walked up behind and shot the officer, who is now on life support.
It was one of two officer-involved shootings in the city; police said officers fired on a suspect at the Federal Courthouse in a separate incident. The suspect was hit several times.
Meanwhile, in Richmond, Va., two police officers and a suspect were injured after a shooting, according to NBC.
MACY’S HERALD SQUARE LOOTED AS CURFEW FAILS TO STOP PROTESTERS FROM DAMAGING STORE
RPD officers were called to investigate a report of an armed person on Semmes Avenue early Tuesday morning. When they arrived, gunfire erupted. The two cops and the suspect were taken to local hospitals.
In Buffalo, N.Y., an SUV plowed through a group of law enforcement during a Floyd demonstration, injuring at least two officers.
Video posted by a witness showed a line of officers, backed up by an armored personnel carrier, rushing and tackling a man who was being interviewed by a man with a TV camera about 9:30 p.m.
People being chased by police run past pedestrians near Union Square, Monday, June 1, 2020, in New York

Moments later, officers ran as the SUV barreled through a cluster, with at least one appeared to go under the vehicle’s wheels. The SUV was then able to drive round an armored vehicle and speed off.
In a similar incident in the Bronx in New York City, an NYPD officer investigating reports of break-ins was struck by a vehicle early Tuesday in a hit-and-run. The officer is in a stable condition.
And in another incident in the Bronx, an NYPD officer was attacked by several men as witnesses recorded the incident.
The disturbing footage was tweeted by New York’s Sergeant’s Benevolent Association.

The latest wave of protests came hours after President Trump vowed in a Rose Garden speech to restore law and order, and police under federal command forced back peaceful demonstrators with tear gas so he could walk to a church near the White House known as “The Church of the President” that was set on fire during Sunday night’s rioting.

The president demanded an end to the violence in remarks from the Rose Garden and vowed to use more force to achieve that aim.
If governors throughout the country do not deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers to “dominate the streets,” Trump said the U.S. military would step in to “quickly solve the problem for them.”
“We have the greatest country in the world,” the president declared. “We’re going to keep it safe.”
More than 5,600 people nationwide have been arrested over the past week for a myriad of offenses, according to a count by The Associated Press.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment