Sparks around the keg: Violence at townhall.

[Elfdart]

That was the second time I've asked you for evidence. This will be the third. Are you going to continue to ignore my request?

What difference does it make? Since you'll never find two incidents that are exactly the same, you'll just handwave it all away. If they were in different jurisdictions, different law enforcement agencies, whether they were asked to intervene by organizers, and now: whether the police are afraid of the protesters. It's all flotsam.

Here's a video of a pair of Code Pink hecklers at a John McCain speech. When they start up they are promptly kicked out of the room by plainclothes officers (possibly Secret Service) and either uniformed police or security guards (difficult to tell). The Code Pink types are about as close to the Teabaggers as one can get, and this McCain meeting is about as close to a town hall meeting as one can get.



Notice the difference: The Code Pinkers are ejected from the room and more than likely arrested even though they only shouted down McCain for thirty seconds or so. On the other hand, Teabaggers get away with shutting down the town hall meetings entirely. They have to make an outright threat (like the "Death to Obama" asshole) or an overt act (grabbing the old woman's poster, pushing shoving) before the police so much as lay a finger on them.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Notice the difference: The Code Pinkers are ejected from the room and more than likely arrested even though they only shouted down McCain for thirty seconds or so. On the other hand, Teabaggers get away with shutting down the town hall meetings entirely. They have to make an outright threat (like the "Death to Obama" asshole) or an overt act (grabbing the old woman's poster, pushing shoving) before the police so much as lay a finger on them.

Ok I'll bite... Are the cops simply more willing to kick out "liberals" ? Or are they being told by Obama and others "Play nice" with the idiot rioters at these things? I've got to know, who are telling these people "Please DON"T arrest someone who is CLEARLY in-sighting a Riot"

[Elfdart]

Ok I'll bite... Are the cops simply more willing to kick out "liberals" ?

Yes. How else do you explain Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan being grabbed and removed (esp in Sheehan's case, where she did NOTHING wrong) and arrested while the Teabaggers are not? Are the Teabaggers more polite? No. In every way, Code Pink (the most obnoxious left-wing demonstrators) are small potatoes compared to the Teabaggers.

Or are they being told by Obama and others "Play nice" with the idiot rioters at these things? I've got to know, who are telling these people "Please DON"T arrest someone who is CLEARLY in-sighting a Riot"

Since when do policemen need to be told to use a double standard when dealing with Dirty Fucking Hippies, as opposed to the good simple folk of Teh Heartland? This is nothing new: Back in 1970, Nixon's flunkies organized a mob of thuggish construction workers and other miscreants for the express purpose of intimidating students holding a vigil for the four students gunned down by National Guard troops at Kent State. What ensued is described in detail here and here. I'm not going to cut and paste the articles, but here are the most relevant parts:

After two minutes, however, the workers broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers chose those with the longest hair and swatted them with their hard hats. Attorneys, bankers and investment analysts from nearby Wall Street investment firms tried to protect many of the students but were themselves attacked. Onlookers reported that the police stood by and did nothing.

From his 32d floor office at 63 Wall Street, Edward Shufro of the brokerage firm of Shufro Rose & Ehrman watched through binoculars two men in gray suits and gray hats who, he said, seemed to be directing the workers.

"These guys were directing the construction workers with hand motions," Mr. Shufro said.

At Exchange Place, Robert A. Bernhard, a partner at Lehman Brothers, tried to protect a youth from assault by a worker. The worker grabbed Mre. Bernhard hard, and pushed him against a telephone pole.

A man who came to the aid of Mr. Bernhard was himself attacked by a worker and struck with apair of pliers. Bleeding from a head wound, the man was taken to Beekman Downtown Hospital.

Near City Hall, a Wall Street lawyer, Michael Berknap, 29, a Democratic candidate for the State Senate, was beaten and kicked by a group of construction workers yelling "Kill the Commie bastards." He was treated at Beekman-Downtown Hospital with his right eye completely closed, a large welt on his head and five bootmarks on his back.

Mr. Berknap said the police had stood by and made no attempt to stop the assault.

"These people are rampaging and the police are not arresting them," he complained.

Among the student demonstrators taken to Trinity Church for first aid was Drew Lynch, a teacher in the Human Resource Administration's Brooklyn street program.

Mr. Lynch had both eyes blackened and was bleeding from the mouth. He said "at least four" workers had pummeled him to the street, then kicked him.

"A policeman finally grabbed me by the collar, dragged me away, and said: 'Get out of here'" Mr. Lynch said.

Well at least one was doing his job.

The most telling part (from the first link):

On May 26, Brennan [Peter J. Brennan, pro-Nixon union kingpin who organized the Teabagg -I mean Hard Hats] led a delegation of 22 union leaders to meet with President Nixon at the White House and presented him with a hard hat. Nixon general counsel Charles Colson, in charge of developing a strategy to win union support for Nixon in the 1972 presidential election, identified Brennan as a friendly labor leader due to his role in organizing the counter-protests of May 8 and May 20. Brennan later met privately with Nixon on Labor Day.

Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his Labor Secretary after the election as a reward for his support.

So we have mobs of right-wing hooligans funded and organized by right-wing bigshots and supported by Republitards in public office. Sound familiar?






It's entirely possible that in the case of the Hard Hats, the police were genuinely afraid of stopping the mob. I don't buy it for a minute when it comes to the Teabaggers.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, does anybody care to explain *why* the police would be largely biased in favour of the right wing? Do potential officers do a political alignment test before they're allowed into the force?

[Darth Raptor]

So, does anybody care to explain *why* the police would be largely biased in favour of the right wing? Do potential officers do a political alignment test before they're allowed into the force?

Are you asking this question seriously, or are you just going for what you think are cheap rhetorical points? It couldn't be that positions of authority naturally attract authoritarians, could it? No, clearly, a vast right-wing strawman conspiracy is the only possible explanation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What difference does it make? Since you'll never find two incidents that are exactly the same, you'll just handwave it all away. If they were in different jurisdictions, different law enforcement agencies, whether they were asked to intervene by organizers, and now: whether the police are afraid of the protesters. It's all flotsam.

At least you admit that this is your own personal opinion and it's brought on by your own lack of understanding in regards to police procedures, city ordinances, and the right to free speech. Let me elaborate. When you're in a free speech zone or public forum you can be as loud as you want. In a conference you can't. When someone is giving a speech in a private building if they are under orders to remove disruptive people...it's not a double standard.

Also, it's not that the police are afraid. Police can be held liable if they engage in action which is likely to result in them using deadly force to save themselves. In other words a few officers decide to put down a large number of teabaggers and the teabaggers riot and the police are forced to shoot them. An investigation could find that the police didn't have sufficient numbers to put down an unruling group of protesters and then hold the accountable for the resulting action. Stupid ruling, I know.

Here's a video of a pair of Code Pink hecklers at a John McCain speech. When they start up they are promptly kicked out of the room by plainclothes officers (possibly Secret Service) and either uniformed police or security guards (difficult to tell). The Code Pink types are about as close to the Teabaggers as one can get, and this McCain meeting is about as close to a town hall meeting as one can get.

That was a conference and not a forum where people are encourage to speak their minds. However, you are right. There is a double standard. It's not the police though. It's the host of these events. The republicans clearly don't tolerate it. The democrats do tolerate it. The plain clothes personnel could also be private security. Again, this does not support your assertion that the police apply a double standard.

Notice the difference: The Code Pinkers are ejected from the room and more than likely arrested even though they only shouted down McCain for thirty seconds or so. On the other hand, Teabaggers get away with shutting down the town hall meetings entirely. They have to make an outright threat (like the "Death to Obama" asshole) or an overt act (grabbing the old woman's poster, pushing shoving) before the police so much as lay a finger on them.

There's another difference too. The code pinkers are interrupting a speech by McCain, and they're inside a private building where the owners have the authority to remove whoever they want for any reason. The police must respect the wishes of the property owner. In the case of the teabaggers they're in a private building and if the host or the owner doesn't ask for them to be removed then as long as they don't commit a crime then they won't be.

[Tiriol]

So, does anybody care to explain *why* the police would be largely biased in favour of the right wing? Do potential officers do a political alignment test before they're allowed into the force?

Are you asking this question seriously, or are you just going for what you think are cheap rhetorical points? It couldn't be that positions of authority naturally attract authoritarians, could it? No, clearly, a vast right-wing strawman conspiracy is the only possible explanation.

I'm not sure if you understand the question correctly: Ryan Thunder didn't imply that there would be a RIGHT-wing conspiracy afoot at all; maybe you meant LEFT-wing? And just to point out, being at right or left of the political spectrum has nothing to do with authoritarianism, since both Left and Right are quite capable of that.

And in any case, Ryan didn't actually imply or say that there would be any kind of conspiracy. What I gathered from his question, he simply challenges the assumption that the police would be biased in favour of the right-wing.

However... Ryan, right-wing is usually a rather conservative lot, both in good and bad. The police might be naturally more right-wing inclined simply because it is their job to uphold the law of the land - and that requires a certain amount of desire to maintain the legal status quo, ergo being conservative. Of course, the police have no sway over the law, so once the legislative bodies change the laws, the police will follow suit. But the very job description of the police - to maintain law and order - has certain conservative elements in it and in America, it usually means being a right-wing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes. How else do you explain Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan being grabbed and removed (esp in Sheehan's case, where she did NOTHING wrong) and arrested while the Teabaggers are not? Are the Teabaggers more polite? No. In every way, Code Pink (the most obnoxious left-wing demonstrators) are small potatoes compared to the Teabaggers.

It's not the level of obnoxiousness that matters. It's the place. This is a concept you seem to be having a hard time dealing with. Don't you find it strange that Obama's administration hasn't been chastising the police for not acting?

Again, you are unable to provide convincing evidence. Instead you reach across time and space to come up with examples that are vastly different than your examples involving liberals. I mean you brought up an example from 1970...give me a break.

Since when do policemen need to be told to use a double standard when dealing with Dirty Fucking Hippies, as opposed to the good simple folk of Teh Heartland? This is nothing new: Back in 1970, Nixon's flunkies organized a mob of thuggish construction workers and other miscreants for the express purpose of intimidating students holding a vigil for the four students gunned down by National Guard troops at Kent State. What ensued is described in detail here and here. I'm not going to cut and paste the articles, but here are the most relevant parts:

So, your answer to his question is to side step it and whine about some event that happened nearly 40 years ago? And yet again you don't consider the tactical situation. How many police officers were on scene to deal with over 200 construction workers and over 1,000 students?

After two minutes, however, the workers broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers chose those with the longest hair and swatted them with their hard hats. Attorneys, bankers and investment analysts from nearby Wall Street investment firms tried to protect many of the students but were themselves attacked. Onlookers reported that the police stood by and did nothing.

Let me quote what you failed to include...
"A thin line of police formed to separate the construction workers from the anti-war protesters."
Huh, sounds like they were seriously outnumbered. Maybe they should have started shooting construction workers...that would have improved the overall situation, right?

From his 32d floor office at 63 Wall Street, Edward Shufro of the brokerage firm of Shufro Rose & Ehrman watched through binoculars two men in gray suits and gray hats who, he said, seemed to be directing the workers.

Could the police see these people? Did they have sufficient numbers on hand to form an arrest team to safetly arrest them?

"These guys were directing the construction workers with hand motions," Mr. Shufro said.

At Exchange Place, Robert A. Bernhard, a partner at Lehman Brothers, tried to protect a youth from assault by a worker. The worker grabbed Mre. Bernhard hard, and pushed him against a telephone pole.

A man who came to the aid of Mr. Bernhard was himself attacked by a worker and struck with apair of pliers. Bleeding from a head wound, the man was taken to Beekman Downtown Hospital.

Near City Hall, a Wall Street lawyer, Michael Berknap, 29, a Democratic candidate for the State Senate, was beaten and kicked by a group of construction workers yelling "Kill the Commie bastards." He was treated at Beekman-Downtown Hospital with his right eye completely closed, a large welt on his head and five bootmarks on his back.

Mr. Berknap said the police had stood by and made no attempt to stop the assault.

Did they see the assault or were they busy trying to do their best to maintain their lines? Did they have enough to break off and go and stop it or were they holding back a much larger problem?

"These people are rampaging and the police are not arresting them," he complained.

Among the student demonstrators taken to Trinity Church for first aid was Drew Lynch, a teacher in the Human Resource Administration's Brooklyn street program.

Mr. Lynch had both eyes blackened and was bleeding from the mouth. He said "at least four" workers had pummeled him to the street, then kicked him.

"A policeman finally grabbed me by the collar, dragged me away, and said: 'Get out of here'" Mr. Lynch said.

Well at least one was doing his job.

The most telling part (from the first link):

Six people were arrested in total...probably the ring leaders. 70 people were injured including four police officers.



LMAO. Judging by the picture above the police were clearing in a situation to do something about these people.

It's entirely possible that in the case of the Hard Hats, the police were genuinely afraid of stopping the mob. I don't buy it for a minute when it comes to the Teabaggers.

Then provide the numbers so I can properly assess their tactical situation. Was the police public order unit present or like the Obama administration did they underestimate the situation?

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, does anybody care to explain *why* the police would be largely biased in favour of the right wing? Do potential officers do a political alignment test before they're allowed into the force?

There's the preception in law enforcement that right wing has been more law enforcement friendly. They are generally the ones that call for tougher criminal sentences, more benefits for police officers, etc.

[Elfdart]

It's not the level of obnoxiousness that matters.

I was referring to the level of disruption, as in Code Pink being the most obnoxious and disruptive of anti-war demonstrators.

Don't you find it strange that Obama's administration hasn't been chastising the police for not acting?

After the mass hysteria over the Gates arrest, no.

However, you are right. There is a double standard. It's not the police though. It's the host of these events. The republicans clearly don't tolerate it. The democrats do tolerate it.

I agree on that subject. If some of these chickenshit members of Congress had handles the Teabaggers the way Bill Maher dealt with the "9/11 was an inside job crowd", most of this bullshit would have been nipped in the bud.

The plain clothes personnel could also be private security. Again, this does not support your assertion that the police apply a double standard.

How about this thread from last summer? The Minneapolis PD tried to bully and intimidate people suspected of being anti-war or anti-McCain demonstrators by carrying out SWAT team raids on private homes and roughing up the inhabitants. They also beat up and arrested journalists (including Amy Goodman) who dared to cover it.

Funny how there are no SWAT team raids on the homes of Teabaggers.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I was referring to the level of disruption, as in Code Pink being the most obnoxious and disruptive of anti-war demonstrators.

Unless it turns into a criminal act the level of disruption does not matter, and if they have a permit for assembly then things like disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace don't hold water, at least in my experience.

After the mass hysteria over the Gates arrest, no.

The mass hysteria over Gates? Are you kidding me. That's because the president made a comment when he didn't know all the facts but just sided with his friend. I don't really hold that against him because that's the human thing to do and everyone makes mistakes.

However, that doesn't mean you can't call bullshit when the police are refusing to perform their duties. Besides, it's not like it is just the Obama administration that could be saying something if the police were truly displaying a double standard across the country or even just locally.

I agree on that subject. If some of these chickenshit members of Congress had handles the Teabaggers the way Bill Maher dealt with the "9/11 was an inside job crowd", most of this bullshit would have been nipped in the bud.

That would be nice.

How about this thread from last summer? The Minneapolis PD tried to bully and intimidate people suspected of being anti-war or anti-McCain demonstrators by carrying out SWAT team raids on private homes and roughing up the inhabitants. They also beat up and arrested journalists (including Amy Goodman) who dared to cover it.

Funny how there are no SWAT team raids on the homes of Teabaggers.

Do you have some specific examples of these raids? On page 5 I linked to a website (link now broken) for that activist group that talked about plans to disrupt traffic and possibly even use devices to disable tires.

Also, those raids were backed by a warrant. Do you have evidence that shows those warrants were illegally obtained?

Amy Goodman wasn't arrested for covering it. She was arrested for failing to obey a police officers instructions and he gave her those instructions multiple times and physically resisted his efforts to return her to the sidewalk, where she had a legal right to be, from the RNC grounds, where she did not have a legal right to be.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A bone

We all want a justice system that is even handed and treats suspected criminals the same, regardless of who they are and who their intended victims might be. Well perhaps only some of us want that. Apparently, some federal and state prosecutors have differing views on what constitutes a serious criminal offense requiring an indictment. For your edification and discussion, compare and contrast the following incidents.
First Case: In Denver, Colorado, during the Democratic National Convention, (as you may have heard) three men with suspected ties to a white supremacist organization were arrested when they were found carrying "two rifles, ammunition, bulletproof vests, walkie-talkies, wigs and fake identifications" in their car. Further searches of their hotel room and vehicles turned up "meth[amphetamine], needles, laptops, cell phones, a black mask, books indicating check fraud and forgery, bags of new clothes, tactical pants and bar coupons." These men, one of whom had seven outstanding arrest warrants, had openly discussed a plot to kill Senator Brack Obama, the then presumptive Democratic nominee:


[KUSA's] 9wants to know [ed. note: a Denver television station investigative news team] has learned three men in Denver discussed assassinating U.S. Sen. Barack Obama during the Democratic National Convention in Denver by sneaking into one of his events and shooting him with a gun hidden inside of a camera.
Nathan Johnson's girlfriend, whom 9NEWS is not naming because she's a juvenile, said "it would have to be a suicide mission," according to federal court records. [...]

Johnson, Shawn Adolf and Tharin Gartrell all thought that Obama had a suite in the third floor of the Hyatt hotel, where they were staying. In fact, Obama was staying in another Denver hotel. [...]

The underage woman told law enforcement that Adolf also talked about using "a high-powered rifle 22-250 from a high vantage point" to shoot Obama during his acceptance speech at INVESCO Field at Mile High.

One of the other women in the room, Kay Neb, told police she believes Adolf is affiliated with the Sons of Silence white supremacist group. Neb also told police that Adolf, Johnson and Gartrell are all racists because they made racially disparaging comments about Obama.

An FBI Special Agent, Robert Sawyer "believed there was sufficient evidence to charge the men with a criminal conspiracy to kill Obama." Yet, for some reason, the US Attorney in Denver, Troy Eid, disagreed with the FBI's recommendations and refused to charge the men with conspiracy to commit the murder of the Democratic nominee for President.

Eid claimed that the actions they had taken, such as the acquisition of weapons, their presence in Denver in the same time as Obama, and the statements made to the various witnesses revealed a plot that was merely "aspirational" and thus didn't warrant criminal charges of conspiracy, despite th fact that the Justice department in the case of the "Liberty Seven" had charged seven black men living in South Florida with charges involving an alleged terrorist plot to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago even though their plans were clearly "more aspirational than operational" (in their case, the alleged plotters had acquired no weapons, no explosives and the entire case against them involved conversations with a government informant). Attorney Eid himself had recently indicted a black prison inmate who sent a threatening letter to John McCain which included baby powder in it with "knowingly threatening to harm or kill through the U.S. mail" a federal felony offense that carries up to a five year prison sentence.

Purely for your information, US Attorney Eid, as David Neiwert at Orcinus has pointed out, is a former protege of Karl Rove who received his appointment as a US attorney despite an FBI background check which uncovered some "questionable lobbying activities." In other words, a man with a somewhat questionable past.

Second Case: In Minneapolis/St. Paul last week eight people, alleged to be members of the group known as the "RNC Welcoming Committee" were charged for the first time by the Ramsey County, Minnesota Prosecuting Attorney, under a 2002 Minnesota law with "Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism." The affidavits which show probable cause the arrest warrants of these 8 individuals were all supplied by . . .


. . .paid, confidential informants who infiltrated the [RNC Welcoming Committee] on behalf of law enforcement. They allege that members of the group sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports in St. Paul.
So, what evidence did the police raids, conducted under the auspices of search warrants supported by affidavits provided by these "paid informants," turn up which supports the charges that the RNC Welcoming Committee "sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports"? Not very damn much:


Although claiming probable cause to believe that gunpowder, acids, and assembled incendiary devices would be found, no such items were seized by police. As a result, police sought to claim that the seizure of common household items such as glass bottles, charcoal lighter, nails, a rusty machete, and two hatchets, supported the allegations of the confidential informants.
In other words, to support these charges of a "conspiracy to riot in support of terrorism" the police and the prosecutors are relying "a single plastic shield, a rusty machete, and two hatchets used in Minnesota to split wood" to prove that these eight self described "anarchists" intended to commit terrorist acts, including throwing incendiary bombs at police and kidnapping delegates to the RNC, etc. To be frank, this is a rather tenuous assemblage of physical evidence to support the conspiracy charges. Unlike in Denver, there was no evidence of any guns, ammunition or explosive materials confiscated by police, and no independent witnesses to the statements in the affidavits from the paid police informants that terrorist acts were being planned. Yet, the criminal complaints filed against the "RNC 8" do not even allege that "any of the defendants personally ... engaged in any act of violence or damage to property." Indeed, they are being held responsible for "acts committed by others." Unlike the arrested defendants in Denver, none of the RNC 8 individuals has any prior history of crimes involving violence.

Yet one group of individuals is being charged with a serious crime of conspiracy to riot in support of terrorism. The other group, who were arrested with weaponry which clearly could have been used in an attempt to assassinate Barack Obama, and who took steps in furtherance of an attempt on Obama's life, are only being charged by local officials with lesser offenses regarding "weapons and/or drug charges."

This is what is known in the legal vernacular, boys and girls, as prosecutorial discretion:


The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.
I leave it to you, dear readers, to decide which of these prosecutors exercised their powers to charge individuals with crimes wisely and in the public interest, or if either of them did so. I think you can guess how I come down on that question.

[Ryan Thunder]

Thanks, Sith.

Well, that would certainly seem to be to be a double standard. I'll give you that, Elfdart.

'Course, I can't help but wonder if there are any statistics on this matter... "Arrests for Public Disturbance by Political Affiliation (2008)"