Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?

[EnglishPete]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

Good!

Ah good. After various posters here argued that "Of course the Democratic aligned authorities aren't deliberately using violence to repress right wing opinions they don't like finally we have an honest lefty answering. Someone who doesn't mind saying

"I'm glad the authorities used violence to repress right wing political opinions they don't like, that's exactly what they should do, just like they do in Cuba. America's government should be much more like Cuba's"

[EnglishPete]

Berkeley Campus On Lockdown After Loose Pages From ‘Wall Street Journal’ Found On Park Bench

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

[EnglishPete]

More details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNsLaUjrnrY

[EnglishPete]

For more evidence here of Berkeley PD involvement in the riot check out this fascinating thread from Thomas Wictor

https://twitter.com/ThomasWictor/status/856020943600099329

[EnglishPete]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

OK, you're from the UK, so I guess I can understand you thinking this is some huge event, but in 2014 in Berkeley, the police used smoke stuff like this, kennels, and beat some up against anti police brutality protesters. Oakland police have done much worse.

The difference is that in the 2014 'protest' there was a situation where rioters were engaging in criminal behaviour, blocking the highway and causing criminal damage. its the job of the police to prevent such behaviour and to disperse those engaging in such a riot, at first by requesting but then later by force, as they were forced to do after the crowd refused repeated police demands to disperse. The duty of the police to disperse people engaged in this kind of behaviour is the same irrespective of whatever 'cause' the rioters may or may not be supporting.

In the April 15th the Free Speech protest was not engaged in rioting. They were not engaged in blocking the traffic or damaging private property. They were not wanting to start any fights with antifa, merely defend themselves against aggressive violence from antifa who were threatening them and throwing projectiles in an effort to prevent them from holding a lawful rally in the park.

And it looks like Berkeley PD instead of making any effort to restrain and disperse those using criminal violence in an attempt to prevent a lawful protest (i.e. engage in domestic terrorism) were actually engaged in joining the antifa domestic terrorists in blasting dangerous projectiles at the lawful rally (presumably on order from higher ups). Do you not see how that falls under the category of political repression in a way that using force to disperse criminal rioters who refuse to disperse does not?

Those protesters were a heck of a lot more peaceful than the Trump people.

The 2014 protestors were persistently behaving in an illegal manner, blocking the public highway and damaging property. The police repeatedly asked them to cease and desist. Only when they persistently failed to do so were the police left with no other option than to use force.

The overwhelming majority free speech protestors in Berkeley by contrast were doing nothing illegal. They were not blacking he highway, they were not damaging property and they were not engaged in violence for any reason other than lawful self defense. But I suppose for you whether police should use force against a crowd should depend more on whether the crowd represents "team left wing" than whether that crowd is actually engaged in criminal behaviour.

The violent crowd in Berkeley on the 15th was the Antifa crowd, as you know perfectly well. The police let them have free reign, perhaps something to do with Antifa leaders having good political connections in the city.

[EnglishPete]

Another very interesting video on this subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg6wD_Vyww

"Berkeley police posing as Antifa to use stun greandes
Thomas Wictor"

[EnglishPete]

Actually the protesters in 2014 were generally peaceful at first and then the cops used smoke, kettles, and even beat up a middle aged white female pastor. If a middle aged white female pastor is fair game to beat up, I guess anyone is.

Well it depends what she was doing doesn't it. It she was taking part in a protest that was illegally blocking traffic, blocking railway lines, damaging property and she was taking part in those activities then she is fair game for the police to use use force. If a crowd of people are behaving in that way, persistantly even when asked to desist then the police have the right, and indeed the obligation to use force to clear the highway and stop that behaviour. Whether the people behaving like this are protesting against police brutality or some other 'social justice' cause, whether they're protesting for a 'white ethnostate' or some other far right cause, or whether they're just doing it for fun makes absolutely no difference to the polices right and obligation to use force.

Likewise if a group of people are taking part in a lawful planned protest in a park, not blocking traffic, not damaging property or starting fights then the police should allow that and indeed protect the protestors right to lawful assembly if they come under attack. It doesn't matter if they are neo-nazis, middle aged pastors or just people relaxing. It makes no difference to the polices obligations..

[EnglishPete]

To clarify the answer to your question.

Middle aged white female pastor protesting for social justice by engaging in criminal obstruction and damage to property = appropriate target for use of force by police

Young neo Nazi skinhead protesting for a white ethnostate by engaging in criminal obstruction and damage to property = appropriate target for use of force by police

Young neo Nazi skinhead protesting for a white ethno state by engaging in a lawful protest that is not causing an obstruction, not damaging property and not starting fights = not appropriate target for use of force by police

Middle aged white female pastor protesting for social justice by engaging in a lawful protest that is not causing an obstruction, not damaging property and not starting fights =not appropriate target for use of force by police.

Is that really so difficult to understand.

[EnglishPete]

Wait ... did I sleep through some constitutional amendment that says people with abhorrent views no longer have the right to free speech? Because even assuming these rightwingers are unrepentant Nazis, I don't see why that precludes them from having a free speech rally.

looks like a free speech rally to me. ah yes, the noble nazi salute, that free speech symbol.

funny how every symbol of free speech seems to be a swastika or an apartheid south africa flag but when the red flag is flown it's a symbol of authoritarianism.

As I mentioned before a couple of guys throwing up Roman salutes amongst a large crowd of people does not a nazi rally make. Furthermore the question here is about the police response to leftist aggression. I would guess that the guy in the photo is probably not a big fan of free speech. That's his opinion (assuming he's not just LARPing). That doesn't mean that he was provoking or starting any violence.

There are people in this thread who don't agree with free speech. One of them has a signature that includes a celebration of a totalitarian murderous government that abolished all freedom of speech. Does that give people the right to throw massive rocks at her 'in self defense'?

I don't care about what sort of Nazi these freaks are; the man interviewed in that photo claimed he is a National Socialist. Maybe he's not a Hitlerite. Who cares. He's some sort of Nazi/fascist. The semantics don't matter.

Well it looks like my suspicion that he might be a LARPer was correct. A specific type of LARPer though an antifa activist pretending to be a Hitlerite in order to provide a photo op for news media looking for pics to help feed their Trump supporters = nazis narrative.



The guy in the dark glasses standing nearby in this pic is Mark Wilson of BAMN so the best guess would be that the young "nazi" is actually a Trotskyist, a member of the BAMN cult.