Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?

[EnglishPete]

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.

I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies".  

I wasn't a nazi rally. There were, I think, two dudes there throwing up nazi salutes and claiming to be national socialists. that was it.

It was a rally in favour of free speech because antifa thugs has successfully used violence to shut down a pro Trump rally a month and a half earlier in Berkeley, with the complicity of the Berkeley authorities. It was a rally for the principle that antifa activists should have absolutely no veto or say in who is and isn't allowed to speak and hold rallies publically, in Berkeley or anywhere else. That is why it was a free speech rally.

[EnglishPete]

Ann Coulter is scheduled speak at UC Berkeley on the 27th of April so expect the same antifa crowd to launch Berkeley's fourth riot of the year next week.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyways, I agree that the Berkeley PD is soft, weak and allowed this to happen: they should have rounded up as many of these fascists thugs as possible at the first sign of violence. Of course, police officers anywhere and everyone are staffed with fascists and Republicans so this is probably asking too much, I realize that it's in their nature to bloody socialists and to coddle neo-Nazis so this policy is the best policy possible.

     DFB, I know you know better than that. The anarchists have consistently shown up and started violence. Demanding that the police arrest their targets when they are reacting to Antifa provocation on account of those targets being "fascist thugs" is Orwellian in the utmost.

I'm actually very serious about this. The media's portrayal of these confrontations is very skewed; the people who attend these rallies are not typical Trump supporters. They are fascists who seek to provoke violence. In the interests of fairness, I support locking up anti-fascists as well, that's a given because I'm not a nut, but the notion that one side does this and the other does not is a myth.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss here tbh. The law should be enforced in a fair manner. I hate fascists and sympathize with anti-fascists, even though they, too, are rather stupid.

     The media indeed is skewed; they act like both sides are equally culpable when there can be no doubt that this was an act of left-wing provocation. Characterizing the whole demonstration as Nazi is inaccurate. Insofar as far-right people showed up, they correctly anticipated that Antifa would show up and they were spoiling for a fight; as everyone who isn't Antifa is well aware of, the far-right finds street violence irresistible and is far more proficient at it than the far-left is.

     If the law could be enforced fairly and the police would actually maintain the peace, that would be wonderful. Given that that failed to happen, the demonstrators acted rationally. I am ecstatic to see that the far-left was defeated and the anarchists were demoralized. It is tragic if it emboldens the far-right, but until law and order is restored it's either/or. The police have it within their hands to prevent either one of these two reprehensible factions from "winning".

[dead0man]

They (the authorities) will end up caving to the antifa antibrains and just not letting anybody speak on campus that any individual on the left has a problem with.

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.

I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies". 

I wasn't a nazi rally. There were, I think, two dudes there throwing up nazi salutes and claiming to be national socialists. that was it.

It was a rally in favour of free speech because antifa thugs has successfully used violence to shut down a pro Trump rally a month and a half earlier in Berkeley, with the complicity of the Berkeley authorities. It was a rally for the principle that antifa activists should have absolutely no veto or say in who is and isn't allowed to speak and hold rallies publically, in Berkeley or anywhere else. That is why it was a free speech rally.

aye, I should have known that.  Hadn't really looked into this one yet.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They (the authorities) will end up caving to the antifa antibrains and just not letting anybody speak on campus that any individual on the left has a problem with.

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.

I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies". 

I wasn't a nazi rally. There were, I think, two dudes there throwing up nazi salutes and claiming to be national socialists. that was it.

It was a rally in favour of free speech because antifa thugs has successfully used violence to shut down a pro Trump rally a month and a half earlier in Berkeley, with the complicity of the Berkeley authorities. It was a rally for the principle that antifa activists should have absolutely no veto or say in who is and isn't allowed to speak and hold rallies publically, in Berkeley or anywhere else. That is why it was a free speech rally.

aye, I should have known that.  Hadn't really looked into this one yet.

The city of Berkeley police and UC Berkeley Police are two different departments. The city of Berkeley police didn't shut down anything.

[dead0man]

I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is.

[Klartext89]

So sad how Communism and Feminism changes woman:

https://twitter.com/Pjwquotes/status/854336772683288576

[Blue3]

What happened in Berkeley?

[Associate Justice PiT]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

[Mr. Smith]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

Seems like there were a few arrests that happened in fact. And there was no property damage reported either.

And considering the tear-gassing and looting back in 2014, kinda hard not to see why they decided to under-react.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

Seems like there were a few arrests that happened in fact. And there was no property damage reported either.

And considering the tear-gassing and looting back in 2014, kinda hard not to see why they decided to under-react.

     It started in a park and only spread onto Shattuck Ave near the end of the skirmish, so the lack of property damage is to be expected. The underreaction may be understandable, but that should not make us tolerate it. I tried to explain it in as evenhanded a fashion as possible when the information was requested, but it remains that a masked mob tried to shut down a legal demonstration.

[EnglishPete]

Ann Coulter is scheduled speak at UC Berkeley on the 27th of April so expect the same antifa crowd to launch Berkeley's fourth riot of the year next week.

Latest on the Ann Coulter Speech. Statement from the Young America's Foundation

"Young America’s Foundation, BridgeCal and Berkeley College Republicans have been working together to produce a lecture at UC-Berkeley on April 27, 2017, by Ann Coulter, a twelve-time bestselling author, whose book, “Adios, America!” – a No. 2 New York Times bestseller — is widely credited with shaping President Donald Trump’s immigration views.

The topic of her speech was immigration.

UC-Berkeley, a publicly-funded university, first imposed a series of ridiculous requirements on the speech allegedly in the name of “safety.” Coulter, we were informed, would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.

Against our advice, Coulter agreed to all these requirements.  In return, she requested two measures, which actually had something to do with safety:

1) That the University of California chancellor request that the Oakland chief of police refrain from telling his men to stand down and ignore law-breaking by rioters attempting to shut down conservative speakers, as he has done in the past; and

2) That UC-Berkeley announce in advance that any students engaging in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking would be expelled.

As Coulter explained, “If Berkeley wants to have free speech, it can have it.”

The university’s response was to ban her speech.

This is as clear-cut a case as it gets that public universities are using taxpayer dollars to shut down conservative speech, while allowing liberal speech only."
http://www.yaf.org/news/berkeley-tries-cancel-ann-coulter-event-lecture-will-go/

And from Coulter herself

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

The university encouraged $100,000 in damage to their property? Hilarious theory.

[Mr. Smith]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

Seems like there were a few arrests that happened in fact. And there was no property damage reported either.

And considering the tear-gassing and looting back in 2014, kinda hard not to see why they decided to under-react.

     It started in a park and only spread onto Shattuck Ave near the end of the skirmish, so the lack of property damage is to be expected. The underreaction may be understandable, but that should not make us tolerate it. I tried to explain it in as evenhanded a fashion as possible when the information was requested, but it remains that a masked mob tried to shut down a legal demonstration.

Considering the City Hall, the High School, a homeless shelter, the Post Office, all the other odds and ends of downtown appear well before Shattuck Ave, um yeah, property damage IS something that could've happened.

Also, when the alternative reaction is to recreate the catastrophic response by St. Ronnie in which people with NOTHING to do with the demonstration but in the crossfire are getting arbitrarily arrested, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, and rounded up to correctional facilities, then yeah, and under-reaction IS preferable.

Should it be either/or? Of course not. But more and more this seems to be the dichotomy.

[EnglishPete]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

The university encouraged $100,000 in damage to their property? Hilarious theory.

When a planned speech by Milo was cancelled due to violent riots - during which neither the UC Berkeley Police or any other police force attempted to subdue the riot - the UC Berkeley Police Chief praised the 'restraint' of the police in failing to prevent injury to talk attendees or damage to property and suggested that the solution might be to review the University's policy on inviting speakers.

In other words she enabled a violent mob to shut down a speech they didn't like and then suggested the solution was to shut down speeches that left wing mobs might not like. Others in authority in the University encouraged the same and made similar remarks.

As for the $100,000 dollars why should people running the college or its Police Force care? Its not their money.

[publicunofficial]

Why should my tuition go towards paying the speaking fees of scum like Ann Coulter or Charles Murray?

[EnglishPete]

What happened in Berkeley?

     There was a demonstration (the sides disagree on the nature of the demonstration, with some claiming that it was to promote free speech and some claiming that it was to promote fascism). The Black Bloc showed up and a huge melee ensued. While fists were flying, the police just stood by and watched.

Seems like there were a few arrests that happened in fact. And there was no property damage reported either.

And considering the tear-gassing and looting back in 2014, kinda hard not to see why they decided to under-react.

     It started in a park and only spread onto Shattuck Ave near the end of the skirmish, so the lack of property damage is to be expected. The underreaction may be understandable, but that should not make us tolerate it. I tried to explain it in as evenhanded a fashion as possible when the information was requested, but it remains that a masked mob tried to shut down a legal demonstration.

Considering the City Hall, the High School, a homeless shelter, the Post Office, all the other odds and ends of downtown appear well before Shattuck Ave, um yeah, property damage IS something that could've happened.

Also, when the alternative reaction is to recreate the catastrophic response by St. Ronnie in which people with NOTHING to do with the demonstration but in the crossfire are getting arbitrarily arrested, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, and rounded up to correctional facilities, then yeah, and under-reaction IS preferable.

Whilst its important for police to be trained well to make sure in that riot situation that they're arresting and/or tear gassing the right people I have to wonder how much choice did Reagan have. How else could Reagan have stopped the rioters from harming and damaging property and people without simply giving in to the scum's demands?

Of course the latter is the preferred option for the bosses of UC Berkeley, give the rioters what they want because its what they want as well. You understand why this is a less attractive option for conservatives who oppose what the rioters want?

[EnglishPete]

Why should my tuition go towards paying the speaking fees of scum like Ann Coulter or Charles Murray?

wasn't aware that their speaking fees were being paid by the University.

Speaking of tuition fees going towards paying scum to speak

"/pol/ News Network‏ @polNewsNet  15h15 hours ago
More
 The AntiFa rioter who attacked people with a bike-lock has been identified: SFSU Professor Eric Clanton.

/pol/ got him - they always do.







"

Eric Clanton now reported to be arrested

[dead0man]

he should have been arrested for that weaksauce mustache and the "I can almost grow a soul patch" soul patch.

[EnglishPete]

he should have been arrested for that weaksauce mustache and the "I can almost grow a soul patch" soul patch.

[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/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.