Street Justice: Man Trying to Block Car at Antifa ‘Abolish the Police’ Protest Gets a Rude Awakening

Advertisements

 

Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Antifa held an “Abolish the Police” protest in Portland on Thursday which blocked an intersection. As one car followed a truck through the crowd, a protestor tried to punch the driver through his open window.

Another, carrying an umbrella which said “Abolish the Police,” stood in front of the vehicle – which kept going. He wound up on the hood of the car, momentarily, until falling off. The driver then accelerates leaving behind an angry group. One female protestor is heard yelling, “Get it, get it, get it.”

Street justice.

An independent reporter covering the protest took the side of Antifa.

Hey Maranie, maybe people are enraged because they’re tired of being held hostage by antifa groups and others like them. Maybe people have decided it’s time to take our country back.

Additionally, maybe it’s not a good idea to try to punch a driver or stand in front his car to force to him to stop so a bunch of thugs can beat him to a bloody pulp.

Has this reporter’s common sense left her as it has the rest of the Democratic Party?

What will Antifa do? Report this driver to the police they’re trying to abolish? ‘We tried to punch him, damage his car and block him officer. But he kept moving. We were in danger.’


Idiots.

 

H/T: Town Hall

(Watch) Black Man Asks D.C. Cop ‘Are Y’All Gonna Kill Me Like Ma’Khia Bryant?’; Gets the Smackdown he Deserves

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

Police were called to the parking lot of what looks to be an apartment building in Washington, D.C.

A black man called out to one of the officers, “Are, y’all gonna kill me like Ma’Khia Bryant? F**k.”

The officer (who is black) replies, “Are you gonna stab somebody like her?”

The agitator was stunned by the officer’s clever comeback and  said, “No. She, but she called y’all for help. F**k is you talking about? Get your goofy a–, I can’t. And you just said that on camera! This sh*t going viral! This…”

Officer, “That’s fine.”

Well done, officer!

 

Black Lives Matter Group Marches to Rochester Store Shouting ‘We’re shutting s— down,’ Traps 100 Customers Inside

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Bruce Emmerling from Pixabay

On March 23, 2020, police in Rochester, NY, received a report that a naked man under the influence of PCP was running through town, shouting that he had the coronavirus. When police tried to subdue him, he spit on them which caused them to place a mesh hood, otherwise known as a “spit sock” over his head. The man, Daniel Prude, was placed on the pavement and subdued for two minutes by police.

Prude, who had a history of mental illness, was black.

After Prude became unresponsive, he was resuscitated and brought to a hospital where he died one week later.

“The Monroe County Office of the Medical Examiner ruled Mr. Prude’s death a homicide. The autopsy report concluded he died of asphyxiation ‘in the setting of physical restraint’ and acute intoxication with the hallucinogenic drug PCP,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

In February, a New York grand jury voted against indictment of any of the police officers involved in the case.

Tuesday marked the one year anniversary of this incident, and a group of approximately 200 members of Black Lives Matter gathered for a protest. As they marched toward Wegmans, a popular Rochester grocery store, they shouted, “We have a long walk today. We’re shutting s— down.”

The Washington Examiner reported that, as the group approached the store, the owner locked it down, trapping around 100 customers inside.

The group banged on the glass doors and repeatedly chanted, “Black Lives Matter.”

In a tweet, Rochester journalist and radio host Bob Lonsberry wrote, “Hundreds of people trapped in the East Avenue #ROC Wegmans by this mob, The Rochester Police Department is just watching and letting it happen. I guess fire codes and trespassing aren’t things in Rochester anymore. What an embarrassing day for the city and the PD.”

He continued in a second tweet. “Allowing the mob to shut down the East Ave [Wegmans], trapping at least a hundred people, is an immoral failing by the mayor at @CityRochesterNY and the @RochesterNYPD. To kiss the a– of the mob, the rights of others are trodden, and the city dies even more.”

Rochester based journalist Justin Murphy spoke to one of the BLM protestors who said, “We’re more than just taxpayers in their capitalist system; we’re human beings, and we demand to be treated as such.”

They’re taxpayers? I’ll bet most of them pay little or no taxes. They’re human beings, and they demand to be treated as such? Need I even respond to the irony in that remark?

In the tweet below, Monroe County legislator Rachel Barnhart makes an equally stupid comment. “Reasonable people can debate tactics and messaging. It’s normal to be annoyed or inconvenienced if the grocery store is blocked off by protesters. But I care more about Black lives than Wegmans. The protest will end. The store will reopen. The injustice will go on.”

Barnhart’s comment is even more egregious than Carson’s, if possible. One would expect such an inane remark from a member of BLM. I am not a lawyer, but here’s a county legislator who overlooks the obvious crimes being committed, entrapment and threatening, for starters.

And she views the shoppers trapped inside as being “annoyed or inconvenienced” rather than frightened. BLM has a long history of violence. Any reasonable person in that situation would feel some degree of fear.

America defeated Nazi Germany and Japan’s Imperial Army. How do we fight the enemy from within? Especially now that they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. The Democratic Party is fast becoming the greatest foe this nation has ever faced.

The Democrats are trying to destroy America. It’s as if they’re in command of our ship and they’re aiming it right for an iceberg at flank speed.

Tell me again how Jan. 6 was the most shameful day in America’s history..

Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa: What’s In A Name?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Richard Edward and the Narrator Argue over Motive

It isn’t often in this life I am so stunned by events that my brain simply recoils in disgust and my “opinion generator” fails to start. Today, however, is one of those days.

I am reading about the senseless slaughter of ten Americans, who dared to venture into the confines of a public supermarket. My anger rises and my lizard cortex takes over. I am pissed. Fox News, as they normally do, encapsulates the events of this tragedy in a concise and professional manner. Fox writer Stephanie Pagones updates the story with the names of those killed and the name of the suspect who pulled the trigger on our neighbors.

Pagones writes:

Boulder, Colo., police officials updated the public regarding Monday’s mass shooting at the King Soopers grocery store that left 10 people dead, including the first police officer to arrive on the scene, revealing they have charged the suspect with 10 counts of first-degree murder.

Police identified the suspect as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a 21-year-old Arvada, Colo., man, though his motive for the attack was not specified at this time. Police also identified the 10 victims, whose families were notified by 4 a.m. local time. They range in age from 20 to 65 years old.

Yesterday, some reporters, nieces of U.S. politicians and twitter users immediately seized upon the “white man goes on shooting rampage” narrative.

Today, there is a different story to consider and the response to the story seems a lot quieter now. Could it be the name of the suspect is taking the mainstream media into territory they don’t really like, aren’t comfortable with? Was it really the dreaded ‘white man’, or could it have been someone else from a more protected category of identity politics?

Narrator: “Richard Edward, whatever are you writing about?”

Richard Edward: “It’s the name” I respond to no one.  “It’s the suspects name. It sounds like its foreign, almost like it’s the name of someone from the Middle East.”

Narrator: “Don’t be silly. Everyone has a name. How could it be foreign sounding? Besides, if it was someone from the Middle East, the media would have buried the story on the back page.”

Richard Edward: “Well, its weird in that it’s actually four names and they all start with the letter “A.” I mean, c’mon, who has two middle names that all start with the same letter?”

Narrator: “Well, there was A. A. Milne, but its only three letters and one letter is an M. He was British anyway. That’s a tough question, Richard Edward.”

Richard Edward: “The fact that this killer’s name is so unusual and that he has allegedly killed ten people without apparent motive, well, there just has to be something more to this than meets the eye.  I am going to do some sleuthing.”

So, just like the rest of the reporters in the mainstream media who were never trained to find and report news, I start with an internet search. I enter “4As.”

Expecting to find something that ties this unusual name to the Middle East and the cultures/religions from that area, imagine my surprise when my search resulted in a match with the American Psychological Association website.

Now, my search result didn’t tell me anything about names or if they were associated with any particular religion, but it did tell me about social behavior. I am starting to become nervous. Why does the search result scare me? Because the 4 As represent the four primary symptoms of schizophrenia.

Fundamental Symptoms:

According to Eugen Bleuler, the four primary symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormal associations in thinking, autistic behavior and thinking, abnormal affect (including flat and inappropriate affect), and ambivalence. These symptoms are also known as the Four As.

Now I am hopelessly confused. I so wanted this to be an easy answer – a Muslim man went on a rampage and killed ten other people, this comes shortly after Syrian territory was bombed by U.S. forces. On Feb. 26, NBC News reported: “Biden orders airstrikes in Syria, retaliating against Iran-backed militias.”

Simple, right? U.S. bombs Syria and a Syrian-born person living in the U.S. responds and kills his neighbors. One and done, I can go meet the rest of the press corps at the bar for happy hour.

Then my inner Richard Edward surfaces, kicks my lizard cortex back into hibernation and asks, “Okay, smart guy, what about the 4As connection you discovered. Is there a connection with a guy who has four As in his name and what you read on the associations website?” Nah, can’t be. Four As simply has to be a coincidence, right?

Sure, the guy might be an angry Muslim (we aren’t sure about this), but what if Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa is also a schizophrenic, and his Muslim roots have nothing to do with his violent behavior – what if it’s all about his mental illness? Ugh. Just when I think Occam was right, my 4As research tangles up my brain.

First A:  Abnormal associations in thinking. I don’t know, but the guy did take a semiautomatic weapon to a grocery store. Not something I’d normally carry on a trip to the grocery store.

Second A:  Autistic behavior and thinking. I don’t know, but I’ll guess that shooting ten of your neighbors isn’t found on the scale of acceptable social norms.

Third A:  Abnormal affect (flat or inappropriate affect). I don’t know, but I did see his picture. There is a definite lack of ‘something’ there.

Fourth A:  Ambivalence.  I don’t know and who cares.

I do know that the guy is a murdering slug and regardless of his motive, religious jihad, simply bat-guano crazy or both, he is still a murdering slug.

So, his foreign name doesn’t really matter. Religious affiliation doesn’t matter. Muslim, atheist, druid, or Jonestown cultist, killers are killers. His lack of empathy for his fellow man can be the result of mental illness or religious indoctrination.

My thoughts immediately turn to the families and loved ones of those who were killed by Mr. 4 As. They may never know the real reason their loved ones were slaughtered, but the best I can hope for is for justice to be delivered swiftly and that the hearts of those surviving family members can find solace in the grace and embrace of a God who tells us that we should love one another.

Richard Edward thinks the guy’s name might be relevant as to why this happened. If you disagree or have a different theory from your sleuthing, please leave a comment.

— Richard Edward Tracy

House Passes Bill that Would encourage police officers to adopt ‘quotas’ based on gender and race

Advertisements

The Biden Administration has endorsed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, a sweeping police reform bill intended to fight “systemic racism” in police departments. H.R. 1280, introduced by California Democratic Rep. Karen Bass, was passed by the House on Wednesday.

The House passed a similar version of this bill last year, however, it stalled in the Senate. The new bill is likely to fail in the Senate as well.

This proposed legislation was named after the black man who died in police custody last May after an officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes. Floyd’s death triggered the deadly riots which spread throughout the U.S. last summer.

Washington lawyer Hans Bader analyzed H.R. 1280 in an article published on legal blog Liberty Unyielding.

Bader believes it “could lead to more racial and sexual profiling, such as gender-based stops of female motorists. … [It] could actually cause systematic racism and sexism.” (emphasis mine)

According to Bader, this bill “encourages police departments to adopt quotas based on gender and race for ‘traffic stops,’ ‘pedestrian stops,’ and ‘interviews.’ The practical effect would be to encourage police departments to stop innocent women, Asians, and whites, just to meet quotas based on gender and race. If police departments don’t meet these quotas, they could be sued by the Justice Department or individuals they stop.”

Sound fair? Moreover:

Section 311 of the Act forbids what it calls ‘racial profiling.’ This is defined to include not just race, but also ‘gender’ in Section 302(a)(6) of the bill. But it defines ‘profiling’ in such a crudely-mechanical way that it actually encourages profiling, rather than outlawing it.

Under the bill, what matters is numbers and racial bean-counting, not actual racism or sexism. ‘Disparate impact’ in police stops or interviews based on race or gender — for example, stopping more men than women, or interviewing more blacks than Asians or whites — is defined as ‘prima facie evidence’ of a ‘violation.’ That means that numbers alone are enough for a judge to find a police department in violation of the Act. Prima facie evidence is a legal term meaning that the person suing has provided enough evidence to prove something, in the absence of proof to the contrary by the entity being sued, which bears the burden of proving itself innocent.”

Bader provides examples in layman’s terms for us non-lawyers. Statistically, men commit more crimes than women. They also speed and violate traffic laws more often.

Asians, on average, commit fewer crimes than whites. Both generally commit fewer crimes than blacks.

Even so, if a police officer stopped more men or more blacks, than women or whites or Asians, they may be found to have violated the terms of this Act.

How many police officers would be found to be in violation if they merely stopped motorists whom they believed were violating the law – speeding, driving recklessly, erratically, etc? Or if they pursued only those individuals they thought had committed a crime?

Answer: Most.

They would be guilty of sexual profiling and or racial profiling.

In order to be in compliance with this law, an officer would have to stop women at the same rate as men even if they weren’t violating the law and Asians and whites as often as blacks.

Bader cites U.S. v. Armstrong, in which the Supreme Court determined that “crime rates differ by race. That’s why arrest rates differ by race, as a recent federal study of violent crime shows. Yet the bill treats stopping fewer Asians than whites, or fewer whites than blacks, as suspicious.”

Naturally, “all police departments everywhere are presumptively guilty under the bill.”

And this would result in real world consequences. Bader cites what officers might expect were this bill to become law.

The bill doesn’t explain how they can possibly rebut this presumption of guilt or prove themselves innocent. So if they wish to avoid being sued, and avoid being forced to pay the attorneys fees and expert-witness costs of the person suing them, police departments will have an incentive under the bill to stop only as many men as women — even if more men are speeding or committing crimes — and to adopt racial quotas in police stops.

That could undermine road safety by encouraging police to ignore speeding or other violations just because they were committed by members of a particular gender or race.

Further, Bader points out that “it is unconstitutional to have racial quotas in punishment or arrests.”

It’s hard enough to be a police officer. Adding these senseless conditions would waste the time of both the officer and the woman, the Asian or the white person who is not suspected of wrongdoing, but who must be stopped so a police officer can satisfy the requirements of this misguided piece of legislation.

If an officer observes someone violating the law, they should be stopped regardless of sex or race.

Law enforcement isn’t a game. Making sure that one has a perfectly proportional number of encounters is irrational.

A lot of good officers left law enforcement last year as a result of the Democrats’ “defund the police” campaign. If H.R. 1280 were to become law, we would lose more and no individual with an ounce of common sense would agree to subject themselves to this pointless and nonsensical code of conduct.