Stories of the Left & Right about the Berkeley riot reveal much about us

Summary: Was Louise Rosealma an innocent victim or a thug throwing bottles? Was Nathan Damigo a white knight defender or a right-wing thug? See the truth about stories of the Berkeley riot. See how Left and Right twist the evidence and dream up narratives to justify the actions of “their” thugs. If not suppressed, increasing political violence will put America on the fast track to serious trouble.

Violence

Partisans of both Left and Right quickly responded to the Berkeley riot by concocting stories. The most common was that “their” thugs went to the Patriot’s Day meeting site — often heavily armed — to “defend” their side from the evil others. Any policeman can explain how vigilante violence works, as those who enjoy violence participate — with violence escalating over time, and police hampered by useful idiots of both sides protesting the arrest and prosecution of “their” thugs.

A variant of this is don’t treat thugs of both sides equally because “our” thugs are virtuous. They defend people who wear sap gloves and {update: it looks like Louise wore a leather bike glove} throw bottles and M-80s into crowds. This nicely demonstrates the thinking of people who lead their nations into chaos, and the increasingly dysfunctional nature of our political system.

Two brief videos came to represent the dynamics of the Berkeley riot. Both sides fabricated tales to cast their tribe as the righteous ones. My first post examined the longer of the two. This post puts them together, contrasted with claims made about them.

A white nationalist punches an innocent girl

“Headed to Berkeley to disrupt neo Nazi/white Supremacist circle jerk today. Nervous af but determined to bring back 100 Nazi scalps.”
Louise Rosealma on Facebook.

A young woman (model, porn star) of many names — best known as Louise Rosealma — said she traveled to Berkeley “determined to bring back 100 Nazi scalps.” She wore one glove on her right hand; it looks like a sap glove (weighted knuckles, illegal in California if metal). Photos show her carrying a bottle, like those thrown into the crowd by rioters.

Journalists describe her as Snow White, an innocent victimized (another chink eroded from their credibility). She gave an interview to CBS in which no tough questions were asked about her Facebook post, her mask, her odd glove, or any bottle-throwing (see below). She said was “on the sideline taking pictures” until repeated attacked by a gang of men who “were trying to crack my skull” and “were trying to hurt her as much as they could”. Oddly, she walked away without a scratch.

The White Knights defend free speech against a women rioter

The Right had a more difficult task: explaining why Nathan Damigo sucker punched a young woman — charging at her, then punching her head. Their imaginations were equal to the task. First, they explained that she also hit him – so they were equally culpable. That’s absurd, of course. Americans have a strong right to self-defense. She would have been within her rights to have broken a bottle over his head and sent him to the hospital.

Second, they make big claims about her actions at the riot. She was throwing bottles! Damigo intervened to defend other people. There is little evidence for these claims, but they’re made with confidence of people reciting tribal lore.

Update: Here is an account of the Berkeley riot as seen from the Right: “Proud Boys Declare Victory in Berkeley” by Gavin McInnes at Taki’s Magazine.

Examine the evidence

Here’s the story shown by the two videos. See the the first eleven seconds of the following video. It shows a group of fighting people. We see a person wearing a two-color mask, a glove, and a hat — waving a bottle held by the neck (a sensible precaution). Nathan Damigo approaches and throws a punch. The victim appears unaware of this (and makes no defensive moves). Damigo’s fist hits. We don’t see what happens afterwards. I believe the video has been edited.

 

The below photo shows Damigo’s fist (red circle) moving towards the victim. Click to enlarge.

Nathan Damigo's fist moving towards the victim

 

Below is a photo at the Berkeley riot taken by photographer Stephen Lam, published by Reuters (click to enlarge). It might be taken at the end of the fight we see begun in the above video. It clearly shows the bottle, held to use as a striking weapon (unused, unfortunately).

Nathan Damigo hits somebody

Compare it with the better-known and clearer video (below) in which Damigo attacks Louise Rosealma. She wears a mask, glove, and clothes similar to those of the above victim. Both have dreadlocks. The fight scenes are very different from start to end, showing that this is a different incident. Either Rosealma had two fights with Damigo (which she does not mention in the CBS interview), or the first video shows a different victim (which seems unlikely).

I believe this shows with reasonable certainty that Louise Rosealma had a bottle. This is weak circumstantial evidence that she intended to throw bottles.

Update from Snopes

Snopes found a video showing both of these incidents. Nathan hit Louise twice, 8 seconds apart. The first time she held the bottle and wore a hat. Other than that, their analysis is identical to that in this post (both were published the same day). See Snope’s report here.

Conclusions

All this is trivia, significant only to show the development of tribal truths in America — preventing any common dialog. The important aspects of this are lost amidst the bickering. During the past year the level of political violence has slowly increased. Leftists (e.g., Antifa) attack pro-Trump events. Inevitably right-wing organizations mobilize to defend them — vigilantism. People who enjoy violence gather under both flags, escalating the violence.

Political violence strikes at the heart of the functioning of a Republic. Instead of condemning the violence, Left and Right condemn the thugs on the other side. It’s a pattern that made the Weimar Republic famous and helped turn Latin America into a dystopia.

The solution is simple. Condemn political violence no matter who started it, no matter who does it, no matter what the excuse. Let the police maintain public safety at legitimate political events. Demand that they maintain order if they — or their political superiors — refuse to do so. Gas then arrest violent protesters. This and social media records allow easier identification of the criminals among them, who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Or we could let political violence grow. We are vulnerable. Low public confidence in the Republic’s institutions. Widespread ownership of guns. Cheers from Left and Right for “their” thugs. Already strong right-wing gangs (“militia”), about which intel agencies warned in 2009. Years of apocalyptic warnings from Left and Right create the sense of imminent doom that motivates people to take to the street. Commies! Nazis! Gonna take your guns! Gonna put you in camps! These fears are powered by America’s growing economic and social stress, plus our loss of social cohesion. The tinder is there for a fire which will prove difficult to extinguish, or even control.

Like so many of our problems, this is not difficult to solve. We lack only the wisdom and the will to keep America functioning.

Other posts about the Berkeley riot

For More Information

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about protests, about fake news, about information and disinformation, about Reforming America: steps to new politics, and especially these …

  1. Describing the problem: Politics in modern America: A users’ guide for journalists and reformers.
  2. We live in an age of ignorance, but can decide to fix this – today.
  3. American politics is a fun parade of lies, for which we pay dearly.
  4. Ways to deal with those guilty of causing the fake news epidemic.
  5. The secret source of fake news. Its discovery will change America.
  6. A new year’s gift: two tools to help discover truth in the news.
Advertisements

61 thoughts on “Stories of the Left & Right about the Berkeley riot reveal much about us

    1. When violence escalates beyond a certain point and neither side is willing to give up its either going to lead to one side winning or both sides get exhausted enough to sign a peace treaty.

      Like

    2. infowarrior,

      Yes. But history provides many examples when that level is reached only after society is wrecked. The Roman Republic and Weimar are an extreme examples. Latin America has many more relevant examples. Only a mad people would go down that path.

      Like

  1. I keep coming back to the obvious fact (to me) that all of this is a wonderful business opportunity to the entrepreneur willing to franchise all of this. The potential for emotional investment by fans into these coliseum gladiator events is much greater than for ordinary sports teams — and we have seen how emotional fans get about their college and professional teams.

    The only way to make the games more compelling would be to inject religion along with the politics. “Fascists” vs. “Catholics”, or “Anarchists” vs. “Muslim Brotherhood.” One would need to use his imagination when devising team names, logos, and themes.

    The mainstream media is trying to make a morality play out of these thugs who intentionally instigate violence to disrupt what would otherwise be peaceful rallies. I suggest we undercut the media entirely by turning it all into a great, profit-making spectacle, streamed over the internet to paid subscribers.

    Like

    1. Apparently, Ann Coulter will be the host of the games. “Conservative pundit Ann Coulter vows to hold Berkeley event despite university cancellation“.

      Conservative pundit Ann Coulter is vowing to go ahead with an appearance at the University of California at Berkeley next week despite a decision by officials to cancel her planned speech amid safety concerns after politically charged riots and violence in recent months. It was unclear whether Coulter would follow through with her campus visit on April 27, but it would likely put security officials on high alert and spark another showdown in struggles over campus safety, student views and ideological openness.

      “What are they going to do? Arrest me?” she said late Wednesday on the Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Coulter said she “called their bluff” by agreeing to rules set by the university seeking to prevent violence.

      Like

    2. Mike,

      I’m not a fan of Coulter, but I’ll cheer her for speaking despite attempts by leftist agitators to suppress conservative views.

      What is the boundary when political violence becomes terrorism? Throwing rocks and bottles? Throwing powerful firecrackers, such as M-80s? Or does it become terrorism when someone loses an eye from a thrown bottle, or has her head blown off from an M-80? Or is “terrorism” a matter of intent, so they can say “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone by throwing an M-80 in a bottle”?

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Even some on the Left are beginning to speak out against leftist agitators suppressing speech. See this Facebook post by Professor Robert Reich.

      “Today, officials at the University of California, Berkeley, where I’m a professor, canceled a planned speech by Ann Coulter. They cited safety concerns. In a letter to a campus Republican group that invited Coulter to speak, university officials said that they made the decision to cancel Coulter’s appearance after assessing the violence that flared on campus in February, when the same college Republican group invited right-wing provocateur and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to speak. This is a grave mistake. Coulter should be allowed to speak. …

      “It’s one thing to cancel an address at the last moment because university and local police are not prepared to contain violence – as occurred, sadly, with Yiannopoulos. It’s another thing entirely to cancel an address before it is given, when police have adequate time to prepare for such eventualities.

      “Free speech is what universities are all about. If universities don’t do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren’t universities. They’re playpens.”

      Like

  2. I think these are from the same fight, it is the same woman and you have the sequence backwards, I think it is the same fight because we can see the same car parked on the street and we can see the same landscape features by their feet, i.e., the patch of tallish grass and the small bush. I think you have it backwards because I think she first had her hat on and then it fell off. She first had a bottle in her hand and then dropped it. If you think of it that way, it makes some sense.

    Like

    1. Perpet.

      You will see in the text of this post that I don’t assume which tape is first — because we don’t know. Guessing about the details doesn’t help. Also, why does the sequence matter?

      It is odd that she was hit by surprise by the same guy in the same manner twice. It’s odd that she didn’t mention in her interview that she was hit twice by Nathan. it’s odd that none of the many accounts I’ve read of this incident mention this significant detail — sucker punching a girl twice.

      Anyways, as I said in the post, this obsession with trivia obscures the key points.

      (a) The girl came to the even to cause trouble, based on her FB page, and the not-definitive but suggestive glove and bottle. She is not the innocent described,

      (b) Nathan G hit her twice. There is no evidence he was protecting anything.

      (c) This little vignette describes the larger event. There were two political groups at this political event, both looking to fight. They fought, creating a riot. That’s how political violence spreads and escalates.

      (d) This pattern should be stopped, or we’re going to be in big trouble.

      This is the third post in this series. The comments overwhelming prove — not discuss — my point by ignoring the larger factors at work here. Perhaps a few more riots, more serious casualties, development of larger and more violent gangs — and then we’ll see the obvious. Why act when the threat is small? America is too exceptional for that!

      Like

    2. Follow-up note

      Perhaps Louise doesn’t realize she was hit twice by Nathan Damigo.

      “I got thrown down and I’m pretty sure he just ran [away]. I got right back up. I was punched twice more by two other people. People kept trying to throw me down to hit my head on the rocks that were in the planter. I was just trying to not get my skull cracked open.”

      Note there are no videos of the rest of the fight she describes. Both show her attacked only by Damigo. At the end of one video (without the hat) she is standing, apparently crying, being left alone. We don’t see what happens after the other video. As perpetuaofcarthage says, both videos appear to be at the same location with some of the same people — probably close together in time.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Ed (Editor) c’mon man, one video shows her with a cap on, and a bottle at hand. The other video shows no hat/bottle, but if you focus on the other events going on simutaneously, you should easly deduct which happened first..

      These are not events that happened 10 minutes apart, but rather right after the other.

      I’m getting you lean left. That’s okay, but it does no justice to confuse it. I still think the white dude is a doushe, I’m starting to not only give him a pass, but a kudos. The female came with intent to cause harm, as she said it in her own words. While it pains me to say this, she got what she deserved.

      Like

    4. Brady,

      Deductions are a hazardous business, and each of us chooses how aggressively to make them. I do so conservatively, and am still too often wrong. For example, originally I deduced that the photo of Nathan hitting Louise – Louise appearing to hold the bottle – was photoshopped because it did not match the video. Then the second video surfaced.

      So you might be correct. But we don’t know that. And, as I have asked so many times — what difference does the timing make?

      “The female came with intent to cause harm”

      You say that as if you are disagreeing with me. You’re not. I’ve said that exact thing many times in these posts and in the comments.

      “she got what she deserved.”

      Wow. We don’t know if she actually did anything. And she was assaulted by a street thug. That’s quite third world of you. Giving American a push to become a Latin America-like hell hole.

      I’ll side with the police, and support them throwing vigilante thugs in prison to do hard time. You and your friends, left and right, can send letters to your thugs with fine words and big ideas. Candy, too. They’ll appreciate them.

      Like

    5. Brady,

      “I’m getting you lean left.”

      You appear to have a mighty weird definition of conservatism if you’re disagreeing with me here. Conservatism in the US, excerpt for the far-right wackos, has supported law and order — enforced by sworn law officers, not street thugs.

      Like

  3. Hello Editor of Fabius Maximus,
    I wrote the above because you had written in the post itself:
    “The fight scenes are very different from start to end, showing that this is a different incident. Either Rosealma had two fights with Damigo (which she does not mention in the CBS interview), or the first video shows a different victim (which seems unlikely).”
    I am pointing out that this is the exact same location. There is the same car (same color, hubcaps and parked in same blue zone curb) and same bits of landscaping on the ground.
    I think your conclusion that either there were two fights between Damigo and Rosealma or the one with the hat was not Rosealma is in error and instead this was one slightly extended fight from different angles. Why does it matter? Well, if Rosealma had the bottle in her hand at the beginning of the one fight, then it is a different story, isn’t it? It would seem to support the story that Damigo was trying to intervene at the beginning and then got carried away.
    Yes, ignoring that evidence does support your claim that this is two equally reprehensible sides engaged in myth making. But what is so different about this whole Berkeley riot is the amount of photographs and videos we can examine in attempting to tease out some facts. Please be in the side of the fact finders and not the myth makers. If you ignore the evidence that doesn’t support your claim, then aren’t you just becoming a myth maker, yourself? It would be nice to think there are two equally reprehensible groups groups that are equally at fault and merely making myths. But the Berkeley chief of police has said that it was the entry of there dozen highly coordinated black bloc antifa that turned the situation into a battlefield.
    You write “The solution is simple.” But your following sentences about the simple solution ignores that the Berkeley police stood down and let the violence happen. And the police were very clear that they were following direct orders. The same thing happened in San Jose at a Trump rally when the attendees were leaving. There, too, the mayor had instructed the police to stand down.
    Right now in California we have a system in which antifa can “de-platform” anyone with whom they disagree because the politician are instructing the police to stand down and let antifa have its way.

    Like

    1. perpetuao,

      You raise two separate issues. I’ll reply to them in separate comments.

      “I am pointing out that this is the exact same location.”

      Yes. I said so as well several times in comments.

      “I think your conclusion that either there were two fights between Damigo and Rosealma … slightly extended fight from different angles.”

      These were two separate moments in time. I did not say how far apart in time, because we cannot tell. The discussions about this incident assume that Louise was hit once by Nathan. She was clearly hit twice — which contradicts the narrative in every other account I’ve seen. Calling this one “extended” fight or two fights is semantics.

      Like

    2. perpetuaofcarthage,

      “your claim that this is two equally reprehensible sides engaged in myth making.”

      I should force people to reply to quotes, as I do. A bizarrely large number of comments are to things I didn’t say. Like yours. The post cites others making that point, both Left and Right. I don’t, because it is daft.

      “it was the entry of there dozen highly coordinated black bloc antifa that turned the situation into a battlefield.”

      Your belief that that makes a difference has little basis in western morality or law.

      • Most people learn around age five that “he did it first” is not a valid excuse.
      • There are countless stories about being judged in the afterlife — in almost all you are judged for your deeds alone, saying “He did it first” doesn’t help.
      • Courts don’t consider “He did it first” a valid excuse for committing a crime (although its sometimes relevant to determine which specific kind of crime and the sentence deserved).
      • In some civil cases, the liability rests on the last party to act — not the first. Such as automobile crashes: the last party who could avoid the accident has the largest liability (this is probably a gross oversimplification of complex law, and might apply only in some states).
      • There is no basis in US law for vigilantees to commit crimes to protect “free speech” or maintain order. That’s why we have police.

      Thank you for yet another of the attempts in this thread to justify the actions of “your” terrorists. If the blood starts to seriously flow in future confrontations, I’m sure you will be up to the task of justifying the bloody hands of your terrorists.

      “in California we have a system in which antifa can “de-platform” anyone with whom they disagree because the politician are instructing the police to stand down and let antifa have its way.”

      Then it is the job of citizens to demand that the government exercise its responsibilities. That’s why we call the US a Republic, not a Restaurant. It’s never easy.

      Like

  4. Hi FM and all,

    FM> What is the boundary when political violence becomes terrorism?

    This and the the subsequent questions you ask are important, because terrorism has become a loaded word these days being extrapolated from meaning (more or less) a tactic of using violence and threats of violence against militarily passive civilians to coerce actions or inaction desirable to the instigating force, to being affiliated with ISIL, al Qaeda, etc. That is the technique now identifies the perp or group of perps. Similarly, espousing a willingness to contemplate the other side (technique for understanding) now identifies you as an apostate and traitor (a member of the group never questions dogma!).

    It’s really important, because there are all sorts of laws on the books that cover a spectrum of “evil deeds” from mere crimes to crimes-of-insanity to “hate crimes” to acts of terrorism and depending on which bin you fall after you throw the M-80 makes a big difference on which chute in the criminal justice system you ride down, if you get to ride down it all (hello, Gitmo!).

    The rioters clearly hate each other, but fighting the other side doesn’t count as a hate crime because the proportionality and mutual impulse to fight (something like that). They’re all crazy, or at least swept up in a pack-driven bloodlust, but it’s one that they anticipated and cultivated, so I don’t see this as acts-of-insanity. Drawing up battle lines and engaging is pretty much what terrorism isn’t. Which leaves criminal, but I hate to leave it at that, because it’s not morally equivalent to punching someone at a bar. It’s a treason-lite, where you identify with a non-state actor that works collectively in contempt of established norms and rule of law.

    Now what *does* begin to cross the terrorism line is threatening violence to protest otherwise normal,mundane legal acts, e.g., Coulter coming to speak to a group of college kids. I would absolutely classify unprovoked Black Bloc actions like vandalism, drive-by pepper spraying, etc., as acts of terrorism made with malice aforethought. What puts Black Bloc over the top for the terrorism designation is the collective action (planning, association), stated objectives (we want you to not have that person speak), and the intentional, planned, unlawful use of vandalism and force and coercion on passive non-participants and others. In this way, they’re worse than many so-called gangs.

    A lot here…

    Regards,

    Bill

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Bill,

      Great thoughts! You’ve clearly thought about this (certainly more than I have). Here are some responses, off the top of my head. But first, to give us a standard definition of terrorism. On the FM website we use the DoD Dictionary (JP 1-02). Terrorism is:

      “The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence, often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political.”

      (a) “The rioters clearly hate each other, but fighting the other side doesn’t count as a hate crime because the proportionality and mutual impulse to fight (something like that).”

      To the best of my little knowledge of hate crimes, intent is the defining characteristic. The others’ intent and the odds don’t matter. Which seems logical, imo.

      (b) “so I don’t see this as acts-of-insanity.”

      I don’t understand. Terrorism — domestic illegal political violence — can be done by a psychopath or true believer. Terrorism is often rational and effective, even if amoral or evil.

      (c) “Drawing up battle lines and engaging is pretty much what terrorism isn’t.”

      That’s a narrower concept of terrorism than used by DoD and US law. If two groups of terrorists meet, they’ll fight — but the violence will still be terrorism. Such as throwing bottles containing M-80s into the crowd.

      (d) “Now what *does* begin to cross the terrorism line is threatening violence to protest otherwise normal,mundane legal acts…”

      I agree with your explanation.

      (e) “In this way, they’re worse than many so-called gangs.”

      I disagree. Gangs are often well-run, sometimes much better than anything we’ve seen from Black Bloc — becoming multi-state criminal organizations. The competitors for Black Bloc are right-wing militia. My guess (emphasis on guess) is that militia are a far bigger danger to the US than the leftist terrorists. See the intel report cited in this post.

      (f) “A lot here.”

      I agree. We’ve just scratched the surface. Also, there is a large body of research on this subject. My guess (guess!) is that events will force us to become familiar with it.

      Like

    2. Dear FM and all,

      I apologise that I the reply mechanism is not threading properly. I am responding to a thread which should become obvious from a casual reading… Please, if it looks like I have taken anything out of context to “score points” not my intent, just provide enough context to continue the discussion…

      FM> To the best of my little knowledge of hate crimes, intent is the defining characteristic. The others’ intent and the odds don’t matter. Which seems logical, imo.

      I grant this. Unconditionally. But there does seem to be a difference between a Dylan Roof going against innocents and someone flinging bottles getting punched by someone willing to punch back. It’s on me to figure this out. I am of an ethic that disallows a ship of the line to fire on a frigate if the frigate is merely relaying signals. It makes no logical sense, but it’s a common understanding. Proportionality may be an immoral viewpoint I need to dispense with. I don’t promise to dispense, but I thank you for making me think!

      FM> (Acts of insanity v terrorism mine cf earlier comment) I don’t understand. Terrorism — domestic illegal political violence — can be done by a psychopath or true believer. Terrorism is often rational and effective, even if amoral or evil.

      Very much my failing on this one. One of the things I wanted to distinguish, and failed, is that terrorism is merely a tactic, and often an effective one, in a playbook. If you have no power, terrorism is entirely rational, if you have no other way of advancing your agenda. Today we “know” the religion of the people with the bomb strapped across their chest. Tamil Tigers? Not so much. We extrapolate way too much from “technique” because as you point out it’s a natural consequence of thinking.

      George Washington knew he could never win out, but could never lose if he could just keep retreating and let strategic consumption do its stuff. Terrorist? Some would say yes, and could “prove” it with “evidence”.

      What’s the mens rea? The intent? Putting a horse head in someone’s bed because you’re butchering the horse for dinner later is *not* terrorism, but in Godfather, at least terroristic. You can handle this with facility, but same stuff, different context is really hard for folks, as I’m sure you intuit implicitly.

      FM> That’s a narrower concept of terrorism than used by DoD and US law. If two groups of terrorists meet, they’ll fight — but the violence will still be terrorism. Such as throwing bottles containing M-80s into the crowd.

      I prefer my definition to DoD (MICC whateves) and US law (which I love much more than epaulet justice). I think that to define an act of terrorism, the victim must be limited in their agency. Ball factor. It’s easy to fire 59 Tomahawks at a Syrian airbase. Shoot that into Iran. Proportion matters, and it may be immoral. I am not dogmatic, just trying to grok.

      FM> I disagree. Gangs are often well-run, sometimes much better than anything we’ve seen from Black Bloc

      Again, sorry, in complete agreement. My point, unwell expressed was that “gangsterism” is entirely rational from so many perspectives. I would not casually engage a MS-13 enforcer, but if I had something that could benefit them and society, despite whatever propaganda was on their website, it wouldn’t really be hard to do.

      Really.

      You’re right! Rational actors taking rationality to extremes. We have DevGru… it gets tough supporting good men in bad policies, so there, my hypocrisy. I support terrible policies by taking care of those who carry them out.

      Black Bloc is not MS-13 and in some ways they’re worse. It’s easy to know what MS-13 wants. Black Bloc?

      Thank you for the forum.

      Please, if I say something stupid, kick me through the head. That’s what makes this space special.

      With regards,

      Bill

      Like

    3. Bill,

      We’re on the edge of the known here, so we’re all speculating. Even more so when discussing inherently subjective things like values.

      “But there does seem to be a difference between a Dylan Roof going against innocents and someone flinging bottles getting punched by someone willing to punch back.”

      I see your point. But imo the paramount virtue here is the maintenance of public order. Vigilantism — which has so many people cheering here — has an ugly history in the US and a worse one in the rest of the world. It is the social equivalent of a plague, and early appearances must be ruthless stomped out.

      The US is a violent society, most of which ranges from ugly to horrific. Side note: I had a friend who worked for Credit Suisse, who moved his family from Geneva to San Francisco. He moved back after three months, saying that they didn’t tell him the US was a third world-like society. We have maintained a precarious balance, never tipping over into Latin America-like domestic violence. But only constant vigilance has prevented that. We might be tested again soon.

      Like

    4. Hi FM,

      Similar experience with friend/colleague who came from Sweden to US to study for a few months in grad school, some many, (Oy! Many!) years ago. College town in the South, but the apartment provided was in a sketch location. It would have been OK had it just been him, but he brought his wife and three young kids. They never thought people in the US could live like that, in “neighborhoods” like that, be scared and isolated like that. And lest anyone think this was a race thing, it wasn’t. It was just very poor. It’s hard to see it when you’re from here and have only been here. What was the movie where you put the glasses on and could see the other? Ah! Them! No… They Live! While it’s easy to curse the damn college bureaucrat for booking the sketch apartment, and easy to run around feeling good about pulling strings to get your friends out of the crap situation, it’s not as easy to grok why there are places like that in a high-tech town, university town, in the land of the free and home of the brave.

      Remembering those days… Oh my, rant coming on…straight up

      The befurred SJWs need to head East from *Berkeley* and help in blighted places like that rather than fret that Ann Coulter might make someone snicker with some odious trope. The jackboots should let the snowflakes hyperventilate, have a beer, and enjoy their Coulter without punching girls. That’s not x-ist, that’s fact. A XY chromosome human, with greater bone density and muscle mass threw an overhand right smacking an XX chromosome human with not a particularly devastating blow, yet still knocking her (it what to you say these days?) to the ground. If that had been Sonny Liston, she might be dead. Considering /populations/, this is to be expected from such crimes. Can you find an XX to kick some random XY’s ass? Yes. Will I get a point off of Serena Williams? Maybe, if she double faults or I hit that once in a lifetime look at me I’m Roger Federer shot. Can you find a XX to out run Bolt in the 100 or beat LeBron in a game of make it take it? We’ll see. (Answer, no) This has nothing to do with intrinsic worth as being human, I hope that is clear (but cannot be for some, alas). My major professor was smarter, had a better vertical leap, and was a better tennis player than I will ever be, and she was a self-professed woman, mother, XXer. My mom was smarter than her, even, thought not as good at tennis. This isn’t about “ism” but how distributions work.

      Sorry, FM, you know that wasn’t directed at you, but to the x-ists and anti-x-ists (y-ists?).

      Re vigilantes, agree, and hope I didn’t imply otherwise. The three letter acronym mob getting in a fight with another three letter acronym mob doesn’t make their mobness any less mob like. I just think they’re guilty of a different crime, say, than kicking some guy’s door in a stringing him up in a tree. Similarly, they can, in full regalia, run into a burning building and save a bunch of folks. The good deed does not atone for their unrepentant devotion to their larger cause and the actions they take in that pursuit.

      I think I will go pet a kitten now.

      Regards,

      Bill

      Like

  5. One part of American exceptionalism come to an end as I see it. Like other places in the world, America will have regular violent demonstrations and clashes between political factions.

    American policing will certainly have to change to be like other places in the world buses of riot policemen standing by will become a regular fixture in places like Berkeley. Armored police vehicles equipped water cannons/tear gas launchers will be used to break up clashes like this, which is probably better than people hurling bottles and M-80s at each other.

    Even in Great Britain with its long history of democratic institutions and effective civil policing mounts sizable paramilitary like operations each time certain football clubs play to thwart violence between rival groups of football hooligans.

    Like

    1. Eric,

      “Like other places in the world, America will have regular violent demonstrations and clashes between political factions.”

      You raise an important point. How does frequency and magnitude of US political violent compares with that of our peers? I have no idea. But America has had lots of it.

      “Armored police vehicles equipped water cannons/tear gas launchers will be used to break up clashes like this”

      I don’t know about the water cannons, but US police are not shy about using force to crush protests. See the way Occupy was crushed.

      Like

    2. Dear Eric,

      The US is pretty damn resilient. I think the foreign adventurism is cynically motivated, but, for the most part I think I it’s top ten in the world for doing whatever you have in mind.

      Discussion…

      Like

  6. Dear Editor,

    I am delighted to learn that you do not make the claim that the two sides are equally morally reprehensible. And I appreciate your willingness to reexamine the photos and video.

    That said, it still appears to me that you are drawing a moral equivalence in your argument that the Berkeley Police Chief’s claim that the entry of three dozen highly coordinated black bloc antifa turned the situation into a battlefield “makes no difference in western morality or law”. (I am thinking you mean “makes no difference” in who is at fault.)

    In fact, “He did it first” in the case of a fight is a valid legal reason for fighting back to defend oneself. Although courts don’t consider “He did it first” a valid excuse for committing a crime, they do consider it a valid excuse such that self defense is not a crime but rather a legal right. One does not have a legal right to physically attack another, it is a crime, but one does have a legal right to defend oneself and others from physical attack.

    The difference between the argument of defense on the side of Antifa and the Trump supporters is that Antifa is arguing that they have a moral right to physically attack people who have attacked them, not physically, but with words. So Antifa argues they have a right to defend themselves against the hurtful words by physically attacking the people who would speak or even listen to them. The Trump supporters are arguing that they have a legal right to speak, to listen, and to defend themselves against physical attack.

    You argue that “it is the job of citizens to demand that the government exercise its responsibilities.”The problem in Berkeley has been that the politicians believe (perhaps rightly) that the majority of voters actually side with Antifa and believe that Trump supporters should not be permitted to speak in public in their city, or at least it is no harm if Trumo supporters are silenced by Antifa violence.

    Like

    1. “In fact, “He did it first” in the case of a fight is a valid legal reason for fighting back to defend oneself.”

      You are conflating two very different things in order to shift your argument. You repeatedly stated your reason as who went first. That is bogus.

      Now you are slyly changing your theory, asserting a right of self-defense. That clearly applies, as I said, to Louise against your boy Nathan (whom I hope will be doing hard time). It is weird as a defense of either gang in this fight. The videos show two gangs fighting, both of whom came there to fight. Probably the civilians quickly left as the fighting started.

      The rest of your comment is a defense of vigilante action. Too scummy to deserve comment. VIgilantees have an ugly history in America — and an even uglier history elsewhere in the world. If you get arrested for it, please post a comment here so I can congratulate the police. Perhaps you can chat about the virtues of vigilantism with Nathan in prison. Be careful not to anger him; he has a history of hitting women.

      Like

  7. Dear Editor,

    If the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. If the law is in your favor, argue the law. If neither the facts or the law is in your favor, turn up the heat and start throwing around inflammatory words like: bogus, scummy and sly. And don’t forget to lump the person you are talking to in with a hated group like nazis and white nationalists.

    Vigilante action occurs after the offense is over, not while the offense is being committed. If Louise, with the bottle, was committing an offense at the time, threatening to hit others with a bottle, then it wouldn’t be vigilante action to try to stop her attack. If she and her boyfriend were loading a bottle with an M-80 at the time of the attack, the same argument applies.

    The law allows people to use force to protect others whom they reasonably believe to be in imminent danger. The lawful-defense-of-others doctrine closely parallels the law of self-defense, and can be a complete defense to criminal charges.

    It will be interesting to see if Nathan is arrested and brought to trial. It appears to me, but not to you, that he may have a strong argument that he was acting in defense of others when he attacked Louise. I think this because I am convinced from looking at the various photos and videos that the woman in the hat and scarf is Louise and Nathan first hit Louise when she had the bottle in her hand, that this knocked off her hat and knocked down her scarf, revealing her face. Then he did subsequently hit her again after her face was revealed (the famous video). I think this all happened in a matter of seconds. In addition, strong evidence exists that Louise came to the event with the intent to harm others.

    While white nationalism is abhorrent, I think the more immediate danger to civil society is Antifa. I think we need to be defending the First Amendment. Even Robert Reich has called on UC Berkeley to let Anne Coulter speak.

    Like

    1. Hi Perpetua,

      PoC> It appears to me, but not to you, that he may have a strong argument that he was acting in defense of others when he attacked Louise.

      Speculation. My carrying a gun does not signal intent to use it. I’ll admit saying you’re going to collect a centiscalp (new word, you’re welcome ;), wearing a mask, gloves for busting chops (maybe), and a random-ass wine bottle makes you a *mite* suspicious, it’s not condemnation it itself. The evidence I’ve seen does not mitigate what looks like pretty straight forward case of aggravated assault. Not battery, because, he doesn’t hit very hard, apparently. Back when I took overhand rights from me of a certain age I would get what was called a shiner, busted lip, split brow, or other mark of conflict. I hate that I can’t help but outgrow my youth naturally, but I can’t outgrow my stupidity without great effort.

      PoC> While white nationalism is abhorrent, I think the more immediate danger to civil society is Antifa.

      This philosophy is above my pay grade, but rank ordering odiousness, IMO, should only happen in extremis. Actually, and I’m looking to FM aka Editor to smack me around a little on this one, but I find the Middlebury dust up and the PC at Claremont McKenna (really?) of all places to be even more disturbing. If the minds of our “best and brightest” are closed, then we’d all better get CAP gloves, kabars, P229s, and 870s. I was a Second Amendment (and most of the others, can’t read the Constitution without the Declaration kinda) guy at Reed College of all places, and the arguments were *fun* insightful and enriching. Fights were for the Rugby pitch, and never a punch thrown in anger. Different world. I wonder if the Humanities requirements are still in place? Hum 110, 210, 220…

      With kind regards,

      Bill

      Like

    2. Bill,

      (1) The big lesson, imo, from this thread is the the theme of these posts about Berkeley (and others) was spot on: both left and right in America have gone bonkers (note the fantasizing by these people here), and are ready to become violent (which in law and morality includes supporting violence). Both need to be crushed. It’s a commonplace in history, which is littered with crashed societies that failed to do so.

      (2) “This philosophy is above my pay grade, but rank ordering odiousness, IMO, should only happen in extremis.”

      I agree, and will state it more strongly. In life things often go wrong simultaneously — and have to be addressed simultaneously. The love “rank ordering” is a conceit of academics, as if such a thing is possible (leave it to god) and practical during events.

      (3) “I find the Middlebury dust up and the PC at Claremont McKenna (really?) of all places to be even more disturbing.”

      Trying to rank events that are of different categories is fun over drinks, but usually analytically useless. Analysis of causes and similar dynamics can sometimes help find solutions, but sometimes not. Cholera kills by dehydration. If you don’t have a doctor, lab, and drugs — just keep the patient hydrated. Hyperinflation is a complex monetary phenomenon, but history shows it can be quickly fixed by government leaders acting rapidly and decisively (no team of PhD economists needed).

      I’ll state it more clearly: treat the immediate problem immediately. Then study. Sometimes that will reveal the need for more action. Sometimes the problem will have gone away. In the case of violent protests, gas and arrest them all. Release the next day. Research will show those to prosecute.

      More generally, Robert Heinlein gave the general rule:

      “The people of good sense and good will have to be awakened to the nature and urgency of the crisis or the custard heads and bloody-minded will will most certainly lead us to our doom.”

      Like

    3. Bill,

      A follow-up note to your comment.

      “Not battery, because, he doesn’t hit very hard, apparently.”

      Battery is unlawful contact. The severity of the contact determines if it is a misdemeanor or felony, and the punishment. Prepare to be convicted if you go to court with the defense that “I knocked her down, but didn’t hit her hard.”

      I believe that Nathan Damigo will be charged and found guilty of battery or some equivalent. Any other outcome would be a gross miscarriage of justice, unless there is evidence not public at this time.

      Like

    4. Hi FM,

      Sorry, as a federalist, I sometimes forget federalism. Where I’m from assault and battery are distinguished by injury. You can be convicted of aggravated assault by trying to whack someone, but only battery if it injured someone. I shouldn’t be so pedantic, esp., when it’s irrelevant.

      But Sonny Liston could knock your lights out!

      Regards,

      Bill

      Like

    5. Hi FM,

      The great state of Georgia. Wisdom, justice, and moderation!

      Assault

      Battery

      I am not a lawyer, thought I associate with those types, and I have always understood assault to mean intent and battery to mean injury. Assault being the lesser charge. Your mileage may vary, and again, I do not intend to assert any deep understanding, universal or otherwise.

      With kindest regards,

      Bill

      Like

    6. Bill,

      Georgia does use the standard definition ofbattery: § 16-5-23 – Simple battery (Bold empahsis added).

      (a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either:

      1. Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or
      2. Intentionally causes physical harm to another.

      No injury is necessary for simple battery. There are more serious degrees of battery (similar to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degrees of murder):

      • “causes substantial physical harm or visible bodily harm to another.” (§ 16-5-23.1)
      • “depriving him or her of a member of his or her body, by rendering a member of his or her body useless, or by seriously disfiguring his or her body or a member thereof.” (§ 16-5-24)

      All forms of Battery are misdemeanors. The punishment for first offense against someone of Simple Battery and Battery are set in § 17-10-3:

      By a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or by confinement in the county or other jail, county correctional institution, or such other places as counties may provide for maintenance of county inmates, for a total term not to exceed 12 months, or both; …”

      If Damigo is convicted of twice committing Simple Battery or Battery against Louise, the penalty is:

      Upon the second conviction for battery against the same victim, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than 12 months, by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00, or both. The minimum sentence of ten days for a second offense shall not be suspended, probated, deferred, stayed, or withheld; …

      Like

    7. Hi FM,

      You’re right, and again, I’m coming at it from a slightly different perspective. One of the reasons we have all of these gradations of thuggery is to allow people to plead out to lesser offenses. I was looking at what’s the worst he could be convicted of. I think he could certainly be convicted of aggravated assault, but he’d plead out to simple battery. He *has* committed a crime, unless that video was CGI and he was elsewhere.

      This is why all the lawyer will be the first against the wall.

      With fondest regards,

      Bill

      PS: awesome digging, btw. I hope everyone reading appreciates your ass kickingness.

      Like

    8. Bill,

      I can’t imagine why you believe hitting a person on video would not be battery. Not just contact, but knocking her down. Twice.

      He has not committed “aggravated assault”.

      A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob; With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury…”

      Like

    9. Bill,

      I read your comment too quickly and misinterpreted it (too much going on here).

      I don’t know about California law (am not going to research it), but under GA law he looks guilty of only simple battery. As you note, the DA might plea bargain it down for any number of reasons. Or not. Justice is blind, deaf, and dumb in the US.

      Like

  8. Hi FM,

    Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, … they’re all dead. Death comes for us all. But it was great in its time, a time that has passed. I don’t live in the past, but I am from there, a very old man (XY) who is trying to come to grips with now, and help to move it forward. Despite all the crap that’s being thrown, despite all the refusal to simply accommodate questions (questions? this one is going to be the death of me), I am still an optimist in the American sense. Kids walk to (public) school in my neighborhood. It’s pretty much random if I lock my back door. Because it’s good for me and those around me does not mean all is good. We’re working on that.

    On behalf of many FM readers, I’m sure,

    Thank you.

    Regards,

    Bill

    Like

  9. I am struck by the level of equivocation here–you speak as if both sides came with the intent to do violence.

    I would suggest that one side came with the intent to do violence, and the other came with the hope that they were prepared for violence should it occur.

    It has been noted in several places that only one side brought medics of any type.

    You keep saying ” Condemn political violence no matter who started it, no matter who does it, no matter what the excuse” or some variation on this.

    You also say that people have the right to defend themselves.

    Well, one side WAS defending themselves. Had the antifa crowd not shown up–or simply not attacked, there would have been no violence whatsoever.

    One side was not committing ‘political violence’–they were responding to being attacked.

    And they could not got to the authorities because the authorities were sitting on the sidelines watching this entire thing unfold. There are numerous videos showing this very thing.

    Like

    1. Azathoth,

      (1) “I would suggest that one side came with the intent to do violence, and the other came with the hope that they were prepared for violence should it occur.”

      That’s obviously false. Both sides came prepared to fight, with weapons, and fought.

      (2) “Well, one side WAS defending themselves.”

      The only example I see of defense in the videos was Louise from Nathan. Nathan attacked a girl standing in the crowd.

      (3) “Had the antifa crowd not shown up”

      • Most people learn around age five that “he did it first” is not a valid excuse.
      • There are countless stories about being judged in the afterlife — in almost all you are judged for your deeds alone. Saying “He did it first” doesn’t help.
      • Courts don’t consider “He did it first” a valid excuse for committing a crime (although its sometimes relevant to determine which specific kind of crime and the sentence deserved).
      • In some civil cases, the liability rests on the last party to act — not the first. Such as automobile crashes: the last party who could avoid the accident has the largest liability (this is probably a gross oversimplification of complex law, and might apply only in some states).

      (4) “One side was not committing ‘political violence’–they were responding to being attacked.”

      What a cute way to say they were engaging in a street fight. If Nathan Damigo is arrested and tries that defense, he can look forward to time in prison.

      (5) “And they could not got to the authorities because the authorities were sitting on the sidelines watching this entire thing unfold.”

      Vigilantism is not legal in the US. It has an ugly history both here and around the world. You on the Left and Right that advocate it are alike, and are enemies to the rest of us — and the Republic. We have defeated people like you before, and will again.

      Like

    2. “That’s obviously false. Both sides came prepared to fight, with weapons, and fought.”

      Being prepared for the worst is not the same as coming with the intent to do violence. The people at the Patriots Day rally would have come and gone with no violence if they had not been attacked. Or is it your contention that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the antifa people were the ones who were attacked?

      “The only example I see of defense in the videos was Louise from Nathan. Nathan attacked a girl standing in the crowd.”

      The confrontation between Louise and Nathan was part of a much larger conflict. There was fighting going on all around them. Nathan rushes in and hits her while fighting is going on all around them. Louise and her friends attacked the people at the Patriot’s Day rally. This is not in question–she states that she went to the event with that as her intent.

      No one has said ‘he did it first’, that is a complete strawmanning of the point. I, and many others, have been saying that people were defending themselves from antifa attackers. A person IS allowed to defend themself from an attacker, no?

      Courts do, in fact, recognize self defense as a mitigating circumstance. In Georgia(because I believe you mentioned that is where you are)–

      “GA 3.02.10 Justification; Use of Force in Defense of Self or Others

      A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himselfYherself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

      So yes, you ARE justified in defending yourself against anothers imminent use of unlawful force. Even where you live.

      I care little what anyone’s gods think of the matter, here or in the afterlife.

      “What a cute way to say they were engaging in a street fight. If Nathan Damigo is arrested and tries that defense, he can look forward to time in prison.”

      Again, you seem to be speaking on the assumption that the people at the Patriot’s Day Rally were also attacking. They WERE attacked. Therefore, they were defending themselves. The issue was ongoing.

      “Vigilantism is not legal in the US.”

      Yes….and?

      Do you consider defending yourself against an attacker to be vigilantism? Is that it?

      Vigilantism is nothing of the kind.

      “Definition of vigilante

      : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice”

      Responding to an attack while the attack is occurring does not fit that definition. The minuteman group that took part in border patrols was an example of vigilantism–being a rally attendant is not. Being part of a black bloc is an example of vigilantism. Louise was engaging in vigilantism.

      The people who were attending the Patriots Day rally may have prepared for the worst–because it has happened, repeatedly. But they did not go to the event with the intent of engaging in violence or suppressing anyone. Louise, the black bloc, and the rest of the antifa group DID go with the intent to commit violence, with the intent to suppress the free speech of others. They were, and are, “a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish” things they think are crimes summarily.

      “You on the Left and Right that advocate it are alike, and are enemies to the rest of us — and the Republic.”

      I am not advocating vigilantism. I am pointing out that you are equating self defense with deliberate, premeditated attacks. You are suggesting that being prepared for attacks–attacks that have been perpetrated over and over again while the police stood idly by, is the same thing as organizing, arming for and engaging in attacks.

      You seem to be saying that the best course of action is to not defend oneself–to let oneself be run roughshod over.

      This is your solution–

      “Let the police maintain public safety at legitimate political events. Demand that they maintain order if they — or their political superiors — refuse to do so. Gas then arrest violent protesters.”

      How is this a solution when the police are doing nothing? When the ‘political superiors’ of the police do nothing? When should they make these demands? While bricks, bottles and small explosives are raining down? Because there are videos of people asking the immobile police just that ‘Why aren’t you doing something?’

      Or does this all hinge on that ‘legitimate’ you threw in there? Should we all let the state decide what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ political event? Should we all remain silent until the state tells us we have a legitimate grievance?

      Should it be me that’s saying, ‘We HAVE defeated people like you before, and will again.’?

      Like

    3. Azathoth,

      There is not point to this absurdity. We have a video of a guy attacking a girl who was standing there, and you prattle mindlessly about self-defense. That tells us all we need to know about you. Millions of Americans have seen you and your friends in action, and drawn correct conclusions.

      You advocate vigilantism instead of citizenship. You are an advocate of criminal action. That makes you deadweight for America, or foes.

      When the government fails to perform its duty — not an unusual event — it is the duty of citizens to make it fulfill its obligations. There is never an easy or simple path. No shortcuts. The abolitionists, the suffragettes, and civil rights movements confronted this on a scale beyond anything seen today, for the violence was from the State. They didn’t form vigilante organizations — but marched for their rights. It was painful. It took years. But they all took the right path and won — leaving America stronger.

      “Should it be me that’s saying, ‘We HAVE defeated people like you before, and will again.’?”

      Sure, enemies of America — those advocating lawlessness — often wrap themselves in the flag. It doesn’t fool anyone. It won’t now.

      Like

  10. “There is not point to this absurdity. We have a video of a guy attacking a girl who was standing there, and you prattle mindlessly about self-defense. That tells us all we need to know about you. Millions of Americans have seen you and your friends in action, and drawn correct conclusions.”

    Do you think that snippet is all that there is? That’s just a few seconds of a much longer incident. Aren’t you aware of that?

    You’re talking like this guy just randomly walked up and hit this girl. There was fighting going on all around them. There’s tons of video of this. Why are you taking this one incident and acting as if it stands alone?

    “When the government fails to perform its duty — not an unusual event — it is the duty of citizens to make it fulfill its obligations. There is never an easy or simple path. No shortcuts. The abolitionists, the suffragettes, and civil rights movements confronted this on a scale beyond anything seen today, for the violence was from the State. They didn’t form vigilante organizations — but marched for their rights. It was painful. It took years. But they all took the right path and won — leaving America stronger.”

    Yes, exactly–people were out there demanding that the Constitution be upheld, that people be allowed their right to speak, and to assemble–and they were attacked by a mob of armed masked vigilantes who’d organized with the sole intent of attacking them physically to deny them their civil rights.

    Did you miss that? Are you deliberately ignoring that?

    They WERE marching for their rights. And they were attacked. They were doing EXACTLY what you say they should have been doing–and they were met with violence—and this was not the first time this has happened.

    It happens so much that Americans are often pre-emptively denied their right to speak or assemble BECAUSE these antifa and black bloc people are threatening violence.

    You don’t seem to be equivocating anymore–you seem to be siding with those who seek to deny people their rights under the Constitution.

    What do people have to do to be in the right with you? Allow themselves to be beaten into silence? Will they only be right when they’re lying bleeding in the streets while the antifas kick their broken bodies?

    Like

  11. I just found that the Snopes website has weighed in on Nathan and Louise. They have one video that shows the two punches and they say the two punches were 8 seconds apart.
    “This series of screenshots shows that Damigo actually punched Rosealma twice. Once when she was holding the bottle (around the 22-second mark) and a second time when she was not holding anything (around the 30-second mark). ”
    http://www.snopes.com/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

    Like

    1. So she DID lie to Snopes!

      “I was not holding a bottle in the video,” –Louise

      “Although Reuters has taken criticism for doctoring photos in the past, it is highly unlikely that the photograph of Rosealma was manipulated. We compared the Reuters image and stills from the video and found that they were taken at the same time and place (a man in a skeleton mask can be viewed in the background of both images), making it highly unlikely that they were faked.”–Snopes

      What else did she lie about? Who else did she lie to?

      And she did so with video evidence to the contrary!

      And look–they’re in the midst of a melee!

      Thanks for flagging this. That’s a good catch by Snopes! You read most of it here first — everything else I said is correct — despite the hysterical attempts to refute it by the editor
      .

      Like

  12. You said “There were two political groups at this political event, both looking to fight.”

    I think you are making it a bit too simple. There is a clear difference between “looking to fight” and “being ready to fight back”. This is clearly not the first time antifa started being violent and more often than not people held back quite a bit. This time they didn’t. Did they come and looking to fight? Possibly. But it could also very well be that they expected it and this time were set to fight back.

    Like

    1. Get Dich,

      “There is a clear difference between “looking to fight” and “being ready to fight back”.”

      Yes, that is a difference to Professor Xavier — whose telepathic powers allow him to assess motives. But for the rest of us, all we see is two sides fighting. As with saw with Nathan hitting a girl just standing there, this became a standard street fight with thugs hitting people.

      The standard approach is the right one, and should have been used here — gas the field, book them all, then release them pending evidence from witnesses and social media that warrants prosecution.

      Like

  13. Excuse me, could someone provide a link to some footage of “Nathan hitting a girl just standing there”?

    We’ve all seen endless footage and photography of Nathan hitting an antifa girl fighting alongside her antifa brethren in the midst of a huge melee, but apparently there is some additional issue of him walking up to a girl who was simply standing, minding her own business, uninvolved in a melee, and hitting her.

    So could we see that as well?

    That’d be great, thanks

    Like

    1. Azathoth,

      Click on either of the first two posts in this series. Or the Snopes link, which has the most complete video I’ve seen of the incident.

      “We’ve all seen endless footage and photography of Nathan hitting an antifa girl fighting alongside her antifa brethren”

      None of the videos I’ve seen show that. I’m pretty sure the ones you’ve seen don’t show that either.

      Like

    2. I think you meant to say ‘ALL of the videos I’ve seen show that.’

      Every one, except for the one clipped to just the moment when the guy hits her shows the melee going on all around them.

      What I’d like to do is take several videos that show the incident, outline both of them in red, and then post sequential screenshots for you showing that they’re in the midst of a melee.

      I’d like to–but I won’t. You’ve got several videos up that SHOW that melee, that you are actually and continually citing as NOT showing it.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that, for you, this single incident tars all the people at the Patriots Day rally as woman-beating white nationalists who only came to Berkeley to hurt their political opponents because you NEED this to be two thuggish political sides brawling because, if it’s not, then one side in this might be in the right and you think that there are too many people like Nathan on that side to ever allow them to be right.

      Like

    3. Azathoth,

      You keep lying. I’ll repeat this one more time.

      Your statement: “We’ve all seen endless footage and photography of Nathan hitting an antifa girl fighting alongside her antifa brethren”

      None of the videos show her “fighting”. All show her standing there while fighting swirls around her.

      I’ve allowed your comments because I’m too nice, but now I’m moderating them due to your constant lies. If you can say something rational and factual, it will be posted.

      Like

    4. More lies from Azathoth (perhaps he’s delusional),

      (1) “I can find no lies in anything I’ve said.”

      Look on the tape. I’ve posted pics & descriptions from the tape in 3 posts. Others, like Snopes, have confirmed the obvious.

      (2) “If you’re suggesting that my noting that Louise was fighting is a lie I would point out that I am not the only person who has pointed that out.”

      Yes, there are other right-wing wackos disregarding what the videos show, making up lies.

      (3) “I am not the only one who’s noted that there was a melee going on–”

      Duh. The tapes show a melee. I’ve written 3 posts about the fighting between the two groups, and said that dozens of times more in the comments. But there is no evidence as yet showing Louise participating in it.

      Like

Leave a comment & share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s