Bailing out antifa in Boston

[Newman]

Or not.

AOC, Pressley vow to help pay bail for counterprotesters arrested at 'Straight Pride' parade

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and fellow member of “the Squad” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade" in Boston.

Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.

“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”
....

Quite a contest. FOX News here cites a Boston Globe report estimating 200 marchers. I read another report putting the number at closer to 50.

About 200 people marched in the “Straight Pride Parade” in downtown Boston on Saturday to celebrate traditional families and defend heterosexuality, the Boston Globe reported. Members of Super Happy Fun America, the group that organized the parade, were reportedly outnumbered along the parade route by thousands of protesters gathered behind police barricades near City Hall who criticized the event as homophobic.

At least some of the counterprotesters were identified as Antifa, the controversial far-left group.

“We’re covered in black so when we attack these guys we can’t be prosecuted,” Jon Crowley, a self-identified Antifa member, told the Boston Herald while at Saturday’s parade. He added that he believes violence is the only way deal with the “Straight Pride” marchers, saying: “They are fascists, 100%. How else are you going to get them to shut up?”

Mr. Crowley, who self-identifies as John without the h, probably wasn't meaning to ask his question of the antifa punks.

But I'll venture an answer via a headline from a local radio station report:

Judge Refuses To Dismiss Charges Against 'Straight Pride' Counter-Protesters

Judge Richard Sinnott refused to dismiss charges against some counter-protesters of Saturday’s “straight pride” parade, despite calls for leniency from Suffolk County prosecutors.

Thirty-six people were arrested on Saturday, 34 counter-protesters and two people affiliated with the straight pride event. Charges ranged from disorderly conduct to unlawful possession of a weapon, according to the Boston Police Department.

At arraignment proceedings at Boston Municipal Court Tuesday, Sinnott denied motions filed by prosecutors to throw out charges against seven people, some facing disorderly conduct charges, and some facing charges of resisting arrest.

The judge’s refusal to drop the charges at the request of prosecutors drew criticism from District Attorney Rachael Rollins, the ACLU and others.

The District Attorney?!

Rollins said in a statement issued Tuesday night that Sinnott “punished the exercise of individuals’ First Amendment right to protest” and said she would “use the legal process to remedy the judge’s overstepping of his role” for “those people now tangled in the criminal justice system for exercising their right to free speech.”

She's saying the Boston police made frivolous arrests of people "exercising their right to free speech"?

Apparently. Maybe she wears a pink pussy hat to work. That would be shocking, if true.

Boston Patrolmen’s Association President Michael Leary says they don't make frivolous arrests, quote in this RedState report:

Antifa Thought It Could Get Away with Violence Against Boston’s “Straight Pride Parade,” but a Judge Is Ruining Their Day

“The charges are serious, and I appreciate the judge … not throwing them out of court,” said Boston Patrolmen’s Association President Michael Leary. “I thought there’d be some dismissals and people walking out of court high-fiving each other, thinking they had a victory of some sort, but I was very happy with what happened today.”

According to WGBH, Leary told them in a phone interview that these arrests were rightfully made, and that his officers were forced to arrest these Antifa members due to their violence.

“We don’t arrest people frivolously, we arrest people because they’re committing crimes, and we don’t want our police officers assaulted,” he said. “They’re just trying to do their jobs, and people are throwing things at them, calling them terrorists, all kinds of crazy names. … We’re just trying to keep the peace.”

This RedState report also includes a tweet by Andy Ngo that lists some of the charges:

Embedded Tweet

D.A. Rollins, who is alleged to wear a pink pussy hat to work, didn't specify which charges were frivolous.

This Washington Times report says two judges are involved with repressing free speech:

'Stay out of Boston': Judges refuse to drop charges against protesters at Straight Pride Parade

Activists hoping to be let off with a slap on the wrist after being arrested for disrupting last weekend’s Straight Pride Parade have run into resistance from Boston judges.

Two Boston Municipal Court judges refused to throw out the charges against the 18 defendants who appeared Tuesday in court, frustrating defense attorneys and prosecutors who sought to have minor charges dismissed, as reported by local news outlets.

This short report does not mention D.A. Rollins, who has failed to deny she wears a pink pussy hat to work.

To Mr. Crowley's question, the way to stop them is to press charges and exact serious penalties for such crimes as assault and battery on a police officer. (36 people were arrested; two were marchers.)

And I agree with St. Sen. Dean Tran, quoted in the Fox News report above:

A Massachusetts state senator, Dean Tran, who represents Fitchburg, Mass., tweeted Monday that “It is time, federal, state, and local to make it illegal to cover your faces in public events and demonstrations. A danger to public safety and our police officers. No one or group is above the law.”

I thought that was already illegal, from back in the day when the KKK was marching around.

[Newman]

D.A. Rollins may decline to prosecute; I don't know. Maybe she and Chicago's Kim Foxx are BFFs.

But meanwhile, I hope these antifa whiners are hammered. Portland should take note.

[Norm dePlume]

“We don’t arrest people frivolously, we arrest people because they’re committing crimes, and we don’t want our police officers assaulted,” he said. “They’re just trying to do their jobs, and people are throwing things at them, calling them terrorists, all kinds of crazy names. … We’re just trying to keep the peace.”

When a cop lists "they called us names" as part of the "assault" you can bet he's stretching real hard to make that assault claim.

[Newman]

When a cop lists "they called us names" as part of the "assault" you can bet he's stretching real hard to make that assault claim.

I'll agree, if that name-calling is in the bill of particulars.

[Lady Marva]

When a cop lists "they called us names" as part of the "assault" you can bet he's stretching real hard to make that assault claim.

Which just might lead to something worse...……………..

[Celeste Chalfonte]

When a cop lists "they called us names" as part of the "assault" you can bet he's stretching real hard to make that assault claim.

Assault, by definition, is a threat. When there's physical contact, it's battery. Whether name-calling was part of an assault depends on context. For example, "Pigs must die," in conjunction with menacing gestures and some sort of weapon (antifa seems to favor clubs, brass knuckles, bricks, and pipes), is an assault.

[scott]

Assault, by definition, is a threat. When there's physical contact, it's battery. Whether name-calling was part of an assault depends on context. For example, "Pigs must die," in conjunction with menacing gestures and some sort of weapon (antifa seems to favor clubs, brass knuckles, bricks, and pipes), is an assault.

Actually the "pigs must die" is an assault by itself. But lets have you and Norm jerk each other off thinking like you're doing something.

I think this is a numbers game - the more time you idiots spend here the less time you spend on other boards influencing others. I mean come on - have either of you actually accomplished anything?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Actually the "pigs must die" is an assault by itself. But lets have you and Norm jerk each other off thinking like you're doing something.

I think this is a numbers game - the more time you idiots spend here the less time you spend on other boards influencing others. I mean come on - have either of you actually accomplished anything?

Would you care to explain your rudeness? As in, what the fuck got up your ass? And for the record, I don't jerk anybody off, so you'll just have to go fuck yourself.

And for the information of those who care, assault is generally defined in law as, "intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." If they yell, "Pigs must die" and there are no police (or actual swine) close enough to fear imminent harm, there is no assault.

[Novaheart]

Actually the "pigs must die" is an assault by itself. But lets have you and Norm jerk each other off thinking like you're doing something.

I think this is a numbers game - the more time you idiots spend here the less time you spend on other boards influencing others. I mean come on - have either of you actually accomplished anything?

I thought that the pointlessness of political expression was a given. My dear cousin-brother employs a most irritating tactic. He argues until he is losing or huffy and then asks what difference it makes. One of these days I am going to shock my misguided relations by behaving childishly. I might even pitch a fit if I am up to it.

[Novaheart]

Would you care to explain your rudeness? As in, what the fuck got up your ass? And for the record, I don't jerk anybody off, so you'll just have to go fuck yourself.

And for the information of those who care, assault is generally defined in law as, "intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." If they yell, "Pigs must die" and there are no police (or actual swine) close enough to fear imminent harm, there is no assault.

So not allowing miscreants to take you and your vehicle hostage on the freeway would be self defense in the face of imminent harm?

[Novaheart]

Actually the "pigs must die" is an assault by itself. But lets have you and Norm jerk each other off thinking like you're doing something.

I think this is a numbers game - the more time you idiots spend here the less time you spend on other boards influencing others. I mean come on - have either of you actually accomplished anything?

"have either of you actually accomplished anything?"

At least one of them has. Unless I get credit for being charming to select strangers, she has me beat by a mile.

[Norm dePlume]

scott thought he was talking to Billy. It's not complicated. He's just prejudiced and sloppy.

[scott]

Would you care to explain your rudeness? As in, what the fuck got up your ass? And for the record, I don't jerk anybody off, so you'll just have to go fuck yourself.

Heh! Yup, that is my mistake. Instead of talking to you I was talking with you in a sarcastic way and clearly you didn't get the joke. I am very sorry.

And for the information of those who care, assault is generally defined in law as, "intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." If they yell, "Pigs must die" and there are no police (or actual swine) close enough to fear imminent harm, there is no assault.

True, but if the police are there then it is an assault.

[scott]

scott thought he was talking to Billy. It's not complicated. He's just prejudiced and sloppy.

That's correct also, but I meant to include Celeste in a satirical way. I obviously failed.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

So not allowing miscreants to take you and your vehicle hostage on the freeway would be self defense in the face of imminent harm?

Arguably. "Self-defense" is an affirmative defense to criminal charges such as assault, battery, manslaughter and homicide, in limited circumstances. Only if defending yourself within your home is there any presumption in your favor that the force you used was in self-defense. Outside your home, you will be charged with a crime, but may successfully assert that you're not guilty because you acted in defense of self or another, IF you can prove:

- You reasonably believed that you (or someone else) was in imminent danger of being harmed; AND
- You reasonably believed that the imminent use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND
- You only used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

You can see the pitfalls here. Biff and Muffy put on the bandit bandanna and lead 600 or so of their closest friends up onto I-880, to protest something that happened 2036 miles away. Your car is now surrounded by strangers whose faces you cannot see, but who appear to be carrying items that, if used to strike a window, seem capable of breaking said window. You experience fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, but is it REASONABLE fear? You panic and hit the gas, incidentally mowing down a couple of these concerned citizens, because you believe such force is necessary to defend yourself against the perceived danger that Muffy, Biff, and friends will break your windows, drag you out of your car, and beat you to a pulp for reasons known only to themselves. Is your belief REASONABLE? Was it REASONABLY NECESSARY to run over them, or would a gentle nudge with your bumper have sufficed?

I, sadly, do not like your chances of prevailing before a local jury, whose members consider themselves to be more Biff and Muffy's peers than yours.