Saturday, July 25, 2020

Donavan La Bella Has Brain Injury


This tweet shows video of the federal attack:

29 comments:

David in Cal said...

This is a tragedy. However, people need to be clear on what's going on. Antifa rioters mix themselves among sincere protesters. The Antifa people come armed with bricks and other heavy objects with which to attack police. They're armed with incendiary devices to commit arson. They also bring lasers, with which they have caused permanent blindness to three federal law enforcement officers.

One of Antifa's goals is to provoke a retaliatory act, like the tragic harm to Donavan La Bella. They use examples like this to justify their provocative, criminal behavior. Unfortunately, most of our media play along with Antifa. The media focus on the many sincere protesters and downplay the many terrorists among them. They use the phrase "mostly peaceful". The media also tend to ignore the way sincere protesters in the mob can get caught up in the excitement and wind up abetting the terrorists. The media fault law enforcement when they use tear gas, even though it's not lethal.

David -- imagine that you were responsible for protecting people and property from these Antifa terrorists. How would you handle it? Bear in mind that disruption and violence are their goals. You can't get them to back down by agreeing to amend police behavior, because that's not what they actually want. Their goal is to gain power by causing disruption.

For months, the city of Portland has "handled" Antifa by letting them do whatever they want. Is that the best we can do?

Cheers

David Appell said...

How do you know if there are Antifa anybody at the Portland protests? Any evidence of them? Or is it enough that Fox News says so?

This guy kicked at a gas canister and sent it not even halfway back across the street. For that he was targeted and shot in the head. Does that seem like a proportionate response?

David in Cal said...

David -- There's lots of evidence that Antifa were active in the Portland protests. In any event, there were lots of violent people among the protesters. If you don't buy that, consider my question hypothetical:

Suppose there are rioters who mix themselves among sincere protesters in Portland. The rioters come armed with bricks and other heavy objects with which to attack police. They're armed with incendiary devices to commit arson. They also bring lasers, with which they have caused permanent blindness to three federal law enforcement officers.

Imagine that you're responsible for protecting people and property from these violent terrorists. How would you handle it? Bear in mind that disruption and violence are their goals. You can't get them to back down by agreeing to amend police behavior, because that's not what they actually want. Their goal is to gain power by causing disruption.

Would you just stand aside and let them commit violence? If not, how would you stop them?


Cheers

David Appell said...

>> There's lots of evidence that Antifa were active in the Portland protests.

So what's the evidence?

And who cares? That has nothing to do with this, nothing at all. It's just an attempt at diversion.

This man was peacefully protesting, as is his right under the First Amendment. Why did a secret policeman shoot him in the head with a potentially lethal weapon?

David in Cal said...

David - you're evading the question. I'm not surprised. I don't have a good answer, either.

Of course, my point is that the federal police were put in a situation where anything they did, or failed to do, was wrong. I primarily blame ANTIFA (or the "violent protesters", if you like) for intentionally creating this situation. The federal police did not want to be in this situation. A policeman in a difficult situation made a bad decision. That doesn't mean that the police are bad people, let alone fascists. OTOH ANTIFA (or the "violent protesters") did want this situation. They intentionally created it. They deserve most of the blame for the brain injury.

P.S. in nearby Oakland, CA last night, the mob smashed downtown windows and set fire to the County Courthouse. How should police have handled this? I surely don't know.

Cheers

David Appell said...

David, you're the one evading the question with all your whatabouts.

Why was a man peacefully protesting targeted by a secret policeman? It's his constitutional right to peacefully protest, yes?

David in Cal said...

David, your comment makes it sound as if you think the police intentionally shot a peaceful protester. I don't think that's a proper interpretation. Mr. Labella may have been peacefully protesting, but he was in a mob that included violent people who were attacking the police. The police were dealing with this violent mob. The policeman who shot Mr. Labella was negligent. The violent rioters were committing intentional harm.

I have answered your question: Mr. Labella had a right to peacefully protest. He was harmed by a negligent policeman. Do you want to take a whack at my question?

Cheers

David Appell said...

In the video clips I've seen, Labella wasn't in a violent mob. He was standing by himself on the side of the street holding up a stereo playing music. Look at the video clip I posted.

Do you have a clip showing otherwise?

He kicked the can of gas halfway across the street so he wouldn't have to breathe it in. Don't tell me he wasn't targeted for that. The secret policeman was just on the other side of the street. You don't hit a guy in the head at that distance unless your targeting him.

Why else would the secret policeman be shooting in that direction?

David in Cal said...

There were no "secret policemen". The federal police wore uniforms with the word "police" on them, as well as a number, by which they could be individually identified.

As I said, the policeman who shot Mr. Labella was wrong to do so. I agree with you on that point. I don't know what that policeman thought he was seeing.

However, I would ask you to be explicit in your interpretation:

-- Do you think the federal policemen had an ulterior motive other than trying to defend the federal property and end the crime.
-- Do you think the federal policemen were intentionally trying to harm peaceful protesters?
-- Do you think someone in the Trump Administration told the federal policemen to attack peaceful protesters?

Cheers




David Appell said...

"Police" from where?

Anyone can put a patch on camo that says "Police."

Militia can dress up like Army, rent vans and drag people into them, like these "Police" have been doing in Portland.

I bet the wacky militias are taking notes and already have new ideas to try out.

It's unconstitutional to arrest a peaceful person not committing a crime without a warrant signed by a judge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2e9--XF4M

David in Cal said...

David, give me a break about the uniforms. First of all, you can go to a costume shop and buy any kind of police uniform. More important, I have no doubt that the protesters and rioters knew that the federal policemen were indeed federal policemen? Don't you think so? So, what difference does the specific uniform make?

Cheers

nowadaysclancycantevensing said...

Lol - Just wondering DavidinCal, how do you "know" so much about Antifa?
You claim to 'know' what 'one of the goals of Antifa' is. Precious!
Because you heard it straight from FoxFakenews or Rush so it has to be true?

Obviously you haven't a single clue what Antifa is or isn't, even to the point of why people are anti fascist or even why Americans had to fight and die in WW2 to defeat Fascism.



David Appell said...

Another peaceful protestor shot in the head in Portland:

https://www.facebook.com/feministnews.us/photos/a.110963062584254/1262337410780141/?type=3&__tn__=H-R

David Appell said...

David, why are the police unidentified? It would be simple for them to wear a patch with identification, and with their last name. Why aren't they? This is being done for a reason. What do you think it is?

David Appell said...

DavidinCal wrote:
"Do you think the federal policemen had an ulterior motive other than trying to defend the federal property and end the crime."

Yes. Trump is trying to portray the protestors as rioters and anarchists, to bolster his "law and order" campaign message to win the election. The federal police are making things much worse and the protesters in Portland have quadrupled since they came, and as you've seen protests are now happening in other cities are well.

"Videos Show How Federal Officers Escalated Violence in Portland," NY Times, July 24th,
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007243995/portland-protests-federal-government.html?searchResultPosition=1

David Appell said...

BTW, one of these federal buildings in Portland is just across the street from where I lived for 2 years when I first moved to Oregon. The other is 3 blocks away.

David Appell said...

DavidinCal wrote:
"-- Do you think the federal policemen were intentionally trying to harm peaceful protesters?
"-- Do you think someone in the Trump Administration told the federal policemen to attack peaceful protesters?"

I think they don't care if some get harmed. Did you see them beat a Navy veteran who simply wanted to talk? They broke his hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=une2JASM3Zw

I suspect from Trump down the message has been to be as tough as they have to be, to knock some heads. They're certainly acting that way. It's disgraceful and unamerican, to, what, protect against graffiti and fireworks brought on by their very presence?

David Appell said...

"Federal Agents Push Into Portland Streets, Stretching Limits of Their Authority -- Federal agents are venturing blocks from the buildings they were sent to protect. Oregon officials say they are illegally taking on the role of riot police," NY Times 7/25

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/portland-federal-legal-jurisdiction-courts.html

Layzej said...

the federal police were put in a situation where anything they did, or failed to do, was wrong.

Are you suggesting that putting federal troops into the middle of these protests was a mistake?

I imagine there wouldn't have been much controversy if they didn't shoot that innocent man in the head for exercising his first amendment rights.

David in Cal said...

Layzej - Everything the feds did or failed to do would have been a mistake. Giving the mob an excuse to riot was a mistake. Not sending troops in, and thus allowing the federal courthouse to be burned down, would have been a mistake.

Of course, the Mayor and the Governor have the primary responsibility to deal with the mob in Portland. However, they ignored the situation, helped by a media who sugar-coated the problem. Perhaps the local leaders reasoned that any action they took would make them look bad.

IMHO resisting the mob was a less bad action than giving in to the mob. IMHO if the mob weren't resisted at the Courthouse, they would have committed further provocations. YMMV.

Cheers

David in Cal said...

Layzej - BTW your assumption that this demonstrator was shot for exercising his first amendment rights is far-fetched, inflammatory, and totally without evidence. Did the shooter say that his goal was to punish people for demonstrating? No. Were any orders given to punish people for demonstrating? No. That shooting was a tragic mistake.

I know you have plenty of company in that statement, Layzej. However, IMHO it's ugly and provocative to make a serious accusation against our law enforcement people based on no data at all. That nasty claim is even uglier when one considers the risk and hazard these policemen faced. Many have been injured. Three suffered permanent blindness, due to intentional laser attacks by so-called "peaceful" demonstrators.

Cheers

David Appell said...

David, the federal courthouse and especially the IRS building are fortresses -- no one is going to burn them down, and no one wanted to. The protests were wildly inflamed when the federal police came in and started knocking people around, shooting them for peacefully protesting, and snatching them off the street for peacefully protesting.

These are fascist actions and I think the protesters are right to resist them by whatever means necessary. Conservatives pretend to care for freedom and constitutional rights, but abandon them as soon as people fight for them. Hypocrites. They'd be cheering for the British during the American revolution (as many who lived in America did). They'd be the ones calling slavery a "necessary evil" (as Tom Cotton did today or yesterday).

David in Cal said...

David - where are you getting your news? Tom Cotton correctly said, "As the founding fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction..." Slavery was indeed necessary for the United States to be formed, because the Southern states would never have agreed to a Constitution that prohibited slavery.

Doesn't it bother you that news sources you rely on are misleading you by pulling quotes out of context?

BTW I don't think anyone today needs to be ashamed of slavery long ago. But, if anyone should be embarrassed, it's Democrats. The Democratic Party fought to preserve slavery. The Republicans overcame Democratic opposition and defeated slavery.

Cheers

David in Cal said...

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/try_not_burning_federal_courthouse_07-26-2020.jpg

David Appell said...

"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. **AS THE** Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction."

(emphasis mine)

original source:
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jul/26/bill-by-cotton-targets-curriculum-on-slavery/

Saying "As the" means he agrees with the Founding Fathers. Then saying "but the union" makes it even clearer.

David Appell said...

"Fox’s Judge Nap Calls Out Feds in Portland: They’ve ‘Incited’ Violence," The Daily Beast, 7/28/20.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-judge-napolitano-calls-out-feds-in-portland-theyve-incited-violence

He went on to say that while it is defensible to surround the federal courthouse with fencing and armed agents to protect it, it is another thing “for them to go out stirring things up in the street” with protesters expressing their opinion.

“It is an unorthodox way to express political opinions in the middle of the night in the area where nobody lives,” the judge added. “But political dissent is part of our heritage and our culture and it is how the country began.”

Anchor Neil Cavuto wondered aloud whether Napolitano agreed with local and state leaders that the feds’ presence has “actually instigated or incited more violence” in the city.

“I do think they have incited more than what ordinarily would be the case primarily because of their continuous hour-long barrages of tear gas,” Napolitano responded. “It is a very serious form of tear gas.”

Noting that the tear gas used by federal agents in Portland is “prohibited in wartime,” the libertarian judge then criticized the reckless and careless way it’s been deployed.

“But they are using it indiscriminately so it affects people who are there to watch and people who are there to express a political opinion,” he exclaimed. “The government can’t be doing that. That is why the locals want them out.”

David in Cal said...

David - Don't you also agree with the Founding Fathers? Do you think the Southern states would have joined the new US if the Constitution prohibited slavery?

Cheers

David Appell said...

No, I don't agree. Nothing -- NOTHING -- justifies slavery.

Are you saying the inclusion of the southern states did justify slavery?

David in Cal said...

David - The phrase "justifying slavery" isn't quite right. Cotton was quoting Abraham Lincoln justifying a compromise that allowed the Southern states to maintain a system of slavery.

Ending slavery was not the issue in 1787. No way that was going to happen. The Southern states were going to retain slavery, either as a part of the US or as its own separate country. I agree with Abraham Lincoln that the Constitution and the structure of the US set a path that would led to the end of slavery.

Suppose the Founding Fathers took today's ultra-righteous, virtue-signaling POV and refused to compromise on the issue of slavery. If the Founding Fathers had not made this compromise, the Southern states would have created their own country. There would have been no United States as we know it today. Furthermore, slavery would probably have lasted longer, since it would have been unopposed in a stand-alone Southern country.

Cheers