There will always be some opportunistic groups looking to cause more mayhem in chaotic situations like this. These protests have been literally “mostly peaceful” no?
>> This type of revelation will likely be commonplace in the days/weeks ahead as militant extremists are exposed.
> There will always be some opportunistic groups looking to cause more mayhem in chaotic situations like this. These protests have been literally “mostly peaceful” no?
Exactly. Didn't "Bugaloo Bois" try to hijack the Black Lives Matter protests?
I think it's important to be careful, and not try to paint an entire protest movement with a small unreasonable minority that may be within or adjacent to it.
Several of the most prominent acts of violence during the BLM protests were indeed Boogaloo Boys (murders of multiple police officers in Oakland, arson at a police precinct in Minneapolis, shooting up a different precinct with an AK-47 while shouting "Justice for Floyd!")
> According to the complaint, Hunter would later post multiple messages on Facebook bragging of his actions in Minneapolis on the night of 28 May and morning of 29 May, writing, “I set fire to that precinct with the Black community,” and, “My mom would call the FBI if she knew.”
“I’ve burned police stations with Black Panthers in Minneapolis,” he claimed in one message, and in another, “The BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me.”
Did you read the article? The quotes from the person bragging about burning down the police station was a BB from Texas who drove 1,200 miles to Minneapolis to foment unrest.
> According to the criminal complaint against Hunter, on 26 May, as intense protests broke out in Minneapolis over the killing of George Floyd by a city police officer, a “Boogaloo Boi” based in Minnesota posted a public Facebook message: “I need a headcount.”
> Hunter, a resident of Boerne, Texas, which is roughly 1,200 miles away, responded: “72 hours out. Another “Boogaloo Boi”, based in North Carolina, posted a public message the same day: “Lock and load boys,” he wrote, adding, “the national network is going off.”
> Prosecutors say that Hunter would later describe himself to Austin police officers as “the leader of the Boogaloo Bois in south Texas”.
> By 28 May, during a night of the most intense unrest and destruction in the city, Hunter was in Minneapolis, just as the 3rd precinct police station, known locally as a “playground for renegade cops”, was being set on fire.
1. He did not burn down the building, per your own source. He was nearby and "assisted". His charge is, from ABC:
> Federal investigators said they reviewed video of Hunter firing rounds with his AK-47 style assault rifle into the Third Precinct building while looters were still inside and that he also *helped assist* them in setting the building on fire.
(emphasis added)
2. The people who did burn down the building are not Boogaloo associated. See my original link.
He wasn't charged with burning down the building -- others were -- that is correct. In any case, a Boogaloo dipshit drove from Texas to Minnesota and was at the site of the police precinct that was burned down and then bragged to his friends that he burned it down.. all the while communicating with the boog dipshit who murdered the police officers in Oakland.
> For example, On May 30, HUNTER sent a message to another individual stating, "I set fire to that precinct with the black community," followed by "Minneapolis third precinct." On May 31, HUNTER sent the following message to another individual: "My mom would call the fbi if she knew what I do and at the level I'm at w[ith] it."
> HUNTER posted other messages on Facebook about his activities in Minneapolis. On June 10, HUNTER posted "I've burned police stations with black panthers in Minneapolis" and "I helped the community bum down that police station in Minneapolis." HUNTER also posted, "I didn't' protest peacefully Dude ... Want something to change? Start risking felonies for what is good."
So by his own words, he helped burn it down. DOJ couldn't find enough to charge him with that -- and by no means were the BBs the only ones causing violence & destruction in MN during the riots -- but the immediate presence of a 'fire team' of far-right agitators sure seems important.
> Under the new law, an Oklahoma driver will no longer be liable for striking — or even killing — a person if the driver is “fleeing from a riot ... under a reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to protect the motor vehicle operator from serious injury or death.”
Super disingenuous to characterize that as "it's legal to run over protesters".
> The person you drove over doesn't get to give an alternative story to this necessity, nor do they have to be somebody that you're fleeing from.
Agreed. This is one of many reasons why rioting is awful—it creates these dangerous scenarios where ordinary people have to make split second life-or-death decisions. Frankly, I wish rioting was prosecuted more aggressively rather than blaming people who are stuck in situations where they have to defend themselves (“but they don’t need to be there!” <- people have the right to assemble in public, but rioters don’t have the right to create dangerous situations).
> I don't think it's reasonable to defend yourself from somebody by going up to a passer by and shooting them
This is an embarrassingly obvious straw man. No one is arguing for the right to kill a third party to defend oneself against another, the argument is that people should be given a pass if they accidentally hit someone while fleeing for their life. It’s one thing to disagree with that, but it’s an entirely different thing to lie about the law or the argument.
Occasionally self-defense laws protect guilty people, but that doesn't imply that the law isn't a self-defense law. I'm sure there's lots of good criticism of this law, but characterizing it as the OP did is patent dishonesty. Even Vox wasn't willing to go that far ffs.
For the purpose of your claim that the law legalized killing protesters, it doesn’t matter.
That said, per my previous comment, there may be lots to criticize about this law, including that it may have been superfluous. I’m not a lawyer, but my best guess is that existing self-defense law didn’t clearly absolve the victim of injury or death to bystanders as she pursued her own safety. But again, none of that has anything to do with what’s going on in Canada.
Sleep deprivation and continuous noise is considered torture under Geneva Convention and by the U.N.[1] and Canadian law[2]. U.S. and others have been condemned heavily for using such techniques and U.S. has since stopped (at least officially) even in black ops places like Gitmo.
Protests and blockade are one thing, continuous noise in areas where people live and work is not peaceful .
It seems super disingenuous to imply that noisy protests are "violent" by citing laws and regulations which pertain to the treatment of detainees.
Our media entertained a serious debate about whether looting or burning a neighborhood to the ground was "violence" or not, and the many preferred to refer to these events as "fiery but mostly peaceful protests". How did we go from that to tenuous analogies of torture?
If your noisy neighbor was setting of a blowhorn with a high duty cycle for multiple days with the express intent to cause harm to you, it would probably be fair to call that some form of assault.
Good grief. Yes, a disturbance can refer to noise or violence, but that doesn't imply that a noise is violence. This is the lowest quality argumentation I've seen on this site for a while.
I'm giving a definition that applies to my own words. That's the way I meant distrubance. Also, it's not because something isn't violent that it isn't harmful.
You specifically likened it to assault. A noisy protest is annoying and it can disturb the quiet but it isn’t harmful in any sense that could be considered assault.
It sucks that your neighbor has gathered many large trucks and is honking them for 18 hours a day in order to compel you to do something. Why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Now that you know you're being tortured what are your plans?
Depends on how you define peaceful; if you consider it peaceful to make enough noise in a neighbourhood such that thousands cannot sleep there for weeks, then yes.
Yes. I've seen no evidence of stores being looted, businesses burned, or anybody throwing rocks at police -- all of which were common in 2020 BLM protests.
As for the police - helps that a lot of them were tacitly helping the rioters. As usual, giving them fuel and supplies, and ignoring clear-cut violations of the law. Why throw rocks at an ally?
Toronto and other cities may have shut them down, but the Ottawa cops were pretty much assisting. Not really a surprise, cops are pretty right-wing aligned in general.
On the footage, he described seeing two individuals lighting a fire in the lobby shortly after 5 a.m. Sunday. After the suspects leave, another individual is seen coming into view and quickly extinguishing the fire near the elevators, Munoz said.
...
Police have not confirmed any link between their investigation into this incident and the ongoing convoy protest.
