Can't wait for the usual suspects to wring their hands about how uncivil LA protestors gave Trump an excuse to abuse his authority, and if they had just been peaceful and respectful to ICE everything would be ok.

It hasn't even been 6 months and we're on the cusp of martial law.

Thanks, American Voters, you stupid fucks.

I have friends and family who said after November 5, "At least we're in a blue state, so we'll be okay." How's that working out, mom?

@1

You have to admit that protesters waving the Mexican and El Salvadorian flags is exactly the television footage that Trump, our showman in chief, was hoping for.

The funniest use of the billboard would be to keep it up but have it promote social- and food-justice messages.

I think the more interesting question is how long before our local brigade of LARPers joins the fray and starts blocking freeways and spray painting around the city again? I've already seen notes for nationwide calls to protest this weekend so think carefully as you make your plans to get around.

@4 Yeah, especially because marching through the Capitol with a Confederate flag is totally cool with him.

@6: "Notes for nationwide calls"?

There's been a planned "No Kings" protest on June 14/Army's 250th/Motherfucker's birthday for a month already.

@6

Unfortunately it is.

It is important to deal with the world we live in and not the world we wish we lived in.

Trump knows that footage of protesters throwing rocks at law enforcement while waving a Mexican flag will make it harder for opponents to oppose him, make his use of the National Guard more difficult to oppose.

I thought accepting a pardon was an admission of guilt. How are the Jan-sixers suing?

Greta is not missing or kidnapped. She is detained and will be deported.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clyg5x15n3zt

@9
It seems then that Newsom & Co. should be calling for those ‘mostly peaceful’ protesters to stand down. Maybe he has, but I haven’t seen it.
Personally, I agree that ICE, LAPD and any other law enforcement agency should be withdrawn.

@10 It's a frivolous lawsuit. But as Ashli Babbit's family just showed, the feds are totally willing to settle frivolous wrongful death/wrongful prosecution lawsuits for 7 figure sums. Look for a rapid settlement with the Proud Boys becoming millionaires off the public dime.

Ask old europeans if appeasing and avoiding upsetting fascists bears good results.

With lines of burning cars, Newsome can see his presidential ambitions literally going up in smoke.

@12 the thing is ICE will certainly not ever be withdrawn if all people do is ask nicely.

@9 if your opposition to authoritarianism is conditioned on people not waving certain flags or holding certain signs you don't actually oppose authoritarianism

Trump is too kind. Rather than calling in the National Guard he could have closed the CA / Mexican border crossings or even grounded all international flights in / out of CA. I guarantee those measures would result in an instant reversal of sanctuary policies throughout CA.

Still, the Guard will make it much safer and more efficient for ICE to arrest and remove criminal aliens, so thank God for them.

It was pointed out that a large number of CA Guard troops are likely also CA law enforcement officers. Before they were called up they were unable to aid in the removal of illegal aliens and now they can. Justice!

Greta is so desperate to stay in the media and stay relevant. She can't possibly go work a normal job since she was once a very minor celebrity. But she should brush up on her office skills because nobody in the free world gives a damn.

@17: yeah, we know you've got a hard on for martial law.

it would be so much easier to round up scores of undocumented by raiding midwest meatpacking plants, but that wouldn't give "too kind" motherfucker the Reichstag fire he's looking for, would it.

Ooh, ooh, I've got another great idea.

Since the LA protesters like shutting down freeways so much, CBP could establish a few immigration checkpoints on LA freeways. Another way to frustrate drivers so much that the sanctuary laws would be repealed as quickly as Newsom could convene the Legislature.

@17:

You couldn't guarantee shit if it were coming out of your asshole. You think the governor of the world's eighth largest economy is going to kiss the ring of a two-bit wannabe Mussolini, you have another think coming. You don't douse a fire by throwing more fuel on it, especially when someone doesn't actually want to quell protests; he wants a flare-up, because he thinks that will give him cover to engage in even more egregious and illegal actions against citizens.

As for Thunberg, I can assure you that plenty of people in the free world give a damn about the ongoing genocide in Gaza; Thunberg is simply keeping it in the spotlight amidst all of the latest distracting media zone-flooding being conducted by the Netanyahu regime and our current administration.

And for the record: nobody elected you as the Person Who Determines What Everyone Else Cares About, so you can just go and fuck right off with your load of tosh, you gobby cockwomble.

@18 - I wouldn't advocate for martial law (which is not defined in the US Code by the way) because I want legal citizens to enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I absolutely would advocate raiding all meatpacking plants, regardless of the State in which they are located.

But let's be realistic. CA has the most illegal aliens so CA needs the most enforcement. Sanctuary policies be damned.

@13, Using the standard usually applied by The Stranger and many of its commenters to law enforcement use of deadly force, Ashley Babbitt's death was an unnecessary travesty of justice. The officer that shot her should be charged and her estate is entitled to a payout.

She was not attempting to use a weapon on anyone at the time she was shot. She should have been taken into custody to face a judge for justice, not a cops bullet. There was no evidence that she individually had done anything other than Trespass and possibly damage property. There was no showing in the moment, or after that fact, that Babbitt individually, intended to do more than unlawfully occupy and damage a public building. Nothing to point to in her individual case that she intended to overthrow the government, even if others in the crowd did (and were later convicted and pardoned for such an attempt). What Babbitt did is not a death sentence crime in this country, and we don't try people collectively for crimes, or punish people for acts of others.

We don't shoot pro-Palestinian protesters for occupying and doing millions in damage to a public building at the U.W. We arrest them and charge them, INDIVIDUALLY, for Trespass, felony Criminal Mischief.

Do you change the standard for evaluating law enforcement shootings because the civil disobedience, in the form of property damage and trespass, was driven by a point of view you don't like (e.g. the false belief that their was fraud in the 2020 election)? Apparently so in your case. What other false beliefs that people protest about subjects them to a cop being judge, jury, and executioner for Trespass and property damage?

I don't. The Babbitt shooting was criminally justified. The failure of law enforcement on January 6, was not using enough force, and enough deadly force, earlier in the day when it became justifiable from a criminal point of view.

I am skeptical of most civil payouts when there is no criminal culpability; however, our system permits and encourages that outcome. If we don't like that, we need to look at returning more sovereign immunity back to the government from their acts and omissions.

That said, there are many criminally justified shootings that get 7 figure payouts, arguing after the fact, that law enforcement, a business owner, or a citizen, while they are criminally justified in their use of force, but allegedly failed to use other means available to resolve the situation with less lethal force in the manner a reasonably prudent person could have. Hindsight becomes 20/20 in a civil case. Even if the Feds win in front of a civil jury, they don't get the tax dollars expended for legal fees back, so they settle for less than the legal fees from protracted litigation. Even if they prevail 100% over a plaintiff and pay zero damages, the taxpayer loses five, six, or seven figures.

BTW, in Washington State, $201 million is the annual cost of lawsuit settlements and jury award from the State's Department of Youth and Family, excluding legal fees. It's 60% of the State of Washington's annual payouts to Plaintiff's.

Should we take those social worker's pensions and apply them to the settlement and jury awards? Force those social workers to declare bankruptcy to vacate their personal debt to the Plaintiff after they lose the suit? Force them to bear the cost of defending the suits? That is the argument that is regularly made here for when a civil payout is made for public employees doing law enforcement work. If it should apply to payments or awards to plaintiffs alleging negligent acts of omission or commission by one kind of public employee, shouldn't it be applied to all public employees alleged to have been negligent in their job in order to be intellectually and legally consistent? Isn't that consistency and equal treatment of citizens employed by the government required under the 14th Amendment?

@20 - yes, Newsom would be kissing Trump's ring in 30 seconds flat if the Feds closed the border / international ports of entry and instituted freeway immigration checkpoints. Kiss the ring or be run out of office at the business end of a pitchfork.

@22 your right that Babbitt wasn't an imminent threat when she was shot and didn't need to be killed. And I fully support any social worker who uses deadly force on a person and unjustifiably causes their death being personally responsible for the legal settlement rather than the taxpayers. Is that something that happens a lot?

Stephen Miller is an honorless Romulan scumbag best suited as a toilet brush.

@8 sure there was a protest planned but now that LA has descended into chaos there is a much higher probability that our local dipshits take the opportunity to move on from trans rights to immigrants right and start tearing up the city yet again.

@25 Please don't insult Romulans like that! Even calling Pee Wee German a rat is an insult to sewer rats everywhere.

Everyone breaking into the capitol on J6 was an imminent threat. They were openly plotting to kill people for fucks sake. It was an act of restraint on the officer’s part that she was the only one to be shot.

Who the fuck expects to break into a government facility and not be at risk of getting shot? Someone who is unble to internalize that risk before charging over a barricade headfirst with a gun pointed at them is also at fault for their decision not to step away.

@27: Yes, but likely a Klingon though.

@24, It happens to the tune of $201 million dollars a year of some social worker's alleged negligence leading to the alleged injury, death, or neglect of a kid because of something the social worker and their agency was legally obligated to do, and allegedly failed to do, or did in an allegedly negligent manner.

So yes, based on the records of $201 million worth of civil cases, these social workers acts and omissions result in a lot of trauma, injury, abuse, and death of kids. More kids die on the Department of Youth and Families watch than die at the hand of law enforcement on their watch.

@31 you're talking about negligence I'm talking about intentional infliction of deadly force when not justified. Any social workers shoot someone for no good reason, or kneel on someone's neck until they suffocate? If so they should be personally on the financial hook. If not your analogy doesn't really hold up.

@22 If spinning out false equivalences and putting words in people's mouths was an Olympic sport, you'd have a lock on the gold.

@13 was an explanation as to why the Proud Boys are filing suit even after they admitted guilt. You took that and spun it into fantasy gold, all the while presuming that I agree with The Stranger's purported editorial position that you've more or less invented after rage-reading for a couple of decades.

Hint: If it had been possible to individually arrest Ashli Babbitt, I'm quite sure she wouldn't have been shot. Given that there was a mob on her side of the door slavering for police blood and only a few cops on the chamber side of the door, of course they shot her. It's regrettable but absolutely understandable. And before you go spinning off again, I'd say exactly the same thing if cops shot a pro-Palestine protestor in a similar situation (outnumbered cops defending a building, protestors already have assaulted and seriously injured cops, protestors calling for murder of people inside the building, protestors breaking down a door, protestors ordered to stop at gunpoint).

Fuck off, sea lion.

@28, Everyone of them? All of them went there with intent to kill?

None was charged with attempted murder. None was charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Some were charged and convicted of crimes related to insurrection, unlawfully thwarting the government, etc. They were later pardoned by Trump. They were charged and convicted (rightly IMO) under the Biden Administration, that spared no effort in providing the FBI and other investigative resources to find and charge anyone they could with a crime they could win a conviction on.

You also seem not to understand the elements that justify the use of deadly force. It is not enough for someone to say, "Down with the government," "Stop the (so called) steal," "Pelosi must die," etc. and charge the Capitol or some other government institution. To use deadly force, there must be imminent, IN THAT MOMENT, threat of serious physical injury to an officer or another. A threat, by word or deed, and an act that puts someone in jeopardy in that instant. It means that in a confrontation, you can have in a matter of 30 or 90 seconds, justification for use of deadly force, no justification, justification, no justification, escalation of force by the threat, deesclation of force by the threat. The self-defense practitioner has to reasonably escalate up and down the force continuum to match the threat, within the limits of human reaction time and human capacity.

1/6 was a chaotic, disorganized mob, whipped to a frenzy by conspiracy theories and Donald Fucking Trump. Within that there were a few well organized mini-mobs prepared to use violence and deadly force to up end our democracy and install their cult leader as dictator.

Those that allowed themselves to swept up into the frenzy and invade the Capitol are not innocent. They are guilty of the acts of trespass, or vandalism, etc. that they went along with. Without a demonstration of the elements of crimes like murder, insurrection, etc. they are innocent of those serious crimes.

@30. Few Klingons would stoop so low as to consort with honorless Romulans, other than perhaps the Duras Sisters and the lowly D'Ghor. Miller's heart is not Klingon, and if he were so he would be shamefully dispensed with summary discommendation for his treachery and defilement of honor.

@30: I'll take a bow to your expertise, but recall that tribbles hate Klingons and would feel the same about Steven Miller.

34 there is no way in hell im reading all this but the officers had every reason to believe they were in imminent danger when a violent mob was breaking down the door and I doubt a jury would convict him if a case managed to make it to that stage. Not sure what you think you’re doing here but you’re not very good at it.

@25, 30, 35, 36

Stephen Miller doesn't have the honor or courage to be a Klingon, nor the guile and cunning to be a Romulan.

Alas, he is all too human, as over 10,000 years of recorded and archaeological history make clear.

@25, 30, 35, 36 and 38:
Ferengi for the win.

@37,

In Neale's deranged head, a person waving around a loaded gun isn't deemed to be a threat. That threat can not be objectively identified and acted upon until a bullet has been fired from said weapon and is more than half the distance from the firearm's barrel and it's intended target.

@39

“But you’re overlooking something. Humans used to be a lot worse than the Ferengi. Slavery, concentration camps, interstellar wars. We have nothing in our past that approaches that kind of barbarism. You see? We’re nothing like you. We’re better.”

@37 "Not sure what you think you’re doing here but you’re not very good at it."

They're making everyone argue in favor of the cop, so the next time people are mad cops busted down the door to the wrong house and killed a Black woman in her bed they can say "bu bu but Ashli Babbitt!"

"Remember on the campaign trail when Trump threatened to sic the National Guard on liberal cities?"

Wow, sounds pretty bad! If only there had been a recent presidential election where the Stranger could have relentlessly editorialized in favor of the Democratic Party candidate for President, who would not be engaging in this sort of behavior.

@43 what percent of the blame for Harris losing do you ascribe to The Stranger and can you explain how you arrived at that figure? As part of that can you specify the states that Harris did not win (so not WA) in which you believe a critical mass of voters take their electoral cues from a Seattle alt weekly?

@44: What evidence would you accept that the Stranger gets any blame at all?

I'm guessing you would never accept the Stranger getting any blame at all, and therefore your questions have no honesty behind them.

(Also, how did the Stranger justify ignoring or minimizing the dangers inherent to another Trump administration? Why was anything else deemed more important than that?)

@44 — I think that the effort by people like you and The Stranger to relentlessly damage Democratic Party candidates so that Donald Trump could win was bad, and it unfortunately damaged the standing of a variety of Democratic Party candidates up and down the ballot, to include Kamala Harris, so that Donald Trump won and the GOP controls Congress. The fact that The Stranger now repeatedly publishes stories about how Donald Trump and the Republican Party is bad is a good thing, but it only matters if when the time comes they (and you) are as relentless in supporting the Democratic Party candidate for President in the future as they (and you) have been in trying to damage them in the past.

@45 "What evidence would you accept that the Stranger gets any blame at all?"

Well, to start, how about * any *

@37, I agree with you about the Officer's reasonable perception of threat justifying the use of deadly force.

@40's analysis is typically not good enough for The Stranger and its commenters in a police shooting. In that hypothetical, The Stranger and its commenters would likely argue the police used deadly force prematurely, because the only way to objectively establish that the threat was real, rather than firing near someone to scare them, is to see the bullet actually hits.

All of a sudden because its a January 6 criminal, with ideology they don't like, and shouldn't like, they are much more permissive about when deadly force is justified.

The point is The Stranger and their commenters are changing the justification based on the ideology of the person making the threat, rather than having it be the reasonable perception of the threat, regardless of the ideology of the person making it.

@9: "...footage of protesters throwing rocks at law enforcement while waving a Mexican flag will make it harder for opponents to oppose him,"

Yes, and furthermore, it should be blatantly obvious to the most casual of observers that ICE intended to provoke such a response, by wading into a well-known market for undocumented labor. Responding with violent tantrums simply played into his hands.

@47: That wasn't the question. Fail harder next time.

@49 "Responding with violent tantrums simply played into his hands"

https://www.instagram.com/p/DKsVQwFpFgl

@34 I have no idea what you stand for. You pick the most random stuff to argue about. Half the time you come across like a Trump supporter and then you'll say something negative about Trump and I remember you're just really, really dumb.

@47: TBF, you did answer my question, albeit indirectly. As Bax noted @46, the Stranger did all of the damage it possibly could to the Democrats' election chances, and you're not accepting that as evidence. (Plus, it's fun watching you, post facto, deride your own strident advocacy as merely irrelevant noise, producing nothing.)

@50: Like it or not, ICE was enforcing our laws as written. Some of the protestors were breaking the law. Again, that plays right into his hands, and that you're unable or unwilling to see this just makes you part of the problem.

@52 "As Bax noted @46, the Stranger did all of the damage it possibly could to the Democrats' election chances, and you're not accepting that as evidence"

Correct, I do not accept you guys' unsupported opinion statements as "evidence"

@53: And my point was, and remains, there is no such thing as evidence which you will accept. Just as there is no evidence you will accept of Sawant being a Trump supporter (and much of the evidence supports both points).

You have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which you endlessly claim to be true, and you'll simply hand-wave away any and all evidence which -- in reality -- completely invalidates it.

Max Solomon, COMTE, and CDizzle: +3 for the WIN!!!