A Real Insurrection Now in Arizona


Recommended Posts

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage

https://nypost.com/2022/06/25/arizona-abortion-protest-police-release-tear-gas-lawmakers-held-hostage-in-senate-building/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage

https://foxmetronews.com/news/breaking-arizona-senate-evacuated-after-pro-choice-rioters-and-teachers-breach-security/

https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/dozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling/75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818

And a a Twitter Video

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1540548828696150016?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1540548828696150016|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.12news.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling%2F75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818

It was declared a "hostage situation" when state senators were not allowed to leave their chambers for fear of their lives.

This really was a literal insurrection.  It was not just a random mob people with similar interests.  It was not a bunch of people protesting and letting their emotions get the better of them.  It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest).  Their intent was to destroy property, vandalize, intimidate (and likely kill) senators.

The police response was proportional and reactionary.  The main tactic wasn't to arrest large numbers of people.  The tactic was to disperse and allow the senators to be free.  

Compare that to how they treated Jan 6th.

NOTE: From CNN WP, etc.  They headlined the fact that police used tear gas rather than the danger that was posed to the senators.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/24/us/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-protests/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/roe-protest-disrupts-last-hours-of-2022-arizona-legislature/2022/06/25/7dce1366-f47f-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html

They don't dare show the videos of just how bad these actors were.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Carborendum changed the title to A Real Insurrection Now in Arizona

Sounds very much like the same actions as Jan. 6th, except for this part: "It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest). "

Is there footage of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Sounds very much like the same actions as Jan. 6th, except for this part: "It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest). "

Is there footage of that?

There was.  I can't find it anymore.  Thanks, Twitter (I'm guessing).

The "uniforms" were a group of people all clad in black with masks -- like you'd see from ANTIFA, but you could see by their mannerisms that they were not ANTIFA.  They were something else.

The weapons were the wood posts that some were using to carry signs that were then used to try to break the glass on the buildings.  That was the point where they shot the tear gas at the protesters.

And there was video of the palm tree outside smoking.  But it isn't clear if that was from the police or the protesters.

From the police website:

Quote

What began as a peaceful protest evolved into anarchical and criminal actions by masses of splinter groups. As groups realized the state legislature was in session, they attempted to breach the doors of the Arizona Senate and force their way into the building. The violence of their efforts literally shook the building and terrified citizens and law makers who occupied the building. As the glass doors bowed from attempts of forced entry, the occupants of the building were instructed to move to secure locations.

So, just like Jan 6, the majority were protesting peacefully.  But there were agitators.  And I believe it was those agitators I saw in black.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

“Mostly peaceful”

This was the description from the police department.  And I'm inclined to believe it.  It was the same with Jan 6th.

My neighbor was there on Jan 6th.  She said that it was supposed to be very standard as protests go.  March around. Hold signs. Shout trite sayings...  But she saw some people doing weird things.  Many people noticed it.  She decided to get herself out of there.  Good thing too.  She might be rotting in a gulag right now as well.

Unfortunately, the idea of third party agitators never crossed their minds.  They just figured it was some extremist group that was still supporting what the same cause.  But with the benefit of hindsight, it was most certainly the third party agitators.

I get the impression that it was a similar situation here.  The only difference was who was doing the banging on doors and windows.

  • In DC, the ones banging on doors and windows didn't start until after the police already let them into the building.  And only a few were tearing things down.
  • In Arizona, a few started banging on the locked doors without police opening anything up.  Then everyone in the protest joined in.  They all began trying to break the glass.  Then the police launched the tear gas.

In DC, common protesters were arrested.  The agitators were let go.

In Arizona, no one was arrested.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nope.  The police specifically pointed that out.  No one was even arrested.  Their only desire was to disperse the protesters.

Thank you. It definitely should be pointed out, but then again I'm not surprised especially with regards to how the riots were treated also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Sometimes dispersing the riot is more important than arresting the riot.

Yes. Whenever the rioters are leftist, it's much more important to disperse the riot. Only the rare conservative riots merit actually arresting and charging the rioters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 9:21 PM, Vort said:

Yes. Whenever the rioters are leftist, it's much more important to disperse the riot. Only the rare conservative riots merit actually arresting and charging the rioters.

 

No, sometimes dispersing the riot is more important than arresting the riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

 

No, sometimes dispersing the riot is more important than arresting the riot.

What is the determining factor?  Is it ever one specific thing or are there many factors?   Also who makes the decision - several at the front lines according to training or is it the responsibility of a specific level supervisor?

Thanks in advance - I very much appreciate your experience, expertise and openness.

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What is the determining factor?  Is it ever one specific thing or are there many factors?   Also who makes the decision - several at the front lines according to training or is it the responsibility of a specific level supervisor?

Thanks in advance - I very much appreciate your experience, expertise and openness.

 

The Traveler 

 

Someone is in command on scene.  That is usually a Sgt. or higher and they would make the decision.  There are a lot of factors that go into play in such decisions.  We could play the "what if" game all day long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Someone is in command on scene.  That is usually a Sgt. or higher and they would make the decision.  There are a lot of factors that go into play in such decisions.  We could play the "what if" game all day long.

Thanks for your response.  From my military experience I think I understand a little better.  Perhaps my most important lesson from the military was that often the individual in charge can make the wrong decision (according to guide lines and intelligence).  But the lesson is that when command makes a wrong (improper) decision it is always best to carry out the orders as given in the midst of a crisis.  Any attempt to discuss or debate the issue will most likely turn out to be worse than the faulty commands.  

However, I am also aware (from military experience) that there are rules of engagement and training.  I understand such things so that those involved can act in unison with minimal communications.  From my military experience the rules of engagement is most often made by someone removed from the theater of action - something I often thought was not the best way to conduct operations when many lives are at stake.  Training - I believe to be more critical.  Acting outside of training I personally believe to be a big mistake.  Thus my questions - which would best be answered by what is the training - especially for those in command.

If your guide lines in doing your job is to minimize information so not to give advantage to opposition in a crisis - I understand and support that.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 9:21 PM, Vort said:

Yes. Whenever the rioters are leftist, it's much more important to disperse the riot. Only the rare conservative riots merit actually arresting and charging the rioters.

What I've seen, individual cops and police agencies are rarely anyone's political arm.  The district attorneys in charge of prosecution, however, are another matter.  2020 was full of stories out of places like Seattle and Portland, where cops would arrest and bring in people, DAs refused to prosecute, folks got sprung in time for the next riot.  

And of course, the decriminalize-stuff movement had a bunch of legislators making things like vandalism and theft not-arrestable offenses.  Colorado Springs cops flat out told me they usually don't arrest for simple assaults, unless there are other factors at play.  Basically, you can walk up behind someone, deck 'em hard, hang around to get your ticket and summons, then go back to your lunch.   Sometimes this can be due to jail capacity too.

But yeah, the notion that Mirkwood and team only beats up on maga-hat wearing folks, and turns a blind eye to black bloc wearing flash theft mobs, yeah, doesn't really work that way.

Now, when there's protesters and counter-protesters that start fighting, sometimes cops will see things on the ground, and one side ends up getting cuffed.  No matter who started it/was more dangerous/engaged in criminal activity, the media and video from the scene will usually be edited and spun to portray one side's narrative.  One person's "Rich white guy runs over black student peacefully protesting", is another person's "the elderly driver was surrounded when stopped at a red light, and accelerated to save his own life after they started busting his windows to get at him".  

Tomorrow marks the 2 year anniversary of this stuff visiting Provo, UT.  The video is still up:  https://universe.byu.edu/2020/06/30/two-sides-collide-leading-to-march-down-university-ave/    Does anyone else remember all the many ways that thing was portrayed?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

But yeah, the notion that Mirkwood and team only beats up on maga-hat wearing folks, and turns a blind eye to black bloc wearing flash theft mobs, yeah, doesn't really work that way.

 

No it doesn't, but I do love how both sides now claim that cops pick on them.  I guess those pick up trucks rocking “Back the Blue” bumper stickers will have to take them off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mirkwood said:

No, sometimes dispersing the riot is more important than arresting the riot.

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

What I've seen, individual cops and police agencies are rarely anyone's political arm.

Agreed, police forces are not the primary culprit behind such selective treatment.

When I was at Penn State in the early 1990s, there was a (minority, obviously) conservative newspaper on campus that had all its papers stolen two or three times. The perps were finally caught; two young women. Upon their admission to having stolen the newspapers, their judge refused to pass any significant punishment on them other than saying "tsk, tsk". Not even a fine. Not even a demand for court costs. Rather, the judge made it crystal clear that any revenge newspaper-stealing by conservatives would be met with the full authority of the courts. This kind of hypocrisy of uneven enforcement based on whether or not you're leftist is hardly new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Agreed, police forces are not the primary culprit behind such selective treatment.

When I was at Penn State in the early 1990s, there was a (minority, obviously) conservative newspaper on campus that had all its papers stolen two or three times. The perps were finally caught; two young women. Upon their admission to having stolen the newspapers, their judge refused to pass any significant punishment on them other than saying "tsk, tsk". Not even a fine. Not even a demand for court costs. Rather, the judge made it crystal clear that any revenge newspaper-stealing by conservatives would be met with the full authority of the courts. This kind of hypocrisy of uneven enforcement based on whether or not you're leftist is hardly new.

 

That would be an issue of the courts, not the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for your response.  From my military experience I think I understand a little better.  Perhaps my most important lesson from the military was that often the individual in charge can make the wrong decision (according to guide lines and intelligence).  But the lesson is that when command makes a wrong (improper) decision it is always best to carry out the orders as given in the midst of a crisis.  Any attempt to discuss or debate the issue will most likely turn out to be worse than the faulty commands.  

However, I am also aware (from military experience) that there are rules of engagement and training.  I understand such things so that those involved can act in unison with minimal communications.  From my military experience the rules of engagement is most often made by someone removed from the theater of action - something I often thought was not the best way to conduct operations when many lives are at stake.  Training - I believe to be more critical.  Acting outside of training I personally believe to be a big mistake.  Thus my questions - which would best be answered by what is the training - especially for those in command.

If your guide lines in doing your job is to minimize information so not to give advantage to opposition in a crisis - I understand and support that.

 

The Traveler

 

Correct, I will not give away tactics.

 

We do sometimes have the problem of decisions being made "off scene" and it can cause problems.  Boots on the ground often have a better picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share