Berkeley Police Department firing stun grenades against political opposition?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice conspiracy theory, but how does that explain Oakland police beating the crap out of anti Iraq war protesters and Occupy Oakland? As well as them beating up some anti police brutality protesters in Berkeley (where they were called into for backup) a couple of years ago, definitely a bad move there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They (the authorities) will end up caving to the antifa antibrains and just not letting anybody speak on campus that any individual on the left has a problem with.

Anyways, I see that people are deflecting from my chief point, which is that these are not free speech rallies.

I don't know wtf a "free speech rally"is.  From the selected pictures you've showed us it seems to be a neo-Nazi rally (but even that is in question).  Neo-Nazis have free speech, but they don't throw "free speech rallies". 

I wasn't a nazi rally. There were, I think, two dudes there throwing up nazi salutes and claiming to be national socialists. that was it.

It was a rally in favour of free speech because antifa thugs has successfully used violence to shut down a pro Trump rally a month and a half earlier in Berkeley, with the complicity of the Berkeley authorities. It was a rally for the principle that antifa activists should have absolutely no veto or say in who is and isn't allowed to speak and hold rallies publically, in Berkeley or anywhere else. That is why it was a free speech rally.

aye, I should have known that.  Hadn't really looked into this one yet.

The city of Berkeley police and UC Berkeley Police are two different departments. The city of Berkeley police didn't shut down anything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As can be seen again authorities in Berkeley using leftist violence as a tool for shutting down speech they don't like. The University authorities and the City authorities have been following the same playbook here.

Issue stand down orders to police authorities in the face of leftist violence so that rioters are able to lose any fear of negative consequences for their illegal behaviour and the violence grows and gets out of control.

Speak positively about the rioters and blame their violence on their targets, further encouraging such behaviour

And now the final aim of all this activity, tell conservative speaker "We'd be perfectly willing to host your event, unfortunately we can't allow it for safety reasons because of all the violence", in other words "we want to ban you and we're going to use as our excuse the very violence that we ourselves have encouraged"

The City of Berkeley has no say over whether Ann Coulter speaks on campus.

See the bit I bolded there. The University authorities have been encouraging leftist political violence (e.g. violence outside the planned Milo event), just like the city authorities have done on other occasions (e.g. the violence directed at the rally in the park on Saturday)

The university encouraged $100,000 in damage to their property? Hilarious theory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

OK, you're from the UK, so I guess I can understand you thinking this is some huge event, but in 2014 in Berkeley, the police used smoke stuff like this, kennels, and beat some up against anti police brutality protesters. Oakland police have done much worse.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

OK, you're from the UK, so I guess I can understand you thinking this is some huge event, but in 2014 in Berkeley, the police used smoke stuff like this, kennels, and beat some up against anti police brutality protesters. Oakland police have done much worse.

The difference is that in the 2014 'protest' there was a situation where rioters were engaging in criminal behaviour, blocking the highway and causing criminal damage. its the job of the police to prevent such behaviour and to disperse those engaging in such a riot, at first by requesting but then later by force, as they were forced to do after the crowd refused repeated police demands to disperse. The duty of the police to disperse people engaged in this kind of behaviour is the same irrespective of whatever 'cause' the rioters may or may not be supporting.

In the April 15th the Free Speech protest was not engaged in rioting. They were not engaged in blocking the traffic or damaging private property. They were not wanting to start any fights with antifa, merely defend themselves against aggressive violence from antifa who were threatening them and throwing projectiles in an effort to prevent them from holding a lawful rally in the park.

And it looks like Berkeley PD instead of making any effort to restrain and disperse those using criminal violence in an attempt to prevent a lawful protest (i.e. engage in domestic terrorism) were actually engaged in joining the antifa domestic terrorists in blasting dangerous projectiles at the lawful rally (presumably on order from higher ups). Do you not see how that falls under the category of political repression in a way that using force to disperse criminal rioters who refuse to disperse does not?

Those protesters were a heck of a lot more peaceful than the Trump people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember all those reports that antifa were throwing M-80 fireworks at the people in the Free Speech Demonstration. Well its looking like they weren't M-80s and they weren't thrown by antifa. The evidence is pointing to them being Police stun grenades fired by police

"This is a well presented and easy to understand video which appears to make a solid case that police munitions were fired by the Berkeley Police Department against Trump supporters, and in support of AntiFA thugs, last weekend.

The video was created by Thomas Wictor who is continuing to assemble more evidence.  WATCH, it is rather stunning to realize what could be happening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-xPS0G5nY

If the video is correct the FBI needs to immediately open an investigation into the use of police munitions against political opponents by Berkeley Police.

Update: 2nd Video Added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwRja6CMXNI  "

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/04/20/stunning-research-video-was-berkeley-police-department-supporting-antifa-violence/

OK, you're from the UK, so I guess I can understand you thinking this is some huge event, but in 2014 in Berkeley, the police used smoke stuff like this, kennels, and beat some up against anti police brutality protesters. Oakland police have done much worse.

The difference is that in the 2014 'protest' there was a situation where rioters were engaging in criminal behaviour, blocking the highway and causing criminal damage. its the job of the police to prevent such behaviour and to disperse those engaging in such a riot, at first by requesting but then later by force, as they were forced to do after the crowd refused repeated police demands to disperse. The duty of the police to disperse people engaged in this kind of behaviour is the same irrespective of whatever 'cause' the rioters may or may not be supporting.

In the April 15th the Free Speech protest was not engaged in rioting. They were not engaged in blocking the traffic or damaging private property. They were not wanting to start any fights with antifa, merely defend themselves against aggressive violence from antifa who were threatening them and throwing projectiles in an effort to prevent them from holding a lawful rally in the park.

And it looks like Berkeley PD instead of making any effort to restrain and disperse those using criminal violence in an attempt to prevent a lawful protest (i.e. engage in domestic terrorism) were actually engaged in joining the antifa domestic terrorists in blasting dangerous projectiles at the lawful rally (presumably on order from higher ups). Do you not see how that falls under the category of political repression in a way that using force to disperse criminal rioters who refuse to disperse does not?

Those protesters were a heck of a lot more peaceful than the Trump people.

The 2014 protestors were persistently behaving in an illegal manner, blocking the public highway and damaging property. The police repeatedly asked them to cease and desist. Only when they persistently failed to do so were the police left with no other option than to use force.

The overwhelming majority free speech protestors in Berkeley by contrast were doing nothing illegal. They were not blacking he highway, they were not damaging property and they were not engaged in violence for any reason other than lawful self defense. But I suppose for you whether police should use force against a crowd should depend more on whether the crowd represents "team left wing" than whether that crowd is actually engaged in criminal behaviour.

The violent crowd in Berkeley on the 15th was the Antifa crowd, as you know perfectly well. The police let them have free reign, perhaps something to do with Antifa leaders having good political connections in the city.

Actually the protesters in 2014 were generally peaceful at first and then the cops used smoke, kettles, and even beat up a middle aged white female pastor. If a middle aged white female pastor is fair game to beat up, I guess anyone is. The protests got a lot larger after that, and the cops learned that it's better to not beat up anti police brutality protesters.