LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[BmorePat87]

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

Recent leaks of law enforcement documents show a number of examples of LE agencies responding quite differently to BLM and antifa protestors compared to right wing militias and groups like Boogaloo.

While the documents show that law enforcement knew that far right groups posed a greater threat, there are numerous instances where liberal protests are over exaggerated to sound bad. In addition, far right perpetrators are made out to be lone wolves while BLM and antifa protestors are consistently treated as guilty by association for any sort of public dissent.

Days prior to Trump pushing for Antifa to be labeled a terrorist organization, DHS was warning law enforcement agencies of targeted attacks by far right groups. Despite this, an FBI memo about violent extremists sent out after Barr joined Trump's calls against antifa made no reference to any specific far right groups but targeted antifa and anarchists multiple times.

Across the country, LE agencies chased leads on antifa and there was a clear effort to link them to organized criminal activity. As more information came in about threats from groups like Boogaloo, the strategy was to draw comparisons between far right groups and antifa, even when their actions were not comparable. Portraying Antifa as a similar terrorist threat served as political red meat.

[fredtoast]

Antifa is a terrorist group, but no worse than Rise Above Movement and other violent alt-right wing groups.

The biggest screw up with the Charlottesville debacle was the FBIs failure to inform local officials what was coming. They had been tracking the violent right wing groups (as well as Antifa) and their activities at Berkley, Hunstville, and other violent confrontations in California. But there had not been a gathering as large as the "Unite the Right" rally.

The journalists who had been following the violence knew it would be a blood bath.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-15-2020, 07:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

Recent leaks of law enforcement documents show a number of examples of LE agencies responding quite differently to BLM and antifa protestors compared to right wing militias and groups like Boogaloo.

While the documents show that law enforcement knew that far right groups posed a greater threat, there are numerous instances where liberal protests are over exaggerated to sound bad. In addition, far right perpetrators are made out to be lone wolves while BLM and antifa protestors are consistently treated as guilty by association for any sort of public dissent.

Days prior to Trump pushing for Antifa to be labeled a terrorist organization, DHS was warning law enforcement agencies of targeted attacks by far right groups. Despite this, an FBI memo about violent extremists sent out after Barr joined Trump's calls against antifa made no reference to any specific far right groups but targeted antifa and anarchists multiple times.

Across the country, LE agencies chased leads on antifa and there was a clear effort to link them to organized criminal activity. As more information came in about threats from groups like Boogaloo, the strategy was to draw comparisons between far right groups and antifa, even when their actions were not comparable. Portraying Antifa as a similar terrorist threat served as political red meat.

Not at all surprising. Considering recently there was an NPR show which aired showing that it took National agencies ( not sure if it was FBI only or others included), years to even start taking far right and white supremacist groups as threats and assign resources accordingly relative to Islamic terrorism within the country, even though statistics showed the former to be much more likely to lead to a terrorist attack. 

I have to look up details of the program to be more detailed, but the above was the gist. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2020, 07:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Antifa is a terrorist group, but no worse than Rise Above Movement and other violent alt-right wing groups.

The biggest screw up with the Charlottesville debacle was the FBIs failure to inform local officials what was coming.  They had been tracking the violent right wing groups (as well as Antifa) and their activities at Berkley, Hunstville, and other violent confrontations in California.  But there had not been a gathering as large as the "Unite the Right" rally.

The journalists who had been following the violence knew it would be a blood bath.

The false equivalencies is the problem. Far right extremists accounted for 90% of extremist related murders in 2019. In the last decade, far left extremists account for 3 percent of all murders compared to 76% for right wing and 20% for Islamic extremists. 

Is there any evidence to suggest that antifa poses the same risk, both in terms of frequency and magnitude, as far right groups? 

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2020, 07:42 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Not at all surprising. Considering recently there was an NPR show which aired showing that it took National agencies ( not sure if it was FBI only or others included), years to even start taking far right and white supremacist groups as threats and assign resources accordingly relative to Islamic terrorism within the country, even though statistics showed the former to be much more likely to lead to a terrorist attack. 

I have to look up details of the program to be more detailed, but the above was the gist. 

I was going over numbers from the ADL, as I noted in my post above this one. In the same way they failed to catch up, they're now overcompensating for presumed widespread left wing violence.





https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2019#the-perpetrators

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 07:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Antifa is a terrorist group, but no worse than Rise Above Movement and other violent alt-right wing groups.

The biggest screw up with the Charlottesville debacle was the FBIs failure to inform local officials what was coming. They had been tracking the violent right wing groups (as well as Antifa) and their activities at Berkley, Hunstville, and other violent confrontations in California. But there had not been a gathering as large as the "Unite the Right" rally.

The journalists who had been following the violence knew it would be a blood bath.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but Antifa really isn't a "group." There is no organization or group beyond a small one out west. It's kin dof lik eBLM in that way, where the movement is far bigger than any organization.

[samhain]

While I do think that the current occupant of the WH certainly turns a blind eye to right wing groups, I'm not sure treatment of these groups indicates a definite bias from law enforcement.

I think that a lot of the modern far right groups are poorly defined and have stances that are somewhat misunderstood by authorities at the moment. Many of them hate BLM and are without a doubt racist, but they also hate law enforcement, perhaps even more. The boogaloo groups are strongly anti-cop and even more strongly anti-fed. Their tactics aren't really like anything that police/feds have seen from traditional skinheads/klan, etc.

These newer groups, like their left-wing counterparts, are more accelerators than anything. They want to make a bad situation worse for agencies trying to keep order. They are opportunistic and will use protests to undermine authorities, and they will even align themselves with brutality protesters to do it.

From what I've seen and read, they are just looking to the unrest as a chance to make things difficult for law enforcement and government. I'm not even sure that they are so much racist or nationalist as they are anti-gubmint.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-15-2020, 08:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was going over numbers from the ADL,

Hardly an unbiased source.

Quote:as I noted in my post above this one. In the same way they failed to catch up, they're now overcompensating for presumed widespread left wing violence.





https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2019#the-perpetrators

I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence.  While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent?  For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon?  My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-16-2020, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly an unbiased source.


I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence.  While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent?  For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon?  My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.

Hopefully you know I respect your opinions, but often charges capable of being falsified for the sake of making an arrest are not as definitive as murder.

I’ve been charged with ‘criminal trespassing’ just for the sake of hooking me up. Were it not for my ability to retain proper representation and the knowledge to shut the **** up in the process I wouldn’t be eligible for jobs I currently am.

A ‘deadly weapon’ seems pretty subjective, let alone assault.

**to be clear, its silly as hell that I felt the need to preface this comment as I did. My inclination to do so is pathetic. I’m out for a while and I’ll see if this place stands down the line. Be safe everyone.

[samhain]

(07-16-2020, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly an unbiased source.


I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence.  While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent?  For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon?  My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.

It probably says something in terms of intent.  I think it's fairly safe to say that people in leftist groups are just as capable of taking a life as people in right wing ones, so why aren't they?  Tearing stuff up and assaulting people is shitty, but it isn't murder.  When the far right acts violently, the outcome is much more likely to result in someone losing their life.  To me, that's a step up from destruction of property and street brawls.

[Dill]

(07-16-2020, 02:27 AM)samhain Wrote: It probably says something in terms of intent.  I think it's fairly safe to say that people in leftist groups are just as capable of taking a life as people in right wing ones, so why aren't they?  Tearing stuff up and assaulting people is shitty, but it isn't murder.  When the far right acts violently, the outcome is much more likely to result in someone losing their life.  To me, that's a step up from destruction of property and street brawls.

That question points to an explanation of why number-of-murders is a good indicator of unacceptable "violence" and danger to society.

If a group targets property rather than people, then I don't have a problem calling them "less violent," even if they break 500+ windows compared to a right wing group that only kills 5 people.  (The underlying assumption here is that people are more important than property; that's what makes murder "a step up.")

If a member of a white supremacist movement marches into a Sikh temple or a Baptist church shooting with intent to kill, I'd say his inclination towards violence is greater than BLM protestors who, in the heat of the moment, start throwing rocks back when attacked by police.

Actions and their results also have to be assessed with regard to intent and goals. People whose group goal is to kill peaceful citizens of a different race are a greater danger than people whose goal is to break windows or assault people whose group goal is to kill peaceful citizens of a different race.

[*Synric*]

(07-16-2020, 03:49 AM)Dill Wrote: That question points to an explanation of why number-of-murders is a good indicator of unacceptable "violence" and danger to society.

If a group targets property rather than people, then I don't have a problem calling them "less violent," even if they break 500+ windows compared to a right wing group that only kills 5 people.  (The underlying assumption here is that people are more important than property; that's what makes murder "a step up.")

If a member of a white supremacist movement marches into a Sikh temple or a Baptist church shooting with intent to kill, I'd say his inclination towards violence is greater than BLM protestors who, in the heat of the moment, start throwing rocks back when attacked by police.

Actions and their results also have to be assessed with regard to intent and goals. People whose group goal is to kill peaceful citizens of a different race are a greater danger than people whose goal is to break windows or assault people whose group goal is to kill peaceful citizens of a different race.

Violent offenders have a high chance of escalating. 

Every crime no matter the severity should be handled to the letter of the law. Do not excuse one crime because you feel others have done worse.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2020, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly an unbiased source. I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence.  While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent?  For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon?  My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.

Sure, murder is only one metric, but is there data out there to show antifa being as much of a threat as right wing extremists? 

Is there data to support the notion that antifa represents more of a organized threat than right wing extremists, which the leaked documents show was often dismissed as lone wolf threats?

Is this just a rhetorical argument against a group you do not like, or is there quantified data to show that these law enforcements agencies are right in trying to elevate the threat that antifa poses while downplaying the threat of right wing groups, especially as the intelligence they receive points to right wing groups being a far more imminent threat?

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2020, 02:27 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Hopefully you know I respect your opinions, but often charges capable of being falsified for the sake of making an arrest are not as definitive as murder.  

I’ve been charged with ‘criminal trespassing’ just for the sake of hooking me up.   Were it not for my ability to retain proper representation and the knowledge to shut the **** up in the process I wouldn’t be eligible for jobs I currently am.  

A ‘deadly weapon’ seems pretty subjective, let alone assault.

**to be clear, its silly as hell that I felt the need to preface this comment as I did.  My inclination to do so is pathetic.  I’m out for a while and I’ll see if this place stands down the line.  Be safe everyone.

This is a great point, especially with both the media reports of non violent protestors being arrested and/or charged and the leaks showing an effort to arrest left wing demonstrators and apply a "guilt by association" justification for it. 

[fredtoast]

(07-15-2020, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but Antifa really isn't a "group." There is no organization or group beyond a small one out west. It's kin dof lik eBLM in that way, where the movement is far bigger than any organization.

Thye sure showed up as a group on Saturday in Charlottesville ready for a fight.

They may not be as active and organized as some right wing groups, but they had been showing up at all these race related protests starting shit.

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2020, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly an unbiased source.


I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence.  While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent?  For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon?  My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.

When I attack someons use of statistics I try to post statistics of my own to refute their claims.

In other words, until I see some other stats I am going to say that murder is a great way to define the level of violence of a group.  It is the most extreme act of violence.  I don't thiunk it is a stretch to assume that a group that murders a lot more also assaults a lot more.

I have seen video of the SkinHammers and R.A.M. training to fight.  They are very much into hand-to-hand combat.  They are not just snipers who never assault anyone but just kill a small number of people.  They show up to these protests with their hands taped like boxers and carrying clubs.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2020, 08:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Thye sure showed up as a group on Saturday in Charlottesville ready for a fight.

They may not be as active and organized as some right wing groups, but they had been showing up at all these race related protests starting shit.

What I'm saying, though, is that it's hard to call something that isn't really an organized group a "terrorist group." That's been something the courts have been saying with regards to BLM, as well. I mean, you don't need to tell me about C'ville, but I can tell you that most folks being labeled as "Antifa" in that crowd were antifa in the sense that they were anti-fascists, but they weren't a part of any sort of organization, violent or otherwise.

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2020, 04:34 AM)Synric Wrote: Violent offenders have a high chance of escalating. 

Every crime no matter the severity should be handled to the letter of the law. Do not excuse one crime because you feel others have done worse.

Who was excusing crimes?

The thread is about leaks showing law enforcement agencies pushing a narrative that draws a false equivalency between the threats posed by leftwing versus right wing violence, despite data that shows there is no equivalency in threat, as well as attempts to describe right wing extremists as lone wolves compared to suggesting organized movement on the part of leftwing groups, including lumping in any dissenting liberal protestors (like BLM) into that group. 

Yes all crime should be dealt with, but that's not what this is about. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-16-2020, 08:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I'm saying, though, is that it's hard to call something that isn't really an organized group a "terrorist group." That's been something the courts have been saying with regards to BLM, as well. I mean, you don't need to tell me about C'ville, but I can tell you that most folks being labeled as "Antifa" in that crowd were antifa in the sense that they were anti-fascists, but they weren't a part of any sort of organization, violent or otherwise.

Correct, they operate loosely at the local level, often times without a unifying message beyond being against ideology they associated with fascism. Some are more openly violent. Some target only neo nazi and white supremacists groups while others draw no distinction between hard conservative leaning ideology and those ideologies. 

The label "antifa" has no universal definition outside of "antifascist", and it would be far better to look at the specific actions of individual groups or members. It's the equivalent to suggesting that the "alt-right" should be labeled a terrorist organization, rather than focusing on the actions of individuals or specific groups like Boogaloo Bois or militias where you can identify leadership and organization.

There's a ton of research done by the University of Maryland in partnership with DHS to research the organizational structure of right wing extremists to better understand the patterns of violence between organized groups, loosely organized groups, and unorganized actors. The suggestion here is to just ignore any nuance and, for political reasons only, lump any dissent within liberal ideology into the narrative of "antifa" to justify harsher treatment. 

Data is always a few years behind, so it will be interesting to see when the UMD project catches up to the last two years so we can learn more about these patterns with left wing extremists, but going after a generic concept, applying it anyone who is a liberal leaning protestor, and then underplaying the far bigger threat is a mistake.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2020, 08:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sure, murder is only one metric, but is there data out there to show antifa being as much of a threat as right wing extremists?

Is there data to support the notion that antifa represents more of a organized threat than right wing extremists, which the leaked documents show was often dismissed as lone wolf threats?

I don't know, is there?  There sure are a lot of new footage showing them vandalizing property, throwing projectiles and assaulting people.  Would not every act of violence and vandalism committed at the CHOP be the work of left wing extremists?  With so much violence the lack of an easily identifiable source on such violence is a rather troubling thing, yes? 

Quote:Is this just a rhetorical argument against a group you do not like, or is there quantified data to show that these law enforcements agencies are right in trying to elevate the threat that antifa poses while downplaying the threat of right wing groups, especially as the intelligence they receive points to right wing groups being a far more imminent threat?

First of all, no one should like this group.  That is no one who actually believes in the founding principles of this nation and beleieves that people shouldn't be assaulted for having varying viewpoints.  As for the data, please refer above.

(07-16-2020, 08:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When I attack someons use of statistics I try to post statistics of my own to refute their claims.

I didn't attack the statistics (the source to a degree) I questioned their validity towards the point being made.

Quote:In other words, until I see some other stats I am going to say that murder is a great way to define the level of violence of a group.  It is the most extreme act of violence.  I don't thiunk it is a stretch to assume that a group that murders a lot more also assaults a lot more.

OK, fair enough.  The number of murders is so minuscule that neither group is a threat of any significance.  Considering organized street gangs kill thousands a year, and more people in any given month in Chicago alone than right wing extremists in a whole year, maybe neither group is worthy of this kind of intense focus?

Quote:I have seen video of the SkinHammers and R.A.M. training to fight.  They are very much into hand-to-hand combat.  They are not just snipers who never assault anyone but just kill a small number of people.  They show up to these protests with their hands taped like boxers and carrying clubs.

That being the case I'm sure you can find hundreds of YouTube clips showing them assaulting people.  I can sure find hundreds of clips showing Antifa doing the same.