Antifa in Portland - Escalating violence; what would you do....

Car0linab0y

Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,997
Location
28516
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MODERATORS, IF THIS BELONGS IN POLITICS, PLEASE MOVE...

Antifa thugs in Portland, Oregon beat up several people, including journalist Andy Ngo, who has been documenting their violence. They have also added quick-drying cement in their "milkshakes", causing chemical burns.

https://reason.com/2019/06/29/antifa-andy-ngo-mob-milkshake-violence/

I didn't bookmark the link, but in one of the stories, they said Antifa is threatening to put acid in their "Milkshakes" and try and blind people they deem "alt-right" or "fascists".

So, my Hypothetical question is this: Given their history, and threats of adding acid to their cocktails, if you were confronted by some of these masked thugs carrying "milkshakes" would you be justified in aggressively defending yourself to pre-empt getting doused by their "milkshakes"?
 
I view this the same as any other riot scenario. Avoidance is the best strategy. Especially in this case, because we know the media and government are on antifa’s side. They aren’t cracking down on them. They receive if not favorable media, at least not negative media despite their violence. And the government has given them free reign to do as they please.

If someone pulls a weapon in defense of their life and shoots a few of these thugs, the shooter will be branded another mass shooter and the media will finally have their desired right wing nutjob to fit the narrative to take everyone’s guns away.
 
I view this the same as any other riot scenario. Avoidance is the best strategy. Especially in this case, because we know the media and government are on antifa’s side. They aren’t cracking down on them. They receive if not favorable media, at least not negative media despite their violence. And the government has given them free reign to do as they please.

If someone pulls a weapon in defense of their life and shoots a few of these thugs, the shooter will be branded another mass shooter and the media will finally have their desired right wing nutjob to fit the narrative to take everyone’s guns away.

I never really thought of that but your point on ... even if in self defense 4 or more gunshot “victims” (even though they started it) would likely be reported skewed as right-winger gone off.
 
So, my Hypothetical question is this: Given their history, and threats of adding acid to their cocktails, if you were confronted by some of these masked thugs carrying "milkshakes" would you be justified in aggressively defending yourself to pre-empt getting doused by their "milkshakes"?

To your question, it depends.
  1. Avoidance. I would not go to a location these people are assembled at, nor provoke such actions from them.
  2. If I can not avoid I will adjust my plans and go as grey as we can to move around them.
  3. if a confrontation happens I apply AOJ within the intent of the law of the land.
The development and execution of my family defensive plan will prevent us from having interaction with such people. Unless I fail or a drastic shift happens in the environment around us. In such situations is why you have reaction plans/drills.
 
I understand what has been discussed and what the consequences would look like.

I view their actions as life-threatening and I will not allow myself and mine to die just to avoid the negative press.

Living in the leftest city in NC and needing to move through the city to recover my kids from school makes this...slightly possible.

Both of my kids walk off-campus to a pickup point to allow me to avoid educational property.
 
Last edited:
As far as avoidance goes, I view Morehead City as too big and crowded lol. Unlikely I will ever be near these thugs unless things go REALLY sideways. Just saw the story and got to thinking is all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT
If you shoot someone who milkshakes you and the milkshake was just a milkshake:

The media will crucify you and the court will fry you.

If you shoot someone who plasters you with an acid milkshake.....you’ve got acid on your face. Sort of a lose-lose.

I’d not go anywhere close to that, but if you’re determined to, I’d probably wear some sort of lab goggles at the very least, if not a full face mask& respirator with a hood, with clothing that is resistant to (long enough to remove before it eats through and impregnates into your skin) milder acids (that won’t eat through a fast food cup).

And I’d probably have some small melee weapon to absolutely mollywhop whoever throws it. They’ll think twice about throwing a second one if they get past their Christmas coloring book
 
They’ve already demonstrated contaminating milkshakes as a tactic. They’ve threatened immediate action of blindness by acid upon those not deemed pure. I think the reasonable person would find the threat credible,
 
What would I do? Not be there...

Idk how to fix the obvious issue, but I know being one dissenting voice in a a crowd of a few hundred ignorant yet in need of attention humans is the last place this guy will be found.
 
I used to work in downtown portland from 2000 - 2011. Soooo glad we moved the hell away from that craziness. Been 5 years this Sept.
Its always been lefty there, but it took a turn for the worse in 2012. Used to be you could wander around at night downtown, and it wasnt really bad except near Burnside around the bridge, Or in Chinatown..now..prolly not so much.
When I was in high school wed go downtown to hunt for records, and see concerts etc. It was sketchy as hell then..then they cleaned downtown up. Now its beyond bad..way worse than the early 90s from what I see and hear from friends still there.
Its really too bad too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
The new threat of chemical burns doesn’t change the calculus at all.
 
After reading some of the responses here I think some aspects need to be explained for a person to have a solid foundation for a legal defense.

In North Carolina, we have factors that must be understood before you arm up. You must understand that studying and knowing the law and how it applies is how one knows your left, right and backstop limits. IF you do not know the law, you are a danger to yourself and to the general public.

Lets look at three major elements that directly apply to this question.

Element 1

GS § 14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability. (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.
(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011-268, s. 1.)

From the North Carolina Sheriffs Assn Concealed Handgun Use of force

You are legally justified in using deadly force (i.e., your handgun) against another person, when and only when:
1. You actually believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and

2. The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and

3. You were not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and

4. The force used was not excessive, i.e., the force used was not greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.

Events Occurring In Public Places
North Carolina law further makes it unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any public place, owned or under the control of the State of North Carolina, or any of its political subdivisions, to willfully or intentionally possess, or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.2. Persons exempted from the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269(b) are not bound by this prohibition. These persons are set forth in Paragraph III. A. of this publication.

This prohibition also does not apply to the concealed carry of a handgun at a parade or funeral procession by a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun, or by someone who is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.25. However, no person, irrespective of a permit or ability to carry without a permit, may carry a concealed handgun on any premises where the person in legal possession or control has posted a conspicuous notice prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun.

Lets put this together.

I can not go to a demonstration that's in the public space with my pistol concealed or open carry.

If I am not part of the demonstration and am traversing through the area I have the lawful right to be :in a public space" with my concealed handgun upon my person.

As long as I am not the instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked the situation. I have a solid foundation for self defense.

Using the public information that this group in question has proclaimed publicly they will put acid in containers and throw at people.

John
 

Attachments

  • GS_14-51.3.pdf
    5.8 KB · Views: 3
  • UPDATED_Concealed_Handgun_Permits_Publication.pdf
    213.6 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Honestly I’m just not gonna be there. If I’m somewhere and some sort of event happens around or near me I simply won’t engage with them. If they are carrying drinks I might mention to an officer that I heard them taking about throwing acid on people, then walk away.

Obviously, if I get attacked in spite of my best efforts then I respond with force.
 
Idk how to fix the obvious issue, but I know being one dissenting voice in a a crowd of a few hundred ignorant yet in need of attention humans is the last place this guy will be found.
I doubt many here would voluntarily participate in a riot or so called demonstration. The concern is one spontaneously spawning and getting caught in the middle of it. These days it doesn’t take much to set them off either.
 
So, my Hypothetical question is this: Given their history, and threats of adding acid to their cocktails, if you were confronted by some of these masked thugs carrying "milkshakes" would you be justified in aggressively defending yourself to pre-empt getting doused by their "milkshakes"?

I highly doubt you'll get off if you shoot someone carrying a milkshake. Even if they are masked and in your face but not touching you or throwing anything on you etc.
You shoot them your butt is going to jail.
 
I highly doubt you'll get off if you shoot someone carrying a milkshake.
Remember, it is the threat that justifies the use of defensive force. Apply AOJ. Idiot stands there, threatening to throw the “milkshake” at you after saying he’s laced it with NaOH and is going to blind you. Ability - check. Opportunity if he’s within throwing distance - check. Jeopardy - check.
 
Remember, it is the threat that justifies the use of defensive force. Apply AOJ. Idiot stands there, threatening to throw the “milkshake” at you after saying he’s laced it with NaOH and is going to blind you. Ability - check. Opportunity if he’s within throwing distance - check. Jeopardy - check.

The quotes i type are to set a generic you fyi.

The key to all of your valuable points is how did "you" get to that location and time?

If it was to confront "them" and being "armed" that sets intent on "your" side and that can screw up a defense situation.

But just walking by in general public and getting rolled up in a situation is way different
 
Last edited:
Remember, it is the threat that justifies the use of defensive force. Apply AOJ. Idiot stands there, threatening to throw the “milkshake” at you after saying he’s laced it with NaOH and is going to blind you. Ability - check. Opportunity if he’s within throwing distance - check. Jeopardy - check.

Sure, shoot away bro. Look forward to that thread.
 
I highly doubt you'll get off if you shoot someone carrying a milkshake. Even if they are masked and in your face but not touching you or throwing anything on you etc.
You shoot them your butt is going to jail.

Thats not true at all.

Context matters. See my long winded post up a bit.
 
This is also psychological warfare. Sort of like a sniper, the POTENTIAL threat is there and it’s making people just not want to show up. Meaning ANTIFA has fewer people to deal with during the protests, which is a goal to them by having a greater presence to the media than the right AND by having numerically better odds. These people are playing for keeps and they’re being ALLOWED to. The right can’t win against that so the right needs to find another way
 
Our dear friend, and councilor O. Terry Beverly, Always admonishes every class...If you have to shoot someone, and it is completely justified, your life as you know it is Over.
Exactly, and if faced with above OP dilemma the likelihood of incarceration with the thugs will be another reason to get the hell out. I don't know why the courts in that part of the country are defending these thugs but hopefully karma will cause a visit by these thugs to their neighborhood, sometimes the only way things change is when the powers to be suffer harm and that can't happen soon enough.

If you open your history books up you'll see the thugs were allowed a place in pre-nazi Germany to perform the same acts. The nazi's cleaned up the streets and before you knew it the German people were in their folds. Possibly a reason for the season?
 
Last edited:
Antifa is good at playing mind games. They cover their faces like cowards, and use terrorist tactics. The threat of using acid is to scare people into not showing up to their demonstrations. Is it ice cream in the cup? Milk laced with quickrete? Acid? You won't know until its in your eyes.

And while you could shoot one of them in self defense, their dead comrade would become a martyr to the cause, and a rallying cry for new recruits. And you'd be hung by a kangaroo court for shooting a 'good boy who didn't do nothing'.

Its a crappy situation right now, but the deck is stacked against anyone who opposes Antifa. Don't fight back? Potentially get acid in your face. Do fight back? Spend the rest of your life behind bars, branded a nazi, and your family will suffer for it while you rot in jail.

We need the govt and police to crack down, and crack down hard on these masked thugs. But as we've seen, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Outside of that, I can't see any solution to this problem that doesn't have a high potential of turning into the catalyst for a civil war.

My intention is to avoid them whenever possible. Stay out of cities where known demonstrations are taking place, and if on the off chance, I somehow wind up in the area, play the gray man until I can get out of dodge. If they come to my door, its a different story, but I'm not going to go looking for a fight if I don't have to.
 
Last edited:
This is also psychological warfare. Sort of like a sniper, the POTENTIAL threat is there and it’s making people just not want to show up. Meaning ANTIFA has fewer people to deal with during the protests, which is a goal to them by having a greater presence to the media than the right AND by having numerically better odds. These people are playing for keeps and they’re being ALLOWED to. The right can’t win against that so the right needs to find another way

And therein lies part of the definition of 'terrorism'.
 
I expect that none of this is real, have there been any chemical attacks?
 
Back
Top Bottom