Businesses board up their windows in heavily Democratic cities ahead of Election Day
Heavily Democratic cities are now in the habit of boarding up windows and shuttering businesses ahead of political events that might upset local leftists.
That is certainly the case with Washington, D.C., which erected "Black Lives Matter"-branded plywood boards and fencing outside of stores ahead of the 2020 election and saw businesses brace for chaos again when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Some businesses in the city also took precautions ahead of the January 2017 anti-Trump riots, where all the rioters ultimately got off scot-free, as well as ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, protests, where rioters were held to a different standard.
Possibly anticipating more chaos in the District of Columbia, where 92.1% of the vote in the last presidential election went to Joe Biden, businesses are once again reinforcing their windows and preparing for potentially "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."
Resident Stacy Snyder told WJLA-TV, "Hopefully no riots. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or any damage. After what happened last time, I guess, you have to be prepared for anything. So, like I said, better safe than sorry."
Ebony Boger, who works downtown, indicated she recently received an email from building management indicating it was going to fortify the exterior.
"It's not shocking. I'm kind of used to it. I think they should do it," said Boger.
The managers of various buildings confirmed to WJLA that the election was the reason behind the plywood reinforcement.
According to the Washington Post, some business and property owners have also boosted their private security in anticipation of possible riots and looting.
'If people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people.'
Leon Beresford, executive vice president of Admiral Security Services, indicated that his company, which provides security to 150 commercial office buildings in D.C., is mobilizing around 2,000 guards in time for Election Day.
"People would rather be overprepared and have nothing happen, as opposed to the alternative," said Eric Jones, vice president of government affairs for the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington.
Washington Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela A. Smith said at a press conference last week, "I want to be very clear: We will not tolerate any violence of any kind. We will not tolerate any riots. We will not tolerate the destruction of property. We will not tolerate any unlawful behavior. Offenders will be arrested and will be held accountable."
Smith indicated that well over 3,000 police officers will be working 12-hour shifts through the election.
Storefronts in Portland, Oregon — another heavily Democratic city — have similarly disappeared behind protective boards. While big-name businesses like Chase Bank have reinforced their establishments, some have alternatively chosen to trust the mob.
Katherine Morgan, the owner of the relatively new Grand Gestures Books, told KATU-TV, "When I got the business, the windows were boarded up because of the protest, and they just never came down. For me, if people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people."
Morgan indicated she won't be boarding up her establishment, noting, "I'm someone who believes in protesting, I'm someone who believes in doing whatever you can for your voice to be heard."
Real estate developer Jordan Schnitzer told the Oregonian he is praying his building will go unscathed.
"If your sports team loses, do you go out and break windows?" said Schnitzer. "In this day and age to see that this type of behavior in America is so commonplace is heartbreaking."
Portland Police Chief Bob Day said last week, "We never can eliminate risk, but the confidence that I have in our community, the confidence I have in our law enforcement response, I'm really hopeful that that's not going to be necessary."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Exclusive: How the Capitol Police were set up to fail on January 6
As part of Blaze Media’s three-part mini-documentary series “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn,” we continue to update readers on how we arrived at this point in our “Truth About January 6” series. You can find part one here.
Despite denials from the U.S. Capitol Police and some congressional investigators, evidence quickly emerged after the January 6, 2021, protests and riots that Capitol Police officers were intentionally under-deployed.
Testimonies from Capitol Police officers in various Jan. 6 trials, along with radio transmissions and whistleblower statements, have provided many answers. These findings also suggest a coordinated cover-up to keep this information from the American public.
If the Capitol Police had been fully deployed that day, the breach likely would not have occurred. Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland might still be alive, and the Department of Justice’s 1,500 prosecutions — ranging from trespassing to seditious conspiracy — might never have happened. Additionally, members of the Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, and several convicted Jan. 6 participants might not have died by suicide in the aftermath.
Although I have long suspected that trained provocateurs manipulated the events of January 6 under the watch of the Capitol Police command center, many believe that frontline, uniformed Capitol Police officers were knowingly complicit and even initiated the violence. Video evidence contradicts that claim.
Here’s a sample of the social media comments that followed my initial blog series — written before my time at Blaze Media — in which I referred to the Capitol Police as “sacrificial pawns” on January 6:
“The Capitol Police were willing participants by following those D.C. fascists’ orders. I have no sympathy for them or their families.”
“Don’t sign up to collect a paycheck defending a corrupt government.”
“They’re a disgrace to the uniform and America. How f***ing dare they.”
“You’re being played.”
These comments came from the political right, but the left wasn’t silent either. Some were quite bloodthirsty, suggesting that every Capitol Police officer should have replicated Lt. Michael Byrd’s gunshot and left us with “a thousand more Ashli Babbitts.” Many who called for defunding the police after George Floyd’s death in 2020 suddenly became strong supporters of “Back the Blue” following the events of January 6, 2021.
In my January 6 writings, I’ve often stressed that I had to reassess some of my initial assumptions as more evidence surfaced. For example, in my first article about January 6, published on January 13, 2021, I misidentified the officers in “fluorescent-sleeved jackets racing down steps toward the first upper tier above street level” as Capitol Police. They were actually members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police.
This may seem like a minor distinction — especially to the “all cops are bastards” crowd — but these details are crucial as we work to uncover and present the full truth of that day. Most importantly, who in the command chain set up or allowed these events to unfold?
When it comes to the many unanswered questions, odd circumstances, and unindicted figures, we don’t need to agree on every detail. We also don’t need to agree on each event, video, or police officer’s actions to find common ground on one key point I’ve emphasized about January 6: I saw bad people doing bad things, good people doing good things, and even otherwise good people doing really stupid things.
This observation applies to both individual protesters and police officers. There were heroes and villains on both sides of that thin blue line on January 6.
My questions about the Capitol Police’s deployment, orders, and actions on January 6 began with my first published article. From the moment my Uber driver dropped me off at the Washington Monument around 9:30 a.m. until I reached the lower west terrace of the Capitol Building at exactly 1:19 p.m., neither I nor my camera saw a single law enforcement officer.
My video captured no police presence at the Washington Monument lawn on January 6.Screenshot/Steve Baker
As the crowd swelled from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, it was hard to imagine not seeing any police presence among such a massive group in the nation’s capital. Police and Secret Service officers heavily guarded the Ellipse stage, where President Trump was set to speak, but the crowd’s density kept me from entering that area. When I eventually started walking from the Washington Monument lawn toward the Capitol Building again, I still didn’t see or capture on camera a single police officer.
As I approached the Peace Monument, sirens signaled the arrival of D.C. Metro Police units. At the Reflecting Pool, I finally spotted Metro Police officers in fluorescent jackets streaming down the Capitol steps toward the lower west terrace.
I then heard the first flash-bang grenades and saw tear gas released on the lower west terrace. No barricades or police lines blocked my way — initial agitators and provocateurs had removed them about 20 to 25 minutes earlier — so I ran to the terrace and began recording the violence at exactly 1:19 p.m., just three minutes after President Trump left the Ellipse stage, more than a mile away.
A screenshot from my video as I approached the Capitol on January 6, 2021.Screenshot/Steve Baker
For a year, I publicly asked: "Why wasn’t there a police presence on the Washington Monument lawn? Why didn’t I see any police on the mile-long walk to the Capitol?" and "Why were so few Capitol Police officers on duty at the Capitol, considering the planned rallies, marches, and legally permitted events on the Capitol lawn that day?"
I initially estimated that fewer than 200 Capitol Police officers were at the Capitol on January 6. A year later, on the anniversary of the event, I returned to D.C. to seek answers. I asked patrolling Capitol Police officers those questions, and I also wanted to know what orders they received that day. I was particularly interested in what seemed like a "stand-down" or "pull-back" order at around 2:00 p.m.
None of the officers I approached on the streets or at the Capitol would answer. At the time, I didn’t know about the nondisclosure agreements Capitol Police had signed under Yogananda Pittman during her seven-month tenure as acting chief of police.
On December 16, 2021, Forbes made a convoluted attempt to answer the question about Capitol Police deployment on January 6:
USCP documents show that at 2 p.m. on that day, only 1,214 officers were “on site” across the Capitol complex of buildings. Congressional investigators concluded, however, that USCP could only account for 417 officers and could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers.
In late 2022, when I first met with former Capitol Police officer turned whistleblower Lt. Tarik Johnson, he confirmed that my initial estimate of “fewer than 200” Capitol Police officers at the Capitol Building during the first wave of violence on January 6 was accurate.
Johnson explained that during previous protest events, the standard operating procedure required an “all hands on deck” approach for Capitol Police. On those days, officers working the night shift were required to stay and work a double shift through the next day. But on January 6, Capitol Police command sent those officers home after their shifts, treating it like a routine day at the office.
In a follow-up phone conversation, Johnson revealed more about the deceptions Capitol Police leadership spread regarding force deployment on January 6. Addressing internal department and congressional investigations that claimed officials “could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers,” Johnson said, "It's a bald-faced lie, and you can quote me on that."
Johnson explained that all Capitol Police officers clock in and clock out electronically at the start and end of each shift. Once clocked in, each officer is tracked throughout the tour of duty, making it impossible for their commanders not to know their whereabouts. This information should still be available in the computer logs — assuming the logs haven’t been erased.
When asked why Capitol Police leadership would cover up information about force deployment, Johnson responded, “Because they don’t want to tell you where the officers were or what they were doing. They don’t want anyone to know how many of our officers were on administrative leave that day.”
My investigations, which include interviews with Capitol Police officers and congressional investigators, revealed further embarrassment, as several officers went into hiding once the violence began, locking themselves in offices and closets.
Another key issue involves the “diversion events,” when two pipe bombs were coincidentally discovered within minutes of the first provocateurs breaching the west side Capitol barricade. The pipe bombs were found at both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters — two of nearly 20 buildings under the Capitol Police’s security purview.
Johnson couldn’t estimate how many officers were diverted to the RNC and DNC after the bombs were discovered. However, he emphasized that the emergency response still doesn’t account for the missing whereabouts of 797 officers. He noted that exact records of how many officers were diverted, and precisely who, should be easily retrievable from Capitol Police computer records.
Set up to fail?
The first Oath Keepers trial featured the testimony of Stephen Brown, a Florida-based event planner hired by the controversial figure Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter and founder of Stop the Steal. Brown’s job was to secure permits from the Capitol Police for an event on the Capitol grounds. He was also responsible for organizing the rental of the staging and public address system and coordinating the scheduling of VIP speakers and stage security, handled by members of the Oath Keepers.
Brown testified that he had previously planned many protest events in the nation’s capital, with attendance ranging from as few as 5,000 to as many as 300,000 protesters.
Under direct examination by Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs’ defense attorney Stanley Woodward, Brown described the surprisingly small presence of Capitol officers during the delivery and setup of the staging and PA system. He noted that at previous events he’d organized on Capitol grounds, he had seen “three, four, even five times the size of police presence, including SWAT teams,” compared to what was present on January 6.
The inconvenient truth is that my camera, Stephen Brown’s testimony, and statements by Lt. Johnson and other Capitol Police officers suggest a deliberate under-deployment of officers that day — a day in which we now know, and as I have previously written:
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Asst. Chief Yogananda Pittman, head of protective and intelligence operations, the D.C. Metro Police, the United States Park Police, the White House, the Pentagon, the National Guard, both the Senate and House of Representative Sergeants-at-Arms, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, the FBI, and other federal agencies all knew that tens of thousands of protestors would be descending upon the Capitol grounds that day.
An unnamed Capitol Police officer, just days after the melee, told the Associated Press, “During the 4th of July concerts and the Memorial Day concerts, we don’t have people come up and say, ‘We’re going to seize the Capitol.’ But yet, you bring everybody in, you meet before. That never happened for this event.”
According to the Washington Post, only a week after the Capitol was breached, “an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ‘war,’ according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post.”
Instead of “all hands on deck,” frontline Capitol Police officers were somewhere between one-tenth to one-fifth strength when it came time to respond to what was coming their way. Whether an operational failure or deliberate under-deployment, this set up the circumstances enabling the breach of the Capitol Building by a relatively small number of aggressive and violent rioters.
Ultimately, it remains inexplicable why only 200 to 300 violent perpetrators wielding sticks, flagpoles, clubs, and bear spray were able to overpower two fully armed law enforcement agencies, the tactical units of nearly every three-letter federal agency, and an unknown number of undercover law enforcement assets to breach what is supposed to be one of the most secure government facilities in the world.
Unless, of course, they were set up to fail. Most Capitol Police officers on duty that day believe that to be the case.
This would explain why Capitol Police union members gave then-acting Chief Yogananda Pittman a 92% “no-confidence” vote only five weeks after her curiously absent leadership from their command center on January 6.
J6 ‘Praying Grandma’ Slammed With Six-Figure Fine And Probation For Walking Around Capitol
San Diego judge throws book at violent Antifa associates, sentences 8 more to time behind bars, bringing total to 12
A judge in Southern California just sentenced eight members of Antifa to prison or jail time, bringing perhaps the first successful prosecution of an Antifa-related conspiracy case to a just close.
The case stems from a violent uprising that occurred on January 9, 2021, less than two weeks before Joe Biden was sworn into office. That day, a group of Trump supporters planned to host a rally in Pacific Beach, California, and dozens of black-clad Antifa members arrived as well to oppose them.
'Antifa could have assembled and protested and stood across the street and called them white supremacists, but you cannot use force to suppress others' freedom of speech.'
The event quickly got out of hand after the Antifa thugs reportedly sprayed the Trump supporters and other innocent bystanders with bear mace, pepper spray, and other chemicals. The Antifa associates also engaged in other forms of violence including punching, kicking, and striking people with a skateboard, according to dedicated Antifa reporter and Post Millennial senior editor Andy Ngo.
In all, 12 Antifa associates were indicted, most of whom pled guilty. Two others — Brian Lightfoot, 27, and Jeremy White, 41 — however, decided to take their case to the jury and were subsequently convicted.
On Friday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein sentenced eight of those defendants, including Lightfoot and White. Four others had previously been sentenced.
The following are the Antifa defendants convicted in connection with the Pacific Beach riot:
- Alexander Akridge-Jacobs, 33, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to nine months in county jail with some time suspended. He is expected to be released in November.
- Jonah Bigel pled guilty in 2021 to assault with a deadly weapon. He was given a prison sentence that was then immediately suspended, indicating he may have cooperated in the investigation. He did not appear in court during trial or sentencing, Ngo reported.
- Jesse Cannon, 34, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and two counts of felony assault. He also pled guilty to felony assault in connection with an unrelated case. Per his plea agreement, a third case against him was dismissed. He was sentenced to five years in prison and will be eligible for parole in December.
- Joseph Gaskins, 23, pled guilty to felony assault likely to cause great bodily injury as well as assault with a deadly weapon in connection with an attack on a police officer during a BLM riot in 2020. He was sentenced to one year in county jail plus two years of probation. He is expected to be released in December.
- Brian Lightfoot, 27, convicted of felony conspiracy to riot and five counts of unlawful use of tear gas. The jury either acquitted him of or deadlocked on 10 assault charges. Because he took the stand and expressed remorse for his actions and an interest in turning his life around by becoming a firefighter, Judge Goldstein sentenced him to two years at a "fire camp" prison for qualified California inmates to learn firefighting skills.
- Christian Martinez, 25, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to six months in county jail plus probation. He is expected to be released in September.
- Luis Mora, 32, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in a state prison. He will be eligible for parole in August 2025.
- Samuel "Ruchelle" Ogden, a 26-year-old man who identifies as a woman, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to one year in county jail and two years probation.
- Bryan Rivera, 22, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to 180 days in county jail.
- Faraz Talab, 29, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot and felony assault. He was sentenced to one year in jail and two years probation. He is scheduled to be released in December.
- Jeremy White, 41, was convicted of felony conspiracy to riot. The jury acquitted him on an assault charge, but at sentencing, Judge Goldstein claimed he would have found White guilty since he considered White the "ringleader" of the group. During the riot, White also posed as a "medic" though he has no medical training and was unrepentant about his "anti-fascist" activism at sentencing. "Fascism is here, mask off with a gun and a badge, criminalizing anti-fascists to clear the playing field of any opposition," he wrote in a statement in which he also compared himself to Nelson Mandela and violent anti-slavery crusader John Brown. White was sentenced to two years in state prison.
- Erich "Nikki" Yach, 40, pled guilty to felony conspiracy to riot, felony assault, and felony unlawful use of tear gas. He has a prior conviction of felony domestic abuse and admitted he was out on bail on the day of the Pacific Beach riot. He was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison. He identifies as a woman and has repeatedly requested housing in a female facility, but those requests have not yet been accommodated, perhaps because of his history of violence against women. He is eligible for parole in October.
CNN’s Jake Tapper Pressing Trump About Jan. 6 Is Peak CNN
Soros DA Wants Man Pardoned For Shooting Armed BLM Rioter Back In Jail
Maxine Waters pushes Democrats' new Trump-as-dictator narrative and concern-mongers about civil war
With just under six months left until the election, Democrats are desperately attempting to inspire fear about what horrific fates might befall the nation should Donald Trump retake the White House.
In past months, the Biden campaign and other Democratic outfits advanced the notion that democracy is under threat by a choice of candidate unfavorable to the Democratic Party. Having ostensibly exhausted this "democracy is on the ballot" narrative, Biden boosters now appear keen to paint former President Donald Trump as a dictator in waiting.
California Rep. Maxine Waters (D), long a champion for mob-rule street action, appears more than happy to take this new piece of hyperbole to new extremes.
Over the weekend, the 85-year-old Democrat resumed her apparent election-time role as a conjurer of alternate histories and paranoia, launching into a deranged rant on MSNBC's "The Sunday Show" wherein she not only articulated the new narrative but suggested that right-wing Americans aligned with Trump are plotting a civil war and that the Biden Department of Justice should surveil his allies.
The setup
MSNBC talking head Jonathan Capehart appeared to set Waters off Sunday with a reference to Trump's recent interview with Time, specifically the Republican's indication that he would not seek a third term, even if legally enabled.
In the Time interview, reporter Eric Cortellessa incorrectly suggested that the Heritage Foundation's Project 25 had proposed abolishing the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms. He then asked Trump, "Would you definitely retire after a second term, or would you consider challenging the 22nd Amendment?"
Trump answered, "Well, I would, and I don't really have a choice, but I would." The Republican presidential candidate added, "I'm going to serve one term, I'm gonna do a great job. We're gonna have a very successful country again ... and then I'm gonna leave."
Evidently dissatisfied with the innocuity of Trump's answer, Cortellessa pressed the issue, prompting Trump to clearly indicate that he would not be in favor of challenging the 22nd Amendment.
"Not for me. I wouldn't be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job. And I want to bring our country back. I want to put it back on the right track. Our country is going down. We're a failing nation right now. We're a nation in turmoil," said Trump.
Imagining meat for a nothing-burger
Capehart looked to Waters to resuscitate the claim of dictatorial aspirations despite Trump having effectively killed it in the cradle.
"Trump says in that in that Time interview that he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term," Capehart told Waters. "Should the American people believe that? Do you believe that?"
"No! Absolutely not," said Waters. "As I said, you can't believe anything that Donald Trump has to say. Donald Trump will do any and everything that he can possibly get away with. He does not at all support the Constitution of the United States of America. This is a man who we better be careful about."
Waters explained to Capehart that she plans on asking the Biden Department of Justice and the Biden White House "what they are going to do to protect this country against violence if he loses."
"I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that he's connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere and targeting, you know, what communities they are going to attack," said the Democrat. "We need to know now, given that he's telling us there is going to be violence if he loses, we need to know what his plan is and how we are going to be protected."
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters floats a completely unhinged conspiracy theory that "right-wing organizations" are "training up in the hills somewhere"— (@)
Capehart cued Rep. Robert Garcia, another California Democrat, to confirm that "this isn't hyperbole, this is real."
Garcia obliged the talking head, saying, "This is dangerous, and I think what they are preparing to destroy our democracy, the way we have elections in this country, and the congresswoman is absolutely correct. ... If Donald Trump gets re-elected, there is no doubt that he will try to stay in office beyond his four-year term. He will destroy this country, our democracy."
"Not only are they planning on a civil war ... but he is spelling it out specifically how and what they are going to do and how he is going to get revenge, how he is going to attack his enemies, all of these things."
After having her fantasy affirmed by a fellow traveler, Waters added, "We know that there are people aligned — who are with him, who follow him — who are already practicing what their government is going to be under Trump. Not only are they planning on a civil war if they have to do that, but he is spelling it out specifically how and what they are going to do and how he is going to get revenge, how he is going to attack his enemies, all of these things."
Waters' apparent decision to fabricate rumors about civil war plots came just days after Rasmussen Reports indicated — on the basis of a national telephone and online survey — that 41% of likely U.S. voters believe that the country is bound to suffer a civil war sometime in the next five years.
According to Rasmussen, discussions of civil war "got a boost" after the Hollywood film "Civil War" made its debut as No. 1 at the box office last month.
Waters, having watered the seed of concern regarding another civil war, added that Trump is a "pure racist" who may attack non-whites.
Earlier in the interview, Waters said, "We have to be very concerned about a former president of the United States talking about attacking his own country, talking about perhaps a bloodbath, talking about perhaps there is going to be trouble. He said it in so many different ways. We should take him seriously."
Waters' calculated use of the term "bloodbath"was a rehash of the manufactured scandal over Trump's March 16 use of the term "bloodbath." Whereas the Biden campaign and its apparent allies at CBS News, Politico, NPR, Rolling Stone, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today mischaracterized the Republican's remarks as threatening, Trump had actually used it in reference to the economic fallout of continued offshoring of jobs and automobile manufacturing plants under the Biden administration.
"This man does not believe in the Constitution. He wants to be a dictator. This is a dangerous human being. We have to know what our country is going to do to protect us from him," added the Democrat.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Riot police successfully take control at UCLA, throwing away Hamas-endorsed radicals' Palestinian flag
Armored officers with the Los Angeles Police Department and California State Police took control of the illegal encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, early Thursday morning, busting through the Hamas-endorsed student radicals' barricades, flattening the occupiers' tents, and arresting some of those individuals who ignored their repeated warnings and invitations to leave.
The LAPD and other law enforcement agencies responded Tuesday night to the UCLA campus after the leftist university pleaded for help in dealing with the fallout of the same ideas taught inside its classrooms. It was not until Thursday morning that they were able to successfully overwhelm the radicals in Dickson Plaza.
Blaze News national correspondent Julio Rosas was on the scene as the pro-Hamas students, wearing masks and equipped with makeshift shields, faced off with the group of around 30 LAPD officers who initially breached the radicals' illegal encampment. The radicals can be heard taunting and castigating the officers, who had been flanked on both sides.
Anti-Israel protesters inside the encampment at UCLA lined up with shields to face LAPD officers.— (@)
Rosas indicated that the outnumbered officers ultimately withdrew. As the officers gave up hard-won ground, they had to fight off elements of the frenzied mob, which pursued them out of the encampment.
"I'm not entirely sure what the reason was for them to make that first breach," Rosas told Blaze News. "But it wasn't a good one. Obviously."
Similar standoffs appear to have taken place around campus, where police apparently had difficulties making inroads largely on account of their incredible restraint.
\ud83d\udea8California Highway Patrolmen in riot gear are attempting to breach one side of the UCLA encampment. Occupiers rushed with people and shields to push back against the officers. So far CHP has not broken through this route.— (@)
Radicals pelted officers with rocks and attempt to disorient them with fire extinguisher blasts while desperately maintaining their barricades. The officers, in turn, used multiple flash-bangs.
Absolute chaos right now. Occupiers are trying to hold the main makeshift wall as police repeatedly fire flashbangs.— (@)
Evidently growing tired of the violent, selfie-taking mob's sporadic attacks, police began to push back in a big way around 3 a.m. PT.
"That's when the California Highway Patrolmen in riot gear started to make multiple breaches at the main side of the encampment, the side with the makeshift barriers," said Rosas. "They were fighting each other. Protesters were using their bodies. They had a ton of shields and palettes and material to keep pushing up against the riot officers."
Some of the radicals attempted to form a human chain, but the police evidently found a few weak links. Rosas noted that roughly 20 of those in the chain were arrested after police kettled them.
Rosas reported that around 3:30 a.m., police began to successfully tear down the main makeshift wall bordering the illegal encampment. Upon doing so, it quickly became clear that police would soon be able to raze the encampment and clear out the remaining radicals therein.
— (@)
CHP riot police advanced on the camp from other directions as well, tearing down the radicals' agitprop and pushing occupiers out of the way.
A CHP officer effectively signaled the radicals' defeat by flinging down the Palestinian flag at the heart of the illegal encampment.
While pushing back occupiers at UCLA, a California Highway Patrolman removed the big Palestinian flag in the middle of the encampment and threw it on the ground.— (@)
Before dawn, officers effectively controlled the camp, littered with leftist propaganda and other radical refuse.
The encampment is almost cleared out. CHP is tearing down tents and pushing remaining occupiers out of the area.— (@)
Rosas indicated that "it didn't need to come to this. ... If the encampment was cleared sooner, without giving the occupiers so much time to prepare for this, it would have been much easier for law enforcement to clear it out. But because this was allowed to take place for a while."
When asked about the rioters' initial success in repelling, Rosas suggested they "did a pretty good job at communicating with each other — to call for backup, call for materials, call for shields at different points of the border of the encampment. That's part of the reason why it took a while for police to take a significant foothold — because they were very flexible in putting manpower and material in their way."
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!