Leftest Agent Provocateurs Arrested by Murrieta Police!

I got nothing against immigrants. What I do know is we have laws that say they cant just flood into our country by the hundreds everyday and start draining our resources. Those laws arent being enforced. We have enough drains to the system here already. Don't believe for one second that its only women and children coming across that border when they have basically been told to stand down. The people on the buses are only the ones who got caught. There are human trafickers crossing our borders regularly. People from countries where grown men having sex with very young girls is actually quite common. Where violence is the norm. The comedy about it is ......drumroll......most of the same people who want to allow all of this amnesty are also the same ones who want to take guns away.

a reply to: beezzer
Had any one been convicted of said assault on the 70 year old?
I know you would be a supporter of due process, so let's let it play out before you say for a fact something happened.

a reply to: rustyclutch
seems fair enough i can agree with most of that. i dont know anyone was protesting for amnesty. but i dont see why we cant find common ground

a reply to: vjr1113

We do have common ground. We both agree they have the right to protest. We just aren't in agreement about people being there protesting that they should be allowed to enter. I can't see any reason for people protesting that the law be upheld to get into fistfights. Especially 70 year old ladies. Regardless of who threw the first punch. Stranger things have happened but all evidence points to the contrary.

a reply to: vjr1113

I believe this should settle it

youtu.be...

A little more news on the story:

libertyunyielding.com...

Desert Sun Story

www.frontpagemag.com...

On the Desert Sun story the oldest updates are at the bottom, so I suggest you begin reading the updates there.

So far there have been 6 arrests according to these stories. One was a "Stop the Bus" protester who refused to get off the road and go to the side where the police had set up a taped off area for them.

The other five arrests came when a "Let the Bus Through" protester, left her area and started a fight. When stopped by the police, four other protesters came to attack the policeman.

So far, arrests for violence: Stop the bus: None. Let the Bus Through: Five.

If you are really for non-violence and talking things out, which group seems more reasonable?

a reply to: charles1952

The other four interfered and were arrested on suspicion of obstructing an officer in his investigation

From the desert sun source, they did not attack the officer as you can see they were not charged with such.
It does say that the one gal was charged with battery on a police officer but not all five.



Here is a video of the "attack" hardly the way you describe it.
Wish the video taker didn't look away right when the og confrontation between the two women started

a reply to: Sremmos80

Dear Sremmos80,

Thank you for pointing out that fact. I really do appreciate it.

So, then, we are left with four of her associates who left their assigned area, and whatever they did, they are only being charged with obstruction.

I remember, a long time ago, being pulled over for speeding. After some conversation I was charged with malfunctioning equipment. See my point?

Four people remained jailed Saturday for allegedly trying to prevent Murrieta police from arresting a person near the Fourth of July immigration standoff at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station.

Police said a protester jumped on the back of a Murrieta police officer who was trying to arrest someone linked to a reported assault, some distance away from the main protest at the Border Patrol station.

Janet Mathieson, 22, of Claremont was being questioned by police about the reported assault, and the officer was going to arrest her for obstructing the officer in the course of his investigation, a police report said.

According to the police account, that prompted Pouyan Bokaei, 33, of Maryland, to try to free Mathieson from arrest. The officer let go of the woman as he tried to arrest Bokaei, according to the police account.

Mathieson then reportedly jumped on the officer’s back, police said.

More police arrived, and while Mathieson and Bokaei were being arrested, three others jumped into the fray to free the first two, police said. They were identified as Jacqueline Sanchez, 26, of Los Angeles, Jessica Rey, 25, of Menifee, and Salvador Chavez, 24, of Los Angeles.

Five people were initially arrested for "lynching," a rarely-invoked California Penal Code section defined as "the taking by means of a riot of any person in the lawful custody of any police officer."

lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com...

While I hate to use the word, the "score" remains violent illegal immigrant supporters 5, violent illegal immigrant opposers 0.

With respect,
Charles1952

Okay, time out for a second.

Let's stipulate that illegal immigration is, well, illegal.

Recently, there has been an overwhelming influx of illegals into Texas across the Rio Grande border area.

So many that the situation has been called a "humanitarian crisis." There is no doubt that the abilities of the Border Patrol stations in Texas are overwhelmed.

Let's not debate the causes of the vast influx of people yet.

A inordinate majority of these illegals are children. I know that doesn't make their status any less "illegal" but ... goodness, don't we have some compassion in our hearts for CHILDREN who are on their own and away from all family members? That they might be "processed" with a bit more care and gentleness?

The Obama Administration has made some considerations, or used some judiciousness, or however you want to say it, regarding illegals under a certain age. Kids.

Is it wrong to at least get them to a facility with better (read more humane, sanitary, etc.) conditions while they are being "processed."

These "illegals" were being sent to Murrieta to be processed FASTER ... that means, among other things, sent back to where they came from.

They aren't all being released into the local area:

Once the undocumented children are processed, they and their families will be turned over to ICE agents. There were no plans to release them in Murrieta, Long said.
ICE officials said those who planned to stay with family or friends across the country will be transported to bus terminals or airports so they can go to their final destinations. They will then be required to report to the nearest ICE office, where their cases will be managed.

Source: NBC San Diego

The "leftists" who are there protesting are folks who are concerned about the treatment of the kids.

Is the situation really so clearly "black and white" objective to all of you here? An illegal is an illegal is an illegal?

a reply to: charles1952

It should read accused violent protestors, lets let the due process take it's course before we chalk up any scores.
And disagreeing with police should not be considered violent, they did not go out of their way to attack them, they thought there fellow protestors were being treated unjustly and tried to stop the actions.
Stupid? yes
Violent? Hardly

a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact of the matter is we are 18 trillion dollars in debt and counting and we cant afford to take on all the people of the world who want a better life. There are millions of people already residing here that are looking for a better life and cant find it. They aren't entitled to anything as harsh as that may sound. They are effectively being allowed to steal. They are recieving resources that should be directed towards our own homeless and destitute. These people will become a strain on LOCAL governments, food pantries, homeless shelters etc. The people who want to allow all these people to enter need to get out their checkbooks and cover the expense. Pay for the medical exams these people need, the housing, etc. We got people in Detroit getting their water cut off and we got money to just throw at anybody with a few kids and a sob story? At some point your survival instinct has to outweigh your generosity or everyone starves. This isnt the America of the 1900's. There arent plenty of things being built and produced anymore. Think about the people who are looking for employment and can't find it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Compassion. A wonderful emotion. It represents caring. Pity. Sympathy. A host of words that mean caring in one form or another.

If I know you have this particular emotion, I can use it against you.

I can "weaponize" compassion.

I can shuttle tens of thousands of children to your border. I trust you will be compassionate because that is the right thing to do. I can commit an act so destructive to your economy, simply by using your compassion against you.

I can pour a hundred thousand children across your border.

Children. It's for the children.

I can swamp your already weakened healthcare system. I can impair your fragile economy. I can create discord in your country.

Simply by using your compassion against you.

Does Mexico have any "compassion" for allowing this in their country?
Why does Mexico get a pass on not having compassion?

The south and central American countries have weaponized compassion against us. We're already at each other's throats and it's only just started. We haven't yet seen the impact on our economy or healthcare system. God forbid that one of the tens of thousands has TB or a contagious disease that spreads.
God forbid that some of these children aren't members of a cartel and cause crime or injure of kill someone.


How compassionate are you willing to be? How much are you willing to sacrifice?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Dear Sremmos80,

I applaud your appreciation for and desire to follow the laws of our country. (I will refrain from making the obvious and snarky comment here.)

And disagreeing with police should not be considered violent, they did not go out of their way to attack them

what a treasure chest you've opened here. You can't possibly believe that all they did was disagree. They didn't call out "we don't agree with you," they got into the fight.

Going out of their way to attack? First, what difference does that make?

"Your Honor, I'm innocent. I didn't go out of my way to attack him. He was passing me on the sidewalk and all I had to do was reach out and knock him unconscious."

Second, they did have to go out of their way to get to where the police were breaking up the fight and making the initial arrest.

Third, maybe I thought they were being treated unjustly, too. But reaching out, and physically interfering with a police officer, grabbing and pushing him, is beyond stupid. It is illegal, and yes, violent. What do you think using physical force against another is?

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. It's not a question of how I described the situation, it's how the press reported it from the police reports. The video you presented from the source I linked to, shows the original arrest. The video stops before the other three got involved, as the police said. As you can see, the officers walked down the road to get away from the main protest area with the women they were arresting. That means the other three had to go significantly out of their way to join in the attack designed to free their friends. - C -

a reply to: charles1952

I agree that things may have gotten physical, but that does not mean that they "attacked" the cops.
I don't not think all physical force against another is violent. It can just be intervening, which is not always violence.
Is it considered violent to break up a fight between two people?

Yes what they did was "illegal" cause cops are delicate flowers that are not allowed to be touched.
Yes it was stupid, but it was not a violent act.
I see violence as when you intend to cause bodily harm.
So unless you can provide me with something that shows they intended to cause bodily harm to the officers, I don't consider it a violent act. Rather them just stupidly trying to prevent an arrest.
And in the video you can see that is a large group of people that gets taken away, how are you so sure that the offenders were not in that group?

And I will never take what a police report states as the 100% fact, they lie, omit and embellish in those things and are taught and trained to do so. Know plenty of people in LE that have told me to my face that is the case.
Those reports are meant to make the cops look right and the suspect look wrong.
They are not the final say into what actually happened, just their view of what happened, which is absolutely biased.

And in your hypo the person goes out of their way to knock the person out....
Now if said person just ran into the other and then got knocked out, that is not going out of their way.

a reply to: beezzer

What is being asked of me to sacrifice for these kids? I'm not aware of anything, Beezer ... what ARE we being asked to sacrifice?

What are YOU being asked to sacrifice? Specifically, YOU. Not theoretically, or thematically or generically ... what are you giving up in your life so that these kids can be taken care of while they're being properly processed, many for return.

Not for the further theoretical hosts or throngs of so-called weaponized kids ... just for the ones in the camps and on the buses now. THESE kids, the one's in front of us ... the ones that are now in our care, that are now our responsibility.

Infants, some of them.

And, by the way, if they're weaponized, who is the "enemy" hurling them at us? Guatemala? El Salvador? Are they now part of a grand scheme to overthrow America? I'm assuming, in league with the Evil Emperor Obama?

What if they're just running away from a horrible life toward a better one? What if they have family and/or friends in this country that are willing to care for them? Possibly even tax paying American citizens, as hard as that is for some to imagine?

When did we become so paranoid as a people? So frightened that someone is going to take what we have away from us ... that someone in this case being a bunch of kids.

Kids, Beezer. Not weapons, not enemies ... children.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I didn't ask what you are being asked to sacrifice.

I asked, what are you willing to sacrifice?

We can speculate all day long as to who is ultimately responsible. The fact is, you see them as children and (I assume) are willing to sacrifice your money, housing, time and taxes to help them. You espouse compassion so I can only assume that you are opening your doors to illegal aliens children.

I see a criminal act being perpetrated on a massive scale. They are using children in order to commit this act.

Compassion is a wonderful thing and I applaud your compassion in taking care of as many children as you can.

I would only suggest a healthy dose of pragmatism to offset your compassion.

a reply to: rustyclutch

So, failing to take care of these kids is going to help balance the national budget?

We're not talking about the "whole world" ... we're talking about a very specific group of people who are now in our custody. Custody means we take care of them until we get them back where they need to go. Some WILL BE sent back to their countries of origin. Some may be given a chance to stay here with family friends or relatives who will take care of them. I know a lot of immigrant families personally, and they are extraordinarily hard working folks, that pay their taxes and stretch their dollars as far as they will go ... for family.

So, your assumption that every one of these people, again, a majority of whom are KIDS, will suddenly go on the public dole in the US is simply unsubstantiated.

And, let's be real .. any money that would be going to the homeless or to the disadvantaged in places like Detroit is already going there. In fact, in general, the same folks that want to throw these kids to the wolves are the same ones that would tell the homeless to "get a job parasite" ... so let's not act like precious resources that would be used to help our own unfortunates are being diverted to Texas and California ... let's just don't.

As to the situation of our economy and unemployment ... I would love to see a Congress that would work with the Executive to actually address some of the very real problems facing us on a daily basis. But they're too busy with politics as usual to bother with that ...

... and that is not the fault of these kids in Texas and California.

Arbitrarily flushing them down the drain will not push America back up into the light of day one iota. In fact, if we have really become that cruel and heartless as a people, our own downfall is assured, anyway.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
For my part, anytime I see a phrase like "radical leftist provocateurs" I realize that I'm reading an utterly biased piece of garbage "journalism."

From the LA Times: Murrieta Immigrant Detainee Protests Keep Growing

Tuesday's blockade was a rowdy affair in which more than 100 people waving flags stood in front of police cars and federal vehicles to prevent the detainees from getting through. Some Murrieta residents expressed fear for their safety if the immigrants were released into the community.

That sentiment — coupled with the warmer welcome the detainees received in Texas — created an unsavory impression of this High Desert community of 105,000 along Interstate 15 in southern Riverside County.

Unsavory? But why?

From SFGate.comFrom SFGate.com

Republicans in particular are divided over how to react to what happened when federal officials tried to transfer 140 immigrants from Texas holding centers, which are overflowing with thousands of unaccompanied minors fleeing strife in their Central American homelands.

Flag-waving protesters outside a detention center in Murrieta, a city of 103,000 in southwestern Riverside County, succeeded in turning away three buses carrying the refugees Tuesday. The buses were diverted to another federal facility.

All protesters are American citizens, and therefore, each side has every right to exercise their freedom of speech, right? I mean, we could just as easily call the other side "right wingnut rabble rousers and haters of freedom" eh?

Or is that freedom set aside only for the right wing adherents of our political system?

The use of the words "radical leftist provocateurs" is an accurate description of some of the views I heard expressed by those who were interviewed. That's their job---they are radical, as in Anarchist radical, leftists who take actions to provoke reactions. That's why they are described as "radical leftist provocateurs" by writers who want to present an accurate depiction of the subject.
I know this because I was once one of those very creatures.
I wanted that stupid war stopped and I saw it as my duty to do everything within my power to stop it.
I was however, a strictly non-violent radical Vietnam War protestor. The actions we took never vandalized property or put anyone in physical danger. The group of which I was a part had politicians as its targets, not soldiers or the military. We didn't aim to provoke violence against anyone but we had no qualms about disrupting the other side's programs.
Because I was one, I can say that in all likelihood there were a good many of those agents in that group.
On the other hand, your characterization of those protesting the dumping of illegals into their county as "right wingnut rabble rousers and haters of freedom" needs a bit of supporting. I saw nothing in any of the videos that suggested any "rabble" to "rouse." Is it now being a "wing-nut" to say that children shouldn't be treated this way?
Having just discussed this very situation at length over the past few days with friends and relatives who work in the child services fields, I can understand why the people in these communities are saying "NO!"
If the radical leftists had showed up with vans and applications to each take a couple of these folks home with them---I'd have a tad more respect for them. And when questioned about why they were there, the only references to the children did not reflect concern for what might happen to them now.
I did notice that the majority of the leftists were quite young. They have good hearts but they haven't any wisdom to guide those hearts. They don't know a lot...but by golly, at least they're out there---doing something they believe in.
My experience has been that the hard-core Anarchists are the ones most likely to provoke violence. They don't respect "rights" because they don't believe that anyone has rights. Just my experience through the years.
In my discussions with child services providers, I asked what would result from one of those buses coming to our community. They all got a horrified expression. The manager of one local food-bank commented "It'd be like the Katrina refugees cubed. At least we had parents with those children. That would be horrific."
When the rainbow buses start rolling up filled with people ready to take the responsibility of caring for these refugees, I'll take a little more time to hear their arguments. But I'm fully informed on a goodly number of the issues the leftists expressed. I just can't make the leap that takes me into the world they are proposing to build.

a reply to: beezzer

And who is "THEY" Beezer ... who is "weaponizing" these kids? I'd like to know who you think that is.

You're talking about sacrifice, but when pressed to it, you aren't providing any examples of how we, as individual Americans, would be asked to sacrifice for these kids. I certainly don't mind diverting a few of my tax pennies from drones and anthrax and bailing out billionaire bankers to feeding and housing these kids for a while until we get things sorted out.

And we're not talking about all kids that ever want to come here (that's a different issue), but these that are now in our care. What do we do with THEM? What is the Christian thing to do? What did Jesus say about how we treat children?

What do you suggest we do with them, after we ship them home, to assure that they never come back?

a reply to: diggindirt

The people I saw were normal American citizens who were very agitated about how they saw these kids being treated.

I'd love to see any evidence that those present were "leftist provocateurs" ... I'm not a fan of flag burning, but that is a traditional way to demonstrate dissatisfaction. I've seen right-wingers do a lot worse with flags these last ten years or so, I've seen calls for the dissolution of our country, what would have been called treason and subversion a few decades ago. Now, it's freedom of speech. Now it's patriotic ... funny world.

The only writers and reporters using this terminology are those working for the equally fictitious right-wing media.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I reject the idea wholly and completely.

Americans have the right to say what they think, even if they have to get on buses and travel to do it?

Wasn't that the idea at the Bundy ranch? Were those guys "rightist thuggish provocateurs"?

No? Okay then.