Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Former Marine said he’d ‘slaughter’ antifa. The FBI, using Oregon’s new red flag law, took his guns away
Source:
The Oregonian
URL Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201 ... ag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
Published: Aug 30, 2019
Author: Shane Dixon Kavanaugh
Post Date: 2019-08-31 13:38:05 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 2166
Comments: 17
Shane Kohfield stood outside the home of Portland’s mayor in July wearing body armor and a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, a large knife strapped to one shoulder and a copy of his concealed weapons permit displayed on the other. Using a loudspeaker, he warned the right-wing activists who turned out to condemn the city’s handling of recent violent demonstrations that they needed to protect themselves against their anti-fascist, or antifa, rivals. “If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield, 32, said. “I’d slaughter them and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa.” That threat pushed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task to take a series of extraordinary steps against Kohfield, including temporary seizure of a cache of his firearms under Oregon’s new “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence, The Oregonian/OregonLive has learned. The task force also had the ex-Marine committed to a veterans’ hospital in Portland. He spent the next 20 days there. The moves came as city officials and law enforcement prepared for potentially violent clashes Aug. 17 during a right-wing rally and counterprotests planned in downtown Portland that had become inflamed with incendiary political rhetoric nationwide. Police worried that they would end in catastrophe. Though Kohfield wasn’t accused or charged with any crimes, police took no chances and prevented him from attending the rally as he repeatedly had promised to do on social media after his confrontation at Mayor Ted Wheeler’s house. The episode shows that federal law enforcement may be beginning to take a more aggressive tack toward potential political threats, said Michael German, a retired FBI agent and fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. “Clearly, this latest incident shows how effective proactive policing can be in reducing the chance of violence,” said German, who has monitored political street clashes in Portland and other parts of the country over the last few years. “It also makes you wonder if they’d been proactive from beginning whether all of this would have grown into the menace it has become.” The FBI declined to provide additional details about the case or answer questions submitted by The Oregonian/OregonLive. “The Portland JTTF’s role is to assess, address, and mitigate any given threat against the people of Oregon appropriately,” Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the bureau’s Portland office said in an email Friday. “Sometimes that mitigation takes the form of criminal prosecution, and sometimes it involves a holistic response, including consultation with threat assessment teams or others to divert a person before a significant violent crime occurs.” *** Kohfield, who spoke with The Oregonian/OregonLive, suffers from bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical records show. He returned home Tuesday from the VA hospital and maintains he never planned to hurt or maim other people. But he understands why he alarmed police. “I looked unhinged. I looked dangerous and have the training to be dangerous,” said Kohfield, who lives with his father in Canby and receives disability payments for physical and psychological injuries he sustained during two tours of duty in Iraq. By leveling vicious warnings, Kohfield said, he hoped to deter others from causing physical harm. “I figured that the key to de-escalating the situation was to not be the most violent person in the room,” he said. “It was to be the scariest person in the room.” A supporter of President Donald Trump, Kohfield said he isn’t affiliated with Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys or other right-wing groups that have organized marches and demonstration throughout Portland over the last 2 ½ years, some that have devolved into bloody brawls and riots. His protest activity, he said, has been limited to the event outside the mayor’s house and a right-wing rally last fall in downtown Portland, both organized by local conservative activist Haley Adams. “I was watching on the news that city of Portland did nothing to protect the people against antifa,” Kohfield said. “I figured I’d show up to protect these people.” *** By the time he popped up at the mayor’s house, Kohfield was already on the FBI’s radar. He had landed there in March after he sent a letter to Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a first-term Republican congressman and former Navy Seal, according court documents filed in Clackamas County. The five-page letter, included in the court filings, accused Portland’s mayor and police of permitting anti-fascist activists to commit “savage attacks” against conservatives at protests, including the November rally where Kohfield said he was assaulted by masked demonstrators. Kohfield told Crenshaw that Congress needed to take immediate steps to declare antifa a terrorist organization. Otherwise, he and other veterans would have no choice but to begin systematically killing antifa members “until we have achieved genocide.” Kohfield included a detailed outline of how he would carry out the mission, which he argued would be legally justified if the federal government refused to act. The U.S. Capitol Police shared the letter with the FBI’s Portland office, which assigned the case to a Clackamas County sheriff’s deputy serving on the area’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, court records show. Deputy Jeremy Stinson interviewed Kohfield and his father at their home in April, according to the court documents. Stinson learned Kohfield had served in the Marines and kept guns in the house. Kohfield told the deputy he would defend himself the next time members of antifa attacked him. *** Nearly four months after the visit, the deputy was notified that Portland police had opened a non-criminal inquiry known as a threat investigation in response to the remarks Kohfield made July 20 at the mayor’s house. “I can’t say that he won’t kill someone,” Kohfield’s father told Portland police during their investigation, according to court records. He also told police that his son was taking medication for bipolar disorder, drinking heavily and had become increasingly agitated. “(Kohfield’s father) provided that Shane was really upset by Portland’s ‘liberal government’ and the state of the federal government,” the court documents read. Stinson included all these details in a July 25 affidavit seeking an “extreme risk protection order” against Kohfield, which a judge approved the same day. Such protection orders, introduced in Oregon in 2018, allow authorities to pry guns from people not convicted of a crime who show signs they might shoot themselves or someone else. Each protection order stands for a year but can be extended indefinitely. Those who have their guns taken away can appeal the decision. Judges statewide received 122 extreme risk protection order petitions through July 2019 and granted 98 of them, said Phil Lemman, Oregon’s acting deputy state court administrator. Kohfield’s is only the sixth approved in Clackamas County, records show. According to court documents and Kohfield, law enforcement officers served him with the order on Aug. 7 while he was visiting family in central Oregon. *** It’s not clear why law enforcement waited nearly two weeks to serve the order, but they did so only days after a pair of deadly mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, on Aug. 3 and Dayton, Ohio, the following day. Kohfield, who was unarmed, said at least a dozen officers stopped him while he was leaving a relative’s home outside Prineville. Officers said they planned to take Kohfield to the VA hospital in Portland. He said they then served him with the protection order. “I was told that I didn’t have a choice,” he said. “The cops were great. They were respectful and compassionate.” Kohfield said he was placed under psychiatric observation for five days. He said that he then volunteered to remain at the VA hospital for another two weeks. According to Lemman, the state court administrator, Kohfield surrendered an AR-15, a pistol, a rifle and a shotgun. The ex-Marine said he is done with attending protests or political demonstrations in Portland. “I have done everything I can possibly do to keep both sides from killing each other,” he said. “As long as they keep duking it out like this, it will achieve nothing.” 
Poster Comment:
Antifa scum can threaten to make the streets run red with blood and actually attack people for wearing a hat they don't like, assault them with bike locks by striking them on the head, do all kinds of stuff. No one does a thing. This guy speaks out against the local political establishment and suggests that someday, if Antifa became dangerous enough and violent enough to start killing people openly, he'd deal with them directly. And that is the pretext for someone to invoke a red flag law.
Red flag laws can be used with impunity to harass gunowners or put them under court supervision or even have them committed for observation. All without any factual basis or the opportunity for the accused to plead his case with the judge with the help of an attorney. It is a denial of due process rights IMO. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#2. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#0) (Edited)
Antifa scum can threaten to make the streets run red with blood and actually attack people for wearing a hat they don't like, assault them with bike locks by striking them on the head, do all kinds of stuff. No one does a thing.This guy speaks out against the local political establishment and suggests that someday, if Antifa became dangerous enough and violent enough to start killing people openly, he'd deal with them directly. And that is the pretext for someone to invoke a red flag law.
And there is one of the problems with so-called Red Flag laws. Violent Leftist anarchists are apparently not dangerous - conservative gun owners are.
“If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield, 32, said. “I’d slaughter them and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa.”
That's not a threat - he's saying he will defend himself.
Why is the FBI apparently protecting Antifa anyways? Are they (antifa) hired agents provocateur run by the deep state?
#5. To: Deckard (#2)
It was never my contention there wasn’t any problem with the Red Flag Laws. Before I proceed to thrash you and explain why, I will first stop to edify you for your intellectual improvement. The Red Flag Laws are definitely not “so called” – it is an “actual name of a law in some state”s that permits “police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.” It behooves you to know and understand that. And since you are such an ignoramus who needs everything explained to him – I shall do so. Please read the following very carefully [You may use your finger to slowly follow along the words]: You desperately need to understand all I have ever done – over and over, again and again – in regard to the Red Flag Laws is to constantly try to get you to answer the two questions I first posted here. I will repeat for your short memory span: Salute, And there is one of the problems with so-called Red Flag laws.
There was absolutely no reason for you to ping me to this. In addition to Red Flag such an order is also known by various names, including "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (ERPO) (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont); "Risk Protection Orders" (in Florida); "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" (in California); "risk warrants" (in Connecticut); and "Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm" (in Indiana). As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are enforced, vary from state to state.
So, stop with the “so called” shit when you are making an attempt to use a dismissive adjective where you are trying to be demeaning. Understand? My question to you, Deckard, is twofold:
Will you please – PLEASE- now answer those two questions?
Gatlin
[AKA: Parsons]
#6. To: Gatlin, Deckard, nolu chan (#5) (Edited)
First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?”
There are several types of due process. Here's a brief outline of them.
| WiseGeek: What are the Different Types of Due Process? |
|---|
| There are a number of different types of due process, and the names of each type are typically established by the laws or legal practices of a country. In the US, for example, there are two specific types: procedural and substantive. They are afforded to US citizens at a national level due to the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and they are expanded to all citizens at a state level through the Fourteenth Amendment. In general, this term refers to the legal practices and procedures that must be followed in order to deprive someone of his or her natural rights. For example, in the US, there is an expectation that every citizen has a right to life, liberty, and property, often referred to as natural rights. In order for a US state or federal government agency, such as law enforcement or the courts of the judicial system, to deprive someone of one of those rights, they must follow the proper steps to do so. These steps are established by the US Constitution and other laws in great detail, and any failure to follow these steps properly often can lead to a reversal of actions that took away those rights. Procedural due process is typically seen as referring to those steps that must be followed during a court case or similar procedure. For example, in the US there are a number of different rights a person has, even when being prosecuted for a crime, and those rights must be respected in order for a legal verdict to be brought against him or her. These rights include the ability for a person to confront any accusers against him or her, a trial before a jury of his or her peers, and a relatively fast and fair trial. When these procedures are not followed properly, a judge can declare a mistrial and release a person; sometimes, procedural errors can even result in a judge overturning a prior conviction. In the US, someone who is guilty of a crime but who is deprived of his rights to due process can be set free in order to uphold the importance of such rights. Substantive due process, on the other hand, refers to the ability of courts and legislators to decide that a law violates the rights of the people. This is often tied to concepts such as “judicial review” and can be a fairly controversial issue. The idea is that, if a law is passed that deprives a person or people of their rights, then that law is unconstitutional and can be struck down. This is a seen as a more reactionary form since it allows courts and other parts of the legal system to react to what others have done in order to preserve the rights of the people. |
Wiki: "The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights."
So we now see the four types of due process judicial proceedings listed.
Also from Wiki: "Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."[3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution."
But what are the exact elements of a full procedural due process that Ron Paul means by the phrase "due process"?
| Wiki: Procedural due process |
|---|
The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."[2] The rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are the following:[2]
Not all the above rights are guaranteed in every instance when the government seeks to deprive a person life, liberty, or property. At minimum, a person is due only notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker. Courts use various tests to determine whether a person should also be guaranteed any of the other above procedural rights. |
Does RP mean this entire list? Some subset? Well, who knows because he didn't say. It's easier to be admired if you're a little vague on the details.
It is, among other things, his diligent vagueness about the key elements of due process that has made Ron Paul America's most beloved congressman. And also America's sweetheart. : )
Before I proceed to thrash you and explain why, I will first stop to edify you for your intellectual improvement.
A memorable post. Kudos.
Replies to Comment # 6.
It's easier to be admired if you're a little vague on the details.
That's REALLY funny.
Thanks for your informative post with the details.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]