View Full Version : UNION THUG UPDATE II!

10-01-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Deputies announced they had made two arrests Monday evening following a contentious standoff last week at a Longview grain facility that saw violence, vandalism and numerous confrontations between police and union members.

Ronald Patrick Stavas, 45, was arrested Monday night on a “probable cause statement,” according to a press release from the Sheriff’s office. He was taken into custody without incident.

Deputies said Stavas was booked into the Cowlitz County Jail on four felony charges including burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, intimidating a witness, and sabotage. </div></div>
OH MY! (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/13/two-measly-arrests-in-wa-longshoremen-union-mobs-attack/)

10-01-2011, 01:37 PM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Two measly arrests in WA longshoremen union mob’s attack</span>

Michelle Malkin is unimpressed.

10-01-2011, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Two measly arrests in WA longshoremen union mob’s attack</span>

Michelle Malkin is unimpressed. </div></div>

So ... in the other thread you were claiming there was no violence so it didn't count.

Here, the violence is clearly stated ... and you are cool with it because only two thugs were arrested.

Have you no shame?

10-01-2011, 01:53 PM
80 were arrested the other day at the OccupyWallSt protest.

Not news apparently.


10-01-2011, 04:22 PM
I looked at the charges, and found no violent acts charged, exactly.

One person, the woman, is only charged with 2nd degree trespass. This is consistent with peaceful civil disobedience, which is not violent.

The violent SOUNDING 2nd degree assault charge for the man lacks the 'BATTERY' component, and hence, charges him with making a threat, not putting his hands on people (battery). Similarly with the 'intimidating a witness' charge. Had it involved violence, it would have been charged as same, and it was not.

So my take is that either there wasn't violence at all, or at least, there wasn't enough evidence of it having occurred (hard to imagine that there wouldn't be eye witness testimony to that effect had it occurred) for the police to charge on that basis.

10-01-2011, 06:04 PM
I figured I'd let you try to use weasel words as I reeled you in:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said. </div></div>

Next denial? (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/08/union-thug-alert-day-of-rage-festivities-start-early-in-longview-wa/)

10-02-2011, 07:23 PM
Vandalism is not violence. It's a crime against property, which can be charged, upon probable cause. (Apparently, no such charges have been brought for some time now, since the original events were prior to the stated 'Day of Rage,' Sept. 17.)

'Kidnapping' may or not be violent, but unlawful detainment or imprisonment is not kidnapping (again, none of these have been charged).

According to your source, 'nobody was harmed.'

Your predicament is explaining how there was all this violence you've claimed, and nobody was harmed, and nobody has been charged with violent acts.

Which is highly suggestive that there were no acts of violence, but rather, acts of property damage perhaps, along with scuffles with police when unionists resisted leaving the tracks.