Summary
A GOP town hall in Idaho turned violent when private security, LEAR Asset Management, forcibly removed Teresa Borrenpohl for speaking out.
The incident escalated after Borrenpohl questioned a panelist’s anti-abortion stance, leading to her being dragged out by unmarked security. Sheriff Norris, present but in plainclothes, did not intervene initially.
LEAR, known for aggressive tactics, was revealed to have been hired by the town hall organizers. Police later revoked LEAR’s city license and clarified that removing someone for speaking out is unlawful.
The incident shows rising tensions and the blurring lines between political events and private security enforcement in conservative areas.
God damn, when the city cops say “bro, you went too far”, you fuuuuuucked up.
bro what is this, youtube? Fix your fucking title.
I dunno if it had been edited, but the current title matches the article.
I think we’d all like to assume that law enforcement wouldnt let their political opinions influence the performance of their sworn duties but time and again we see this sort of thing, and theres no real way to hold them to any account or standard of professionalism at all. They are a clear danger to everyone they come into contact with, and they even have state sponsored permission to lie and deceive in their interactions with you.
Not that I disagree law enforcement needs a lot of fixing, but in this case I have to clarify the facts.
This was not law enforcement, this was private security. Actual law enforcement pulled the private group’s license because of this.
An interesting note though; It was the
towncounty sheriff that made first contact with her and he ordered the private security to remove her.The sheriff so far is facing no punishment.
County sheriff, not town sheriff.
The unmarked security force were from a private security firm called LEAR Asset Management, the Press reported, but Sheriff Norris “claimed no knowledge of the security personnel or who hired them.”
Wait, so the sheriff, admits that he just watched three unidentified men assault a woman in front of him, and that he has no knowledge of who they are or who hired them, and he took no action at all. If he knows nothing about them or who hired them, how would he know that they were providing security? This is brown shirts in action and the sheriff is clearly one of them. Terrifying.
He didn’t just watch; he was the first to make contact with her, then commanded the private security himself ‘boys get her’.
I mean, it seems pretty clear he knew exactly who they were, and he decided to look the other way, which is just as bad.
Remember, the police in the US have no duty to protect
Police in America exist to protect the wealthy. You can trace back their origins to the bounty hunters who caught and returned escaped slaves to their masters.
If you are not wealthy, the police are not your friends.
or to be truthful in their interactions.
And except for when you’re driving, you have no responsibility to talk with them unless you’re in a stop and identify state: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
You’re not required to identify yourself or talk with them unless you are formally being detained, which is about the only thing they have to tell the truth about. They are not worth talking to in any situatuion, and they are never “off duty” So they are never worth talking to after work either. They should always be ignored and interacted with as little as possible.
Not just watched, he’s the one in the video telling her she needs to leave and then had the “private security” remove her.
So he gave the illegal order to remove her to vigilantes he didn’t know as law enforcement, and he’s not in trouble?
But he doesn’t know who hired them? Who was in charge of security for the event. How would the local sheriff no know that?
Does their lawsuit shield come off them when their badge comes off?
Sheriffs are known for being gangsters, probably just another day in the park for him
Wasn’t he the guy who mocked and belittled her as she was assaulted? The only who called her a little girl?
According to the article that was the moderator of the town hall who said that. Some website developer named, Ed Bejarana. No clue if he was involved with security, but he certainly seemed to be getting off on watching a woman get abused.
It’s interesting, the tv news i saw about this said that the organizers said that this wasn’t a “town hall” it was a private Republican Party event, and therefore people were not allowed to interrupt and they were allowed to hire their own private security.
This article makes it sound like they are walking that initial stance back a bit.
I mean a town hall in a rural part of Idaho kind of is a republican party event…
Sure but not private lol
Did you notice that what she yelled was “is this a town hall or a lecture?” because this is what it was?
Allowing them to violently repress the people living in that town who do disagree with them won’t do anything to make this country better
The irl equivalent of “flaired users only”.
Sadly less than half of us know that, but you are correct.
“That little girl is afraid to leave!” Bejarana called from the stage. “She spoke up and now she doesn’t want to suffer the consequences.”
What a fucking piece of shit.
Edited to add - there aren’t supposed to be any consequences for speaking up. That’s part of what we supposedly all value about our nation you fucking poseurs wrapped in your US flag and preamble to the constitution prints!
"burn the witch!" - Bejarana (almost certainly)
Hey Lemmy:
Remember how some of you dip shits kept saying “Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences” like that wasn’t one of the most fascist statements ever spoken?
Do we see now why you should have used your brain to explain the difference between government and private actions on social media rather than just mindlessly repeating something you heard?
What a catastrophically dumb take. People WERE explaining that freedom of speech only prevents the government from taking action against you based on your speech, and even then that it’s limited. If you missed that then you’re too ignorant to be commenting on the subject.
Calling the phrase fascist is just bafflingly stupid as well. Saying that people are not free from consequences of their speech in NO WAY supports the use of physical force to quell people’s right to participate in politics for the simple act of asking a question. Any interpretation of “freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences” that concludes that it means that all speech should be subject to any consequences is embarrassingly brain-dead.
You’re free to be this clueless on a public forum, but you’re not free from being called out for your dumb take. That is a consequence. It doesn’t mean that a big muscly dude can justifiably take your phone and smash it into pieces so you can’t comment anymore.
The consequence is mercenary thugs attacking you? Are you mentally insane? Is that the same as when a platform bans a misinformation prince of death? Which is government again? Is it the hateful manchild posting on twitter or is it the fucking town hall meeting
This take is just incredibly dumb. No one would ever interpret it that way. They are doing this because they are bad people.
Black and white. There is no gray here.
This is a brain dead take. Freedom of speech is very much not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech only guarantees that the government will not punish you for expressing yourself (which is kind of the problem with this video).
If you say something stupid or racist at work, or in public that gets filmed and goes viral, you can say muh free speech all you want, and still get fired with cause. Freedom of speech is not going to save your job.
Let me help you out there.
The consequences in this statement will exclude stuff like imprisonment or illegal actions, as it would otherwise not constitute free speech. What is meant by consequences in that statement is social consequences, like being ignored, being “cancelled” or maybe being called names, like bigot.
For some reason people like to lament that “you aren’t allowed to say this bigoted thing anymore”. This statement rightly points out that you are, but people are also allowed to call you an asshole for doing it.
I literally referenced that in my comment.
The point is that the rhetoric is so poorly and foolishly phrased that it erodes the actual rights of the people.
The phrase is eroded to you because you can’t understand it yet. Not to everyone. The actual rights of the people is to speak at town hall, not to puke hate speech from their phone out to a teen app for sharing your thoughts. You do understand that it is most likely that you will be cattle prod long before the people you hate, right?
It’s not foolishly phrased. The limits of the consequences are implicit by using “freedom of speech”. It feels more like you are just foolishly interpreting the statement. The statement doesn’t even pertain to the article in the post.
I’ve only ever seen it being used correctly to point out that speech having social consequences does not mean you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone says “oh woe is me, why can’t I say the n word anymore”, I don’t think going into a 30 minute tirade about the intricacies of freedom of speech is going to work out for you.
You don’t have a Constitutional right to say the N word at your job, but you have a Constitutional right to ask your government questions.
They’re not the same thing, as equally important as they are to you.
I’m going to laugh when you people get sent to the work camps as the “consequences” of your speech while you’re too stubborn to admit that the rhetoric you use can have unintended consequences.
I’m going to laugh when you people get sent to the work camps
And that is all i ever need to know about you.
deleted by creator
What are you smoking and can I have some
🤣
Getting in my practice runs. I’d suggest you guys start working on your cardio now, it’ll be easier on you than having to develop your endurance at the end of a DOGE cattleprod.
If you’re anywhere, and someone in plain clothes tries to force you to do anything and they haven’t identified as police, start fucking swinging, especially if it’s somewhere like this where it’s clear that they don’t have authority. They committed assault and it’s perfectly legal to defend yourself if you feel threatened. In the end, you probably still end up getting dragged out, but maybe you can break a Nazi’s nose, or if your lucky and hit them in the right spot hard enough, you could kill a Nazi.
At the very least, Teresa needs to sue everyone involved. Make being a fascist at least hurt.
Sounds like a good way to end up sitting in jail for assaulting an officer. Yeah, you’re within your rights to defend yourself. Your day is still fucked and your foreseeable future is probably fucked too until you win the court battle in a few years.
Almost happened to a friend of mine. Good thing he was on his way to babysit the commissioner’s kids when the “goons” (who were actually plainclothes officers looking for drugs traffickers, but never identified themselves before they caught him) attacked him.
I’m this particular circumstance, they weren’t lawfully allowed to touch her let alone remove her to my understanding. If I misinterpreted, then yea don’t hit cops, they will
shoothit back and then take you to jail. Obviously if it’s an office in plain clothes, they are still cops, but if not, swing away like your life depends on it, because it just may.Mostly just an emotional response to a shitty situation, but one of these days, regardless of who it is and their authority, swinging might be the last option.
The problem with plain clothes is it’s kinda hard to tell if they’re a cop or just security,. especially in the heat of the moment.
Yea I get it. I’m unfortunately reaching the point where to me it doesn’t matter because something/someone needs to be the Luigi for this movement. Punching a plain clothes cop in the mouth isn’t shooting a CEO, but on the news, it could be an inspiration for a movement.
10+ years ago, the rhetoric that the GOP uses in normal conversation today would have been a career ender. Trump being the piece of shit he is, said it all out loud and that made it acceptable for other cunts to do the same. Racism, Bigotry, Antisemitism, they’re all acceptable now because someone broke through that barrier. Maybe defending one’s freedom with violence against the cross burners could have the same normalizing effect.
Don’t think it’s a good idea to start swinging if the event is full of numb nuts with guns.
Yeah just shut up and be subject guys, stop having thoughts and feeling
?
I mean, if you can put yourself at the center of a crossfire event and make sure two or more get hurt as badly as you do it’s a net positive
Support. But there’s nothing shocking here unless you just woke up in January. The state has been dragging anti-genocide protesters out of everywhere for more than a year. Trying to kick them out of school, deport them, etc. LA wanted to hire mercenaries. Nothing new at all.
Link to incident. No news coverage, just the incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-aPFGNO5Wg
The most horrifying part to me is the boomers watching dispassionately as she’s dragged away.
Yeah, the Republicans thought it was a good thing to get rid of her. First Amendment anyone?
deleted by creator
Sue the shit out of them. It’s all on video.
This is the way, at least until Trump squashes it by some new bullshit dictatorial power or the SCOTUS goes digging for what 1600s witch hunters thought about freedom of speech. Until then, however, we still at least nominally have a constitution that says she had a right to be there and speak.
You got it! Make them put all their cards on the table. How far and fast are the $upremes willing to take this because they are creating a lot of Super Mario Brothers fans.
Burn stuff. You’ve got a constitutional and legal right to assembly and speech. If they don’t recognize that, then you don’t have to recognize their position of power and authority laid out by the same constitutional and legal framework.
Yup. Get good smoke bombs, photo realistic sheer face mask, flare gun, and gasoline. Move under cover of smoke, don’t show your face, avoid cameras, or sabotage them days/weeks prior.
Ah, PMCs. PMCs are probably just as bad if not worse than brown-shirt like paramilitary, because they get paid to not have morals, and are usually far more coordinated and dangerous.
They’re still soulless, brainless thugs, but motivated by easy money rather than pure ideology.
It’s quite possible that the tech bro brought them with. The sheriff not doing shit though? That’s a concern.
The Constitutional sheriffs movement.
It’s …not good.
…contend that federal and state government authorities are subordinate to the local authority of county sheriffs and police. Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional.[2][3] As a result, they may sometimes be referred to as sovereign sheriffs.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Association
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/constitutional-sheriffs-las-vegas-conference-rcna147487
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/22/1130755532/inside-the-constitutional-sheriff-movement
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/constitutional-sheriffs/
And the 1A absolutists aren’t speaking up.
Murica and israel are the new nazis! Wild timeline!
Russia.
Russia has been for a loooooong time already
A town hall is where a politician declares his edict and participants silently accept them /s
