Criminal law

The Shader Sisters: Two Women Arrested After Molotov Cocktail Is Thrown Into Van With Four Officers [Updated]

Two sisters have been arrested after a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a NYPD van with four officers inside. Samantha Shader, 27, of Catskill, NY, is charged with throwing the incendiary device, which did not explode.  Her sister, Darian, 21, (left) then allegedly tried to stop the arrest of Samantha Shader.  The police have hit Samantha Shader with a slew of major charges including attempted murder of a police officer, attempted arson, assault on a police officer, criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment.  Her sister faces charges of resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration. (The Daily Mail has released these pictures from social media allegedly showing the two sisters).  Update: Media is reporting that Shader admitted to her attack on the police.  The police have released a picture of Shader throwing the Molotov cocktail.

Police say that Samantha Shader threw the device through a rear window of the van.  She then allegedly bit an officer on the leg as they struggled to arrest her.  When her sister attempted to intervene, she was also arrested.

Perhaps some of our New York lawyers could help us with a code issue. I was able to find attempted murder in the second degree but not a first degree program.  Murder in the first degree includes

“the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision 34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was a police officer.”

This would appear therefore an attempted murder in the first degree.  

The best defense would be to challenge either the allegation that she threw the device or that the device was actually explosive or flammable.  A mental capacity defense is often hard to make out with there is preplanning or pre-construction of an explosive device.

It is hard to imagine any prosecutor bargaining down this charge since, if true, there would have been four officers burned to death if the device actually went off. Unless the device did not contain a flammable or explosive liquid, Shader is looking at serious time if convicted. For a Class A felony, the maximum term is life imprisonment.  Even a Class B felony includes up to 25 years in prison.

Even if a life sentence is not sought, an effective life sentence can be achieved in such a case if the prosecutors count stack or ask for non-concurrent (or consecutive) sentencing.

Update:  Others have been arrested for alleged firebombing attacks.  In the second case, Urooj Raman tossed a Molotov cocktail into the NYPD vehicle and then jumped into a minivan. He and the driver Colinford Mattis, 32, were arrested and both are Brooklyn residents.

Here is the photo that accompanied the police affidavit:

download

 

393 thoughts on “The Shader Sisters: Two Women Arrested After Molotov Cocktail Is Thrown Into Van With Four Officers [Updated]”

  1. Acts of Terrorism. to cut it short. Now they are right up there with Pelosi and Schumer,

  2. “… for allegedly lobbing the lit bottle of alcohol at the van. ”
    ” The four officers inside the van were able to escape as the fire broke out. ”

    So, we have very, very little chance of a single death. Period. Alcohol can be poured on skin and lit without burns.

    2. They threw an incendiary device in a car full of police officers. That’s attempted murder, you stupid f u ck

      1. Anon. I agree with you except that he isn’t stupid. He is in the grip of an idea. It happens to all of us.

        If an agent handed her an inert device that she thought could kill and she threw it in the police car it would still be attempted murder even though they couldn’t light a joint with it.

        1. Yes, the idea I’m in the grip of is false physics, embellishment, outright lying, panic, psychotic hatred, and emotional turmoil, as the standard used to declare all four officers dead in the failed attempt.

          It’s as bad as the crap the libs pull.

      2. I know what you ragers call it. You’ll just never have a real death in that scenario.
        A thousand times repeated, not once.
        I understand the system, and the billowing notoriety always present.

    3. Can the heated air be inhaled without damage? Apparently you haven’t found the video of the girl in El Salvador who died because of that. As I said, the liquid burned on her skin without much damage but the damage to her lungs killed her.

      1. The charge is attempted murder on all 4 officers.
        I’d accept maybe one, but unless she’s as stupid as everyone else, she’d never throw it thinking I got em.. all 4 dead… and I doubt she thought one would die.
        I’d reluctantly accept one – once again – highly unlikely.

        1. “The charge is attempted murder on all 4 officers.
          I’d accept maybe one.”

          How many muders is she allowed before it becomes a serious crime? I would have thought the one you are allowing her would almost be enough.

          1. Please copy and paste my text where I declared it not a serious crime. your heads are exploding. I guess I should be charged with murder.

            There. Laughing.

          2. Also, I’m not allowing her one. I’m allowing you ragers one in a million. That’s even stretching it.

            Let’s say she had an 8 rounds nine millimeter and fired it into the back of the van and missed.

            Well, that’s attempted murder. That’s clear. That happens in real life all the time without back luck/bad aim.

    1. Video removed, apparently for violating the You Tube preferred propaganda narrative.

      Was this the moron who set himself on fire while throwing a Molotov? I liked that video.

  4. Either Mr. Turley or The Daily Mail incorrectly identify which sister is which in the photos’ captions.

  5. Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence. The dog that didn’t bark in this story was race. Who throws Molotov cocktails these days?

    1. “Who throws Molotov cocktails these days?”

      Apparently cute white girls from upstate New York.

      Put her in prison.

    2. I agree, if 3 of 4 officers were white, or the white ones were visible in the van rear area, it’s a hate crime. Yes, a self hate crime, but a hate crime none the less.

      Another unclear thing is – was the rear van window shattered by the maltov cocktail ?
      The article says through the window. Maybe should show through the open window .. area.

      1. We would be better off if we dropped the ‘hate crime’ nonsense and just prosecuted crimes.

        1. Yes but, that’s the truth if the person tossing believes in the white privilege and the white patriarchy, and is white. Let’s give it them what they demand.
          I love to see the look on the white libs faces when any crime they commit is a hate crime against any other white. We just check their social media and see if they are “muh white privilege”, and if they hate the patriarchy, well if it’s a white male same thing.

          See, I want to fight back.
          I am laughing but serious.

  6. Outrageous, and they should suffer the full consequences of their actions.

    On another note, JT has railed almost daily on the supposed injustice of the Flynn case. Now that the redacted contents of his discussion with the Russian Ambassador have become public – I believe that was 2 days ago – he has gone silent. GIven that they confirm Flynn discussing the Obama sanctions and cautioning him to be cool – something he clearly lied about to the FBI (see the 302s), one wonders why?

    They also reveal communication with “the boss” about a meeting with Putin, suggesting he would most likely have relayed his discussion to “the boss” and so more likely Pence was lying on TV, or was just not a trusted campaign member yet.

    1. Book– Your synapses are in a tangle. Nothing in the transcripts supports your conclusions. What are you putting in your coffee this morning, LSD?

      2. Have you actually read the call summary and transcripts that Ratcliffe released on Friday?

        For example, they discussed the sanctions and Flynn’s desire that Russia not escalate on pp. 9-10 (12/29 call transcript). Flynn’s comment that “the boss is aware” is on p. 15 (12/31 call transcript).

        If you haven’t read them, here you go: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Flynn%20Transcripts%29.pdf

          1. Ad hom is a weak response. Apparently you’re unwilling to focus on the transcripts and correct your false claim to bythebook that “Nothing in the transcripts supports your conclusions.”

            1. Stupid shilling does not require detailed responses. Flynn had every right to engage in that conversation, and the current DOJ recognizes that. ‘Nuff said.

              It is spring, and people are planting gardens. You can probably offload your manure on them. They may even pay you for it!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Every time one of you responds to me with ad hom, I interpret it as weakness on your end. If you all want to keep demonstrating that weakness, so be it.

                You can’t even bring yourself to deal honestly with all of the relevant facts. Trump and Pence both said that Flynn lied to Pence about this. So (a) did Flynn actually lie to Pence, or (b) were Trump and Pence lying about Flynn when they said this?

                Which do you think it is: (a) or (b)?

                As for the Motion to Dismiss, it’s not up to the DOJ. They made false statements and a weak argument in their motion, and now it’s for the court to determine. Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing Judge Sullivan’s response this week to the writ of mandamus requested by Flynn’s lawyer. My guess is that Sullivan and Wilkinson will make use of the transcript evidence to make their argument against the writ even stronger.

                1. Committ – we are all curious to see how Wilkinson tries to get Sullivan out of the trap he is in. We are also looking forward to finding out who is paying her bill.

                  1. Not sure why you think Sullivan is in a “trap.” You don’t say.

                    Powell and the DC Circuit are the ones who made Sullivan a respondent in his job capacity, so I won’t be surprised if the public ends up paying for Sullivan’s representation, but I don’t know.

                  2. Paul– Yes, I haven’t forgotten that despite the chaos. This should be fascinating.

                    As an Aside– I see that some in the media are calling the rioters Trump supporters. Others are still defending them as champions of Democracy. The scripts are coming out of the DNC too fast for their minions to keep up. Right now we have the hilarious situation in which Hollywood liberals are rushing to pay bail for rioting ‘Trump supporters.” Can’t wait to see their reaction when they catch up with the latest script.

                    1. Young – I saw that some very liberal liberals were going to pony up bail money. Talk is cheap. However, doing for Trump supporters would be golden. 🙂

                2. My answer got swallowed hours ago, trying again.
                  It’s (C).

                  The FBI lied to Trump and Pence. The FBI told the twisted tale and made the squeeze on Flynn look valid. The FBI repeated what Obama said “you were warned not to keep Flynn”. The DOJ said “We’re looking at him, do you really want somewone who wasn’t 100% on board with out middle east wars (and support ISIS policy ?) And said publicly he had no clue what the strategy Obama was using was, and no one had a clue ?”

                  So Trump and Pence were given the new administration strong arm tactic, an opposition inside the government to the new administration, just as Comey and all the democrats described and describe it and exactly how Obama plotted it.

                  LIE to the new administration as much as possible – in the initial days everything is moving fast and furiously, it’s your chance to smear egg on their face and get things done you normally could not.

                  FBI and DOJ – LIED. Of course everyone is clueless, as is the case half the time perhaps.
                  For cripe sakes we know who was lying. Is still lying and covering up.

                  For our wonderful libs who cannot understand:
                  FBI and DOJ is anagram for your view of Nixon.

                  1. The DOJ said “We’re looking at him, do you really want somewone who wasn’t 100% on board with out middle east wars (and support ISIS policy ?)
                    ___________________________________________________________

                    You are probably correct about that…

                    But the facts are the FBI is on the record saying they believed Flynn did not lie to them and Trump fired Flynn anyway. And then Trump continued the policy of supporting ISIS as a weapon against Russia, Iran and Syria. Trump’s support for the militants continues. Shortly after Flynn was fired Trump launched 60 missile strikes against Syria in retaliation for a gas attack. We now know ISIS planted those chlorine canisters in Syria so it did not take long after Flynn was gone for Trump to start assisting ISIS.

                    I don’t know what role Flynn plays in this. It seems he genuinely wanted to stop the madness in the ME. But it also seems he played along with the stupid games that have continued the mess in the ME.

                    We also know that the prosecutors that convicted Flynn were given the power to do that by Trump. Trump appointed Rosenstein and almost immediately Rosenstein went into action to remove the FBI from the Russia investigation and put it under Rosenstein’s direct control. Mueller had to get permission from Rosenstein to prosecute Flynn.

        2. I have read them and they DO NOT support your scenario. Flynn merely recommended that Russia not escalate the situation, which he had every right to do.

          1. True, and it seemed like a good idea. Who in the hell wants to escalate international tensions? Apart ftom Democrats, I mean.

            1. The scam is clear. The democrats lost the election and plotted to blame Russia hacking and Trump collusion with that.
              The way to show ‘they were certain’ with zero evidence and foreknowledge and evidence and knowledge it was not true, was to do a big rip job on Russia while running out the door.
              So that’s what they did. It’s as clear as day to anyone who is merely sentient.
              The follow up of course is entrap anyone who ever talked to a Russian, which is all the same democrats doing all the same things at the same time, but forget democrats just Trump and his people.
              Also, crack open the phone calls and transcripts to all the 17 intel agencies and disseminate the conspiracy widely so it sticks.

              That’s what they did, period. Knowingly, and with full intent, plotting, and the hatred and hubris and lying workarounds right to the top Obama directing and in on it. Period.
              Some flat out admit it on media, like Comey has.

            2. Yeah, instead it was so much better that Putin escalated it 6 months later (ordering the U.S. to reduce embassy/consulate staff by over 700) and got Trump to kiss Putin’s butt in response, with Trump saying “I want to thank [Putin] because we’re trying to cut down our payroll, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll.” Yup, that was masterful on Trump’s end. /s

              1. Yeah, instead it was so much better that Putin escalated it 6 months later (ordering the U.S. to reduce embassy/consulate staff by over 700)
                ___________________________________________________________________

                What you are saying is that it took Putin 6 months to figure out he had been conned by Trump.

            3. Young, the entire point of the sanctions – a tool Trump has used – was to escalate tensions with the Russians who had interfered in our election. Flynn would be within his rights to publicly disagree with those sanctions, but not to undermine official US policy by speaking to the Russians privately and then even lying to the FBI about it.

              Why do you think he lied about it?

              Think hard.

              1. Anon – it is within Flynn’s job description to do exactly what he did. Think hard.

                1. No, actually, it’s only in the job description for the incumbent NSA, not the incoming NSA. We only have one President at a time, and he only has one NSA at a time. Susan Rice was the incumbent NSA in Dec. 2016, not Flynn.

                  1. Committ – you really do not know how government works do you?

                    1. As I pointed out earlier, loaded questions are a common fallacy.

                      I do understand how government works, nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary.

                    2. Committ – since you do not know how transition of governments work, I would say that you do not know how government works. Did your high school require you to take a Civics class? Arizona requires Arizona and US Government.

                    3. Flynn was not a member of the government in Dec 2016 and was not authorized to undermine actions of the US President by conspiring with a hostile state.

                      Why do you think he lied about it?

                    4. You haven’t provided any evidence that I’ve said anything false. Do you have any?

                    5. Committ – yes, Flynn had every right to do what he did making that call. To say that he didn’t is a falsehood.

                    6. Paul, Flynn was not a member of the government in Dec 2016 and was not authorized to undermine actions of the US President by conspiring with a hostile state.

                      Why do you think he lied about it?

                    7. Anon – have you read the transcript? At what point does he undermine Obama?

                    8. Again: you haven’t provided any evidence that I’ve said anything false. Do you have any?

                    9. Why do you think he lied about it?
                      ___________________________________________________

                      Why do you keep repeating that when the FBI agents who conducted the interview both said on the record that they believed Flynn was not lying.

                      There was no evidence that would support a case of a sec. 1001 violation against Flynn and the FBI made it known to the press after Flynn was fired that there would be no charges.

              2. the entire point of the sanctions – a tool Trump has used – was to escalate tensions with the Russians who had interfered in our election
                _____________________________________________________________
                The evidence that Russia interfered is pretty weak. It is like almost all the stories that contained in the Mueller report. For all we know it is pure fiction.

          2. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “your scenario.”

            Your claim that “Flynn merely recommended that Russia not escalate the situation, which he had every right to do” is false.
            1) That’s not all Flynn did.
            2) As incoming NSA — not an incumbent — he didn’t have a right to undermine the policy of the current administration.

            But what’s more intriguing to me here is that Trump and Pence both said that Flynn lied to Pence about this. So (a) did Flynn actually lie to Pence, or (b) were Trump and Pence lying about Flynn when they said this?

            Which do you think it is: (a) or (b)?

            1. I think it’s a third. The FBI lied to Trump and Pence, and got the result they wanted.

              So Trump and Pence could be said to be naive – but what really went down was lies and strong arming by the corrupt Obama leftovers – “we’re going to charge your DNI -we’ve been watching him… when Obama had him in admin blah blah blah blah – he’s not on board with our middle east wars 100%, blah blah – Obama told you to get rid of him… blah blah

              1. I normally defer to DNFT with you, but I want to make it clear to everyone that your suggestion above ignores relevant facts.

                Trump and Pence have both publicly stated that Flynn lied to Pence:
                Pence: “I knew that [Flynn] lied to me. And I know the president made the right decision with regard to [firing] him.”
                Trump: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”

                Note that neither one of them is claiming that Flynn only lied to the FBI. Both are saying that Flynn also lied to Pence.

                You may want to ignore that, but it’s still a fact.

                1. Committ – I think Flynn was convinced by the FBI that he had lied and he ‘fessed up to the VP. However, when you read the transcript you see that Flynn had not lied to the VP, but fell on his sword after being lied to by the FBI.

                  1. Nope.

                    First of all, according to the 302, the FBI didn’t ask Flynn what he said to Pence.

                    Second of all, we know that Flynn said under penalty of perjury in his Jan. 2020 declaration that “I believe my resignation letter stated quite accurately what happened,” and his resignation letter says “I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador.” So Flynn himself has owned up to not telling Pence about the sanctions, and Pence and Trump both referred to that as a lie on Flynn’s end.

                    Perhaps all three of them — Flynn, Pence, and Trump — were lying about Flynn not having told Pence about the sanctions.

                    “when you read the transcript you see that Flynn had not lied to the VP”

                    What transcript are you referring to? The 12/29 and 12/31 call transcripts aren’t relevant, as they preceded Flynn’s discussion with Pence. If you’re referring to some other transcript, you’ll have to specify which one.

                    1. Committ – you are not getting how the game is played. He has to say that to keep his son out of jail. His defense to that point cost 2.5 mil, he sold his house. He had been told there would be no jail time. Then it all goes to hell when Sullivan calls him a traitor and he gets new counsel. Sidney Powell arrives on the scene, takes a reduced fee, and the rest is history.

                    2. He has to say that to keep his son out of jail. His defense to that point cost 2.5 mil, he sold his house. He had been told there would be no jail time.
                      ___________________________________________________________

                      There is no reason to believe that story. The FBI had look at all the evidence and found no basis for any criminal charges.

                  2. Powell was his attorney when he filed his Jan. 2020 declaration under penalty of perjury. So you’re suggesting that he lied under penalty of perjury while Powell was his attorney.

                    For the record, if Flynn were actually a caring father, he wouldn’t have involved his son in illegal activity in the first place.

                    And this “history” is still in the making. We’re all going to have to wait and see what happens.

                    It’s striking that you can’t bring yourself to answer the question: (a) did Flynn actually lie to Pence, or (b) were Trump and Pence lying about Flynn when they said this?

                    1. Committ – 1) Pence has changed his mind about Flynn lying to him 2) Trump and Pence thought they were telling the truth.

                      As a teacher, I have taught bad information to my students, only later to find out I was wrong or new info has come in. I have immediately gone to my class to change the info and apologize for giving them bad info.

                  3. You say “Pence has changed his mind about Flynn lying to him,” but you don’t quote or link to Pence saying this.

                    You also provide no evidence for “Trump and Pence thought they were telling the truth.”

                    Do you need a definition of “evidence”? If so, just ask. If not, provide some actual evidence.

                  4. Thanks for the link, but that article doesn’t say that “Pence has changed his mind about Flynn lying to him.” It says nothing at all about Flynn’s lie to Pence.

            2. 2) As incoming NSA — not an incumbent — he didn’t have a right to undermine the policy of the current administration.
              ____________________________________________________________
              How does conning the Russians into not retaliating against the US undermine the policy of the current administration?

              The Russians went along with the idea of not taken action harmful to the US because they believed Flynn was telling the truth when he told the Russians that ISIS was a enemy of both US and Russia.

              The only way that you can complain about Flynn undermining US foreign policy is if you admit that the US govt has been supporting terrorists like ISIS and Al Queda. That is the US foreign policy that Flynn was promising the Russians might change. But Flynn got fired and the policy of supporting terrorists in the ME continued under Trump.

          3. SEm, while your assertion that Flynn had a right to ask the Russians to ignore the sanctions is dubious – it was a request in opposition to the clear intent of the President of the United States that the sanctions not be ignored (sanctions are designed to force the attention of the target) – it is not disputable that Flynn lied to the FBI when he said he did not discuss the sanctions – you can read the 302.

            1. FWIW, Trump and Flynn sycophants have been claiming that the FBI lied on the 302. Not that they’ve presented any evidence for this. That said, it would be prudent for the FBI to record interviews.

              1. Committ – it has been discovered that the 302 was creatively rewritten by Stzok and Page. The original handwritten copy has “disappeared.”

                1. If you have actual evidence for your claim, present it.

                  Show that “The original handwritten copy has ‘disappeared’” and that “the 302 was creatively rewritten by Stzok and Page”

                  1. Committ – I am not going to do your homework for you. Check out the motions by Powell and press conferences by Powell.

                    1. Nope.

                      *I* have a burden of proof for *my* claims (if you quote something I said and ask me to provide evidence, it’s my job to provide it).
                      *You* have a burden of proof for *your* claims (if I quote something you said and ask you to provide evidence, it’s your job to provide it).

                      I’m not asking you to do my homework. I’m telling you to do yours by substantiating your own claims. If you’re not willing to provide evidence for your own claims, then they’re simply unsubstantiated claims on your end.

                      Trying to shift your work onto me is a fallacy called “misplaced burden of proof” — iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#MisplacedBurden

                    2. Committ – I am taking my lead from David Benson, who knows all about this.

                2. it has been discovered that the 302 was creatively rewritten by Stzok and Page. The original handwritten copy has “disappeared.”
                  _________________________________________________________________

                  There never was a handwritten copy. 302s are written on a word processor and the DOJ has produced an earlier version that Page helped edit. It was filled with grammatical errors that were corrected.

                  Both FBI agents and Lisa Page, McCabe and Priestep have all stated on the record that the two FBI agents at their debriefing after the Flynn interview said they did not believe Flynn was lying. Nobody in the FBI has disagreed with that assessment. The FBI investigators involved in the case have consistently maintained that they believed Flynn did not lie during his interview and have never produced evidence that clearly showed Flynn lied about anything.

                  The story that Flynn lied to the FBI was invented after the FBI was removed from the case and the Trump DOJ took over the investigation. Even then the FBI investigators continued to maintain that they believed Flynn had not been lying.

                  The story that Flynn denied asking Kislyak to not escalate the situation was not created by the FBI. That story was fabricated by the Trump DOJ and Flynn and Trump helped sell that story to the public.

        3. The best part was when the answering machine was going and we picked up the Russian guy on the phone and the person in his back round talking and he declared ~” The Americans did the hacking that’s who did it I can assure you ! ”

          A flower grew over Seth Rich’s grave that day. Bill Binney smiled, for hours.

          1. Yes, it does seem to point to Obama sedition against the new administration. No wonder Book got his script from the DNC so quickly. They want to bury the story or twist its neck.

          2. Quotation marks are supposed to mean that you’re quoting. But you’re not quoting there. The comment you’re referring to is from a call summary, not a transcript, and the summary doesn’t say what you put in quotation marks. It’s also ambiguous what Chernyshev is referring to there.

              1. Wow, two fallacies — ad hom and a loaded question — in just one sentence. Gotta hand it to you for fallacious efficiency there.

                As I told Squeeky, every time one of you resorts to ad hom, I interpret it as a sign of weakness on your end.

                My guess: you don’t have a substantive response, and you’re not willing to admit you were wrong. It’s a weak response all around.

    2. he has gone silent. GIven that they confirm Flynn discussing the Obama sanctions and cautioning him to be cool – something he clearly lied about to the FBI (see the 302s), one wonders why?
      __________________________________________________________________
      You are spouting nonsense. There is nothing in the 302s or the phone call that clearly shows Flynn lied about anything. There is no case that would hold up in court with both FBI agents that interviewed Flynn saying on the record that they believed Flynn was not lying.

      No FBI 302s were presented to the court as part of the evidence against Flynn. The 302 of the interview was given to the defense (before Flynn pled guilty) as part of the Brady order of the court that required the DOJ to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The 302 have always been part of the evidence record that shows Flynn is not guilty.

      The story that Flynn lied to the FBI has always been unbelievable. There is nothing wrong with anything Flynn said in the Kislyak phone call. He had nothing to hide. Flynn told the FBI agents he knew they listened to the call and he had no reason to lie about.

  7. Once the peaceful protest turns violent the peaceful people need to get out of there fast and the police need to block off all routes of escape and take down the remainder fast and very hard. Mobs like that tend toward panic when they recognize that the only line of retreat is closing.

    Why has the government not designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization? It is.

    Why has the media portrayed Antifa as heroes when it attacks speakers to the right of Lenin?

    Why have police departments stood down and just watched when Antifa assaulted Trump supporters as happened in San Jose?

    Who is behind Antifa and funding it?

    1. Whatever percentage of DC (at least 50%+ some say as high as 95%) love it.
      “Why has the government not designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization? It is.”
      After Obama and his mentor and campaign launch house Bill Ayers and wife declared they didn’t bomb enough and wish they’d had done more and he isn’t sorry one whit – the days of rage legitimized and applauded by Obama (sure, silently) and crew… Obama and Ayers adjoined offices, co membership on that board… on and on and on – and the highly sought after vaunted positions in Academia both Ayers have enjoyed for years.

      The reason why is – as a very smart person once commented to me “The enemy is already here.”

  8. Pingback: NY Leftist Samantha Shader Admits to Hurling Molotov Cocktail Through Police Van with Four Officers Inside – May Face Attempted Murder Charges – Deep State Uncovered

  9. As noted, the New York Penal Law has a sentencing schedule that isn’t severe and (unlike other states) leaves lots of outs for judges to not apply what severity there is. There are two exceptions to this pattern: arson and drug trafficking. She might face an attempted murder charge as well (a class B felony in New York). She’s toast.

  10. Pingback: NY Leftist Samantha Shader Admits to Hurling Molotov Cocktail Through Police Van with Four Officers Inside - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site
  11. Pingback: NY Leftist Samantha Shader Admits to Hurling Molotov Cocktail Through Police Van with Four Officers Inside - May Face Attempted Murder Charges

  12. “…since, if true, there would have been four officers burned to death if the device actually went off. ”

    Well that’s a very big guess and highly unlikely. There are four doors on a vehicle. There’s a front and back.
    Someone explain to me how the physics of that situation works.
    It’s probable one or two officers would get some burns, one more than another.
    Maybe one badly if it splashed an awful lot by chance.
    No deaths.

    If one was disoriented from the fire on skin, three others are there to pull him out.

    1. If it went off inside the vehicle the air would be superheated quickly and one or two breaths would kill even before the skin of some officers was badly burnt. I would have little difficulty deciding to prosecute this monster for attempted murder.

      1. She may get the girl’s discount. For all its problems, though, New York courts run like a top compared to most states. Last time I checked, the median lapse of time from indictment to conviction in a felony case that actually went to trial was 13 months. For plea bargains, 75 days was the median.

        1. Maybe she will get the girl’s discount. But she would not have gotten it from me. Putting a cute girl in prison for this might make a few of the ugly boys think twice.

          1. I understand firing in the direction even, of officers is charged as attempted murder.
            I argued with what I argued with. If you’re charging attempted murder no need to make up totally unrealistic scenarios to justify it.
            The scenario made up defied physics.
            You want the melted humvee pic my friends were pulled out in Iraq after the gasoline explosion and ammo going off ?

            We’re talking about a bottle of gasoline and maybe some oil mixed in – if oil was mixed in I would be harsher on sentencing. If it was a plastic bottle, less so than glass.

            Four hyped physically fit officers that move on a dime like lightning. They all make it out no one is dead.

            1. I don’t doubt your account. Do you suppose that young terrorist was relying on combat experience informing her that the cops would get out with a few burns so it was only a prank rather than a serious crime?

              Give credit where credit is due. She meant business. Prison.

              1. Okay. Terrorist though ?
                Fine charge the whole lot of ’em with it, the whole looting burning lot of ’em. Frankly one couldn’t say it isn’t. They’re on a political mission.

                Things get muddy quickly nowadays. A crime is a racist hate klan rally, a punk throws a maltov they’re a terrorist…

                Yes she deserves the lock up.

        1. You can see it if the video still comes up. A young woman in El Salvador who was grabbed by a mob after a cab driver was shot to death is surrounded and sprinkled with a flammable liquid. When ignited it burns on the surface of her skin without much damage but she collapses and dies very quickly because, apparently, she breathes hot air that destroys her lungs.

          In any event attempted murder is based more on the intent and actions of the criminal than on how fast the victim can duck when he is shot at.

    2. Can it. They were arrested and charged for attempted murder. How alcohol burns is irrelevant. Their actions are. Besides, alcohol (or any other accelerant) will spread and ignite other materials in the vehicle, and then there is the gasoline in the tank, the fumes of which will explode. Alcohol is classified as a Class A flammable liquid

      1. “all four officers left the vehicle ”
        “as the fire erupted”
        No one even mentions a single injury .. right ?

        So were told it didn’t go off but there was a fire. In other words the wick burned… stayed lit – maybe lit part of the vehicle – I haven’t seen that – but maybe and officer just pulled it out, with the lit wick, not shattered -or spewing if it was plastic.

  13. And here are the NYPD driving into people without cause: twitter.com/mviser/status/1266945419281653761

    There are harmful actions by some protesters and some police around the country. How about acknowledging the full range of both? I believe that bigger story is more important.

    And in other ways, it’s not a “both sides” situation. Journalists aren’t attacking police, but police have attacked and arrested journalists who were simply reporting. One photojournalist is now permanently blind in one eye after police shot a rubber bullet at her face.

    Meanwhile, despite George Floyd having died while an officer had his knee on Floyd’s neck, police are still using a knee on the neck. Here’s one officer having to push another officer’s knee off someone’s neck: twitter.com/mattmillsphoto/status/1266960081389629440

    I oppose rioting and both protester and police violence.

    1. Once the peaceful protest turns violent the peaceful people need to get out of there fast and the police need to block off all routes of escape and take down the remainder fast and very hard. Mobs like that tend toward panic when they recognize that the only line of retreat is closing.

      Why has the government not designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization? It is.

      Why has the media portrayed Antifa as heroes when it attacks speakers to the right of Lenin?

      Why have police departments stood down and just watched when Antifa assaulted Trump supporters as happened in San Jose?

      Who is behind Antifa and funding it?

  16. “Let’s burn down OUR entire community, that’ll teach the white folk.”

    1. The people leading this are disaffected white communists who hide behind their masks and the dark of night. The same idiots that riot against Ann Coulter or Charles Murray or anyone else who is not a far left idealogue.

      They need to be identified and indicted and prosecuted as enemies of the Republic.

      Start with aoc and ilhan omar and soros and the leaders of antifa the other freaks trying to use the unrest to negotiate.

      Time to stop playing.

      1. No one has yet mentioned every protest video seems to be college aged adults.
        I wonder why no one brings that up.
        There is a definite age bracket way over represented.

  17. If they threw the molotov cocktail they should be given maximum sentences along with others that do destruction. Also, the Police need to find the ring leaders who are behind the scenes and punish them as well.

  18. The product of the Left’s indoctrination camps.
    Now they need to be reeducated in a prison.

  19. This is the face of these riots.

    The troublemakers are not the young black marchers. They are the professional rioters who are communists and anarchists and mostly white educated losers.

    Find them, expose them, prosecute them as terrorists and lock them up forever.

    1. Truth is the rioters are both as are the peaceful protestors. Some are paid, others demented and still more criminals When they cross the line into violence.. It’s a witches brew that ought to be shut down by the military.

      1. Kurt Schlicter has been arguing (from personal experience) that putting the military to work at this task is imprudent. I wasn’t quite sure whether by that he was including the National Guard. We’re in this situation because Mayor Frey is quite hopeless and Gov. Walz not much better. See Jay Nixon in Missouri. Are there any Democratic executives who have a clue how to handle these problems. Police departments learned quite a bit by 1969 as to how to proceed, and when they did, there weren’t anymore long, hot summers. Politicians like Jacob Frey have been insisting they unlearn it.

    2. Agreed. What in the name of God is the matter with so many of these white, woke, privileged kids? They just aren’t well.

      1. They’re from Catskill, NY. Greene County, NY isn’t a glam locale and Catskill has about 4,000 people living in it. IIRC, there are no colleges or hospitals in Catskill. The big enterprise in the area is the state prison in Cocxackie. Unless they’re children of a local doctor, the local car dealer, or the chap who owns half the rental real estate in town, they’re not affluent, much less privileged.

  20. Guantanamo Bay!

    Send all these miscreants to Gitmo.

    Let them fraternize with their kindred spirits, who also hate America. And, while you are at it … trace every penny that found it’s way into the hands of these antifa malcontents until you get to soros and the tides foundation and lock his old carcas up at Gitmo too.

Comments are closed.