Another Protester Arrested After Being Identified By Distinctive Tattoo

Edward Thomas Schinzing, 32, was among a group of protesters who allegedly broke into the Justice Center on May 29 (pictured) before vandalizing the space and setting fires


The police found a match on the tattoo with a booking photo, but of course the tattoo itself offered a usual clue as to his identity.

Schinzing is facing a federal not a state charge despite the fact that the fire targeted a city office and the crime is clearly localized. As I mentioned in the Joker case, the federal government is making a jurisdictional claim that would effectively negate federalism principles in criminal law.  In Chicago, the federal prosecutors appear to be arguing that the police car belongs to the city government, which buys vehicles in interstate commerce and uses federal grant monies. That is a pretty breathtaking construction that makes the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) looks modest in comparison.  In that case, Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat to feed his chickens, but the Supreme Court still defined the activity as interstate commerce because his crops reduced the amount of wheat on the open (and national) market.

I still view these cases as more properly handled as state offenses.  The use of federal charges in protest cases is a continuation of the federalization of the criminal code. It is a trend that is inimical to federalism principles which recognize the states as having the primary police power role.

The difference is significant for these defendants. The federal courts tend to impose longer sentences.  The maximum for federal arson is 20 years in prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

31 thoughts on “Another Protester Arrested After Being Identified By Distinctive Tattoo”

  1. Unmarked agents arresting people for no good reason into unmarked cars is being defended here? Seriously? This is the ugly face of fascism. And don’t try to excuse this behavior by exaggerating violence – these thugs are beating and arresting plenty of people for no good reason whatsoever. You should be decrying these needless escalations into tyranny, Professor Turley, not defending them.

    1. roger, unmarked cars and undercovers have been arresting suspects your entire lifetime… all around the USA.. with court approved warrants

      don’t mistake your own ignorance for “apologizing for fascism”

      1. Not uninvited unwelcome unidentifiable Feds in riot gear “arresting” people for being on sidewalks, they haven’t. You know damned well this is a first. And now they are releasing them with Federal judge signed order saying they can no longer join any protest:–Sort-of-hilariously-unconstitutional-Arrested-protesters-told-they-can-no-longer-attend-protests?detail=emailLL

        Tell me that has been done in your lifetime

        1. Stupid is, as stupid does, Roger.

          If you commit arson and destruction of property, all bets are off. There is nothing remotely new about law enforcement going undercover and using unmarked vehicles. Otherwise they wouldn’t be”undercover”.

          Has it occurred to you that the torching of police cars further exacerbates the matter for the idiots in Antifa who are arrested?

          But the complete idiocy of the tattoos is truly funny. These geniuses are sporting Antifa tattoos on their forearms.

          Me to some clueless 20 something outside a grocery store: “So, you’re Antifa”?

          Clueless 20 something: “No”.

          Me: “I’m looking at your Antifa tattoo, you dumbfvck”.

          Clueless 20 something: (Puts his hand over the tattoo), “I don’t know what you’re talking about”.

          There’s only one thing anyone ever gets, Roger. Exactly what they deserve.

    2. oh wait. i forget. today, arresting a rioter, looter, or arsonist, is considered fascism. basically

      this is the anarchist definition of freedom of course, and to them, any amount of law and order which curtails their mischief, is per se, fascism

      but understand, roger, we got a bundle of rods right here. call it what you will, but the slogan is, E PLURIBUS UNUM

      you know what that is roger? it’s a dime, the one we used before FDR. Winged Liberty dime, aka, Mercury dime

      that bundle of rods, yes, thats a fasces

      and the fasces is in congress too, either side of the dias, man, this may drive ya nuts, but i had to share. look it up. on either side of the flag, golden bundle of rods

      that’s the symbol of Roman state power and federalism all in one, the fasces

      1. Bull****. They are arresting/maiming non violent protesters who are not on Federal property. Videotaped. Or do you plead “ignorance”?

        1. Roger Lambert – several things about the “Navy Seal.” 1) every was told to move back and he did not 2) if he was a former Navy Seal, his reaction time was crap 3) ALL Fed officers are badged. 4) what the hell was he doing in the middle of a riot?

        2. Roger:

          Sailor Chris: “I had no intention of leaving until I had to.”

          Sailor Chris here was part of a crowd legally told to disperse. He and they didn’t. He was forced to comply under his own terms. If your argument is that he was unlawfully “assaulted/maimed,” it’s a bad one. If your argument is that he’s a ex-seal, I hope you mean the fin-footed kind. If your argument is that he’s a brin, attention seeking, A-hole, then I’m believing.

          1. They were telling a crowd not on Federal property to disperse. He was on the street. Just to make it absolutely clear that all the arguments about protecting Federal property are bogus. These storm troops were going beyond their constitutional prevail.

            This is totalitarian fascistic authoritarianism for obvious political tactical reasons – and you all are rationalizing it. Disgraceful.

            1. Just to make it absolutely clear that all the arguments about protecting Federal property are bogus

              You mean I shoot incendiary devices from the sidewalk and you cannot protect federal property from them. Thanks for your wisdom.

  2. Given the fact that anarchists were in control in municipalities and states where elected Democrats “rule.” I believe the criminals are more likely to be effectively and properly dealt with in Federal Disctrict Courts, rather than the state courts.

    1. “Anarchists” being fascist-speak for protesters. Lovely. No doubt the same terminology used to defend brownshirts in 1930’s Germany.

      1. “If you express any criticisms of Antifa, then it proves you’re pro-fascist because the word literally means: “anti-fascist”!

        Just like those who supported the Patriot Act were patriots & those who didn’t were unpatriotic, because it was literally called the *PATRIOT* Act.”

        – Glenn Greenwald

        Roger, did you know that FDR was a “great admirer” of Mussolini, and that they were pen pals?

        Did you know that both Hitler and Mussolini praised FDR’s New Deal?

        Of course you don’t know that, because you’re just another government school casualty, with no critical thinking skills..

  3. If Mayors or Governors violate their oaths and give stand-down orders to police while rioting, looting and arson are going forward, or they ask the D.A. to drop charges based on political motives, I think it invites federal indictments. Someone has to enforce the law and protect lives and property from vicious mob attacks, especially semi-organized ones.

    Some elasticity in the jurisdiction question, if it helps to quell public disorder while respecting peaceful assembly, is a good thing.

    What’s totally wrong is nullification of law and law enforcement by Mayors and Governors.

  4. Prof. Turley says “I still view these cases as more properly handled as state offenses.” Perhaps he should tell someone who cares? He is preaching to the law and order folks who despise what is going on here.
    It is seemly obvious that Prof. Turley has forgotten, what is going on here is called Anarchy. Nothing more – especially if you look up the definition of Anarchist & Anarchy. These Anarchist’s have one goal IMO, and that is to take opposing views such as Prof Turley and ‘take care of him for having a different opinion’.

  5. It is rather ironic that during OIF OEF the soldiers would have distinctive tattoos so that when they were blown up by and IED the medics could match the body part to the soldier. Now these thugs could find themselves in the same situation if they do not stop their insurrection.

  6. I wish each of the rioters bio’s are posted when they are arrested. Most Americans I know aren’t white supremacist, don’t have white privilege, never owned slaves, love their families, sit with their kids to do homework, stand when the anthem is played, many go to church, respect President’s no matter who the PEOPLE elect and aren’t on the street’s rioting, looting and burning. So who are these people?

  7. It doesn’t matter where these people are charged. As long as they are tried in Portland the jury will be nullified because of the apparent crazy population that lives there.

  8. I had two students who tattooed their name on their neck and I could never get a good explanation from them as to why they did it. I finally decided it was corpse identification.

    1. Kindergarteners often have their name clipped to them on the first days of school. Maybe some people just never get past that.

  9. 20 years minimum in a Federal prison, then onto local charges and more jail time. The states and the feds have to learn how to share. He can plea down by turning in his buddies. This guy may be a right wing criminal or a left wing criminal but is most likely a simple criminal, simple being the pivotal word. He has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

  10. Now his shower buddy at the Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary can see the correct name to shout at the moment of release…

  11. What was he “protesting”? George Floyd? Thousands and thousands of black-on-black killing? Global warming? And, what are his demands, his “requests” for remedy? Finally, does this “protester” have a criminal record?

  12. The federal government has the right to press charges for crimes outlined in federal statutes. So what if there is a similar state statute of a city statute.
    If the feds can’t charge him cause there is a state code violation then the state can’t charge him if there is a city code violation. Right? Or wrong? Or lefty?

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: