A federal grand jury has indicted Cal State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Anthony Caravello for throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a raid at a Glass House Farms marijuana facility in Camarillo, CA. In addition to a large number of arrestees, the authorities found at least 14 child workers. Caravello has been defended by faculty at the university, but now faces charges under 18 U.S.C. 111 for “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees.”
The night before he was arrested, Caravello spoke at a City of Camarillo council meeting and declared that he was “patrolling the city streets following armed masked thugs trying to kidnap my [undocumented] neighbors.”
During the raid, Caravello, a philosophy and math lecturer, was detained and arrested after he threw the device at agents. Body camera footage captured Caravello first attempting to kick a canister and then picking it up and throwing it overhand toward agents.
Faculty at the university supported Caravello, and the California Faculty Association (CFA) claimed Professor Caravello was “kidnapped” in a reel on Instagram: “Four masked agents dragged Jonathan away into an unmarked car without identifying themselves, without giving the reason for arrest, and without disclosing where they are taking him.”
This is not the first time that faculty have rallied around faculty who have allegedly taken violent action during protests.
At the University of California, Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. Another college then hired her.
Caravello is facing a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Clearly this reckless, dangerous man’s brain is too broken to be fixed while coping with civilized society; but in the unique educational environment of prison he may find the motivation for self-repair.
JT, this is a fascinating article
By the way, I’m searching for individuals that are a look-alike Ozzy Osbourne to be in a tribute show and professor Caravello fits the bill.
Black Sabbath live, “I Am Iron Man.” Roll the video.
“This is not the first time that faculty have rallied around faculty who have allegedly taken violent action during protests.”
Large numbers of California liberals regard Charles Mansion as a role model, so what else would you expect?
@Anonymous
Have thought the same myself. We have a new Manson Family on our hands, it’s just this time it’s almost an entire generation. They are not capable or well, and it remains to be seen what we do going forward. It’s like trying to get Squeeky Fromm to change her mind.
This IS the modern left, and the so-called ‘moderates’ in the modern dem party are still full of sh*t, aristocratic, globalist plans and ideas that are toxic to humanity. They are un-electable in toto, they are clearly mind blind, all of them (except perhaps Fetterman, and only at times).
According to the affidavit of probable cause based on bodycam footage, Professor Caravello tried to kick the canister back, but it rolled past him, at which point he turned around and chased it down. He could have tossed the canister aside once he got it, but instead he turned back around and threw it overhand at the federal agents who were at that moment engaged in a law enforcement action, and the canister almost hit several of the agents in the head. This is not a case where the riot police are there solely to put down or contain the riot; he interfered with an ongoing and legitimate law enforcement action that rescued at least 14 children from child exploitation.
Also (according to the bodycam footage) he was wearing goggles and playing loud siren sounds into a megaphone to disrupt the operation. He was part of a group of protesters throwing rocks at the agents and breaking windows in their vehicles and causing other damage such as broken mirrors and damaged frames. Later when he was arrested, he fought against the officers and resisted the arrest.
https://keyt.b-cdn.net/2025/07/USA-v-Caravello-COMPLAINT.pdf
How about a sanction for California Faculty Association for being unable to write a correct English sentence:“Four masked agents dragged Jonathan away into an unmarked car without identifying themselves, without giving the reason for arrest, and without disclosing where they are taking him.”
“a sanction for California Faculty Association for being unable to write a correct English sentence”
Well, it evidently *was* a tense conflict
where they *was* taking him?
More of the same. Mental disease wrapped in ideological conviction. None of these people said anything during previous presidential deportations. My Instagram feed of these people would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and horrific.
Interesting questions could be raised by the defense:
1. Is it self-defense to attempt to remove a tear gas canister from your location, to prevent harm to yourself?
2. Is it assault when in the act of self-defense, you move said tear-gas canister closer to officers who are presumably wearing gas masks–in other words, they were likely not at risk from the tear gas?
While I’d like to see some charge stick, maybe disorderly conduct is more appropriate. I’d hate to see our legal system go overboard in overcharging as was done to many of the J6 defendants.
If there is evidence he threw the canister at the federal agents, the premise for both of those alleged defenses is demonstrably false.
Not if there is body cam video showing what he did as the indictment states.
You ⬆️⬆️⬆️ beat me to the punch 👊 here. Although it’s not mentioned in the column, it appears the tear gas canister was more than likely lodged or fired at him, or the group of people he was with. He probably picked it up and threw it back in their direction, as a natural reaction, or as a “protest action” under the First Amendment. I think charging him with those types of felonies is overcharging, IMO. As stated above⬆️⬆️⬆️, there are many defenses to this, including self-defense, if in fact the canister was launched at him in the first place, which I am just speculating on. LawFare is wrong, no matter who’s using it 🤬🤬🤬
The first amendment is NEVER a defense for the use of VIOLENCE.
“it appears the tear gas canister was more than likely lodged or fired at him, or the group of people he was with”
Correct, Firing the tear gas canister at rioters is a presumptively legal action of law enforcement.
He will NOT be allowed to challenge that in a criminal proceeding against himself.
Had he NOT committed a violent act, he could have challenged it in a civil action – though he likely would have lost.
With extremely few exceptions you can not file a civil claim against law enforcement if you are convicted of an illegal act as part of the same event.
“He probably picked it up and threw it back in their direction, as a natural reaction”
Not a valid defense.
The police do not START with Tear Gas – though they actually did on J6 – they accidentally tear gassed THEMSELVES first. They START by ordering you to disperse.
You are OBLIGATED by law to do so. When you choose NOT to – escalation eventually to tear gas is LAWFUL action by the police.
Self defense of “natural reaction” is NEVER a defense for the use of violence against a lawful action of law enforcement.
There are excellent reasons for the strong default presumption of lawfulness on the part of actions by law enforcement.
In the midst of some incident we do not have the ability to drag in armies of lawyers, and judges and appeals courts to determine the lawfulness of the action of law enforcement. The law PRESUMES the actions of law enforcement are lawful absent the most crystal clear evident they are not. The law PRESUMES the action of law enforcement are lawful – so long as people have the oportunity to do as directed by law enforcement.
The fairly rigid general rule is “Do as law enforcement directs” and LATER challenge their actions in court.
To address another poster – Disorderly conduct would be merely disobeying law enforcement.
Doing so with VIOLENCE – if not DC it is a felony assault.
“or as a “protest action” under the First Amendment.”
There is no first amendment defense for ACTUAL violence EVER.
This is why the left wing idiocy that some speech is violence is dangerously wrong.
“I think charging him with those types of felonies is overcharging, IMO.”
Presuming that the facts alleged are correct – that he picked up a tear gas canister and threw it in the direction of law enforcement – he is guilty of a violent felony – and with near certainty will either be convicted or plead guilty to one. If this is a first offence – he will get a lap on the wrists. If he has other non-violent offences – the sentence will be slightly more severe. If he has other violent offences – he is going to be incarcerated for a long time.
It is extremely unlikely that this will be reduced to a non-violent offence.
” As stated above, there are many defenses to this, including self-defense,”
Nope – again we have left wing nuts making idiotic legal claims over issues of law that were decided centuries ago.
“if in fact the canister was launched at him in the first place, which I am just speculating on”
Law Enforcement does not launch tear gas AT specific people – that is not how Tear Gas is used.
If an officer had fired a tear gas projectile specifically AT this person – say hitting him in the chest deliberately – then if he had NOT responded with violence, he MIGHT have a civil case against law enforcement.
While not universally true there right to self defense is often vitiated when there is an oportunity to retreat.
The right to self defense is almost ALWAYS precluded when you have a DUTY to retreat – and when law enfocement has ordered you to disburse. You MUST disburse. You can not manufacture the circumstances that bring about your claim of self defense – and you especially can not do so in cases involving law enforcement.
We give law enforcement broad power to give orders to people that must be obeyed. Absolutley SOMETIMES law enforcement abuses that power. When they do – the remedy almost ALWAYS is to go to court.
It is NOT to respond with violence.
“LawFare is wrong, no matter who’s using it”
Correct – this is not lawfare.
John Say, this is TURLEY’s blog, not yours.
YOU are not a lawyer
STOP trying to educate people on the law.
AND say what you have to say (OPINION) in a paragraph or two.
Tired of you using up all this space every day.
DO YOU LIKE TO SEE YOURSELF IN PRINT? Is that your reason?
Law enforcement can’t order a person to disburse without due process. Only a judge can issue a disbursement order and only if it complies with the Excessive Fines Clause.
Yes anyone but a lunatic would run away from the canister. It was used by law enforcement to quell an illegal riot. It was shot into a close open area not at an individual. Throwing it at an individual is assault.
Perhaps he was simply returning the canister to its owners? He was really assisting the police to recover their misplaced tool?
I hope that is sarcasm.
“Interesting questions could be raised by the defense:”
ROFL
“1. Is it self-defense to attempt to remove a tear gas canister from your location, to prevent harm to yourself?”
You are not free to protect yourself from harm by harming others – particularly law enforcement.
If this were true the police could not arrest anyone ever. All forms of resisting arrest would be self defense.
Why is it that dignbat left wing nuts constantly try to revive issues of law and logic that were put to be centuries ago ?
“2. Is it assault when in the act of self-defense”
You can not argue self defense when you have a duty to retreat and/or a duty to cooperate and the force you are defending against is lawfully applied because you did not comply with the requirement to retreat.
This is an absurb argument on your part – it would mean that no one – not even law enforcement could attempt to remove someone who was tresspassing or committing a crime.
“you move said tear-gas canister closer to officers who are presumably wearing gas masks–in other words, they were likely not at risk from the tear gas?”
The lawful choice you have is to LEAVE. This person was tresspassing, and rioting, and interfering with law enforcement.
Regardless again your argument is absurd – can you shoot a police officer – because they are wearing a kevlar vest ?
If you use FORCE against another – you must to do LAWFULLY.
There is almost never a LAWFULLY right to use force against law enforcement.
Even if law enforcement is acting unlawfully – to use FORCE against them there must be an immediate threat to life or serious bodily harm AND there must be no other option available to you AND the lawless conduct of law enforcement MUST be near universally clear to everyone. You can not claim “self defense” because you disagree with the law being enforced.
Civilized people fight disagreements over what the law SHOULD be within the govenrment bodies that enact laws. They fight disagreements over whether the actions of law enforcement are LAWFUL in court.
Not by the use of force.
“While I’d like to see some charge stick, maybe disorderly conduct is more appropriate. I’d hate to see our legal system go overboard in overcharging as was done to many of the J6 defendants.”
Turley has suggested a maximum sentence of 20 years. Turley Knows better. While prosecutors often use the maximum sentence as a threat to get a plea deal – unless this person has a long prior record of violence there is no possibility that he will get anything close to the maximum sentence or even a fraction of it.
This was another lawless error on the part of the DC Lawfare judges and DOJ,
J6 defendants were overcharged AND oversentenced.
It is highly unlikely if convicted as charged that this person will get spend much time if any incarcerated.
He probably will not even spend much time on parole.
But if he commits another serious felony – the next time – the punishment will be more severe.
The 20- year max sentence in this case would only apply to much higher levels of violence AND perpitrators who had committed several past violent crimes.
And that is appropriate.
You are likely correct that there will be a plea deal. It is unlikely that DOJ will plead down to Disorderly conduct.
They are likely to want a conviction for a crime of violence – even if the sentence is diminimus.
They will want that because if this person does this AGAIN – they likely WILL face several years of incarceration.
“unless this person has a long prior record of violence there is no possibility that he will get anything close to the maximum sentence or even a fraction of it.”
Not even a fraction like .000001%? If he spent a couple hours in jail already that might’ve been .000001% of 20 years.
A lifetime without consequences for actions
That is a photo only a mother could love on payday. I’ve said this many times before, the actual drafting of men and women into 2 years of compulsory military service never should have ended. The education given by a seasoned DI would far surpass that of a fellow like the one in the above photo, not to mention the appreciation for being an American.
Draft Army. I re-enlisted and served seven years. The first two years set the foundation for my life.
I’ve said this many times before, the actual drafting of men and women into 2 years of compulsory military service never should have ended.
America has never had compulsory armed services except during war, and only Male. Many countries REQUIRE armed service for 1-2 years, such as Israel and Austria. Arnold has a famous story of going AWOL from the Austrian Army, where he drove a tank with a 4-man crew, to compete in his very first bodybuilding show as an 18 year old, which Arnold won by the way. Arnold was immediately thrown into the brig when he returned. He said he didn’t care how long he spent in the brig, it was worth it. Arnold speaks very positively of his mandatory military service. It would be hard to make that fly here in America, but I think it would be very beneficial for all parties.
Not precisely true. Vietnam was not, technically, a war, as Congress never declared it so, yet we conscripted and sent troops to fight there.
The gulf of tonkin resolution dramatically increased the war powers available to President Johnson.
It was a declaration of war in all ways but litterally.
I do not beleive the US has “declared war” since WWII.
Everything from Korea throught present conflicts have been done with some form of AUMF – Authorization for the Use of Military Force. These are just slightly qualified declarations of war – sometimes with strings attached.
Not only did Congress pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, they funded the war. Funding the Vietnam every year, is, for all purposes, declaring war. Regardless, of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, no funds, no war.
As someone who entered the Army in 1968, I know the draft is a great antidote to this kind of childishness. On the other hand, I understand why the military doesn’t want to waste its resources training people who will be civilians again in two years.
“the actual drafting of men and women into 2 years of compulsory military service never should have ended.”
The 13th Amendment, Section 1, poses just a bit of an impediment to your suggestion:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Unless you care to make a futile effort in an attempt to construe “compulsory service” as something other than “involuntary servitude”.
If you look at the history of the Left, you;ll see that it was started and perpetrated among the “intellectuals” who thought they should be in charge of the state, then they would “take care of” the common people. This is just typical Marxist radicalism as has been taught in American colleges and universities since the 1930s.
What else is someone who “lectures” in math AND philosophy qualified to do but encourage child labor and kick and throw gas canisters at law enforcement? I cannot imagine what his next “lecture” or two will focus on – certainly they will be strange versions of philosophy and math.
It may be worth noting that the three heroes in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged all held dual-major degrees in Philosophy and Physics.
I assure you they were not taught by a Prof. Cavarello LOL
“I assure you they were not taught by a Prof. Cavarello”
Nor did they subscribe to his emotionalist philosophy.
Nor did all three double-major in philosophy and physics. Only Galt did. Francisco double-majored in engineering and philosophy. Ragnar in philosophy only.
I have a nephew who is pursuing a philosophy doctorate, and lectures in philosophy and various DEI subjects.
While he is an intelligent person, there is nothing even vaguely approaching actual philosophy taught at any major university in the US today.
Unfortunately I beleive he genuinely beleives the pablum he has been taught and is teaching,
but if he did not – he would not have a job, and he could not have gotten even an undergraduate degree.
This is one of the problems with the radical lack of intellectual diversity in universities today.
Wherever you start at on ANY issue – left, right, center, you will have to move to the far left or you will have to leave or be dismissed.
I love philosophy. But I would be run out of the very same elite schools that rewarded me with advanced degrees almost 50 years ago. This would be true nto just over what is today controversial political issues – but on nearly all topics even ones that are not political in the right/left sense.
Throughout academia today – thought and discussion is calcified. To a large extent it is baised tot he far left.
But even in areas that are not left right political – divergence of thought is NOT tolerated.
WE have myriads of areas of hard sciences that have been trapped for 4+ decades because challenging orthodoxy is not permitted.
Whether it is medicine, drugs, anthropoolgy, physics, psychology….. challenging orthodoxy – as Galleleo did has always been hard, today it is atleast as hard as it was in the early 17th century.
Good! Others have noted, at any other time this would be satire. These fools are redefining foolery, ignorance, and privileged bratty-ness. If the law has to step in where mom and dad failed to for them to learn some life lessons or to introduce them to their first exposure to what healthy respect for other humans looks like, so be it. Throw the book at him with all of the force discipline his younger life should have carried. No sympathy, and no more patience.
He looks like a lot like Tiny Tim. Can he play the ukulele? Might need a new profession after he gets out the cooler.
————————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
@Anonymous
The ukulele might actually be too complex for that lot. Maybe, *maybe*, the kazoo.
If he’d sung Tiptoe Through the Tulips at the officers, wouldn’t that count as an aural assault?
“If he’d sung Tiptoe Through the Tulips at the officers, wouldn’t that count as an aural assault?”
If he sang it as badly as Tiny Tim did, it might well constitute torture. That might have repelled those officers more effectively than the redirected canister, however…
Sentencing hearing should be interesting.
Before sentencing there has to be a conviction. No jury in CA would convict. Or DC. Or NY. Or IL.
In a previous generation his photo would appear as satire in National Lampoon magazine.
Those who live in Glass House Farms shouldn’t throw canisters?
Hey GOP when are you cutting off the flow of Federal Money to Colleges, cities, states, non-profits and banning public unions!
That money isn’t being used correctly!
huh?
Public unions should never have been authorized in the first place. See Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s excellent speech on that score. I find it quite convincing.
Federal money should never be used for colleges, cities, states, non-profits, and even FDR grasped that Public Employees ca not be allowed to unionize – and he supported unions.
“Hey GOP when are you cutting off the flow of Federal Money to…”
When those politicians no longer receive kickbacks in one form or another. IOW, probably never…
No need to warn us of lunatics running wild. Thank you although President Trump is reinstating asylums for the infected hate derangement loyalists.
Dear Mr. Turley, one has to wonder what rock the university looked under to find this person? By trying to interfere with law enforcement, he is encouraging child labor. Sad. I hope he will get some time in prison.
California hires crazy people to teach crazy
it is an organized effort to DESTROY Society!
“one has to wonder what rock the university looked under to find this person?”
I suspect that you could find a like example under any 2 out of 3 rocks upended in California…
Off topic a bit, but raise your hand if you remember the California Gas Chamber.
I remember when Rose Byrd declared the death penalty unconstitutional in California. That kept Charley Manson out of the gas chamber
“raise your hand if you remember the California Gas Chamber”
Weren’t they a popular band from Mendicino County in 1966?