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.
First, the leftists at WaPo went ballistic because Bezos decided that the publication would no longer be limited to Commie propaganda.
Now the leftists at CBS are doing the same thing over the prospect of CBS hiring Bari Weiss, someone with journalistic integrity instead of being a mouthpiece for communism.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberals-fume-over-prospects-bari-weiss-joining-cbs-news-paramount-buying-her-outlet
*. I’ve always liked the United States until now.
May your resurrection, reincarnation, rebirth be better than your last.
Wow… and he looks like such a nice guy… law abiding and all.
As far as I can tell, the guy was just performing his civic duty and returning the tear gas canister to its rightful owner.
He should be receiving a commendation for his responsible actions.
I agree.
The cop should be the one facing charges
At a minimum the cop should be charged with littering.
I’m sure Jeanine “BoxWine” Pirro can find a way to charge it as a felony.
That’s right.
The cop could probably be charged with this
California Penal Code 244 defines the crime of assault with caustic chemicals.
Any person who willfully and maliciously places or throws, or causes to be placed or thrown, upon the person of another, any vitriol, corrosive acid, flammable substance, or caustic chemical of any nature, with the intent to injure the flesh or disfigure the body of that person, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.
Clearly Caravello knew this and was just doing his civic duty to return the canister so that the cop could not be charged.
The cop should be thanking Caravello.
Clearly, the Crackhead Kids Kalifornia Internet Lawyers would claim the California Penal Code clearly states that if a cop shoots and kills an honored guest MS-13 gang member shooting at them… that cop should clearly be charged with murder.
The Soviet Democrat Borg… like AIDS, the gift that never stops giving.
No, not murder.
Manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge
WRONG Ano
You know that using MAN is not allowed.
Then why even have police? California could save a lot of money if they didn’t have any police and California is deeply in debt. As a matter of fact California should legalize minor crimes like shoplifting, rioting, burglary and murder, then they wouldn’t need so many DA’s and courts also saving even more money. Think what they would save alone on not protecting Kamala Harris!
Kommunist Kalifornia a woke paradise, a criminal’s dream.
Crackheads… leaving their Crackhead Kid endorsed drug paraphernalia in kiddy schoolgrounds – whining that they think cops taking them out with the rest of the trash are ‘littering’.
Ruh-Row. He fooled around and found out. Now he will be a felon. He will have legal bills.
The gaslighting propagandists want to make a big deal about the masks. The cartel has bounties out on federal officers such as Border Patrol, ICE, etc. They will threaten family members, etc.
I have no problem with them coming in to arrest illegals, especially the hardened drug dealers, rapists, human traffickers, revolutionaries, child predators and all the gangs that the Democrats has decided to love and defend. Really? How bizarre!
Have
@E.M.
No doubt. And with D.C. now suing to preserve crime, I don’t think the future for these places is bright. My only concern is where they all land after they flee their failed places, bringing all of their nonsense right along with them. Perhaps another thing we should all be steeling ourselves for. Regardless, they have dug in too deep to dig out now.
Antifa & BLM had masks. The left never said a peep
Anyone else notice that when ‘X’ appears, ‘Anonymous’ is mysteriously silent, when usually they ramble all day?
Good observation. I’ve never seen X and anonymous in the same room.
I scroll past any “anonymous” posts. It is annoying since sometimes the “anonymous” posts are upward to 80%.
“when ‘X’ appears, ‘Anonymous’ is mysteriously silent”
You are seriously convinced that there is only one anonymous poster here? That would call your powers of perception into very serious question.
Caravello got dem crazy eyes, good reason not to trust him.
Turley– “Caravello has been defended by faculty….”
Shut the entire cesspool down. Who would trust a son or daughter to these lunatics for an education?
We’ll call it the Pelosi Precedent (PP) a.k.a. Planned Personhood (PP). This guy is lucky he’s still viable and not aborted as a “burden” of State, sequestered in a sanctuary state as an endangerment.
Gee, I wonder what the law says..?
“Assault on Federal Officer”
“18 U.S. Code § 111 – Assault on a Federal Officer”
Excerpts:
“Just as it is a crime in California to assault a police officer or peace officer, it is a federal crime to commit any assault against a federal officer defined under 18 U.S. Code § 111.”
“Depending on the circumstances and the severity of the alleged assault, this crime may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, with significant penalties if convicted. This federal law cover different type of offenses, such as simple assault, serious assault without a weapon, and serious assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon.”
“18 U.S. Code § 111 says, “whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person (or formerly served) designated in section 1114 of this title who are engaged in the performance of official duties, shall be fined and imprisoned for up to one year for simple assault, and up to eight years where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, and use of a deadly or dangerous, or inflicts bodily injury shall be fined and imprisoned not over 20 years ”
“To convict someone of simple assault, the federal prosecutor has to prove all the elements of the crime, such as showing the perpetrator forcibly assaulted a federal officer or interfered with them while engaged in the performance of their official duty or on account, and that they did this intentionally.”
“A simple assault does not require physical contact between the perpetrator and the federal agent. This means someone can commit an assault without ever touching the officer. Our federal criminal defense lawyers will review this law in more detail below.”
“18 U.S.C. 111 details three specific types of assault against a federal officer, along with the associated charges and penalties.”
“Simple assault involves forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers in performing their duties or as a result of their duties.
Penalties for Assault on a Federal Officer”
“As noted, no physical contact or injury must occur for you to be charged with or convicted of this crime. Simple federal assault is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines up to $100,000.”
“What Are Some Examples of This Offense?”
“EXAMPLE 1: Diane is visited by an IRS auditor who asks to look at her business records. During a disagreement with the auditor, Diane angrily throws a binder of receipts at him.”
“The auditor dodges the binder and is unhurt. Diane may be charged with federal assault (simple assault) because she committed a forcible action that impeded the auditor from doing his job.”
It’s not about justice, it’s about the law.
—————————————————–
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
How did Caravello forcibly assault the agents with a tear gas canister?
Simple assault refers to the least severe form of assault, involving an intentional physical act or an attempt to put another in fear of harm, but without the use of a weapon or the infliction of serious bodily injury.
Prosecutos would have to prove agents felt fear of harm. Agents wearing full body armor and seeing Caravello throwing a tear gas canister well over their heads would not be fearful.
So who was harmed or felt fearful they were going to get hurt? There is no evidence Caravello intended to harm agents. Who got assaulted?
Your comment is detached from the statute. Fear of harm is not an element of the offense. Assault is not the only way a person can be guilty of the offense, even if we assumed arguendo that throwing a canister overhand at someone’s head is not assault.
“Fear of harm is not an element of the offense.”
Yes it is. Its one of the elements used to justify the charge. No physical contact was made so the only other element that can be used is fear of imminent harm. Obviously they didn’t feel fear of harm. Whats left to prove?
George Svelaz, being unable to understand the difference, you are confusing criminal and civil law.
Meyer – George Svelaz didn’t even read the statute. Nowhere in the statute does it list fear of harm as an element. If she’s using “assault” as the basis for that, then she still didn’t read the statute because there are around six other ways besides assault that the person can be guilty of the offense, something I’ve pointed out to her over and over again, but she’s too dense to understand.
He is ignorant, with limited comprehension. He tries to push the left’s agenda, but he gets lost in the details, as you’ve pointed out. You, on the other hand, have the patience of a saint and the ability to carefully parse the law
The giant board in her eye is the hypocrisy.
At most a handful of people at J6 committed an act more egregious than throwing a tear gas grenade at law enforcement. yet many many J6’ers were convicted of Assault.
Evendince presented in a charge can exceed the required elements of the crime – it is the Statue that dictates the elements of the crime not the charge.
A threat of serious harm does NOT require physical contact. You do not physcally contact someone if you throw a knife at them or if you shoot them with a gun. You do not physically contact someone if you poisn them with mustard gas.
And AGAIN the question is not whether the officers felt fear. as OMFK noted it is not an element of the crime in the statute. But in those instances in which some fear of harm is required, That fear is weighed on a reasonable person basis.
You make claims that things are obvious – what is obvious is that those claims are wrong.
Dude. stop splitting hair.
How did Caravello forcibly assault the agents with a tear gas canister? Simple assault refers to the least severe form of assault…
George is strutting his Internet Law Degree again!
HAHAHAHA. And his engineering deg too
X tear gas is by definition harmful.
Officers wearing body armor does not ever change the criminality of the act.
If police officer show up at your home in a Tank and you fire a gun at them while in the tank it will not mitigate the crime you are charged with.
No prosecutors do not have to prove the agents felt fear.
All they have to do is establish that a reasonable person would be fearful under the circumstances.
Of course Caravello intended harm – he acted deliberately. He had choices that could not result in harm.
Personally I beleive that our courts have gone too far in favor of prosecutors on issues like this – in My state – throwing an egg at a police officer in a car is assault with a deadly weapon.
In another cause throwing a bedroom slipper was considered the use of a deadly weapon.
And my state has a democrat majority supreme court.
Do you really think that when courts consider eggs and bedroom slippers deadly weapons that tear gas grenades are something they will balk at ?
I want an end to the nonsense with eggs and bedroom slippers – but I have no problem seeing flinging a tear gas container at someone as an asault with the real possibility of serious harm.
Dialation and Extraction is performed for pregnancies in the second or third trimester.
In this procedure, the cervix is dilated and forceps are inserted into the womb.
The baby is pulled into pieces and removed.
Then the uterus is scraped to make sure all pieces have been removed.
The remains are examined to make sure they have gotten all the pieces of the baby.
kilemal
So, the father of his child must allow her to be destroyed. He has no right to fight for his baby’s life.
kilemal
Federal assault involves an intentional act with the present ability to inflict harm or injury, causing another person to reasonably fear immediate harm, or a physical act that causes actual bodily injury.
Prosecutors will have a hard time proving intent. Nobody got hurt and officers were also protected by body armor. Who got assaulted?
“1610. Assault — 18 U.S.C. 351(e)
The assault provision of 18 U.S.C. § 351(e) divides assault into two categories: those that result in personal injury, which are punishable by 10 years of imprisonment and a fine; and all others, which are punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine. The applicable fine is determined by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571. The legislative history of the section shows that the lower penalty was intended for situations in which a person strikes with his or her fist at a Member of Congress without landing the blow, or strikes only with an open hand and causes no lasting injury.
Absent a statutory definition of assault, the courts have looked to the common law and have concluded that an “assault” is:
An attempt with force or violence to do a corporal injury to another; may consist of any act tending to such corporal injury, accompanied with such circumstances as denotes at the time an intention, coupled with present ability, of using actual violence against the person.”.
Who got harmed? Who felt threatened? That would be the question in court. This is another attempt at overcharging for something that did not happen.
You need to understand the definition of assault. Come back when you are more educated on the subject, so you stop embarrassing yourself.
embarrassing himself is his leitmotif
Gigi/George/Svelaz: Section 111 is not limited to assault. A person who forcibly “resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” the federal operation is also guilty under that section. The professor linked the section in his article; you might want to follow that link and read the statute before spouting off.
So what is the assault that occurred? In order for assault to apply physical contact or a threat of harm must be present. Who was harmed and who felt threatened?
The federal officers who were conducting the operations. Read the criminal complaint to understand what was going on and what Professor Caravello did. I have linked to it twice already. The allegations in the complaint are based on bodycam footage. The grand jury saw the evidence and indicted him.
But what happened? All they showed was Caravello picking up a tear gas canister and throwing several feet over agents heads. Nowhere in the complaint does it say an agent or agents where injrued or hit by the canister. So where is the assault?
Proving intent will be extremely hard absent any injury or harm. Agents arrested Caravello 2 hours after the incident. They were clearly not threatened or harmed. So where is the evidnce of an assault?
I’m not sure what you mean by intent, since that’s not part of the statute, which makes it an offense to “forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with” the federal agents. The throwing of a canister at the heads of agents would seem to fit within the “forcefully” descriptor. And the fact that the agents did not arrest him on the spot is irrelevant. First, the statute does not limit culpability to where an agent is “threatened or harmed.” Second there could have been any number of reasons not to arrest this particular defendant right on the spot, including that the agents were dealing with a large crowd at the time.
“The throwing of a canister at the heads of agents would seem to fit within the “forcefully” descriptor.”
But what evidence is there that Caravello was throwing the canister at the agents heads? You would still have to prove that was his intent. What if he forcefully thew it beyond the agents to avoid hitting them? Could that be a plausible explanation for the defense?
“And the fact that the agents did not arrest him on the spot is irrelevant.”
It is relevant. It showed they did not deem Carevello a serious threat until he showed up two hours later.
“Second there could have been any number of reasons not to arrest this particular defendant right on the spot, including that the agents were dealing with a large crowd at the time.”
And one of those reasons could be that he did not pose a threat after throwing the canister.
The argument for the assault charge is legally weak. It still comes back to “who got unjured and who felt threatened?” If the answer is nobody then an assault did not occur in the eyes of the law.
We felt threatened. Interfering with a police operation puts us at risk.
kilemal
You seem to be very confused. First:
one of those reasons could be that he did not pose a threat after throwing the canister
Suppose he committed the crime by actions up to and including throwing the canister. You’re saying he still can’t be arrested because after throwing the canister he did not pose a threat?
So if someone murders a police officer, and poses no threat to anyone thereafter, they can’t be arrested or convicted of homicide because they were arrested at a time when they posed no further threat of harm to anyone? Do you even hear yourself? That makes no sense.
Second: you are focusing myopically on the concept of “assault” and on the the canister throwing as the sole event in order to discern whether Caravello violated the statute. That is an error on your part. The statute predicates culpability on whether the defendant impeded, opposed, resisted, assaulted, intimidated, or interfered with the agents. Any one of these standing alone is a basis for culpability given the statute’s use of the word “or.” Until you come to grips with the language of the statute, your comments miss the mark.
And the canister throwing was not the only action. From the criminal complaint, Professor Caravello was walking along the yellow police tape loudly playing a siren sound on the megaphone towards BP Agents, and he was part of a group of protesters who threw rocks at the government-owned passenger vans, causing large scale damage, including broken windows, broken side view mirrors and frame damage to the vehicles. Within this context, Professor Caravello chases down a canister, turns around, and throws it at the heads of the agents, and you want to defend him saying, “well, maybe he was trying to miss” . . . and that’s your defense as to why he didn’t violate the statute? I suppose if I were his defense attorney, I might argue that, but I would not pretend that it’s a slam-dunk winner, as you seem to believe.
I agree. Read again.
“Second: you are focusing myopically on the concept of “assault” and on the the canister throwing as the sole event in order to discern whether Caravello violated the statute.”
Well that’s the reason for the charge. You’re relying on the assumption that Caravello was intent on harming or intimidating the agents. How do you prove that was the intent? You are already making up an intent by claiming he was throwing the canister at the agent’s heads. Your argument is conclusory not evidentiary. The statute makes two things clear what must be present for the charge to stick. Physical injury or harm and threat of harm. There was no harm or injury. So the prosecution will have to rely on the threat of harm element. Agents were fully armored and clearly were not fearful. The question remains for the jury or judge to consider. Was an agent injured or harmed by the canister or was an agent fearful of imminent harm from the teargas canister flying overhead? How would a prosecutor prove either element without clear evidence?
You say the statute does this, the statute does that, but you never quote any text from the statute to back it up. Read the statute, cite the part of the statute you’re referring to, otherwise you’re full of shyt.
Carvello’s attorny will argue whatever he can – including likely some of what X claims.
I would expect that defense attorney to do his best.
But Carvello’s best hope is jury nullification
“But what evidence is there that Caravello was throwing the canister at the agents heads?”
Whether you are guilty of a crime does not hinge on how good your aim is .
‘”You would still have to prove that was his intent. ”
No they have to prove the elements of 18 USC 111 – of which there are multiple choices and Carvello appears to meet ALL of them.
“What if he forcefully thew it beyond the agents to avoid hitting them?”
Carvello could have done nothing, or thrown the Tear Gas Grenade in myriads of other directions.
When you throw something At someone – you are unlikely to convince a jury that your bad aim was intentional.
” Could that be a plausible explanation for the defense?”
I am sure his lawyer will argue that.
It is highly unlikely that will be a winning argument.
““And the fact that the agents did not arrest him on the spot is irrelevant.”
It is relevant.”
No it is not.
“It showed they did not deem Carevello a serious threat until he showed up two hours later.”
You are making up things that have no part in the law. Officers are not obligated to drop everything in the midst of executing a high risk warrant, to chase some guy who threw a tear gas grenade at them. They have the body cam footage, they have the grenade likely with finger prints,
Carvellow does NOT have another grenade – though I beleive there is an allegation of rock throwing in this case too.
“And one of those reasons could be that he did not pose a threat after throwing the canister.”
You do understand that is a reason to CONVICT ?
“The argument for the assault charge is legally weak.”
There is one charge 18 USC 111 – you have been told this over and over.
The charging documents are available.
Should have been shot on the spot. They use tear gas to control the unruly
kilemal
But what happened? All they showed was Caravello picking up a tear gas canister and throwing several feet over agents heads….
And that guy whose mag dump out of his Glock went way over their heads – when he missed like that with all those 9mm rounds, can’t you see it clearly isn’t attempted murder????
George/X and his fellow Internet Law School graduates clearly have grounds for a class action lawsuit to recover their tuition costs.
X you have repeatedly been told to read the indictment AND to read the statute. You have misconstrued BOTH completely.
The charge notes that Carvello resisted arrest – flailing and kicking at police. That is assult, that is resisting arrest.
Tossing the tear gas grenade at officers is attempted assault – if any of the officers came in contact with the tear gas that would be actual assualt.
Separately it is also interferance in the agents administration of their warrant.
Carvello is unlikely to be sentenced to 20 years – unless he has prior violent acts convictions.
But if the prosecutors prove what is alleged in the charge Carvello will be convicted – assuming no jury nullification.
Criminal intent is the intent to do something wrong.
It does not require the intent to do the thing that you were charge with.
If you fire a gun intending to scare someone and you hit and kill them – you are guilty of murder.
Once you act with the intention to do something wrong, you are guilty of whatever actually happens even if that is not specifically what happened.
X you continue this idiocy of arguing a different charge then the one that was made
Read the correct statute. While Carvello is certainly guilty of an attempted assault.
“18 U.S. Code § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees”
Please note the OR
DOJ must prove
and assault OR
resisting the officers – that is in the charge too,
or impeding
Any of those will do.
Carvello arguably did all of them.
Were you on drugs at one time? Did the drugs fry your brain? You don’t make sense.
Your analysis of 18 USC 3571 is likely in error, regardles Carvello was charged with violating 18 USC 111
You are free to represent Carvello and go to court to defend him against a crime he is not charged with.
Carvello would be best represented by someone who has read the charge.
Where is the evidence of the assault? Throwing the canister and hitting nobody is assault?
Yes, it is. Stop embarrassing yourself here.
Who was assaulted? Who got hit?
“1610. Assault — 18 U.S.C. 351(e)
The assault provision of 18 U.S.C. § 351(e) divides assault into two categories: those that result in personal injury, which are punishable by 10 years of imprisonment and a fine; and all others, which are punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine. The applicable fine is determined by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571. The legislative history of the section shows that the lower penalty was intended for situations in which a person strikes with his or her fist at a Member of Congress without landing the blow, or strikes only with an open hand and causes no lasting injury.
Absent a statutory definition of assault, the courts have looked to the common law and have concluded that an “assault” is:
An attempt with force or violence to do a corporal injury to another; may consist of any act tending to such corporal injury, accompanied with such circumstances as denotes at the time an intention, coupled with present ability, of using actual violence against the person.”.”
Who got hit by the canister?
If someone fires a gun at your head, and the bullet whizzes by missing you by an inch, that’s not assault? What are you smoking?
Also, as I mentioned above, the statute is not limited to assault. Read the statute before spouting off.
“If someone fires a gun at your head, and the bullet whizzes by missing you by an inch, that’s not assault? What are you smoking?”
Where was a gun involved in this case? Nothing in the complaint alleges Caravello intentionally or deliberately threw the canister at an agen. Pointing a gun poses an imminent threat to life. How does a tear gas canister flying overhead by several feet an imminent threat to life or harm? They are to different things.
Who was hit by the canister and got injured?
The point of the gun example was to show that assault does not require physical contact. He chased down a canister and threw it overhand (forcefully) toward the heads of the agents. That was one action in a course of conduct in which he was forcefully opposing and interfering with the lawful operation of the federal agents. The grand jury found probable cause to believe he violated the statute.
Oldman– I suspect you may be arguing with an Artificial Stupidity computer program. You make sense; it makes none.
Right
The point of the gun example was an exercise of false equivalence.
You keep concluding that Caravello threw the canister at the heads of the agents without any evidence. You’re running on an assumption not on facts.
“The grand jury found probable cause to believe he violated the statute.”
That is correct. But we both know how easy it is to convince a Grand jury to indict. The prosecution will still have to prove to the court the actions of Caravello amounted to the statute’s definition of assault.
Kansas, you are speaking to an idiot who doesn’t even know how to look up the law.
“Kansas, you are speaking to an idiot who doesn’t even know how to look up the law.”
That’s rich coming from you who cannot produce the immigration law you claim is easy to find. Have you found it yet S. Meyer?
You do know I posted the law reference to the assault charge and the federal definition of assault, right? So where is your immigration law citation?
I have proven my abilities repeatedly. You haven’t graduated from the first level of stupid, and your lack of honesty is glaring. The time you spent on this question was more than enough for you to look up the law and memorize it. You didn’t bother because you know you are wrong, and you recognize your limited inability to understand the law.
You have played this game one time too many, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed.
*. IMPEDE, IMPEDE. There’s confusion here between free speech and IMPEDE. ICE, BORDER PATROL are law enforcement. If a protestor even get in the way of a search or an arrest LEO has been impeded. In fact Newsom is treading a fine line impeding federal law enforcement and includes sanctuary cities as an impediment to law enforcement. ICE has warrants.
X is a troll.
*. ^^^ Further, of the dem governors Newsom, Pritzker, Bowser, Bowser is the brightest. She is not impeding federal law enforcement, quite the contrary realizing as governor she represents all DC citizens Democrat and Republican. Newsom and Pritzker are pushing arrest. They are not providing equal protection to all citizens.
Interfered with policing effort
kilemal
Cal State University Channel Islands
professorAdjunct Jonathan Anthony CaravelloCaravello is an adjunct, not a Professor. Worse, his title is Lecturer AY, (lecturer academic year), and is paid by the course credit number. For a three-unit assignment, typical starting compensation ranges from $6,608 to $7,465 per semester.
So what does the raving lunatic teach exactly given its PhD? Immuno-cardiology protein chemistry? Epigenetic mechanisms of inflammation? Cancer Biology? As if…..
he / it teaches the following 3 courses:
PHIL 130 – Logic And Philosophical Reasoning
PHIL 200 – Introduction To Philosophy
PHIL 439 – Philosophy Of Science
https://ciapps.csuci.edu/ScheduleOfClasses/InstructorCourseListDetail/Index/Fall-2021/jonathan.caravello/Caravello,-Jonathan
Oh, and he’s all of 37 years of age.
Let him deal with the prison population and see how that goes. Svelaz / George / Wally, do you have any of your slippery lubricating soap to give to your identical twin since you clearly don’t have any need for it?
How is it assault? Caravello claimed he picked up the cannister after it got lodged under a wheelchair of a protester. How does a cannister flying over agents heads by several feet an assault? Assault requires contact and injury.
Law enforcement are legally allowed to lie. How do we know the officer in the complaint is not lying to enhance the perception that Caravello’s actions were deliberate? The agents don’t allege anyone was hurt by the canister. It only alleges that it was thrown overhead and within a few feet of agents. How is that assault?
Looks like someone chucked a can of GHB over your home AC intake and some of the particulate matter landed on your upper lip, hence your babbling lunacy. Oh way, your type loves GHB especially for grooming little boys.
“Assault requires contact and injury”
Try learning the language before you comment. It will be easier to conceal your lack of intelligence that way. Battery requires contact and relatively severe injury. Assault may or may not entail contact and /or injury, only the inducement of fear of injury is required:
“assault | 1 of 2 | noun
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault
1 …
2
law
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension (see apprehension sense 1) of such harm or contact”
Assault vs. Battery: Examples of the Legal Difference
https://legalclarity.org/assault-vs-battery-examples-of-the-legal-difference/
Courts do not use Merrian webster definitions of assault. They use legal definitions.
“1610. Assault — 18 U.S.C. 351(e)
The assault provision of 18 U.S.C. § 351(e) divides assault into two categories: those that result in personal injury, which are punishable by 10 years of imprisonment and a fine; and all others, which are punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine.”
Who was injured? Who said they felt threatened or feared for their life?
Bill Clinton turned his back on one million Tutsis who were slaughtered while he played with Monica’s cigar. Lied about it.
Your thoughts.
You poor thing. You need to understand the definition of assault. Come back when you are more educated on the subject, so you stop embarrassing yourself.
She will continue to embarrass herself regardless
kilemal
How do we know the officer in the complaint is not lying?
The complaint is based on bodycam footage, which the Government showed to the grand jury.
Footage can be edited. Agents can still lie on the complaint. That does not prove they are being honest.
You are basically positing that nobody should ever be indicted for any criminal offense, let alone convicted, because witnesses can lie and photographs and videos can be doctored. That’s not much of an argument.
Rabble:
There’s no footage of your birth. Therefore, you don’t exist. Next question.
” How do we know the officer in the complaint is not lying”
Because he isn’t a registered Democrat?
Laura, now you’re talking luck? Seriously? Do you feel lucky today, punk? You missed the whole point?
“How do we know the officer in the complaint is not lying . . .”
Got evidence that he is lying? If not, your comment is utterly arbitrary — and dismissed out-of-hand.
If Professor Caravello had used the same exact tactics against federal officers protecting an abortion clinic instead of officers enforcing immigration and child exploitation laws, any guesses on whether the same academic organizations would have jumped to his defense and rallied around his free speech rights?
The Biden administration prosecuted people at abortion protests for standing up to Abortion volunteers who tried to indoctrinate their children at protests.
The only “right wing” protest I am aware of that involved tear gas – Was J6 and even there – the CP accidentally tear gassed themselves and then without justification tear gassed a legally and peacefully assembled crowd.
I fully support the right of people to protest the actions of the Trump administration – and will defend that right to protest – EVEN when I disagree with them.
But a riot and protest are NOT the same thing.
ICE/CBP/… officers are acting onder administration orders to enforce US laws.
If you do not like those law – do what J6 protestors did and go to the capital to protest.
Under Speaker MacCarthy and now Johnson we have ended the idiocy of Pelosi attempting to thwart public protest by unconstitutionally closing our legislative process to the public.
If you do not like the law – protest to at the capital to congress.
If you do not like the enforcement of the law – Protest at the White House.
When you start chasing officers of the law to protest their efforts to enforce laws they did not make and are obeying orders to enforce – YOU are lawless.
Law enforcement is difficult and I support holding officers who abuse their power accountable.
But I absolutely do NOT support deliberately trying to provoke a conflict with officers who are enforcing constitutional laws passed by congress and enforced at the order of the president.
That does not mean you can not protest – but your choices of where and how speak of YOUR morality or lack thereof.
You’ll get no argument from me, but my comment was more on the liberal academic entities supporting this type of conduct as free speech whereas I believe they would not if they disapproved of the cause, e.g., and anti-abortion cause. IOW, they are not sincere in supposedly defending free speech.
“they are not sincere in supposedly defending free speech.”
They are completely sincere, so long as it is speech that they agree with…
Yup, that’s kinda what I meant.
Academia can only thrive in a civilized society. Mayhem is incompatible with deep contemplation as a profession. Guess these “professors” are trying to put themselves out of work. Good riddance to them. Too bad for scholarship.
*. The tear gas was 1st thrown at Caravello by LEO? Where? Was this in the field?
This article is about Caravello or weed field workers or machete woman or abortion?
It starts out with the federal indictment of Caravello, then expands on leftists in academia also resorting to violence, verbal abuse, physical actions against other’s property. The good professor is pointing out the trends of leftists in academia for violence and intolerance. It all fits into the hate and rage that has consumed the Democrat party. Sane and normal Democrats need to boot these people out of their party and take their party back.
This document has a full description of the incident based on bodycam footage. It answers your questions:
https://keyt.b-cdn.net/2025/07/USA-v-Caravello-COMPLAINT.pdf
Excellent, thank you, OMFK
The trial should be interesting. Looking forward to what evidence is presented and what the defense will go with.
Probably some variation of the “deli sandwich” defense; after all, he didn’t actually hit anyone.
-g
How can it be assault? Who was injured? There are multiple reports saying Cavarello threw the canister away from a protester on a wheelchair. It doesn’t look like it was even intentional.
Well good he can teach math to prisoners.
A scary face
Anthony L,
The face of the modern Democrat party.
Today’s “democrat” is frightening – https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthechive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F07%2Fsweet-haircut-3_d59a71.jpg%3Fattachment_cache_bust%3D5055082%26quality%3D85%26strip%3Dinfo%26w%3D600%3AgvRN6Orf9JR3FIWQnyCe2UECfOY&cuid=2189754
I would cross the street to stay away from someone with a face like that walking toward me.
*. His face looks like a drug addict. No doubt drug testing has been done. Psych exam perhaps because delusional confusion, kidnap and arrest.
Drugs can cause all of the irrational behavior seen here and elsewhere. Consider its California and jury nullification a probability.