In case you don't know what SPLC is, it it stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center which sounds like a wonderful organization that would have the best interests of the people in general in mind but that is not what it is at all. They are for the most part an activist organization with a deceptive name who mostly participate in attempting to propel liberal causes. They are essentially an arm of the Democrat party, even though they pretend to be non-partisan.
Recently, there have been more silly Antifa riots that would definitely get squashed in my part of the country if they were ever to occur and it involved the usual destruction of property and burning of stuff, which is basically what Antifa does, isn't it?
src
This particular aggressive protest has to do with the construction of a police training complex in Georgia and while there weren't many people involved, it appears as though Georgia is not interested in becoming California or Oregon and they put a stop to it pretty quickly and arrested more than 20 Antifa participants, charged them with domestic terrorism and denied them all bond.
Antifa acting like Antifa thugs is nothing new but what is interesting about all of this was that one person that was involved is actually a lawyer for the SPLC, a group that claims - even though anyone with partial brain activity knows it isn't true - to be an impartial non-partisan group.
src
His name is Thomas Jurgens and he works as an attorney for SPLC. He was the only person arrested that was granted bond as he claimed he was at the protest that quickly turned violent merely as a "legal observer" and to be fair to Jurgens, there is no evidence to suggest that he wasn't doing precisely that. He was wearing bright colored clothes that identified him as such, and there is no video evidence or witnesses that claim to have seen him engage in any destruction of property.
Here is the issue that I have with "legal observers" being at these events. Why does it seem that these legal observers are made aware of these events in the first place and why do they only ever seem to be at protests-turned-riots that are of liberal origin?
I'll give Jurgens the benefit of the doubt and agree that he probably didn't have anything to do with the destruction but it still begs the question of why was he there to begin with since these things are normally carried out in a covert type fashion.
He was released on a very small bond of $5000 and even though I am no legal expert, I would imagine that he won't be convicted of anything at all. After all, the organization that he works for is a very powerful legal entity itself and the DA is probably not interested in taking them on. Plus there is the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that I am a staunch believer in, even if someone is a liberal nutjob.
Another thing that is disturbing about this event just in a general sense is that most of the people that were involved and all of the people who were denied bail aren't from Atlanta or even Georgia. At least one of them wasn't even from the United States.
What the hell is going on here? I hate to sound like a gun-totin' redneck (ok, no I don't... because that it what i am) but I would love it if Antifa attempted something like this in my neck of the woods. It wouldn't last long and many of them would likely end up ventilated due to the castle doctrine and high level of legal firearm ownership that exists in my county. Perhaps that is part of the reason why we never have things like this happen? hmmmmmm