Attack of the Moonbats Part IV - After Action Addendum for World Can't Wait Protest Oct 5th, 2006

In "Attack of the Moonbats Part I" AmericanProtest.net weekly column told the story of yelling, threatening "anti-war" men at the University of Arizona World Can't Wait protest, and of another man who physically attacked a student and the author who were peacefully holding signs at the "anti-war" rally. An editorial and many letters to the editor in the Arizona Daily Wildcat supported the author and decried the actions of the sign grabber, including two Republicans, a Democrat and a leader of the World Can't Wait rally. Later, in Part III, it was explained how the man had accepted a plea agreement for anger management. However, as it turned out, the district attorney office that sent me this information was mistaken.

A trial was scheduled for the misdemeanor assault charge and the author subpoenaed to testify. The following is the tragic courtroom tale of unanswered questions and missed witnesses, orange-clad prisoners, a testifying lawyer and courtroom theatrics. The stage was set in an antique historic Western courtroom with a high arched ceiling and gleaming, polished wood benches and railings. A cartoon portrait of Cesar Chavez smiled benevolently over the room from high on the wall. Ironically, it was also the courtroom I was married in almost 9 years ago, so I was glad of support from my lovely bride Judy who attended.

The defendant's use of a high-powered lawyer for a misdemeanor was significant. There are certain legal tactics that are standard for the experts, and this lawyer was obviously well schooled in their use. The trial started with the State questioning the police officer about his observations of the victim and the defendant.

"I object to the term "victim!" cried the well-dressed defense lawyer, starting what would be a long string of objections throughout the trial. From a rough guess I would say about half were overruled and half sustained. This one was conceded by the State who declared they would simply use my name.

The policeman smiled at the antics and objections of the lawyer as he testified that after hearing arguments and a call for help, he saw the defendant grabbing at my shirt and sign and pulled him from me. The defense lawyer made sure to ask if he saw anyone else pull the man off. The police officer hadn't noticed anyone. The aggressive attorney also seemed very interested in the movement of my sign and how large it is, exaggerating the wooden pole it was mounted on from its actual size of one inch by one half inch to a two by four! The defendant had made a statement to the police but the officer had not read him Miranda rights and it was disallowed. Finally the policeman was allowed to step down. Then it was my turn.

The State Attorney basically asked me what happened and I explained that the man had run past and attacked the student beside me, pulling his sign and hitting at him. I stepped between them and called for the police, whereupon he pulled my shirt and sign, also hurling my library book and hitting at me. When I saw him glaring at me (I forgot to mention while apparently being spoken to by an organizer) I told the policeman yes when he asked if I wanted to press charges. The Defense came to cross-examine.

The defense lawyer began by accusing me of being a "professional" protester. Rather than waste the court's time with a long explanation of citizenship and veteran troop support that was sure to be challenged at every sentence, I simply stated it was more of a hobby, meaning I wasn't paid to do it. This still earned some dramatic gestures and more indictments from the Defense.

"You believe my client to be a moonbat, don't you!" accused the defendant's lawyer as he quoted American Protest's weekly column "Attack of the Moonbats." I tried to explain that he was not personally singled out but included in the roster of those who attacked me (which included the verbal aggressors) but I was rattled by lawyer's opening salvo and didn't express myself well. In retrospect I would have brought up the common nickname "wingnuts" for Republicans that liberal political writers use and explained how it's all in good humor, which I believe it is. The State objected as to the relevance of questions concerning my sign and column but was overruled. From that point on it seemed like all bets were off as the defense lawyer began his attack on my credibility and description of what happened.

The defendant's lawyer was even more highly practiced than I'd expected. I've read about voices dripping with scorn, now I got to hear one! Even through I had remained calm during the yelling, cursing moonbat attack at the University of Arizona, the lawyer's skillful tones and derogatory remarks were able to fluster me enough to testily demand he pronounce my name correctly after he used it four different ways. A neat trick. However, after that incident I knew his game and spoke in measured tones. But the damage was done.

The next accusations were that I thought the defendant was a Communist, or that I thought everyone at the rally was a Communist or that I thought anyone against the war was a Communist. Some of these questions were asked several times apiece in a sort of bizarre Hollywood style reverse McCarthyism scenario. Again the relevance seemed suspect to me. I denied thinking his client or all anti-war people are Communist and when he said my sign "referred to them as Communists" I pointed out that it actually says "Say No To Communism" which indeed only objects to Communism in general. The lawyer was taken aback when I explained that some people at the rally told me they were Communists.

"They…told you…" he sunk his head in his hands. Those stupid Communists! They weren't supposed to say that! Oh, well. He eventually moved on to questions about the yelling crowd to set the scene for his version of the event but a slight delay occurred as a few manacled, orange clad prisoners shuffled into the room. Due to security reasons, we all waited in place as the important cases where dealt with, then resumed the misdemeanor trial. The Defense seemed willing to admit the "anti-war" group was verbally abusive; in fact he wanted to bring that out. He then tried to say (by way of more accusatory questions) that the defendant didn't throw my library book, attack the student or glare at me after the incident; also that nobody helped pull him off me.

The Defense tried to confuse the issue by saying the policeman didn't see the defendant attack the student or throw the book although I tried to explain that the timeline showed the police arrived after that happened. He openly accused me of lying about the rally organizer pulling the defendant off me, although I stated a rally leader wrote about the occurrence in a letter to the editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. I wanted to say "Your Honor, I request a recess to get a new lawyer that objects more" but then I remembered it wasn't me on trial! That also limited me in what I could say in my defense or evidence I could introduce. But toward the end when the defense lawyer repeated his dramatic interrogation about whether I called his client a "sign-hating liberal" in my column I replied, "based on his actions, yes."

The State witnesses were just the police officer and I, although the State Attorney had told me a month or so earlier she might subpoena the students who wrote letters to the editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. If she had, things would have turned out much differently! The Defense called a retired lawyer from out of state that had attended the rally. He testified he was twenty yards away and said I was agitated due to a particular yelling man on a bicycle. Apparently the reason he could tell that was because my sign was moving up and down and from side to side. There was another interruption as more prisoners came in and were dealt with so I read a few passages from my library copy of "Saddam's Secrets" by Georges Sada I had checked out again recently. Great book.

It was the State's turn to show scorn as she wondered how the witness could tell I was agitated from sixty feet away. The startled retired lawyer witness quickly amended his distance estimate, cutting it in half. At the end he got in a couple of hits in at me using what appeared to be typical defense lawyer fashion, mispronouncing my name and saying something to the effect that I had the right to come to the rally and cause trouble and that's what I was there for. "I object! The witness is giving his opinion," I stated in my mind but the State was silent.

Then the defendant came to the stand. Finally his story was revealed. Basically their version was this: I was a professional agitator who came to cause trouble but became agitated myself (due to the yelling liberal on the bicycle.) This caused me to move my sign up and down and from side to side. The defendant couldn't hear the speaker and strode over like any good citizen to get me to shut up. (I would have asked why he didn't go talk to the yelling bicycle man instead.) As he walked toward us he was glaring at me by his own admission. However when he got about three feet away, my agitation-instigated moving sign intimidated or bumped him by accident and he fell forward, grabbing my shirt and sign only to maintain his balance. No book was thrown or student attacked. After the incident he didn't glare at me.

The policeman was recalled and said that after the confrontation he took the defendant to a place where I wouldn't have seen him. That was odd. Who was the blue shirted cowboy hat man I saw after the incident glaring at me while being talked to by one of the organizers? Other questions were unanswered. How did the book fly 20 feet away? Why did the police officer say he had not seen anyone help him pull the defendant away when the campus Refuse and Resist President wrote "a Refuse and Resist organizer helped pull the person away and rebuked him for his actions" in a letter to the editor in the Arizona Daily Wildcat about the incident on October 18, 2006?

For that matter, why did a student named Jon who commented on the internet Arizona Daily Wildcat story about the rally on October 6, 2006 also say he helped pull the man off me? Perhaps the policeman did not see others helping as he dealt with the highly charged situation. I also wondered how the defendant could fall forward instead of backward if my sign had bumped him. And why didn't the District Attorney's office subpoena the four students (one Democrat, one rally organizer and two Republicans) who wrote letters to the editor about the incident?

In the end the judge (a Marine and Army veteran) decided he could not say the man attacked me based on the retired lawyer witness's statement combined with the police officer testimony and dismissed the case. Whew! That was a relief. As I had said in my victim statement submitted to the court, no real damage was done and I had forgiven the defendant in my heart. Of course I had to tell the truth on the stand, but if the defendant had been declared guilty his lawyer would probably have appealed and even more of the court's time would be wasted. There were many lessons learned here.

If a physical incident is minor, it is probably best to tell the police officer you don't want to press charges. In retrospect I would have declined the offer, especially since it turned out to be a waste of my time and taxpayer resources. Sometimes people from either side see opposing signs for the first time and just want to tear them down but later get over it. In the adrenalin charged aftermath of a physical conflict it's not easy to consider the long run. Take a moment to think about if the police would now be closer and so there would be no further danger. Of course, it depends on the situation. If you do want to press charges, consider if you have recorded video of what happened and be ready for a legal attack.

"Anti-war" protesters have a gigantic pool of legal talent to draw upon. The defendant's lawyer was listed on a volunteer legal aide website, however, I don't know if he was paid or not. If you are in a trial, it may be necessary to bring your own lawyer into court, even if you are the victim (I object to that term!) or witness. And don't depend on the District Attorney's office to gather other witnesses. Gather them yourself with contact information and present the list to the State or your lawyer.

In the courtroom after the trial the now cleared defendant stood hesitantly near me so I smiled and shook his hand heartily, congratulating him on his victory. He certainly must have gone through a lot fighting this misdemeanor trial with much of his own time spent. His lawyer also smiled and said his client had no animosity toward me, the scorn magically transforming into friendliness. I gave him some reports from Discover the Network about Communist connections to the groups holding the rally (World Can't Wait and Refuse and Resist), which he indicated he would read and then we were ready to leave.

Yes, people have differences and get overexcited at rallies and protests. But on the conservative side, we have a higher standard to maintain. I did that by sticking to the facts and telling the truth throughout everything that happened, and it paid off in the end. The judge did not say that attacking peaceful bystanding conservatives was allowed but instead indicated he was not so sure it happened. Therefore no bad legal precedent was set. It's important to work through the travails and problems of troop support yet keep to the mission. Across the nation more and more cities are joining in. Let's keep to the high road as we stand up for the troops - and America!

How does it feel to be on the witness stand accused of writing "moonbat" on the internet?! Bizarre!

A Tucson WWII memorial outside the courthouse is inspiring.	A fountain outside the courthouse is wet.
Prepared for attack!

Something I’ve learned by battling Fast Eddies union thug goons in Philly elections:

When they come for the sign, they won’t see the brass knuckle upper cut to the chin.

After they pass out from that beauty, they usually lose their immediate memory of the hit.

Works every time.

2 posted on 04/27/2007 11:07:47 AM PDT by Al Gator (Refusing to "stoop to your enemy's level", gets you cut off at the knees.)

Wayne, you’re a bigger person than I would have been under the circumstances. I love your reports too.

A fountain outside the courthouse is wet.

A good sign... fountain... wet...

4 posted on 04/27/2007 5:06:37 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)

5 posted on 05/01/2007 8:21:56 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.