One Man Shot in Albuquerque As Crowd Attempts to Tear Down Statue of Spanish Conquistador [VIDEO]

This bronze statue of Don Juan de Oñate leading a group of Spanish settlers from an area near what is now Ciudad Chihuahua, Mexico, to what was then the northern most province of New Spain in 1598 stands outside the Albuquerque Museum in Albuquerque, N.M., on Friday, June 12, 2020. The collection of statues, which includes an indigenous guide, a priest, women settlers and soldiers, is titled “La Jornada.” Two public statues of Spanish conqueror Juan de Oñate in New Mexico are drawing renewed attention and criticism as memorials erected in honor of Confederate leaders and other historical figures worldwide become a focus of protests. (AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan)

From the AP:

A man was shot Monday night as protesters in New Mexico’s largest city tried to tear down a bronze statue of a Spanish conquistador outside the Albuquerque Museum.

The man was taken to a hospital but his condition was not immediately known, Albuquerque police spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said. [ED: police later said he’s in critical, but stable condition.]

The city announced the statue will be removed until officials determine the next steps.

A confrontation broke out between demonstrators and a group of armed men who were trying to protect the statue of Juan de Oñate before protesters wrapped a chain around the statue and began tugging on it while chanting, “Tear it down.” One protester repeatedly swung a pickax at the base of the statue.

Moments later a few gunshots could be heard down the street and people started yelling that someone had been shot.

Gallegos said officers used tear gas and flash bangs to protect officers and detain those involved in the shooting. He said they were disarmed and taken into custody for questioning as police worked to secure the scene. Gallegos said detectives will be investigating but he did not immediately release any other information.

“The shooting tonight was a tragic, outrageous and unacceptable act of violence and it has no place in our city,” Mayor Tim Keller said in a statement. “Our diverse community will not be deterred by acts meant to divide or silence us. Our hearts go out to the victim, his family and witnesses whose lives were needlessly threatened tonight. This sculpture has now become an urgent matter of public safety.”

A man named Thantsideh (sunbird in his native Tewa language) stands on the pedestal built for a statue of Juan de Oñate, as he argues with fellow Hispanic residents of Northern New Mexico over the removal of the statue Monday, June 15, 2020, in Alcalde, N.M.. Oñate violently established colonial outposts in the 16th century in the region and was the first European leader to settle there. County officials removed the statue Monday to avoid unrest ahead of a planned protest. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

The violence came just hours after activists in northern New Mexico celebrated the removal of another likeness of Oñate that was on public display at a cultural center in the community of Alcalde. Rio Arriba County officials removed it to safeguard it from possible damage and to avoid civil unrest ahead of a scheduled protest.

[ED: As background, here is the Guardian’s description of who Juan de Oñate was and why his statue is considered problematic.]

The Oñate statues have been criticised for decades.

Oñate, who arrived in New Mexico in 1598, is celebrated as a cultural father figure in communities along the Upper Rio Grande that trace their ancestry to Spanish settlers. But he is also reviled for his brutality.

To Native Americans, Oñate is known for having ordered the right feet cut off of 24 captive tribal warriors after the killing of Oñate’s nephew. In 1998, someone sawed the right foot off the statue.

Luis Peña of Espanola, an artist and computer network engineer, started a public petition last week to remove the statue in Alcalde. He said he was heartened to see it taken off display.

Removal of the statue was followed by a few heated roadside discussions about local colonial history, under the gaze of a half-dozen sheriff’s deputies.

Tony Valerio, 65, rushed to the site after a neighbour alerted him that the statue was being taken down.

“He’s my hero. He brought a lot of good things to New Mexico,” Valerio said of Oñate. “What’s next? The Statue of Liberty?”

The Albuquerque Journal quotes New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s reaction to the shooting:

“Although we are still learning more about the situation, I am horrified and disgusted beyond words by the reports of violence at a protest Monday night in Albuquerque,” Lujan Grisham said late Monday in a statement. “The heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘civil guard,’ were there for one reason: To menace protesters, to present an unsanctioned show of unregulated force. To menace the people of New Mexico with weaponry — with an implicit threat of violence — is on its face unacceptable; that violence did indeed occur is unspeakable.”

comments

  1. avatar Dude says:

    So now the Left hates illegal immigrants with Spanish heritage? Hmm…

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      Remove all history, so you’re only left with Communist dogma. Who says the Left hates religion?

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        In the former Soviet Union, if they weren’t destroyed churches were turned into barracks, warehouses, prisons, or offices.

        The Communists only relented after the Nazi invasion.

        Destroying the past to return to year zero was the hallmark of the Khmer Rouge, who systematically murdered more than a third of the population of Cambodia.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          Leftist are teaching (gullible) Americans to hate America.

          As these spoiled brats grow in numbers, it will get to point where they can pass laws to ‘Correct’ what they believe is wrong.

          To do that, they must first destroy America.

          Read this, it lays it out :

          https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/how-our-anti-american-education-system-made-riots-inevitable/

    2. avatar WARFAB says:

      Pretty much what I was thinking. I don’t get it.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Oppression Olympics, Indigenous > Hispanic > European.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          I wonder how many indigenous people were there helping to tear down the statue.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          If it’s anything like the BLM riot in Albany with the black residents maybe 1/4 of the rioting pre looting.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The politicians who present themselves as moral arbiters, telling us what to think about organized violence, are actually cowards who will happily sell our culture, history, and society in order to please the demands of a mob. If you have a sick feeling that tells you not to trust these critters, you are right. We’re at our national “High Noon” moment.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Agree.

    4. avatar Randy Jones says:

      No, the left just hates the legal immigrants. There was no international law in place to stop the Conquistadors.

  2. avatar 41mag says:

    “ A confrontation broke out between demonstrators and a group of armed men who were trying to protect the statue..”

    “ Moments later a few gunshots could be heard down the street…”

    2 separate locations? Group was armed and protecting a statue, then shots are heard AWAY from the statue?

    Does that sound right?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Watch the video. The dude in the blue shirt gets attacked by the “mostly peaceful” rioters. Someone swings a skateboard at him. He runs away. The mob smells blood, and chases him, while yelling FOLLOW HIM. Multiple people attack him, and he pulls out a gun to defend himself. That’s what it looks like anyway.

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        Gotcha, thanks… I could only read that and the Foxnews article.

        Stay away from crowds if possible.

      2. avatar MrMax says:

        Like alot of what is going on now, the real story of what happened needs to come out. If this guy was being attacked by multiple people and felt his life was in danger, he may have had justification to use deadly force – that’s for the courts to decide.

        1. avatar Ryno says:

          You can literally hear one of them yelling “we’re gonna f&$6#ing kill you!” Over and over. Pretty sure this one ain’t going to trial. Assuming, of course, there isn’t some way to hang him for having a gun. In that case, all bets are off, and I make no predictions.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          Actually, I think the guy screaming in the video said He’s going to F kill you! He saw blue shirt guy reach for the gun after he got up from being tackled by that Antifa looking dude.

        3. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

          Nope, one of the 4 soyboi pantifas screams “I’m going to FU#*ING KILL YOU!” while all 4 stand over him pummeling him while he is on the ground. He took the correct, decisive action.
          NSFW video of the altercation
          https://twitter.com/mknrdt/status/1272965632481464325

      3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Blue shirt’s gun was out while he was running away, after being hit with the skateboard and while being mobbed and beaten. He showed remarkable restraint in not shooting any of those attacking him sooner.

      4. avatar Freedom Forever says:

        There’s always some douchebag with a skateboard in these videos. It must be in the vanilla isis playback of non obvious weapons. The tactical skateboard.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          It’s a formidable weapon that doesn’t look like a weapon…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Trucks to the dome is often lights out.

      5. avatar frank speak says:

        …..not to mention shouting “we’ll kill you” while attacking him as he was leaving…looks justified to me…

      6. avatar AdamTA1 says:

        There’s another video prior to this of a girl blocking his access to the statue. He gets tired of it and throws her on the ground. That’s the start to the altercation. If they prosecute him that will be why. They’ll say he’s the instigator by attacking the girl.

  3. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Doesn’t matter what the truth is. This is going to be painted as a “white supremacist shooting” by the MSM, just like they tried to pin the riots on mythical “white supremacists.” It will lead to more anti-gun legislation.

    For the love of God, don’t take a firearm to a protest.

    1. avatar Rusty - time for RGB to go - Chains says:

      No, the real answer is stay away from leftist protester/thugs if they aren’t visiting your place of business or home. If they attack or pursue you, then deal with it if you have to, if you are at your home or business then a very visible shotgun or AR is called for.

      1. avatar Napresto says:

        Yeah, the first rule of carrying a weapon in your day-to-day is to avoid putting yourself in situations where you’ll have to use it. Bad enough if you wind up in one of those situations by accident…

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          You are spot on.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Some middle aged white man attacked the man’s head with a skateboard multiple times. If you did that to a cop, he would have shot you 17 times. The man tried to run away, which makes predators lust for blood. It appeared he was concealed carrying until he was pulled to the ground… He started shooting after three people attacked him and one of them was hitting him in the head with a skateboard. The man with the skateboard was at least hit once by the four shots and remained conscious.

      The other untrained men with rifles appear to be separate from the man that was attacked. The mob didn’t attack those men carrying rifles, they asked them to leave.

      This is what would have happened had he not had a gun when there is a mob capable of violence around. Don’t forget some of those protesters, rioters and looters carry guns too.

      1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        I posted a link to a story in the Albuquerque Journal below. He’s been charge with battery, and the DA is following through.

        Don’t take a firearm to a protest. Especially if you’re white. It won’t matter what the circumstances are. You’re guilty until proven innocent.

        1. avatar Frontier Jeb says:

          And ironically the cops overriding interest still seems to following the their politician masters no matter how illegal and unethical. If ordered to, it sure looks like they may protect Antifa right up to the moment Antifa kills them. There is a tear running down my thigh for the cops.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          If you go to a protest and don’t have a gun they beat your head in with a skateboard. Is that a better outcome? Or must one choose not to protest because the left has figured out a way to damn you if you do and if you don’t?

        3. avatar raz-0 says:

          The guy was apparently antagonizing the protesters and escalated it to the point of assaulting a woman. Then the protesters turned on him and started chasing him down. At which point the video in this thread is what happened.

          Generally self defense isn’t a defense if you initiated a conflict. However the protesters using deadly force and continuing to pursue the man over simple assault isn’t legal either. So if the law was really doing what the law says, there should probably be multiple felonies to go around.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        Thugs generally don’t swing skateboards at the heads of people carrying rifles.

        They thought this guy was easy prey. They made a critical error of the Victim Selection Process.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          There was recently a video in Seattle of some turbo-idiot woman punching a guy carrying a rifle. He was a nazi (as in he was shouting “WHITE POWER”) but it shows that there are people stupid enough to do it.

  4. avatar enuf says:

    Yeah, well, way too damned hot to be protesting in the desert southwest. This is the time of year when the asphalt melts.

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      Yea I’m not seeing anyone try and shutdown the I-10 anytime soon. It was cooler weeks ago so kids were able to trash Fashion Square.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      What else are they going to do? Work?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Even the military and Islamic militants don’t want to “work” in the desert heat.

  5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    You have no right to private property in the United States. Because if you did you would have the right to defend your property. But according to the Libertarians liberals and the Left, you have no right to defend private property.

    Unless it’s the private property of the bank protecting its gold coins and paper money with armed security guards. And of course the government will kill you dead on site, when you’re trying to destroy government property. And the Three L’s don’t ever complain about that. But they do but complain about private citizens defending their private property.

    I don’t like any statues being torn down. Confederate generals, a Supreme Court Justice who said blacks are not citizens and don’t have the right to carry a gun, or the conquistadors. All statues should stay up and be well defended.

    As I said before rioters should be shot dead on sight. And peaceful protesters should be carrying guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      I believe most jurisdictions allow *nonlethal* force in defense of property.

      As for armed security guards, what they can and cannot do may vary state by state.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The atheists are just like the muslims who also tear down statues, they don’t like. They are the American version of the Taliban.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          btw
          “I believe most jurisdictions allow *nonlethal* force in defense of property.”

          Maybe , just maybe “nonlethal” force for you. But deadly force for the defense of government.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ The atheists are just like the muslims”

          No, atheists do not have an unfounded faith in a crazy sky daddy who demands the killing of innocent humans.

          I’m not aware of any atheist tearing down statues, though I’m sure it’s possible.

          I do think we should remove the tax exemption from organized religion‘s profits and property, they should pay taxes for the police protection and fire protection just like the rest of us.

        3. avatar Void says:

          True Miner they have unfounded faith in the ramblings of an 18th century economic doctrine written by a freeloader that has yet to work anywhere. Honestly would rather go with the Taliban.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Miner, the reason the government gives churches tax exemptions is because they are charitable organizations. Most churches help the community. In other words, churches ease the burden of the government. Where is your outrage over all of the left wing political organizations that don’t pay taxes? Theses are nothing more than get out the vote organizations. How much tax free money does BLM take in?

        5. avatar Doug says:

          “they have unfounded faith in the ramblings of an 18th century economic doctrine written by a freeloader that has yet to work anywhere. Honestly would rather go with the Taliban”

          Some do. And some atheists are pro-2A Libertarians.

        6. avatar Art out West says:

          Miner49er believes the “Cosmic Fart” created all life.

          Other people understand that life is beautiful.

          Our Father in Heaven is far believable than the Comic fart.

          Go back to watching porn videos Miner49er.

          “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

        7. avatar Void says:

          Very true Doug now the question of whether the number of those are even statistically existent let alone relevant.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “unfounded faith in the ramblings of an 18th century economic doctrine“

          What?

          I am an atheist that does not believe in the claims of any particular God because no one has presented compelling evidence that makes such a belief reasonable.

          It has nothing to do with economics or politics.

          And regarding the great fart, that’s hilarious!

          So all you theists believe in a great fart that created your gods?

        9. avatar Void says:

          Seriously can’t recognize Marx….. damn bro thought you had a better grasp of history and sarcasm.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with Carl Marx. There is no connection between the two.

          In reading some of Marks his discussions, he seems to indicate that religion is an allusion use to control the poor and I would agree with that, especially considering either the Catholic Church or the Muslim fundamentalists.

          But I’m not a Marxist or a communist, I’m fine with private ownership of property and business endeavors.

          Atheism isn’t really a denial of God, but more of an acknowledgment that there is no valid evidence to justify a belief in any gods.

          I don’t believe in Zeus, Allah, Oden or Jehovah, etc, all for the same reason.

        11. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Atheists don’t believe in killing innocent humans unless they are of small size and can’t fight back because their defenseless in the womb.

        12. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Probably could pick Karl Marx from Groucho, Zippo, and Harpo.

        13. avatar Southern Cross says:

          * couldn’t

        14. avatar Doug says:

          @Void “Very true Doug now the question of whether the number of those are even statistically existent let alone relevant.”

          I’ll certainly grant that atheists are, on average, left of center. But as per the Pew Research Center:

          https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/party-affiliation/

          15% of atheists are either Republican or lean Republican, with 17% not leaning either way. A small but not insignificant portion.

        15. avatar AndrewinVA says:

          Uh, Marx didn’t live in the 18th century.

        16. avatar Someone says:

          @Void,
          19th century. 1818-83. Other than that I agree with your sentiment.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Where I live we have it all. A Free State has Constitutional Carry both openly and concealed. We have a Castle Doctrine and the presumption of legit self defense under the law. Somebody breaks into your home here, it is assumed by the law that they are a deadly threat. Same deal with arson or sex crimes. Use of deadly force is authorized and prosecutors would have to prove you were wrong under that law.

      Kentucky must be a different place.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Is Arizona on the verge of turning blue? It looks like McSally is going to lose again.

      2. avatar Okieops says:

        Same for Oklahoma, SYG and Castle Domain are well-followed here + my Sheriff stated this our county is a 2A Sanctuary.

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to enuf
        “Kentucky must be a different place”.

        I should have excluded kentucky. We have the “shoot the arsonist law” here. Anybody with a fire bomb in hand gets shot dead on site. They don’t get a chance to throw one in the bluegrass state.
        (smile)

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          More fun could be had with a suppressed .22 shooting the fire bomb as it is about to be thrown. With luck, you could light up more than one arsonist.

      4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Believe it or not, CA still has Castle Doctrine, and deadly force is authorized for protection of imminent destruction of your domicile (home of residence). So if someone standing outside holds up a lit Molotov while facing your home, you are legally justified in shooting him, as the presumption is that the perp is in the process of torching your house.

        Otherwise, in public places, we generally are required to retreat. There is no Stand Your Ground provision here on public property.

        1. avatar Kendahl says:

          California has been stand your ground by case law dating from the nineteenth century. Where the state goes wrong is restricting the ability of decent people of all races to equip themselves adequately for self defense.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Trust me…I’ve had this very discussion multiple times with LEOs and attorneys in my circle. They all agree that there is no general Stand Your Ground here, and advice is given to retreat from any hostile situation unless you absolutely, without-any-other-option must defend your life. If it’s in any way possible to argue that current law does allow it, it’s probably very difficult due to TPTB saying otherwise.

          I, for one, do not want to risk it. After all, look at the current case in which a young man was recently arrested and charged with possession of a standard (10+) magazine, despite Judge Benitez’ specific injunction against that portion of the Penal Code last year. Benitez even instructed the CADOJ to send documents to all LE departments within the state to educate them of the new standard, yet cops still confiscated the mag, arrested the man, the D.A. applied the charge, and even the presiding judge(!!) refused to dismiss. Everyone in the food chain for this particular jurisdiction is clearly wrong, and the young man will likely win, but it shouldn’t have ever happened.

          Imagine if the case were pertaining to a “stand your ground” situation. No thanks.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          California has pretty robust self-defense protections.

          It’s their gun laws that suck.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      “I don’t like any statues being torn down.”

      History is scary. It’s best not to even think about it.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Right, so you’re good with a statue of Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma City?

        And Mohammed Atta in Times Square?

        Both are a part of our history and should be remembered, right? Objecting to the statues commemorating these individuals would be just like erasing history, right?

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I’m not into commemorating terrorists. You pulled that one out of your arse, as usual. I’m fine with having a discussion about removing statues of democrats. Pelosi just submitted a list of mostly democrat statues that she would like to see removed. The hypocritical Left is always saying we need to have a conversation, but they really prefer mob rule. That’s what we’re seeing here. They don’t want to admit that they erected statues of their heroes just to spite black people.

        2. avatar Dave says:

          Depends who’s setting up the statues.

          Any government setting up a McVeigh or Atta statue on public property would be laughed out of town at the voting booth. Riots would not be required.

          An individual setting up such statues on private property he owns would be expressing 1A, however vile his ideas. “Being good with” or not is not a part of the picture until and unless he specifically incites an imminent lawless action.

        3. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          Right, so you’re good with a statue of Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma City?

          And Mohammed Atta in Times Square?

          Both are a part of our history and should be remembered, right? Objecting to the statues commemorating these individuals would be just like erasing history, right?
          WEll, if someone were stupid enough to erect statues of terrorist, I would go through proper gov. channels to have them removed- not mob action .
          It is amazing that protests about subject A suddenly attack statues of subject G.

    4. avatar GuyInWI says:

      More stupidity from Chris again. Anything Chris says is probably a lie especially when it comes to Libertarians. Most likely a paid troll. If you want the actual Libertarian stance on defense of property: https://www.lp.org/platform/ see 1.9.

      He is also the same guy who wants to vote for a man who is bent of banning all semi autos and whatever else he happens not to like that day. But in his mind he is some sort of champion of freedom.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Not a troll. He’s been making good comments here for a very long time. He just really, really hates libertarians, and not without reason.

        Hell, I hate half the people who call themselves libertarians too, and I mostly am one. (Well, hate is too strong a word; I do agree with Chris T. that a lot of people who call themselves libertarians, and especially the political party members, are useless Democrat-lite idiots who just like the idea of doing whatever they want sans consequences.)

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          “He just really, really hates libertarians, and not without reason.”

          Yes I really do. Because They are far worse than the others. They are hypocrites when is come to Liberty.
          The atheists are the ones who went to court to demand the removal of stone crosses and statues of jesus christ. Years before the Taliban. And you can rationalize it all you want. Go ahead and come up with whatever the excuse. Atheists are just like the Taliban. It just that the atheists, WHERE THE FIRST TO DEMAND the tearing down of statues and monuments.

          I really do prefer Liberty and it can be crazy at times. But it’s better than peaceful slavery.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Libertarians and atheists do overlap, but they’re not the same thing at all.

          As for atheists, we’re on the same page there. Looking at the way organized atheists behave, there’s no practical difference between them and the Taliban.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          “As for atheists, we’re on the same page there.”

          Well we do agree on something. Perhaps more.
          (smile)

    5. avatar Casey says:

      I’m sure you get tired of me constantly calling you out on your BS, but the CENTRAL TENET OF LIBERTARIANISM IS PROPERTY RIGHTS.

      But go ahead and spout your nonsense, nobody else is going to challenge your “three Ls” crap.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Send me a video clip of a Libertarian saying, you have a right to kill, to defend your private property.

        1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          Here you go Chris. https://youtu.be/GCjgUjWjMeA

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to ChoseDeath

          As a subscriber to young rippa, for years now, I watched this video when it came out. I should have asked for a Libertarian who is running for public office. Like I did over two weeks ago on TTAG. And back then I got NO replies. Young Rippa is a fighter. Most Libertarians are not.

          But thank you for sending me something I have already seen. Now have the LP candidates for President and Vice president put such a video????
          Or any Libertarian, anywhere who is running for any office?

          I think the three L’s are just squish. They are weak. Trump is a fighter. And I don’t see any Libertarian candidate who is a fighter. The communist Bernie Sanders is a fighter. And he has “libertarians” who support him.

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I used to be libertarian, but when they had Bill Weld, they lost all credibility. What a joke.

        4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          All the Libertarians running for office are scum, I totally agree. Glad you like Rippa, I don’t give two squirts about comics and I think Anarcho Capitalism is utopian crap, but he’s got a good head on his shoulders and I think he’s a good dude. And how the fuck was I supposed to know you’d seen that chief? Little snarky there for no reason.

        5. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          Point being Chris, I’m on your side. I like you actually trash talking those morons and weaklings, because they deserve it for being such hypocrites.

    6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      I agree with you that statues, all statues, should be protected and rioters should be shot, but I must correct you on libertarians. Small l and right libertarians most assuredly support the use of force to protect private property. No student of Rothbard, Mises, or Hayek can do otherwise. Left libertarians do not, and big L (Libertarian Party) libertarians are a mixed bag, depending on how left or right they lean.

      I might point out that the terms RINO and NOECON have come about to describe republicans who who do not support private property, sound money, or other basic necessities of a stable civilization.

      Notable republican and former republican governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney has enacted socialized medicine as a governor, enacted gun control as a governor, supported both as the republican presidential candidate and now marches with BLM and spouts their slogans. Should we tar all republicans with his sins?

  6. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    Did I read this article correctly? The mayor directed condemnation at the people who were protecting taxpayer funded public property and praised the protesters as being part of the city’s “diverse population”?

    The Mayor said, “Our diverse community will not be deterred by acts meant to divide or silence us.” Who is us</b?? The Mayor also oversaw the eventual removal of the statue as a matter of “public safety”. So now the protesters are running public policy? Is this a smaller version of Seattle, in which protesters are destroying government property and those in charge of protecting such property are praising the efforts of the destroyers? Why did the police only show up later, when gunfire was involved? Why weren’t they there to protect government property?

    https://www.cabq.gov/culturalservices/albuquerque-museum

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Crap. I typed too quickly and mis-proofed my comment again. Disregard the goof on the HTML boldening of the words above.

      (…gets up from desk, stumbles to kitchen to get coffee…)

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Who elected the mostly peaceful rioters to decide what’s best for the electorate? Is this how democracy is supposed to work?

      1. avatar Umm . . . says:

        Dude,
        Yes, unfortunately, that’s exactly how dumbocracy works.

        Isaac Asimov complained of “the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”. Unfortunately, he failed to follow through on the arithmetic and its second-order implications. Since the ignorant will always outnumber the knowledgeable and rational, a dumbocratic system is exactly that: a legal guarantee that ignorance will prevail.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      Welcome to the land of Social Justice, where the government will arrest you and everyone you came with if you defend yourself — and then pay government employees to finish what the mob came to do.

  7. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Complete removal of history just like Hitler did

  8. avatar blahpony says:

    I wish some of these people that play at being “professional journalists” would spend more time playing “professional cameramen”.

  9. avatar birda40 says:

    Ban Skate Boards .. simple

  10. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    The video, unfortunately, doesn’t show why the guy, with the skate board, swung it. Being chased by a mob is a classic case of “disparity of force”, though.

  11. avatar Asdf says:

    Why are the only people acting like Nazis, are the ones that call themselves ANTIFA?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Germany had its own version of antifa before World War 2; they were communists, just like these pieces of garbage, and they’re one of the major reasons why people ended up rallying behind the Nazis.

  12. avatar cgray says:

    Annnnd the “militia” goobers meekly surrendered to the cops. Like they always do.

    MUH SECOND AMENDMENT AND WUTNOT!!!!

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      What would you do and why/why not?

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    I don’t give a damn about a brutal spanish conquistador…I care about America. Did TTAG post anything about defacing a stature of LINCOLN? Jefferson? Washington?

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Unfortunately americans with guns didn’t show up to defend those statues. If they did the story would have been on TTAG.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Strange how white guys with guns tend to protect other statues over the founders. That’s not a good look for Republicans.

        At the same time, it doesn’t look good for Democrats to attack statues of presidents.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Maybe it has to do with the geographical location? The DC area is only about 3% conservative, and most of those guys are probably afraid of being canceled by the mob.

        2. avatar M1Lou says:

          If you try to protect anything right now, you will be dealt with harshly by the government. They are not on your side, they are not on the side of the rule of law. You will be punished and made an example of. Just look at all of the people arrested for rioting being released. The government has chosen a side, and it is not with the average American.

    2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      If you cared about western civilization you would give a damn about the conquistadors and the tearing down of this statue. The Spaniards were in America long before there was America. Like most objects of scorn from the modern left, the conquistadors always get a bad rap. No one mentions the fact that they stopped human sacrifice on a vast scale across the new world. No, all we read about is the atrocities they committed.
      History is complicated unless your a miner49 or a chief censor. Then you see history through the lens of the college professor who brainwashed them. History/theology/philosophy is then tinged with red communism or whatever “ism” they think is warranted.
      The conquistadors were not perfect, just like human everywhere at all times. But history is complicated and hard for the left so they want to explain it in modern terms instead of understanding the men who were a product of their times.

  14. avatar kap says:

    Nazi Ideology, Stalin Ideology, Democratic Ideology Same Same; useless democrat party has set us on a path of internal destruction, time too crack down hard on these stupid protesters, they have a freedom of speech not destruction,

  15. avatar NORDNEG says:

    A few snipers in gillie suits would have worked great for dispersing a crowd of ass wipes.

  16. avatar HEGEMON says:

    It’s a good shoot. The citizen was attacked by rioters who attempted to kill him with a club-like implement. It’s shameful that both the mayor and governor sympathized with the radical communists.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Never liked New Mexico. The government is not too kind to Americans. The amount of corruption there feels like one of those small towns run by a bunch of goons who think they are gods.

  17. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Here’s the story from the Albuquerque Journal. The guy, Steven Ray Baca, has been charged with “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon with a firearm enhancement.” He’s the son of a Sheriff.

    https://www.abqjournal.com/1466753/apd-protest-shooter-arrested-charged-with-aggravated-battery.html

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I would say not guilty unless he attacked the woman first and caused a response. From what I saw, it appeared the crowd started the physical interaction and he defended himself, but because it’s a woman she is the victim. The crowd was already scuffling with the other armed men before. So, I am more on the side of the shooter, at this point.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Whoa. Now I’ve seen it all.

      2. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        It doesn’t matter what you think. It only matters what the DA, the lawyers, the judge, the jury, and the mob think. Things are so upside-down now, I have little confidence the truth will come out.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          It’s on video from different angles.

          I saw about 4 different videos. Some videos show the crowd trying to get rid of the armed men prior to the lady getting shoved. The long gun carrying men were trying to surround the statue.

          That statue is definitely not worth defending, but it’s also not worth attacking an ignorant person to pull it down. I’m sure the politicians would have taken it down if the crowd showed up at their place instead.

  18. avatar Montana Actual says:

    They should have stood their ground against police too, considering it was a self-defense shot.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Do you think they would have won that fight, in court or on the street?

      If you’re telling them they should have died for that cause, why weren’t you there?

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Yea lemme hop on a plane every 15 minutes for every new “protest”.

        No shit it wouldn’t go well. But at some point we, the armed civilians, are going to have to put police in check for our self defense maneuvers too. You can’t say we won’t the way this is all heading. Also, I have done my part and will continue to. Can’t be everywhere, but the internet sure is great isn’t it?

  19. avatar AnnoyedBooger says:

    I’m so sick of this shit, the blacks awhile back took down Robert E. Lee statue and had the blv renamed MLK Blv then they burned there own community down. White folk will end up poking these retarded monkeys back and I wont feel bad at all. We need to remove communist pigs and gang members and every other one consider non essential and send them to third world countries so they can get a taste of what not having freedom is like

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Too bad your story isn’t all that accurate. It’s heavily white people doing this stuff. There is no way non whites could get away with this type of stuff, they couldn’t in the past, they can when it’s mostly white people doing it.

      But some people don’t see color, they only see black.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Cuz The media shows you pictures of whites doing it?

        Blm protests. Nuff said.

  20. avatar enuf says:

    Same deal different place. Always a mix of peaceful people voicing their grievances (rightly or wrongly it’s their right) and violent assholes itching to do some damage. Mix in police, self appointed civic defenders, anarchists and news coverage and you have one hell of a mess.

    Meanwhile, as I recall, best breakfast burrito I ever had with eggs, cheddar and roasted Hatch green chilies was in restaurant near the university.

    We need more good eat’n and less stupid brawling.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      I’m hangry too.

    2. avatar Bitter says:

      “Meanwhile, as I recall, best breakfast burrito I ever had with eggs, cheddar and roasted Hatch green chilies was in restaurant near the university.”

      I believe you’re referring to the Frontier restaurant,
      best burritos anywhere in the state. They also sell them at Golden Prides throughout Albuquerque.

  21. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    . “The heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘civil guard,’ were there for one reason: To menace protesters, to present an unsanctioned show of unregulated force. To menace the people of New Mexico with weaponry — with an implicit threat of violence — is on its face unacceptable; that violence did indeed occur is unspeakable.”
    By this statement, its shows the speaker to be a hard core leftist. I do not see the protectors of the statues as menacing anyone, just trying to protect property. If the “protesters” had just marched by them, there would have been no trouble. The “protesters” were the ones that were out with the intention of starting violence.
    When did protests against police shootings become violence against anything you dislike?

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      This has been going on for 4 years.

      This wasn’t about police shootings. It was about taking down colonial savages from the public square. Eventually the tear down crew will start running out of stuff to righteously tear down and will go after whatever is left…

      1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        Eventually they’re going to start “tearing down” real people

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Which is why they need to be shot right now. If ever there was a case for zero tolerance, this is it.

    2. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Yeah, that language used makes me sick to my stomach.

  22. avatar Shire-man says:

    I used to think these jackasses were too stupid to determine even what statues they are tearing down.
    But since Robert KKK Byrd is still standing they clearly can tell what they’re destroying.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Robert Byrd renounced his membership in the clan decades ago, and more importantly, he never took up arms against the United States of America.

      It may be difficult to understand, but the constitution defines treason as taking up arms against the United States of America.

      Robert E Lee led hundreds of thousands of troops in an armed insurrection against the duly elected government of United States of America, thus, under the constitution, he was a traitor.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Excuse me..Once again..

        Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.

        So who is the “Them”? Answer- the individual States that make up the United States. Now, who simply withdrew from the Union (land and all people) and who called up 75,000 men to form an army and invaded the Southern States? Who levied WAR against the South?

        In another thread, you stated the South could not leave the union…which means they were still apart of the United States…which means Lincoln was/is guilty of treason for levying WAR against

        So which is it to be?

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          No insurrection since the South never..NEVER..wanted to govern the Union.

          Wanting a divorce is not insurrection, nor is it being a traitor.

          You really should stop bringing this topic up since you seem to have read some effed up books, wiki , or something..see I is troll too now.

        2. avatar former water walker says:

          LOL…ever hear of Fort Sumpter? Sound’s like treason to any reasonable non-redneck decendant of the losing South. The south secceded because LINCOLN was elected. Duh…

        3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “…LOL…ever hear of Fort Sumpter? ”

          Sure, I live in South Carolina after all.

          “Sound’s like treason to any reasonable non-redneck decendant of the losing South. The south secceded because LINCOLN was elected. Duh…””

          Ok, Show me in the Constitution where it is written that a (any) State may not leave the union for any reason including Lincoln being elected. Who created the Federal government? Can the creation be more than it’s creator(s) The Southern States withdrew from the Union legally, that includes the land and any structures on it…(Ft. Sumter) so how many were killed at Ft. Sumter? I mean besides the one mule.

          Yes, the final straw that caused the Southern States to withdraw was Lincoln’s election and slavery….however that is not why the Northern States invaded and not why the average Southern soldier was fighting. Start with the Tariff of Abominations and go from there if you want to learn true history.

          Lincoln stated the following;
          ………….”If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” ….

          All the South had to do was rejoin the Union, that is ALL that Lincoln cared about. Preserving the Union at any cost including an estimated 700,000 dead.

          I get it though, really. The victor writes the history but that doesn’t make it true.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sad attempt to rewrite history in order to justify a war to preserve slavery.

          Fort Sumter was built by the United States government, construction began in 1805 on a sand bar, using granite from New England.

          After the war of 1812, all the forts in South Carolina were formally ceded to the United States government.

          “Early in the nineteenth century, South Carolina had owned multiple forts, namely Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Fort Johnson, but ceded them, along with sites for the future erection of forts, to the United States in 1805.[7] The forts were of questionable military value and costly to maintain, so when asked to cede them, the state complied.[8] This was not the last time that South Carolina would cede forts the United States; on December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all “right, title and, claim” to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.”

          Your claim that the confederate states somehow had the right to break up the union by their unilateral decision to secede fails as well.

          “The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an “indestructible” union.[53] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is “perpetual”; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even “more perfect union” than the Articles of Confederation.”

          The vast majority of confederate military officers were United States Army and Navy officers who had sworn it over to protect and defend the United States Constitution. With these men took up arms against the United States of America, they violated their oath and committed treason.

          Why would anybody attempt to justify the Confederates’ use of military force to preserve the moral injustice of slavery, especially when it violates one of America’s most basic core commitments, ‘all men are created equal’?

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Your claims the south ‘NEVER’ wanted to govern the United States is fraudulent as well, have you never heard of the nights of the golden circle or the sons of liberty?

          “As abolitionism in the United States increased after the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, the members proposed a separate confederation of slave states, with U.S. states south of the Mason-Dixon line to secede and to align with other slave states to be formed from the “golden circle”. In either case, the goal was to increase the power of the Southern slave-holding upper class to such a degree that it could never be dislodged.[1]

          During the American Civil War, some Southern sympathizers in the Union or Northern states, such as Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, were accused of belonging to the Knights of the Golden Circle, and in some cases, such as that of Lambdin P. Milligan, they were imprisoned for their activities.”

          Isn’t it hilarious that a group calling itself the ‘Sons of Liberty’ would be fighting so hard to destroy America and perpetuate the enslavement of their fellow citizens?

        6. avatar Hugh Glass says:

          Yeah, pretty sure a Southern boy kicked Miner’s ass real good at some point. Probably his boyfriend’s, too.

        7. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Wow! Cpt. Copy and Paste strikes…Please read what Lincoln said…it’s pretty straight forward. Preserving the Union was his ONLY goal.

          South Carolina was here before the United States existed btw. Other States which entered after may not have a claim to sovereignty as South Carolina and the other twelve have.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ Preserving the Union was his ONLY goal.”

          Not only did Lincoln preserve our glorious Union, he also freed 4 million enslaved humans.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to Miner49er
        You have not let me down. Please keep making excuses for white liberals who burn crosses. Attack innocent unarmed people. And burn churches to the ground.

  23. avatar million says:

    Good shoot. The mob chased him down and assaulted him.

  24. avatar Dan W says:

    If youre gonna get fucked by the cops after a good shoot, might as well make it a bad shoot.

  25. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    “The shooting tonight was a tragic, outrageous and unacceptable act of violence and it has no place in our city,” Mayor Tim Keller said in a statement. “Our diverse community will not be deterred by acts meant to divide or silence us. Our hearts go out to the victim, his family and witnesses whose lives were needlessly threatened tonight. This sculpture has now become an urgent matter of public safety.”

    They sound like robots, all patching together the same stock words and phrases.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Violence gets results. The Left only supports nonviolence when it hamstrings their enemies.

  26. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    You can worship the “Flying Spaghetti monster” if you choose. I don’t care. But if you support tearing down statues, you are just like the Taliban. Including the atheists.
    You should be shot for trying to tear them down. And if it goes to court for the shooters???
    I say it’s jury nullification all day long. Including if the vandals are shot dead. In fact especially if the vandals are shot dead.

    The problem we have in this country is people have been brainwashed out of their civil rights. And out of their civic responsibilities. Far to many now think everything is “free”. But everything has a cost. And many times that cost is not in $$$.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      It costs to keep your liberty. And it costs to keep The Rule of Law. Now how much are you will to pay???
      I know nearly everyone thought it was “all free”. In the Land of the Free. Now the time has come for everyone to pay up. And I’m not talking about $$$.

  27. avatar Tt78 says:

    What’s this, TTAG not continuing their pattern of throwing the accused defender(s) under the bus? Why not link to the numerous videos of the shooter being assaulted with a skateboard, retreating, then charged and tackled and struck with the skateboard again before opening fire?

    “Those involved” were not detained; only the armed folks were detained. The liberal local authorities continue to let the rioters get away with anything and everything, then tweet it’s the guy defending himself that is disrupting the harmony of his diverse community.

  28. avatar Ralph says:

    How dare that man shoot a rioter? Rioters should be encouraged and even paid for their important work. Why, without rioters, this country might be peaceful, and we can’t have that. String him up, I say! Just leave enough rope for Mayor Tim Keller for when the Paris Commune starts to turn on him.

  29. avatar MDH says:

    What you didn’t see in the video is the Antifa thug attacking Baca with a knife before Baca lawfully defends himself with deadly force.

    1. We need a whole lot more of this.

    2. I hope the Antifa thug assumes room temperature.

  30. avatar JN II says:

    In the last week I have seen at least three videos with people attacking others with a skateboard. That can’t be a coincidence and it’s probably being spread on leftist websites that they make a good weapon.

    If you are unfortunate to be near a protest, then watch out for guys with skateboards.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Wanna bet that was a “no skateboarding zone”?

  31. avatar Hannibal says:

    If the people of a jurisdiction vote to take down statues on public property, that’s what should happen.

    But when a group of ‘protesters’ decide to vandalize and destroy property they are criminals. In a sane world, they should be arrested. But increasingly this world is not sane and the rule of law is being ignored.

    The more that happens, the more bodies are going to drop.

  32. avatar Hugh Glass says:

    A 39 year-old with a skateboard is not to be respected.

  33. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Video certainly makes it look like a good self defense shooting.
    He’s attacked by a mob and is immediately eligible to use deadly force in self-defense based on disparity of force.
    He shows remarkable restraint and attempts to retreat.
    Members of the mob follow him and assault him a second time, now with a potentially deadly weapon, the skateboard.
    In addition to the deadly weapon attack, there is still the same disparity of force where multiple attackers, some screaming “ kill! “, assault one person.
    He is certainly allowed to respond to the second, deadly weapon and disparity of force attack, with his own deadly force self defense.
    He even attempted retreat!
    Looks like a good self defense shoot.

  34. avatar Miner49er says:

    Well, it turns out the shooter was not some poor innocent by standard, viciously attacked by a mob.

    In fact, the shooter was viciously assaulting members of the demonstration, and has been charged by the police.

    “Baca is now being charged with three counts of aggravated battery with great bodily harm for pulling a woman to the ground and injuring other protesters. All of this was caught on video.

    Baca is also be charged with unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon because he doe not have a concealed carry permit and the gun he used was hidden under his shirt.”

    So he brought a gun to the demonstration, physically assaulted protesters and then when they responded, he shoots them.

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Wrong. Citizen was attempting to stop violent rioters from destroying public property, and was being aggressively blocked by an Antifa female rioter. Citizen pushed rioter out of the way, whereupon rioter lost her footing and fell rolling out of the way of her stampeding Antifa mob.

      Mob turned on Citizen, striking citizen in the head with a long board. Citizen pepper sprayed advancing mob and attempted to retreat in self defense. Mob pursued screaming “Kill him!” “Kill him!”, and “I’m going to Kill you” pursuing and advancing upon citizen with the intent to kill. Citizen drew his weapon but did not fire, and was tackled and beaten by mob until breaking away and regaining his footing. Antifa terrorist attacked Citizen again with a long board, pulling a knife with the clear intention of inflicting bodily harm or death upon Citizen, whereupon Citizen fired four shots into Antifa terrorist stopping the attack, and saving his own life.

      From what I understand, if he lives, the next time the Antifa terrorist attacks anyone it will be from a wheelchair.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Wrong. He as simply there countering. Not viciously. Not assaulting anyone. All that shit you said was “caught on video” happened during the initial attack on him. Sometimes, when you are voicing your opinion publicly and outnumbered, they mob likes to surround you and “bully” you.

      “When they responded he shot them”? You mean when they started hitting him for simply not agreeing with them, yelling kill him, and continued pursuit with a knife and a skateboard he had already been hit with?

      How TF can you manage to try and manipulate this? Also, all charges have already been dropped.

      Nice try buddy.

      1. avatar MDH says:

        The only thing Baca could have done better under the circumstances was shoot center of mass.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email