The anti police movement

Cop says protester pointed loaded rifle at him, had over 100 rounds of ammo — and one bullet in chamber

Oh, and suspect allegedly bit and kicked the officer

Image source: Waupaca County Jail

 DAVE URBANSKI

A Wisconsin police officer said a 23-year-old protester pointed a loaded rifle at him — and bit and kicked him — during a Waupaca protest earlier this month, WBAY-TV reported.

The station said Matthew Lee Banta was charged with:

• 2nd degree recklessly endangering, use of a dangerous weapon (point a loaded firearm at an officer)
• battery to a law enforcement officer, use of a dangerous weapon (biting an officer)
• battery to a law enforcement officer (kicking an officer)
• resisting an officer, use of a dangerous weapon
• disorderly conduct, use of a dangerous weapon

A criminal complaint also said a bullet was in the rifle's chamber, WBAY noted, adding that police found 117 rounds of ammunition on Banta, as well as an eight-inch straight blade knife in a sheath on his belt.

What are the details?

A Waupaca police officer responded to the Waupaca Library parking lot to speak with a group of protesters who had gathered there Aug. 1, the station said, adding that the group was planning to march in the streets.

The complaint said five people were open-carrying long guns, WBAY reported, adding that the officer asked them to stay out of the street and avoid stopping traffic. 

The officer was notified about 40 minutes later that protesters — about 30 of them — were marching down the middle of a street with vehicle escorts, the station said.

The officer said he asked them to get off the street, WBAY reported. The protesters moved over for a moment and then moved back into the street, the station said, citing the complaint. After several warnings, police started asking protesters for their identification, WBAY reported, adding that they didn't comply.

Matthew Banta was carrying a rifle and asking, "Is that what you call protecting and serving?" the station said, adding that Banta got in front of an officer and said, "You can do what you want, but we are going to continue to march." 

The officer said he told Banta that if he didn't get out of the street, he would be arrested, the station said.

More from WBAY:

The officer reached for Banta's left arm to attempt to arrest him. Banta stepped back and started down a ditch. The officer reached for Banta's backpack. That's when Banta "began raising his rifle." Banta fell back and kicked at the officer, making contact with the officer's legs. Banta tried standing and "he again began raising his rifle toward [VICTIM OFFICER]," reads the complaint. The officer said he feared for his life and those around him. The officer grabbed Banta by the shoulders and "threw him onto the ground and held him to the ground."

"Banta was laying on his hands and the rifle was now underneath him," the complaint said, according to the station. "Banta was then moving his hands around ... as though he was trying to manipulate the gun."

Police said they told Banta to get his hands off the gun, WBAY noted, adding that the crowd started screaming for officers to get off Banta. The officer reached for Banta's hand, the station said, adding that Banta bit the officer in the right forearm.

Finally, police were able to get Banta in handcuffs, WBAY said. The officer was taken to a hospital to get the bite wound treated, WLUK-TV reported, citing the complaint.

Banta made an initial court appearance Aug. 3 where his cash bond was set at $10,000, WBAY said, adding that court records show bond was posted Tuesday.

His next court appearance was set for Monday, the station added.

Anything else?

People from all over Wisconsin held a rally Sunday in Waupaca to protest Banta's arrest, WLUK reported in a separate story.

Brioni Smith disputed the accusations against Banta and wants police abolished, the station said.

"The arrest itself was I think ridiculous," Smith told WLUK. "The protester was exercising his Second Amendment rights, which you get to exercise whether you're protesting masks at the capitol or are protesting Black Lives Matter in Waupaca."

Another protester, John Ladetke, seemed to have a different take on gun rights — at least in regard to who's allowed to exercise them.

"I was born and raised in Waupaca, and people are civil in this town, but recently the civility has gone out the window," Ladetke told the station. "Right now, as we speak, there are right-wing militia with massive numbers here and guns on our Main Street."

A WLUK reporter said he tracked down the spokesperson for the Wisconsin charter of the 3 Percenters — and added it's "a group some have described as extremist, anti-government, and far-right."

"We support their right to protest," the 3 Percenters spokesperson told the station in regard to protesters. "But we also help support the local community. Some citizens had worries that it would become violent, and we're just here to watch their properties and make sure that nothing happens. If it does, we report it to the local police."

San Francisco's speciality: Weird, antagonistic and pompous

National Guard Not Welcome This Time At San Francisco LGBT Pride Weekend; Chelsea Manning Is

June 13, 2014 

Members of Dykes on Bikes roll down Market St. to kickoff the 43rd annual San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Pride Celebration & Parade June 30, 2013, in San Francisco. (Sarah Rice/Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — Organizers of San Francisco’s pride weekend festivities have yanked the welcome mat away from the National Guard, voting to ban the Guard from setting up a booth at the festival.

The decision comes at the same time Pride organizers are allowing a controversial Army private who leaked military secrets to be honorary grand marshal.

The board of the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee rejected a request from the Guard to set up an informational booth at Civic Center Plaza during Pride Weekend.

Last year, the National Guard had a booth at Pride Weekend for the first time – staffed by gay soldiers – following the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The Guard was also welcomed at Pride events in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The military’s current ban on transgender service members serving openly, minority recruitment tactics, and sexual assault scandals were factors in the board’s decision, Pride Executive Director George Ridgely told LGBT news weekly Bay Area Reporter.

Board President Gary Virginia said in a letter the board was willing to review its decision after this year’s event,Bay Area Weekly reported.

Critics of the decision see the move as short-sighted. “We find this to be really particularly disturbing because only LGBT people in the city of San Francisco are being affected by this,” said Fred Schein, president of the San Francisco chapter of the LGBT advocacy group, Log Cabin Republicans. “LGBT people around the state have full access and are welcoming these recruiters … but San Francisco is being denied that option.”

There were some protests against the National Guard’s presence at last year’s San Francisco event, which also featured the controversy over Army Pvt. Bradley Manning of Wikileaks fame being selected – then dropped – as grand marshal of the parade.

Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, is again invited to be honorary grand marshal in this year’s parade.

She was convicted last year of violating the Espionage Act for releasing classified military documents and sentenced to 35 years confinement, with a possible parole release in eight years.

Calling Al Gore

The day the world went 'Phut'? Earth in crosshairs of gigantic solar storm that could blow circuits of ANYTHING from satellite TV to the electric power grid

• 'Northern Lights' seen over southern England as a result
• Bursts of solar radiation could wreak havoc with communication systems

After Healthcare...

Time To Nationalize Grocery Stores

One of the great scandals of our age is the fact that America spends more on food than any other nation. Many political leaders are now calling for urgent reform to bring spending on food under control. While food spending is rapidly increasing and many Americans are overweight, some do not have enough to eat.

Despite this high spending, the United Nations reports that, according to surveys they sent to government officials around the world, the quality of U.S. food is ranked very low. Officials in France report that their food is the best in the world. More insulting is the higher ranking that British experts give their food.

Leaders in Congress now point to what they see as the root of the problem: corporate greed in the form of grocery stores and restaurants operating on a for-profit basis. They promise to replace all private grocery stores with a national system of government commissaries, which purportedly will operate far more efficiently without the administrative overhead required to make a profit. As it will take some time to organize the national network of commissaries, initially groceries will be available only at offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles and U.S. Postal Service, which will provide the models for developing a government commissary system.

Congress and the administration say they will achieve further efficiencies by prohibiting all advertising of food and food products. Consumers will find shopping much easier if personal preference is eliminated in favor of whatever foods government makes available.

To better control costs, the government will invest billions in new electronic food purchasing records. Everything you eat will be reported to the government, which will analyze the data to eliminate wasteful or unhealthy eating. All new food must be approved by a new Comparative Calorie and Taste Administration, which, for example, would eliminate most of the unnecessary brands of potato chips. And as anyone knows, we have far too many brands of beer.

Food is surely a right, as it is necessary for survival. Therefore all groceries available in government commissaries will be free of charge. This will be financed by an increase of 15 percent in income taxes, except for those making over $80,000 a year, whose taxes will be increased by 75 percent. Because the food supply is not unlimited, a fixed amount of ration coupons will be distributed to ensure that each consumer can obtain an equal amount of food.

All private restaurants will be closed, and limited cafeterias will be operated as government commissaries. Congressional liberals point to school lunch programs as a model and the proven results demonstrated by several generations of well-nourished, trim and fit students. Of course, we veterans also remember all of that great military chow.

So far, conservative leaders are at a loss after hearing these proposals. Some of the more courageous conservatives are responding with proposals for mandatory food purchasing. All citizens, including those who go to bed hungry every night, will be required to purchase membership in new Food Management Organizations.

To further control costs, the purchase of certain cuts of meat and imported gourmet foods could require an FMO's advance approval.

Across the political spectrum, there is a developing consensus that the only appropriate response to the fact that some consumers cannot afford groceries is to impose a single government-controlled food system on all citizens. All agree that this is sure to provide the same consistently high performance as public education.

Reportedly, the clincher for those proposing grocery nationalization was stated recently by the White House: "The great thing about these proposals is that if we can somehow get this to work for groceries, we can apply the same idea to health care."