In a viral video, Erwin Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional scholar, can be seen shouting "Please leave our house! You are guests in our house!" as a third-year law student, Malak Afaneh, interrupted the event on Tuesday, speaking into a microphone to the students gathered in the dean’s backyard in Oakland, Calif.
Mr. Chemerinsky’s wife, Catherine Fisk, also a Berkeley law professor, can be seen with her arm around Ms. Afaneh, trying to yank the microphone away and pulling the student up a couple steps.
Ms. Afaneh and her supporters, who were invited to the dinner, described Ms. Fisk’s struggle for the microphone as a disproportionate and violent response. Students, they said, had a right to speak at a university gathering. The dinner was open to all third-year law students and paid for by the university, according to Mr. Chemerinsky.
"I hate to see a physical fight. It is violence. Not the worst sort of violence, but the kind of violence you get when 2 individuals decide to stand their ground and it is the same ground."
"Violence" — according to the OED — is "The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person." Afaneh as well as Fisk used physical force. Afaneh held onto the microphone and struggled to keep it away from Fisk. There was deliberate physical force on both sides. "Violence" can also mean "Vehemence or intensity of emotion, behaviour, or language." Clearly, there was that, from both women.
Picture the incident acted out with nonviolence.
***
Here is the "viral video" in which Fisk is, in the words of the NYT, "seen with her arm around Ms. Afaneh, trying to yank the microphone away and pulling the student up a couple steps":
Our San Francisco Bay Area office @CAIRSFBA today condemned the alleged assault on Malak Afaneh, a Palestinian Muslim University of California Berkeley (@UCBerkeley) law student, by @BerkeleyLaw professor Catherine Fisk. @ZahraBilloo pic.twitter.com/EFIo3MTd3b
— CAIR National (@CAIRNational) April 11, 2024
पोस्ट्स
१३२ टिप्पण्या:
Chemerinsky is a hard lefty so he should be fine with violence, especially from Palestinians.
She should have used a bullhorn. The audacity of the owner to feel secure in her home.
That said, the Arabs et al had a century to push the Jews into the sea in recurring Jewish Springs. They failed... but social justice.
I tell you what was a "a disproportionate and violent response."
When Hamas invaded Israel and murdered over 1,000 people and took over 300 hostage. And, of course, how can we forget the rapes and torture by Hamas on innocents.
It isn’t the same ground if you’re a fan of international castle doctrine. I wish drug addled squatters in your living room if you aren’t a fan…
She should have hauled off and punched her. Hard!
Instead she gently placed her arm on her shoulder in what was an obvious effort to both calm, and prevent her from losing her balance and falling on those hard stone steps.
And they’re obviously not even in the same weight class.
According to the Berkeley Hierarchy of Victims Flow Chart, Fisk is guilty of a hate crime.
When they come for Erwin & his second wife, The Dean will still be railing about White Supremacists.
It takes an Ivy League law degree to get this fucking stupid.
To paraphrase Whoopi Goldberg - I wouldn’t call it violence violence.
Also, no hair pulling.
"Students, they said, had a right to speak at a university gathering."
Where did this 'right to speak at a university gathering' come from? Do they think that any student can speak at any event which can be characterized as a 'university gathering'? If I'm a student, do I have the right to take the microphone at a meeting of the Student Financial Aide Committee and just speaking my mind on any topic I choose? Even if such a right existed within the university system, someone must be in control of the agenda - who controls the use of the microphone? If someone wanted to take the microphone and start speaking against Hamas and Palestinians, would the protesters recognize that right?
Afaneh acts like she's addressing some agenda subject at an anarcho-syndicalist commune gathering. I half expected her to start whining "Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!"
"Violence." Defining deviancy down.
How long before the shooting starts?
'bout the same as the 16 year old youth knocking old lady down stairs and fracturing her skull.
Both incidents involve stairs, and violence.
Who gets the worst publicity?
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Fisk didn't "pull her up a couple of steps." That student walked up those steps so she could hang onto the microphone. Also, I liked the way the student claimed special privilege because she wore a hijab, insinuating that it was especially egregious of Fisk to touch a Muslim woman's hijab. Obviously, it's a worse offense than disrupting a dinner party with an obnoxious speech critical of your hosts whose only link to Israel is their ethnicity.
Way back in the day, the torts professor taught that "the least touching in anger" qualifies as battery. So I suppose the bratty arab could make a claim for battery, though she has no damages. Fisk -- she, a law professor -- should know that when ya get grabby it's probably technical violence, but no harm no foul as sportsball players say. And it was very rude behavior from an invited guest. People might react when you pull such stunts In My Home!
Violence? Huge eyeroll.
The old lady was the aggressor. A non-reaction would have made it a nothing Burger. The girl was invited guest what they treated her like a servant.
"Both try to stand their ground and it is the same ground".
That made me think of the recent kerfuffle regarding squatters. Let's stipulate one of the parties is in the wrong, they do not have a legal right to occupy that space (standing or sitting or whatever). When you ask that person to leave and they refuse then what?
I've been working in the public library for almost seven years. Sometimes patrons misbehave and break the rules and we ask them to leave. On very rare occasion they refuse. It becomes unclear at that point what our options are.
>You need to leave.
No.
What "test of the First Amendment"? There has never been any freedom to go on someone's private property and give a speech contrary to the wishes of the owner(s) and/or make a general nuisance even if you were invited originally. The only possible stretch of relevance here is if Malak Afaneh thought this was public and/or school property, in which case that is only a test of Malak's general intelligence. (She failed.)
As for "violence," you are trying to parse this using standard definitions. I can assure you that Malak Afaneh and her supporters are not using standard definitions. They are using Marxist/intersectionality vocabulary, fresh from the campus, which has only the most fleeting relevance to the standard meaning. Any action against them, even the mildest of criticisms, is "violence" and there is no objective or subjective counterargument since once they declare it "violence" it is "violence." They are the good guys. Everyone else is the bad guys. WWII propaganda was more subtle.
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but Ms. Afaneh must be planning on being a low rent ambulance chaser as she doesn’t know what the definition of “violence” is, nor for that matter, what constitutes “1st Amendment rights”. Even I know that a private gathering by invite by professors at their privately owned home doesn’t fall under the 1st Amendment. She probably got this far in college based on Affirmative Action and DEI rules at the university. She probably will be given a pass on the bar test because she’s an “oppressed minority” (sarcasm).
As for the 2 professors, I say “You reap what you sow!”.
Catherine Fisk made the mistake of behaving in a way that makes it easy to make the conversation about how she acted, instead of or in addition to how Malak Afaneh acted.
If as appears to be the case, Ms. Afaneh was invited to the dinner (as being part of a cohort of law school students who were invited), and the dinner was paid for by the law school, that's quite a bit different from someone I don't know and didn't invite walking into my backyard barbecue that I paid for out of my own pocket, and spouting off ideas I don't want to hear at my party.
(But even then I don't think I would put HANDS ON the malefactor. That just seems pretty aggro. I think I'd just let it play itself out or maybe call the cops if that started to seem like a good idea.)
Another way of thinking about this is that plenty of people have relatives show up at their houses for holidays, who spout off on whatever and you think they are crazy and objectionable. Doesn't mean you put hands on them and try to eject them.
"Ms. Afaneh and her supporters, who were invited to the dinner"...
End of story.
Play identity politics and inevitably theres will be a problem.
Its always been so.
@Whiskeybum -- I was thinking the same thing! MP is useful even today!
Having seen the video now (thanks for the link), it doesn't look violent at all.
I see a whole lot of privilege though on the part of the disruptive student.
The rule in protests is: you can't touch the counter-protestors. You keep your hands down by your side or go to jail. I flinched inside when I saw Fisk tugging the Palestinian. Jail time, honey. Still, perhaps the rules about dinner guests are different than the rules about protestors. Can you drag your dinner guests out of your house and yard onto the public sidewalk, shouting, "You're ruining the party, leave?" Can you wrest the microphone from your guest who's ruining the graduation party or the wedding by shouting her grievances about her divorce into the mike? Suppose she acknowledges she is a your guest; in fact, insists that she is your guest and says she has decided to tell you off and show everyone at the party what a rotten person you are and always have been? Aren't guests like this being ejected from homes in America during every festive season? Can she be a guest and claim protestor rights?
Afaneh's use of the word "violent": She "described Ms. Fisk’s struggle for the microphone as a disproportionate and violent response."
i Wonder.. Would Afaneh consider rape and torture and murder to be "violent"?
Or would she be like all too many posters here, and say
It's violent if it's done BY Jews.. If it's done TO Jews, then it's just fun!
????
Serious Question for you ALL: IS rape and torture and murder of Jews "violent" ???
Is it as bad as asking someone to get off your property?
The right to speak Prof. Mutherfuckers will be conspicuously absent when the Alex P. Keaton Economic Club demands the microphone at the next Kill The Jews protest.
I don’t like the leftism of the couple. But it’s their home. And their hospitality of having students in their home is commendable.
I don’t know if it’s legal in California, but I wish the wife had used pepper spray. Or even a simple slap in the face.
And it’s amazing the number of people online who don’t understand that the 1st Amendment restricts the government, not a homeowner in his private property. The upcoming generations truly scare me.
This doesn’t test any limit of free speech. Tests the Deans patience sure. Tests the bounds of civil conduct sure. Put this is a private event on private property. The first amendment doesn’t apply.
"Higher education" is dead. Khan academy and on the job training is the future.
Jews hospitably invite Palestinian into their home but she turns out to be a flaming asshole and must be forcibly evicted.
Now there's a metaphor.
The video shows a lot of talking and gesturing and a tussle over the microphone (which belonged to whom?), but I didn't see anything I would characterize as violence.
She was reading a prepared speech so this was planned well in advance. The video was also probably preplanned.
Every back yard I know, has a garden hose somewhere.
That wasn't violence.
This isn't a "university gathering". It's a dinner invitation to dinner at a private home. The students who don't appreciate the gesture should have shown their disapproval by declining the invitation.
The still shot from the video published in the NYT is iconic. The heroic protestor dressed in red, white, and blue looking to the heavens and the and the old crone with the yellowing teeth pulling her down.
My sympathies are not with either party but what a photo.
Doesn't "the law" have something to say about unwelcome "guests" and what options the "host" or property owner has once a "guest" is no longer welcome?
Decolonization is not a dinner party.
She’s got it all wrong.
In today’s world, violence is speech and it’s the speech that is violence.
Heh, heh, Heh.. Karma, a big heaping serving of it. Will they learn anything, Hell no, they don't have any common sense as they have clearly demonstrated. If they are fortunate there may be a ritual house burning.
A microphone is worthless without a speaker or PA system to broadcast through. It would have been much easier to just tun off the PA system.
That was not violence.
Any action against them, even the mildest of criticisms, is "violence" and there is no objective or subjective counterargument since once they declare it "violence" it is "violence."
Eventually, someone, somewhere is going say "What the fuck?" when the violence card is played like that and decide if that's what you call violence, well... here's some more.
Just sayin'.
A rule to remember as you go through life - find Muslims, find trouble.
The Snake,
"I saved you", cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman", said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
[The part of the reptile was played by a Muslim]
Disclaimer: I'm not watching the video. There's nothing rewarding in viewing violence and I'll accept, and rely, on Althouse's description of the events shown.
That said, I don't understand why it's Fisk's responsibility, because Fiske is a woman, to take the lead in restraining a female protester. Is there some unspoken rule that the Man of the House cannot lay hands on an opposite-gender interloper?
Women are so delicate that they cannot be touched by Male law-enforcement. Chemerinsky had reason to believe he'd be accused of man-handling?
I don't watch violent videos, but I am assuming when men get out-of-line, they are restrained by female law enforcement.
I keep thinking of that airline video, when an airline passenger became unruly and an announcement "Will all men come to the front of the plane" --That was an Althouse post, but I always wondered why did it have to be men?
Imagine what kind of pampered sheltered life one has to have lived to consider that "violence."
I suspect that the property owner is legally justified in using whatever level of force is necessary to remove someone who is trespassing (the student's license to be there by invitation was obviously rescinded.) Not excessive, but necessary and sufficient.
The dinner was open to all third-year law students and paid for by the university, according to Mr. Chemerinsky.
Oh really? What was the University paying for? Were they paying the dean $$ to hold the party there? It would seem so. It was in fact, no different than everyone getting together in the Campus Cafeteria and having a dinner with the Dean and the law students. Seems like an official dinner/meet up. NOT A PRIVATE AFFAIR.
And whose Microphone was it? If it wasn't Ms. Fisk's she had no right to grab it. And "tussle" for it. You'll notice that Fisk comes charging down the steps she tries to grab the students cell phone, not the microphone. WHen the girl fends her off then Fisk goes for the microphone while Dean Chemsonsrkly shouts "This is my house".
I hope the student sues them for assault. Maybe dean Chemorinsky can get a Soros friendly Judge who'll rule in his favor, but I'd bet my money on the student.
Ah, 54 years later, a re-run,
https://nymag.com/article/tom-wolfe-radical-chic-that-party-at-lennys.html
Right now a real genocide of black Muslims is happening in Sudan, assisted by Russian mercenaries and Iranian drones.
No one cares.
A million Muslim Uighars were put into reeducation camps by China.
No one cares.
900 thousand Muslim Rohingye fled Burma in the last decade
No one cares.
See a pattern here?
If it's not done by Jews, no one cares.
@Aggie, mine are put away for the winter. But I think it's time to get them out this weekend. No More Deep Freezes!
(I hope)
But that would've been an elegant solution, I agree.
Mario Savio weeps.
Kate said...
"Ms. Afaneh and her supporters, who were invited to the dinner"...
End of story.
***********
IIRC even an "invitee" can lose his/her status of being lawfully on the property, when he/she attempts to take over the event he/she was invited to.
No different than if your obnoxious brother-in-law starts cursing and throwing things at the host during a Thanksgiving dinner. If he engages in violence he can be be forced out of the house. And even if all he does is spoil the event he has no right to stick around.
The guest ceased to be a guest when told to leave. Your house, your party, if a guest is told to leave that guest becomes a trespasser.
Not a perfect analogy, but I have seen bars eject patrons who were rude, and if they don't leave voluntarily then they get shown out, by police.
Blogger H: "Mario Savio weeps."
Heh.
Nobody involved in this will learn anything from the experience.
If the mike was Fisk's property, and she asked for it back first, then she had a right to grab it and try to take it back. Making contact incidental to that, short of a punch or shanking her, would also be her right. Where I live. Property rights in Palo Alto. Who knows?
If you handed your laptop to the repairman you called to your house while standing your yard, and he refused to give it back it, then of course you would have the right to try to take it back. There's probably a Latin phrase for it.
If it was the girl's mike, then Fisk was in the wrong in physically trying to take it away.
Defund the Police has its problems. Lawless people rule.
This was "violence" and a "disproportionate response". Horse manure. I believe that the left will argue (depending upon the hour of the day and which way the wind is blowing and who is speaking) that speech can be violence. And sometimes silence can be violence.
What is a host to do when an invited guest makes a Palestinian Poltroon of herself? In Brooklyn she'd get the bum's rush. Near a golf course she might have a prod with a 5 iron to help her on the way out the door.
Look--there's a time and a place for a protest. A party by the law school dean given at his home (and I don't care who is paying for it) is not a place for a protest. And while I'm not a graduate of UC Berkeley Law School (never heard of it and sure as heck want no connection with it) I was and am a graduate of Boalt Hall Law School. And back in the day I crossed a few protest picket lines at the law school to get in the door to go to class. Note Howard--that was "at" the law school.
Static Ping said...
What "test of the First Amendment"? There has never been any freedom to go on someone's private property and give a speech contrary to the wishes of the owner(s) and/or make a general nuisance even if you were invited originally.
You would think that newspapers that support deplatforming speech they don't like would understand.
The Man of the House was Erwin Chemerinsky. I guessing he turned in his man card long ago.
Here's one way to handle guests who have worn out their welcome:
Odysseus ripped off his rags. Now naked, he leapt upon the threshold with his bow and quiverfull of arrows, which he tipped out in a rush before his feet, and spoke. “Playtime is over. I will shoot again, towards another mark no man has hit. Apollo, may I manage it!”
CAIR has posted this video on X.
Readers have added this context:
“California permits the use of reasonable force to eject sometime who refuses to leave private property.”
law.berkeley.edu/article/statem…
justia.com/criminal/docs/…
Come on folks. This kind of behavior is to be expected. The dinner hosts, if they knew the 3L students at all, should have been prepared. Only surprised that PalGal didn't shout "I can't breathe." It's all completely performative - and pretty meaningless.
Final thought: Howard gets the Douche Badge for going out of his/her/its way to be a troll. Bravo!
If you are told to leave, you are no longer a guest. You are a trespasser.
Also calling this violence is just stupid.
The people trying to protect this coddled little witch and letting her act like this are not doing her any favors. At some point she is going to pull her stupid little activist act in the wrong place and it wont be on camera and it wont get in the paper.
She will just get her ass kicked in a situation that is less controlled.
These Universities are actively hurting these kids treating them like this. This stupid woman will be unlikely to ever be truly happy.
Can we all agree that nothing good comes of Professors having students, or University functions, in their private homes? Professors should keep their private homes private. This whole fiasco reminds me of the Yale Professors who invited students to their private homes and disaster ensued. When will they learn? Berkeley has plenty of space and conference rooms. Hotel convention center nearby.
I had one Professor who scheduled mandatory lectures in her home. I think I told this story before. We all crowded in and sat on the floor cross-legged in her living room, which seemed awkward. Others thought that it was far-out and cool. My strictly 80s self was not moved by the big posters of RFK and Jimmy Hendrix on the wall. The only reason I went was out of sheer nosey-ness, busybody, and wanting to get a look at the rest her furnishings, personal effects and such.
"I hate to see a physical fight. It is violence. …”
Which is why you are a pushover for violent lefties, Althouse. What will you stand for, if you will not respond to violence with enough violence that your opponents never think to try violence again?
"I hate to see a physical fight. It is violence. …”
Which is why you are a pushover for violent lefties, Althouse. What will you stand for, if you will not respond to violence with enough violence that your opponents never think to try violence again?
William50 and Aggie are both smarter than distinguished Prof. Catherine Fisk. Pretty good.
I was in college during the 1960s at the time of the grape boycotts. There was a small family run market in downtown Morgantown, WV which was being picketed by a group of demonstrators. While they marched back and forth obstructing the doorway to the market an otherwise sunny day suddenly became rainy. The market owner came out and rolled up the awning that had been provided shelter for his fruit (and the demonstrators). Once the started getting wet the activists lost their momentum and eventually sought cover elsewhere. I knew one of the people in the group and she complained to me later "Can you believe he rolled up the awning?" I have to admit I was at a loss for words. I wonder if today his action would amount, in the eyes of some, to violence.
Domestic insurrection. Is California a Capitol (sic) punishment jurisdiction?
Saul Alinsky had no respect for private property and taught his acolytes as much.
Irony!
Chemerinsky played a stupid game, won a stupid prize. The fact that he should have known better, but didn't, speaks volumes. What unfolded at his residence was all pre-ordained, utterly predictable. The alligators have eaten all the conservatives - they're coming for the "liberals" now. Shocker!
The funniest part was when Irwin and the Mrs whined "We're on your side!" LMFAO! Reminiscent of that wonderful video from the BLM riots filmed from inside an apartment with a bunch of young dudes inside the apartment cheering on the rioters until a rock comes smashing through the window. "But we're on your side," the dude whined.
Ms. Dusk was absolutely being violent, though rather ineffectually. However, she had every right to be violent. She was attempting to remove a trespasser and recover her personal property (or perhaps university property everyday to her). Before she lays hands on Afaneh, she tells her "you need to leave". From that moment on, anything Afaneh does that isn't heading towards the door at at least a walking pace is trespassing, and if Afaneh takes anything that belongs to Fisk or Chemerinsky, it's theft.
Incidentally, it's reported that Afaneh is a member of PFLP, a US-designated terrorist organization that calls for the extermination of all Jews worldwide, not just in Israel. Had Ms. Fisk known that, she would have been legally justified in using lethal violence the moment Afaneh disobeyed her demand to leave.
It seems to me that the University is indemnified if all it did was pay expenses, and none of this happened on school property. The University didn't force Fiske to do what she did. Both Fiske and Chemerinsky made their own (private) choices on private property---foolish choices if you ask me. It's up to Fiske and Chemerinsky to secure their own home, prior to the event. Do we know if there was a request for added Security or not? ---Although, asking for Security beforehand makes it seem like they were anticipating trouble.
Check the date.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
I don't see any violence by Fisk. Please explain what you mean by that.
It is, however, violence to enter a private residence with or without criminal intent and refuse to leave when told to multiple times. That is a crime called home invasion, and it has nothing to do with the school hosting an event there. If that bitch had flashed her tits, the fact that it was a student event wouldn't matter either. Still a crime.
Universities are not foreign nations with their own laws. You should know that. That woman was invading the professor's home. His wife would have been in her rights to drag her out of their property by her hair.
Nice, if you know nothing, shut yer yob.
"Nobody involved in this will learn anything from the experience." So, this was, like, a Seinfeld episode or something?
That brat definitely deserved the Fisking she got.
Treated her like a servant, Howard? As she appears to have planned this in advance, then refused to leave a private home, then that's home invasion (which includes refusing to leave) with premedidated criminal intent.
But if I was a California cop called to the house, I wouldn't forget all the brutalized victims Chemerinski denied justice by freeing their rapists and murderers, nor the fact that he calls police nazis. And a lot of those criminals invaded other peoples' houses.
Violence, Althouse? What would you do if your house was invaded? Sit and take it? What if Meade was attacked in your house? Would you just take a seat and say that you don't like violence?
I don't like it either. But when it happened to me, in my own house, I tried to fight back.
I lost. And then a bunch of witless morons told me I shouldn't do anything about it. May you and Meade and Howard never experience this, but you and Howard should learn something about it. Start with the California criminal code.
I think I understand what the professor's feeling here. As someone with a distinguished academic career seeing the Ivory Tower start go up in flames is probably hard to watch but sadly it's a necessary thing. Like the forest fires that burn away all the deadwood and duff from the forest. That's what's going to have to happen on campuses eventually sad but necessary, but indeed hard to watch.
Having eaten all the people on the right, the alligator glanced to his left.
At first the people smiled.
Apparently, some of you think you can invite someone over to your house, take offense at their contribution to the conversation, tell them to leave, and, if they stay put and keep talking, shoot them!
Fisk openly rejects the idea of calling the police. That doesn't make it not a crime. Maybe it is a crime, but Afaneh, who suggested calling the police, asserts a belief that she has a free speech right. That could all be sorted out peacefully if the police were called. Maybe Afaneh wants to embrace civil disobedience and would accept the consequences of criminal prosecution.
But Fisk chose self-help and laid hands on Afaneh. That too may be a crime. I'm not studying the statutory law. It may also be a tort, and I suspect we'll find out about that. I'm picturing a lawsuit that the University will settle. Afaneh comes out on top. She got her message sent out by viral video, many news articles, internet discussion, and whatever lawsuits ensue. The protest worked, and I suspect she will sue and receive a settlement.
Quite aside from tort law, there is the question of how law professors should choose to treat their students. Law professors don't do everything they have the power to do. They want to create a positive, supportive, inclusive environment for students. That was the point of having the dinner and the point of many other things law professors do. I can't think of another example of a law professor physically fighting with a student. I can think of examples of law professors standing back and refraining from acting when a law student is acting out in a way the law professor might attempt to stop. I know my reaction when a law student behaved off the norm was to maintain a consistent demeanor and to speak calmly and coolly to the student. I can't imagine physically grabbing a student (unless it had to do with protecting myself or protecting someone else).
"I can't imagine physically grabbing a student...."
That is, I can't imagine myself grabbing a student.
It's hard to imagine the other law professors I know grabbing a student. It's hard even to "imagine" Fisk doing what I see her do in the video. Like much viral video, it starts in the middle of things. Fisk is highly stirred up when the clip begins. I'd like to know what happened earlier.
I should stress that "violence" is not a legal term. The legal terms are things like "assault," "battery," and "trespass."
I used the word "violence" to answer a commenter who asked me why I used another word — "disturbing" — to describe my reaction to the video.
I said: "I hate to see a physical fight. It is violence. Not the worst sort of violence, but the kind of violence you get when 2 individuals decide to stand their ground and it is the same ground. Human beings are territorial — at law school dinners and in the Middle East."
That isn't presented as legal analysis, but as a description of my feelings, and I am using "violence" as the most apt English language word to convey why I was disturbed. I'm interested in the behavior of 2 human beings and in writing about it.
I'm pretty sure I saw Dinner Party Violence at some punk club in the 80s.
Just looking at the clip, what Fisk does would make sense to me — would feel like something I would do — if Afaneh were a young child in her care. It is a teacher/student relationship, and if the grade level were kindergarten or grade school, I could see a teacher putting her arm around the student's shoulder like that and wrenching the forbidden object out of her hand. It's probably not what teachers are advised to do these days, however.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently, some of you think you can invite someone over to your house, take offense at their contribution to the conversation, tell them to leave, and, if they stay put and keep talking, shoot them!
After reading responses Ann realizes she looks wrong and gets mad.
Reacts with immature mean spirited straw man.
Guns are used as an equalizer to defend yourself in a situation where an aggressor or trespasser has you outmatched physically. They are mostly tools for women and older men dealing with people who are generally physically violent who are almost always military aged men.
I didn’t see anyone calling for the stupid asshole to get shot for being a stupid asshole. There are two good options for when a stupid asshole won’t shut up and leave: arrest by police or ass kicked.
Letting the stupid asshole be a stupid asshole without consequence will eventually result in violence. Get over your petulance and look at the consequences for society if you selectively let certain groups act like this.
You should know rudimentary criminal law. This is unambiguous, premeditated home invasion, per California's code, despite her initialy being invited in. The offender was not changing the suject: she was committing an un-permitted (as in permits, the legal form), thus commiting illegal protest (not counterprotest, whichever dimwit said that) in a private residence. Premeditated too. Forget the subject. She was using amplifying equipment. That's probably technically disturbing the peace when asked by the homowner to stop repeatedly. She refused to leave. That is home invasion no matter how she first got into the house.
I'm amazed that so many people here know so little about the law. That Fiske woman did nothing but try to stop a crime in process in her own home. She broke no laws. If she had dragged her out, she would have broken no laws. It's her house. Students have no special exemption from homeowners' legal rights because they're students or Muslims. Jesus wept, this is 101 crap, even in California.
And all we have is a truncated tape. Subjectively, it looks to me that a larger, actually violent unlawful protest was unfolding and Fiske was wisely trying to prevent more violence in her own home. But we do't have the tape for that, do we?
Oh, we're talking about feelings. Sorry, you started by talking about the law.
My feeling would be that if a bunch of people started taping and screaming in my hoise, I'd be scared as hell that they intended to commit violence. But there's the rub: my husband has made his career by shitting on law enforcement and calling them nazis. So what to do, once you've eliminated law enforcement?
Mob violence. And that gets ouchy fast, doesn't it? Also, the student has less justification at, what, 23 than 3 to behave this way. So that makes no sense either.
Super Serious Question...
WHAT IF? What If the protester had been a right-wing pro-life activist that interrupted the party?
Can We ALL Agree? that In That Case, the protester would have been sent to jail?
Ann Althouse said...
"Apparently, some of you think you can invite someone over to your house, take offense at their contribution to the conversation, tell them to leave, and, if they stay put and keep talking, shoot them!"
Sounds about right.
It seems that simple etiquette isn't being taught any longer. Like your mother used to say to you before you attended a friends birthday party. "Say please when you want something and thank you after you're offered something and don't under any circumstances bring up politics.
But I was raised by a genteel southern lady. Not by wolves.
But since I'm a law professor and someone was rude enough to stand up and and bring politics into an otherwise festive occaision I'd ask the other students if they would like to debate Afaneh.
One day, may Afaneh be given a good “fisking” by Fisk with her own Mr. Microphone, inshallah!
Whiskeybum:
Afaneh acts like she's addressing some agenda subject at an anarcho-syndicalist commune gathering.
Even they threw out Bernie Sanders because he couldn't shut up.
Kate:
"Ms. Afaneh and her supporters, who were invited to the dinner"...
End of story.
Then they were told to leave but wouldn't. True end of story.
Holding on to the microphone is only violence if the microphone belonged to the Chermerinskis. I have not seen any articles or video that makes it clear where the microphone came from.
gilbar:
i Wonder.. Would Afaneh consider rape and torture and murder to be "violent"?
Or would she be like all too many posters here, and say
It's violent if it's done BY Jews.. If it's done TO Jews, then it's just fun!
????
Haven't seen Crack here in a bit, bud.
Good law school exam question! The university paid for the food, but (I assume) the university didn't pay the Chermerinskis for the use of their premises. Therefore, what if anything were the students entitled to do/have? Enter the premises, yes, because of invitation. Consume food and beverage, yes. Remain on the property once given notice of trespass (most trespass laws specify that notice is required)?
Perhaps any students who were asked to leave would have been made whole if given a to-go box?
Ann Althouse:
Apparently, some of you think you can invite someone over to your house, take offense at their contribution to the conversation, tell them to leave, and, if they stay put and keep talking, shoot them!
Seriously? You actually believe that hyperbolic stretch of imagination is a valid rebut?
Don't you commonly chastise posters for hysteric exaggeration?
Ann Althouse:
Just looking at the clip, what Fisk does would make sense to me — would feel like something I would do — if Afaneh were a young child in her care.
So what she did - which you called violence - is something you would use against a child but not an adult trespasser? Not sure I follow your logic.
First, they came for the Jewish deplorables. Then, they came for the Jewish elites.
Don't invite a snake into your house. Oops, almost paraphrased Orange Man Bad on this one.
Hey look! Lefties care about property rights when it affects them personally! The Palestinian protesters are twats, but it looks like completely civil disobedience. He just doesn't like it in "his house." But, he'll support the government making me do things in my house that I don't like. Poor baby.
Was she going to lunch during Ramadan?
I think the Chemerinskis--lefties who support Israel--are under a lot of stress these days and have been since October 7. Prof. Fisk's actions are so extreme (who lays hands on a student?) that they must be out of character for her.
We all know where this is going now, don't we? Endless debates about what constitutes "battery"*, what constitutes "assault"*, what and when constitutes "trespassing" in one's own home. Student and faculty agitation for the removal of the dean and his spouse from the law school, and indeed, from the university.
For Afaneh, the future is bright. Interviews by all elements of the MSM, no doubt including guests shots on The View, Bill Maher, and Jimmy Kimmel. Maybe her own streaming show on Sirius XM--Palestine Today with Malak. Yes, she is two generations removed from the Middle East, but what charisma! So authentic! Radical Chic reborn.
*These were the topics of my first tort class on the first day of school at UChicago Law in 1970 with Richard Posner asking the questions.
The little terrorist was told to leave. PERIOD. And I mean PERIOD.
At that point she was trespassing, the dean probably should have called the police ( of course she should in our karen day and age) but she had every right to put this person OFF HER property. PERIOD.
But when it happened to me, in my own house, I tried to fight back.
I lost. And then a bunch of witless morons told me I shouldn't do anything about it. May you and Meade and Howard never experience this, but you and Howard should learn something about it. Start with the California criminal code.
Tina Trent, My experience of violence is nothing close to yours. But as an 18yo in Sacramento, working in a fast food drive-thru, I was punched in the face by a (mentally disturbed) customer. I ended up with two black eyes. In the moment, I was too utterly shocked to respond in ANY way; when she stomped off back to her car, leaving the customers in their car at the window open-mouthed, I just sank to the floor.
My manager called the police (without doing something useful like getting her license plate), and when they arrived and took my statement, they asked me why I didn't hit her back. I didn't even know what to say.
Ann Althouse:
Apparently, some of you think you can invite someone over to your house, take offense at their contribution to the conversation, tell them to leave, and, if they stay put and keep talking, shoot them!
Now tell us your views on fetal squatters (abortion rights)!
usually i don't comment about the comments. But i've never seen so many stupid comments in an althouse thread. Ones that just IGNORE the facts.
This was a university sponsered event. The chemirinsky's were PAID by the University to hold it, and they were "on the clock". And as Althouse pointed out, these are Professors dealing with Students. This wasn't someone showing up at someone's house uninvited.
Futher, the Chermerisnky's are Leftists, and support political protest and being "rude". They just decided that protesting Israel's genocide is "out of bounds" and therefore not acceptable. Again, their actions are all part of the same viewpoint. They have the right views and can be rude to others and even commit violence, because they people who disagree are "X-ists". And If someone pushes back, then depending on the circumstance: its "Police brutality" or "a home invasion" or whatever. So, if they are "Rude" thats OK. But if you're rude to them, why its the most horrible thing that ever happened.
They're not really hypocrites. They are egoists and authoritarians.
thanks so much to
gspencer
for linking me to my most beloved wordsmith of our times, the only one whose every book I can say I have read, and who did indeed capture Americans in America with such tenderness & truth.
What a refreshing morning read that made for me!!!
Jewish law school dean awakens from deep slumber to find that rabid antisemites with bad manners are destined to be the next generation of Berkeley Law graduates. Captain Louis Renault couldn’t be reached for comment…
Since "the law school paid for it" is a big deal here, apparently, let's ask "If someone had tripped and fallen and sustained injury, would the law school or the Dean's home insurance policy have been put to covering the damages?
If the Dean, then he could throw 'em out bodily, no question; he's not bound to honor the invitation by anything at that point, and may revoke at any time, when the guest would then become a trespasser. If the school, being a school function, would be held to cover damages to guests, it seems like the Dean's made his home some modified form of semi-public accommodation, and that's where things are more confusing as to how to handle the disruptive guests.
They create these people in their undergraduate and law schools. Always nice to see the creator(s) have to deal with their creation.
Got popcorn.
There's another civil war in the Democratic party brewing. It is great to see the factions go after each other.
Chicago in August is going to be lit. A last hurrah for '68 remembrance.
I have since read that Ms Afneh resisted the host taking her microphone, saying "it's my property". Well that's a new party accessory. I never thought to bring a microphone of my own when invited to someone's home. But then I'm not a poltroon.
Perhaps at the University of Wisconsin law school law professors were more genteel. Back in my day and what used to be a good law school, Boalt Hall, some professors were known to act arbitrarily. Would you like to be flunked for the semester if you missed a single tax law class without a good excuse? When one very politically active law student (and Editor in Chief of the Law Review) wanted to miss a tax class to attend a rally on the lower Berkeley campus, it took a faculty revolt to stop that. Would you like your grade lowered by ten percent if the professor thought you hadn't done your best in an honors tax seminar?
I've got some--albeit limited--sympathy for Dean Chemerinski. He got the students he recruited for as he turned Boalt Hall into Berkeley Law.
Looks like the microphone has a built in speaker. Seems likely it was the protester's property. A point in her favor. But brought to the party in a premeditated attempt at disruption and trespass. - a point against her.
I still think any legal action will depend on the tussle over the microphone more that the trespassing question.
Jim Acosta should be consulted.
A vuvuzela would have served Fisk well.
If the party is considered a school sponsored event and the school did not provide security then the homeowner would have assumed that responsibility by default.
And the authority to physically remove a disrupter beyond that of a homeowner acting independently.
But not to take her personal property.
The facts of sponsorship are unclear.
"At that point she was trespassing, the dean probably should have called the police ( of course she should in our karen day and age) but she had every right to put this person OFF HER property. PERIOD."
Not for trespassing. And, not in California. CA is a stand-your-ground State, under the Castle Doctrine, and you can only use force if someone breaks into your home. An invited guest, no matter how badly-behaved, is not a break-in, not an Intruder, and not necessarily worthy of removal by bodily force by anyone other than the Police. That's what the law says, for California. I didn't watch the video, and maybe there were threats that extended beyond mere trespassing, but if the only crime was trespassing, then Chemerinsky and Fiske have a problem.
The student has engaged the National Lawyers Guild- you know the terrorist law firm that employed professional traitor, Lynne Stewart.
Apparently you can be accused of "assault" by a horribly rude house-guest hectoring you in your own home. Better luck with your guest-list, time to reconsider your hostess duties.
At the base of all Muslim violence is a religion that asserts all violence against infidels is pure obedience to god who commands your obedience or else. That’s sharia law. It is an iron law that only grants atonement by the killing of infidels.
What she got wrong was not using a sword to slowly cut off the heads of the captured Jews. That requires a team. She’ll do better next time.
But if I was a California cop called to the house, I wouldn't forget all the brutalized victims Chemerinski denied justice by freeing their rapists and murderers, nor the fact that he calls police nazis. And a lot of those criminals invaded other peoples' houses.
You are directly on the money here, Tina Trent. I find myself asking the Chemerinskis to please lean in a little closer so that I can taste their tears. It's so gratifying to see them swept their own ill winds.
- Krumhorn
To those suggesting they could have called the police, the Chemerinsky-Fiskes live in Oakland. They would have waited 45 minutes on hold and another 45 for an LE response (if they responded at all). The chickens of their defund the police policies are nasty and are home to roost and aren’t going away anytime soon. If ever.
People are missing the aim of the protesters. They do not mean to convince - their actions are in no way convincing. Their commentary is a statement of demands, not a position to be debated. They mean to threaten. The treat is like a child's tantrum - if you don't do what I want, I will continue to make your life miserable. If you (the public) doesn't abandon Israel, fossil fuels, etc., they will continue to threaten, harass, and hound you until the cost of not giving to them is emotionally higher than the cost of giving up your position on the matter.
For Israel, there is little commitment that (non Jewish) people feel so they see this as a soft target. These people have taken on the mantle of the real Nazis without the stigma.
It took an sneak attack on Pearl Harbor to make America angry enough to do something about it in the 1940's. Before then it was - "Yeh, Hitler is persecuting the Jews but we don't really want to help them escape or get involved." Roosevelt was interested in helping Britain but I know several children of Jews who escaped Europe to places like Cuba and Chile because he didn't want Jewish immigrants.
Now, these people don't care about the torture, rape, killed civilians, burned babies, anti-LGBQT etc attitudes of and by Hamas. They have their opportunity to force their views on a mostly uncaring public by throwing the mother of all temper tantrums.
What kind of "Pearl Harbor" will it take to awake this generation? Or will this generation continue to ignore the rising temperature like the frog in the pot?
California Jury instruction on the use of force to remove a trespasser.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3475/
To the radical left Free Speech only goes one way. Their way. Any dissenting opinions are considered violence. And the seeds of that way of thinking were planted by Academics in such high falutin institutions like Berkeley and Harvard. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Ann, you aren't special because you're an educator. You repeat this misapprehension here. Educators have no legal obligations or extralegal privilege beyond reporting abuse of children; students aren't special people excused from laws we all must follow; universities are not foreign countries that can ignore laws. As a student law trainee, the assailant here is expected by the Bar to abide by a heightened sense of propriety, not because she is special, but only because she is going to represent the law in her action and manners.
This sense of feeling special leads you to say that you would manhandle a small child but never one of your students. They're not "your" student: they are attending a class in a university we pay for, at a party we pay for. Where do you get off pretending you stand between them and the law because you imagine you are some special protector of an adult woman as she uses our resources and we pay your salary? You are our employees, "academic freedom" or not.
"Nice" and others here are wrong in their interpretation of California trespassing law. You must care about the law -- or even know it, which is what we paid you to do for decades.
This student member of a confirmed terrorist group was not "practicing free speech," as you so gawkingly put it. You have made this mistake in the past regarding disturbing the peace and protesting without a permit.
She premeditatively contacted attorneys, brought or stole broadcasting equipment at an event, pre-wrote her Charles-Manson speech, disrupted the event, made false accusations of racism, and refused repeated requests to leave (we don't know how long she was asked to stop, nor how many terrorist-affiliated colleagues she had with her, as the tape is carefully edited). That's not "free speech"). It is protest without a permit, even worse in a private residence, at which point the owners of the residence have the legal right to determine if a resonable person would feel it appropriate to remove the person with force if necessary or wait for the police to remove them.
Your fantasy about this being free speech as opposed to clearly defined illegal protest is ridiculous. I suggest you check the case of attorney Stephanie Rapkin, who nearly got killed trying to flee an un-permitted "protest" she accidently drove into (yet courteously pulled over so they could pass). It is understandable she was surprised because it was not permitted, and there were no police. She was surrounded by protesters who linked arms to keep her from fleeing and held her until the violent thugs showed up, on a public sidewalk, and verbally assaulted her, screaming threats inches from her face, as she was restrained. She briefly fought back (without using pejoratives) and was later arrested on her own front yard when the protesters followed her and swarmed her, writing outside that she was a racist and using social media to invite other to come -- a group that included women threatening to get her raped or killed in prison. She was arrested in her own home; her cancer drugs were seized; she charged with hate crime, and sits in prison now.
Her assailant got the key to the city and claimed he was afraid she would lynch him. He was with hundreds of violent protesters: she was a small, elderly cancer patient, restrained and alone.
I think the wife is a hero. The partial video shows other activists there and shouts indicating that more -- males -- were supporting the terrorist. Tensions were elevating. The news reports the terrorist brought supporters. The wife committed no act of violence: she was trying to stop a riot in her own home. Jewish and other professors and speakers have been beaten, threatened with death, or rescued by police. This "student" belongs to PLFP, a group designated a terrorist entity by the United States. She and her peers should be expelled: a terrorist has no business being a student in a law school.
Jamie: trauma's really weird, isn't it? Perhaps Fiske was becoming traumatized. What's scary about these terrorists is how blank their eyes are, how monotone their voices, how they use repetition.
To lighten the discussion, but also to make a point: of course, the night I was raped was a rookie training night for two counties. So, some 30 20-year olds showed up to their first really vile sex crime scene, and my reaction, between bouts of hysteria, was to act like the hostess, even though I was in shock and wrapped in a sheet to preserve evidence and being dusted by crime technicians for fingerprints. Shouldn't that have happened at the hospital?-- well, they had been trying to catch this guy and thought he was nearby (he was), and wanted to get as much info from me as possible, and it was a long time ago. So these poor kids, my age, milled around utterly mortified as their Captain asked if one or another could observe some of the pretty gross procedure.
If I had cheese and crackers, I would have put out platters. Luckily, my (male, not boyfriend) roomate waas found, and we all joshed avout having him arrested about his tail-light being out. That was helpful.
It took years to get back that damn copy of Poetry and Poetics covered with sperm.
So they were bagging things from the bathroom and kitchen, bagging my favorite sun-dress (never saw that again), and asking me extremely intimate questions in front of kids I though would stroke out at any moment.
I had to get a glass of water for one of them from the kitchen and get him to sit wit his head between his legs.
Then the dogs came, and most people don't know this, but those dogs are trained in, well, very anatomically special ways. I thought this one kid was going to pass out again. I was so detached most of the time, even joking -- then I'd see how carefully the rapist unplugged all the phones, and I started weeping again -- why that? -- and the rookies didn't know what the hell to do.
So don't judge this woman. Hopefully, you're never going to have to react to any type of assault. Feel free to judge her for the other choices she's made in her life, like marrying that dirtball husband.
But do not judge her for this. Capice? Capice.
"""""" "Nice" and others here are wrong in their interpretation of California trespassing law. You must care about the law -- or even know it, which is what we paid you to do for decades. " " """""
___________________________________________________
There's no trespassing if you're an Invited Guest. If a guest won't leave, call the Police.
CA Stand-Your-Ground law is very specific on this----Prowler or Intruder, not the same as Invited Guest.
Nice -- trespassing can occur with an invited guest and it can begin at any time.
Consider date rape.
Consider if the woman started shouting death to the Jews. Oh yeah, she did that.
Consider if she was caught stealing the silverware or torturing the dog.
Consider if she had secretly seeded the crowd with members of an anti-Semetic, state designated terrorist group. Oh yeah, she did that too.
Consider if she was caught pissing in the punchbowl.
Consider if she turned on the tv to high and started screaming in the microphone that everyone had to listen to her recite Beavis and Butthead. In Farci.
I could go on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा