Two private security guards hired by an anti-abortion group face charges of battery and illegal possession of tear gas following an October 2020 confrontation outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Walnut Creek, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office announced.
Security guards Ishatpal Momi, 27, of Elk Grove and Peter Reeves, 45, of Sacramento face misdemeanor charges for allegedly pepper-spraying four people last fall, according to the DA’s office.
The guards are also accused of possessing illegally large pepper-spray canisters, which are limited to 2.5 ounces by state law, said DA spokesman Scott Alonso. Pepper spray is governed by the same laws as tear gas in California.
The incident occurred Oct. 13 outside the Planned Parenthood clinic on Oakland Boulevard in Walnut Creek. The guards were hired by 40 Days for Life, an international Christian organization that holds vigils outside clinics that perform abortions. When a skirmish broke out with counter-protesters supporting the clinic, Alonso said, Momi used pepper spray on one man; 10 minutes later, Reeves allegedly sprayed three others.
In a telephone interview with The Chronicle, Brian Johnston of California Pro-Life said he needed more information about the case, including whether Planned Parenthood also had security guards at the protest. He questioned whether the decision to prosecute was politically or ideologically motivated and “if pro-life protesters have the right to free speech.”
“If it’s free speech only for people who believe in human abortion, it’s kind of an issue,” he said.
Walnut Creek police didn’t arrest anyone in October but forwarded information about the event to the DA’s office, which reviewed the details and decided to file charges. The defendants will be sent notices to appear for their arraignment on an unannounced date.
Full story at San Francisco Chronicle.
Simple facts… if the cannisters were larger than permissible by law, they are guilty. No need to blame politically motivated prosecution. You did the crime, do the time.
The canisters were not illegal….learn the law.
Babies are being murdered inside and the DA prosecutes these guys? It’s totally insane. And who cares about the size of their canisters? It sounds like a really stupid law to begin with.
The difference is abortion isn’t a crime but carrying larger than permissible cannisters of pepper spray is a crime. Good thing you’re not a defense attorney, nor a prosecutor, for that matter.
Obviously, abortion is not a civil crime, Anonymous, and the DA can’t legally prosecute someone guilty of abortion. The point, then, to spell it out for the more obtuse (ahem), is about our legal system itself; it’s totally insane, as it authorizes DA offices to prosecute petty infractions (e.g., the size of a pepper spray canister) vis-a-vis civil law, but not so the gravest crimes (e.g., the murder of a baby) vis-a-vis natural law. Need more help?
A cogent argument was presented: abortion is not a crime, but illegally large canisters are, so those who used the canisters, however intrinsically motivated, will face prosecution for it.
On another note: recently there was an online discussion I had wherein the premise was this: If Roe v. Wade were overturned, and given that a given percentage of pro-life voters see this issue as their single key voter issue, once RVW is done, their single issue is not longer an issue. Therefore once RVW is overturned, many of those voters would consider voting for another party, depending on their next voter issue in the next voting cycle. Example: good Catholic Mary votes for Party X because it advocates against pro-choice, and seeks the overturn of Roe v Wade and the resulting illegalization of abortions.. On other issues, like immigration, universal health, etc., Mary is undecided but definitely not aligned with the full Party X platform. Once Roe v Wade is overturned, and abortion (her key voter issue and reason for voting for the party) is no longer legal, Mary now decides to vote for party Y because now it does align to her views more than Party X. Some have speculated that although there is much vocal ado given to denouncing abortion rights, the bottom line may be that Party X really does not want Roe V Wade overturned because they would lose voters.
Your cogently argued, thoughtful and civil thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.
No, because besides abortion there’s same-sex marriage and critical race theory and transgender ideology and gun grabbing to keep people voting Republican even if abortion were outlawed.
Michael Josrph Dremel– try substituting this one, for the so-called “one-issue-voter” you describe, in your post. Let’s say it is Germany, and you are a “one-issue voter”– against Adolph Hitler. And let’s say he has made it clear, in his political campaign, exactly what he plans to do, if elected. Are you, if a German, going to be a “one-issue-voter,” too?? Abortion is murder, Michael– m-u-r-d-e-r!!
Might be a good argument except that the Pride ideology/agenda will keep any voter conscious of what tyranny it represents from voting for the democrats. Besides, I believe that without legalized abortion, the Pride agenda fails and progressives have no intention of allowing that to happen.
Only in our modern Bizzaro World!
I sleep well at night knowing my government has outlawed dangerously large canisters.
A cogent argument was presented: abortion is not a crime, but illegally large canisters are, so those who used the canisters, however intrinsically motivated, will face prosecution for it.
On another note: recently there was an online discussion I had wherein the premise was this: If Roe v Wade were overturned, and given that a given percentage of pro-life voters see this issue as their single key voter issue, once RVW is done, their single issue is not longer an issue. Therefore once RVW is overturned, many of those voters would consider voting for another party, depending on their next voter issue in the next voting cycle. Example: good Catholic Mary votes for Party X because it advocates against pro-choice, and seeks the overturn of Roe v Wade and the resulting illegalization of abortions.. On other issues, like immigration, universal health, etc., Mary is undecided but definitely not aligned with the full Party X platform. Once Roe v Wade is overturned, and abortion (her key voter issue and reason for voting for the party) is no longer legal, Mary now decides to vote for party Y because now it DOES align to her views more than Party X. Some have speculated that although there is much vocal ado given to denouncing abortion rights, the bottom line may be that Party X really does not want Roe V Wade overturned because they would lose voters.
Your cogently argued, thoughtful and civil thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.