Let’s be clear from the outset: The Vanguard absolutely supports the right of Turning Point USA to speak on the UC Davis campus. We defended that right when Milo Yiannopoulos came to town, and again when Charlie Kirk appeared.
Free speech is not contingent on our agreement with the speaker’s message.
As the great free speech defender Nat Hentoff once wrote, “The First Amendment means nothing unless it means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
We take seriously the principle that universities must remain open forums for ideas—including the ones we find offensive, harmful, or just flat-out wrong. That includes Brandon Tatum and the organization that brought him, just as it would include those who vocally oppose him.
“I disapprove of what you say,” Voltaire (or at least his biographer) famously said, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
But let’s also be honest about what happened last week—and what it wasn’t. It wasn’t some grand crisis of free expression. It was a minor protest, marred by a brief moment of physical confrontation, followed by a lot of political theater.
And no one is playing their role more enthusiastically than Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who leapt into the fray with a heavy-handed press release condemning the protesters and floating the possibility of felony charges.
That statement was—how should we put this?—a bit much.
Yes, violence and intimidation have no place on campus or in any political discourse. No one should be assaulted, and those responsible for shoving or damaging property should be held accountable. But let’s not conflate a few brief moments of chaotic protest with coordinated criminal conspiracy or terrorism-lite.
The UC Davis Police Department received a single report of assault. No medical aid was requested. No arrests were made. The speaker, Mr. Tatum, completed his event on schedule.
So why is Reisig suddenly invoking felony statutes and talking about three-year prison terms?
The answer lies not in the facts of the case but in the politics of performance. Because if anyone got exactly what they wanted out of this event, it was Turning Point USA.
The group thrives on controversy. They come to campuses not just to speak, but to provoke. They follow a well-worn playbook: raise a fuss, prompt a reaction, then pivot to playing the victim. The more visible the opposition, the more attention they get—and the more they can paint college campuses as intolerant, leftist echo chambers.
In this case, Reisig walked straight into their trap. His rhetoric not only amplifies their narrative but risks escalating a minor campus dust-up into a full-blown criminal matter. All while ignoring the nuance and intent behind campus protest—something universities like UC Davis understand far better than outside law enforcement agencies.
Let’s look at what the university actually did. They coordinated safety plans with Turning Point USA, worked with law enforcement, and took steps to protect free speech and public safety.
After the incident, they rightly condemned violence while reaffirming the rights of students to both invite speakers and to protest them. That’s how a public university should respond: uphold constitutional principles, manage risk, and de-escalate—not pour gasoline on the fire.
In contrast, Reisig’s response was inflammatory. He chose to posture, not to protect. He painted the protest as a “coordinated effort”—language that serves more to criminalize dissent than to clarify the law.
He went out of his way to highlight potential felony charges under California law, despite the lack of any arrests, much less any indication that the protest met the legal threshold for felony conspiracy.
It’s worth asking why a district attorney with a long record of siding with law-and-order conservatism finds it so easy to cry foul when a group aligned with his politics gets pushback.
Let’s not lose sight of Turning Point USA’s own behavior. This is an organization that has been widely criticized for spreading disinformation, fueling culture war hysteria, and harassing university staff and students.
Its founder, Charlie Kirk, has made headlines for mocking trans students and defending insurrectionists.
Brandon Tatum, the speaker at UC Davis, has promoted false claims about police violence and the 2020 election. They are not innocent bystanders. They come looking for conflict. They know that the outrage cycle benefits them—and they depend on public officials like Reisig to play their part.
To be clear: We’re not excusing violence. If someone committed an assault, they should be cited accordingly.
But not every act of protest that crosses a line deserves a felony charge. That’s the kind of prosecutorial overreach that chills free speech far more than any group of sign-waving students ever could.
And we must be cautious, especially now, in an era where the definition of “protecting free speech” is often distorted to mean silencing or criminalizing those who push back against harmful rhetoric. The true defense of free speech requires protecting all expression, not just that which conforms to your political leanings. It means tolerating both the speaker and the protester—so long as both remain within the bounds of lawful behavior.
Reisig’s heavy-handed response doesn’t protect free speech. It politicizes it. And in doing so, it undermines the very values he claims to defend.
What happened on April 3 at UC Davis was not the collapse of civil society. It was a small but visible example of a country wrestling with its tensions—between speech and protest, between platform and accountability. If we want a democracy strong enough to endure this struggle, we need to support the right to speak—and also the right to challenge speech. Even loudly. Even disruptively. Just not violently.
That’s the line. Not the one Reisig drew, but the one the Constitution does. Let’s remember that before we criminalize protest—or let political operatives define what free speech means.
Does anyone else think if that had been a masked up conservative mob who marched on and attacked the booth of some left leaning cause resulting in damaged property and tearing down their canopy with a woman being punched in the head that this article might read 180 degrees opposite?
You have 20 years to pull from… show us the money
Reisig playing his part. Yes he stood up for law and order. Isn’t that what DAs are supposed to do?
He needs to file felony charges?
He hasn’t filed anything yet.
“Let’s remember that before we criminalize protest”
In this case protest wasn’t criminalized, but damaging property and assaulting another person is.
The point was pushing felony charges that likely would not be sought in a lower profile case
From article: “The more visible the opposition, the more attention they get—and the more they can paint college campuses as intolerant, leftist echo chambers.”
They are indeed doing a great job with that. Some might call it “exposing” them, more than “painting” them. Though I suspect that the majority of students simply go on with their own business and aren’t part of any of this.
Baiting
So could this be true?
“Kirk criticized the university, which he called the “most militant school in the country, with the largest Antifa presence.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/turning-point-usa-student-group-015347933.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
No, but he knows how to get attention
Is Brandum Tatum (never heard of him, before) the same guy seen rather aggressively pushing over the bicyclist in the video of the incident?
As a side note, NONE of what occurred escalates beyond a misdemeanor, in my opinion. But some of those do qualify as such, nonetheless.
Ron, I agree a misdemeanor is probably warranted in this case.
But here’s further classification of a misdemeanor classified as simple battery:
Simple Battery
The legal definition of “simple battery” in California is as follows:
you touched someone else,
the touching was done willfully, and
it was done in a harmful or offensive manner.
Note that a “touching” means that you make some type of physical contact with another person. It is not necessary that an injury results from the contact. In fact, the slightest touching can be a battery.
“Harmful or offensive” means a touching that is
violent,
rude,
angry, or
disrespectful.
Simple battery is charged as a misdemeanor. The crime is punishable by:
misdemeanor (summary) probation,
up to six months in county jail, and/or
a fine of up to $2,000.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/felony/is-punching-someone-a-felony-under-california-law/
It definitely warrants some type of prosecution. And if they started doing so every time these type of incidents occur, we’d see less (or none) of them in the future.
The second part – no.
Yeah you would see less of it. These people rarely face consequences – partly because of their masks.
Disagree. These kinds of crimes fall into two main categories – neither of which will be deterred. One is a heat of the moment crime where logical thinking about consequences switches off. Second is an intentional crime where they are hoping their prosecution sends a message.
It’s the second one. But if they wanted to get arrested, they wouldn’t be wearing masks. It’s pretty easy to get arrested, if you try.
If you read Don’s description- it’s not exclusively one or the other. I didn’t even get into the research on mob dynamics. Regardless, deterrence doesn’t work in these situations.
Sounds like you’re saying that you should just let these losers do whatever they want.
I guarantee you that things would change if they faced consequences. All of them – the freeway blockers, bridge blockers, etc.
And if they don’t get THAT message, then give them increasingly-harsh consequences.
Ron, you have no particular expertise on this so your guarantees don’t mean a lot to me.
But again, it starts with removing their masks – if they’re truly trying to “send a message” (and are willing to accept the consequences).
I’m sure they’ll take that under advisement.
David says: “Ron, you have no particular expertise on this so your guarantees don’t mean a lot to me.”
How about if we give it a “try”, before writing it off?
These are not normal people. Also, you still haven’t actually addressed the REASON that they’re wearing masks. They are “hiding their identity” to avoid consequences.
Give it a try? You realize during the civil rights movement people were arrested by the thousands, they brought MLK to trial numerous times, sometimes he had to fight to note be convicted (see the Montgomery case where he was represented by a young Fred Gray). This is exactly my point – you really don’t know the history of this stuff and are trying to argue things that have long been tried and failed.
David says: “If you read Don’s description- it’s not exclusively one or the other.”
Yes it is. One side decided to attack the other. It was premeditated, as well.
This is exceedingly simple stuff – not complicated.
When I said one or other, I meant one explanation or the other.
Most of these people wouldn’t last a day in prison.
I recall that the bridge blockers (in San Francisco) tried to get their charges dropped. (So much for “facing the consequences”). Whatever happened with that?
This goes for the people who deface artwork, etc., as well. You know what I care about in those situations? The artwork – not climate change.
Generally young people who think that no one else knows any better.
How would you know? Besides, they’d be in jail most likely, not prison even if convicted. And if for some reasons they weren’t given local custody, they’d be in a level 1 yard, even you’d survive that.
David says: “Give it a try? You realize during the civil rights movement people were arrested by the thousands, they brought MLK to trial numerous times, sometimes he had to fight to note be convicted (see the Montgomery case where he was represented by a young Fred Gray). This is exactly my point – you really don’t know the history of this stuff and are trying to argue things that have long been tried and failed.”
No comparison. Did those participating in the civil rights movement attack others whom they disagreed with on campuses?
You’re actually making this comparison?
You do understand what “civil disobedience” means, right? It doesn’t mean wearing masks and chasing down Beth and hitting her in the head, tearing down other people’s own protest booths, chaining yourself together on a bridge (and then trying to get out of being charged), etc.
I’m not comparing the activities, I’m comparing the issue of deterrence and prosecution.
David asks: “How would you know?”
I saw the lame punch that Beth received. And I saw the other person tossed that Brandon tossed to the ground “like a matchstick”. (Is that a “saying”? Sounds like one.)
That’s how.
David says: “Besides, they’d be in jail most likely, not prison even if convicted. And if for some reasons they weren’t given local custody, they’d be in a level 1 yard, even you’d survive that.”
I dunno – how would I do without being able to post on the Vanguard, not to mention my daily manicure?
But there’s more to consequences than just being in jail or prison. There’s potential fines, subsequent difficulty finding employment, housing, etc. (These people strike me as nearly-unemployable in the first place, however.)
I was asking about how you would know they won’t survive in prison.
(Malik manages to post from jail, surely you’d figure out a way).
They are (generally) not physically-intimidating – already noted. At least, not that particular group, it seemed.
That’s why I don’t think this is overly-serious. No significant injuries.
In contrast, Brandon probably could have taken all of them on, if he was inclined to do so. Fortunately, he was (somewhat) restrained in his response.
You’re really not following this argument. BTW, Brandon used to be a police officer.
Yes – I looked up information about him, after I saw this article. Never heard of him, before. The fact that he was a police officer is probably a primary reason that he was “somewhat” restrained in his response. It’s also a reason that he was able to push that person to the ground like it was nothing.
But again, I disagree with your comparison to the civil rights movement, and disagree that consequences would have no impact on these people. (Again, refer to the fact that they’re purposefully hiding their identity. Did MLK do that? And was MLK willing to go to jail in regard to civil disobedience?)
These people are likely immature young people, in contrast. Haven’t had the tar kicked out of them yet, one way or another (not necessarily physically).
“It definitely warrants some type of prosecution. And if they started doing so every time these type of incidents occur, we’d see less (or none) of them in the future.”
The first part – yes
The second part – yes
Per Keith:
“Simple Battery
The legal definition of “simple battery” in California is as follows:
you touched someone else,
the touching was done willfully, and
it was done in a harmful or offensive manner.
Note that a “touching” means that you make some type of physical contact with another person. It is not necessary that an injury results from the contact. In fact, the slightest touching can be a battery.
“Harmful or offensive” means a touching that is
violent,
rude,
angry, or
disrespectful.
Simple battery is charged as a misdemeanor.
Okay.
Eyewitness account reported in The Aggie:
https://theaggie.org/2025/04/04/turning-point-usa-event-results-in-multiple-physical-altercations/
“After shortly retreating, protestors made their way back to the booth again. As documented in a video of the event posted on Reddit, local Moms For Liberty chapter chair and UC Davis employee Beth Bourne, known for her anti-transgender rights activism, approached the group and was hit on the back of the head by a protester.
Once the group of protesters reached the booth, a protester advanced toward Tatum and after being pointed at, was pushed to the floor by him.
“From what I saw, it got a little more rowdy,” Vanessa, a second-year student, said. “Brandon [Tatum] physically pushed — my heart dropped when I saw it — Brandon pushed one of the protesters…their bike fell [on them] and they fell down to the ground.”
“They attacked people, they attacked our thing,” Tatum said. “I pushed them out of the way, and that’s it.”
Additionally, Bourne laid hands on a student after a prolonged verbal altercation. Bourne attempted to hold the student back after having had one of her demonstration signs taken away, but ultimately was unsuccessful.
“She was kind of instigating the event and went closer to the protestors as she was walking, so they physically clashed and one of the protestors took her sign,” Vanessa said. “Once that happened, she went to physically attack one of the protesters, like swung her hand.”
In a comment given to The Aggie at the demonstration, Bourne defended her actions.
“[That sign] is my private property, and we should have free speech on a college campus,” Bourne said. “That person ran away with it so I just went to get it back. I think this person should be arrested for stealing my sign.”
……
So, how many counts of battery should be charged here?
2-3:
1) The person who ran-after Beth and hit her. (When you’re chasing someone down like that, there isn’t much question.)
2) The people who tore down the booth, started kicking toward others. (Again, seems pretty obvious.)
3) Brandon himself (possibly). Though I suspect he can claim self-defense based upon a perceived threat.
“Is Brandum Tatum (never heard of him, before) the same guy seen rather aggressively pushing over the bicyclist in the video of the incident?”
Yes, and his defense of this is lame, and he too was being violent by doing that. It was totally unnecessary. He was basically saying, ‘the bicyclist was going ne-ne-ne-ne-ne-ne-ne, ne-ne-ne-ne-ne-ne-ne’. Then said he was defending the others in the tent. I could see a situation where someone was literally lunging at someone in the tent and he stops them by pushing them with that much force. But he was clearly just annoyed. The only defense I’ll give him is that COC started the violence and attacked TPUSA, so that puts one into adrenaline mode and ready to fight back. I would have cheered him if he’d blocked someone else getting attacked, but Tatum just seemed like he was tired of hearing the bicyclist yapping at him and got physical. You can decide for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZgzxygfVeA
I agree, and I’m glad for everyone’s sake that he didn’t seriously hurt someone.
In contrast, the protestors almost don’t seem capable of seriously hurting anyone (at least, not without a weapon).
“It was a minor protest, marred by a brief moment of physical confrontation, followed by a lot of political theater.”
Murders and rapes are also brief moments of physical confrontation. The denial that women were raped on October 7th could be seen as political theater. Your muffin-recipe has no baking powder, DG.
“And no one is playing their role more enthusiastically than Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who leapt into the fray with a heavy-handed press release condemning the protesters and floating the possibility of felony charges.”
Reisig was spot on, and UCD’s initial statement was weak sauce. Then, I’m sure when he realized the words “UC Davis” were going to come out of Trump’s mouth soon, Gary Mary started sounding more like Jeff Reisig. Felony charges and jail time are welcome against this loose knit group of cowards who have gone unpunished for far too long, and I blame Gary May and his administration.
“But let’s not conflate a few brief moments of chaotic protest with coordinated criminal conspiracy or terrorism-lite.”
It’s time to crack down on this loose-knit group of local terrorist wannabees. This isn’t play time.
Perhaps, DG, you did not notice that in the videos the leading “Bash Back” sign contains an inverted red triangle. For those not in the know, one meaning of an inverted red triangle is to mark a Jewish person or target for death. This symbol has been used by some extremist anti-Israel groups in the US, and now Cops Off Campus in Davis. Of course, if asked, they’ll say it means something else – just like ‘intifada’ or ‘from the river to the sea’ means ‘something else’ – but how do you even ask an anonymous masked mob, much less get a real answer?
Back a few years, our host DG was the king of gaslighting his readers into believing all sort of words and symbols were ‘microaggressions’. What do you call it when a mob places a symbol used to call for the death of Jews on one of their signs? An accident? “We have this space on our sign . . . what should we fill it with?”, “How about a triangle?”, “Let’s Invert it!”, “And paint it bright red!”, “Wait, doesn’t that symbolize something?”, “No, I don’t think, so”.
DG, you were critical of so-called ‘microaggressions’ even when the person was unaware they had done so. All that mattered was what the person who heard the microaggression felt. But are you going to call it out when a group ‘accidentally’ paints a symbol that can mean calling for the death of a group of people on a sign? What’s your excuse for not doing so? “It’s just an inverted red triangle, nothing more.” WT-Literal-F !!!???
Personally, swastika’s don’t get to me much, though they might to an older Jew. I see them in the art of many cultures and I think they are, objectively, rather beautiful. (Not so much in red and black, or on a Nazi flag.) But I see a small mob coming at me, dressed in black, faces mask-covered, hitting people and mashing things, and an inverted red triangle coming at me, in 2025 . . . . . well, I’m calling that out as a macro-aggression.
“Because if anyone got exactly what they wanted out of this event, it was Turning Point USA. The group thrives on controversy.”
Cops off Campus got exactly what they wanted too. The group thrives on punching people and breaking things.
“They come to campuses not just to speak, but to provoke.”
Um, who provoked who here? Charlie Kirk wasn’t that provocative when he came here. It was Cops Off Campus that got him all the publicity that got him moved to the Rec Hall to hold everyone, and then COC had a violent and vandalizing good time fighting with riot police and breaking things. Who’s provoking who in this scenario?
“They follow a well-worn playbook: raise a fuss, prompt a reaction”
Um — Jeez seriously DG???!!! Again #sigh#, who did that in this scenario??? One side had a booth and speaker, the other side attacked the booth and people at the event physically. You are implying that having a booth and a speaker and just “being conservative on campus” is provoking. No one sans a few hundred people on campus or in town would have even known TPUSA were here were it not for Cops Off Campus. Now 100 million people and counting know they were here. Unless TPUSA hired Cops Off Campus to attack them in order to get attention, your blame game crumbles in the face of reason.
” . . . then pivot to playing the victim.”
I don’t get the sense that Officer Tatum will play the victim to anyone, ever. Unless they are armed with a very large cannon or a surface-to-air missile.
Also, TPUSA were the ones attacked, so they don’t have to *play* the vicitm. They literally *are* the victim.
“In this case, Reisig walked straight into their trap.”
Huh?
“His rhetoric not only amplifies their narrative but risks escalating a minor campus dust-up into a full-blown criminal matter.”
His rhetoric amplifies COC’s narrative too. Especially when the feds arrest the perps.
“All while ignoring the nuance and intent behind campus protest”
The nuance of a masked protest whose intent was to assault people and break things? That is what you are defending as protest?
“—something universities like UC Davis understand far better than outside law enforcement agencies.”
Reisig has jurisdiction; he’s only “outisde” IN YOUR MIND.
“Let’s look at what the university actually did.”
They ignored the violent, vandalizing group in their midst, thus enabling them to continue with their tactics and escalate with each event, so emboldened.
“After the incident, they rightly condemned violence while reaffirming the rights of students to both invite speakers and to protest them.”
And then, once they realized this event was going international, and “UC Davis” was going to be on Trump’s lips within days, Gary May started sounding like Jeff Reisig.
“That’s how a public university should respond . . . . —not pour gasoline on the fire.”
I’m going with the group smashing and punching as the ‘gasoline’ in this metaphor.
“It’s worth asking why a district attorney with a long record of siding with law-and-order conservatism finds it so easy to cry foul when a group aligned with his politics gets pushback.”
Because it wasn’t the legal, peaceful pushback of a legal, peaceful protest. It was pushback that in its very planning was to commit multiple crimes (and thus is a conspiracy and thus launching into felonyland). And he’s supposed to enforce that no matter the politics of the perp and the vic.
“Let’s not lose sight of Turning Point USA’s own behavior. This is an organization that has been widely criticized for spreading disinformation, fueling culture war hysteria, and harassing university staff and students.”
That’s like your opinion, man. And irrelevant to what happened Thursday.
“and they depend on public officials like Reisig to play their part.”
I doubt they even knew who the DA was until after the incident. Tatum said he’d been to multiple colleges on the tour and nothing like this had happened anywhere else. Just UC Davis. Home of the Davis Vanguard.
“To be clear: We’re not excusing violence.”
#cough# #cough# #choke# #wretch#
“If someone committed an assault, they should be cited accordingly.”
IF ?
“But not every act of protest that crosses a line deserves a felony charge.”
True, but those that cross the felony line do. And I’m not sure this was an act of protest, so much as hiding the enjoyment of punching people they don’t like and breaking things behind the ‘protest’ excuse.
“That’s the kind of prosecutorial overreach that chills free speech far more than any group of sign-waving students ever could.”
How about punching and smashing students? How about them?
“And we must be cautious, especially now, in an era where the definition of “protecting free speech” is often distorted to mean silencing or criminalizing those who push back against harmful rhetoric.”
So first it’s gaslighting us saying “criminalizing homelessness” when we mean criminalizing criminals, and now it’s “criminalizing protest” when we mean criminalizing criminals. But here’s the cherry on top: “criminalizing harmful rhetoric”. And this is where DG gives his heart away. “harmful rhetoric” is as bad as “violence” in his mind, maybe worse. Viewed in this lens, the entire delusional house of cards, actually stays up :-|
“The true defense of free speech requires protecting all expression, not just that which conforms to your political leanings.”
I do protect all “ideas” in free speech, but maybe not all “expression”, if that includes punching and breaking and walking onto highways. As in, I may peacefully protest those who’s beliefs I disagree with, but I’m not going to punch them in the head or break and steal their stuff.
“It means tolerating both the speaker and the protester—”
By not puching them.
“so long as both remain within the bounds of lawful behavior.”
Yup.
“What happened on April 3 at UC Davis was not the collapse of civil society.”
Sure didn’t help.
“It was a small but visible example of a country wrestling with its tensions—between speech and protest, between platform and accountability.”
Actually it was 30 masked cowards who like to punch people they don’t like and break things.
“If we want a democracy strong enough to endure this struggle, we need to support the right to speak—and also the right to challenge speech.”
By punching people and breaking things :-|
“Even loudly. Even disruptively. Just not violently.”
Disruptive is Alan C. Miller dancing the “Meeting is Out of Control Dance” at a Commission Meeting. What happened on April 3rd was violence that has been tolerated and enabled by a weak putz of a University for far too long.
“Let’s remember that before we criminalize protest”
How about we criminalize felons who like to punch people and break things — and planned to do so in advance, thus making it a conspiracy?
Hiding behind the ‘protest’ banner, especially one with an inverted red triangle, is no excuse for criminal behavior.
In reference to MLK, here’s another difference between groups like the one we just witnessed, vs. MLK and the civil rights movement:
With the civil rights movement, they actually seemed to have a cause (other than shutting down people whom they disagree with). In contrast, there isn’t any message emanating from the group who caused this problem.
RO say: “there isn’t any message emanating from the group who caused this problem.”
They have messages on their signs.
(1) “ACAB” = All Cops Are Bastards
(2) “Bash Back” with inverted red triangle
And any interpretation of their message that others, such as bloggers, wish to bestow upon them, probably reflection of one’s own issues.
Are there any arrests yet?
Hopefully Reisig and the FBI are closing in.
Haven’t heard anything