Vandalism, Battery and Robbery, Along With Being a Red Fascist

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print




Hattip to Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.   A follow up to Foxfier’s post, go here to read it, about the Feminazi professor who assaulted a teenage pro-lifer and stole her sign.  The following is a report of the investing police officer as he interviewed the professor.  Imagine that he is speaking in Jack Webb’s Joe Friday, Just the Facts Ma’am, monotone:




I asked Miller-Young if she felt anything wrong had happened this afternoon. Miller-Young said that she did not know enough about the limits of free speech to answer my question. Miller-Young went on to say that she was not sure what an acceptable and legal response to hate speech would be. Miller-Young said that she was willing to pay for the cost of the sign but would “hate it.”

I explained to Miller-Young that the victims in this case felt that a crime had occurred. I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law. Furthermore, I told Miller-Young that I was worried about the example she had set for her undergraduate students.

Miller-Young said that her students “were wanting her to take” the sign away. Miller-Young argued that she set a good example for her students. Miller-Young likened her behavior to that of a “conscientious objector.” Miller-Young said that she did not feel that what she had done was criminal. However, she acknowledged that the sign did not belong to her.

I asked Miller-Young what crimes she felt the pro-life group had violated. Miller-Young replied that their coming to campus and showing “graphic imagery” was insensitive to the community. I clarified the difference between University policy and law to Miller-Young and asked her again what law had been violated. Miller-Young said that she believed the pro-life group may have violated University policy. Miller-Young said that her actions today were in defense of her students and her own safety.

Miller-Young said that she felt that this issue was not criminal and expressed a desire to find a resolution outside of the legal system. Miller-Young continued and stated that she had the “moral” right to act in the way she did.

I asked Miller-Young if she could have behaved differently in this instance. There was a long pause. “I’ve said that I think I did the right thing. But I acknowledge that I probably should not have taken their poster.” Miller-Young also said that she wished that the anti-abortion group had taken down the images when they demanded them to.

Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.

Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said. “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred. I also told Miller-Young that individuals involved in this case desired prosecution.

I later booked the torn sign into evidence at UCPD. I also uploaded the audio files of my interviews into digital evidence.

I request that a copy of my report, along with all related supplemental reports, be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Go here to read the rest.  Why did the Professor do this?  Well, first because she is doubtless loosely wired, but also because leftist bullying on campus of those having the temerity to hold different views is commonplace.  I am certain that she is shocked that she may face consequences for her assault, theft and spitting on free speech.  Good.


More to explorer

Thought For the Day

Three-Fifths of a Brain

    News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out hard against the Electoral College,

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Jane Antide Thouret

  Remember to consider only Christ in the person of the poor.  Serve them always as you would serve Christ himself.  


  1. “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”
    Harm? Visible disagreement is harm? This is the state of the fascist left – anything that is not in hive-mind lockstep with them provides angst-ridden confusion to the point of physical pain, much like an Adam Sandler movie does to a thinking adult.
    I say “More of it!” Push and shout until their agony drives them to madness and they run like the lemmings they are over the nearest cliff.

  2. “Liberalism [Red Fascism, Progressivism, Socialism] is a mental disorder.” – ‘Michael Savage’

  3. The incident in question is unimportant enough. The trouble is that there has been a chronic reserve army of the unemployed among aspirants to positions on arts-and-sciences faculties for around 40 years now and a position was allocated to this adolescent. It gets worse when you consider that institutional resources are allocated to pseudo-disciplines like ‘women’s studies’. These are not demand driven endeavours. The women’s studies program I know best recruited 38 eight ‘corresponding faculty’, cross-listed courses from I cannot recall how many departments, and managed to generate a mean of 2 majors per student cohort. That particular institution hands out about 650 diplomas a year. The best you could say is that the do not have a dedicated department or faculty, just some prime space on campus for their brown-bag lunch talks. The students know perfectly well ‘women’s studies’ is humbug even if the faculty and administration do not. (So, what’s the value added by the faculty and administration?).

    The foolishness of law and social practice has allocated the task of sorting the labor market to these institutions. It’s just another feature of contemporary life that makes you think your living in a cartoon storyline in Mad magazine.

  4. I don’t know if it makes it better or not, but I don’t think the…female “adult” actually believes what she’s (objectively) saying, she’s just in the habit of throwing out anything that she thinks will get the correct response. She’s not lying, because that would require willfully saying false things, and I suspect she’s speaking to convey emotion, rather than facts.

    She didn’t like it, so it must be a bad thing– assault is a bad thing, so it must have been assault; she didn’t “feel” like theft and getting physical with a teenage girl was bad, because it was subjectively OK, so it couldn’t have been assault or a bad thing.

  5. This woman is an idiot. She probably drives a Prius. The back of her car has to be covered with bumper stickers like Obama 2008 and Stop the Republican War on Women. Probably she is a “gaytheist”, too.

  6. Here she is:


    Noodling around, I stumbled on the dates on her degrees and her fellowships. It appears she was born around about 1975 and has been ensconced in academe since around about 1993 either as a student or professor. She’s not been anywhere else and worked for a supervisor (bar seasonal and part time employment as a student, perhaps). I’ve not been able to check any specialized databases, but Google Scholar turns up a dry hole. She does not list any publications on her site on the tabs provided by the re-working of her dissertation for publication. Given that UCSB hired her nearly ten years ago and given it’s a research institution, that’s a thin resume (though perhaps these sources miss something); thin enough perhaps to get you denied tenure at any sort of institution other than a second-tier private college.

    So, she is 38 years old. She has not since her late adolescent years ever been away from academe; the amount of time she ever spent in ordinary jobs likely does not (pro-rating) exceed 4 years; and it appears she’s been dispensed from the normal feedback academics get about their published (such as it is) work and been tenured for the hell of it.

    It’s not surprising she’s … disoriented.

  7. Black studies, pornography and sex work…….so says the website.

    Obviously she’s unmarried and childless…..that’s a good thing.

    This woman is unqualified to do just about anything, including watering fake plants in offices.

  8. She’s a token. And the powers at be at UCSB point to her and pat themselves on the back because her presence proves how refined their consciences are. Maybe she should run for President.

  9. She is childless but possibly pregnant with a down syndrome child she will likely abort if the test comes back positive. Or at least that is my take. Very high motivation there not to see the results of a possible future choice

  10. “I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred”

    I would have thought the more appropriate charge was stouthrief – an attack by a combination of persons, in which property is masterfully carried off, and the lieges put in alarm. Robbery, by contrast, is the simple case of a person having property taken from him forcibly, or extorted from him by alarming menaces. It is the public and masterful character of the taking that gives stouthrief its special gravity.

    One would also expect the students who took part with her would likewise be prosecuted as guilty, actors or actor or art and part.

  11. Folks,

    Democrats are not going to give up baby-murdering today without a fight any more than they gave up slavery more than a century and a half ago without a fight. Democrats have not changed.

    Now this is something none of us should want, but this woman’s behavior is becoming more and more typical of Democrats. The only thing they fear is the muzzle end of a loaded firearm, hence their emasculation of the 2nd Amendment.

    PS, let no one out there misinterpret me and point the muzzle end of a firearm at one of these individuals however much she may merit it. Let the Democrats be evil and let us be righteous. Let them be utterly shamed by their godless, sinful, arrogant behavior.

  12. Micha Elyi

    I believe its first use by socialists was during the June Days in 1848, although it had earlier been used by the Jacobins. That was a result of the government closing the National Workshops. Then, the Liberals secured a victory over the Radical Republicans, but at the cost of 1,500 dead in combat and thousands of summary executions of prisoners. The Assembly, one recalls, welcomed the surrender of the last barricade with cries of “Long Live the Republic!” What they got, inevitably, was Napoleon III

Comments are closed.