Portland's Hypocrisy on Display at Alan Swinney Trial
The cesspool of hypocrites that is Portland, Oregon is on full display right now at the Multnomah County Courthouse. On the right you have self proclaimed Proud Boy Alan James Swinney who came to Oregon to show support for law and order by engaging in a series of crimes. On the left you have Antifa whose activists claim to support abolishing the police only to support the police the second they claim to have been attacked by anyone from the alt-right.
We at Cop Blaster do not identify with the right or the left, so we don't have a problem calling out either side for being the hypocrites that they are. We hate the government and those that enforce its laws, so we support anyone that fights the police not matter who they are which is why we have been so supportive of groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter over the past year or so. It is also why we defend people like Jeremy Christian when the state decides to over prosecute them for political reasons (https://copblaster.com/blast/34353/jeremy-christian-appeals-wrongful-double-murder-conviction). If society is to have any chance at having a justice system that is truly fair we cannot allow political biases to play a role. If we allow white supremacists to be prosecuted more severely than anyone else then that system has the potential to prosecute anyone unfairly for any reason. If Antifa activists go to a conservative community what is to stop a jury in that area from sentencing them excessively because they don't like Antifa if they use the same system that allows liberals to sentence white supremacists excessively?
We have spoken out against the state's case against Swinney because we don't believe that he committed the crime of second degree assault due to him not causing anyone serious injuries (https://copblaster.com/blast/25988/proud-boys-activist-alan-swinney-arrested-we-break-down-the-charges). The worst injuries Swinney is alleged to have inflicted are bruises from paintballs and the closest thing to a weapon that he used to inflict injuries were paintball guns. We don't consider bruises to be serious injuries even if they are as bad as these self proclaimed victims allege and we don't consider any paintball gun loaded with paintballs to be a dangerous weapon under the law. Swinney is also accused of spraying people with bear mace, but even an eyeball full of mace does not rise to the level of injury necessary to sustain a charge of assault II under Oregon law.
The prosecution's best shot at a conviction on the most serious charges in this case is similar to how they wrongfully convicted Jeremy Christian of murder last year. In that case Christian was assaulted on a Max train by an Antifa activist and defended himself. Christian suffers from autism and PTSD. He has difficulty controlling himself during his autistic meltdowns and has heightened threat sensitivity due to PTSD from among other things being shot in the face. This author knows this due to living in the cell next to him for three months. That dual diagnosis proved deadly for two men one of which Christian was understandably afraid of due to being thrown on the ground multiple times by another man. We argued that Christian should have been found not guilty by reason of self defense for the first two stabbings and guilty of manslaughter for the third one. The third stabbing was of a man that Christian himself admitted had done nothing to him other than stand in the wrong place when he was running on "auto pilot." Christian's version of events were consistent with a person with his dual diagnosis acting before having time to properly process things which we thought lowered his culpable mental state enough to justify a finding of manslaughter. The prosecution was able to convict Christian of murder by making the case about social justice. If you can convince a liberal jury that a defendant is a white supremacist then they will almost always convict him of as many things they can. The government is doing the same thing in this case. They will convict Swinney of being a Proud Boy, convince the jury that Proud Boys are white supremacists, and seek a remedy based not on what is just, but rather what most people in the community would consider justice to be.
The prosecution has a long line of leftist snitches eager to testify in this case many of whom took to the streets to protest law enforcement. They seem to think that it is ok to be a snitch if the person they're snitching on is alt-right or claims to support law enforcement. They don't seem to realize that what constitutes a snitch is never something that can be debated. Convicts are the only people that get to decide what constitutes a snitch and with that decision made long ago was a prohibition on ever being able to debate the definition again. One cannot accurately deny being a snitch by claiming to be a victim, saying "but he's a Nazi," or asking their friends if they think testifying is ok.
Now that we've made it clear that it is impossible to testify against Alan Swinney without admitting to being a snitch, here is a list of snitches we know about so far:
Jason Allen Britton
Height: 5 ft 7 in
Weight: 160 lbs
Address: ***REDACTED***, GRESHAM, OR *****
– Testified that he was shot with a paintball gun near his left eye and that his vision has never been the same. An obvious exaggeration by someone who realizes that without any protracted impairment of his vision there would be no Assault II argument. Seems like a total pansy crying to a jury instead of sucking it up like a real man. He strikes us like the type of set up artist that groups like Anitfa teach how to file charges against people. The end result tends to be accusations that if believed by a jury would constitute a higher charge, but ultimately cannot be proven. Accusations like claiming his vision has never been the same without any proof. Britton posted about this on Facebook where he identifies as
an independent "journalist" associated with Antifa (https://www.facebook.com/JasonBrittonMultimedia/photos/pcb.110791777403092/110791760736427/). As you can see from his picture (above) his black eye didn't look any worse than one would expect from getting punched hard. He claims to have been wrongfully arrested on multiple occasions, so he's had chances on the inside to figure out that turning state's witness makes someone no better than a cop and still he thinks it is ok to testify against people. Maybe the next time he gets arrested someone will have the presence of mind to teach him.
a.k.a. Meg McLain
Address: ***REDACTED***, DAMASCUS, OR
– Claims to have been sprayed with bear mace and shot with a paintball gun. Currently suing Swinney which obviously gives her all the motivation she needs to exaggerate. When doing a background check on her we discovered the above address, but also a voting registration record from 2013 listing her as a Republican. We added a screenshot of that record (above). It was from the same background check result that matched the email address with the Twitter account https://twitter.com/MegMcLain. Learn more at https://copblaster.com/blast/25992/underdog-lawyer-michael-fuller-posts-clients-snitch-paperwork-online
– Claims to have witnessed Swinney's actions.
– See many others documented at https://copblaster.com/blast/25924/snitch-advisory-warning-downtown-portland-oregon
We will continue to expand this list as we learn the identities of other snitches in this case.
If anyone is thinking that the above might violate Oregon's new anti-doxing law they just might be correct if our motive were malicious which it is not, but that probably won't stop somebody from alleging so someday. If it were it wouldn't matter because the language of the bill is unconstitutionally overbroad. We have been hoping that someone might come along and give us standing to challenge it in federal court, but we have yet to get so much as a litigious threat despite not allowing the bill to change how we operate. If any of these people want to give us standing to challenge that bill and the publicity that would come with being the ones to get it overturned then they are by all means encouraged to contact us. They might want to see about making it a class action by contacting every member of the State House (https://copblaster.com/blast/35518/oregon-house-of-representatives-directory-of-home-addresses) and State Senate (https://copblaster.com/blast/39676/oregon-state-senators-that-voted-for-anti-doxxing-bill) that voted for HB 3047. Even if the bill were not unconstitutional this website is hosted overseas, so U.S. courts lack the jurisdiction necessary to overrule us on content management issues anyway.
Alan Swinney didn't do the right thing and he is not a totally innocent person. He should be convicted of misdemeanor assault, menacing, and unlawful use of mace. He has been locked up for over a year which is the maximum sentence allowed by law for misdemeanors, but there were two criminal episodes, so he should be facing up to two years for those. He is charge with unlawful use of a firearm, but we're going to have to do some more research on that one. We are not sure if the legal definition of use can be met by threatening to use a firearm or not. The mace charge although technically a felony is not tied to any allegations of serious injury, so he probably isn't facing much exposure on that.
Finally, Please do not use the information on this page for any unlawful purpose. Nobody has ever used anything on this site to bother someone at home and we don't want anyone to start.
UPDATE: We got an email from someone claiming to be Jason Britton today which reads as follows:
My name is Jason Britton. It's come to my attention that "members of your site" (despite your site's main page commenting heavily on Twitter regarding the case) have not only hard doxxed me, but you've done so on the bogus premise that "some bruises" were the worst damage received on Aug 15th or 22nd, 2020.
I have permanant damage in my left eye thanks to Alan Swinney. Had that paintball not hit my eyebrow, and instead made full impact into my left eyeball, I would not have a left eye at all.
For that reason, I would greatly appreciate if you would remove the article with me listed, entirely. It's bogus and full of false claims that have been disproven many times within the trial. Beyond that, y'all didn't even get my fucking address right
Y'all need to grow the fuck up and get a better hobby.
UPDATE: Got another message from Jason in which he admits to snitching on this website for not removing this article about him snitching. This happens a lot with snitches documented on this site. Someone posts something calling them a snitch, they ask that it be removed, and when it is not removed they snitch on the website, in so doing they prove that their names belong on a snitch list.
Britton's case also illustrates hypocrisy that runs rampant among Antifa. They think they can rise up against the government one day, ask for the government's help the next, and still claim to be legitimate. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That is why a lot of us who were fighting the cops before George Floyd was killed had our doubts in the months that followed. We saw a lot of people that had been helping the police out in the streets protesting them. When someone turns state's witness they are for all intents and purposes not different than a cop.
Britton might be right when he says that disagreeing with the current system of justice doesn't prevent him from pressing charges. He can still disagree with those he works with, assists, and legitimizes, but it still makes him a rat. Someone the community needs to be warned about because he has no problem putting people's freedom at risk to settle a score or pursue an ideological objective.
His priorities are also screwed up. He thinks that attacking his own "white privilege" and protecting "Black Lives" from "rednecks" is more important than fighting the police. Did he ever stop and think that maybe he could keep his honor in tact by using methods other than law enforcement to fight Swinney? The police are the ones that make it possible for the government to keep their knees on everyone's necks. The government needs to be the primary focus. Alan Swinney seems to have already won in a way because he provoked several people who claimed to be anti-police to seek police protection which in the eyes of some legitimizes the law enforcement establishment. He proved that some of them don't have the sense or honor to say that no matter what Swinney and his followers do that at least they won't go crying to the cops for protection.
Jason's email was as followed:
Don't worry, your already being investigated for doxxing and witness intimidation. 3 counts of each by my observations. You'll be joining your buddy Swinney soon enough. Don't expect to see me in "gen pop" any time soon, though. As a general practice, I don't break the law like you do. The one time I was arrested, it was on completely bogus charges. I was in and out of booking within hours. All charges dropped.
For the record, I may be an anti-fascist that disagrees with our current system of justice, but philosophically speaking that doesn't prevent me from pressing charges within the current system on someone who assaulted me in broad daylight in front of a hundred cameras.
If you choose to regard that as "snitching" in your opinion, that's your prerogative. That said, I've dined with Crips and Bloods alike in my day. I still have boys back home, whom which I consulted with before proceeding with my charges. In their humble opinion, which means a lot more to me than your goofy ass, I wasn't snitching. In fact, they thanked me for standing up and using my white privilege to stand up and force the cops to do their damn job for once when ignorant rednecks decide to threaten Black Lives with violence. Nobody asked me to do that. Nobody coached me on those actions. I made a decision Aug 15th, 2020 to step WELL outside my comfort zone in persuit of some REAL justice.
Now that might not earn me many brownie points with the Skins, the Nazis, or the KKK, but frankly they were never my crowd anyhow. You can keep 'em
– Jason Britton
UPDATE: Jason sent a really long email today which touched on something that explains the proceedings better. It explained why neither the state nor the defense asked him about long term medical care. Jason explained:
"I provided two pieces of documentation from an optometrist showing that: A) my eye was signifigantly damaged by the paintball that hit my eye and didn't break, well beyond simple bruising (scratched retina and damage to optic nerve); B) that the vision in my left eye had become substantially worse, and never returned to it's former glory." – Jason Britton
That was a surprise because if you watch his testimony and cross examination in the video below, the state never asks him if he sought medical care long term and the defense never asked him anything like, "if your eye is still injured why haven't you sought medical care since that day?" One of the most likely explanations for the defense not asking anything like that would be that the evidence has been suppressed by the court at the request of the defense as Jason described:
"As with like 80% of the evidence provided to the State in this case, Swinney's desperate ass defense team objected to these pieces of evidence. Basically, their only argument was that the documents contained to many medical terms that the jury couldn't digest without calling an optomestrist to the stand, which seemed to the DDA would be too time consuming, so he moved on without those pieces of evidence. They are, however, in the evidence pool." – Jason Britton
We are inclined to believe Jason when he says that he sought aftercare from an optometrist and reported symptoms consistent with a "scratched retina and damage to optic nerve," but we don't think the state is capable of finding an optometrist or other expert capable and willing to testify under oath that Jason does in suffer from those things. It seems mighty convenient to say that the state considers the process of producing such a witness to be too time consuming when doing so would likely prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. When the evidence would make the state's case a slam dunk in a high profile case like this one nothing is too time consuming, especially when the defendant is likely to be sentenced to time served otherwise. Taking more time helps the state in a case like this because even if the jury doesn't understand the expert then the defendant still stays in jail longer. Deputy District Attorney Nathan Vasquez probably thought that his case would be stronger relying on a victim's unproven claims of long term suffering than it would with an expert. For some reason he thinks a jury is more likely to convict after closing arguments like, "you've heard from the victim how he continues to suffer to this day" than they would after something like, "you've heard from an expert how the victim continues to suffer to this day." The most likely explanations for that are that he is afraid to subject Jason to examination by a defense expert or that no expert could be found capable of substantiating the injury claims.
We looked up the symptoms of retina scratches and optic nerve damage to see if they are the kinds of injuries that an expert could likely prove or disprove. A scratched retina is commonly known as a corneal abrasion (see https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/corneal-abrasions). Known causes of a corneal abrasion are listed as:
– Poking your eye with a fingernail, pen, or makeup brush
– Getting dirt, sand, sawdust, ash, or some other foreign matter in your eye
– Getting chemicals in your eye
– Rubbing it too hard
– Wearing poor-fitting or dirty contact lenses
– Getting a certain type of eye infection
– Having surgery without proper eye protection
– Play sports or engage in high-risk physical activity without safety eyewear
– Overwear your contact lenses
Impact to the eyelid whether it be from a paintball, a fist, or something else is not on that list. That doesn't mean that it is not possible to suffer such an abrasion from getting shot in the eyelid from a paintball gun. For all we know Jason could have had dirt under his contact lens that moved in a way that it wouldn't have if it were not for the impact and his retina was scratched as a result. If he doesn't wear contacts maybe he already had something else in his eye that was moved in a way by the paintball that caused a scratch or maybe just having a paintball strike the eyelid rubbed it too hard. However, we can't think of any reason why someone with a corneal abrasion would not be able to prove the existence of the injury by submitting to a proper eye exam or why a prosecutor would be worried about a credible defense expert not reaching the same diagnosis when the victim claims to still be suffering from the same abrasion. WebMD says that minor abrasions should heal naturally while severe ones can lead to infections, scarring, and other problems including blurred vision. If Jason has a retinal scar then an expert should be able to testify to it.
Health Grades has a good article about optic nerve damage (https://www.healthgrades.com/right-care/eye-health/optic-nerve-damage) which can be caused by trauma, but "The only way to detect optic nerve damage is through a comprehensive eye examination." So, if he had such an examination and it supports this diagnosis why would Vasquez be afraid to subject Jason to an examination by a defense expert?
After looking at the indictment again it appears that the state does not intent to rely on the seriousness of the injuries to make their case. Oregon's assault II statues has three prongs any one of which can constitute a violation of the statute (see https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.175). Swinney is not charged under the "serious physical injury" prong. Instead he is charged with merely causing "physical injury" with a "dangerous weapon" and that weapon is listed as a paintball gun. DDA Vasquez actually intends to convince a jury that bruising someone with a paintball constitutes a Measure 11 offense by classifying a toy as a dangerous weapon. If he can do that it won't matter if Britton's long term injury claim can be proven.
Under Oregon law "'Dangerous weapon' means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury."(https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html). DDA Vasquez is starting to sound like Ralphie's mother in A Christmas Story, "you'll shoot your eye out" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgjPa5JkecA). Some might argue that because it is possible to shoot someone's eye out with a BB gun that shooting anyone with a BB gun is an assault II. Likewise some might argue the because it is possible to seriously injury someone's eye with a paintball (ex: https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20161103/paintball-causes-many-vision-robbing-eye-injuries). A realist on the other hand would argue that the likelihood of shooting someone in the eye with either is so low that neither should be considered a dangerous weapon. After all if anything remotely capable of rendering an eye useless were a dangerous weapon then every pitcher to intentionally bean a batter would be committing a felony (https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/eye-injuries-causes). Little leaguers would be going straight to juvie in droves. The legislature couldn't have intended such a absurd result. If they did every pitcher in the state would be charged with reckless endangerment for throwing baseballs dangerously close to batters (https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.195).
Case law seems to indicate that whether an object constitutes a dangerous weapon weights heavily on how it is used as opposed to what it is. In some cases footwear can constitute dangerous weapons if used in a manner capable of causing serious injury (see United States v. Swallow http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/11/16-30224.pdf), but Oregon courts have been reluctant to declare footwear a dangerous weapon unless it can be showed that someone were substantially more likely to be injured by a foot due to the footwear as opposed to the foot itself (see State v. Bell https://casetext.com/case/state-v-bell-423). So, if someone were to kick someone really hard their foot would not be a dangerous weapon, but if they wore footwear that created a possibility of serious injury that would not exist from just the foot then the footwear is a dangerous weapon. The history of treating paintball guns as dangerous weapons is less clear.
Earlier this year Randy Graves was arrested for among other things hitting someone with a paintball in downtown Portland, but that paintball only led to an assault IV charge (https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/503722-403416-man-arrested-for-paintball-shots-threats-in-downtown-portland-park). In 2018, Zachary Taylor Richardson was arrested in Bend for series of drive-by paintball shootings and charged with 25 counts including several counts of harassment, but no assault charges (https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/bend-police-arrest-man-19-in-string-of-drive-by-paintball-attacks/article_24dfe8f8-ae9d-5cad-8739-24dff773b28e.html). We found a 2012 case in which some teenagers were charged with assault II for shooting people with paintball guns (http://pdxtraffic.blogspot.com/2012/07/three-arrested-after-shooting-multiple.html), but a background check on one of them revealed that he was only convicted of assault IV. Those cases suggest that prosecutors including some in Vasquez's own office don't consider paintballs to be dangerous weapons.
UPDATE: We got a surprisingly pleasant message from Jason today in which he said, "I'm not a huge fan of Measure 11 and the impact it's had on our community," it was in response to an email containing links to stories about the disproportionate impact that Measure 11 has on communities of color (ex: https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/oregon-criminal-justice-commission-releases-measure-11-report). We also argued that lowering the bar for what qualifies as a Measure 11 crime would only make the problem worse. Jason also said, "Chances are, the jury will likely walk the charges down to Felony IV." We interpreted that as an indication that he is aware of how a reasonable jury should react when asked to treat a paintball as a dangerous weapon. For his honesty we decided to reward him by redacting his address from this page. We did the same with Meg Steward's address because even though she just blocked us without engaging in discussion the two of them sound close.
More importantly, Jason didn't say anything threatening to us in his last message. He simply argued his case which was that he is convinced that Swinney shot him with a rubber riot ball and not a paint ball. We think there is some validity to his believe there. He pointed out how unusual it is for a paint ball not to break when hitting someone's skin and we were thinking the same thing. Anyone whose been paint balling likely recalls the only balls that didn't break hitting loose clothing, certainly not their skin, and certainly not their skin at close range. However, the state does not have evidence capable of proving that what Jason was shot with was anything more than a paintball and due to the importance of making the state prove their case in a criminal proceeding it would not be appropriate to charge Swinney based on a riot ball theory.
We also realize that we incorrectly calculated the amount of prison time Swinney should be exposed to if convicted of assault IV in this case. We didn't realize at first that the case covered two different criminal episodes a week apart. When convicted for multiple separate criminal episodes then consecutive sentences are justified. We think that Swinney should face a total of two years in state prison for committing crimes with a statutory maximum of 12 months on two separate occasions. On top of that he is charged with unlawful use of a firearm to commit menacing by pointing it at someone. That last sentence describes at least 3 of the 12 counts two of which are felonies. We were so fixated on the lunacy of the paintball based assault II charges that we glanced over those. Taking those other felonies into account a sentence of at least two years should be expected, but it is also important to keep in mind that although pointing a gun at people is a felony that the sentence needs to account for the fact that it is not nearly as serious as actually hurting anyone. All the legitimate charges based on causing actual injuries that should remain at the end are misdemeanor level. Think about what it says about the state of the law when a battery resulting in an injury is a misdemeanor while threatening to hurt someone with a weapon, but not actually hurting them is a felony. We are not sure if using a firearm to commit menacing equates to carrying one with intent to use however, so that question warrants more research. Then he still has charges of unlawfully using mace which are felonies. Given the list of charges that are not ridiculous his self defense claims seems like his best shot, but it seems like a long shot. Jeremy Christian had a much stronger argument for self defense.
Finally, although we still consider Jason to be a snitch we also realize that he like a lot of people that have never done time. What separates him from just a typical victim is that he seemed to go to an event where mutual combat was expected and was clearly there to support one side of the fight. Its not like he got mugged on his way home from work and called the cops because he didn't know what else to do. We still think that he antagonized Swinney hoping he would respond in a way that would allow charges to be filed. #alanswinney #proudboys #antifa #victimhoodculture #jasonbritton
Source: Portland's Hypocrisy on Display at Alan Swinney Trial