New York vigilantes take down ‘migrant’ live on Hannity TV Show- the "Migrant" is a US citizen from New York

Polds4OSU

Sheriff
Patreon Supporter

New York vigilantes take down ‘migrant’ on live TV – but he was from the US​


Sean Hannity was interviewing the founder of the Guardian Angels, a New York City-based vigilante group known for targeting immigrants, an off-screen disturbance took place and the camera panned to show group members confronting an unidentified man, pushing him to the sidewalk and placing him in a headlock.


The bizarre incident played out Tuesday night during the primetime segment on Fox News meant to highlight alleged disorder and crime Hannity claimed was caused by asylum seekers arriving in New York City.

Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder, proclaimed: “In fact, our guys have just taken down one of the migrant guys on the corner of 42nd and 7th where all of this has taken place.” Throwing his hands in the air, he added: “They’ve taken over!”

The man is not a “migrant” but rather a New Yorker from the Bronx, police said Wednesday afternoon. Though Sliwa claimed the man had been caught shoplifting, police provided no evidence to support the allegation.

While the disturbing altercation played out on national television, Hannity blasted Democrats “for the surge of Joe Biden’s unvetted illegals in New York. And that could be because the so-called border czar is a little distracted right now,” alluding to vice-president Kamala Harris.


According to a New York police department spokesperson, officers arrived to find a man “detained by bystanders” after he allegedly tried to disrupt a live interview. Police said the man had been issued a disorderly conduct summons because he had been acting in a loud and threatening manner on a public sidewalk.

The spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether any members of the Guardian Angels were under investigation for their role in the altercation.

The incident came after a brawl in Times Square between police and a group of people generated waves of backlash against the city’s asylum seekers. Some advocates for immigrants have blamed local officials and the police department for stoking fears of a “migrant crime wave”, even as the city’s crime rate remains largely unchanged since the arrival of tens of thousands of asylum seekers.


In an interview with the Associated Press, Sliwa said he had believed the man was a migrant because he had been “speaking Spanish” and because other Guardian Angels had encountered him with other Spanish speakers on previous patrols.

“He was put down so he wouldn’t hurt himself or anyone else,” said Sliwa, who has admitted in the past that he has fabricated stories of criminal behavior to sensationalize the issue of immigration.

The Guardian Angels have been a fixture in New York City since 1979 when Sliwa founded them to patrol the streets and subways during the city’s high-crime days. They have drawn criticism, including allegations of targeting people of color.

City councilmember Erik Bottcher, who represents the area around Times Square, said the group should not be detaining people without legal authority.

“Vigilantism is not the answer,” Bottcher said. “When civilians take justice into their own hands, it can escalate conflicts and lead to even more dangerous situations, putting everyone at risk.”

In May, a US Marine veteran riding the subway placed a fellow passenger in a chokehold to stop him from yelling at people on the train. The subdued man, the former subway performer Jordan Neely, died. The ex-Marine, Daniel Penny, has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter.
 

New York Gov. Hochul Condemns Curtis Sliwa After Guardian Angels Bust ‘Migrant’ On Fox News​

Sliwa was being interviewed by Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday, about the ongoing migrant crisis in New York City, when the group he oversees, the Guardian Angels, appeared to detain a man on-air who they claimed was a migrant and a shoplifting suspect — an incident that drew controversy after the NYPD contradicted his claims about the man.


“You cannot take the law into your own hands,” Hochul said on CNN This Morning on Thursday, adding that she “reject the premise that anyone can take the law into their own hands, then we have chaos—this is not the wild west, this is New York state.”
The governor did not say if she would ask prosecutors to investigate the incident on Tuesday.
While still on the air with Hannity, Sliwa said his group “gave him a little pain compliance and he was “sucking concrete.”
However, the NYPD later confirmed the man was not a migrant, but instead a Bronx resident who was only cited for disorderly conduct for loud and threatening behavior on a sidewalk—not shoplifting.
 
The social contract will only work as long as it benefits the citizens under it. If they don't feel served and protected, they WILL eventually take the law into their own hands. We're seeing a failure of government, and the governor wants to blame those it's failing.
 
The social contract will only work as long as it benefits the citizens under it. If they don't feel served and protected, they WILL eventually take the law into their own hands. We're seeing a failure of government, and the governor wants to blame those it's failing.
No, what we are seeing is a bunch of fear-mongers trying to win an election by riling their base up by convincing them that their country is under attack by "others". The same thing happened in the 1800s when the Irish immigrated to America in droves because of the potato famine. People spouted insane conspiracy theories and people took the law into their own hands inciting riots and panic. America didn't end then and it won't end now because this country was founded by illegal immigrants. People striving to find a place to live that is better than where they are now. It's what drove Americans into the West and why I am sitting here in the middle of the country typing this message. We don't get to sit here and pull up the ladder because our ancestors got here first.
 
No, what we are seeing is a bunch of fear-mongers trying to win an election by riling their base up by convincing them that their country is under attack by "others". The same thing happened in the 1800s when the Irish immigrated to America in droves because of the potato famine. People spouted insane conspiracy theories and people took the law into their own hands inciting riots and panic. America didn't end then and it won't end now because this country was founded by illegal immigrants. People striving to find a place to live that is better than where they are now. It's what drove Americans into the West and why I am sitting here in the middle of the country typing this message. We don't get to sit here and pull up the ladder because our ancestors got here first.

So... you have no solution? Saying "it's just fear mongers" and "we have no right to pull up the ladder" is pretty glib. And then you state two examples of what can happen if migration is left nearly unchecked. The numbers coming from Mexico (most of them not Mexican) are wild. 5 million in less than three years. Your response, and correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, is "it's not that bad, and even if it was there's nothing we should do".

You also kind of proved my point with your examples? For the Irish, 'riots and panic' happened because the system set in place wasn't adequate to handle the numbers of immigrants. Existing local populations were overrun. We're seeing the same thing today - doesn't matter the skin color or location of origin. Mass migrations without check are incredibly disruptive. Your example is a wonderful case study of what 'limited solution' looks like and I'm pretty sure it's one we'd like to avoid.

Your argument about American's in the west is even better. Native peoples had no government apparatus to stop the migration and look what happened to them.

I'll stand by my statement and even repeat it with your examples of what can happen. "The social contract citizens have with their government will only work as long as it benefits the citizens under it. If they don't feel served and protected, they WILL eventually take the law into their own hands." I'll add "ask OKstatekerr for some examples of what can happen if there is little to no government response in the wake of mass migrations."



One last thing I just have to add - saying that "America didn't end then" and using that as evidence we will make it through every related obstacle is bonkers. I'm reminded of the common disclaimer "Past performance is no guarantee of future results". Assuming that we'll make it through this with no action required is... well, you know what they say about assumptions.
 
You also kind of proved my point with your examples? For the Irish, 'riots and panic' happened because the system set in place wasn't adequate to handle the numbers of immigrants. Existing local populations were overrun. We're seeing the same thing today - doesn't matter the skin color or location of origin. Mass migrations without check are incredibly disruptive. Your example is a wonderful case study of what 'limited solution' looks like and I'm pretty sure it's one we'd like to avoid.
Anti-Irish/Anti-Catholic mobs and violence were facts in America well before the first mass famine immigrants hit America's shores. Potato famine in Ireland started in 1845. The Bible Riots of Philadelphia occurred in 1844.

During the Irish famine immigration surge, nearly as many Germans also immigrated to America at the same time. Germans faced very little of the same discrimination and violence the Irish faced.

Attributing anti-Irish violence in the mid-1800s SOLELY to "a system set in place wasn't adequate to handle the numbers of immigrants" is simplistic and inaccurate.

That being said, I don't really have a dog in the hunt in your dispute with @Okstatekerr beyond believing we need effective immigration reform that is neither "pulling up the ladder" nor unchecked unlimited immigration.
 
Last edited:
Anti-Irish/Anti-Catholic mobs and violence was a fact in America well before the first mass famine immigrants hit America's shores. Potato famine in Ireland started in 1845. The Bible Riots of Philadelphia occurred in 1844.

During the Irish famine immigration surge, nearly as many Germans also immigrated to America at the same time. Germans faced very little of the same discrimination and violence the Irish faced.

Attributing anti-Irish violence in the mid-1800s SOLELY to "a system set in place wasn't adequate to handle the numbers of immigrants" is simplistic and inaccurate.

That being said, I don't really have a dog in the hunt in your dispute with @Okstatekerr beyond believing we need effective immigration reform that is neither "pulling up the ladder" nor unchecked unlimited immigration.
Don’t know why this is so hard for people. The extreme either way is terrible.
 
Back
Top