Man Violently Attacked in Portland: “I was stabbed for being a conservative journalist”
“had traveled last Friday to Portland from his home in Northern California to document the nightly unrest outside the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse”
Andrew Duncomb is a black conservative Trump supporter. While filming the rioting in Portland, OR, Duncomb was stabbed by a white Antifa member who had been following him.
Luckily, he survived the attack.
Shane Dixon Kavanaugh reports at Oregon Live:
Man knifed in back at Portland protest: ‘I was stabbed for being a conservative journalist’
A videographer knifed near the scene of a protest outside Portland’s federal courthouse said Wednesday he was nearly killed over his right-wing politics and activism.
“I was stabbed for being a conservative journalist,” said Andrew Duncomb, 25, who films demonstrations and other political events under the moniker “Black Rebel.”
Duncomb, who is Black and a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, told The Oregonian/OregonLive that he had traveled last Friday to Portland from his home in Northern California to document the nightly unrest outside the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse and county Justice Center…
Duncomb said he eventually handed his video camera to a friend and decided to confront one of the men from the group.
“Someone’s stalking us,” the friend can be heard saying in the video as Duncomb approaches the man, who wore a respirator, goggles and a pair of brown Carhart overalls, near Southwest Salmon Street and Fourth Avenue.
“Hey buddy, why are you following us?” Duncomb says as he comes up from behind the man and wraps his arm around the man’s shoulder, the video shows.
The man then stabs Duncomb without saying a word, the video shows.
Here’s a video of the incident:
Conservative journalist, and @realDonaldTrump supporter, Andrew Duncomb was stabbed by a "protester" in Portland, Oregon.
Duncomb says "protester" stabbed him for being a conservative journalist. pic.twitter.com/uRsjYYvU58
— Julius Giles (@TodayWithJulius) July 30, 2020
Duncomb appeared on the Tucker Carlson show last night to talk about what happened:
Conservative Journalist stabbed for supporting Trump: Antifa is a Domestic Terrorist Organization. pic.twitter.com/ntn96ZEUod
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) July 31, 2020
Dave Urbanski of The Blaze provides an update on the suspect:
Police said they found one male suspect held down by several bystanders and one male victim with a stab wound. Police added that they tried to create a crime scene, but the crowd’s aggressive behavior and lack of community cooperation prevented them from doing so.
Blake David Hampe was arrested at the scene, the paper said, citing court records. Hampe, 43, told police that Duncomb had “set up” on him and tried to choke him, the Oregonian added, citing a probable cause affidavit.
Records show Hampe faces charges of second-degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon, both felonies. He remained in jail Thursday on $255,000 bail.
According to Andy Ngo, the suspect has a record:
Blake David Hampe, a 43-year-old w/a child porn conviction, was arrested at the #antifa riot overnight in Portland and charged with felony assault. He's accused of stabbing black conservative @SpaceForceUSA_. He was beaten by a crowd & dragged to police. https://t.co/Itp99vf7ef pic.twitter.com/lHbxzxTdt6
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 25, 2020
Will the media describe this as a mostly peaceful stabbing?
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
White man attacking a black man. Until now that was called a hate crime. However, since the parties don’t fit the narrative there is no coverage.
The OJays had it right
https://youtu.be/-Wp4ItWi8y4
The Media won’t be calling it anything at all. It doesn’t fit their narrative. This being a hate crime by leftist definition (White attacking Black)since it doesn’t support the facts as they want us to believe.
“Hey buddy, why are you following us?” Duncomb says…
Remember, our speech is violence and their violence is speech. It might be too much even for CNN to claim that Hampe was just “defending himself” against Duncomb’s vicious attack, but it’s in their playbook.
Um, no. He “comes up from behind the man and wraps his arm around the man’s shoulder”. That’s what he claims he was defending himself from, not the speech. It was definitely an assault, but unless it was deadly force it was illegal for him to respond with deadly force. He claims Duncomb tried to choke him, which if true would have justified his response. But that doesn’t seem like a reasonable assumption for him to have made; self defense requires both a subjective fear and that that fear be objectively reasonable, and that seems to be missing. However that’s a question for a finder-of-fact.
Look, both sides slant the narrative in these incidents. So, you have to do your own investigation.
The “journalist”, who was stabbed, approached the armed man and wrapped his arm around the man’s neck and/or shoulders, from behind. Not a smart move in a highly charged situation such as the current demonstrations are. That man defended himself by drawing a knife and stabbing his assailant. The stabber did not accost the stabbed in any way, until he was himself accosted. So, I have little sympathy for the man who was stabbed. And, I see no evidence that the force, used against the journalist, had anything to do with his politics. It appears to be strictly in response to a perceived physical attack by the journalist.
Now, while the level of force used in response to the attack by the journalist was was not legally proportionate, it is a very good idea not to be laying hands upon strangers without a valid, legal reason. Mothers used to teach their children that at a young age. Keep your hands to yourself.
In the interview the journalist claims he was stalked or followed. The video doesn’t address what took place prior
So what if he was “stalked or followed”? Hampe had every right to do so. Trayvon Martin was also stalked or followed; he had no right to react with anything but words.
Other video shows him being followed.
Don’t think so what can be answered without knowing the totality of the circumstances
The video shows the journalist as the initial aggressor
I’ll defer to Andrew Branca beyond that….
I agree. I saw it the same way. However, I’m not sure the use of the knife was inappropriate. The large “journalist” really surprised him and overwhelmingly grabbed him. Under the circumstances the stabber could really think his life was in peril. What I don’t like is that Tucker didn’t even ask the journalist, “Why did you physically jump him like that?”
Fair points. (1) Putting an arm around his stalker was ill-advised, (2) it satisfies the legal though not the common definition of assault, and (3) we don’t have all the evidence that would (we hope) emerge in a trial. I would argue that my central point remains valid: even if Duncomb had never touched Hampe, it might have played out the same way and the media would certainly portray it in the same way.
Why a Trump supporter would go near that area without a small army is a question of judgment
I was glad to hear the violent Antifa guy is in jail with high bail
I have concerns over the success of the case as the video appear to show Duncomb wrapping his arm around Hampe’s neck just before being stabbed.
Before you all put me in the MIllhouse column with thumbs-downs, I’d like to here what Andrew Branca has to say
My opinion: I don’t know what led up to this as the video only shows several seconds, including the stabbing. Using potentially lethal force against someone putting an arm on you is disproportionate, which should thwart any claim of self defense.
Going in force and putting down anyone dressed as Antifa has merit. It is hard to understand why this has gone on foe so long.
Just ask yourself how you would react if the roles were reversed; if it had been Hampe who came up from behind Duncomb and put his arm around his shoulder, and Duncomb who claimed he was being choked and stabbed him.
What if the races were reversed — if it had been a black BLM protester coming up from behind a white conservative and putting his arm around him, and the conservative stabbed him. Still the same answer?
I’m not looking for or presuming any answer. I just want people to think about it.
Let’s tke your “what-if” a step farther. What if Duncomb had come up behind Hampe, wrapped his arm around his neck to secure him and then drove a knife into Hampe’s side or back? That is actually a commonly taught technique for an attack with a knife.
The point is, that Duncomb initiated the entire incident by laying hands on Hampe, who was walking away. Duncomb committed the initial crime. While Hampe my have overreacted, and technically broke the law, with regard to the use of deadly force in self defense, he still had the right to defend himself from a criminal attack.
If someone comes up from behind you and casually (with little or no force or effort to keep you in his grasp) places a hand on you or an arm around you (not a violent attack), lethal force is not an option. The ordinary person’s reaction would be to step away or duck out of the arm-draping, not the production and use of a lethal weapon. But Hampe was not an “ordinary person.” His hands were in his pockets for a reason – he had a knife in one of them and so was oddly prepared to use it the moment Duncomb made contact with him. Oddly? Well, maybe not, if he were already stalking Duncomb and was preparing to use the knife on him anyway.
Hampe was also wearing a full-face protective mask. Although he probably thought that would help him fit in, as well as conceal his ID, wearing such protection in a situation when there is no tear gas from which the mask is meant to protect the wearer made him stand out like the proverbial sore thumb. Those things are hot, uncomfortable, and restrict your vision. People don’t wear them without a purpose. Hampe’s purpose in wearing it was obviously not protection against tear gas. Duncomb may not even be able to articulate why he detected Hampe, but the mask was probably a major “tell,” even if only subconsciously.
A person with a concealed firearm or other weapon doesn’t normally walk around with his hand on it, unless he’s expecting to use it. I walk around all day with both a knife and a concealed or openly-carried firearm, and my hands stay off both at all times in public. A person stalking another, while carrying a weapon with intent to use it is a person who walks near his target with his hand on his weapon.
If Duncomb detected an incipient attack, is he not allowed to actually use force to prevent it? I’d say Duncomb acted with restraint, and attempted to defuse the situation simply by taking control of it (in which he failed) with a casual approach and a disarming (no pun intended) manner. He should have walked up to the dude and knocked his lights out. Duncomb’s instincts were correct, his tactics were faulty. But either way, he ID’d Hampe correctly as a danger to his life and safety.
Let’s take in the totality of the circumstances and look at the other side of this coin.
You are in a hostile environment [a demonstration in Portland Ore, which have been characterized by violence]. Some one whom you do not know walks up behind you and clamps am arm around your neck. Are you going to assume that his intentions are peaceful? hardly. if i had been Hampe, I would have put Duncomb on the ground hard, using unarmed combat skills. The use of a deadly weapon was most probably NOT authorized given the level of force defending against.
No evidence exists that there was any imminent threat of attack on Duncomb. Hampe was walking away, when Duncomb walked up begind him and battered him. There was literally no legal justification for Duncomb placing his hands upon Hampe at all, under thee circumstances. And, if Duncomp suspected that Hampe was armed and possibly intended to do him harm, then the last thing that he should have done was to come up behind him and physically attack him, as he was walking away.
Sorry, it appears that Duncomb was the aggressor here, not Hampe and, though the level of forced used to defend himself was not specifically authorized under law, Hampe still had the legal right to use force to defend himself from an unlawful attack.
Like it or not this guy committed the first assault. He had no right to put hands on the other guy for following him. He greatly weakens the case for the stabbing and the antifa d-bag will likely be found not guilty in a Portland court, if it even makes it to trial.
Trayvon Martin was upset because George Zimmerman was following him. So he attacked Zimmerman and tried to kill him.
Duncomb doesn’t seem to have tried to kill Hampe, though Hampe says otherwise. But he did attack him. In that respect only, he is like Trayvon Martin. Had Martin merely put his arm around Zimmerman would it have been objectively reasonable for him to feel his life was in danger? Would deadly force in self-defense have been justified?
We don’t know what happened prior i.e. if anything was done or said that caused Duncomb to take this action.
As much as I want to believe this, it looks a bit contrived to me. Kind of like the “guy tries to steal my Trump sign, but it is electrified” video
What the hell was Duncomb thinking?
Duncomb was obviously didn’t anticipate a lethal force attack from his stalker (as I believe a lethal force attack was imminent) and probably didn’t consider that Hampe might be armed. But he did tag Hampe as a threat.
What he was thinking was that he could defuse the situation by letting Hampe know that he had been “made.” There are many self defense and personal security experts who advise the use of verbal tactics to either defuse a situation directly or to confuse an attacker (by unexpectedly switching roles on him – he suddenly finds himself the subject of attention). The same experts also teach that most attackers are looking for soft targets and victims who can be surprised. An aware victim is not a good target. Duncomb was letting Hampe know, “I’m on to you. Don’t try anything.”
I was once outside a bar with a friend and a drunk came up to my friend and started an argument with him. It looked like it might get physical. I noticed the drunk’s T-shirt, stepped up to him and asked, “Are you a friend of Gandalf?” (The wizard was depicted on the shirt – and this was decades before the movies.) He looked down at his shirt (taking his attention away from my friend) and then at me. “Yes, I am,” he replied. I put out my right hand, “Any friend of Gandalf’s is a friend of mine.” He shook my hand and the situation was completely defused. We talked Tolkien and LOTR for some time. Sometimes the tactic works.
The Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse? Older LI readers may remember Mark Hatfield. For those that don’t, just think of him as an Oregon version of John McCain. Like McCain, Hatfield was a Senator of meager intelligence, but tried to make up for it in mammoth ego. Hatfield was in the Doviet Union’s pocket and constantly advanced their interests by pushing the infamous nuclear freeze and the abandonment of Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War. Hatfield delighted in stabbing Republican presidents in the back, and even once hinted that Reagan should be removed using the 25th Amendment.
How ironic it is that Hatfield’s precious Communists are now trying to destroy the building that bears his name. There is a kind of rough justice in that.
the “journalist” is lucky he survived–attempting some school-yard, barroom chokehold on a stranger is pretty damned stupid–against someone trained in the use of edged weapons the ” journalist ” would have been deader than a hammer
The “journalist” was stupid. You do not engage with these people, and certainly not physically.
Looks like it was a peaceful stabbing assault to me.
Calling this a “stabbing assault” is still too harsh. Let’s wordsmith this a little more, shall we?
How about “a peaceful but pointed reply”?
Doesn’t look like they beat him enough