Liberal activist Shaun King (who fights to defund police) spends $40k in donations on “guard dog”


BRUNSWICK, NJ – Self-proclaimed activist for minority rights, Shaun King, is raising eyebrows again, this time for spending over $40,000 out of his PAC funds to purchase a guard dog. King claims that his family needs extra protection from alleged death threats against him and his family.

King, an activist with Black Lives Matter, has come under fire as of late due to his extremely large purchase of a dog.

While there would not be as many questions had he used his own money, there are many since he used donated funds to his PAC.

In an Instagram post, King wrote:

“I need you to know this so that you understand why our family not only needs a guard dog at home, but 24/7 security wherever we go…I’ve received death threats in the mail, in email, and across social media. I report it. Nothing happens.

A dozen white supremacists and police officers are in prison right now because of my work. Several have recently been released.”

While there are no specific examples given of the death threats he has received nor how he has somehow been responsible for people going to prison, he added:

“So know this, when you see reports about the money it costs to keep me and my family safe, it’s nowhere near enough. Not at all. Not even close.”

The controversy started when people learned that Grassroots Law, King’s PAC, paid a total of $40,650 in two different transactions to Potrero Performance Dogs in California.

Less than a week after the donated money was paid to Potrero Performance Dogs, King went to Facebook to welcome the newest member of his family.

The dog, a Mastiff named Marz, appears to have been given back to Potrero Performance dogs because he had allegedly too much energy for King’s family.

It is unclear if the donated funds for social justice have been refunded back to the PAC or if King was given another dog in place of Marz.

While King did not address having spent the thousands of donated money for his own use, he did take time on social media to threaten two New York Post reporters for allegedly posting his house online. King wrote:

“I know where you live. Where you used to live. Where your family lives. Where they work. And a few thousand other people know now as well. You posted my house online. And caused white supremacists to show up at my doorstep to terrify my wife and kids.

“I’m going to at least make it uncomfortable for you. You aren’t going to post about my personal life without consequence. You [expletive] that won’t leave me and my wife and kids alone…I’m about to return this pain back to you.”

King then posted a video on Instagram in which he alleges that he has been taking the high road up until now. Although there are thousands of people that would dispute that claim, King says that he is now:

“Finished with the high road, at least for now.”

He continued:

“Forty-two years of taking the high road has made it such that anybody, anywhere, can attack and spread dangerous information about my family without consequences.

Normally, I will defend myself and my own reputation, and I will continue to do that as I need to, but now, I am going to use the same strategies that have been used against me, against those that have caused us harm.

I am returning your strategies back to you.”

King’s ‘high road’ antics have certainly caused more harm than good, including at least one person who committed suicide after comments King made on social media.

The man, Robert Cantrell, was in custody on unrelated charges in Houston when King got fixated on him being responsible for the death of a 7-year-old black girl in 2018.

King took to social media to blast his booking photograph while calling him “racist.” Cantrell took his own life while in jail before the true killers were taken into custody, charged, and convicted for the murder of the little girl.

Portland woman charged with hate crime against cops after ‘hostile’ citizens try to stop DUI bust

PORTLAND, OR – What started out as a police investigation into a possible DUI-influenced auto accident has developed into so much more.

Officers responded to the scene of a rollover crash in North Portland to find a Nissan Altima resting on its roof.

There were three adults who had been in the vehicle when it wrecked. All three were able to get out of the car.

Police found a 5-year-old still strapped inside the car.

One of the adults, 27-year-old Dominique Gonzales, attempted to leave the scene. In an attempt to keep him at the scene while they investigated, authorities placed him under arrest. They say Gonzales physically resisted their efforts to place him in cuffs.

However, this was not a simple resisting arrest scenario. The other two adults who had been in the vehicle, 33-year-old Gregory Robinson and Sasha Lundy, 35, tried to intervene in the officer’s attempt to get Gonzales under control.

The noise and commotion caught the attention of other people in the vicinity. And that is when things got very dangerous and could have taken a tragic turn.

They began to surround the officers on the scene and disobeyed their commands to back away and allow the officers to work.

What started out as a vehicle accident was quickly turning into a potentially hostile environment.

That is one of the officers on the scene reached for his radio.

The Portland Police Bureau issued a press release that stated, in part:

“The hostile situation prompted a call for ‘code 3 cover,’ meaning officers need immediate assistance and additional officers should respond with emergency lights and sirens.”

The result of that code going out over the radio was that 16 officers were on the scene almost immediately.

The release also went on to identify officers attempted numerous de-escalation techniques, but those ultimately failed, at least with the original adults involved in the accident.

Police say that Lundy zeroed in on two female officers on scene and started “threatening to assault them because of her perception of their race and gender.”

These two officers continued to de-escalate by backing away from the woman and telling her that they had no desire to fight her. Undeterred, Lundy continued to advance toward them in a threatening manner. She was arrested for those continued threats.

As the investigation continued, it was substantiated that Lundy had been driving the car. It was determined that she struck a parked car after turning the corner, causing the vehicle to roll over. Both speed and alcohol were contributing factors.

All three adults were offered medical evaluation by paramedics but refused. Robinson and Gonzales were both arrested and handed criminal citations for interfering with peace officers.

It is worth noting that the 5-year-old child was uninjured and was released to another parent. It was unclear which of the three adults in the vehicle was related to the child.

“After consulting with Bias Crime Unit detectives, an officer served Lundy with a criminal citation for Bias Crime in the Second Degree, DUI-Alcohol, and Menacing,” the release read. 

So, what is a Bias crime?

According to the release, the Bureau investigates all reports of bias-motivated crimes and encourages any member of our community who is the victim of such a crime to contact law enforcement.

Under Oregon law, bias crimes are defined as any criminal act that targets a victim based on the suspect’s perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or national origin. Detectives work to determine whether or not bias elements are present during the reported crime that align with Oregon law as defined in the Oregon Revised Statutes.

In this case, Lundy was charged in with a second-degree bias crime, which is a Class A misdemeanor.

ORS 166.155.1 says:

“A person commits a bias crime in the second degree if the person:

  • Intentionally subjects another person to offensive physical contact because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or
  • Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin of another person or of a member of the other person’s family, subjects the other person to alarm by threatening:
    • To inflict serious physical injury upon or to commit a felony affecting the other person, or a member of the other person’s family.”

That state statute also notes that a 1984 Oregon court case created the precedent for it to be considered “constitutionally permissible to punish otherwise criminal conduct more severely when it is motivated by racial, ethnic or religious hatred than when it is motivated by individual animosity.”

While many debate the very idea of hate being punishable as criminal activity, it is quite surprising that of all the places in this country that would arrest someone for a hate (bias) crime over actions aimed at police officers, this came out of Portland, considered by some to be the heart of the defund and abolish movement.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts