This post is about truth, civility, integrity, and the future of our community. Whether you support State Representative Angela Rigas or oppose her, I invite you to consider the facts and the values at stake.
According to a post by Angela Rigas on her government-official Facebook page, protestors came to her house on Saturday morning, October 25. Photographs that she posted show around 25 people standing in the street. Photographs also show that three individuals walked up the sidewalk to her front door. Apparently she chose not to answer the door. And then she chose to make an inflammatory post to her Facebook page.
Here I want to address three topics:
Part 1: Did the protestors break the law?
Part 2: Angela Rigas’s rhetoric and its consequences
Part 3: What integrity in leadership looks like
By way of introduction, here is the text of Angela’s post:
Today, far left extremist protestors unlawfully trespassed on my property in an attempt to intimidate and harass me for co-sponsoring a package of bills aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration. When extremists don’t get their way, this is the kind of abhorrent behavior they resort to, and I will NOT cave to their insane demands. I will ALWAYS prioritize the safety of American citizens over dangerous illegal criminals!
A police report has been filed and all Ring recordings have been turned in to the Kent County Sheriff’s Department.
PART 1: DID THE PROTESTORS BREAK THE LAW?
Were the protestors guilty of criminal trespass?
Angela says that these people “unlawfully trespassed” on her property.
Here’s the pertinent statute:
MCL 750.552(1), Michigan Penal Code (Act 328 of 1931)
Trespass upon lands or premises of anotherExcept as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden to do so by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
Had Angela, prior to Saturday morning, forbidden these people to cross her front yard to knock at her door? Once they were there, did she order them to leave, and did they refuse? In her post, she did not allege either of these things, so it seems that her accusation of “unlawful trespass” may be baseless. Walking up to someone’s door to knock (without being previously forbidden) is generally considered an “implied license” in law. Delivery persons, salespeople, and political canvassers do this regularly. It’s not trespassing.
Was protesting in front of Angela Rigas’s house illegal?
I don’t think so, but it’s not entirely clear. Here’s a section of Michigan Compiled Law that might be pertinent:
MCL 423.9f (Act 176 of 1939)
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION (EXCERPT)
423.9f Mass picketing; threats or force, picketing private residence, misdemeanor.It shall be unlawful (1) for any person or persons to hinder or prevent by masspicketing, unlawful threats or force the pursuit of any lawful work or employment, (2) to obstruct or interfere with entrance to or egress from any place of employment, (3) to obstruct or interfere with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel or conveyance, or (4) to engage in picketing a private residence by any means or methods whatever: Provided, That picketing, to the extent that the same is authorized under constitutional provisions, shall in no manner be prohibited. Violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as such.
History: Add. 1947, Act 318, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;– CL 1948, 423.9f ;– Am. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949
This statute, while rooted in labor law, has been interpreted to apply to residential protest. But its constitutional carve-out reminds us that peaceful political expression—even when uncomfortable—is not automatically unlawful.
In this case, it seems that 1, 2, and 3 do not apply. These protestors were not hindering anyone’s work, or interfering with entrance or egress from a workplace, or stopping traffic on the street. Nor were they using unlawful threats or force, or hindering anyone from coming or going. But perhaps 4 applies? Clearly they were in front of Angela’s private residence. Were they “picketing”? I’m not sure. Maybe just standing around with signs could be interpreted as picketing. But note the provision that picketing that is authorized under constitutional provisions—here we are surely to think of provisions in the US and Michigan constitutions guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech/expression—is by no means to be prohibited.
Were the protestors engaged in intimidation or harassment?
Angela says that the protestors were attempting to “harass and intimidate” her. Were they? I know from personal experience that Angela is quick to label any criticism as “harassment.” But I don’t see in her photos, and she does not detail in words, any harassment or intimidation. Two of the photos from Angela’s doorbell camera do depict behavior that I reject. One photo shows one of the women who came to the door raising her middle finger behind her after she has turned to walk back out to the street. This is an uncivil gesture. To me it seems rude but not intimidating or threatening.
Another photo shows one of the protesters dressed all in black, including a full black facemask. I could understand seeing that as an attempt to intimidate. It could also, however, be a parody of the masked ICE agents whom the protestors are asking Angela to denounce, and whom they think she wishes to further empower.
The claim of harassment and intimidation is not supported by the photo of the twenty-five people standing out in the street with signs. Nothing about them suggests any violence or threat of violence.
PART 2: ANGELA RIGAS’S RHETORIC AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Does Angela’s post slander the protestors?
This is a question that Angela herself does not raise, of course. But I am raising it. First of all, she characterizes them as “far left extremists,” which I take to be a term of abuse. I do not personally know any of the people in the photographs, and I do not recognize any of the names on the signed poster; but I know numerous Caledonians who are critics of Angela and opponents of the MAGA agenda that she represents, and none of them are far-left extremists. Some are Democrats, some Republicans, some independents. They are politically moderate, religiously mostly Christian, and in general just ordinary Michigan people. But Angela seems to be in the habit not only of interpreting all criticism of herself as harassment but also of labeling all critics of herself as far-left extremists. This probably doesn’t qualify as slander in a technical legal sense, but I regard it as slander in a moral sense.
More seriously, accusing these people of trespassing, and posting their names and photographs on her public-official Facebook page, may well constitute slander. She makes an apparently false accusation with defamatory impact.
What was Angela hoping to accomplish with her post?
And she apparently intends to stir up anger against them. This is in line with Angela’s own behavior on many other occasions, and with MAGA strategy in general: stirring up anger, resentment, and fear is standard operating procedure. If you read the comments on her Facebook post, you will see comments like the following:
- “Call them out, name by name. Hit hard, hit often.” [No reply from Angela discouraging this pugilistic way of responding to critics.]
- “Should you need security I would be more than happy to stand outside of your home and protect you and your family. We need to stand up to these terrorist. Ps, Antifa is a terrorist organization and the hell with the woke movement.” [Note that this comment labels the protestors as terrorists.]
- “Should’ve rubber balled every one of them and had that car towed too.” [This comment says it would have been appropriate to shoot the protestors with rubber bullets.]
- “Cameras let the police handle it dont let them provoke you stay cocked and locked.” [This comment suggests that Angela should be prepared to shoot the protestors.]
- “Should have walked out strapped! Or with an AR in hand!” [This comment suggests that Angela should have threatened the protestors with firearms.]
- “Just another day of their whining and attention seeking. Little tear gas will work…” [This comment suggests that the protestors should have been tear-gassed.]
- “I would be getting me a gun.” [Again, a comment suggesting that introducing lethal weaponry is the appropriate response to nonviolent political protest.]
- “OMG! I hope that they were all arrested and face federal charges.” [This comment suggests that people who protest against Angela should be arrested by federal agents.]
- “The terrorists should be treated accordingly.” [Again, a comment labeling the protestors as terrorists. Since we know how our government treats terrorists, this statement seems to be a lightly veiled suggestion that the protestors should be imprisoned, tortured, or killed.]
- “Do you have a 308?” [This comment asks Angela whether she has a high-powered rifle appropriate for military or police sharpshooting, implying that she should be prepared to shoot and kill the protestors.] In this case—her only reply as of this writing—Angela said: “I’m not saying what I have.” [Anyone who has followed Angela at all knows that she has guns. Here, rather than tell her commenter that a peaceful political protest does not call for threats of violence, she wants to make sure everyone know she has guns. We already know, Angela. Everyone knows.]
- “This kind of Marxist behavior only fuels your fire, Angela, I know it. Praying for you and your family – for protection and wisdom and resolve to STAND as you deal with these brownshirts.” [This commenter is not sure whether to call the protestors Marxists (left-wing) or Nazis (right-wing), so she calls them both, making clear that her intent is not to describe them accurately but to express her hatred of them.]
- “If any leftists did this where my parents live in TN, they’d be liable to get shot, no joke. My parents are in hillbilly territory, and these people would be shot.” [Again: shooting protestors.]
- “Terror. Time to handle it or else the conservative citizens will.” [This comment describes the protestors as terrorists and suggests a vigilante response.]
Many of the other replies to Angela’s posts are more moderate, some positively virtuous—for example, promising to pray for her and her family. But the ones that I have listed here express scorn and hatred of Angela’s critics and freely imagine the use of lethal violence against them. And Angela—though we know she has read these comments, because she replied to one of them—does not step back in to rebuke these sentiments. Why not? A true political leader would do so. But Angela does not. I think it’s because these statements express her own attitudes, and she wrote her post with the intention of stirring up precisely these sorts of reactions. (If you want to know why I think so, it’s because she has a record: see my posts on a couple of little speeches that Angela made in Caledonia school board meetings: What Angela Rigas said at the school board meeting and Always Running: sex, integrity, and Caledonia Community Schools.)
PART 3: WHAT INTEGRITY IN LEADERSHIP LOOKS LIKE
What standing does Angela have to denounce anyone for participating in a protest?
After calling the protestors bad names and accusing them of crimes they apparently didn’t commit, Angela generalizes thus: “When extremists don’t get their way, this is the kind of abhorrent behavior they resort to.” But what I see in the photos—people standing with signs, or ringing a doorbell—hardly seems to constitute “abhorrent behavior.” I have already said that I don’t approve of the finger gesture. But that’s a mild offense.
Angela, after all, traveled to Washington DC in January 2021 for the demonstration at the US Capitol that turned into a violent riot involving the battering of police officers, the destruction of public property. If Angela is opposed to attempts to intimidate legislators, why has she never condemned, and why did she attend, that blatant attempt to intimidate the vice president of the US and the whole US Congress and to overthrow a valid election? Why did she post a video of herself en route to DC brandishing her Michigan-illegal collapsible baton, saying that she was taking it along in case she had to “kick some ass”? Angela told me later that she left the baton in her hotel room on January 6, and that she did not enter the Capitol building. I’m content to believe her on both counts. But in light of her apparent approval of the January 6 insurrection, and her failure to issue any public condemnation of the president who instigated it and then four years later pardoned all those convicted and sentenced for attacking police officers and destroying public property, I cannot receive her shrill complaints about a couple dozen peaceful protestors in the street outside her house on a sunny Saturday as anything other than rank hypocrisy. Which, again, is in line with her hypocritical self-presentation as a zealous protector of public sexual morals (see Always Running: sex, integrity, and Caledonia Community Schools).
What should we expect from our elected representatives?
I’ll conclude with two suggested action items for Angela, and then a couple of suggestions for all of us.
First, learn to respect and engage your critics. Especially when they are also your constituents—the people you are supposed to represent and serve. When Justin Amash (a Libertarian Republican) was representing this district in Congress, he was famous for showing up everywhere and accepting and replying to criticism from anyone and everyone. The member of Congress for Caledonia today, John Moolenaar (like Angela, a MAGA Republican) hides from his constituents and constantly posts MAGA talking points to his social media accounts. I would encourage Angela to be more like Amash and less like Moolenaar. If she believes she has better ideas than her critics, she should engage them in conversation. Personally, I don’t like the idea of protestors going to anyone’s house and do not blame Angela for not opening the door and inviting a two or three of them in to talk; but I would admire a politician who did that. What I do not admire is the name-calling, the characterization of all criticism as harassment, and the incitement of hatred among her followers.
Which leads to my second suggested action item for Angela: unless you think it is appropriate to respond to criticism and peaceful protest with weaponry and violence, speak to your followers. When they make comments like the ones cited above, tell them you appreciate their support but you want them to channel their energies more constructively. Tell them you want them to work for a society in which people who disagree respect each other and listen to each other rather than call each other hateful names and threaten to shoot each other.
There’s my statement of what I expect from our elected representatives. It’s pretty minimal. A low bar. But it’s more than we’re getting from Angela Rigas. I hope she can do better. I hope we can all do better.
One way we can do better—this is my strong suggestion to my fellow critics of Angela Rigas—is this: don’t go to the private homes of public figures to protest their public actions. Seek them out in public places at the proper times: their offices or their public appearances. If you want a conversation, ask for an appointment. It may not be illegal for you to go to their house and knock on their door. But don’t do it. OK? Just don’t do it. Certainly not without phoning or texting first, and not with a crowd.
Amid all the ugliness of this moment in our life together in this nation, it seems to me there’s nowhere to go but up.
Verba Sparsa 