Judge Gives Kyle Chapman ‘Based Stickman’ Five Years’ Probation
Kyle Chapman, or “Based Stickman” to some, left court Wednesday with five years’ probation for his role in the violent “March 4 Trump” rally in 2017.
To recap, the pro-Trump rally at Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center park held on March 4, 2017 was met with opposition from anti-Trump counter-protesters. The result was a bloody battle that took place before the official event was scheduled to get going. Ten people were arrested and several were injured.
Although the pro-Trump crowd often claims they do not incite or resort to violence, largely pinning aggression on Antifa and other anti-Trump activists, the judge in Chapman’s case affirmed that at least some of the blame falls square on individuals and groups who lean very far to the right. Chapman, of Daly City, founded the militant Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, described as a “tactical defense arm” of the khaki-wearing Proud Boys.
The judge in Wednesday’s sentencing surprised the defendant when he tacked two additional years’ probation onto what Chapman expected when he pleaded no contest to felony possession of a leaded cane on Aug. 7. When Chapman questioned the longer sentence, Judge Mark McCannon invited him to try his luck in jury trial. Based Stickman declined to push the issue.
Based on the the police report McCannon reviewed, which described some of Chapman’s assaulting behavior that day, McCannon could not justify just three years of probation. The report cited several altercations Chapman engaged in while “swinging what appeared to be a wooden stick at many people.” In another incident witnessed by police during the chaos, Chapman sprayed what appeared to be pepper spray into an opposing crowd. His prior convictions for two separate grand theft charges aided the judge’s assessment of Chapman’s character.
The judge said:
“You were armed to the teeth during the protest…and the next thing you know it was a melee.”
Groups Chapman pals around with claim their primary goal is to defend First Amendment rights. It seems the judge questioned the need for a helmet, pepper spray and weapons if the intentions were really that innocent.