March 30, 2026 by Barrington Hills Observer
“Horse kicks No Kings protester after he tries to block LAPD with his body—now some are calling for a lawsuit, saying LAPD shouldn’t be training horses to kick protesters
A protester steps directly in front of officers on horseback, attempting to stop them with his body.
Moments later, the horse kicks out, sending him to the ground.”
Find Facebook post here.
 | joefargo3767 on State vs. local property tax d… |
| joefargo3767 on The Pols Who Failed Sheridan G… |
 | timewilltell on Horse kicks No Kings protester… |
 | MamaBear on Editorial: Maria Pappas’ prope… |
 | G on Editorial: Maria Pappas’ prope… |
 | Timewilltell's hypoc… on THE MURDER OF SHERIDAN GORMAN… |
 | Sad Reality on THE MURDER OF SHERIDAN GORMAN… |
This is exactly the problem with this kind of reporting.
Across the country—including here in Barrington—“No Kings” rallies took place this weekend. They weren’t random chaos; they were organized civic gatherings focused on concerns about executive overreach, cost of living, immigration policy, and the role of Congress in doing its job.
But none of that context is here.
No explanation of why people showed up.
No perspectives from participants.
No attempt to present differing viewpoints.
Just a headline designed to mock and reduce the entire event to a single moment.
If you disagree with the rallies—fine. Say why.
If you support law enforcement—also fine. Explain it.
But skipping context and going straight to ridicule isn’t reporting. It’s commentary dressed up as news.
Clarity builds trust. This doesn’t.
Ummmm… who is the king you’re protesting? Hard to do anything other than mock the BS of this ‘protest’ until you protestors can identify what you are marching for. You’re clearly ok with an immigrant murdering an innocent college student, based on your other comment on the Sheridan Gorman post, so apparently that’s what you marched for? No thanks.
No one is “ok” with a murder. That’s a serious accusation—and completely off base.
A tragedy like this deserves accountability for the individual who committed the crime. That’s how our legal system works—we prosecute people, not entire groups.
Also, the idea that a civic rally about government power, cost of living, and policy accountability somehow equals support for violence… that’s a stretch.
You asked what people are marching for:
Accountability in government
Checks and balances (no one above the law)
Real solutions to issues like immigration—not political blame-shifting
If you want to debate immigration policy, that’s fair.
But equating disagreement with support for violence isn’t debate—it’s deflection.
Clarity builds trust. This doesn’t.