-->
@PressF4Respect
there was
Tyranny at Lafayette Park
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Dr.Franklin
All I claimed was that according to reports, there was no warning. You asked me to give you those reports. I did. So what else do I have to do?there was
There was what? What are you trying to say here?
-->
@PressF4Respect
That was the biggest dump of malarkey. If a protest does not accomplish anything, just what is a valid reason for it? Because you can? Sorry, that's an ethical faux pas
Sourcing: if you cannot prove the reporting, why do you still insist it was Barr who lied? Yu have two options. You bias is driving your decision. Is it always right?
Why do you insist on demanding that I prove your point. My point is that I was not there. Get it?
I didn't give the contradictory sources. You did. You find them. I don't do your homework. I'm not your tutor.
-->
@PressF4Respect
lafayette park protestors were all rioters
-->
@fauxlaw
That was the biggest dump of malarkey. If a protest does not accomplish anything, just what is a valid reason for it? Because you can? Sorry, that's an ethical faux pas
If a protest doesn't manage to accomplish anything, then it's unsuccessful. How does a protest being unsuccessful make it invalid?
Sourcing: if you cannot prove the reporting, why do you still insist it was Barr who lied? Yu have two options. You bias is driving your decision. Is it always right?
There are two sources identified in this thread pertaining to this issue so far: the media; and Bill Barr, the authority who is trying to defend himself, and thus would try to paint the rosiest picture possible.
I don't want to have to repeat myself over and over again.
Why do you insist on demanding that I prove your point. My point is that I was not there. Get it?
Which one of the points from my previous post are you even referring to?
I didn't give the contradictory sources. You did. You find them. I don't do your homework. I'm not your tutor.
Which one of the points from my previous post are you even referring to?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lafayette park protestors were all rioters
They were all rioters? I watched the video, and the vast, VAST majority weren't rioters. The only "rioters" there were on that day were one/a few people throwing bottles.
-->
@PressF4Respect
so if you are peaceful, GET OUT
-->
@PressF4Respect
However, hanging an effigy AND displaying firearms is a crime.
I would love to see evidence that shows you can’t exercise your first and second amendment at the same time.
The protesters were obviously displaying firearms. That’s a fact. The effigy, along with other signs and symbols present, also show that they were doing so with the intent to cause fear in another person (namely, Whitmer and her staff). None of the exceptions apply, as they weren’t carrying the guns in self-defence. Therefore, they can be charged with Brandishing a Firearm in Public.
I don’t think you realize what brandishing is. Lemme ask you this. Is open carry brandishing? Because we know that open carry is legal in Michigan. Fear doesn’t indicate illegality. My mom is afraid of guns, but it’s not illegal for me to carry a firearm in my house even though we live together is it? Obviously burning an effigy causes fear; however it’s protected under the first amendment. Exercising two amendments at once is not illegal. Oh and btw open carry was designed for self defense. So yes, they were carrying them in self defense. That’s the whole point lmao.
Not like it hasn't happened before.
Lol, this isn’t “protesting” outside lmao. Stop moving the goal posts.
You clearly didn't get the point of my hypothetical.
Hypotheticals don’t aid your argument. Give me facts, not opinions.
Again, the protesters at the 6 PM demonstration didn't loot, burn, and destroy property.
They sure did the night before. You still haven’t answered one vital question. If there’s evidence that the protest can escalate into a full on riot and cause public destruction, why shouldn’t federal property be protected? And don’t tell me there wasn’t evidence. People were throwing bottles, just like the night before. No one was stopping them cause there were a lot of bottles on the ground. It’s a simple question. If people in the crowd are throwing stuff at cops, should the cops have a the right to disperse them. Logic says yes. I’ve given ways to avoid “bad actors” from doing: by handing them over to the police. Oh wait, police are bad
Yes, you have. You only responded to one of my points, meaning that you dropped the others.
Laughable. I’ve shown you federal statues that show permit use in the case of danger of public safety to hold the people legally accountable. You choose to ignore it. I’ve shown you examples of violence in the crowd with no ramifications from “peaceful protestors.” Throwing stuff at police is illegal and if there are no active efforts to stop it, police have the right to disperse the crowd even if a majority of them are peaceful whether you like it or not.
Again, how do you know there wasn't an attempt made? Oh yeah, this is one of the points you dropped.
Hmm, maybe you should reread what I wrote. Why wasn’t the person who threw the bottle brought forward. Why didn’t the protestors ask for the cops to arrest the dude? I didn’t hear it did you? Burden of proof is on you to prove that they were peaceful. I’ve shown they were throwing stuff at cops and no one was doing anything about it. Compare that to conservatives please.
-->
@fauxlaw
I can’t believe people are claiming that you can’t exercise two rights at the same time 🤦♂️
-->
@ILikePie5
I would love to see evidence that shows you can’t exercise your first and second amendment at the same time.
Did you even read the law that I cited?
I don’t think you realize what brandishing is. Lemme ask you this. Is open carry brandishing? Because we know that open carry is legal in Michigan. Fear doesn’t indicate illegality. My mom is afraid of guns, but it’s not illegal for me to carry a firearm in my house even though we live together is it? Obviously burning an effigy causes fear; however it’s protected under the first amendment. Exercising two amendments at once is not illegal.
Read how "brandishing" is defined again.
Oh and btw open carry was designed for self defense. So yes, they were carrying them in self defense. That’s the whole point lmao.
Open carry can also be used as a threat, which counts as inciting fear.
Lol, this isn’t “protesting” outside lmao. Stop moving the goal posts.
The point I’m trying to make is that Trump called to be evacuated as soon as there was a hint that someone in the general vicinity was armed. You’re the one moving goalposts, bud. Not me.
Hypotheticals don’t aid your argument.
I don't think you fully understand what hypotheticals are used for.
Give me facts, not opinions.
Video above.
They sure did the night before.
How do you know that those protesters were the same ones that attended the riot the previous night?
I've repeated this point like 10 times already. I don't feel like repeating it again.
You still haven’t answered one vital question. If there’s evidence that the protest can escalate into a full on riot and cause public destruction, why shouldn’t federal property be protected?
And don’t tell me there wasn’t evidence. People were throwing bottles, just like the night before.
What percentage of people threw bottles in the 6 PM protest, as opposed to the one last night? Just a few people, very possibly saboteurs, as I have stated many times already.
Let me ask you this: If you were the organizer of a protest, and you are cognizant of a group who wants to turn it violent no matter what, what would you do?
No one was stopping them cause there were a lot of bottles on the ground.
How many is "a lot"?
It’s a simple question. If people in the crowd are throwing stuff at cops, should the cops have a the right to disperse them. Logic says yes.
If you believe that military police are justified in firing tear gas and rubber bullets into a mass of protesters just because one of them commits a provocative action (which seems to be the case), then you are effectively granting saboteurs (such as the Boogaloos in Las Vegas) a heckler’s veto on every single protest.
I’ve given ways to avoid “bad actors” from doing: by handing them over to the police. Oh wait, police are bad
How do you know there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice? How do you know, for a fact, that they didn't try to apprehend the provocateur, and that they were just unsuccessful in doing so? You obviously can't bring forward the offender to police if you don't have them in your grasp.
I've repeated this point like 10 times already. I don't feel like repeating myself again.
Laughable. I’ve shown you federal statues that show permit use in the case of danger of public safety to hold the people legally accountable. You choose to ignore it. I’ve shown you examples of violence in the crowd with no ramifications from “peaceful protestors.” Throwing stuff at police is illegal and if there are no active efforts to stop it, police have the right to disperse the crowd even if a majority of them are peaceful whether you like it or not.
How do you know there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice? How do you know, for a fact, that they didn't try to apprehend the provocateur, and that they were just unsuccessful in doing so? You obviously can't bring forward the offender to police if you don't have them in your grasp.
I've repeated this point like 11 times already. I don't feel like repeating myself again.
Hmm, maybe you should reread what I wrote. Why wasn’t the person who threw the bottle brought forward. Why didn’t the protestors ask for the cops to arrest the dude?
How do you know there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice? How do you know, for a fact, that they didn't try to apprehend the provocateur, and that they were just unsuccessful in doing so? You obviously can't bring forward the offender to police if you don't have them in your grasp.
I've repeated this point like 12 times already. I don't feel like repeating myself again.
Why didn’t the protestors ask for the cops to arrest the dude?
How do you know there weren't voices from 30 feet back? Can a microphone pick up a sound from 30 feet away when there are so many in its immediate surroundings?
I’ve shown they were throwing stuff at cops and no one was doing anything about it.
How do you know there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice? How do you know, for a fact, that they didn't try to apprehend the provocateur, and that they were just unsuccessful in doing so? You obviously can't bring forward the offender to police if you don't have them in your grasp.
I've repeated this point like 13 times already. I don't feel like repeating myself again.
Compare that to conservatives please.
I have.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Did you even read the law that I cited?
You’re claiming open carry is illegal. It isn’t. Brandishing and open carry are not the same thing?
Read how "brandishing" is defined again.
Open carry isn’t brandishing.
Open carry can also be used as a threat, which counts as inciting fear.
That’s the whole point of open carry. So people are afraid to shoot you. Oh and you still haven’t showed where it says it’s illegal to exercise two rights at once. Still waiting.
The point I’m trying to make is that Trump called to be evacuated as soon as there was a hint that someone in the general vicinity was armed. You’re the one moving goalposts, bud. Not me.
He didn’t call for anything. His security took him away because they saw a threat considering the dude was right in front of him in the crowd. You talked about a protestor outside. General vicinity isn’t “protest outside.” The rallies are firearm free, because it’s a private event. It’s illegal to bring a firearm in there. It’s legal to carry a firearm outside of the place along the sidewalk while protesting. Seriously dude, learn about the laws in the U.S..
I don't think you fully understand what hypotheticals are used for.
Ya I can come up with any scenario in a wonderland too. How about we ditch the hypotheticals and talk facts.
How do you know that those protesters were the same ones that attended the riot the previous night?I've repeated this point like 10 times already. I don't feel like repeating it again.
A.) Riots last night started the same way, said it a million times.
B.) I don’t need to prove that the people were the same, just that a risk to federal property exists. Ever heard of probable cause, especially considering history tends to repeat itself?
What percentage of people threw bottles in the 6 PM protest, as opposed to the one last night? Just a few people, very possibly saboteurs, as I have stated many times already.
Irrelevant. A public safety risk exists as soon as one bottle is thrown because one can lead to a ten and so on. I’ve stated how to deal with saboteurs and bad actors.
Let me ask you this: If you were the organizer of a protest, and you are cognizant of a group who wants to turn it violent no matter what, what would you do?
Stop them and call the authorities. Oh wait, they hate the cops.
How many is "a lot"?
Take a look at the ground and count or do you need me to do that for you. I counted at least 10.
If you believe that military police are justified in firing tear gas and rubber bullets into a mass of protesters just because one of them commits a provocative action (which seems to be the case), then you are effectively granting saboteurs (such as the Boogaloos in Las Vegas) a heckler’s veto on every single protest.
Strawman. Actions of the past affect that of the future. If there are saboteurs they should be identified and handed over to the authorities. If there is no such threat like the past then the cops shouldn’t be firing the tear gas, which is exactly what happened on May 31st. But on June 1st there was belief that the riot could get violent because of the projectiles and the method because of the previous night.
How do you know there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice? How do you know, for a fact, that they didn't try to apprehend the provocateur, and that they were just unsuccessful in doing so? You obviously can't bring forward the offender to police if you don't have them in your grasp.
A.) They didn’t bring them forward
B.) They were protesting police brutality so why would they hand them over to police? Sounds counterproductive.
C.) If they were unsuccessful, they should’ve used their brains and backed up when the police told them to.
D.) Burden of proof is on you to prove that they did try to bring them to the cops. Just one. Show me one instance where people tried to bring the culprits to the cops.
How do you know there weren't voices from 30 feet back? Can a microphone pick up a sound from 30 feet away when there are so many in its immediate surroundings?
Burden of proof is on you homie. I don’t know how many times I have to say this. I don’t have to prove an action didn’t happen. It’s your job to prove it did happen.
I have.
Were conservatives burning, looting, and vandalising like the George Floyd riots throughout the nation. How many people died in the conservative protests compared to the George Flynn riots? You saying conservative protests were more violent than George Floyd ones is an absolute disgrace and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this fake news.
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you have to ask, you're not even understanding what it means to prematurely efactulate. Figure it out.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yeah. And just as your argument that Barr is trying to show his best face, if that's what it was, the media, which happens to favor these protests, is typically going to avoid showing the darker side of protest. Trying to show the best face, yeah? Face it; everybody does it, and it usually does not reflect the total reality. Grow up.
-->
@fauxlaw
have you seen the latest and greatest fake news video edit?
Man drives car into Seattle protesters, shoots bystander
but if you watch the whole video of the "bystander" who is trying to pull him out of the car much further up the street, the whole narrative seems to change, they must be so depressed it wasn't a white guy, pretty sure hispanic, otherwise the titles would have read white man drives car into protesters blah blah blah.
but his plays into the hand of cops bad, President bad, military bad and so on. The leftist doesn't care about the truth or bothers to look for it.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Shakespeare said it best about the radical left-wing MSM.
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
If two wrongs don't make a right, it follows that two rights don't make a wrong.
-->
@ILikePie5
@fauxlaw
You saying conservative protests were more violent than George Floyd ones is an absolute disgrace and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this fake news.
Grow up.
I can see that the collective vibes of our discourse have noticeably deteriorated, and our conversations have become less than cordial. We can continue this dialogue if you want, but if our discourse is just going to degenerate into shouting matches, then I'll have to pull the plug here.
-->
@PressF4Respect
I concur. Degeneration accomplishes nothing. I agree to stop conversing on this subject. We agree to disagree.
-->
@fauxlaw
You and I have disagreements on this subject, and I fully accept that. I thank you for the conversation we had and agree to end it here.
-->
@PressF4Respect
It’s fake news buddy. Plain and simple. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help. I will end this conservation.
-->
@ILikePie5
I acknowledge our differences on this subject, and I respect your decision to end this conversation. I will likewise respectfully end our conversation here as well. Thank you for the conversation we had.
361 days later
U.S. Park Police did not clear Lafayette Park and the nearby area of protesters on June 1, 2020, so President Donald Trump could walk from the White House over to St. John’s Church
More fake news a year later. As usual.
-->
@ILikePie5
More fake news a year later. As usual.
You don't need facts to be an attention whore for the orangemanbad crowd. All you need to do is carry a pitchfork and hide in the mob.