Tyranny at Lafayette Park

There was a small group that hung back and wrestled with the police officers trying to tear their shields from them. In one case, struggling to get one of the police officers guns and those people were subdued.

Yeah thats been the case ever since 24 hour news networks became a thing. 

Before that when news stations had 30 minutes tops to cover things, there would be maybe 3 stories tops that would get attention. They gave a general summary that was basic information about what happened, show some footage if they had it, moved on to the next story, commercials here and there, then the news is over..... Nowadays though with 24 hour news everything gets attention, and then everything gets sensationalized because that drives outrage/revenue/attention/more revenue, and regular facts get left behind. 

Ive constantly wondered how many problems would get solved if CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all just vanished at once..... At least 90% of the bullshit sensationalism would go with them, while the other 10% would be stuck on the internet where no major outlet has any outsized amount of clout or power over the medium...

Those actions do not define a peaceful protest. End of your case.

I'll closely analyze and scrutinize the video tomorrow (since it is now midnight), and if it turns out to truly be as you described, then I'll retract every point I made in this thread so far. 

It's like they filed a lawsuit just to go through the motions so people could donate and lawyers could get paid.

You and GP cited two incidents of "violence" in the protests. Are there any more?

Did you gloss over the part where he said “no tear gas was used”?

Did you gloss over the part where he said “no tear gas was used”?

It’s not lying lol. Saying pepper spray bullets are tear gas is misleading.

that's like if I said someone threw an apple at me and they said I was lying (because it was a pear). It is a semantic difference. Either way police fired eye irritants at peaceful protesters. The specific kind of eye irritant they used is besides the point. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt at lying. 

Tear gassing didn’t happen, pepper spray did. If a girl pepper sprays me and I go around saying I got tear gassed, that’s extremely misleading whether it’s semantically correct. 

But it’s besides the point. The protestors were warned and were being violent.

Funfact: My brother in law who is an attorney is representing the 82 year old man (victim) in this newsclip.

in both cases they fired an eye irritant at you. So saying "it didn't happen" is far more misleading than getting the exact substance used on you wrong. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt to deny the attack. Saying it was tear gas, as long as you had good reason to think it was tear gas (which the protesters did), then it isn't dishonest. It is a mistake. 

they were warned about a curfew, which had not come up yet. The soldiers were unleashed before curfew.

There is no evidence they were being violent. The police have provided no evidence of this, and reporters that were in the crowd at the time didn't see any violence. There have been tons of cases of cops lying about protesters to justify their violence against them. Without supporting evidence, there is no reason to believe the police.

Thanks for saying it’s a mistake and therefore wrong. Glad we agree.

There’s video evidence of protestors throwing stuff at cops, which gives them the full right to disperse the crowd.

no, the statement is true. they were attacked with an eye irritant. They didn't know the exact type of eye irritant they were being attacked with. 

where is this video? The videos I have seen are of a peaceful crowd being attacked by soldiers. Then a few minutes later trump wanders over the scene of the attack for a photo op.

The media is claiming they were tear gassed which is false.

It’s in this thread. Go take a look :)

Is he good?

but it isn't. They were attacked by an eye irritant. That is what tear gas is. Everyone knows what tear gas is. Just because the soldiers used a slightly different method to make their eyes tear does not make the statement false. 

by all means provide it. I don't know what video you mean.

Oh yah, although his specialty is winning 2ndA cases.

The SCOTUS case you were citing doesn't seem applicable to the facts here because here there is no license or permit etc. required to be protesting. (at least not that I'm aware of) That's what I was talking about.

I don’t think you understood my analogy. A Supreme Court case is broader than the scope of what was challenged in Court. That’s why Supreme Court precedents exist. And actually you do need a permit. Take a look at Section 1.6 in Title 36.

I also said that POTUS doesn't have the authority to make the laws. Whether it was Trump or Barr isn't really that significant to what I was saying. (and really, it isn't knowable due to the adminstration's low credibility, esp. after the bullshit about the use of tear gas) They are both executive branch officials, and I was talking about the separation of powers.

They didn’t make a law. They executed the law. The regulations made were present before both Trump and Barr. And there were smoke canisters and pepper bullets used after the protestors refused to move back. They weren’t there to stop the protesting. They were there to just move it back a block to protect a piece of federal property. 

But really, I don't believe him because I have seen no evidence to support what he is saying and I have seen evidence to suggest that what he is saying is false. His credibility is pretty low after the tear gas bullshit anyway.

Why not? The church was vandalized. Police have encountered water bottles being thrown at them. Federal law requires a permit to be able to protest which they didn’t get. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 should help you. It’s one thing if the permit was rejected, but they never asked for a permit in the first place...

You don’t believe Barr, because you don’t want to. You want to believe Trump tear gassed protestors for a photo op, when the order was given long before. If conservatives were doing the same thing, I would support Barack Obama doing the same thing. It’s the job of the President to enforce the law.

Wtf are you even saying lol. Tear gas and pepper spray aren’t the same things. Just answer this question with a yes or a no. If a girl pepper sprays me in the eyes, can I say I’ve been tear gassed?

Why are you so lazy dude. Post 130. And it’s not from a different day. It’s from June 1st, 2020.

Why are liberals so lazy and take the words of the news as gospel?

There is a small detail that is off. But the underlying statement is accurate. they used an aerosolized spray to make you tear up. It;s like saying "i got hit by a drunk driver driving a ford truck" when it was actually a chevy. The important points are the drunk driver in the truck. The exact model of the truck is not the critical point. Trying to say they are lying when the underling point is accurate is an attempt at deception. A stupid one at that. 

But you are kidding right? One person through one water bottle, which landed nowhere near the police. The crowd immediately yelled at them to stop throwing things. The police attacked about 8 minutes later. All I see is a peaceful crowd being attacked. What exactly is in this video that is supposed to convince me that they were violent and a threat to anyone or anything?