Tyranny at Lafayette Park

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Total: 353
#211
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I think everything you are saying about these water bottles is irrelevant. I have personally suffered a concussion from a 20 oz mug.
were you wearing riot gear? I kinda doubt it. Also, presumably that mug hit you. There is no evidence any police officer was hit by anything, let alone injured. 

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I know that the right to protest is a constitutionally protected right. If the federal government wants to attack protesters, they better have a MUCH better reason than something that couldn't have injured them landed near a cop, so they decided to shoot people. 
#212
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
you need to tell me what your point is. You can't expect people to go out and do your research for you. I have already pointed out that case is not relevant as it is unrelated. If you disagree tell me why. Don't expect me to do your research for you. 
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 have nothing to do with the court case lol. They come from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Go read it.

wow, freedom really means nothing to you does it? you will sit there and clap as the soldiers stomp on the constitution. as long as they can come up with the tiniest pretext of something that kinda, sorta, maybe was a threat (even though it couldn't possibly have hurt them) then you fully support crushing protesters.
It’s not “freedom” to throw an object at a police officer during a peaceful protest. I would be saying the same even if Barack Obama was in the White House. Protesting is not an excuse for throwing stuff at cops.
#213
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
wow, freedom really means nothing to you does it? you will sit there and clap as the soldiers stomp on the constitution.

There were plenty of people pissed at Lincoln for ripping up the constitution, but he was posthumously forgiven of all his transgressions because of the unarguable point that the constitution isn't worth the paper it is on without the rule of law to enforce it, which means eliminating anarchy by any means possible, even if you have to kill 600,000 Americans.
#214
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There were plenty of people pissed at Lincoln for ripping up the constitution, but he was posthumously forgiven of all his transgressions because of the unarguable point that the constitution isn't worth the paper it is on without the rule of law to enforce it, which means eliminating anarchy by any means possible, even if you have to kill 600,000 Americans.
and a group of peaceful protesters (with one water bottle that hit no one) is anarchy to you? that is worth ripping up the constitution and killing american citizens? 

#215
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
were you wearing riot gear? I kinda doubt it. Also, presumably that mug hit you. There is no evidence any police officer was hit by anything, let alone injured. 

I tell you what. put on a helmet and get hit with a full force 20 ounce mug. You may or may not get a concussion but you also might get a neck vertebrae snapped out of place.

There were peaceful protesters out there being hit with the water bottles and luckily the ones I saw on the video it only painfully hit the torso, but there may have been plenty of head impacts caught off-camera. Why do you talk about violence like it's some Hollywood movie you watched yesterday?

I used to work at a lumber sawmill and wore an OSHA hardhat, and I can tell you it did NOT make you immune to impacts, especially sudden heavy ones.
#216
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 have nothing to do with the court case lol. They come from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Go read it.
make your point or don't. I'm not doing your research for you. If you are incapable of doing so I will simply assume you had no point. 

It’s not “freedom” to throw an object at a police officer during a peaceful protest. I would be saying the same even if Barack Obama was in the White House. Protesting is not an excuse for throwing stuff at cops.
agreed. That guy should have consequences. But one act (which harmed no one and couldn't have possibly harmed a cop anyway) is in no way a justification for shooting people. Police are supposed to use a proportionate response. They can't just shoot a guy for throwing a water bottle. In any other context, if someone shot a guy for throwing a water bottle he would be arrested. 

no one was in any danger. They weren't rioting and destroying property. They were peacefully protesting. And trump decided to have them shot for a photo op. that is what dictators do. 
#217
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
no one was in any danger.

I wish we lived in a world where we could tie you to a pole in front of a police line and you could experience the violence first hand for educational purposes.
#218
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There were peaceful protesters out there being hit with the water bottles and luckily the ones I saw on the video it only painfully hit the torso, but there may have been plenty of head impacts caught off-camera.
the only times I saw protesters hit by the bottles when when the soldiers had already started their illegal attack on peaceful people. At which point they were attempting to defend themselves against a hostile force. 

Why do you talk about violence like it's some Hollywood movie you watched yesterday?
I don't. You appear to though. Bad Hollywood movies where cops beat down hippies for looking at them wrong. This isn't the movies. This is the real world with real world consequences. When the police opened fire on that crowd they hurt alot of people. many, many times more than would possibly have been hurt in that peaceful protest. 
#219
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
make your point or don't. I'm not doing your research for you. If you are incapable of doing so I will simply assume you had no point. 

Read the freakin codes. I don’t need to spoon feed you anything.

agreed. That guy should have consequences. But one act (which harmed no one and couldn't have possibly harmed a cop anyway) is in no way a justification for shooting people. Police are supposed to use a proportionate response. They can't just shoot a guy for throwing a water bottle. In any other context, if someone shot a guy for throwing a water bottle he would be arrested.
How tf do you expect police to go and arrest the dude? How do the police know there aren’t more? How do the police know that the liquid in it wasn’t harmful. If protestors were so peaceful, they would handover the dude to the cops. They didn’t do that. 

Police shot pepper spray bullets and smoke canisters that are not lethal. Plus the decision to move back the protestors was done in the morning after the burning and vandalism of the church the previous night by Bill Barr. But ya keep blaming it on Trump for trying to protect a church that has such a long history. 
#220
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Only one bottle seen on video thrown at a cop. What about the other 10 that are already on the ground? How’d they get there? Ik, Thanos used the Space Stone to magically place them there. They definitely weren’t thrown.
#221
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
lol it is adorable that you think that it is my job to help you provide a coherent argument and back it up. Somehow I am the lazy one when you refused over and over to actually make an argument or provide evidence. 

Ok, here is what 1.5 says:
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determinationthat such action is necessary for themaintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use
None of these appear to apply as it was a peaceful protest which was not damaging the park. 

How tf do you expect police to go and arrest the dude? How do the police know there aren’t more? How do the police know that the liquid in it wasn’t harmful.
so your proposal is that the police should have absolutely no need to respond with a reciprocal level of force? They should be free to shoot people for any reason at all. "Some one spit at me so I shot him in the head". Sounds like a brutal police state. 

Police shot pepper spray bullets and smoke canisters that are not lethal.
peppery spray bullets can badly injure and maim people. they are much more dangerous than a water bottle. 

Plus the decision to move back the protestors was done in the morning after the burning and vandalism of the church the previous night by Bill Barr.
so they attacked peaceful people at 6:30 pm, because 24 hours earlier things had happened there? That is stupid and makes no sense. It must have just been a massive co-incidence that trump held a photo op there 5 minutes after the police got done shooting peaceful protesters then huh?

But ya keep blaming it on Trump for trying to protect a church that has such a long history. 
there is no evidence the church was in any danger at the moment trump order the police to shoot people. 
#222
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don’t know why I argue with you. You purposely claim misleading things. You purposely ignore evidence I provide and continue to parrot mainstream media talking points. There’s no use arguing against a sycophant of the media. Have a good day. 
#223
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
I don’t know why I argue with you. You purposely claim misleading things. You purposely ignore evidence I provide and continue to parrot mainstream media talking points. There’s no use arguing against a sycophant of the media. Have a good day. 
funny, i was just thinking that about you. You don't care about people's rights. As long as the police have even the slightest pretext for violence, you are perfectly ok with attacks on both people and the constitution. 

If you have ever argued that the constitution is important, you are a massive hypocrite. 

#224
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Constitution means nothing if ANTIFA is running the country.
Topic's author
#225
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
citing links doesnt add to your argument
You asked me which reports mentioned it. I gave a few of those reports to you.
Topic's author
#226
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s not lying lol. Saying pepper spray bullets are tear gas is misleading.

Even if we assume that they just used pepper spray (which is not the case)
"The Stinger Ball grenades, also mostly made by Defense Tech, that’s like a -three-for-one. Not only does it have a flash bang effect, but it also has a little bit of tear gas inside of it. Some also have some pepper spray, depending on – there’s a couple models," explained former explosives expert Brian Castner, now with Amnesty International.
...
These are the gas canisters, especially this tear gas one with blue lettering - labeled SPEDE-HEAT CS, that WUSA9 gathered from the scene. 

Credit: Nathan Baca
OC and CS gas canisters collected by WUSA9 outside Lafayette Park Monday
...
Thursday morning, after denials from the White House and federal agencies that any tear gas was used, we discovered what that SPEDE-HEAT CS label meant: artificial tear gas was inside. 

We showed our canisters to military bomb disposal expert Brian Castner, who works with Amnesty International:
"That Spede-Heat one, it's a cartridge that has a little bit of propellant in the back," Castner said. "It's got a bunch of tear gas upfront and you fire it from a launcher so it goes a certain distance. I believe that one is rated to about 150 yards, so it goes fairly far and its job is to spread tear gas around a crowd." 

Topic's author
#227
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
It's your source. Don't ask me to defend it. Or are you going to play cafeteria with this interview, like you do with the Constitution.
I cited the interview (and the article that shows he lied) specifically to show that Bill Barr's words are untrustworthy. I never used the source to assert facts. 
#228
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
I have never found Bill Barr to be untrustworthy.

The protesters in the Park did not have a right to disobey the police. Protesting does not confer the freedom of disobeying the police.

Law enforcement officers told them to move back, they should have done so. It was not an "attack", that is just leftist propaganda. And they were not peaceful.

The question is, do the churchgoers and shop owners also deserve a President who protects their rights?
Topic's author
#229
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Before I make my redaction, I must ask: 
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. If one far-right dude runs up and throws a water bottle at a cop (I’m not saying this is the case at Lafayette, but it definitely could be considering how few projectiles were thrown), and that is enough for the cops to react belligerently, then how can one expect to hold peaceful protests at all?  

And if you still think that cops should fire down upon protesters even with this in mind, then you obviously don’t care about the 1A Right to Protest. If you don’t see why this is an issue, then I don’t see why I have to redact the statements I made up to #150. 

#230
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
It's not just the bottle-throwing. If people torch buildings the night before then the police need to move in to secure them, regardless of other people.

The police fired pepperballs when the police moved forward and the protesters resisted the police. Resisting the police is unlawful and violent. If you think the police are wrong, take them to court, don't resist and fight with the police. That's how you become youtube famous and dead.
#231
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
A peaceful protest would have Karened out the rioters and gave them up to the police as a symbol of solidarity against violence. Instead the protesters encouraged or at least passively tolerated the violent brick-throwing and frozen water throwing. That's NOT a peaceful protest.
Regarding #8, well said. Aiding and abetting is a crime. Were it not, there would be zero calls for systematic change to the police force; or even charges filed against the other officers present in the George Floyd case.
Topic's author
#232
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
I have never found Bill Barr to be untrustworthy.

The protesters in the Park did not have a right to disobey the police. Protesting does not confer the freedom of disobeying the police.

Law enforcement officers told them to move back, they should have done so. It was not an "attack", that is just leftist propaganda. And they were not peaceful.
Other than the one/few people who threw bottles, who in that protest wasn't peaceful?

The question is, do the churchgoers and shop owners also deserve a President who protects their rights?

Which churchgoers' and shop owners' rights were he protecting on that day?

Topic's author
#233
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not just the bottle-throwing. If people torch buildings the night before then the police need to move in to secure them, regardless of other people.
In both sections, it is clear that the protests can ONLY be shut down or required to have a permit IF one or more of the following are adversely affected:
  • Public health/safety
The police fired pepperballs when the police moved forward and the protesters resisted the police. Resisting the police is unlawful and violent. If you think the police are wrong, take them to court, don't resist and fight with the police. That's how you become youtube famous and dead.
Topic's author
#234
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
@Barney
A peaceful protest would have Karened out the rioters and gave them up to the police as a symbol of solidarity against violence. Instead the protesters encouraged or at least passively tolerated the violent brick-throwing and frozen water throwing. That's NOT a peaceful protest.
Regarding #8, well said. Aiding and abetting is a crime. Were it not, there would be zero calls for systematic change to the police force; or even charges filed against the other officers present in the George Floyd case.
Do you know for a fact that protesters encouraged “or at least passively tolerated” it? From what I saw in the video the protesters in view certainly didn't passively tolerate it, let alone encourage it.
#235
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
In both sections, it is clear that the protests can ONLY be shut down or required to have a permit IF one or more of the following are adversely affected:
  • Public health/safety
Vandalism and looting. The order was given the morning after the vandalism and burning. After that burning and vandalism, they are required to have a permit so they can be legally held accountable if something does happen. They chose not to get a permit.

Ya the same media that claims the protest was entirely peaceful found those canisters. How do you know that the canisters weren’t from the night before? You choose to believe the media even after knowing their agenda. Nothing I can do to help you with that.

Do you know for a fact that protesters encouraged “or at least passively tolerated” it? From what I saw in the video the protesters in view certainly didn't passively tolerate it, let alone encourage it.
If they didn’t passively tolerate it, they would’ve handed the people who did that to the cops.

Before I make my redaction, I must ask:
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. If one far-right dude runs up and throws a water bottle at a cop (I’m not saying this is the case at Lafayette, but it definitely could be considering how few projectiles were thrown), and that is enough for the cops to react belligerently, then how can one expect to hold peaceful protests at all? 
There are a ton plurality of reasons that contribute to the actions by the police in this situation. The night prior the church was burned. Bricks and bottles with unknown liquids (possible caustic) were thrown at them. Knowing all this, if people thrown bottles again the following morning, do the police not have the right use force? After all, they’re human too. If the protests were entirely peaceful from the start and peaceful protestors happily handed over the violent ones to the authorities, it would be a much different situation.

And if you still think that cops should fire down upon protesters even with this in mind, then you obviously don’t care about the 1A Right to Protest. If you don’t see why this is an issue, then I don’t see why I have to redact the statements I made up to #150.
If you threaten physical harm to police officers, they have the right to retaliate whether you like it or not. If the person committing the violence was handed over, the police would feel less of threat. The protestors did not do that and instead vandalized and burned a church the previous night. You really believe police wouldn’t be threatened?
#236
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you never used the source to asset facts, what is the assurance that Bill Barr is a chronic liar? That's an argument of cross-purposes.
#237
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Physically resisting the police is unlawful and violent. Change my mind.
#238
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Physically resisting the police is unlawful and violent. Change my mind.
how is this statement not a police state? Your argument appears to be that the police have a right to do what they want, and if you try to resist them then you are a criminal who should be violently suppressed. You are describing countries like the Soviet Union or China. 

#239
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
#240
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
we are talking about the right to peacefully protest. If you believe the police have the right to attack and arrest people who choose to exercise that right, then that is a police state.