-->
@HistoryBuff
When the police says move back...MOVE THE FUCK BACK.
You do NOT have a right to resist the police with bodily force.
Tyranny at Lafayette Park
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Greyparrot
Ignore the sycophant of the media. He doesn’t understand laws and lack of absolute protection under the 1st Amendment.
-->
@Greyparrot
When the police says move back...MOVE THE FUCK BACK.You do NOT have a right to resist the police with bodily force.
What gives the police the right to deny you the right to protest there? What are the limits of those powers? At the moment all I see from you is that you think the police have the right to order you to leave a protest and if you don't comply they can shoot you. That is a police state.
-->
@ILikePie5
Ignore the sycophant of the media. He doesn’t understand laws and lack of absolute protection under the 1st Amendment.
Yep.
It's sad really because if the students in Marxist schools and children of the 77% fatherless households were taught to comply first and take the police to court after, we wouldn't have nearly as many cases of people killed by cops.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's sad really because if the students in Marxist schools and children of the 77% fatherless households were taught to comply first and take the police to court after, we wouldn't have nearly as many cases of people killed by cops.
we would have a nation where no one has any rights and all power is in the hands of the police and state. basically, you want a police state.
-->
@ILikePie5
Vandalism and looting.
Was there vandalism and looting on that day? This protest and the one that happened the night prior are two different events. Without evidence, you cannot assume that there is a causal relationship between those two. Temporal proximity alone doesn't prove anything.
The order was given the morning after the vandalism and burning.
Really? https://outline.com/bLJm7K
Trump had directed Barr to personally “lead” the response to the unrest in D.C. Monday night, according to Justice Department spokeswoman. Less than an hour before police moved to clear the peaceful demonstrators from in front of Lafayette Park, Barr was spotted on video talking to officials at the scene.
Around the same time, White House deputy chief of operations Tony Ornato contacted the Secret Service to arrange for the president to make a brief, unplanned appearance outside St. John’s Church, according to two people familiar with the plans. Following protocol, the Secret Service alerted other law enforcement agencies it would need help clearing the area for the president’s safety, they said.
After that burning and vandalism, they are required to have a permit so they can be legally held accountable if something does happen.
Where in the law books does it say this?
Ya the same media that claims the protest was entirely peaceful found those canisters. You choose to believe the media even after knowing their agenda. Nothing I can do to help you with that.
Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. Just because the media says it (even if they do have an agenda) doesn't automatically make it false.
How do you know that the canisters weren’t from the night before?
To answer some viewer questions we received online, the four canisters gathered were not from a previous day. They were in the middle of the street undisturbed, and in one case, still slightly warm to the touch. Secondly, our WUSA9 crew were the first people immediately after police pushed south on 17th to get back to the H street intersection.
If they didn’t passively tolerate it, they would’ve handed the people who did that to the cops.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.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.
Have you seen footage of the protester who threw the projectiles? How do you know there wasn’t an attempt to seize them made by the rest of the protesters?
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.
This doesn’t answer my question. If a single saboteur can run up, throw a bottle in the general direction of the cops, and thereby turn the peaceful protest into a “violent” one (thus justifying the police reaction we saw, according to you), then how can one expect to have a peaceful protest at all? The peaceful demonstrators can’t unthrow the bottle that was thrown, and they can’t apprehend the saboteur if they get away, so what would you expect them to do?
The protestors did not do that and instead vandalized and burned a church the previous night. You really believe police wouldn’t be threatened?
How do you know that the peaceful protesters that attended the 6 PM demonstration are the same ones who were in the violent riot the night prior?
-->
@HistoryBuff
we would have a nation where no one has any rights and all power is in the hands of the police and state. basically, you want a police state.
The alternative is a state of anarchy and vigilantism.
-->
@fauxlaw
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.
I cited the interview for the sole purpose of establishing the fact that Barr said ‘there was no tear gas used’. I then used another source to establish the fact that there was, in fact, tear gas used. You seem to be implying that Bill Barr’s words are true because Bill Barr said them, which is not only an argument from authority fallacy, but one where the authority is trying to defend itself, and thus would try to paint the rosiest picture possible.
-->
@ILikePie5
When a mob has the right to physically resist police, it has then become a nation of mob rule where the authority to wield violence lies solely in the numbers of the mob you can assemble. That's what most immigrants are fleeing when they come here. Defunding the police isn't popular with people who cannot afford private security arrangements.
-->
@Greyparrot
we would have a nation where no one has any rights and all power is in the hands of the police and state. basically, you want a police state.The alternative is a state of anarchy and vigilantism.
no, the alternative is a democracy where people have the right to protest. That is what america is supposed to be. It is not supposed to be a power given to police to decide they don't like the protesters and to have the unilateral right to make them go away. And even more so, they are not supposed to have the right to shoot at peaceful protesters just because they want them to go away.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't want a fundamentally transformed America where people have the right to assemble a violent mob and protest.
I want an America where people have the right to peaceably assemble, you know back when America was great.
Was there vandalism and looting on that day? This protest and the one that happened the night prior are two different events. Without evidence, you cannot assume that there is a causal relationship between those two. Temporal proximity alone doesn't prove anything.
So if we left the protestors in place, you’re saying there wouldn’t be further vandalism or burning? Maybe you should take a look at Minneapolis and New York and literally every area where it was chaos during the night but peace during the day. Don’t gimme the bs that they weren’t going to do anything. If a risk exists to federal property guarded by federal statute, you move the risk.
Yes the order was given in the morning by Barr but it wasn’t executed by the time Barr got there in the afternoon, so Barr told them to get it done immediately. The sources you provided in this thread said that. Stop contradicting yourself.
Where in the law books does it say this?
Sections 1.5 and 1.6. We know that protests have been violent. They were violent on the night before and there was evidence that it would continue and further harm federal property. So yes, they should’ve gotten a permit so BLM can be held legally accountable if shit does get destroyed. BLM chose not to and the decision was made to save federal property from vandals.
Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. Just because the media says it (even if they do have an agenda) doesn't automatically make it false.
You’re going to call it truth because a member of the media said it? We know they were lying about “Peaceful protests” in that same article. Why wouldn’t they be lying in this instance. You nor I know the truth. But we can sure as hell analyze the source you put and say that they have a bias against Trump. It’s called critical thinking.
Have you seen footage of the protester who threw the projectiles? How do you know there wasn’t an attempt to seize them made by the rest of the protesters?
This is laughable. There would be police records if someone was arrested for throwing stuff at police. Plus we saw from the video that no one was brought forward to the police after it happened. So no, there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice.
This doesn’t answer my question. If a single saboteur can run up, throw a bottle in the general direction of the cops, and thereby turn the peaceful protest into a “violent” one (thus justifying the police reaction we saw, according to you), then how can one expect to have a peaceful protest at all? The peaceful demonstrators can’t unthrow the bottle that was thrown, and they can’t apprehend the saboteur if they get away, so what would you expect them to do?
You are misrepresenting what I’m saying. The actions of the previous night in DC combined with Sections 1.5 and 1.6 permit the actions that happened. If there was no looting, no burning the previous night and all was peaceful, and the culprits were brought forth, there would be no problem.
Peaceful protests are possible. Conservatives did it a couple weeks ago. Martin Luther King did it in the 60s. If there are bad apples, you hand them over to the police, which shows the desire to be peaceful. You don’t get to burn stuff down and then go the following morning thinking all is well, completely peaceful when you still have people throwing stuff at cops.
How do you know that the peaceful protesters that attended the 6 PM demonstration are the same ones who were in the violent riot the night prior?
Cause that’s what has been happening in every city? If the people weren’t removed, there would’ve been more damage. Especially considering some were already being violent.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want a fundamentally transformed America where people have the right to assemble a violent mob and protest.I want an America where people have the right to peaceably assemble, you know back when America was great.
Only fools would compare these “peaceful protests” to those of MLK and Gandhi. Those didn’t have one bad apple. And even if they did, they threw it to the side and kicked it out. That’s what it means to be peaceful.
-->
@PressF4Respect
reports that are biased
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want a fundamentally transformed America where people have the right to assemble a violent mob and protest.I want an America where people have the right to peaceably assemble, you know back when America was great.
Ok, you are saying you want people to have the right to protest, but that you also want the police to have the unquestioned power to shut down a protest and shoot anyone who disagrees with them. Those 2 things are not compatable.
either people have the right to protest and not be attacked by the police, or they don't.
-->
@HistoryBuff
but that you also want the police to have the unquestioned power
Better them than a violent mob. I don't want the security of the nation to be in the authoritative hands of mouth breathing CNN sheep along with frozen water bottles and bricks.
If they want to assert their right to protest, they can take it to the court, not to the face of a policeman in the form of violence.
-->
@Greyparrot
Better them than a violent mob. I don't want the security of the nation to be in the authoritative hands of mouth breathing CNN sheep along with frozen water bottles and bricks.
so just to clarify, you want the police to have the power to shut down any protest they want, whenever they want, and to have the authority to shoot anyone who resists?
-->
@HistoryBuff
so just to clarify, you want the police to have the power to shut down any protest they want, whenever they want, and to have the authority to shoot anyone who resists?
I want one entity to have the authority to enforce the law. No vigilantism. If a protester wants to specifically protest the police, they can do it in the courts, not on the streets with bodily violence.
-->
@Greyparrot
I want one entity to have the authority to enforce the law. No vigilantism. If a protester wants to specifically protest the police, they can do it in the courts, not on the streets with bodily violence.
ok, but to clarify. do you believe that one authority should have the power to decide when a protest should be shut down and then shoot anyone who disagrees?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Believe me, the last thing a soft SJW needs right now is an atmosphere where the people who gather together in mobs have the authority to uphold the law as they see it, and that it's okay to physically resist the police if you call yourself a "peaceful protest"
Conservatives own a LOT of guns.
-->
@Greyparrot
Believe me, the last thing a soft SJW needs right now is an atmosphere where the people who gather together in mobs have the authority to uphold the law as they see it, and that it's okay to physically resist the police if you call yourself a "peaceful protest"
no one has ever claimed that protesters should be allowed to uphold the law "as they see it". The question is do people have the right to protest or don't they. If the police have veto power over every protest, then there is no right to protest. Because the police can choose to not let you. at that point, protesting is no longer a right and only available when the police choose to let you.
So, do you believe that people have a right to protest, or do the police have the power to choose whether you can protest or not? So far, you have been arguing the latter, which is a police state.
-->
@Greyparrot
Such a shame people don’t realize that the people nor the govt has absolute power. Say bye bye to the social contract.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Are tear gas and pepper spray illegal to use by law enforcement? No. Why do they use these agents? To disperse unruly crowds quickly. Are T.G and P.S effects more injurious with longer exposure? Yes. If peaceful protests remain peaceful, and the crowd gathered does not inhibit pedestrian and vehicle traffic with their protest, will police who gather just in case the crowd gets unruly use T.G. and P.S. on the crowd anyway? Probably no, there is no reason to do so. But crowds easily take on a life of their own and bad apples among them will get unruly, endangering those whose intent always was a peaceful protest. The short answer: If the protest is likely to gather a large crowd, best to avoid attending. Second best is to leave if crowd gets unruly, because T.G and P.S. are more likely to be deployed. If it is, leave immediately to avoid longer exposure and more serious harm. Or did you think those who attend events that may get unruly have no responsibility of their own?
-->
@fauxlaw
To him they were all “peacefully protesting.”
-->
@HistoryBuff
which is a police state.
There is no false dichotomy about what you are proposing. The absence of a policed state with police authority is anarchy and vigilantism.
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no false dichotomy about what you are proposing. The absence of a policed state with police authority is anarchy and vigilantism.
either people have the right to protest, or the police have the right to shut down any protest they want. The concepts are mutually exclusive. If the police can shut down your protest on a whim, then you don't actually have a right to protest because you can only do it when the police give you permission to. That isn't a right. Especially when it is the police and their abuse of power that you are protesting against.
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no false dichotomy about what you are proposing. The absence of a policed state with police authority is anarchy and vigilantism.
Hands up don’t shoot rapidly turned into I’m going to loot, burn, and kill police officers.
-->
@Greyparrot
“Shut down protests.”
Why do Democrats love lying and not acknowledging video evidence of police allowing protests to happen.
-->
@HistoryBuff
If the mob gets to define what is peaceful, you live in an anarchic state bro.
So this whole thread was started because protesters were cleared out of a park 25 minutes before curfew?