LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 02:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my rub, when discussing this issue with folks I know in the area, they are talking about how isolated this is. I don't know how accurate it is what they are saying, but that's their view on it. Also, I don't think anyone really has too much of an issue if feds were reacting to this stuff. That is completely reasonable. However, the video that really kicked off the controversy was someone walking on a street not involved in something like this. There have, as has been pointed out, instances where people have been picked up mistakenly. I've seen video of journalists, credentialed and everything, being cuffed and searched including removing their credentials from their waist all while they are vomiting from the tear gas.

We can all see that there is some rough shit going down in Portland, but there does seem to be activity from law enforcement that isn't helping the situation at hand.

I don't wholly disagree.  What I really don't like about this situation is the utterly gutless mayor of Portland could solve this problem tomorrow by imposing a 6 PM curfew for the area effected and arrest anyone breaking the curfew.  This is no longer a protest, it's a battlefield and the mayor won't stop it for god only knows what reason.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't wholly disagree.  What I really don't like about this situation is the utterly gutless mayor of Portland could solve this problem tomorrow by imposing a 6 PM curfew for the area effected and arrest anyone breaking the curfew.  This is no longer a protest, it's a battlefield and the mayor won't stop it for god only knows what reason.

It is not that simple.  You can't arrest thousands of people.  There are not enough jail space to hold them.

And that is what Trump does not get about "dominating the streets".  The more forceful he gets the more the protestors will push back.

Bull Conner thought he could end the protest problem by turning dogs and firehoses on protestors in Birmingham.  How'd that work out for him?

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Immaterial, they were breaking no laws. 

No it is not "immaterial".  The clearly all had guns for a reason.  They don't walk around the streets every other day with guns.  So why did they have them?


And it is not immaterial to ask what would happen if they had been tear gassed and beaten because we see protestors get tera gassed and beaten all the time.

Does not matter if it happened or not, you can still answer the question.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 05:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it is not "immaterial".  The clearly all had guns for a reason.

They don't walk around the streets every other day with guns.  So why did they have them?

Because they're legally allowed to do so.  People who care about their 2A rights will often carry to demonstrate by exercising those rights.

Quote:And it is not immaterial to ask what would happen if they had been tear gassed and beaten because we see protestors get tera gassed and beaten all the time.

Protests that turn violent, i.e. not peaceble, can get tear gassed and beaten.  Good thing these people exercising their 2A rights were completely peaceful and didn't break any laws.

Quote:Does not matter if it happened or not, you can still answer the question.

I didn't say you couldn't ask, I said your question was irrelevant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 05:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not that simple.  You can't arrest thousands of people.  There are not enough jail space to hold them.

You can cite and arrest, you don't have to detain.  Also, accelerate the arraignment process for all such citations and start drowning violators in fines and community service hours.  If no spine Mayor Jeffries had done this long ago these events would have ceased long ago.  People could still protest, peacefully, in other areas of the city.

Quote:And that is what Trump does not get about "dominating the streets".  The more forceful he gets the more the protestors will push back.

Then keep hitting (not literally) them for violating the law.  Individuals will tire out much faster than the government.

Quote:Bull Conner thought he could end the protest problem by turning dogs and firehoses on protestors in Birmingham.  How'd that work out for him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those protests peaceful?

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because they're legally allowed to do so.  People who care about their 2A rights will often carry to demonstrate by exercising those rights.

The armed protestors who occupied the State Capitol were not protesting a 2A issue.  They were protesting against the rules put in place to address the coronavirus.  So why carry guns?

(07-23-2020, 05:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Protests that turn violent, i.e. not peaceble, can get tear gassed and beaten.  

Is it your position that the ONLY protestors who have been gassed or beaten were part of violent protests?

That every single protestor who was gassed or beaten was acting violently?

If I can show you a video of non-violent protestors getting gassed or beaten then will you answer my question about what would have happened if one of the group of armed protestors was gassed or beaten?  Will you also promise to never ask a 

Also am I to understand that you will refuse to answer any hypothetical question ever posed to you?  Will you also never ask a hypothetical question?  I see hypothetical questions as an important part of debate.  I am not afraid of them.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those protests peaceful?

So you think overwhelming violence will work against violent protestors but not peaceful protestors?

That seems to be some convoluted logic to me.  I actually think violent protestors will continue protesting more in response to excessive government violence than peaceful protestors would.

If excessive violence won't stop peaceful protestors then why do you think it will stop violent protestors?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 07:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The armed protestors who occupied the State Capitol were not protesting a 2A issue.  They were protesting against the rules put in place to address the coronavirus.  So why carry guns?

I just explained this.  People often demonstrate their support for their 2A rights by carrying.  The issue does not have to be a 2A issue for this to apply.

Quote:Is it your position that the ONLY protestors who have been gassed or beaten were part of violent protests?

Is that what I said?

Quote:That every single protestor who was gassed or beaten was acting violently?

Is that what I said?

Quote:If I can show you a video of non-violent protestors getting gassed or beaten then will you answer my question about what would have happened if one of the group of armed protestors was gassed or beaten?  Will you also promise to never ask a 

No, because it didn't happen and it's irrelevant.  

Quote:Also am I to understand that you will refuse to answer any hypothetical question ever posed to you? 

No.  I will not answer irrelevant questions.

Quote:Will you also never ask a hypothetical question?

 
No.

Quote:I see hypothetical questions as an important part of debate.  I am not afraid of them.

Oh, Fred, don't try the shaming "you're scared to answer" tactic.  That's not in the spirit of the new P&R.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 07:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you think overwhelming violence will work against violent protestors but not peaceful protestors?

Where did I advocate for "overwhelming violence?  If we're going to have an adult discussion I would kindly ask that you don't engage in such gross mischaracterizations of my position.

Quote:That seems to be some convoluted logic to me.

It would be if I was actually making that argument as I am not it is irrelevant.

 

Quote: I actually think violent protestors will continue protesting more in response to excessive government violence than peaceful protestors would.

Yes, I would generally agree with this statement.  However, it is irrelevant to any point I've made.

Quote:If excessive violence won't stop peaceful protestors then why do you think it will stop violent protestors?

One need simply read my posts.  Hint, it's not "excessive violence".

[GMDino]

People supporting their 1A rights are getting gassed and beaten for walking and chanting.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 08:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: People supporting their 1A rights are getting gassed and beaten for walking and chanting.  

I think you'll find that the tear gas and other actions are in response to throwing bricks, bottles and explosives, not "walking and chanting".  Try this little exercise out.  Watch the scary protests at the Michigan state capital, tell me if you see any law breaking.  Now watch the Portland protests and give me the same assessment.

[GMDino]

(07-23-2020, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'll find that the tear gas and other actions are in response to throwing bricks, bottles and explosives, not "walking and chanting".  Try this little exercise out.  Watch the scary protests at the Michigan state capital, tell me if you see any law breaking.  Now watch the Portland protests and give me the same assessment.

That Navy vet was throwing bricks?  Wow.  

That history teacher was handling explosives?  Wow.

Wow.  They must be ninjas.

Just...wow.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2020, 08:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: That Navy vet was throwing bricks?  Wow.  

That history teacher was handling explosives?  Wow.

Disingenuous argument.  Where they participating in a protest in which people were throwing bricks bottles and explosives?  Sadly, when a mob of people contains people within it engaging in such activity some people not engaged in such activity will be caught up in the response.  It's certainly unfortunate, but that's what happens when you join a group of people containing people willing to throw bricks, bottles and explosives at law enforcement.

Quote:Wow.  They must be ninjas.

Just...wow.

Wow indeed.  Did we see what led up to the Navy veteran being pepper sprayed?  Based on the scenario I'd have to think he was instructed to leave the area he was standing in.  If he refused then he is now obstructing a peace officer.  I will absolutely agree that the baton strikes were unnecessary, but if he refused to move after being asked and told to do so then the pepper spray was an appropriate response.  

I know you're operating from a position of ignorance on this issue, so I'm trying to help you understand why things happen in real world scenarios such as this instead of 30 second video clips.

Also, you didn't do what I asked so I'll reiterate.  


Watch the Michigan protest footage and tell me what law breaking activity you see, then watch the Portland protest and tell me what law breaking activity you see.  I know you won't actually do this and I know why, but I'm going to be optimistic and think you can actually do this.

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2020, 09:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Disingenuous argument.  Where they participating in a protest in which people were throwing bricks bottles and explosives?  Sadly, when a mob of people contains people within it engaging in such activity some people not engaged in such activity will be caught up in the response.  It's certainly unfortunate, but that's what happens when you join a group of people containing people willing to throw bricks, bottles and explosives at law enforcement.

I think this is where there needs to be some adjustment. The Navy vet, in particular, was standing in place and speaking to the officers. If there was violence in the crowd behind him and they had been asked to disperse, okay, understandable order. However, we don't see him being violent in any way. Why would the officer with the baton decide to strike him that many times and another officer unload a chemical irritant in his face when there was no sign of violence? If he was disobeying an order, why not try to cuff him and move him out of the way? There was nothing in his mannerisms (based on our limited view of the incident, admittedly) that indicates he would have become violent or even resisted.

The way those LEOs went to that level of force really just emboldens the claims of police brutality. He wasn't behaving in a way that warranted arrest, but somehow warranted breaking bones and OC spray? That just comes across as abusing authority.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can cite and arrest, you don't have to detain.  Also, accelerate the arraignment process for all such citations and start drowning violators in fines and community service hours.  If no spine Mayor Jeffries had done this long ago these events would have ceased long ago.  People could still protest, peacefully, in other areas of the city.

If they were not in jail they would return to the streets.

Citations won't stop the protestors.

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 09:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow indeed.  Did we see what led up to the Navy veteran being pepper sprayed? 

What about the old man in Buffal that the police kncocked down and busted his head.


What if police had done that to one of the armed protestors in the Michigan Capitol Building?

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2020, 08:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, Fred, don't try the shaming "you're scared to answer" tactic.  That's not in the spirit of the new P&R.

Let me tellyou how rspect works with me.  It is something you have to earn. 

You have not done that yet. When you start acting in a respectful manner then I will respect you.

for example I see you still have not deleted this. 

(07-20-2020, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Your statement here is nauseating and quite simply you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

How exactly does that work under the "spirit of the ne P&R"?

Hypothetical questions are a necessary tool to discuss the future repercussions of actions or proposed policies.  So I don't know whay anyone in a serious debate would refuse  to answer one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2020, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think this is where there needs to be some adjustment. The Navy vet, in particular, was standing in place and speaking to the officers. If there was violence in the crowd behind him and they had been asked to disperse, okay, understandable order. However, we don't see him being violent in any way. Why would the officer with the baton decide to strike him that many times and another officer unload a chemical irritant in his face when there was no sign of violence? If he was disobeying an order, why not try to cuff him and move him out of the way? There was nothing in his mannerisms (based on our limited view of the incident, admittedly) that indicates he would have become violent or even resisted.

The way those LEOs went to that level of force really just emboldens the claims of police brutality. He wasn't behaving in a way that warranted arrest, but somehow warranted breaking bones and OC spray? That just comes across as abusing authority.

As I said in the post you quoted, the baton strikes were unnecessary.  I have zero issue with the pepper spray being used if he was already instructed to leave the area.  You know better, Bel, if he was ordered to leave and he did not then that, by definition, is resisting.  You also can't say he wasn't behaving in a way that warranted arrest a few sentences after saying they should have just arrested him if he had refused to leave the area.  Well, you can, it's just contradictory.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2020, 08:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What about the old man in Buffal that the police kncocked down and busted his head.


What if police had done that to one of the armed protestors in the Michigan Capitol Building?

Good thing that not a single Michigan protester was acting in an illegal manner so law enforcement never had to even consider any physical intervention.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2020, 08:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me tellyou how rspect works with me.  It is something you have to earn. 

You have not done that yet. When you start acting in a respectful manner then I will respect you.

for example I see you still have not deleted this.

I said nothing about respect in my post.  I will respond, hopefully in a manner in keeping with the new P&R.  I could care less if you respect me or not.  You have not shown yourself to be the sort of person who's respect would be something I'd ever care to "earn".  Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll reiterate my original point, debate like an adult, that's all I'm asking.  Respect is not required for you to conduct yourself in such a manner.

Quote:How exactly does that work under the "spirit of the ne P&R"?

Hypothetical questions are a necessary tool to discuss the future repercussions of actions or proposed policies.  So I don't know whay anyone in a serious debate would refuse  to answer one.

Because you don't ask questions with the intent to actually debate the answer.  You ask questions to subsequently nitpick the response and divert away from the actual topic at hand.  I would absolutely answer hypothetical questions from someone who sincerely wants to hear the answer, like Bel, hollodero, etc.  

Please know this is not a personal attack, you opened up the door to this by making your personal feelings about me known, which is fine, prompting me to respond in kind.  Now we can get back to actually discussing the thread topic.  Thank you.