(07-26-2020, 10:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I absolutely will apply the same moniker to any group that takes over a building with guns.
If any of the BLM protestors do that then they will cross the line. I understand there were some armed protstors in Louisville, but they did not take over any buildings and hold them at gunpoint.
Occupy empty building, in the middle of nowhere, without violence=Terrorism
Try to destroy federal building, take over city streets "at gunpoint", impose self-law, and injure Law Enforcement Officers= Not Terrorism
Yeah, all the dumbasses did in Louisville was shoot themselves. Luckily no innocent bystander (maybe like a 1 year old kid at a birthday party) was killed.
There's one of the many reasons I'm not a Liberal. I just cannot grasp the logic.
(07-26-2020, 12:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, but they post armed guards to keep the police out. And they eventually pull a gun on an officer leading to a shoting death.
Or say you come home and find an armed person in your driveway telling you they have taken over your house.
The logic you are able to grasp says these are "non-violent" actions? Is that what you are saying?
Applause for the gymnastics and goalpost movement; I knew you'd see your error once it was pointed out. If the store is empty and no gun fight with a guard occurred; then no, my logic says it is not violent.
Conversely if it is occupied, IDK like public streets of the biggest city in a state and there are actual gunfights then I'd consider it violent.
What I am saying is: One of the reasons I'm not a liberal is because I cannot grasp the "logic". Even with gymnastics and goalpost movement.
(07-25-2020, 08:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He was shot after he tried to run over a federal agent.
There's also been enough cases of non violent protests in the last two months being met with rubber bullets, batons, and tear gas to dismiss any attempts to characterize them all as violent protests, as you imply here. That is quite disingenuous. The justification is guilt by association, and yet we're referring to a terrorist act in which a group that had prior armed showdowns with federal agents and some ties to militias was not treated the same.
As you said, LE handled that situation the right way, but the point isn't that they should have been met with rubber bullets and tear gas, but rather that peaceful protests should not be.
He was shot, justifiably as I stated, when he pulled a gun after crashing the car he was driving. As for responses to “non-violent” protests, I have a hard time with that. At what point does a peaceful protest cease to be peaceful? When one person starts throwing rocks? A dozen? At some point a line is crossed and I don’t think that line is a majority of those protesting.
(07-25-2020, 10:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Simply one was right wing so some defend it. One is left wing so some attack it.
Peaceful is peaceful and adding troops that are beating and gassing and shooting peaceful protestors now is bad no matter how they handled them then.
.
The protests in Portland are not peaceful and weren’t peaceful well before federal law enforcement showed up. You can make the argument that there appearance exacerbated things but you cannot truthfully state that their appearance caused the violence.
Also, I don’t recall anyone here defending the guys who occupied the building.
(07-26-2020, 10:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They did not choose the remote area because it was remote. They chose it because that is where the dispute was.
You can't judge the validity of a protest based on where the dispute lies.
No, but you can judge the merits of law enforcement’s response based on exactly that. Which was the actual point being made.
(07-26-2020, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Applause for the gymnastics and goalpost movement; I knew you'd see your error once it was pointed out. If the store is empty and no gun fight with a guard occurred; then no, my logic says it is not violent.
Your logic is wrong under the law. Adding possession of a gun to any minor offense usually turns it into a "violent crime".
Employing armed guards to defend law breakers clearly makes it an act of violence.
Sorry if your logic can't grasp that concept.
The only reason thaty incident was not a complete bloodbath was that we had intelligent people controlling the local and federal law enforcement. the occupiers committed multiple acvts of vandalism to both federal and private property during the standoff. Based on what people have said around here that justifies using overwhelming force against them.
I keep saying that using more force will just make it worse. That incident in Oregin is a great example of this.
(07-26-2020, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your logic is wrong under the law. Adding possession of a gun to any minor offense usually turns it into a "violent crime".
Employing armed guards to defend law breakers clearly makes it an act of violence.
Sorry if your logic can't grasp that concept.
The only reason thaty incident was not a complete bloodbath was that we had intelligent people controlling the local and federal law enforcement. the occupiers committed multiple acvts of vandalism to both federal and private property during the standoff. Based on what people have said around here that justifies using overwhelming force against them.
I keep saying that using more force will just make it worse. That incident in Oregin is a great example of this.
Except they’re not comparable situations for multiple reasons already stated. You can encircle and isolate guys in a building in the wilderness. You can’t use the same tactic for a public street in a large urban center.
(07-26-2020, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your logic is wrong under the law. Adding possession of a gun to any minor offense usually turns it into a "violent crime".
Employing armed guards to defend law breakers clearly makes it an act of violence.
Sorry if your logic can't grasp that concept.
The only reason thaty incident was not a complete bloodbath was that we had intelligent people controlling the local and federal law enforcement. the occupiers committed multiple acvts of vandalism to both federal and private property during the standoff. Based on what people have said around here that justifies using overwhelming force against them.
I keep saying that using more force will just make it worse. That incident in Oregin is a great example of this.
Dude got caught spending the other day and had a weapon in his car for which he had a permit. No one was shot, but the violence was horrific.
.
(07-26-2020, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they’re not comparable situations for multiple reasons already stated. You can encircle and isolate guys in a building in the wilderness. You can’t use the same tactic for a public street in a large urban center.
Especially when they are peacefully walking or standing there. Easier to tear gas them and have them run in several directions.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-26-2020, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Especially when they are peacefully walking or standing there. Easier to tear gas them and have them run in several directions.
Is that what happened in Portland or are you just engaging in hyperbole? Not exactly moving the discussion along either way.
(07-26-2020, 01:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude got caught spending the other day and had a weapon in his car for which he had a permit. No one was shot, but the violence was horrific.
.
Don't be sorry; I'm totally fine with it.
You can't get even get arrested for speeding. But, yeah, that is just like robbery or taking over a government building
Why did you bring up speeding instead of answering my question about a person taking over your home and posting an armed guard in the driveway to keep you out. Enlighten us all on how that is a "non-violent" action in the eyes of the law.
(07-26-2020, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He was shot, justifiably as I stated, when he pulled a gun after crashing the car he was driving. As for responses to “non-violent” protests, I have a hard time with that. At what point does a peaceful protest cease to be peaceful? When one person starts throwing rocks? A dozen? At some point a line is crossed and I don’t think that line is a majority of those protesting.
There are violent protests. There are also non violent protests. Non violent protestors are seeing excessive use of force and my point was that immediately lumping them in with the violent protests to justify the force is a bad argument.
(07-26-2020, 03:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There are violent protests. There are also non violent protests. Non violent protestors are seeing excessive use of force and my point was that immediately lumping them in with the violent protests to justify the force is a bad argument.
I get that, but you didn't address the actual point I made. How many people in a non-violent protest have to act violently for the protest to become violent or the authorities to respond with force? It's not one person, but is it ten, fifty, a certain percentage of the whole group?
(07-26-2020, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get that, but you didn't address the actual point I made. How many people in a non-violent protest have to act violently for the protest to become violent or the authorities to respond with force? It's not one person, but is it ten, fifty, a certain percentage of the whole group?
I didn't answer it because it's a red herring. I am specifically referring to peaceful protests, not protests with a mix of violent and non violent actors. I think ignoring violence against peaceful protests by trying to bring up violent or even semi violent protests is a bad argument and only seeks to ignore a valid point. I recognize that peaceful protestors in a group with some violent actors can lead to issues, but I didn't use that as my example for that reason.
(07-26-2020, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't get even get arrested for speeding. But, yeah, that is just like robbery or taking over a government building
Why did you bring up speeding instead of answering my question about a person taking over your home and posting an armed guard in the driveway to keep you out. Enlighten us all on how that is a "non-violent" action in the eyes of the law.
Hell you couldn't even answer my question about is the store empty. You had to add in a security guard and a gunfight. Enlighten me on how it's a violent crime if I go into an empty store, encounter no one to include flashlight cop, take money from the till, and leave. I also happen to be carrying a weapon.
I've allowed you to change the scenario once; now I'm being elusive because you want to change it again.
And that's just a portion of the liberal logic in cannot comprehend. We've not even addressed your assertion about who this would be classified as terrorisim, but occupying city streets and committing acts of violence is not.
(07-26-2020, 03:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get that, but you didn't address the actual point I made. How many people in a non-violent protest have to act violently for the protest to become violent or the authorities to respond with force? It's not one person, but is it ten, fifty, a certain percentage of the whole group?
Sometimes it is zero.
Federal forces used violence against peaceful non-violent protestors (nd even the media who was not protesting) to clear the streets so Trump could pose in front of a church.
(07-26-2020, 03:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't answer it because it's a red herring. I am specifically referring to peaceful protests, not protests with a mix of violent and non violent actors. I think ignoring violence against peaceful protests by trying to bring up violent or even semi violent protests is a bad argument and only seeks to ignore a valid point. I recognize that peaceful protestors in a group with some violent actors can lead to issues, but I didn't use that as my example for that reason.
Well the day is not a loss, I learned a new term "semi violent". What make a protest "semi violent"? Is that when the liberals are violent?
(07-26-2020, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell you couldn't even answer my question about is the store empty. You had to add in a security guard and a gunfight. Enlighten me on how it's a violent crime if I go into an empty store, encounter no one to include flashlight cop, take money from the till, and leave. I also happen to be carrying a weapon.
Possession of a weapon during commission of a felony (and many misdemeanors) is considered a violent crime in every state I know of.
Doesn't matter if you can grasp the logic or not. Lawmakers know that a person who takes a gun to commit a crime is violent.
(07-26-2020, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've allowed you to change the scenario once; now I'm being elusive because you want to change it again.
Okay, let's both stop with changing the scenarios. Lets' go back to the original. Seizing government property while armed and then securing the property with armed guards.
Explain to me again how threatening to shoot someone for entering a property you are illegally controlling is a non-violent action.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
