More "largely peaceful" Portland protests

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 06:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You still haven't addressed the SCOTUS case that directly addresses this issue.

You did not post any SCOTUS case involving burning in effigy.  You posted something about a guy threatening to shoot LBJ

I addressed the more relevant law regarding actions like burning a cross.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 06:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, clearly not in this case since no charges were filed or arrests made.  

So no laws are ever broken if no one is arrested or charged.

That is hilarious coming from the guy who has been complaining about protestors breaking the law and not getting charged or arrested.

How can you support those two completely contradictory positions?

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 06:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I do not recall the protesters ever stating they had permission or anyone else stating so.  hence, trespassing.

Let me answer that with this

(09-08-2020, 06:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, clearly not in this case since no charges were filed or arrests made.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2020, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But in the same state in the same month peaceful unarmed protestors were arrested for doing the exact same thing (trespassing) at the Attorney Generals home.

Got any video of police in Portland breaking up an assault committed by BLM members and letting the assailant go to contrast with them arresting the Proud Boy? 

You're missing the point of my post. Anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything other than what occurred in that one specific instance. Data collection and analysis would be required to make the sort of definitive statements you are making.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-08-2020, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course you do.  But as usual you have zero evidence to back up your beliefs.  24 different families who were neighbors of the McCroskey's signed a letter condemning their actions..  .  .  https://www.kmov.com/news/mccloskey-condemn-neighbors-letter-gun-st-louis/article_6107683c-bc13-11ea-a3d4-2f87860c3f2f.html

They can still have been intimidated by the protesters storming their community and, in addition, think the McCloskey's went too far.

Quote:True, "asshole" is subjective.  But there is plenty of evidence that the McCroskey's are not "reasonable" people.

Let's say they are "unreasonable" people.  That does not mean that any opinion or position they take is automatically "unreasonable" by definition of the law.  I would think you'd know this.

(09-08-2020, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You did not post any SCOTUS case involving burning in effigy.  You posted something about a guy threatening to shoot LBJ

I addressed the more relevant law regarding actions like burning a cross.

Yeah, a guy threatening to shoot the president and a person hanging the governor in effigy have nothing to do with each other at all. 

(09-08-2020, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So no laws are ever broken if no one is arrested or charged.

That is hilarious coming from the guy who has been complaining about protestors breaking the law and not getting charged or arrested.

How can you support those two completely contradictory positions?

Very easily.  In one instance I see people peacefully protesting.  In another I see people violently rioting.  The distinction isn't hard to draw.

(09-08-2020, 07:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me answer that with this

Yes, it is funny that you don't see yourself arguing against your own position.

[GMDino]

If you can see this please immediately retweet. Twitter is back to censoring ads and we need to get this out as far and wide as we can. #TrumpsRadicalRight pic.twitter.com/nXA3ifGsUF

— MeidasTouch.com (@MeidasTouch) September 8, 2020

 

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're missing the point of my post. Anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything other than what occurred in that one specific instance. Data collection and analysis would be required to make the sort of definitive statements you are making.

You know it is impossible to collect data on non-arrests.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's say they are "unreasonable" people.  That does not mean that any opinion or position they take is automatically "unreasonable" by definition of the law.  I would think you'd know this.

Don'tknow what you mean about "automatically".  I never said that.  Instead I introduced other evidence to support my position i.e., the fact that none of the neighbors in the exact same situation indicated that they felt threatened.

Using extrinsic evidence is the opposite of claiming something is "automatic"

I would think you would have known this.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, a guy threatening to shoot the president and a person hanging the governor in effigy have nothing to do with each other at all. 

They both fall under the same broad issue of "free speech" but I just prefer to use examples that are more directly on point.  So I never avoided addressing the issue you raised about free speech.  I just addressed it with a more appropriate example that applied to the facts better. 

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very easily.  In one instance I see people peacefully protesting.  In another I see people violently rioting.  The distinction isn't hard to draw.

Then why did you claim that the way you decided the issue was to rely on the decision to arrest or press charges?  Why not admit that it was just based on your own opinion.  Is it because your failure to see trespassing would prove that your opinion is so biased you are unable to see the truth?

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2020, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it is funny that you don't see yourself arguing against your own position.

Stem cells.

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2020, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You know it is impossible to collect data on non-arrests.

No it isn't. I could think of a number of ways for data collection on those sorts of things. The social sciences really has a lot of tools in the toolbox for these sorts of things.

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2020, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don'tknow what you mean about "automatically".  I never said that.  Instead I introduced other evidence to support my position i.e., the fact that none of the neighbors in the exact same situation indicated that they felt threatened.

Using extrinsic evidence is the opposite of claiming something is "automatic"

I would think you would have known this.

So is it your assertion that if no other took an active of a role as the McCloskey's then they felt they were not threatened?

If we concede that no other neighbor felt threatened then the McClosky's had no right to while witnessing numerous people breaking the law

Did every other neighbor's property sit adjacent to the gate that was breached to break the law?  

I try to keep it pretty consistent. If Breshear would have sent out security to confront the folks that breached his private property I would have supported it. The McCloskey's chose to present a hard target against folks that breached their private property and I support it. 

Neither went looking for trouble. Trouble came to them. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2020, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No it isn't. I could think of a number of ways for data collection on those sorts of things. The social sciences really has a lot of tools in the toolbox for these sorts of things.

(09-09-2020, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So is it your assertion that if no other took an active of a role as the McCloskey's then they felt they were not threatened?

If we concede that no other neighbor felt threatened then the McClosky's had no right to while witnessing numerous people breaking the law

Did every other neighbor's property sit adjacent to the gate that was breached to break the law?  

I try to keep it pretty consistent. If Breshear would have sent out security to confront the folks that breached his private property I would have supported it. The McCloskey's chose to present a hard target against folks that breached their private property and I support it. 

Neither went looking for trouble. Trouble came to them. 

My thanks to you both for attempting to provide clarity and focus to the discussion.  However, I'm getting the impression that this has become an argument for the sake of argument.  I think both sides have been presented and anyone reading other than the participants has more than enough information to form their own opinion.

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  I could think of a number of ways for data collection on those sorts of things. 

What evidence is there to track when police officer sees someone breaking the law but does nothing?

There is no record of anything that anyone can trace and count.  We only know about this incident at the Kentucky governors mansion because it was a highly public event.

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So is it your assertion that if no other took an active of a role as the McCloskey's then they felt they were not threatened?

All I am saying is that there is no evidence I know of to prove that any other neighbors felt threatened.

But I posted a link to a letter from 24 other neighboring homes that condemned the McCroskey's actions.

So the evidence I have found is overwhelming ion my favor.  If you can find something to support your position I would be happy to consider it.

(09-09-2020, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did every other neighbor's property sit adjacent to the gate that was breached to break the law?  

Proximity to the gate has absolutely nothing to do with feeling threatened.  The supposed threat is the presence of the protestors.  Does not matter how they got there.

Would you say that if the McCroskeys lived farther away from the gate they would not have felt threatened by these protestors and therefore would not have been justified in pulling weapons?

[fredtoast]

(09-09-2020, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I try to keep it pretty consistent. If Breshear would have sent out security to confront the folks that breached his private property I would have supported it. The McCloskey's chose to present a hard target against folks that breached their private property and I support it. 

The people that intrude on Brashears property were armed.  The protestors at Portland place were not.

The people who intruded on Brashears property had just burnt him in effigy with a death threat hung around his neck.  The protestors in Portland place did not even know or care who the McCrosky's were.  They had made no threats against them.

The trespassers at the Governors Mansion were on exclusive private property from which the Governor had the right to exclude all people.  The trespassers at Portland place were never on the McCroskey's exclusive private property.  They were on common areas that the McCroskys could not keep other people from using.  When other people are allowed to walk down the road by your house you are not allowed to claim you feel threatened just by people walking down the road by your house.  Under the law there is a big difference between "exclusive" private property and "common areas" in a private community.

[GMDino]

(09-09-2020, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What evidence is there to track when police officer sees someone breaking the law but does nothing?

There is no record of anything that anyone can trace and count.  We only know about this incident at the Kentucky governors mansion because it was a highly public event.

As an aside, but tangentially related to that, I was reading about John Wayne Gacy the other night and it was amazing how often the law (police/courts/jails) let him get away with crimes.  Partly because he was great at smooth talking them and putting up a front but also because his victims were "lesser victims": homosexuals, poor, etc.  The authorities were fine with looking the other way rather than have to delve into the "gay lifestyle".  And yes it was almost 50 years ago but still interesting.

[GMDino]

Filed under there is nothing new under the sun and at least they were peaceful?

After white supremacist attack on 16th Street Baptist Church, Birmingham, this week 1963, which killed four Black girls, picketers with swastikas went to JFK White House, saying, “We Mourn White Victims of Negro Crime”: #Getty pic.twitter.com/NOnxoaW6Ts

— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) September 10, 2020

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-11-2020, 10:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Filed under there is nothing new under the sun and at least they were peaceful?

After white supremacist attack on 16th Street Baptist Church, Birmingham, this week 1963, which killed four Black girls, picketers with swastikas went to JFK White House, saying, “We Mourn White Victims of Negro Crime”: #Getty pic.twitter.com/NOnxoaW6Ts

— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) September 10, 2020

 

I don't think you realize what a large self own your post is.  That pesky First Amendment says everyone has the right to "peacefully" assemble/protest.  Even bad people who think and say things most people find repugnant are covered by this.  "Peaceful" is an extremely important distinction as peaceful protest is absolutely protected speech while violent protest absolutely is not.  So, essentially, you just stated that even Nazis can comport themselves better than antifa and the other losers in Portland.