Even when 100% within the law, it’s reasonable to question their intent and effect.
Point one: you are one person. If everyone had been in favor of BLM reforms all along, we’d long ago have had them. Obviously significant numbers of people weren’t in favor of them.
Point two: you’re saying that you’re not going to support changes that you genuinely think are needed because people are phrasing one item in a way that you don’t like? I don’t see how that attitude goes along with any depth of commitment to the reforms you’re saying you favor.
Protesting police violence with groups of people coming out into the streets chanting and holding signs is peaceful; and it is speech. And that is what nearly all the people at the protests are doing.
I looked at a number of different news sources last night and I noted that some of them don’t mention that. Maybe you should expand what you’re reading/watching.
I agree with you about the racial and politically motivated assaults. So do the protestors. This behavior on the part of the police forces is exactly what they’re upset about.
– SmartAleq: you got me there. I’d better go get something else done for a while, anyway.
There isn’t looting here. Pretty much the only assaults, racially motivated or otherwise, are being committed by police and paramilitary goons. Why did you feel the need to include things that aren’t happening in your list? Are you concerned that if you left it with vandalism and starting small fires on the sidewalk, that people might start to question if the fed response is necessary?
You’re scared of a boogie man. It isn’t real. The things you are scared of are make believe. Open your door, see the world for real a little bit.
Which tells me that you were looking for an excuse to object to protests against police brutality.
If it were really just that some people were using some words in a way you don’t like, then it wouldn’t have lost you, much less “completely”.
If you were interested in solving problems with policing, then you would have sought to understand the term, rather than lash out at something that you really don’t want to understand.
Agreed.
So why are the jackbooted thugs going after the peaceful protesters, rather than the arsonists, the looters, the vandals, or the assailants?
Oh look, Chad Dickwolf outright admits he knows that what they’re doing there is unconstitutional. Quelle surprise, y’all. Rest of the article is a nice little takedown of just how many ways they’re violating people’s rights.
PEACEFUL protesters are so threatening that the government has to tear gas them?
Peaceful protest has always been terrifying to the government.
As they should be.
The Justice Department’s independent watchdog agency said Thursday that it will investigate the use of force by federal law enforcement officers in Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC.
Independent Justice Dept. watchdog agency to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in a statement that his review of the law enforcement forces would include an examination of the instructions they received and their compliance with policies regarding proper identification as well as use of chemical agents.
In no way, shape or form is tear gas peaceful. None.
No, I would rather they didn’t lay hands or weapons on them at all. None at all.
How about like with like? The police/government agents can wave posters and chant slogans as much and long as they want? Seems not only fair but proportionate. Fair and proportionate.
Let me show you how the police in my city do it. This was at a BLM demonstration. Notice the BLM protest signs.
I thought the Drumphsterfire fired all of the Inspectors General…
I didn’t say I wouldn’t support changes, I do support the changes. I did before the protests, I continue to despite some protesters destroying things and despite some with misleading communication.
But I don’t need to engage in communications with people that use misleading phrases, whether those people are on the right, the left, or in between. I prefer facts and real problem solving, not spin.
How many people have been shown to have been “black-bagged”? I haven’t been following this too closely, and was under the impression that it was quite a few. Is that the case?
Snopes weighed in on the story:
They conclude that Trump did send in agents, and “rate this claim a “Mixture” of truth, falsehood and unproven information — yes, the president ordered federal officers to Portland during protests in summer 2020, and at least some of those agents used unmarked vehicles, though no verifiable evidence showed they “kidnapped” people under the legal definition of the term, nor that they did not identify themselves as law enforcement during the apprehensions.”
They also make no mention of large numbers of people supposedly being detained in this way, so I am just curious as to what the claims are from others. How many people have definitively been shown to have been “abducted”, for lack of a better term?
Ok, but even the ACLU says "defund the police’ is a bad slogan and is pushing “Divest and re-invest” instead.
So, pretty much-defund the police is a bad slogan.
“Defund the police” isn’t spin - it’s just an incomplete picture. Way less incomplete than “pro-life”, mind you.
Only 4% of police calls involve violent crime or otherwise require or justify the use of firearms. Police are usually trained like those 4% of calls are the only calls they take - so having only a hammer, everything is a nail to them.
“Defund the police” means “Take 96% of the money away from the police and use it to create new organizations that we train not to shoot the people they’re interacting with. Devote the remaining reduced police force to the tasks it’s actually good at.”
It’s not a big scary idea. It’s really just intelligent allocation of resources.
But if you’re a republican spinmaster or fascist, then it’s easy to paint it as a big scary idea. But they’d paint it that way whatever it was called because they’re lying pieces of shit, so trying to come up with unspinnable slogans seems like a waste of time.
Good cite, thanks.
[quote=“k9bfriender, post:626, topic:915638”]
Which tells me that you were looking for an excuse to object to protests against police brutality.[/quote]
How could I have been looking for an excuse if the thing you accuse me of isn’t accurate.
Why not just ask me where I stand instead of accusing me of something I didn’t do and isn’t what I believe?
He fired the IG’s for the DoT, DoD, HHS, State Dept., and intelligence. I suspect Horowitz may be on the chopping block next, depending on his findings.
Well, I disagree, as I think it says exactly what needs to happen.
But I do agree that it is too easy to take it the wrong way, and use it as a wedge as it has been used.
If the ACLU wants to use “Divest and Re-invest” that’s fine. I’m sure changing the slogan will make all the reform that is needed to happen happen.
I took it when you said,
That you no longer supported the movement, due to the word that was being used to describe it.
If you changed your mind when the ACLU changed the slogan, then great, happy that we were able to make you comfortable enough to continue to be against police brutality.