And I really want to hear him demand who was using tear gas and rubber bullets to attack the peaceful citizens of america. As an american, I feel that those folks should be recognized for being easily as bad as anybody else he’s compaining about - especially since, aside from that isolated case of arson months ago, nothing else octopus mentioned comes anywhere close to being as bad as that.
I do believe cops have the right to detain you at will without reading rights or stating who they are if they physically see you commit the crime. For instance all the molotovs and ball bearings being lobbed at cops and buildings are easily seen. But if you being investigated and have no proof then they must say the rights
Welcome to the Dope, Mr_BinJu. I agree with you, but that’s getting into a citizen’s arrest. You can’t put them in say, a van without identifying yourself as a LEO.
~Max
…this here is quite the thread.
The Feds are literally outmatched here. They are in a Kobayashi Maru. They’ve check-mated themselves. Tear gas won’t push the crowds back any more, the only way to push the crowds back is to leave the compound but whatever gains they make only last as long as they are out.
There are only a few ways forward for the Feds (besides pulling out completely) and that is joining forces with the local police (but after tear-gassing the Mayor the night before there is no way that is going to happen) or bringing in shit-load more federal “troops”, or they have to change the rules of engagement. I don’t think we are going to see the latter option.
My prediction is that the Feds will move onto another city and start making waves there, while quietly withdrawing from Portland whilst at the same time declaring victory.
Another brand-new apprentice troll with an interesting take on idiomatic English.
You mean like the police and federal agents are doing?
You mean like the police and federal agents are doing?
It’s funny because the “very biased media” is showing lots of videos of actual peaceful protesters being actually attacked - by teargas, rubber bullets and batons - by law enforcement agents. Are you somehow missing all these? Or are you getting your view of events from the same fair and balanced media who were caught deliberately misrepresenting events in the the Seattle CHOP, including actually photoshopping in pictures of armed men and broken windows?
I must admire your commitment to pushing your chosen narrative through repetition, insinuation, snark and careful avoidance of any evidence to the contrary. You keep conflating the protesters, BLM and the rioters and looters, and from context you appear to be doing so for the purpose of discrediting the vast majority of legitimate and, yes, peaceful protesters who are being violently attacked by the people who are supposed to be upholding the law. And that’s not even getting into the implications of the whole “BLM are people who want free Nikes” thing.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised after the right spent years engaging in a smear campaign against Colin Kaepernick for daring to engage in the most peaceful protest possible - it was inevitable that a greater level of protests against police violence would result in an equal effort on the opposing side of the equation.
But you do you, octopus. And we’ll keep watching you do it.
Can you please bring some fucking cites? Especially that shows “large portions of Minneapolis” has been burned down. I haven’t seen anything you’re talking about in this thread, and since it’s all over the media, according to you, it should be easy to bring nice and neutral cites. Thanks in advance.
The video linked previously about the line of mom’s shows many people in the crowd doing the things octopus listed.
You may disagree with the level of the response, but to claim the things that we are seeing each night on the news aren’t actually happening isn’t a very credible position.
Far-right/Russian propaganda (which are essentially the same thing these days)?
The octopus list:
Maybe it’s just the wrong angle. Maybe I need better resolution on my monitor.
Folks who know for a fact that a few people are doing such things but most protestors are not do indeed insist on the accurate description of “peaceful protestor” for those to whom it does apply. Who are, again, from everything I’ve seen the vast majority.
I have however as I’ve said noted that a few news sites are ignoring everyone peaceful and focusing only on the handful committing violence. So I suggest to you again that you need to broaden the sources from which you’re getting information.
Exactly what we’d like to know. Why are the police forces shooting people (with tear gas and ‘less lethal’ bullets) and attempting to shut down basic freedoms with violence and intimidation?
In most protests buildings are not being burned or businesses looted. A jeweler’s store was broken into in Portland while the protests were happening, but there’s no indication I can find that this had anything to do with the protests, other than possibly that the perpetrator(s) thought attention would be elsewhere. The fires at the Portland protests appear to be focused on the building from which protestors have been attacked, and to stand no likelihood of actually burning it down. Teargas and “less lethal” ammunition are entirely ineffective at putting them out, and seem only to be resulting in more of them. Fire extinguishers seem a whole lot more likely to be useful – especially if turned on the fires, rather than at random on people who didn’t light them. Some of the protestors who disagree with their being lit have apparently been putting out fires.
If you wouldn’t mind reposting it, I’d appreciate it. The video I found in this long thread showed the fence coming down, but nothing about looting, arson, etc., plus I think he mentioned high powered lasers used to blind people, plus maybe molotov cocktails.
I have seen all of those except for racially motivated attacks, but not in the Portland, if you include Seattle then yes.
This is what I’ve seen recently in videos in Portland:
People destroying property
People lighting fires
Five or six people attacking a federal agent that was making an arrest in front of the building
Lasers being shined at the agents
Fireworks being shot at the agents
All of these are violent acts. It’s reasonable to argue, as TroutMan stated that things are peaceful until it gets late, and it’s reasonable to argue that you disagree with the response even if there are protesters doing these things.
But to claim these things are not happening when the video evidence shows they are is simply inaccurate.
In addition, claiming that these things might or are happening but those are not “violent” is also inaccurate.
Anyone that wants to truly debate what is an appropriate response needs to first start with being accurate with facts.
This came out wrong. Even in Seattle I haven’t seen anything that I know is a racially motivated attack, I meant that I’ve seen some of the other stuff that hasn’t happened recently in Portland.
It is “opportunistic” in its way, but evidence suggests that the opportunity would have arisen sooner or later. But to call it cynical to perceive the death of George Floyd as the flashpoint for a pervasive and endless series of police abuses is, itself cynical.
As far as “peaceful” protests go, there is a distinction to be made. If the issue is minor, the protest can march through the park and inconvenience no one, but where a major issue like the abuses of the police is not minor and the protests need to be inconvenient in order to have any meaningful effect. I suppose “peaceful” depends on what you think is important and how much convenience you are willing to sacrifice to get it addressed.
Actually, the protesters in the '60s were not "fighting for freedom. The lion’s share were protesting the absurdity of the Viet Nam war. The civil rights protests were about black people (who, really, already had their freedom) being treated as decently as white people.
What is inaccurate about the name? And please enumerate the burning and looting, with dates and locations, so that we can see how widespread and ongoing it is.
octopus seems to live in a world where all protesters are doing these things, and thus all protesters should be shut down.
ETA: And did he accuse them of murder, too? Yep, the protests are just giant murder mobs roaming the land leaving trails of scorched earth and corpses in their wake.
Here’s a picture of some of the dangerous protesters who will be out there tonight. As long as someone nearby launches a firework, I guess there’s no option but to gas the grannies too.
You said that the video with the Moms showed all of the things that octopus listed. I didn’t see those, so was seeking clarification. Apparently the video with the Moms did not, in fact, show all, or even very many of the things that octopus listed.
So, what you are actually saying is that these are isolated events that have happened at different times and at different protests by different people.
What octopus is saying is that there are no peaceful protesters, and as such, everyone who protests deserves whatever they get. That is what is being objected to.
What is being pointed out is that protests are being attacked by police and federal agents that are entirely peaceful. In order to distract from that some are scrambling to explain why police in Seattle are reacting to an event in Portland.
And I do think that calling anything that can be shoehorned into the dictionary definition of violence to be the same is not being accurate with reality.
There is a big difference between knocking over a fence and assault, and yet, both are just called “violence”, without acknowledging that some of them are pretty minor, and responding with violence to them is definitely inappropriate.
Do you acknowledge that pushing a fence off of the bike path that it is illegally blocking is different from murder, even though they could both fall under the dictionary definition of violence?
It is this insistence that zero nuance be acceptable that is one of the things that is being protested.
If a cop comes up behind you, and puts his hand on your shoulder, if you flinch away, that’s resisting arrest. If you touch their hand or arm in anyway, that’s assault.
It is exactly this sort of conflation of definition that is being protested here, and so I see no reason to accept it in the discussion about it either.
You have to realize that sometimes pulling out dictionary definitions is not the best way to solve social problems.
This is what I am saying:
Let’s try to be as accurate as possible with our descriptions because only that type of communication allows for a productive debate.
So let’s find out what everyone thinks:
If there are protesters that are doing things like; breaking windows, tearing down fences and barricades, throwing things at police, shooting fireworks at police, shining lasers at police eye’s, lighting fires, looting - should the police attempt to stop those individuals or not
This eliminates any argument about whether those things should be called “violent” and it eliminates any argument about the people that are not doing those things, and it eliminates any argument about whether those things are happening every night, only after midnight, every other Tuesday, etc.
Is there video evidence showing that the police are attacking when none of the things I’ve listed have been happening? I haven’t seen any examples, not saying it can’t be true, but every example I’ve seen included at least some protesters doing some of the things I listed.
You may disagree with the police responding to the entire group, but your characterization in the above quote is that it’s purely one sided and I would be interested in seeing evidence of that.