If they’re not already doing it, maybe the protest organizers should set a time limit, like 9 pm, and pack up and leave for the night. That would let the cops focus on the non-protesters.
You have sussed your words but what I read your words to say, is that since all Law Enforcement is inherently bad and they really really want to hurt the protestors and don’t give a shit about catching the looters, then they would then be VISIBLE.
Many threads of “just arrest the looters” where peaceful protests have been staged resulting in law enforcement dispersing the entire crowd because they could not identify the suspects to arrest.
I mean, I agree with your peaceful protests, and I further agree that it would be a good way to hold peaceful protests without giving cover for the rioters and looters.
Let’s pass it up the chain
What else would this mean?
See, now, that’s why you shouldn’t go and make things up. Your motivated reading has entirely altered what I said.
I said specifically that it would be hard to justify shooting prone protesters. When I say that, I mean that is unlikely to be done, since it is hard to justify.
It is only your words here that are saying that “all Law Enforcement is inherently bad” and that “they really really want to hurt the protestors”. You are the only one who is saying that.
The only one. At all.
Please stop attributing your thoughts with the words of others.
Since you are so generous on handing out passes, I’ll give you one this time.
it’s the 9th letter of the alphabet.
And this one, this one was you of course saying it would be hard to justify. Nope no law enforcement bias at all.
So as long as he shows a bias elsewhere, it’s OK to put words in his mouth?
Look, you’re chasing a losing argument. He called you on it, now let it go.
I thought there were examples of cops attacking peaceful protesters and the press caught on video. Perhaps reality has a bias?
If there were examples of police brutality being caught on tape, any day now there will be lawsuits filed and law enforcement being given their day in court. As of right now, in the moment, when the police give you a lawful order, you are duty bound to obey that order (or risk arrest)
What I have read a lot of here is that the rioters, looters and do-badders are hiding among the “peaceful protestors” but the peaceful protestors want them gone.
IF, the peaceful protestors are hampering the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs, then that peaceful protest will (and should) be dispersed.
K9’s way sure sounds like an attempt to make it so that law enforcement can do their job while the protest is on-going. I am all on board!
But the reading if his words about protests and the police in general give no warm fuzzy feeling that he really wants that, as he doesn’t believe that the police forces will be able to restrain themselves from doing damage to the peaceful protestors. If it was a bad framing by his part, he can speak for himself.
If it wasn’t bad framing, then he gets to own up to what he truly meant.
Elsewhere? As in a post or two spacing in this very thread?
Well, you tell me your criteria for how far posts can be separated and still have it valid for you to put words in someone else’s mouth. My rule is never, but you seem to disagree.
When I say that I think it would be hard to get a cop to shoot a protester in the head while they are laying down, exactly what bias am I showing?
You are making no sense here, just casting aspersions that have no bearing on reality.
This is why you seem to have such a hard time. You start the conversation already knowing what others are thinking and saying, and will not let the actual words and thoughts of your interlocutors disabuse you of the notion.
Did you actually have a coherent point to make? If so, then make it. Nonsensical assertions are all you have had to offer so far, though.
After all that has been said, by you, about the police in general and the protestors, you actually think anyone here thinks you are arguing about reality?
There are and there are.
I don’t know that I agree with that. It makes it far too easy for agitators or other opposed to a peaceful demonstration to foul it.
More to the point to discourage people who have come to the protest for the purposes of stirring up trouble. If they have less cover, then they are far less likely to commit acts that need to be policed in the first place.
No, that’s just bad reading on you part. I have explained a few times using other words, and you have refused to let go of your preconceptions and have taken a very corrupted view of what I said.
I have nothing to own up to. I said what I meant, meant what I said, and if you choose to twist my words to fit your preconceived notions, then there’s not much I can do about that.
For what it is worth, yes, I do.
Since you seem more concerned about what others think than about presenting an argument that stands on its own merits, do you really think that anyone here thinks that you have a point?
Yes. He’s making perfect sense, and you aren’t. (You invoked “anyone here,” and I’m one.)
Here is the problem with this load of bullshit: the protesters are out there in the street, yelling and waving signs and stuff, while the troublemakers are not. If they are breaking stores open and looting, it is happening where the stores are, and if they are burning down buildings, they are over there, starting the fires, not out in the crowd protesting.
In other words, if the police want to deal with the troublemakers, they should go where those people are making trouble, which is not out in the crowd. It looks like that, to the police, the crowd is the shiny distraction that is preventing them from seeing the problem (or, to be cynical, like the police want the mayhem to happen as a way to repudiate the protesters by blaming it on them).
Hmm. I haven’t seen it so separate. What I’ve seen is a big crowd around a building, and then people do something like break windows while a whole crowd is milling near the windows, some holding signs, some standing and yelling, some cheering for them, maybe someone in the crowd sets some debris on fire. Then someone runs over and throws burning debris through the window. It’s chaotic. It’s not like one thing is happening in one place, and arsonists are in another.
Or a march is moving through town, and some people break into a store as the march is passing by. Police can’t get to the store through the marching crowd, if they even know it’s happening in the moment. (I’ve seen people in the crowd yell at and shame those people, too. But I don’t think the protesters are obligated to do so.)
Here’s an example Portland protesters break windows at the Justice Center downtown - YouTube
Agreed, it still amazes me though the hoops people will jump through to “win” an online argument. The general hypocrisy, the mental gymnastics one must go through to defend their “side”.
All rational thought disappears. And the plethora of people (also on their side) that will jump in to defend the irrational.
The passive aggressive whining rather than a coherent argument used to amaze me, but it’s what I’ve gotten used to expecting when someone has nothing else to bring.