“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well”. Is it the “also” that you want? Ok. There it is. It is just as bad.
“It’s a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”
What she actually said is very different from your blatant misrepresentation.
It is not a misrepresentation. It is exactly what she said. For a pitiful excuse of a reason - because they “tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on” - they "gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well". It is not a “delicate balancing act”. That’s utter bullshit. It is police’s job NOT to allow “those who wished to destroy space to do that as well”. Whatever the excuse is, they are NOT to allow that to happen.
So you believe that all protests should not be allowed under any circumstances.
It’s not saying what you think it’s saying, Terr.
It’s like saying… by allowing people to drive cars, we allow people to run people over as well. Or that by allowing free speech, we allow people to swear loudly at people. It’s not that we are specifically marking out the ability to do those unpleasant things; it’s that by allowing those acceptable things, that same space also allows for the unpleasant things.
Thus; if we allow space for people to protest peacefully, we also allow space for people to behave destructively, because those are one space and removing it for the latter removes it for the former. Not, we allow space for people to protest peacefully, and then in addition to that we’ve also got some space over here for people to behave destructively, too.
What are you talking about? Protests should definitely be allowed. But you cannot “give space to those who want to destroy”. Protests are not an excuse for that.
Except when people behave destructively, you go after them, aggressively. You do NOT “give them space to destroy”. Reality is, instead of doing that, the Baltimore police department was hiding and fading away, with the mayor’s blessing.
What if they are not behaving destructively? Do you go after them aggressively also?
How is your question relevant to what is being discussed?
But you can only do that by not giving room for a protest. Which you favor.
If you give space for protesters, then potential rioters can mingle with that crowd. It’s not like they wear uniforms.
They can mingle, yes. Once they start destroying, you go after them. You do not “give them space” like Baltimore police department was doing today. Hours of looting, with no police presence whatsoever. Timid like mice.
Because if you give space to peaceful people, you are giving space to any destructive people looking for an opportunity. They don’t wear name tags, you know.
But you already have, if you’ve given space to protest peacefully. Because that’s the space that violent people will use.
What you can do is go after those who act destructively after they have been destructive, just as you can go after people run others over, or people who use actually restricted speech. But you’ve still given the space for them to use that.
Cite, please? You’ve mentioned a live CNN interview before, but I’d really like to see it or a transcript. And your interpretation of the mayor’s comments is still inaccurate.
I understand the rioting. The same way I understand a prison riot. These are uneducated, racist, opportunistic, self-serving criminal scumbags let loose. They should declare marshal law and send in the National Guard and mow them all down dead with M60s. Stop the rioting and eliminate a huge amount of worthless ‘humanity’ along with any future offspring. There’s a reason these people are called ‘niggers’. They are the black version of racist white trash rednecks and should all be shot on sight.
Go there and see how far your politically correct liberal guilt gets you (Hint: It would get you robbed, beaten & killed). It’s 2015 for Christ’s sake, not 1968…
“Give space” means do not interfere. It does not mean provide a physical area for the protest. That is not what was happening - there was no protest in some particular “space”.
Yet that was not happening, was it?
My cite is hours of CNN and others reporting today. Stores being looted, with people leisurely walking in and out, for hours, on live video on CNN, with no police presence whatsoever.
Right. And if you do not interfere with a crowd protesting peacefully, then you aren’t all among them (or haven’t dispersed the crowds) to stop the guy throwing rocks from within.
(Collated the two since they’re the same issue)
I’m not American. I don’t have access to CNN. Do you have anything you can cite that I can see? Too, I’d like to see some cites for where the police were instead, to see if they were acting timidly.
Looks like police.
Second video down.
And if you’ve been watching CNN for hours, you’re probably watching the same video over and over.
In my facebook feed, I’m having the uncomfortable realization that the people condemning the rioters in Baltimore most reflexively are the same ones who posture about taking up arms against the government every time something they don’t like happens.
You, of course, if you were in the mayor’s position would have responded HOW?