I’ll keep your endorsement of me in mind for some useful opportunity, thanks.
Who’s suggesting that rioters, looters, arsonists, and terrorists are reasonable persons? Especially after they’ve looted and burned the liquor stores, and consumed all of the rum.
That’s what the term means.
It’s indicative of the massive shift to the right in this country (among others) in recent decades that corporate media sources aren’t universally seen as the establishment mouthpieces that they are.
Why are people so intent on defending this ridiculous interpretation of what she said?
It should be obvious to any thinking person that she didn’t mean that she intentionally allowed people to riot, and the context shows that she didn’t.
This constant nonsensical twisting of people’s words makes public discourse difficult if not impossible. The speaker has to parse every damn word to make sure that it can’t be edited to mean something completely different. This stifles communication. It’s destructive to Democracy (and yes, the left does it at times, although I would argue not as often and not so insistently).
I see this game over and over. Something is twisted and taken out of context in the worst possible way. When the “error” is pointed out, either the correction is ignored or, if that becomes difficult, then it becomes the speaker’s fault for not stating it differently. If he or she had stated it differently, some other way of twisting it would have been found.
It’s stupid. It’s destructive. There’s no good excuse for it!
So there is an inherent right to peacefully protest and assemble. Once it is no longer peaceful,“Game over, man.” Protest over.
The police and/or National Guard and/or whatever authorities are needed to clear the area are obligated to do just that. Any of the other logistics in terms of when can the protesting resume, who gets arrested for the violence, how much time is allowed to clear, etc. can be established by process and conditions at the time.
The fact that those that created the violence and shut down the protest for those remaining peaceful is the sole responsibility of those that created the violence.
That’s more than a little amusing coming from somebody accusing the mayor of a major city of inviting its denizens to riot.
Definitely not. She didn’t invite them to do it. She just gave them space.
I thought you were better than that.
“That’s more than a little amusing coming from somebody accusing the mayor of a major city of inviting its denizens to riot.”
Is that the example of your thinking?
Interesting take from one of the owners of the Baltimore Orioles. I agree with much of this. The riots are a symptom of an even greater tragedy, the wars that the elite have waged on the middle class and poor.
Again, the question is, do you really not see that there’s a balancing act involved?
On this street, people are protesting peacefully. One street over, they’re shouting “Kill the Pigs.” What do you do?
Except now they’re throwing rocks.
Except now they’re setting buildings on fire.
Except now they’re twenty streets over.
Except now there are some people among the peaceful protestors wearing black balaclavas.
Except now the police have arrested the rock throwers, but the peaceful protestors are including some more black bloc anarchists.
You genuinely don’t see any sort of balancing act involved? It’s all very simple to you?
Sure that’s certainly part of the discussion. I don’t understand the infantile nature of this thread.
Why do people waste their time on writing messages that insults their intelligence never mind the rest of us?
People, people, people … Terr rivals adaher’s track record and should not be taken seriously.
Absolute horse shit. The riots were an opportunity to a free pass of mayhem taken from a movie. Not one of the rioters gave a rat’s ass about Freddie Gray, social injustice or the plight of the poor and working classes in the struggle against the elitist racists of America. This was an opportunity for some people to commit violence, get some free shit and cause trouble with minimal risk in paying for it.
You don’t associate the violence with the police officers who broke a mans neck and who later died?
No, not one of the violent protesters gave a shit about Freddie Gray.
Right. They’re all about some free vitamins.
So you’re able to read the mind of every single rioter. That’s quite an ability. I have no doubt that many were opportunists, but “not one” is a pretty strong statement.
Yes, it is. And you know it is. If there is violence (anything verbal is not violence, wearing balaclavas is not violence), the police go in and stop it. With overwhelming force if necessary. If the “peaceful protesters” interfere in this, they get arrested too - see this - it’s from NJ, but I am sure MD has the same statute.
That’s the task of police. The task of police is not to give space to those who want to destroy, even if that interferes with “peaceful protesters”.
Does that clear things up for you?
Yes not one. They disrespected the memory Freddie Gray on the day of his funeral and the wishes of his surviving family. Not one. Strong statement indeed.