Is this just the beginning of rioting or will it subside?

[chocktaw2]

[video]https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-gopers-say-pelosi-has-no-plan-to-bring-house-back-safely-as-rest-of-america-returns-to-work_3389480.html?ref=brief_News&__sta=mlj.fjouebn mjlgxblpblwjlmkgousvm%7CUVJ&__stm_medium=email&__s tm_source=smartech[/video]

 

[Cameramonkey]

[video]https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-gopers-say-pelosi-has-no-plan-to-bring-house-back-safely-as-rest-of-america-returns-to-work_3389480.html?ref=brief_News&__sta=mlj.fjouebn mjlgxblpblwjlmkgousvm%7CUVJ&__stm_medium=email&__s tm_source=smartech[/video]

Good. That means they cant do anything stupid. (which they are VERY good at)

Now can we withhold their salaries since they are choosing not to do their jobs? We all had to take a bite of that sandwitch, they can too. Besides they can all afford it. After all there are HOW many millionaires in there? (rhetorical; I know there are too many.)

 

[JAL]

[video]https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-gopers-say-pelosi-has-no-plan-to-bring-house-back-safely-as-rest-of-america-returns-to-work_3389480.html?ref=brief_News&__sta=mlj.fjouebn mjlgxblpblwjlmkgousvm%7CUVJ&__stm_medium=email&__s tm_source=smartech[/video]

The President can call a special session of Congress - which cannot be ignored. Read the Section 3, Article II of the Constitution. Pelosi's ploy would constitute the circumstances under which that part of the Constitution was specifically written. That said, this gives Trump massive fodder to use regarding their obstructionism.

John

 

[CampingJosh]

Be careful about wording wild ass binary statements. It is a sign that you may have said something that’s at least a little full of ****. There’s a lot of room between not listening to the complaints and favoring a totalitarian government.

It sure sounded to me like he thought police didn't have the spine to squelch protests. When the protests are against police violence, and someone calls for police violence...

I will admit that I did not read it generously. But to read it generously would require me to assume he's ignoring context.

I wanted to get back to this part of the discussion. It's not just one side that needs listening to. Yes. That side does need people to listen, but the for a meaningful conversation to happen it can't just be "listen". There's a back and forth. A sharing of all perspectives. That's what a discussion looks like. What it looks like in the above exchange is two people talking past each other.

The "law and order" perspective is as legitimate as any, but it's not without flaws. The "listen to our protest" perspective is as legitimate as any, but it's not without flaws. I think neither side seems capable at this point of identifying that there are any flaws at all with their perspectives. And that's going to continue as long as one side wants law and order to shut up the other, and the other side only wants their voices heard above all others.

Law and order is fine but people have a right to protest. Peacefully. People should protest their grievances against the government. That's built into our rights as citizens. But "silence is violence" is nonsense. And their voice is not 100% right. Violence, looting, and all of that is not a legitimate way to protest and the government does have authority and should use that authority to keep the peace in a reasonable way. That's the point that's in between your dichotomy above. Enforcing a peaceful aspect to the protests is not authoritarian. Mere enforcement of laws is not authoritarian.

But that's not what has happened--at least not in every case.

The protests broke out because George Floyd was murdered by the police. He was not resisting. There was not a threat that the officers wouldn't go home at the end of their shift. There was no split second decision or heat of the moment. It was simply an act of violence by the police against a peaceful man who was already restrained by handcuffs. The "law and order" crowd should find that to be heinous.

Peaceful protests against that violence were taking place in Lafayette Square, and they were happening in accordance with the curfew that was put in place by the government. The crowd was not being violent. There wasn't property damage going on. There wasn't looting. And the response of the police was violence, tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. It was literally responding to complaints of unprovoked violence with acts of unprovoked violence.

What happened in other places, or at other times, or by other people is wholly irrelevant to how the police must respond to the situation in front of them. Peaceful protesters deserve a peaceful response from the police 100% of the time.

Where I disagree with campingjosh is that at some point when things escalate into violence, property damage, looting, which harms other people, we should expect police to step in and protect people being harmed, and restore order. The legitimate function of government is to protect rights, including property rights. Your right to protest does not abridge my right to property. You want to loot and burn, to protest something, loot YOUR business, and burn YOUR house.

That's not a point of disagreement. We're on the same page on the theory. My complaint is in the misapplication.

So long as police officers respond to peaceful citizens with violence--both in groups protesting and in simple, daily interactions--this isn't going to be fixed.

 

[BugI02]

It sure sounded to me like he thought police didn't have the spine to squelch protests. When the protests are against police violence, and someone calls for police violence...

I will admit that I did not read it generously. But to read it generously would require me to assume he's ignoring context.



But that's not what has happened--at least not in every case.

The protests broke out because George Floyd was murdered by the police. He was not resisting. There was not a threat that the officers wouldn't go home at the end of their shift. There was no split second decision or heat of the moment. It was simply an act of violence by the police against a peaceful man who was already restrained by handcuffs. The "law and order" crowd should find that to be heinous.

Peaceful protests against that violence were taking place in Lafayette Square, and they were happening in accordance with the curfew that was put in place by the government. The crowd was not being violent. There wasn't property damage going on. There wasn't looting. And the response of the police was violence, tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. It was literally responding to complaints of unprovoked violence with acts of unprovoked violence.

What happened in other places, or at other times, or by other people is wholly irrelevant to how the police must respond to the situation in front of them. Peaceful protesters deserve a peaceful response from the police 100% of the time.



That's not a point of disagreement. We're on the same page on the theory. My complaint is in the misapplication.

So long as police officers respond to peaceful citizens with violence--both in groups protesting and in simple, daily interactions--this isn't going to be fixed.

The highlighted is exactly the kind of hyperbole that will invite/incite pushback. George Floyd was not killed by 'teh police', he was killed by Derek Chauvin - there is no collective guilt. Some guilt may extend to the other officers on the scene if it is determined they had a duty to intervene. Murder is an emotionally charged word chosen to make the crime seem more heinous and is legally dubious as it usually requires premeditation. Good luck proving that Chauvin overtly decided to kill the black man or perhaps was in a more general sense looking to kill black men prior to this event and Floyd was just the culmination of that desire

I fail to see how you can agitate for collective blame to be applied to the police in all cases like this and still argue that gun owners are not collectively to blame for events like Sandy Hook because they enable a permissive environment where posession of firearms is concerned - assuming that you do so argue. I am also unsympathetic to the 'peaceful protester' canard, which is collective absolution and just as unwarranted. The lived experience of any city hosting 'protests' was that they were non-violent until they weren't with the dividing line often being when darkness fell. Those very same 'peaceful protesters', or ones like them, had vandalized and torched a historic church and attempted to breach white house security among other excesses.

This is about the night Lafayette Park was cleared; from The Washington Blade, a self-professed LGBT news source, so likely not conservative leaning. I'll leave it to you to explain why the 'peaceful protesters' were equipped with baseball bats and the wherewithal to commit arson

Similar to the D.C. protests that unfolded on Friday, May 29, and Saturday, May 30, the Sunday protests joined by about 1,000 people began peacefully at the site of the White House and Lafayette Park earlier in the day.
But shortly after nightfall when police blocked access to the White House area the protesters scattered into smaller groups and marched through downtown streets. Some of them wielded metal baseball bats to smash windows and glass doors of stores and office buildings, according to media reports.


Some of those engaging in vandalism, whom D.C. police and Bowser have said appear to be radical agitators who do not share the goals of protesting the death in Minneapolis of George Floyd, set fires inside the buildings they broke into.


Among the buildings partially damaged by fire was the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church located across the street from Lafayette Park near the White House known as the Church of the Presidents. Also set on fire was the lobby of the AFL-CIO building two blocks away at 815 16th Street, N.W.

 

[judgecrater]

Riots will continue as long as politicians let them continue without resistance. Once the good guys use force to stop the destruction it will end. Very simple.

 

[Tombs]

It sure sounded to me like he thought police didn't have the spine to squelch protests. When the protests are against police violence, and someone calls for police violence...

I will admit that I did not read it generously. But to read it generously would require me to assume he's ignoring context.

Using violence to push an agenda, subverting the democratic process, and intimidating everyone into following your rule is the ultimate definition of a totalitarian government.

Doesn't matter whether it's the state's doing or the mob's doing, it's still totalitarian.

It needs squished so we can go back to having our basic liberties without fear of being beaten to death by a mob of thousands.

I couldn't care less about how some felon ended up dying after dosing up on drugs. I care that we don't have roving mobs threatening to murder people for disagreeing with them.

 

[jamil]

It sure sounded to me like he thought police didn't have the spine to squelch protests. When the protests are against police violence, and someone calls for police violence...

I will admit that I did not read it generously. But to read it generously would require me to assume he's ignoring context.



But that's not what has happened--at least not in every case.

The protests broke out because George Floyd was murdered by the police. He was not resisting. There was not a threat that the officers wouldn't go home at the end of their shift. There was no split second decision or heat of the moment. It was simply an act of violence by the police against a peaceful man who was already restrained by handcuffs. The "law and order" crowd should find that to be heinous.

Peaceful protests against that violence were taking place in Lafayette Square, and they were happening in accordance with the curfew that was put in place by the government. The crowd was not being violent. There wasn't property damage going on. There wasn't looting. And the response of the police was violence, tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. It was literally responding to complaints of unprovoked violence with acts of unprovoked violence.

What happened in other places, or at other times, or by other people is wholly irrelevant to how the police must respond to the situation in front of them. Peaceful protesters deserve a peaceful response from the police 100% of the time.



That's not a point of disagreement. We're on the same page on the theory. My complaint is in the misapplication.

So long as police officers respond to peaceful citizens with violence--both in groups protesting and in simple, daily interactions--this isn't going to be fixed.

You don't have to read it generously. I'd settle for not imposing a one-sided viewpoint. Your posts seem to minimize violence when violence was pretty ***damn obvious. And I am talking about around the nation and also in my neck of the woods. I admit I don't know a lot about what happened in Lafayette Square. But given some of your other posts I strongly suspect that things were more violent than you're saying. Maybe some of the INGO cops might be able to talk a little bit about what happened. And also, going from my experience with what's happened in Louisville, some local press reported tear gas being used against "peaceful protesters", until a press conference with police officials revealed a pretty good reason.

 

[NKBJ]

Using violence to push an agenda, subverting the democratic process, and intimidating everyone into following your rule is the ultimate definition of a totalitarian government.

Doesn't matter whether it's the state's doing or the mob's doing, it's still totalitarian.

It needs squished so we can go back to having our basic liberties without fear of being beaten to death by a mob of thousands.

I couldn't care less about how some felon ended up dying after dosing up on drugs. I care that we don't have roving mobs threatening to murder people for disagreeing with them.

Can we create a mass movement of communications to make that happen?
If you got the idea we all got the keyboards and many have the will as well as the willingness.

 

[josh64]

Soros and the black house in dc as well as the rest of the jihadists and marxists want things to escalate, but Trump isn't playing their game. Someday it will come to loggerheads but not today. The terrorists in chaz are quickly finding out that no one wants to open a grocery in their territory for some inexplicable reason, mayors are finding out groceries aren't too keen on reopening in burned/looted hoods either, and this is bad because we don't want them coming to our stores. This latest rounds of tests is nicely showing Trump who is a patriot and who is a domestic enemy in his coc.

 

[Tombs]

Can we create a mass movement of communications to make that happen?
If you got the idea we all got the keyboards and many have the will as well as the willingness.

If you're on social media, start denouncing the rioting, arson, and looting.
Make sure your employer is not going to fire you for having an opinion outside of work, first.

 

[K_W]

Word on Twitter is that the evening shift officers in Atlanta are striking right now. Many quit or called off, stay out of Atlanta tonight.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Word on Twitter is that the evening shift officers in Atlanta are striking right now. Many quit or called off, stay out of Atlanta tonight.

That might be interesting. Hope nothing comes of it (but I wouldn't blame the police officers). If something happens, it will be interesting to see how the left and MSM spin it.

 

[Joniki]

Who's to say the officer even knew that it was his Taser, or his partner's Taser? (Not sure which one fired shots) Point something at me and I hear a pop, you're getting lead. Period.

Fog of war, and all that. Officers don't have the benefit of third person perspective and an armchair, days after the fact.

This. ^^^

 

[Twangbanger]

It sure sounded to me like he thought police didn't have the spine to squelch protests. When the protests are against police violence, and someone calls for police violence...

I will admit that I did not read it generously. But to read it generously would require me to assume he's ignoring context...

Context is a two-way street. You can't cherry-pick which part you want to look at.

If it's incumbent upon protest critics to understand that those protests are occurring in the context of unwarranted and unconstructive "police violence," which all reasonable people consider abhorrent, then it's also incumbent upon critics of police to understand that those protests are also occurring in the context of waves of unwarranted and unconstructive "protest violence," which all reasonable people _also_ consider to be abhorrent.

You can't have it both ways.

As C.S. Lewis said, evils come in pairs.

You keep arguing as if the fact that George Floyd's death was unjustified hasn't already been accepted by reasonable people, and moved-on past.

George Floyd's death is now old news. It's being avenged in the courts, as it should.

But the fact that people are burning cities and harming innocent people on a large scale, mostly without consequence, is _not_ old news. There is a widespread and justified perception that Justice for the most part is not being done in response to that.

That's the context that many here are responding to, which you don't seem to grasp. If we hate evil, then we have to hate all of it. Not cherry-pick which parts we want to make excuses for. And there is a justified perception that many, including you, are doing precisely that. You can say that's not what you intend, but I think you need to step back and look in the mirror.

 

[CampingJosh]

The highlighted is exactly the kind of hyperbole that will invite/incite pushback. George Floyd was not killed by 'teh police', he was killed by Derek Chauvin - there is no collective guilt. Some guilt may extend to the other officers on the scene if it is determined they had a duty to intervene.

George Floyd was killed while three police officers stood by and watched without intervening. That only happened because of Derek Chauvin's role as a police officer.

Floyd surrendered himself into the control of his eventual murderer, leaving himself completely vulnerable. He did not fight back even when it had become clear to him that Chauvin didn't care about causing harm to him. That only happened because of Chauvin's role as a police officer.

Various bystanders saw the violence, recognized that Floyd was in danger of serious bodily harm, indicated their concern for him to both Chauvin and the other officers, and still those bystanders chose not to intervene. That only happened because of Chauvin's role as a police officer.

Had one of those bystanders intervened in defense of the life of another person, that bystander would likely be charged with obstructing legal process and assault of a peace officer, which are both potentially felonies. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Chauvin likely believed that he was justified in using violence and that he would be immune to civil liability for his actions because he was acting not on his own behalf but as a police officer, an agent of the government.

I am not saying it's collective guilt. I am saying that this murder highlights a flaw in the system of policing.
Chauvin was able to kill Floyd on camera on a public street in broad daylight, and because he was a police officer, he likely expected not to suffer any consequences.
Because Chauvin was a police officer, the group of people in our society who are paid, trained, and equipped to protect and serve the public instead stood by and made sure that no one else intervened to protect Floyd from Chauvin.

Fixing the issue isn't easy, and I don't think I have all the answers. But I do think it's easy to identify that an issue exists.

Murder is an emotionally charged word chosen to make the crime seem more heinous and is legally dubious as it usually requires premeditation. Good luck proving that Chauvin overtly decided to kill the black man or perhaps was in a more general sense looking to kill black men prior to this event and Floyd was just the culmination of that desire

Murder is not my word choice. Murder is two of the charges levied against Chauvin by the state of Minnesota. And in Minnesota, murder does not require premeditation or even an intent to kill (source).

It's not on me to prove it. A district attorney in Minnesota has already decided that he will be able to prove that Chauvin decided to kill "the black man" (charge of murder in the second degree) or at least that Chauvin caused the death of Floyd by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life (charge of murder in the third degree).

I fail to see how you can agitate for collective blame to be applied to the police in all cases like this and still argue that gun owners are not collectively to blame for events like Sandy Hook because they enable a permissive environment where posession of firearms is concerned - assuming that you do so argue. I am also unsympathetic to the 'peaceful protester' canard, which is collective absolution and just as unwarranted. The lived experience of any city hosting 'protests' was that they were non-violent until they weren't with the dividing line often being when darkness fell. Those very same 'peaceful protesters', or ones like them, had vandalized and torched a historic church and attempted to breach white house security among other excesses.

This is about the night Lafayette Park was cleared; from The Washington Blade, a self-professed LGBT news source, so likely not conservative leaning. I'll leave it to you to explain why the 'peaceful protesters' were equipped with baseball bats and the wherewithal to commit arson

Two responses here:
First, I've gone through daily life for more than a decade armed with more than a baseball bat and often carrying the wherewithal to commit arson. This has includes dozens of interactions with city, county, and state law enforcement agents. It doesn't require explanation because it isn't illegal and, by itself, isn't an imminent threat. You might as well demand that I explain why I need an AR.

Second, your article is about what happened after dark on each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (May 29 - 31). This clearing of Lafayette Square was during daylight hours on Monday, June 1. The solution to stopping crimes after dark was already decided and announced: a curfew. The protesters were not in violation. The protesters were peaceful. Police chose to initiate violence anyway.

It is unacceptable to teargas a peaceful crowd and shoot news reporters with rubber bullets. It's especially ironic and idiotic to do so when what the crowd is protesting is unnecessary violence by police.

And teargassing and attacking "ones like them" rather than the *actual* perpetrators of crimes is acceptable, but you think I am the one whose logic should blame all gun owners for Sandy Hook?

(See, these "you're a closet anti-gunner" ad hominem attacks are pretty easy to turn around. Maybe let's knock those off. They are not helpful, and they are not accurate of either you or me.)

Looting is bad. Arson is bad. Peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for redress of grievances are constitutionally-protected rights. Needless violence by police officers is bad. These views are not contradictory.

 

[Tombs]

It is unacceptable to teargas a peaceful crowd and shoot news reporters with rubber bullets. It's especially ironic and idiotic to do so when what the crowd is protesting is unnecessary violence by police.

Feel free to explain how you separate the people attempting to burn down St John's church and attack LEOs from the people shielding them.

That's actually in their field manuals they've been issuing.

 

[CampingJosh]

Context is a two-way street. You can't cherry-pick which part you want to look at.

If it's incumbent upon protest critics to understand that those protests are occurring in the context of unwarranted and unconstructive "police violence," which all reasonable people consider abhorrent, then it's also incumbent upon critics of police to understand that those protests are also occurring in the context of waves of unwarranted and unconstructive "protest violence," which all reasonable people _also_ consider to be abhorrent.

You can't have it both ways.

As C.S. Lewis said, evils come in pairs.

You keep arguing as if the fact that George Floyd's death was unjustified hasn't already been accepted by reasonable people, and moved-on past.

Yeah... that's why the protests are still happening. Our society wants to move on rather than making difficult changes to try to keep it from happening again. George Floyd was not the first. If we just move on, he won't be the last.

After enough bad outcomes, it's necessary to review the process in order to prevent future bad outcomes. I think we're well past enough on this.

George Floyd's death is now old news. It's being avenged in the courts, as it should.

But the fact that people are burning cities and harming innocent people on a large scale, mostly without consequence, is _not_ old news. There is a widespread and justified perception that Justice for the most part is not being done in response to that.

That's the context that many here are responding to, which you don't seem to grasp. If we hate evil, then we have to hate all of it. Not cherry-pick which parts we want to make excuses for. And there is a justified perception that many, including you, are doing precisely that. You can say that's not what you intend, but I think you need to step back and look in the mirror.

Both things are evil. I have made no excuses for any. I have spoken considerably less about the looting, arson, etc. because those are points that we already agree on.

But I do choose to hold a higher standard of conduct for the police officers who are trained, equipped, armed, and paid to enforce the laws. Say it however you want:

• "With great power comes great responsibility."
• "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

Don't want the scrutiny? Well, President Trump has promised that he's going to quickly rebuild the greatest economy the world has ever seen. The officers are free to seek another line of work.

 

[CampingJosh]

Feel free to explain how you separate the people attempting to burn down St John's church and attack LEOs from the people shielding them.

Um... the D.C. police had already figured out a system. It was a curfew.

Consistently, peaceful protesting was happening during daylight, and violence was happening after dark. The curfew separates those who are trying to legally, peacefully protest--who go home before the curfew--from those who are trying to riot.

You can't come up with a way to accomplish a goal, not try it, and then declare that it didn't work.

 

[Tombs]

Um... the D.C. police had already figured out a system. It was a curfew.

Consistently, peaceful protesting was happening during daylight, and violence was happening after dark. The curfew separates those who are trying to legally, peacefully protest--who go home before the curfew--from those who are trying to riot.

You can't come up with a way to accomplish a goal, not try it, and then declare that it didn't work.

You do realize, the president needed to travel, right? Is he supposed to walk among the people who have been throwing molotovs at cops, unprotected? Or are the "protesters" supposed to be able to decide that the president can't leave the white house?