Here is the part I really don't understand about Portland
The protests there were at least in part, prompted by the killing of George Floyd... which I think anyone who has watched any real arrests (including on TV like COPS) it seems obvious that the guy violated practice/protocol by remaining with his knee on a secured prisoner for MUCH longer than was necessary. Giving him his presumption of innocence, I'd be willing to hear his justification for it, but I honestly can't imagine what he could say to justify it.... the only things I can think of would be 5 cops and 20 criminals and he needed to keep him down because he couldn't get him to a car safely... and needed to be able to focus on the other criminals... which I see no evidence of....
So IMO, the guy clearly violated police protocol. He commited a crime. This act was not the result of 'the system'... but of people within that system going outside their training. The arrest of Floyd could potentially be systemic... but the killing of him was not... and the killing of him was not 'predetermined' by his arrest or even any resistance.
So why does a protest about that guy, or even the system... turn violent against people who weren't involved in the killing... were not identified by protesters as having killed someone else... and who were only there to protect the protesters, as well as other innocents. Seriously, they weren't there to 'confront' the protesters... to 'protect' the system.
So why does it turn violent?
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2020 01:41 PM by Hambone10.)
(07-25-2020 01:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Here is the part I really don't understand about Portland
The protests there were at least in part, prompted by the killing of George Floyd... which I think anyone who has watched any real arrests (including on TV like COPS) it seems obvious that the guy violated practice/protocol by remaining with his knee on a secured prisoner for MUCH longer than was necessary. Giving him his presumption of innocence, I'd be willing to hear his justification for it, but I honestly can't imagine what he could say to justify it.... the only things I can think of would be 5 cops and 20 criminals and he needed to keep him down because he couldn't get him to a car safely... and needed to be able to focus on the other criminals... which I see no evidence of....
So IMO, the guy clearly violated police protocol. He commited a crime. This act was not the result of 'the system'... but of people within that system going outside their training. The arrest of Floyd could potentially be systemic... but the killing of him was not... and the killing of him was not 'predetermined' by his arrest or even any resistance.
So why does a protest about that guy, or even the system... turn violent against people who weren't involved in the killing... were not identified by protesters as having killed someone else... and who were only there to protect the protesters, as well as other innocents. Seriously, they weren't there to 'confront' the protesters... to 'protect' the system.
So why does it turn violent?
I would really like to hear's 93's answer to that question.
Nobody, but nobody, is in favor of police brutality. The protests in reality are against the murders of tens of thousands of black men annually by racists who are empowered and protected by the police.
Except they are not, and the number is tens,, not tens of thousands. The whole protest movement is under false colors.
(07-25-2020 01:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Here is the part I really don't understand about Portland
The protests there were at least in part, prompted by the killing of George Floyd... which I think anyone who has watched any real arrests (including on TV like COPS) it seems obvious that the guy violated practice/protocol by remaining with his knee on a secured prisoner for MUCH longer than was necessary. Giving him his presumption of innocence, I'd be willing to hear his justification for it, but I honestly can't imagine what he could say to justify it.... the only things I can think of would be 5 cops and 20 criminals and he needed to keep him down because he couldn't get him to a car safely... and needed to be able to focus on the other criminals... which I see no evidence of....
So IMO, the guy clearly violated police protocol. He commited a crime. This act was not the result of 'the system'... but of people within that system going outside their training. The arrest of Floyd could potentially be systemic... but the killing of him was not... and the killing of him was not 'predetermined' by his arrest or even any resistance.
So why does a protest about that guy, or even the system... turn violent against people who weren't involved in the killing... were not identified by protesters as having killed someone else... and who were only there to protect the protesters, as well as other innocents. Seriously, they weren't there to 'confront' the protesters... to 'protect' the system.
So why does it turn violent?
I would really like to hear's 93's answer to that question.
Sorry... I claim no special insight into the minds of people who commit violence at these protests.
(07-25-2020 01:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Here is the part I really don't understand about Portland
The protests there were at least in part, prompted by the killing of George Floyd... which I think anyone who has watched any real arrests (including on TV like COPS) it seems obvious that the guy violated practice/protocol by remaining with his knee on a secured prisoner for MUCH longer than was necessary. Giving him his presumption of innocence, I'd be willing to hear his justification for it, but I honestly can't imagine what he could say to justify it.... the only things I can think of would be 5 cops and 20 criminals and he needed to keep him down because he couldn't get him to a car safely... and needed to be able to focus on the other criminals... which I see no evidence of....
So IMO, the guy clearly violated police protocol. He commited a crime. This act was not the result of 'the system'... but of people within that system going outside their training. The arrest of Floyd could potentially be systemic... but the killing of him was not... and the killing of him was not 'predetermined' by his arrest or even any resistance.
So why does a protest about that guy, or even the system... turn violent against people who weren't involved in the killing... were not identified by protesters as having killed someone else... and who were only there to protect the protesters, as well as other innocents. Seriously, they weren't there to 'confront' the protesters... to 'protect' the system.
So why does it turn violent?
I would really like to hear's 93's answer to that question.
Sorry... I claim no special insight into the minds of people who commit violence at these protests.
Dodge.
Do you have any special insight as to why left-leaning people generally feel more entitled to commit violence? The question was about protesters.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2020 05:21 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2020 08:42 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
If I were a law enforcement officer in any of those places, I would have a very hard time going to work under the rules of engagement being forced upon them. I think I would count up my sick days and start using them while I looked for another job.
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
(07-27-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286406849659432962?s=21
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
(07-27-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286406849659432962?s=21
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
Yes.
And this coming from the posters who continue to harp on the "deplorable" line and how it was a personal affront.
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
Of course it warrants a comment, because this is not an isolated attitude. We have discussed here several times the difference in what black parents teach their kids about police and what white parents teach their kids.
In 15 years, maybe one of those toddlers is stopped for some reason. Do you think they are more likely or less likely than a white kid to resist and/or flee? If the cops take action to stop the resistance and/or fleeing, will that be due to racism?
In 20 years, do you think these kids are more likely or less likely than a white kid to become police officers, if they are qualified? If the percentage of black police officers is less than in the general population, would that be due to racism or the attitudes these kids are being taught?
THIS is the foundation for future racial problems. It ain't the white people doing it. It is the way black people are teaching their kids, specifically the ones in this video. You hear them coaching the toddlers.
The left is supporting the demonization of the police. It is working. Way more retiring than joining, I bet. Soon it will have all the prestige of being a Nazi. That won't raise the quality of those attracted to it.
(07-27-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286406849659432962?s=21
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
Yes.
And this coming from the posters who continue to harp on the "deplorable" line and how it was a personal affront.
All it is doing is applying the same standard to you that lefties apply to conservatives regarding the KKK and white supremacists. No matter how strongly conservative condemn and disavow them, the left still tries to brand them with that stain.
If you fail to condemn it in the strongest possible terms, then you either support it or allow it. And I expect that when conservatives condemn white supremacists in the strongest terms, you will accept that.
This is exactly the double standard that conservatives complain about.
And for that matter, while we are at it, exactly how should the "deplorable" line be interpreted if not as a personal attack?
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2020 09:24 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(07-27-2020 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286406849659432962?s=21
Not a single comment by any leftie on this. Their powers to ignore what they don't want to see are matched only by their powers to make up stuff out of thin air.
It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
Yes.
And this coming from the posters who continue to harp on the "deplorable" line and how it was a personal affront.
All it is doing is applying the same standard to you that lefties apply to conservatives regarding the KKK and white supremacists. No matter how strongly conservative condemn and disavow them, the left still tries to brand them with that stain.
If you fail to condemn it in the strongest possible terms, then you either support it or allow it. And I expect that when conservatives condemn white supremacists in the strongest terms, you will accept that.
This is exactly the double standard that conservatives complain about.
And for that matter, while we are at it, exactly how should the "deplorable" line be interpreted if not as a personal attack?
You're seriously comparing how one discusses a political party with individual posters on this board?
(07-27-2020 08:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote: It's a bad deal. Duh. Doesn't really warrant a comment. Do you think any of us support this?
Yes.
And this coming from the posters who continue to harp on the "deplorable" line and how it was a personal affront.
All it is doing is applying the same standard to you that lefties apply to conservatives regarding the KKK and white supremacists. No matter how strongly conservative condemn and disavow them, the left still tries to brand them with that stain.
If you fail to condemn it in the strongest possible terms, then you either support it or allow it. And I expect that when conservatives condemn white supremacists in the strongest terms, you will accept that.
This is exactly the double standard that conservatives complain about.
And for that matter, while we are at it, exactly how should the "deplorable" line be interpreted if not as a personal attack?
You're seriously comparing how one discusses a political party with individual posters on this board?
Quote:Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades.
A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
/
Response to the killing of George Floyd
