(06-03-2020 10:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  IMO this was a major low point of this administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/po...quare.html
Unbelievably bad idea to use these methods to clear out peaceful protesters without warning and without giving the security team in that park much of a heads-up.

It's also apparently a lie.

Can you clarify the lie?

(06-03-2020 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it's a combination of two things.

1) Police response to protesters. You don't see the police provoking a lot of the right-wing protests in the way you see them doing that with the left-wing. Not sure what the exact reason for that is (likely many different ones compound), but if you watch some home footage of the protest in Seattle police were instigating by grabbing umbrellas from protesters (who wouldn't then let go and then got pepper sprayed).

2) Agitating protesters. You definitely see protesters at these marches who are more willing to get violent with cops - throw objects, light **** on fire, etc. Regardless of how many of these there are, even a single person willing to instigate violence with cops with create a bad situation. That then keeps cops on edge, likely contributing to the issues above.

Umbrellas? What's the point of that? But I would like to see your link on that.

I am sure there was police presence at Tea Party rallies, etc. the difference is the rallyers did not see them as an enemy, and the rallyers did not challenge them.

The police forces have been painted as racist gestapos, and thus the enemy. Right wingers don't see it that way.

I often wonder why the police are the sole municipal department in every community that is riddled with systemic racism. No problem with P&W, none with building codes or zoning. Weird.

Cops are people too. don't give them a reason to get involved, they will avoid trouble just like anybody else.

Birds-eye view: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comment..._happened/

Pink umbrella up close: https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1...68161?s=21

Umbrellas were likely meant to protect from projectiles/gas.

Ah, good. two views of one umbrella.

What I infer from this are two things:

1. the cop (singular) got tired of having the umbrella poked in his face. hardly instigation.

2. The protesters came prepared for battle.

I didn't see the Russians or the KKK.

What were they protesting, anyway?

Weird deflection there at the end.

So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it? The point of that video shows how law enforcement can escalate a peaceful protest into one that isn’t. One cops decision to grab an umbrella led to another pepper spraying the crowd, which led to the crowd reacting and more cops pepper spraying, which led to pandemonium.

Imagine if, during a right-wing protest, a cop got tired of a protestors yelling in their face, and move swiftly to subdue the individual. There is a good chance similar pandemonium would break out.



Again, I see two issues that clearly occur. Left-wing protests have been more likely to have people get violent. Cops at left-wing protests have been more likely to escalate the situation.

Sorry you see it as a deflection. I was just wondering what what being protested.

Still don't know.

So, this statement of your is biased and slanted:

"So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it?"

I don't think the cop was tired of her having an umbrella. Kind of a silly viewpoint. Really have to twist around to get to that viewpoint. I think he was tired of having it waved in his face.

But once again, you leftists are trying to make a single incident expand to cover all behavior by all police everywhere every time.

Yeah, if a right wing protester is yelling in a cop's face,I would expect eventually a reaction. I wouldn't think the cop was out of line for that. But it seems the RW protesters don't get in the cop's faces. Maybe that is the difference.

I know if I were to go to a right wing rally - maybe against high taxes - and there were cops there, I would look at them as there to protect me (from left wingers, who are prone to physical violence). I would feel no danger from them, and they would feel no danger from me. Thus no confrontation, no "instigation".

Typical of the left to blame cops for doing their job.

(06-03-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Umbrellas? What's the point of that? But I would like to see your link on that.

I am sure there was police presence at Tea Party rallies, etc. the difference is the rallyers did not see them as an enemy, and the rallyers did not challenge them.

The police forces have been painted as racist gestapos, and thus the enemy. Right wingers don't see it that way.

I often wonder why the police are the sole municipal department in every community that is riddled with systemic racism. No problem with P&W, none with building codes or zoning. Weird.

Cops are people too. don't give them a reason to get involved, they will avoid trouble just like anybody else.

Birds-eye view: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comment..._happened/

Pink umbrella up close: https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1...68161?s=21

Umbrellas were likely meant to protect from projectiles/gas.

Ah, good. two views of one umbrella.

What I infer from this are two things:

1. the cop (singular) got tired of having the umbrella poked in his face. hardly instigation.

2. The protesters came prepared for battle.

I didn't see the Russians or the KKK.

What were they protesting, anyway?

Weird deflection there at the end.

So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it? The point of that video shows how law enforcement can escalate a peaceful protest into one that isn’t. One cops decision to grab an umbrella led to another pepper spraying the crowd, which led to the crowd reacting and more cops pepper spraying, which led to pandemonium.

Imagine if, during a right-wing protest, a cop got tired of a protestors yelling in their face, and move swiftly to subdue the individual. There is a good chance similar pandemonium would break out.



Again, I see two issues that clearly occur. Left-wing protests have been more likely to have people get violent. Cops at left-wing protests have been more likely to escalate the situation.

Sorry you see it as a deflection. I was just wondering what what being protested.

Still don't know.

So, this statement of your is biased and slanted:

"So if a cop gets tired of me having something they can just confiscate it?"

I don't think the cop was tired of her having an umbrella. Kind of a silly viewpoint. Really have to twist around to get to that viewpoint. I think he was tired of having it waved in his face.

But once again, you leftists are trying to make a single incident expand to cover all behavior by all police everywhere every time.

Yeah, if a right wing protester is yelling in a cop's face,I would expect eventually a reaction. I wouldn't think the cop was out of line for that. But it seems the RW protesters don't get in the cop's faces. Maybe that is the difference.

I know if I were to go to a right wing rally - maybe against high taxes - and there were cops there, I would look at them as there to protect me (from left wingers, who are prone to physical violence). I would feel no danger from them, and they would feel no danger from me. Thus no confrontation, no "instigation".

Typical of the left to blame cops for doing their job.

First of all, the photo I posted is from a right-wing protest, where protestors were in the face of law enforcement.

And I’ve been very clear that I’ve been talking about HOW the police do their job, not whether or not they do it. There are 1,000 ways to skin a cat, and some of those are more appropriate than others. LEOs carry a very heavy burden, and part of that is being able to determine the most appropriate action for a situation.

Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Finally, why lie and say left wingers are prone to violence?

(06-03-2020 09:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  IMO this was a major low point of this administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/po...quare.html

Unbelievably bad idea to use these methods to clear out peaceful protesters without warning and without giving the security team in that park much of a heads-up.

How is the right-wing contingent feeling about the Trump team's decision to make this photo-op happen?

Funny, I saw reports from the media subsequent that at least three notices were given in the 15 minutes prior that the street/square was going to be cleared, *and* that the curfew that had been announced was going to be enforced.

Also, contra to the initial reports, only smoke was used -- no tear gas.

But please feel free to get on that soapbox some more.

I do like how the liberals pull the pin on the go whiny mode on one operation, to the exclusion of the multiple deaths, probably 100s of millions of dollars of property damage, the anarchy, the looting, the beatings.

But please, focus on one thing to the exclusion of all the rest of the shitshow going on. Kind of par for the course for you all. In-fing-credible.

Seems a bit over the top but I guess at least you didn't say LOLOLOLOL.

Perhaps when you comment substantively on the cogent point you might carry some weight. Funny, you dont disagree with the 'the only thing 93 gives a **** about or talks about are the things that add to his TDS-induced euphoria' point being noted there. But, that is precisely what I expect from you. Thank you for emphasizing that there.

(06-03-2020 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I imagine the police response to left-wing versus right-wing protesters plays a part here. Maybe left-wing protests bring out younger protestors (still under-developed impulse control) than right-wing protests. Kind of like the behavior that you see (arson, overturned vehicles, smashed windows, etc.) after big sporting event wins/losses.

Yes, I remember well all the vandalism and arson we did after beating LSU. Completely trashed the RMC and the Village. Boy did we show the world!!!

But, seriously, thanks for making the effort.

True, I think left wing riots tend to focus on younger people, but they also seem to feel entitled to vandalize and burn, since it is in a "good" cause.

Right wing protests, despite (or maybe because of) people carrying guns, tend to be peaceful, unless they are attacked by left-winger counter protesters.

I'm trying to think of "right wing protests". I don't have time to google it this morning. I'm sure they are out there but the majority that I can immediately recall are the tea party ones. I think the numbers were much smaller and were primarily comprised of old people? The confederate statue protests got violent - perhaps largely to due counter-protesters.

What are some of the larger right wing protests recently?

I think it's a combination of two things.

1) Police response to protesters. You don't see the police provoking a lot of the right-wing protests in the way you see them doing that with the left-wing. Not sure what the exact reason for that is (likely many different ones compound), but if you watch some home footage of the protest in Seattle police were instigating by grabbing umbrellas from protesters (who wouldn't then let go and then got pepper sprayed).

2) Agitating protesters. You definitely see protesters at these marches who are more willing to get violent with cops - throw objects, light **** on fire, etc. Regardless of how many of these there are, even a single person willing to instigate violence with cops with create a bad situation. That then keeps cops on edge, likely contributing to the issues above.

You gloss over the predisposition for massive property damage, arson, beatings, and looting that seemingly go hand in hand for any left wing 'protest'.

Instead of even addressing those cogent factors, you play a 'dont let the police or authorities instigate' card. Funny.

(06-03-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I imagine the police response to left-wing versus right-wing protesters plays a part here. Maybe left-wing protests bring out younger protestors (still under-developed impulse control) than right-wing protests. Kind of like the behavior that you see (arson, overturned vehicles, smashed windows, etc.) after big sporting event wins/losses.

Yes, I remember well all the vandalism and arson we did after beating LSU. Completely trashed the RMC and the Village. Boy did we show the world!!!

But, seriously, thanks for making the effort.

True, I think left wing riots tend to focus on younger people, but they also seem to feel entitled to vandalize and burn, since it is in a "good" cause.

Right wing protests, despite (or maybe because of) people carrying guns, tend to be peaceful, unless they are attacked by left-winger counter protesters.

I'm trying to think of "right wing protests". I don't have time to google it this morning. I'm sure they are out there but the majority that I can immediately recall are the tea party ones. I think the numbers were much smaller and were primarily comprised of old people? The confederate statue protests got violent - perhaps largely to due counter-protesters.

What are some of the larger right wing protests recently?

I think it's a combination of two things.

1) Police response to protesters. You don't see the police provoking a lot of the right-wing protests in the way you see them doing that with the left-wing. Not sure what the exact reason for that is (likely many different ones compound), but if you watch some home footage of the protest in Seattle police were instigating by grabbing umbrellas from protesters (who wouldn't then let go and then got pepper sprayed).

2) Agitating protesters. You definitely see protesters at these marches who are more willing to get violent with cops - throw objects, light **** on fire, etc. Regardless of how many of these there are, even a single person willing to instigate violence with cops with create a bad situation. That then keeps cops on edge, likely contributing to the issues above.

You gloss over the predisposition for massive property damage, arson, beatings, and looting that seemingly go hand in hand for any left wing 'protest'.

See point #2 and “light **** on fire”

Edit: to be clear, agitating was an adjective to describe protestors. As in, there are protestors who agitate.

(06-03-2020 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, I remember well all the vandalism and arson we did after beating LSU. Completely trashed the RMC and the Village. Boy did we show the world!!!

But, seriously, thanks for making the effort.

True, I think left wing riots tend to focus on younger people, but they also seem to feel entitled to vandalize and burn, since it is in a "good" cause.

Right wing protests, despite (or maybe because of) people carrying guns, tend to be peaceful, unless they are attacked by left-winger counter protesters.

I'm trying to think of "right wing protests". I don't have time to google it this morning. I'm sure they are out there but the majority that I can immediately recall are the tea party ones. I think the numbers were much smaller and were primarily comprised of old people? The confederate statue protests got violent - perhaps largely to due counter-protesters.

What are some of the larger right wing protests recently?

Lately? I think lately there has been little for the right wing to protest. I too was thinking primarily of the Tea Party protests and the Tea party march on Washington.

My impression was that they were primarily composed of adults - people from 20-90, not people from 70-90.

But here are some links with pictures. See for yourself.

wiki

Taxpayer march


Charlotteville was peaceful until they were attacked by Antifa.

It probably depends on the point of the protest.

Protesting police violence when you have the police officers there to control the situation is certainly a recipe for getting out of hand.

Protesting taxes? Probably not a powderkeg.

In terms of left-wing protests, I don't think protests against gun violence or the Women's march were violent.

At no point did I say every left wing protest/march/whatever went to violence. I hope you didn't think that is what I was saying. If so, bad assumption.

But I will say that nearly every protest that results in violence/rioting/arson/vandalism is either a left wing protest or left wingers attacking a right wing protest. I cannot think of an exception to that statement, but there might be one or two.

Watts? Jefferson? Seattle? Portland? Berkeley? Minneapolis? Baltimore? Philadelphia x 2?

Ferguson. Baltimore.(oops see you got that one) For some recent examples.

LA '92. Had the riot forces on alert during the OJ verdict, and that one would have matched LA '92 is the murderer had actually been convicted.

Washington DC had vandalism of some extent during the 'how dare Trump be inaugurated' marches.

It is like the little kid who, when told he cant have the chocolate covered marshmallow or the shiny toy truck, proceeds not just to scream the heads off no matter where they are, they then go into that little kid destructive frenzy.

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typical of the right to support LEOs, regardless of their actions.

Really? I dont see much support for Chauvin here. I suggest the following is better statement:

Typical of the right to support LEOs *when* they are performing lawful actions.

Sorry, your 'regardless of their actions' is another way too extreme exaggeration. But you are seemingly on that 'upcharge the comment to ridiculous levels' to a certain extent lately (i.e. the 'support war crimes' comment.)

(06-03-2020 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, I remember well all the vandalism and arson we did after beating LSU. Completely trashed the RMC and the Village. Boy did we show the world!!!

But, seriously, thanks for making the effort.

True, I think left wing riots tend to focus on younger people, but they also seem to feel entitled to vandalize and burn, since it is in a "good" cause.

Right wing protests, despite (or maybe because of) people carrying guns, tend to be peaceful, unless they are attacked by left-winger counter protesters.

I'm trying to think of "right wing protests". I don't have time to google it this morning. I'm sure they are out there but the majority that I can immediately recall are the tea party ones. I think the numbers were much smaller and were primarily comprised of old people? The confederate statue protests got violent - perhaps largely to due counter-protesters.

What are some of the larger right wing protests recently?

I think it's a combination of two things.

1) Police response to protesters. You don't see the police provoking a lot of the right-wing protests in the way you see them doing that with the left-wing. Not sure what the exact reason for that is (likely many different ones compound), but if you watch some home footage of the protest in Seattle police were instigating by grabbing umbrellas from protesters (who wouldn't then let go and then got pepper sprayed).

2) Agitating protesters. You definitely see protesters at these marches who are more willing to get violent with cops - throw objects, light **** on fire, etc. Regardless of how many of these there are, even a single person willing to instigate violence with cops with create a bad situation. That then keeps cops on edge, likely contributing to the issues above.

You gloss over the predisposition for massive property damage, arson, beatings, and looting that seemingly go hand in hand for any left wing 'protest'.

See point #2 and “light **** on fire”

Edit: to be clear, agitating was an adjective to describe protestors. As in, there are protestors who agitate.

Thanks for the clarification -- I read 'agitating' as a verb.

(06-03-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First of all, the photo I posted is from a right-wing protest, where protestors were in the face of law enforcement.

Look again at your photo. The guy with the beard is 'between' two cops... yelling at (I suspect) a legislator behind them. He is not waiving anything at anyone. He is not physically threatening the cops. They may be there, but I don't see any bats or sticks or rocks or umbrellas or water balloons or anything else. I don't even see any raised arms.

so your own photo demonstrates a loud, but peaceful protest.

The minute that guy picks up a stick, or engages in actions that makes the police feel that they, or the people they are protecting are being physically threatened, the rules of engagement for the police will change.

I'm not going to get too deep into the pointless argument about whether 'on the average' the left or right is more violent... but I think it pretty clear that the majority of the violence we're seeing today is coming from the left. Heck, even the whole 'no justice, no peace' chant implies violence as opposed to peaceful protest.

Getting back to 93's call about the 'peaceful protest' being jackbooted at Lafayette Park ---

Quote:On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

Scratch peaceful as an adjective there.

Going further:

Quote:To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area.

That has been corroborated by several sources. So, scratch the 'without warning'.

Quote: Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons,

Yep, the original definition of 'peaceful' (which fell short in the first place), just fell shorter.

Quote: officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Again corroborated.

So let's review.

Original version: A peaceful protest was broken up, without warning, by police using tear gas.

Hmmm...... lets roll in some changes.

A peaceful protest marred by numerous instances of violence against workers attempting to install a fence was broken up without warning at least three prior warnings in the 15 minutes preceding the crackdown by police , who never resorted to using tear gas in the breaking up of the protest, but merely used smoke bombs.

Wow, kind a heavy load of editing on the facts originally presented.

(06-03-2020 02:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to 93's call about the 'peaceful protest' being jackbooted at Lafayette Park ---

Quote:On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

Scratch peaceful as an adjective there.

Is this from the article that I linked? If not, please cite the source.

Quote:Going further:

Quote:To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area.

That has been corroborated by several sources. So, scratch the 'without warning'.

Yes... I should have said inadequate warning. My bad.

Quote:

Quote: Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons,

Yep, the original definition of 'peaceful' (which fell short in the first place), just fell shorter.

Source?

Quote:

Quote: officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Again corroborated.

Corroborated by whom? You originally said smoke only. Now it's smoke and pepper balls. There definitely seems to be controversy over this point.

nm... Googled it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...e-version/

You linked quotes from The National Review article titled "The Battle Over St. John's: the Park Police version" but didn't provide the source.

You then acted as if the quotes from the article are somehow the definitive bottom line on the issue.

I have voiced my disdain for the MSM being too one-sided when it comes to progressive versus conservative issues. I am open to the idea that the NYT version my not be the full story.

You imply that your uncited Park Police spokesman version of the event somehow "wins the day" over the NYT version and everything you wanted to believe is "corroborated". Pardon me if I have an issue with that approach.

Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

As to the warning, I had heard several correspondents over the course of the last day or so note that they heard the warnings.

And this is explicitly corroborated by Arlington County whom provided some of the personnel in the operation.

Quote:On Monday, June 1, Arlington police officers returned to their staging area at Lafayette Park. At 2 p.m., the Arlington commanders were informed that later in the day they would be closing H Street to allow safe space for construction crews to build a physical barrier at the edge of the park

Quote:At approximately 6:20 p.m., more than a half-hour before the District’s curfew was to go into effect, demonstrators were ordered to leave the area.

Quote:During this event, they did not fire rubber bullets or tear gas at the protesters.

https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/...-columbia/

Next, whiny ass response from you I will assume is forthcoming shortly.

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

Got it. The National Review article is basically a compendium of the official Park Police statement. Any chance that the Park Police official statement could be prone to bias?

Quote:As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

I thought I saw photos of cops in gas masks? I'll look when I have time. In any case it looks like we agree that it wasn't "smoke only" as you originally said.

Quote:Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

As to the warning, I had heard several correspondents over the course of the last day or so note that they heard the warnings.

Again... I previously noted that I should have said "inadequate warning."

Quote:And this is explicitly corroborated by Arlington County whom provided some of the personnel in the operation.

Quote:On Monday, June 1, Arlington police officers returned to their staging area at Lafayette Park. At 2 p.m., the Arlington commanders were informed that later in the day they would be closing H Street to allow safe space for construction crews to build a physical barrier at the edge of the park

Quote:At approximately 6:20 p.m., more than a half-hour before the District’s curfew was to go into effect, demonstrators were ordered to leave the area.

Quote:During this event, they did not fire rubber bullets or tear gas at the protesters.

https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/...-columbia/

Next, whiny ass response from you I will assume is forthcoming shortly.

I blame myself for continuing to respond to your posts. I shouldn't even complain. It was nice this morning discussing issues with the other conservatives on this forum who don't engage in this sort of behavior.

By the way, you seem to want to go off on tangent about the use of pepperballs. I suggest you look it up, and then compare the use of a pepperball to the use of tear gas.

Hint: one is a specific target incapacitant.

The other is a wide dispersal incapacitant *and* wide area clearing agent. And when I say "wide" I mean one canister will knock the crap out of a street for about 20 yards upwind and about a block+ downwind. 3 canisters and the entirety of Lafayette Square is cleared out, and anyone unprotected in that space is so overcome with snot, saliva, and tears that they literally cannot think of anything else. The reason why the cops need both protective clothing *and* gas masks when using tear gas. Makes pepper spray look like a little kids birthday party with gossamer unicorns and elves throwing cotton candy in the air.

I will leave it up to you to figure which is which.

So yes, I did omit pepper balls. If you know what the fk one is, you wont wonder why that was omitted. Apparently you meet the test of not knowing what the fk one is, yet try to note that as a significant issue.

Comparing these items and trying to equate them as comparable is as 'enlightened' as a noting semi-automatic long rifles as "military style weapons".

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/rebtanhs/status/1267...60418?s=20

"Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas."

National Guard members but perhaps not cops.

(06-03-2020 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way, you seem to want to go off on tangent about the use of pepperballs. I suggest you look it up, and then compare the use of a pepperball to the use of tear gas.

Hint: one is a specific target incapacitant.

The other is a wide dispersal incapacitant *and* wide area clearing agent. And when I say "wide" I mean one canister will knock the crap out of a street for about 20 yards upwind and about a block+ downwind. 3 canisters and the entirety of Lafayette Square is cleared out, and anyone unprotected in that space is so overcome with snot, saliva, and tears that they literally cannot think of anything else. The reason why the cops need both protective clothing *and* gas masks when using tear gas. Makes pepper spray look like a little kids birthday party with gossamer unicorns and elves throwing cotton candy in the air.

I will leave it up to you to figure which is which.

So yes, I did omit pepper balls. If you know what the fk one is, you wont wonder why that was omitted. Apparently you meet the test of not knowing what the fk one is, yet try to note that as a significant issue.

Comparing these items and trying to equate them as comparable is as 'enlightened' as a noting semi-automatic long rifles as "military style weapons".

I would put pepper balls somewhere on the continuum between "just smoke" and "tear gas".

From this link: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local...7d908139dd


“Tear gas” is a broad term, often defined as a synthetic chemical irritant. Pepper spray is a naturally derived chemical irritant that causes many effects similar to that of common types of tear gas, including temporary blindness and a burning sensation in the nose. Which means that, even if tear gas was technically not used — a claim that isn’t settled fact for reasons I’ll get into in a minute — police still used a very similar chemical weapon against peaceful protesters.

Still, facts matter, so the question of whether they used tear gas or not is important.

Nathan Baca, a reporter for WUSA9 in Washington, DC, picked up a canister used during the Monday assault. It’s not a smoke canister, but it does launch “OC” gas which “Causes same tears, tight breath and comes out green,” he reported.

The specific product used is a CM Skat Shell made by Defense Technology that "is widely used as a crowd management tool for the rapid and broad deployment of chemical agent," according to the company's website.

The OC gas causes the same tears and tight breath as tear gas, and comes out green.

"A paper in the British Medical Journal about riot control talks about different gas canisters.

Both natural OC and Tear Gas, which is an artificial compound that goes by the acronyms CS and CN gas, cause the same symptoms and have similar toxicity and health risks, according to the doctors writing that study.

The study shares that significant clinical effects are not anticipated when people come in contact with OC, CS or CN gas."

(06-03-2020 04:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

Got it. The National Review article is basically a compendium of the official Park Police statement. Any chance that the Park Police official statement could be prone to bias?

Perhaps you dont even note the Arlington County corroboration on those points. Funny that.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

I thought I saw photos of cops in gas masks? I'll look when I have time. In any case it looks like we agree that it wasn't "smoke only" as you originally said.

And you seemingly insist that pepper balls are equivalent. The gas released as a wide dispersal was smoke only. And no, we dont agree that it "wasnt smoke only". I suggest you actually read. And, by the way, there are absolutely huge differences between pepper ball use and tear gas. Please read before you squawk. It might help.

Quote:

Quote:Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

As to the warning, I had heard several correspondents over the course of the last day or so note that they heard the warnings.

Again... I previously noted that I should have said "inadequate warning."

Were you there? I guess you are using that perfect judgement and omniscience thingy to tell us *exactly* the difference between *your* judgement of 'inadequate' and not.

Kind of like your move to couch other things as 'nuance' -- best way to play hide the ball that way. Again amazing that.

Quote:

Quote:And this is explicitly corroborated by Arlington County whom provided some of the personnel in the operation.

Quote:On Monday, June 1, Arlington police officers returned to their staging area at Lafayette Park. At 2 p.m., the Arlington commanders were informed that later in the day they would be closing H Street to allow safe space for construction crews to build a physical barrier at the edge of the park

Quote:At approximately 6:20 p.m., more than a half-hour before the District’s curfew was to go into effect, demonstrators were ordered to leave the area.

Quote:During this event, they did not fire rubber bullets or tear gas at the protesters.

https://newsroom.arlingtonva.us/release/...-columbia/

Next, whiny ass response from you I will assume is forthcoming shortly.

I blame myself for continuing to respond to your posts. I shouldn't even complain. It was nice this morning discussing issues with the other conservatives on this forum who don't engage in this sort of behavior.

It is nice to have discussions with people who dont have to resort to lies to prove their TDS, and nice to have discussions with people who dont have to play the 'hide the ball' with 'nuance' and their own subjective judgement that something was 'insufficient' when the facts show that their original comment was patently untrue.

(06-03-2020 04:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I used the park services comments on it. Not a National Review article. Further, the park services statement is corroborated by Arlington County, whose officers aided the operation.

As for the 'tear gas', the photos are absolute proof of that --- the cops arent wearing gas masks.

Have you ever had an experience with tear gas? Many many moons ago, in a foreign country that was having some 'civil issues' a caught a whiff of it about four blocks downwind of its use. It'll incapacitate you without masking even at that distance and levels.

So the proof is absolutely in the pudding just in the photos of of the cops without masks. So the NYT is already proof positive incorrect there. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/rebtanhs/status/1267...60418?s=20

"Moreover, Washington Post reporters at the demonstration, including metro reporter Rebecca Tan, photographed National Guard members (though not Park Police officers) wearing gas masks, “moments before authorities started firing.” That certainly suggests they were preparing to deploy tear gas."

National Guard members but perhaps not cops.

When a force uses tear gas -- everyone on the side that employs it uses gas masks.

There are hundreds of photos of cops in the park without gas masks.

But please keep beating that drum.