(08-03-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-03-2020 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 11:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You may have missed the point of my post then. The point was how quickly the guy was treated and protected by the protestors/rioters, even if the violence was done by someone who was partaking in the protest/riots.

If this was truly an unruly mob doling out violence towards police and conservatives, this guy would have been left for dead. But that didn’t happen, which seems to be noteworthy.

I'd guess that this happens in about 80+% of police cases... probably more than 90%... where unruly actors are caught, treated and protected... and it is not only not really mentioned, but completely ignored as the focus solely remains on those relatively few times when they fail... and the blame isn't being places solely on those actors, but instead upon a whole group of people, MANY of whom are members of that minority group, and only a small percentage have ever had anyone die in custody.

All you're really arguing for as far as I am concerned is 'mob rule'. If police outnumbered rioters by the same percentage as these people outnumbered this guy, I suspect we would have a vastly more peaceful police force.... which is part of what I'm talking about.

Which only comes right back around to the idea that when the people seek to aid and support law enforcement, things work well... and when they don't... they sometimes REALLY don't. This goes from the guy who pulls over when the cops turn on their lights and cooperates vs the guy who runs and speeds and ditches and evades... to protesters (or even 'good guys with guns') who assist police vs those who

(08-01-2020 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Had the locals decried criminal actors? You know they were actively engaging rioters using force before the Feds arrived, right?

I would really appreciate it if you would stop doing this. It's rude.

I said nothing about this but No, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that 'peaceful protestors' were 'actively engaging rioters using force before the Feds arrived.' . On the night of the riot, what Feds were there were obviously already there. The actions you keep pointing to happen in response to what happened that night, not in advance of it.

Let's be blunt here, Lad... If the people there were actively engaging in the same sort of actions you're applauding here... or even just 'naming names'... then the Feds actions never happen. The police rarely act aggressively towards cooperating witnesses. It seems obvious that nobody needs to randomly arrest people off the streets if the protestors have delivered the criminal to them and provided willing testimony against him.

Quote:The narrative Tanq has pushed that local officials seemed to sit back and do nothing is demonstrably false - they completely failed at containing the situation, but they did not sit back and do nothing as riots broke out. We’re right back to where we were a week ago where apparently people haven’t actually followed along with what has been occurring in Portland and what local officials have actually done.

This is why I previously argued that we should make sure we’re all set on the facts before we discuss the issue, because the issue of Portland officials not attempting to control riots is not actually an issue.

Actually, such things are NOT 'demonstrably false'... depending on how you define 'nothing'. I mean, even if they were completely ignoring the crimes (not interested in debating whether they were or not, just as an example) they weren't doing nothing. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

I see the problem... You are speaking to Tanq and reading me through that lens. Different people, different comments, different opinions. Our opinions are distinct. I am not really speaking about local authorities. I'm talking about violent protesters and how things turn out differently when the peaceful protesters support, or not the actions of law enforcement.

Quote:To the start of your comment - I’m not sure I see a consistency issue here, as it doesn’t really connect. I was praising the fact that good people existed in these protests, people who may have vehemently disagreed with this guy’s politics treated him, protected him, and brought the offender to the police. I guess if you want to show a similar thing the Feds did, where they acted against the narrative that they were responding with force towards protestors and I didn’t recognize it, I could see you calling it inconsistent. But it’s a real stretch to say that this is inconsistent, unless you’re taking such a wide view to be worthless.

Once again, you take what I said and ignore it... and try to assign other beliefs to me.

I said numerous times... Had that which you are now praising happened on the first night, then all of the things that you're upset about regarding the Feds don't happen. The bad people are stopped from doing bad things, protected from reprisal and brought to the police... so that just as you said you wanted, the Feds can remain entirely defensive.

In BOTH cases, the actions of the people dictated the 'official' reaction. I'm not suggesting that they must always apprehend the bad actors... I am merely pointing out the disparity in the actions... and the disparity in the reactions. You seem to expect law enforcement to act the same, regardless.

The people have a responsibility in the rule of law... You want to applaud them when they do 'good' and that's fine... but you seem to hold them entirely without blame when they don't. You are not making the connection between the two.

As to 'good people among the rioters'.... who ever said there weren't? We seem perfectly capable of recognizing that 'a group' may act some way and it doesn't reflect the actions of every person in that group.

I think there are a number of misunderstandings between us - see bolded above and responses below.

1) The quoted text was me saying that Portland police were "actively engaging rioters using force before the Feds arrived" not that peaceful protesters were trying to stop the rioters. When you said "had the locals" I didn't realize you meant the protestors - you're right that my conversations with Tanq had made this a bit confusing, as I took "locals" to mean local officials, not protesters (it's rather ambiguous and a good example of the difficulties of this message board).

Someone mentioned it in your mod post that one of the issues we've been having is assuming people are coming from a negative place in their response, and this is a good example. I misunderstood what you said because it wasn't clear what "locals" referred to, so I'm sorry for the confusion, but it was honest and not rude.

2) I'm not ignoring what you said, I'm pointing out why I don't believe what I said was inconsistent. I agree that had protesters been able to internally manage rioters, the Feds never show up.

My initial comment was not focused on how good people stop bad people from doing bad things, and I've been explicit about what my point was about the actions of others being a silver lining.

3) You're assigning a position to me that I haven't taken. Are the rioters to blame for rioting? Yes. Are the Feds to blame to an increase in rioting? Yes. This isn't a binary choice where only one group can be blamed, and just because I have primarily focused my criticism on the response from the Feds doesn't mean others are without blame or fault.

Similar to my comment above, this is an issue with the difficulties of a message board - instead of assuming I hold people without blame, ask me whether or not I do. I'll try and do the same here (even if some posters get piqued when I ask clarifying questions...)

I simply wanted to point out to OO that his initial link about "Violence at protests" actually provided numerous examples of the opposite occurring.

So, for some unknown reason, you thought I posted the link without reading it?

Thanks for the heads up, but...

I don't edit like WashPo, NYT, and CNN to provide biased info. Good thing you don't take me as an unbiased news source like so many do of the MSM.

You seem to have missed the stuff in that article that is not so gushy about the protesters.

I absolutely did not miss the other issues, my multiple responses clearly indicate I did not miss the main focus of the article.

Honestly, did you actually think I missed something in the article if I pulled out details from the end of the article???