(05-30-2020 07:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?

93,

Have you ever been in the midst of a riot? In an area marked by massive civil unrest? In an area isolated from civil authority? How about a coup?

My answers to those, in my early days just out of school and overseas in the seismic industry are, in order, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were 'simple theft', or 'simple trespass'. What the Twin Cities saw in the last two nights, now going on number three, isnt that. But you seem supremely ignorant of the difference between that level of massive civil unrest and blindly equating that to 'oh some dude stole a TV'.

When these events occur, they are *far* worse than 'a gang of people stealing TVs'. Maybe *because* I have been in shithole countries during these events, I respect what has to be done to assert civil authority.

Maybe, if you stop and think about it, you just might understand the concepts *why* strict curfews are put into place during riots, hurricane hit cities, and the like. And maybe, you just might understand that to quell a burgeoning 'norm of riot', a serious threat has to be enabled to counter it.

Have you seen the videos of the crowd taking over the Minneapolis police precinct and literally burning it to the ground? I dont think you have, to be honest.

What I see starting in Minneapolis I find scary as **** -- reminiscent of the third world **** I saw in Peru, Venezuela, Angola, and Colombia in the late 80's and early 90's.

I mean, Im watching CNN right the fk now, showing what looks like a new assault on another precinct in Minneapolis tonight, numerous gas stations on fire, another 20 or so more businesses looted, what looks like a near riot starting to take place in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, riot gear appearing at the White House, reports from the Twin Cities of numerous cars being torched, tear gas being employed in Atlanta, NYPD vans being torched in Brooklyn, small arms fire in Minneapolis with zero law enforcement presence, more cars being torched in Atlanta.

The mayor of Minneapolis finally had a dose of reality and declared a curfew, which by the live video is being fully ignored by arsonists, and looters.

And you poindexters seem to get a hard-on when Trump calls for civil authority to be restored. To the extent that you seemingly *have* to equate the very deep and violent civil unrest to shooting someone 'who is stealing a TV' -- all without even bothering to note the backdrop of *any* of the very serious civil unrest that is happening here and now in front of our eyes.

So, to our resident poindexters, how do *you* all curb the mass civil unrest, the violence, and the arson that is unfolding before our very eyes? Maybe buy all the shitbirds in the streets a venti latte and ask them to go home? Or maybe ask them to a knitting circle?

Frankly I am surprised that the Governor of Minnesota hasnt declared some sort of martial order given tonight. I thought I would never see the crap I saw in my 20's find its way to homeland USA. Amazing. And doubly amazing that a call for the restoration of civil authority is labeled as 'a call to violence' by the political opposition. Bravo.

In summation, historically rioting and looting absolutely *do* lead to shooting. All across the world. Happened in LA '92. Happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Ill hold the examples to the United States, since the other examples are in places and times that will hold zero import to you I would assume. And, itt is already happening in several locales, here and now. And this holds the possibility of getting lot worse. But you all are maddy poo about that being brought up somehow.

I don't think the President of the United States should threaten to shoot looters. I argued that looting in general is not an offense that should be met with deadly force. I made it clear that I was discussing looting and not domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.

And you unsurprisingly took this and turned it into my somehow taking the position that this terrible situation rolling out all over the country does not need to be addressed? Like I think these rioters should just be allowed to burn down police buildings? With some ad homs thrown in for good measure even though you clutch pearls when others use them?

OK... looks like you had a big night last night. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You should probably get some sleep at this point.

Yeah, and the difference between you and me is that for some strange reason I think the threat of force is something that needs to be on the table in the face of uncontrolled rioting and the literal breakdown of civil order like we see in the Twin Cities. You ostensibly disagree.

First, I am not questioning whether you care if something is done -- that is your bull**** construct. You may very well 'want it to be addressed'. I am not challenging that.

I *am* asking you what the fk you would do? I mean, the threat of force is off the table because, you know, Trump Statement Bad.

So please do tell what you would do? Its an honest question, not a statement that you 'dont care' like you cry about above.

I like the fine line you are dancing. Based on a previous question of 'which rioters would you shoot' I would surmise that the rioting per se is off your table, yet 'domestic terrorism, arson, threats of violence, etc.' are not. What is the difference between a domestic terrorist and the shitbirds that are ransacking businesses en masse with the cover of large scale civil unrest? I hope that you note that the act of ransacking by itself promotes such large scale civil unrest as a byproduct.

I am sure that you will work extra extra hard to make sure that 'looting' in no way adds to the civil unrest in a riot, solely to preserve that Orange Man Bad status that you work so hard to bleat.

Your laundry list that you put out that you say you are fine with force being used, you do realize that list pretty much covers all of the attributes of a riot -- that is all but the one that Trump mentioned. Imagine that, your one sole and solitary problem with the threat of force just *magically* happens to be the one singular attribute of a riot that Trump called out. Amazing coincidence there. Who says this isnt a magical world. Cha cha cha.