(05-30-2020 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

93, I notice that you confine your comments to "looters", as though they were somehow different from the rioters and arsonists. They are all different aspects of the same crowd. Not everyone protesting is a looter, and not every looter is an arsonist, but as y'all have pointed out in the Charlottesville discussions, you are known by the company you keep.

How do you use the threat of being arrested to calm the riot, if they know you cannot/will not? How do you back up that threat with the gun on your hip if they know they are forbidden to use it? IMO, that is all that is meant when the Prez says when the looting starts, the shooting starts - that life and property will be protected from the forces of anarchy to the full ability of law enforcement. It was not a directive to shoot on sight, as you and the MSM are making it out to be. It was not a directive at all. It was saying we will do what is necessary, do not make us do that.


I am interested to hear from you what the left-wing contingent thinks should be the reaction and reply to the rioting, arson, vandalism, and (eventually), killing of bystanders and/or cops.

Our law enforcement have firearms for a reason. It is the last resort for deadly situations and/or to protect people from further lawbreaking.

OO, I was specific about "looters" because that's the term that Trump used in his tweet. And, especially in light of the powder keg were were/are sitting on, I felt that his hyperbolic language when it came to violence was an extremely bad idea.

Specific to looters, Owl#'s and I then had the following exchange (sorry, not sure how to embed past quotes):

Me: Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?

Owl#s: Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.

So I tried to drill down on that as I was surprised that he thinks that cops should shoot looters in general.

It was then made out to be that my thinking that the use of deadly force against looters (cops being judge, jury, and executioner as Lad said) somehow equated to a complete cluelessness as to how force is sometimes required in riots like we have going on currently. Yes... force is sometimes required when things get out of control. Even deadly force when innocent lives are threatened. Of course I get that.