| To: Lane3 who wrote (166693) | 6/5/2020 2:49:03 PM | | From: i-node | | | | >>>Should I infer that you approve of unidentified and unidentifiable riot police controlling protest demonstrations?
This seems to be the typical response to the idea of police controlling unruly crowds this week.
I do not expect the cops are able to predetermine the instant when an excited crowd of protestors will become an angry mob. I think the past week, if nothing, has shown such crowds are volatile.
As a result, I do think it is sometimes necessary to control unruly mobs even though some will call it protesting, which I agree is a fundamental right. It is not, however, a fundamental right that protestors be allowed to destroy property and loot stores, etc., as they spin out of control. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater, such rights are subservient to commonsense regulation (which, of course, comes without codification and hence has some variability about it).
In the case of Lafayette Park, the people involved may have had good intentions the day after the fire, but they were told to disperse by authorities and refused to do it. This, by any rational analysis, is not a decision the crowd gets to make: If authorities say, "We need you out of here" and you refuse to respond, then you might find yourself coughing and choking a little on standard crowd control agents used to force a dispersal.
It isn't cops getting out of hand. It isn't contrary to one's constitutional protections. It is just something that needed to happen. The crowd was positioned close enough to the White House that a small crowd is manageable, but a larger crowd, as this was, could pose a threat. So, it was entirely appropriate to clear the people out of that park.
I think it is a falsely predicated argument. They had no permit to protest in that park, an effort was made to accommodate them the previous night and it resulted in a couple of structure fires of a 200 year old historic structure, so it was reasonable in the circumstances to protect the space.
If you are talking about a different area then I can give my view on it instead. But in the last week, cops should have had extremely broad authority to intervene in behavior that might be protesting or might be criminal, if it is difficult to discern. |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jamie153 who wrote (166697) | 6/5/2020 3:05:48 PM | | From: Ms. Baby Boomer | | | | If the Banks' Balance Sheets that survived the Financial Crisis in 2007,
they should not need to access the FED's Repos...
The Federal Reserve will unwind their Balance Sheet selling Assets...
Gaslighter-in-Chief Trump is rambling on and on The Boob Tube,
repeating words 2 and 3 X's...
His Dementia is very noticeable...
Tremendous, tremendous, tremendous ... Moi is tremendous out....
Cassandra |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: i-node who wrote (166708) | 6/5/2020 3:11:28 PM | | From: Lane3 | | | |
If you are talking about a different area then I can give my view on it instead.
Let me try again.
Should I infer that you approve of unidentified and unidentifiable riot police controlling protest demonstrations?
Same area. Unidentifiable riot police. Key word--unidentifiable. No logos on their uniforms or gear to show the police organization that dispatched them or even if it was a police organization. Or military organization. No crest or logo or trademark. No name or badge number. Of course, a mask so no face. When asked whom they represented, either crickets or "DOJ."
Who were they and who authorized them to engage in enforcement or anything else on our behalf?
Contractors? Secret police? Some ad hoc bunch of vigilantes interjecting itself? |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Jamie153 who wrote (166643) | 6/5/2020 3:45:54 PM | | From: puborectalis | | | | | John Kelly, President Donald Trump's longest-serving chief of staff and a retired Marine Corps general, said on Friday that he agreed with former Secretary of Defense James Mattis' assessment that Trump was harming the US.In an interview with Anthony Scaramucci, the White House communications director whom Kelly promptly ousted in 2017upon his promotion to chief of staff, Kelly said that Mattis was right to raise the alarm about Trump sending in active-duty troops to quash protests."The idea that you would unleash American active-duty folks, unless it's an extremist situation ... these are civilian responsibilities," Kelly said, "and we should be very, very careful before we contemplate sending in active-duty military."Kelly also alluded to deficiencies in Trump's character. "I think we need to look harder at who we elect," Kelly said, adding, "I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter: What is their character like? What are their ethics?" |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
