Tyranny at Lafayette Park

Author: PressF4Respect ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 351
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    On June 2, 2020, the President of the United States did something that, if it had occurred at most other points in US history, would be widely known and condemned. If Obama or any other Democrat president had done what Trump did that day, the entire nation would be calling for his impeachment. What Trump did is not only reprehensible but downright unconstitutional. What he did that day transcends partisan politics in its sheer magnitude, and should make even the most diehard conservative hold Trump in the utmost contempt. I am of course referring to what happened at Lafayette Park in DC.  
     
    Given the proximity to the White House, that particular place has been a popular place to hold protests for decades, if not centuries. Almost every day, one could find some protest or another taking place there, with some people even deciding to pitch their tents in the park to protest. These types of public demonstrations are expressly protected in Section A of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and the continuation of a well-functioning democracy is contingent on the preservation of the fundamental rights to hold them. Nothing, not even the president’s word, is above the fundamental rights of all Americans written into the constitution. 
     
    As I am sure all of you are well aware, there has been a wave of protests occurring across the US (and elsewhere) during these past few weeks against the actions of Derek Chauvin, the police officer who killed George Floyd and who now faces second-degree murder charges. While it is true that some have been violent and resulted in looting, vandalism, and wanton destruction, there are many others (such as the one at Lafayette Square) that were peaceful. On the day in question, protesters held a nonviolent demonstration in the park. At the same time, Trump was delivering his “Law and Order” speech in front of the White House, quite fitting for what was about to do next.  
     
    At 6:35 PM, the President gave the order to round all of the protestors up and clear them out of the park. It is important to note that the DC curfew was at 7 PM, thus the protesters had every right to be there. According to reports, little to no warning was given to protesters ahead of time. The federal guards, secret service police, and law enforcement officers dispatched to disperse the protesters also received authorization/orders to hit them with tear gas, rubber bullets, and in some cases riot shields and batons. Even if you believe the protesters shouldn't have been there, nothing justified this type of action. Law-abiding citizens, exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly, were subject to draconian policing tactics designed to counter violent riots, and which in this context would only serve to further incite violence. No one was spared from this brutal treatment – not bystanders, not the media, not anyone else.  
     
    So, what was the reason for President Trump to order the expulsion of these peaceful protesters who were exercising their constitutional right to protest? It wasn’t to protect the public. Instead, it was so that he could clear the path for him to walk directly out the front door of the White House, through Lafayette Park, and have a photo-op of him holding a bible in front of a church across the street. According to reports, the clearing of the park was coordinated so that Trump could end his speech in the rose garden and head directly to the church. The most ironic part of this is the fact that the president stayed outside for the photoshoot past the curfew, despite him making it illegal for anyone else to do the same. Then, to add religious insult to injury, the president also ordered that the priests of the church be expelled from the area so that he could stand there. When Trump got to the church, he turned his back on it. He didn’t pray and he didn’t reflect on his actions. All he did was take out a bible and make various poses for the camera. And the worst part was that instead of being used to show support for anything, the photos were used for a video montage set to music – a campaign stunt – the next day.  
     
    Nothing Trump did that day exemplified what a President is supposed to uphold, nor was any of it about reconciliation, progress, repair, or even amelioration or de-escalation of the situation. The sole purpose of what Trump did was to inflame, to “trigger the libs” while beating the crap out of innocent civilians exercising their right to protest. The actions of Trump on that day were those that one would expect to see from the tin-pot dictator of a Banana Republic, not the leader of the free world. 
     
    This isn’t a bipartisan issue. This is an affront to the constitution, and to democracy itself. For an issue that should be on the front and center of every news cover, why has the response been so lacking? Why haven’t we heard a peep from the gun-toting 2nd Amendment activists who weeks ago, claimed to be fighting for their constitutional rights against tyranny? Why has the right-wing media been so silent on this, despite constantly rallying against the so-called Deep State’s abuses of power? Where were all of the Republicans who claim to care about law and order, when the actions that Trump ordered were anything but lawful? If you care about a rule of law that applies to everyone, then you ought to be appalled and outraged at what happened on June 2nd at Lafayette Park. 


  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @PressF4Respect
    William Barr the AG spoke about it, listen to what he said and see if that clears some things up.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,135
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    they warned them ahead of of time, I have said this before, if you are out and about near a riot but claim to be peaceful, go away! it is crazy how people are out at 10 at night but claim to still be peaceful.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    I thought this was going to be a post about how peaceful protesters protected a church from rioters.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @PressF4Respect
     If you care about a rule of law that applies to everyone, then you ought to be appalled and outraged at what happened on June 2nd at Lafayette Park. 

    As someone who lived through the riots of Katrina, you can go fuck yourself with your "rights". 

    I for one welcomed the National Guard in New Orleans. I was able to sleep peacefully when I saw them rolling down my street in armored humvees. The Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations, not for riots and church burnings and widespread looting.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    As someone who lived through the riots of Katrina, you can go fuck yourself with your "rights". 

    I for one welcomed the National Guard in New Orleans. The Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations, not for riots and church burnings and widespread looting.
    That seems to be entirely off topic. He is talking about the attack on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park. They weren't rioters. They weren't burning churches or looting. They were peacefully protesting. And trump ordered soldiers (among other federal employees) to shoot them so he could have a photo op. That is a terrible crime. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    The "peaceful protesters" are as complicit as the 3 officers watching passively as Chauvin killed a man. If they can't or won't protect the church, then we need the government to do it.

    I'm so sick of the "not my problem" attitude. Rioters need to be condemned BY THE PROTESTERS, not encouraged and coddled. This isn't a time for armed revolt.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    And another thing that's being glossed over. Park Police reported bricks and frozen water bottles being thrown at them. At that point, the peaceful protesters LOST their right to protest. Forget about the efforts of the police to protect life and property by attempting to protect the church from "peaceful protesters"

    A peaceful protest would have Karened out the rioters and gave them up to the police as a symbol of solidarity against violence. Instead the protesters encouraged or at least passively tolerated the violent brick-throwing and frozen water throwing. That's NOT a peaceful protest.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    The "peaceful protesters" are as complicit as the 3 officers watching passively as Chauvin killed a man. If they can't or won't protect the church, then we need the government to do it.
    what are you talking about? The church was not under threat at the time the police attacked. there was a crowd of peaceful protesters. There were not attacks there at that moment. The police were ordered to attack the crowd specifically so that trump could do a photo op at the church. 

    I'm so sick of the "not my problem" attitude. Rioters need to be condemned BY THE PROTESTERS, not encouraged and coddled. This isn't a time for armed revolt.
    they are being condemned by the protesters. There have been many cases of protesters being attacked by the rioters as the protesters stop them from attacking stores. But you don't know that because you only watch right wing news sources that paint all of them as terrorists and antifa. 

    And another thing that's being glossed over. Park Police reported bricks and frozen water bottles being thrown at them.
    ok. and the guys who murdered george floyd said that he was resisting arrest. That was a lie. The police said that a 75 year old man "tripped and fell", that was a lie. (2 cops shoved him down and cracked his head open) Just because the police say it, does not make it true. Cops get caught lying all the time to try to explain why they used excessive force.

    There is video of police attacking peaceful protesters. I haven't seen any evidence the police were being attacked. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I already said the 3 officers standing around "peacefully" while Chauvin murdered a man are no better.

    If the protesters will not condemn violence, then we need someone who will.

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,184
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    People will believe anything the media and protestors tell them. Sad.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    If the protesters will not condemn violence, then we need someone who will.
    they are condemning violence. In many cases they have fought against the looters.

    But again, you are off topic. This topic is specifically about the illegal assault on peaceful protesters ordered so the president could have a photo op.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
     In many cases they have fought against the looters.

    I don't see this being reported, can you provide a link?

    This topic is specifically about the illegal assault on peaceful protesters

    Brick and Icebottle throwers are not peaceful. The police can't just wade into the crowd and pick out the bad apples.

    Protesters didn't give a fuck about the church, so we needed someone who did.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,184
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Brick and Icebottle throwers are not peaceful. The police can't just wade into the crowd and pick out the bad apples.
    B b b ut Twitter and Instagram told me that didn’t happen. We must defund the police.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
     In many cases they have fought against the looters.
    I don't see this being reported, can you provide a link?
    It doesn't make main stream news (especially right wing news that wants to paint protesters as antifa) because it goes against the narrative many of them are trying to tell. Looters burning things makes for more exciting news than peaceful protest or stores protected. 

    Here is some I found of protesters condemning and trying to stop looters

    This topic is specifically about the illegal assault on peaceful protesters
    Brick and Icebottle throwers are not peaceful. The police can't just wade into the crowd and pick out the bad apples.
    There is no evidence they threw bricks or bottles. The police claim they did, but police have been regularly lying about stuff to justify their use of force. Without evidence, we cannot believe what the police say. There are far too many proven cases of them lying. 

    Protesters didn't give a fuck about the church, so we needed someone who did.
    no one in that crowd damaged the church. It had been damaged the previous day. No one in that crowd was about to damage the church. They were peacefully protesting when trump sent in soldiers to attack them so he could have a photo op at the church. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
     Without evidence, we cannot believe what the police say.

    There is evidence, but even if there was not, it doesn't remove the obligation of the government to protect property.

    Those links give me hope that people actually cared about their community.

    It's a shame that the same protesters in DC didn't form a protective line around the burned-out church like they did the Nike store, prompting the government action to protect the church.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff

    Yeah, this is evidence enough for me to corroborate the Park Police.

    Peaceful my ass.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @PressF4Respect
    What permit was and has been required, if any, for these "spontaneous" , crowded protests, and have not been issued, and, therefore, may not equate to a 1A right to protest? Pure, simple, and honest question regarding your claim of 1A rights.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot

    Yeah, this is evidence enough for me to corroborate the Park Police.
    that video is at night. trump had the military attack the peaceful protesters during the day. That is obviously not from the same time/day the military attacked. 

    also, that video shows one, single person throwing something. It also shows at least 1 protester trying to get him to stop. That is not a justification to open fire on hundreds of people. 

    There is evidence, but even if there was not, it doesn't remove the obligation of the government to protect property.
     the protesters weren't damaging property when trump ordered them attacked. They were peacefully protesting. 

    It's a shame that the same protesters in DC didn't form a protective line around the burned-out church like they did the Nike store, prompting the government action to protect the church.
    the government attack had nothing to do with protecting the church. We know that because the church was in no danger when they attacked. We also know that because trump went and did a photo op like 5 minutes after soldiers were done shooting protesters. Trump ordered american citizens to be shot so he could take a photo with a bible. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,962
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Even if all you say is true, if Trump stayed indoors and the church was vandalized a second time, the media would blame him for that as well, calling for impeachment because he couldn't protect the country.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Even if all you say is true, if Trump stayed indoors and the church was vandalized a second time, the media would blame him for that as well, calling for impeachment because he couldn't protect the country.
    A church being vandalized is a crime. It is terrible and should be avoided. A president ordering soldiers into the streets to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters is a much, much greater crime. It is exactly what the founding fathers were afraid governments might do. That they would use the force of the US military to crush dissent. And that is exactly what trump is trying to do. 

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,184
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    If the police tells you to back up multiple times and you don’t back up, especially with curfew about to come, then you are no longer a peaceful protestor. Simple.

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @ILikePie5
    If the police tells you to back up multiple times and you don’t back up, especially with curfew about to come, then you are no longer a peaceful protestor. Simple.
    so let me get this straight. If a cop orders you to stop carrying out your constitutionally protected right to protest, and you do not immediately comply, then you are not peaceful and can be attacked and assaulted without consequence? Do I have that right? What you are describing is a police state where the government can use deadly force on you at any time for no reason. 

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,184
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @HistoryBuff
    so let me get this straight. If a cop orders you to stop carrying out your constitutionally protected right to protest, and you do not immediately comply, then you are not peaceful and can be attacked and assaulted without consequence? Do I have that right? What you are describing is a police state where the government can use deadly force on you at any time for no reason. 
    The police didn’t say stop protesting, they said move back. The right to peacefully assemble is not absolute. 

    “Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety.”

    I think it’s pretty safe to say a curfew is a time and the prior night’s events constitute concerns for public safety.

    They can’t stop you from assembly, but they can say where and when you can assemble.
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    William Barr the AG spoke about it, listen to what he said and see if that clears some things up.
    I will listen to it when I have the time