-->
@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.
Yep
Tyranny at Lafayette Park
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@PressF4Respect
You might try reading Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property ..
-->
@PressF4Respect
Well, no. The chain of events you portrayed are largely fictional. Do you have any reputable link you could share with us that corroborates your narrative?
Trump personally ordered their removal? Really? The links please.
In reality, Bill Barr was in a meeting on Friday (the week before) with US Park Police and they came to the consensus that the security perimeter had to be pushed back, and then on Monday he attended a meeting with other law officials to decide the dividing line, which put Lafayette Park out of the protester perimeter. The plan was supposed to be put in action immediately after the meeting, however, because many officers had been injured days before, they had to wait for additional National Guard troops to arrive. Once they were then ready, the Park Police tactical commander gave the go ahead.
Bill Barr himself doesn’t seem to have been involved in the go ahead or in the tactical command (much less Trump).
I unfortunately had to slog through your opinion piece above without any trace of evidence.
-->
@PressF4Respect
This isn’t a bipartisan issue. This is an affront to the constitution, and to democracy itself
Unfortunately, violations to the Constitution and to Democracy is no longer a bipartisan issue because conservatives will not care as long as the person in the White House has an 'R' next to his name. All those years of vicious and vocal protests to Obama when alleged violations of democracy and the Constitution were taking place were simply for show, not an actual display of the values they hold which are far more self-centered and callous then they would ever openly admit.
The fact that conservatives believe people should abide by curfews when not even 2-3 weeks earlier it was those very same conservatives who were openly protesting against Coronavirus restrictions because they 'took away their freedom' shows their hypocrisy..... Restrictions on the general population to control a national pandemic are somehow against the law, but restrictions and forceful actions to stop people from protesting police brutality just because it reached some arbitrary time of the day somehow isnt?
-->
@Imabench
You realise curfews are different to the coronavirus restrictions? If so, they aren’t hypocrites, and if not, how are they the same thing?
-->
@Imabench
The fact that conservatives believe people should abide by curfews when not even 2-3 weeks earlier it was those very same conservatives who were openly protesting against Coronavirus restrictions because they 'took away their freedom' shows their hypocrisy..... Restrictions on the general population to control a national pandemic are somehow against the law, but restrictions and forceful actions to stop people from protesting police brutality just because it reached some arbitrary time of the day somehow isnt?
Please show me which mayors put out a curfew while conservatives were protesting. Also please show where conservatives were looting, rioting, and burning down buildings. Y’all were saying that we were killing people by coming out of our houses and protesting. Y’all are doing the same at a much higher level. And you talk about “hypocrisy.”
-->
@fauxlaw
You might try reading Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property ..
What’s your stance on Cox v New Hampshire?
-->
@Marko
The Coronavirus restrictions were regulations where people had to remain indoors and not go outside, unless you absolutely had to such as for emergencies or to get supplies
The literal definition of a curfew is 'A regulation where people have to remain indoors and not go outside.'
One could easily and correctly argue that the Coronavirus lockdowns were just curfews extended over the period of days rather then just hours during the night.
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm questioning whether or not you're illiterate based on your response, since almost nothing of what you are responding to is what was initially claimed in the first place
Please show me which mayors put out a curfew while conservatives were protesting
There weren't curfews as a result of the protesting by the right, there was protesting by the right over the curfews..... In Michigan there were coronavirus restrictions that right wingers came out in armed protest over that went on for days before the George Floyd killing took place https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514
In case you missed it, which it seems like you did by a mile, the comparison being made was that the right was protesting restrictions and curfews entirely meant for public health and safety, but now they are not protesting curfews entirely meant to silence people peacefully advocating for police reforms.
Also please show where conservatives were looting, rioting, and burning down buildings
They weren't, because in response to the protests local governments didn't call in riot police or the national guard to forcefully and arbitrarily clear out protests. The armed conservatives who showed up to protest Covid restrictions were largely ignored, labeled as loud idiots, and for the most part not treated like any sort of actual threat. People who were peacefully protesting the Floyd killing though are being targeted and treated like a hostile threat, which is only inciting greater anger and leading to looting and arson.
Y’all were saying that we were killing people by coming out of our houses and protesting
Literally nobody has been saying that. Im not going to waste time on make-believe arguments, read and respond to what is actually being said rather then make stuff up.
-->
@Imabench
States and local ordinances may legitimately impose curfews at limited times. It is part of their prerogatives. Curfews generally last several hours (during late evenings, or dusk-to-dawn) and then are removed. That said, if it is deemed to violate the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights, it can be struck down.
Few of these characteristics apply when speaking of the coronavirus restrictions. They weren’t limited and were/are continuous (several months restrictions). The scale, scope and temporality makes the two difficult to compare, and therefore, there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew. And so, no, you can’t easily or correctly argue that curfews are the same thing unless you decide to also change the definition of what a curfew is.
Finally, the curfew is not to stop people protesting but to stop vandals from destroying your property and that of others. Did conservatives burn buildings and loot local businesses?
-->
@Imabench
Literally nobody has been saying that. Im not going to waste time on make-believe arguments, read and respond to what is actually being said rather then make stuff up.
Really? You must not have followed the news a month ago. But either way, the protestors shouldn’t be out there because they’re spreading coronavirus. If you’re in denial that liberals were claiming that conservatives were spreading corona by protesting, then show me how mass protests where people are side by side doesn’t spread the coronavirus.
-->
@Marko
He’s in denial. He claims that liberals weren’t vilifying conservatives because they were spreading the virus at the protests. It takes complete ignorance to say that.
-->
@ILikePie5
Agreed.....added to the fact that Imabench is using the terms ‘curfew’ and ‘coronavirus restrictions’ interchangeable, amongst other things I disagree with.
-->
@ILikePie5
@Marko
Ill try to respond to both of your ongoing cluelessness in order for which it popped up
The scale, scope and temporality makes the two difficult to compare
It really doesnt though..... The Coronavirus restrictions were in effect curfews that were just extended over a longer period of time and applied to businesses as well, but largely loosely enforced where the public was asked to regulate themselves instead of the government using police or military force to uphold the restrictions.... The George Floyd protest curfews are more temporary curfews largely implemented without much prior notice, but have been far more viciously enforced with tools such as batons and tear gas.
The only differences between the two are that the length and scope of one was longer and more expansive, all over justified public health reasons, while the other has been more haphazardly implemented while also more viciously enforced in an effort to stifle protests.
If you’re in denial that liberals were claiming that conservatives were spreading corona by protesting
The far bigger criticism liberals were making during that time was that suspending the coronavirus restrictions at a time when testing wasnt and still largely isnt widespread would only make the spread and death count of the coronavirus substantially worse, not that people at the actual protests themselves were at risk of spreading the virus.
show me how mass protests where people are side by side doesn’t spread the coronavirus.
The fact that you are still so incredibly far off the mark of what is actually being discussed is really tempting me to not even waste my time with you.
Go back and actually read what has actually been said up to this point.
Go back and actually read what has actually been said up to this point.
-->
@PressF4Respect
1.What reports
2.Sure, it was a riot that burned a church
3.it was different message
If you believe riots are the answer to racism, you are shallow minded with no concept of peace keeping. Our constitution does not allow for you to go and destroy your fellow neighbors businesses. I should not fear living in my house. I should not have to carry my gun by my bed just in case anyone comes and breaks into my house. I now fear where I live, and it is thanks to rioters this happened.
Rioting is a crime, murder is a crime. I have learned a lot about this experience that has changed my perspective on the world
-->
@Imabench
The far bigger criticism liberals were making during that time was that suspending the coronavirus restrictions at a time when testing wasnt and still largely isnt widespread would only make the spread and death count of the coronavirus substantially worse, not that people at the actual protests themselves were at risk of spreading the virus.
Yup, you definitely are ignorant. I’m done talking with you on this. Have a nice day.
-->
@ILikePie5
Enjoy being a retard somewhere else
-->
@Imabench
No need to resort to petty ad hominem in our discussion here.
Secondly, you don’t just get a free pass by merely repeating what you said previously.
Curfew (Merriam Dictionary): a regulation enjoining the withdrawal of usually specified persons (such as juveniles or military personnel) from the streets or the closing of business establishments or places of assembly at a stated hour.
As said before, the stated temporality of a curfew makes the majority of the difference, which is largely why we didn’t call the lockdown a curfew or the recent curfew a lockdown. But you came up with the difference yourself, which beggars the question, why are you arguing the point?
Finally, looters and violent criminals will be dealt with using batons and tear gas..... and possibly more.
-->
@ILikePie5
If you have a change of heart and would like to actually be educated on current events for once in your life, feel free to read through any of the links below that proved my previous points you didnt seem smart enough to understand:
"protesters labeled mandatory lockdowns as “tyranny,” while medical workers and health experts cautioned that lifting them too soon risked unleashing a greater disaster."
"You don’t have to be a doctor specializing in infectious diseases to understand that the premature lifting of the stay-at-home orders will end up prolonging the havoc wreaked by the coronavirus, as well as then prolonging the subsequent economic dislocation."
"Medical professionals on the front lines of the battle to curb the pandemic, which erupted in China late last year, have said the United States could face a second and even deadlier wave of infections if the lockdowns end prematurely."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/as-protesters-decry-us-coronavirus-lockdown-officials-urge-caution-idUSKBN2221P9
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/as-protesters-decry-us-coronavirus-lockdown-officials-urge-caution-idUSKBN2221P9
"“To be a week into these restrictions and already be talking about abandoning them is irresponsible and dangerous,” said Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Removing restrictions now would allow the virus, he said, to “spread widely, rapidly, terribly, and could kill potentially millions in the year ahead with huge social and economic impact.”"
I have now a better understanding of the world. I have taken the time to reflect upon the events happening. I have stood on the frontline of peaceful protests in Chicago. I talked to various people. I have gathered knowledge about this situation by reflecting and battling
-->
@Marko
As said before, the stated temporality of a curfew makes the majority of the difference
Not to the degree that they somehow make the Coronavirus restrictions less justified then the curfews imposed over the Floyd protests, which was the point you made that I am challenging in case you forgot.
The Coronavirus restrictions were made because there is literally a once-in-a-hundred-years Pandemic with a fatality rate worse then many other infections diseases society has had to deal with sweeping through the nation and recently topping 6 figures in terms of casualties. Unprecedented measures are justifiable against unprecedented events.... On the other hand, implementing curfews with short notice following mostly completely peaceful protests, after those protests were dispersed with tear gas and unrestrained shows of force, is not nearly as justified even though you seem to be indicating otherwise.
The Coronavirus restrictions were made because there is literally a once-in-a-hundred-years Pandemic with a fatality rate worse then many other infections diseases society has had to deal with sweeping through the nation and recently topping 6 figures in terms of casualties. Unprecedented measures are justifiable against unprecedented events.... On the other hand, implementing curfews with short notice following mostly completely peaceful protests, after those protests were dispersed with tear gas and unrestrained shows of force, is not nearly as justified even though you seem to be indicating otherwise.
Finally, looters and violent criminals will be dealt with using batons and tear gas.
If you ever decide to become informed on an issue, you might see that peaceful protesters during the day are more often then not the ones who get tear gas and rubber bullets shot at them, which is fueling a lot of the anger and resentment that leads to violence and looting in the first place.
-->
@Imabench
I wrote.....’there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew.
The so-called ‘curfew’ in the case of the coronavirus has no stated hour, week, month, or year for that matter, and is therefore 1) not really a curfew, and 2) a decision that holds up less strongly constitutionally speaking....potentially breaking a number of constitutional amendments.
That said, and putting aside the judicial matter for one second, it is completely justified at a purely medical and societal level—but that is a separate issue in this particular discussion.
The narrative and order of events of the ‘protests’ you depicted are not at all as I remember. Tear gas, etc....was used after the ‘mostly completely peaceful protests’ went violent. Following the violence and looting of cities nation wide, local authorities decided to implement curfews, with a stated hour.
I’m fully aware that many protests are completely peaceful and that certain violent factions (for example: antifa) intentionally insert themselves within protests and resort to violence, at the expense of peaceful protestors.
-->
@ILikePie5
don't you love their hypocrisy? it's ok to infringe on the 2a and even speech (hate speech) but don't infringe on a right I want to use/abuse right now.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
don't you love their hypocrisy? it's ok to infringe on the 2a and even speech (hate speech) but don't infringe on a right I want to use/abuse right now.
At least they cured the coronavirus 😂
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol, these riot apologists are batshit insane. It's like saying arresting MS-13 is infringing on the 2ndA cause my Marxist professor said so due to a social justice paradigm that replaces any other rational discussion.
-->
@Marko
’there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew.The so-called ‘curfew’ in the case of the coronavirus has no stated hour, week, month, or year for that matter, and is therefore 1) not really a curfew, and 2) a decision that holds up less strongly constitutionally speaking
Thats justifiable though because the Coronavirus is not something that can be shut down in an hour, week, or month, or maybe even in a year given how extensive the outbreak has become.
If the threat is clearly and actively a problem that itself is open-ended without any clear indication of when it will end, then the argument that restrictions to try to contain the threat can also be as open-ended and undefined due to the nature of the threat in the first place.
If the threat is clearly and actively a problem that itself is open-ended without any clear indication of when it will end, then the argument that restrictions to try to contain the threat can also be as open-ended and undefined due to the nature of the threat in the first place.
Youre blatantly ignoring the context the Coronavirus restrictions were made for in the first place to argue that they are somehow questionable
Tear gas, etc....was used after the ‘mostly completely peaceful protests’ went violent
If you are legitimately unable to see the very basics of what is going on then it isnt worth trying to discuss this topic with you. A vast majority of the time tear gas is not being used because 'the protests went violent'. A vast majority of the time instead what happens is that the governor or some official has arbitrarily decided the protest needs to end, and riot police are given the order to start shooting off tear gas to clear it out. Thats what is actually going on. If that is news to you, then frankly you need to become a lot more informed about the issue before you can really participate in discussions about it
-->
@Vader
I have now a better understanding of the world. I have taken the time to reflect upon the events happening. I have stood on the frontline of peaceful protests in Chicago. I talked to various people. I have gathered knowledge about this situation by reflecting and battling
What is your perspective? Given the blatant idiocy of most of the other people posting in this thread right now, you may very well be the one person capable of having a discussion with.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, these riot apologists are batshit insane. It's like saying arresting MS-13 is infringing on the 2ndA cause my Marxist professor said so due to a social justice paradigm that replaces any other rational discussion.
Steven Crowder had the perfect analogy. If you go to a house party and it eventually turns into an orgy, you’re no longer a party of the party; you are part of the orgy.
-->
@ILikePie5
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.
In that case there was a law that made it illegal to do what they were doing. POTUS doesn't have the authority to make laws. Some protestors were blocking the street which may have been a violation, but I didn't see anything beyond that.