Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
does freedom mean so little to you that you will look for literally any excuse to crush people's constitutional rights?
Throwing a bottle at a cop isn’t a constitutional right, nor is protected under the 1st Amendment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
HB is defending that the protest was peaceful even after a bottle was thrown at a cop😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is a small detail that is off. But the underlying statement is accurate. they used an aerosolized spray to make you tear up. It;s like saying "i got hit by a drunk driver driving a ford truck" when it was actually a chevy. The important points are the drunk driver in the truck. The exact model of the truck is not the critical point. Trying to say they are lying when the underling point is accurate is an attempt at deception. A stupid one at that.
You didn’t answer my question. If I get pepper sprayed by a girl, should I got around saying I got tear gassed? Yes or No?
But you are kidding right? One person through one water bottle, which landed nowhere near the police. The crowd immediately yelled at them to stop throwing things. The police attacked about 8 minutes later. All I see is a peaceful crowd being attacked. What exactly is in this video that is supposed to convince me that they were violent and a threat to anyone or anything?
They threw projectiles at the police. There were a bunch already there if you took a look at the ground. If you throw a projectile you are no longer peaceful. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 or 100. Plus you completely disregarded Sections 1.5 and 1.6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are liberals so lazy and take the words of the news as gospel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yah, although his specialty is winning 2ndA cases.
Nice! Your sister is very lucky!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
but it isn't. They were attacked by an eye irritant. That is what tear gas is. Everyone knows what tear gas is. Just because the soldiers used a slightly different method to make their eyes tear does not make the statement false.
Wtf are you even saying lol. Tear gas and pepper spray aren’t the same things. Just answer this question with a yes or a no. If a girl pepper sprays me in the eyes, can I say I’ve been tear gassed?
by all means provide it. I don't know what video you mean.
Why are you so lazy dude. Post 130. And it’s not from a different day. It’s from June 1st, 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
no, the statement is true. they were attacked with an eye irritant. They didn't know the exact type of eye irritant they were being attacked with.
The media is claiming they were tear gassed which is false.
where is this video? The videos I have seen are of a peaceful crowd being attacked by soldiers. Then a few minutes later trump wanders over the scene of the attack for a photo op.
It’s in this thread. Go take a look :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
in both cases they fired an eye irritant at you. So saying "it didn't happen" is far more misleading than getting the exact substance used on you wrong. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt to deny the attack. Saying it was tear gas, as long as you had good reason to think it was tear gas (which the protesters did), then it isn't dishonest. It is a mistake.
Thanks for saying it’s a mistake and therefore wrong. Glad we agree.
they were warned about a curfew, which had not come up yet. The soldiers were unleashed before curfew.
Section 1.5 and 1.6.
There is no evidence they were being violent. The police have provided no evidence of this, and reporters that were in the crowd at the time didn't see any violence. There have been tons of cases of cops lying about protesters to justify their violence against them. Without supporting evidence, there is no reason to believe the police.
There’s video evidence of protestors throwing stuff at cops, which gives them the full right to disperse the crowd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funfact: My brother in law who is an attorney is representing the 82 year old man (victim) in this newsclip.
Is he good?😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that's like if I said someone threw an apple at me and they said I was lying (because it was a pear). It is a semantic difference. Either way police fired eye irritants at peaceful protesters. The specific kind of eye irritant they used is besides the point. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt at lying.
Tear gassing didn’t happen, pepper spray did. If a girl pepper sprays me and I go around saying I got tear gassed, that’s extremely misleading whether it’s semantically correct. But it’s besides the point. The protestors were warned and were being violent.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
what about being progressive and picking a woman!!!!!!!!!
That’s not the reason why Joe wants a woman😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Did you gloss over the part where he said “no tear gas was used”?
It’s not lying lol. Saying pepper spray bullets are tear gas is misleading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You and GP cited two incidents of "violence" in the protests. Are there any more?
There is numerous debris on the floor near police at the beginning, so rationally yes. But it only takes 1 instance of violence for it to no longer be peaceful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's like they filed a lawsuit just to go through the motions so people could donate and lawyers could get paid.
Probably is 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I'll closely analyze and scrutinize the video tomorrow (since it is now midnight), and if it turns out to truly be as you described, then I'll retract every point I made in this thread so far.
Please do. You have the timestamps and the entire video. I await your retraction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Let me ask you this: When did the president take his photo?
The one with the Bible? Monday June 1st, 2020.
Even if we assume that they just used pepper spray (which is not the case), are you saying that just because pepper spray isn't explicitly listed as tear gas, means that it isn't one? It says the most common compounds, not all of them.
As your article mentions it becomes a semantical argument. But if I get pepper sprayed by a girl, me claiming I got tear gassed is misleading even if it’s semantically correct. But all of this is besides the point. It was warranted as shown in my video.
Please retract everything dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Protesters dindu nuffin. ignore the burned church and flying objects.
We’ve got him cornered. Retraction incoming😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The U.S. Park Service used pepper balls and smoke canisters, which irritate the eyes and throat and cause coughing, to disperse the protesters. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, “Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as ‘tear gas’) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.”
You left out this part: “Several different compounds are considered to be riot control agents. The most common compounds are known as chloroacetophenone (CN) and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS). Other examples include chloropicrin (PS), which is also used as a fumigant (that is, a substance that uses fumes to disinfect an area); bromobenzylcyanide (CA); dibenzoxazepine (CR); and combinations of various agents.”
Where is Pepper spray listed as tear gas?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The video you linked to was about the protest that took place on June 1st. I’m asking you for evidence for violence specifically on the June 2nd one. If you have a shred of evidence that there was violence in the specific protest on that day (June 2nd), then I will retract everything I said in this thread. Then, and only then.
Might wanna check your dates. The “tear gassing” happened on the 1st not the 2nd. Please retract everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Dude watch the video. Fucking waterbottles and bricks are flying everywhere, even hitting their own protesters.
He got caught spreading Fake News lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This doesn't answer my question. Were the public's health and safety directly adversely affected by that specificprotest?
Seems to me you didn’t watch the video.
When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn't move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John's Church. That's when tear gas was used.
You think pepper spray is tear gas? Cause that’s what your article is claiming. Irritation of the eyes was caused by pepper balls not tear gas. The smoke cane from smoke canisters. Even if they used the tear gas it would have been justified because there were projectiles being thrown at the cops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
24:17...instant karma as a protester gets hit with a frozen waterbottle aimed at the police.
😂😂😂
“Peaceful Protestors”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard it but it's hard for most people to hear when they are busy screaming "FUCKTRUMP"
Ain’t my problem 🤷♂️.
Whoever claims they weren’t warned is lying and spreading Fake News spewed by the media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you have it, then show it.
Gladly. I expect a full apology after you watch the video.
11:10 Mention of warning from a protestor
13:55 Final warning given to back up
16:30 Projectile thrown
Those are the timestamps. Enjoy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I read the intro to the lawsuit against Trump. It's total garbage and is probably going to be tossed out. I'll try to follow what happens with it.
Total garbage. There’s video evidence from the frontline of the protest of projectiles being thrown and multiple warnings given. But of course the MSM doesn’t want you to see it.
Created:
Posted in:
Were the public's health and safety directly adversely affected by that specific protest?
Yes since the decision to do it was ordered early morning after the riots of the night.
Bill Barr is innocent because he said he is.Is this a valid statement, especially given his aforementioned penchant for lying?
You gave a transcript. Where is he lying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I have video evidence that projectiles were thrown at the police and that the police gave warnings. Would you like them? Or would you prefer to hear what the media said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah...it's going to take a LOT more than allegations from anonymous sources parroted on MSM by reporters making 50,000 dollars a day to lie to the public for me to lose faith in Barr.
Especially considering Joe Biden though Bill Barr was a great guy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
In both sections, it is clear that the protests can ONLY be shut down or required to have a permit IF one or more of the following are adversely affected:
- Public health/safety
This one clearly. The order to move the perimeter back was given in the morning after the riots and destruction of the previous night. Come on man
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We are probably the only country in the world that pumps money into failed public schools but at the same time defunds the police for “failing.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
So one of these individuals must be lying through their teeth. Barr's response is equivalent to that of a child saying "I didn't eat the cookie in the cookie jar". That, combined with his penchant for lying:
Lemme guess the federal officials were anonymous 🤔
makes his narrative a lot less credible.
Prove tear gas was used rather than smoke canisters and pepper bullets. Oh and also respond to what fauxlaw told you about the permits
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you appear to be arguing that the decision of the supreme court gives the government the power to attack protesters whenever, and wherever they want. That is a blank check to ban the right to assemble. IE, if the police have the right to shoot you anywhere you choose to assemble, then you can't assemble anywhere.
It’s not a blank check to ban the right to assemble lol. What part of that do you not understand? The government cannot ban it no matter what. But the court has determined that, that right is not absolute just like every other right.
why? Obviously there needs to be reasonable limits on the right to protest. Attacking peaceful people with soldiers so the president can have a photo op is obviously, way, way over that line.
The decision to move the perimeter back was made by AG Barr in the morning after the St John Church was vandalized. They did not do so when Barr came to the White House, so he told them to do it now. The protestors were told that curfew was about to come and to move back multiple times. They refused to do so. As I have shown, a permit can be issued for peaceful protests, but was not done so. In the interest of protecting federal property, the order was given by Barr to move the perimeter back. He never said stop the protestors from protesting. You are intentionally misrepresented what it means to regulate and what it means to ban. If the protestors listened to the authorities they would be peaceful. If they don’t, they are no longer peaceful. Simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok, but a regulation that gives the president a blank check to decide when to use it may as well be a ban. because if he wants to ban it, he can decide that every occasion is a good time to regulate.
A regulation isn’t a blank check to ban the right to peacefully assemble. And besides you should be arguing this in court. Oh wait..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
fine, the courts rule you have the right to bear arms, but only the kinds of guns the government says you can have. lets say .22 or less. Or even better, you can bear any arms that existed at the time the constitution was written.
Guess what? Certain arms are already regulated from the public. Regulating and banning are two separate things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because no constitutional right is without exceptions, duh.
He knows he has no defense; that’s why he uses garbage analogies to drive away from the point and shift the focus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i have no idea how this question has anything to do with topic.
What do guns have anything to do with the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So if the supreme court rules that the government could take your guns, you would happily turn them over, right?
This is a terrible analogy lol. The Court didn’t stop the freedom to assemble. Banning guns totally stops the freedom to bear arms. One is regulation, other is getting rid of the right all together. Use a better analogy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Plus, I don't know what the big deal is over trannys in Lafayette Park.
Trannys are wack
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you don't know why a US president sending soldiers to shoot peaceful protesters is a big deal? I thought the right cared about the constitution?
You must have missed the part where I showed you a Supreme Court Case buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's that kind of bullshit that tears the country apart.
The bs spreads to social media
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Marko
Colin Powell supported Obama twice and Hillary Clinton.
“Republican”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Barr was confirmed unanimously during the Bush 41 administration. Joe Biden himself praised him. What changed this time? Trump. Anyone associated with Trump is automatically bad to these people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
The SCOTUS case you were citing doesn't seem applicable to the facts here because here there is no license or permit etc. required to be protesting. (at least not that I'm aware of) That's what I was talking about.
I don’t think you understood my analogy. A Supreme Court case is broader than the scope of what was challenged in Court. That’s why Supreme Court precedents exist. And actually you do need a permit. Take a look at Section 1.6 in Title 36.
I also said that POTUS doesn't have the authority to make the laws. Whether it was Trump or Barr isn't really that significant to what I was saying. (and really, it isn't knowable due to the adminstration's low credibility, esp. after the bullshit about the use of tear gas) They are both executive branch officials, and I was talking about the separation of powers.
They didn’t make a law. They executed the law. The regulations made were present before both Trump and Barr. And there were smoke canisters and pepper bullets used after the protestors refused to move back. They weren’t there to stop the protesting. They were there to just move it back a block to protect a piece of federal property.
But really, I don't believe him because I have seen no evidence to support what he is saying and I have seen evidence to suggest that what he is saying is false. His credibility is pretty low after the tear gas bullshit anyway.
Why not? The church was vandalized. Police have encountered water bottles being thrown at them. Federal law requires a permit to be able to protest which they didn’t get. Sections 1.5 and 1.6 should help you. It’s one thing if the permit was rejected, but they never asked for a permit in the first place...
You don’t believe Barr, because you don’t want to. You want to believe Trump tear gassed protestors for a photo op, when the order was given long before. If conservatives were doing the same thing, I would support Barack Obama doing the same thing. It’s the job of the President to enforce the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is actually exercising immense restraint considering the tools he has at his disposal to get Democrat governed areas back under lawful control.
I agree. He’s still respecting the principles of federalism even after all the death and destruction, which I applaud him for. Federal use should come only after the municipal and state governments have failed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The real tyranny is local Democrat government officials allowing brownshirt thugs to burn the country down for the sole purpose of interfering in a democratic election.
It’s funny how all of this is happening in cities controlled by Democrats for decades. poLiCE bRUtAliTy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
“Protesters had been attempting to pull down statues on Monument Avenue.” Peaceful right?
Cox v New Hampshire and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property ..
Refer to CNN article you posted.
Refer to ABC
Refer to ABC News
Refer to ABC News
“Wong, the journalist who tweeted about the tear gas, said that 20 minutes before curfew, a few water bottles were thrown, and things started to escalate quickly. “I never heard an unlawful assembly declared.”
“Maria Norris said police escorted her and other protesters and were friendly until they walked onto the bridge that carries Patton Avenue and Interstate 240, causing traffic to stop.”
“APD Chief David Zack said the tear gas was used after protesters got onto interstate for a second time and officers feared they would endanger themselves and drivers.”
“Dallas police Chief Reneé Hall said her department used tear gas at a Friday protest, defending the decision as a way to disperse “very large crowds” while causing “minimal injury.”
“We’re not talking about protesters. We’re talking about criminals,” she said at a Saturday news conference, referencing those who destroyed property.
Peaceful huh? Yup only you believe that dude. If a people start getting violent, it’s no longer a peaceful protest even if you are being peaceful. But hey, I’m a retard right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Ad hominem will get you no where.
Anyone who disagrees with him is a retard. You, me, Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
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.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. President wasn’t even involved in this. AG Barr wanted time move the perimeter back in the morning after the vandalism of the church the night before. Protecting public property falls within the realm of the federal government. And the judicial precedent is set regardless of how it was set. For example Marbury v Madison established judicial review, but judicial review doesn’t just apply to court appointment processes.
Created: