Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Crossfire' started by TUMe, Jul 27, 2020.
Maybe it is time to start using guns.
And how many protesters were injured by the police?
I would guess very few protestors. Probably quite a few rioters and looters though. Maybe some some protesters who decided it was a good idea to be among those doing the destruction and violence.
So do you mean that police just stopped an innocent person going about his business and injured him?
over 86 police officers have been killed in the line of duty, just doing their job, since Minn.
Where are the marches, where are the riots, where are protesters, where is the burning, where are the bumper sticker slogans, where is the media support, who is painting their city streets, where is the business support, where are the athletes, where is cnn?
Do you mean people randomly injured police officers dressed in full riot gear? Seems like that's a tough task.
Kind of ironic when the guys with Guns, Shields, Night Sticks, Pepper Spray, Helmets, BulletProof Vests, Elbow + Knee Pads, Tear Gas, etc... are the ones I'm supposed to feel sorry for and not the people who are being robbed of their 1st Amendment rights. (The nonviolent ones)
1. All that riot gear doesn't mean much if you are only allowed to be defensive. Let a number of people strike you, burn you, poke enough times and it might start to get through.
2. Nobody is being robbed of their 1st Amendment rights that I am aware of. Freedom of Speech, Religion, right to protest all fall in that group along with some others. You can hold up a sign with BLM or yell "Trump is a dirty dog." The First Amendment is rather quiet about any right to burn buildings, tear up government property, beat people, loot stores... you get the idea.
If I am concerned about damage to our planet by non-electric cars, I can use my vote and my Representatives and Senators to try to change things. I can't slit all four of your tires, which would be more dramatic, but also illegal. If there was a lot of that, you might call the police. When they came they might have guns. The people doing this are called criminals. It has gone past protest. One persons right to swing his arm in protest ends at the next persons nose.
I believe that it was obama that said "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun"
Seattle PD has the reputation of being rather passive. A trait which likely contributed to their large injury numbers. Not sure why we’re portraying the PD there as something they’re not.
Local paper: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...e-trade-allegations-about-saturdays-violence/
Seattle cops have been under federal consent decree for excessive use of force for 5 years still are. Not a lot of love up here.
Once protestors start throwing bottles, rocks and fireworks they obviously become rioters. Thanks for posting.
When police start beating innocents without cause they become tyrants. I will take the former over the latter.
The type of behavior (from both sides) we’re seeing reminds me of what we saw in the Middle East during the Arab Spring revolts. What’s the difference between open revolt and rioting? Intent?
Typically in revolts you’re destroying the property of those who you believe to be oppressing you opposed to that of your fellow citizens. We obviously have destruction of government owned property but a vast majority has been the property of other citizens. People involved in revolts seldom target each other.
Hey guys, check out the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
We all love the First Amendment..."or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Peaceably to assemble. Some of these assemblies have not been peaceable. The First Amendment rights do not include violence or destructiveness.
Nobody has a 1st Amendment right to use laser pointers to blind some cops and make others feel like snipers are aiming at them to force them to separate so your buddies can attempt to firebomb a federal courthouse for the fifty second consecutive day while others throw urine and excrement on other cops trying to stop relentless graffiti and petit destruction of federal property. Nobody has a 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble caches of bricks, rocks, and IEDs every single day in a park for later use that night. Nobody has the right to assemble with their friends across two posted police lines and take picks and axes trying to chop down the boarded up windows erected after you repeatedly broke the glass to gain entry every night for months. Anybody still doing this two months later is obviously getting paid. Anybody that thinks that what’s going on at the federal courthouse in Portland is non-violent protesting is purposely lying or willfully misinformed.
You can’t take away everyone’s rights to peaceable assembly just because some aren’t peaceable
I don’t think this is true....and even if it was, the people in Portland who are going up against the feds were destroying the government property that they viewed as being oppressive. Same goes for people burning down police stations. (Not saying they SHOULD have done those things) but we would have promoted such actions if they were undertaken in places where we disagreed with the ruling government. If they started doing these things in Iran or North Korea, Fox News would be elated about it.
When large groups of people feel that their government isn’t working for them anymore they have a tendency to do rash things and to lash out. That’s been repeated throughout history. The best way to defeat that isn’t through jack-booted thugs... it’s through a government that’s willing to listen and adapt to society’s desires.
So much to argue with here. Fox News got in here. Hitler will be next. As far as Iran or North Korea those people would be dead or in jail You aren't saying they should have done those things, but you are defending them. People in Portland are oppressed? Look at the rioters. Many are non oppressed white youth and the local government is encouraging them. Many are doing it just for fun.
The constitution grants everyone individual rights. What most people don't understand is those rights end at the tip of your nose.
First amendment rights don’t include trying to burn down federal buildings or destruction of property. Let’s not forget that the violent protestors are acutely better armed and trained in Portland than many of the federal officers they are attacking. The G20 Summit in Hamburg and the Hong Kong Protest were pre designated training opportunities designed to hone this groups skills. Portland is near and dear to my heart as I lived, worked, and studied in Portland for 2 yrs. What the Fake Media isnt talking about is why these people are protesting! It’s not for GF, it’s about destroying the current system and replacing it with a Marxist system. Last time I checked, trying to overthrow the US government is called treason, punishable by confinement and or death!
Many Americans would rather die before they give an inch to the Marxist demands!
Back in the revolutionary war, they called those people "Loyalists".
It depends on what you are loyal too. I will be gladly called a loyalist to the United States when it comes to tearing down the country and replacing it with a socialist regime.
who are the Marxist.
I see them as the Democrats, doj, blm, antifa. the left, those that make excuses the riots and burning,those blaming trump for covid19, sanctuary cities, chop, Portland protesters, occupy wall street, Adam shiff, jerrry nadler, nancy, biden, aoc, people who have no respect for this country and kneel for the nation anthem, those that deny me the right to my opinion,
You can go out in the streets en masse, and scream that opinion at the top of your bloody lungs. Nobody will deny you that right, no matter who wins the election. You might have to move away from rioters, looters, and those throwing projectiles, to maintain that right, but the right will still exist.
Only defensive----- must be from folks a thousand or two miles away. The court oversight doesn't mean sh#t. Just CYA.
Then there’s this :
The city of Portland, Ore. is fining the federal government $500 for every 15 minutes it maintains unpermitted fencing outside of the federal courthouse that has faced nightly attacks amid ongoing protests and rioting.
City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly said in a statement Tuesday that the fencing is obstructing the street outside of the courthouse. As of Monday, she said, the federal government owed Portland $192,000.
"We intend to collect," said Eudaly, who added that she was "committed to doing everything in my power to end this federal occupation and move forward with our community's reckoning with racial injustice and our efforts to transform our approach to policing and public safety."
Why would you just not move to a socialist country? Think about a realistic outcome to your statement about tearing down the country. If that happened, you are looking at a situation like Syria where the country still exist but it will never be fully united again. At best after a civil war, the socialists would get half the country. At best! So say you got your wish, Who would control the nukes? How would the socialist establish a government? Who would be their trade partners? Would other governments recognize their autonomy and not intervene? Would other countries Or groups like the cartels invade a split America? A social system requires everyone working and paying into the pot to share the benefits. Would there be an infrastructure left after a civil war to form an effective functioning social system? What would your constitution look like? How would you Police? It’s one thing to say you want to bring down the system but quite another thing to actually do it. Even if you did it, do you think the outside entities that funded your civil war won’t demand to be put in charge? Good luck with that!
I'm sure the Whigs / Royalists in London really approved of the governmental style of the United States and the shirking off of a king.
From Websters: The etimology of the word Patriot during the time of the revolution:
Another effect of the tumultuous times was the development of a derogatory use of patriot. The term was assumed by people who claimed devotion to one's country and government but whose actions or beliefs belied such devotion. This ultimately led to the discrediting of the loyalty and steadfastness associated with the word patriot. As English lexicographer Samuel Johnson noted, the word became used "ironically for a factious disturber of the government." English poet John Dryden applied the word disparagingly in his 1681 political satire Absalom and Achitophel.
Gull'd with a Patriots name, whose Modern sense Is one that would by Law destroy his Prince: The Peoples Brave, the Politicians Tool; Never was Patriot yet, but was a Fool.
The years leading up to the American Revolutionary War further propagated the notion of patriot as a name for a seditious rebel against the monarchy. 18th-century American writers, however, heartily embraced the word to define the colonists who took action against British control. As tensions continued to escalate, a new meaning of patriot came to the forefront: "a person who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a colony." Benjamin Franklin provides an early record of this use.
Those in power who are being rebelled against always tend to have derogatory names for people who don't agree with their ideas of governance. In modern day, it's Socialist. In 1776 it was Patriot.
Maybe 250 years from now a football team in New England will be called the 'New England Socialists'
Were the Patriots of 1776 destroying their fellow citizens property? Apples to oranges comparison when it comes to their “protests” methods.
Uh, yes they were, as well as the government's property. It's apples to apples.
Violent, destructive, or armed incidents leading to the Revolution:
1689 Boston Revolt - Armed Militia Men, enraged by lack of representation, a bevy of detested laws, and the Church of England's promotion throughout the colonies arrest government and religious leaders. They surrounded forts and borded ships, illegally arresting multiple army officers and the Governor of New England under threat of violence. It would be like a mob marching into the Governor's Mansion and placing him under arrest for signing multiple bills they didn't like.
The Sons of Liberty (Founded by Adams) Going After Tariff Men in 1765 - The first major action of the Sons of Liberty was carried out in Boston on August 14, 1765, in response to the Stamp Act. Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty gathered under the “Liberty Tree” where effigies of Andrew Oliver, a public official in charge of enforcing the Stamp Act in Massachusetts, and related offenders of the people’s liberties hung. Incited by the Sons of Liberty, thousands gathered and a sign was placed on the effigy of Andrew Oliver declaring, “He that takes this down is an enemy to his country.” The riotous, angry, and alcohol-fueled crowd paraded the effigy through the streets of Boston inciting supporters of the Patriot cause throughout the city. Soon mob rule was the order of the day, and the effigy was stomped-on, beheaded, and ultimately burned in a fit of anger. The crowd, with the Sons of Liberty leading the way, marched on the home of Andrew Oliver. The fence around Oliver’s home was torn down, windows were smashed, furnishings destroyed, and the home looted – most notably Oliver’s personal wine cellar. The ironic truth of the matter was Andrew Oliver privately was not a proponent of the Stamp Act. Rather, he was an obvious and easy target for the Sons of Liberty to take out their anger over the Stamp Act and accuse him of duplicity. As a result, on August 17, Oliver publicy resigned his commission and on December 17, the Sons of Liberty made him publicly swear an oath he would never again serve as a stamp master. It is unknown if Samuel Adams played a role in the organization and leading of the events of August 14, 1765, but by the days immediately following, he was known as a prominent leader of the organization.
The Sons of Liberty next took their anger over the Stamp Act to the brother-in-law of Andrew Oliver, Thomas Hutchinson, the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Justice of Massachusetts. By the time of the Stamp Act, Hutchinson was not very popular with many people of Boston. He was a known Loyalist, and a year earlier he published a history of Massachusetts condemning the 1689 revolt by Boston citizens against the rule of then unpopular governor Sir Edmund Andros. On the evening of August 15, 1765, the Sons of Liberty and others blockaded the Boston brick mansion of Hutchinson and demanded he denounce the Stamp Act in his official letters to London. In typical Loyalist fashion, Hutchinson refused. In response, on the night of August 26, a mob organized by the Sons of Liberty attacked Hutchinson’s mansion. The front door was knocked down with felling axes, the interior of the mansion was thoroughly looted and destroyed including all of the finely crafted woodwork and wainscoting, and the extensive garden was uprooted. In a struggle pitting anti-Hutchinson against pro-Hutchinson supporters, which turned into a violent brawl through the night, the mansion’s cupola was taken down and destroyed. In addition to scores of irreplaceable and costly damages, all of Hutchinson’s fine silver and £900 sterling in cash were looted and carried off by the Sons of Liberty. At the time, it was estimated £2,200 worth of damage was caused by the Patriots on the night of August 26. Hutchinson later received more than £3,000 for reimbursement for the damages from Massachusetts and relocated himself and his family to Castle William in Boston Harbor.
The Sons of Liberty Fight the British Over Their Liberty Poles - During the imperial crisis with Britain in the 1760s, the Sons of Liberty (or "Liberty Boys") in New York City sometimes erected "Liberty poles" to symbolize their displeasure with British authorities. The first such pole was put up in City Hall Park on May 21, 1766, in celebration of the repeal of the 1765 Stamp Act. The British hated this pole and chopped it down in August in protest of the fact that the New York government had refused to enforce the Stamp Act. Another pole was put up which was quickly cut down. A third pole was put up which stayed up until 1767 when British soldiers cut it down after seeing colonists celebrating the anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act. A fourth was put up this time secured with iron bands. In 1767, the Quartering Act was passed which the New York government mostly left unenforced. Parliament reacted to this by dissolving the assembly and replacing it with one that did agree. The Sons of Liberty posted a broadside called “To the Betrayed Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New York” in response. The British blew up this liberty pole on January 16 because of the broadside and as a result of the fact soldiers were given 1800 pounds for supporting the act. They left the remains of the pole on the door of a tavern owner named Mr. Montanye. The "red coats" also posted their own handbills which attacked the Sons of Liberty as "the real enemies of society" who "thought their freedom depended on a piece of wood"
On January 19, 1770, six weeks before the Boston Massacre, Isaac Sears and others tried to stop some soldiers from posting handbills. Sears captured some of the soldiers and marched his captives towards the mayor's office, while the rest of the British soldiers ran to the barracks to sound the alarm. A crowd of townsfolk arrived along with a score of soldiers. The soldiers were surrounded and badly outnumbered. Fellow soldiers tried to rescue them but were ordered to their barracks. As they were being escorted to their barracks, they reached Golden Hill, where an officer said, “Soldiers, draw your bayonets and cut your way through them." More soldiers arrived and a group of officers arrived to disperse the soldiers before the situation got totally out of hand. Several of the soldiers were badly bruised and one had a serious wound. Some of the townsfolk were wounded and according to some sources, there was one death, though this is disputed
The Battle of Alamance in North Carolina in 1771 - A result of the Governor's displeasure with the violence and lawlessness of early revolutionaries In the spring of 1771, Royal Governor William Tryon left New Bern, mustering and marching approximately 1,000 militia troops west to address a rebellion that had been brewing in western counties for several years, but which had included only minor, scattered acts of violence, followed by refusals to pay fees, disruptions of court proceedings, and continued harassment of government officials. About 2,000 so-called "regulators" had gathered, hoping to gain concessions from the Governor by intimidating him with a show of superior force. Funded by council member and wealthy merchant Samuel Cornell for £6,000, on May 11, Tryon left the county seat of Hillsborough with his militia to confront the Regulators, who had made camp south of Great Alamance Creek in western Orange County (present-day Alamance County).
The Pine Tree Riot in New Hampshire in 1772 - In response to the Crown's law of marking certain trees for use only by the crown.
On April 13, 1772, Benjamin Whiting, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, and his Deputy John Quigley were sent to South Weare with a warrant to arrest the leader of the Weare mill owners, Ebenezer Mudgett. Mudgett was subsequently released with the understanding that he would provide bail in the morning. The sheriff and deputy spent the night at Aaron Quimby's inn, the Pine Tree Tavern. That night, many of the townsmen gathered at Mudgett's house. A few offered to help pay his bail, but the majority wanted to run the sheriff and deputy out of town. They finally decided to teach Whiting a lesson that he would never forget.
At dawn the next day Mudgett led between 20 and 30-40 men to the tavern. Whiting was still in bed, and Mudgett burst in on him. With their faces blackened with soot for disguise, more than 20 townsmen rushed into Whiting's room. They began to beat him with tree branch switches, giving one lash for every tree being contested. The sheriff tried to grab his pistols, but he was thoroughly outnumbered. Rioters grabbed him by his arms and legs, hoisted him up, face to the floor, while others continued to mercilessly assault him with tree switches. Whiting later reported that he thought the men would surely kill him. Quigley was also pulled from his room and received the same treatment from another group of townsmen. The sheriff and deputy's horses were brought around to the inn door. The rioters then cut off the ears and shaved the manes and tails of the horses, after which Whiting and Quigley were forced to ride out of town through a gauntlet of jeering townspeople, shouted at and slapped down the road towards Goffstown.
Whiting engaged Colonel Moore of Bedford and Edward Goldstone Lutwyche of Merrimack, who assembled a posse of soldiers to arrest the perpetrators. By the time the posse arrived, the townspeople had fled into the woods without a trace a long while ago. After searching, one of the men involved in the assault was arrested, and the others were named, ordered to post bail and appear in court. Eight men were charged with rioting, disturbing the peace, and "making an assault upon the body of Benjamin Whiting." Four judges, Theodore Atkinson, Meshech Weare, Leverett Hubbard, and William Parker, heard the case in the Superior Court in Amherst in September 1772. The rioters pleaded guilty, and the judges fined them 20 shillings each and ordered them to pay the cost of the court hearing.
The Gaspee Affair off the Coast of Road Island in 1772 - was a significant event in the lead-up to the American Revolution. HMS Gaspee was a British customs schooner that had been enforcing the Navigation Acts in and around Newport, Rhode Island in 1772. It ran aground in shallow water while chasing the packet ship Hannah on June 9 near Gaspee Point in Warwick, Rhode Island. A group of men led by Abraham Whipple and John Brown attacked, boarded, and torched the ship.
The Powder Alarm in 1774 -
The Powder Alarm was a major popular reaction to the removal of gunpowder from a magazine by British soldiers under orders from General Thomas Gage, royal governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, on September 1, 1774. In response to this action, amid rumors that blood had been shed, alarm spread through the countryside to Connecticut and beyond, and American Patriots sprang into action, fearing that war was at hand. Thousands of militiamen began streaming toward Boston and Cambridge, and mob action forced Loyalists and some government officials to flee to the protection of the British Army.
Although it proved to be a false alarm, the Powder Alarm caused political and military leaders to proceed more carefully in the days ahead, and essentially provided a "dress rehearsal" for the Battles of Lexington and Concord seven and a half months later. Furthermore, actions on both sides to control weaponry, gunpowder, and other military supplies became more contentious, as the British sought to bring military stores more directly under their control, and the Patriot colonists sought to acquire them for their own use..
The Burning of The Peggy Stuart in Maryland 1774 - A mob angry at the tax collectors demand the destruction of the Tax Collector's property by a local commission. The offer to burn Peggy Stewart was enough to satisfy the mob, so the brig was moved to a convenient spot "with her sails and colours flying", and, after reading out a statement apologising for their conduct (which was subsequently published in the Gazette), Anthony Stewart, Nehemiah Moxley, Joseph Williams and James Williams jointly set the vessel and the tea alight. Within a few hours, "in the presence of a great number of spectators" Peggy Stewart had burned down to the waterline. The event has since become known as the "Annapolis Tea Party".
The same people who voraciously defend the 2nd amendment as an insurance policy on liberty are the same people who ignore and even support actual threats to liberty that are comparable in egregiousness to those the Sons of Liberty et al. were fighting against 250 years ago.
I'm not an advocate of people bearing arms in the streets to combat today's problems by any means, but I think people could at least show some more critical thinking skills and maybe change their voting allegiances to prevent these problems from festering like they did so long ago.
Quickly reading through those acts of the Sons of Liberty is appears almost all were directed at the property of government officials which they opposed. Again....almost all of the property destruction over the last several months have been at the expense of fellow citizens who have zero to do with the matters being protested. Quite different than the acts of vandalism and violence referenced.
So you're saying they should (like the Sons of Liberty) start directing their destruction at the persons and property of government officials? LMAO How do you think that's going to play on Fox News? I'm sure Trump will take really kindly to people storming his golf courses or Trump tower and destroying things. /s
Like, there's no way that's a good idea. Honestly it would probably cause an all-out civil war.
And now, when people were trying to graffiti a PUBLIC building or remove a Racist Statue, they are having Trump's National Security thugs summoned upon them.... seems a lot like 1776 to me. The king's soldiers are just wearing camouflage fatigues instead of red coats.
You completely misunderstood my post. I am loyal to the United States of America and the Constitution.
I’m saying once you start the violence and destruction of your neighbors property your message become just that...one of violence and destruction. There’s no place in our society for thugs and rioters who seek to harm their fellow citizens or their valuables. Hard to believe someone would even argue this point.
Not hard to believe at all. Last month, he was saying our Founding Fathers were morally repugnant slave holders who deserve to be expurgated entirely from our culture and history books. This week he is saying they were noble criminals and therefore their crimes are excused. For now. For the purpose of defending his indefensible position. Because he thinks you won’t argue against our colonial heritage. Because he knows that it’s absurd to say what is happening in Portland and Seattle is OK.
Just on a factual basis, there are no congruencies. Starting with none of the incidents described above resulted in other citizens showing up and taking the opportunity to rape one or two of the women participating in the demonstrations. Or murder. Or start their own putative lynch mobs. Or organized theft and fencing operations. Or sell drugs.
You know, the tax men, and the soldiers of the crown were still the neighbors and fellow citizens of the revolutionaries in 1765.
Our founding fathers didn't just hold up signs in the streets, criticizing the crown. They were thugs and rioters who sought to harm their fellow citizens and their valuables. Hard to believe that you can't acknowledge that these 'thugs and rioters' don't have some basis in history for doing things that supporters of the government in power get upset about.
There’s a big distinction between soldiers and ordinary citizens. Assume I don’t need to point out the difference. In almost all cases these thugs and rioters have zero beef with the people whose property their destroying.