Well, if we’re talking about escalating vs. deescalating, yeah, I’d agree. But the author mentioned that in his view part of the problem is the training that encourages police to perceive a threat at every traffic stop, and that this training makes them fearful.
I suppose you could say that that’s part and parcel of the anti-escalation argument; however, my point was only that I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a cop to take precautions. Because a traffic stop can indeed lead to a bad outcome.
I think it’s entirely possible for a cop to be fearful, or at least a little wary when pulling someone over as wtf knows who’s in that car, AND at the same time, attempt to deescalate.
Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they’d likely be against tear gassing peaceful protesters. However, if those same peaceful people attempted to set that church ablaze, personally, I’d hope they’d spew some tear gas. Right?
1 Like
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10050
No. Tear gas shouldn’t be legal frankly. Also VH was likely referring to the church that had its protestors and priest driven out with tear gas for that photo op by Trump.
3 Likes
VaultHunter101
(So long, and thanks for all the fish)
#10051
As per Temet - this was clearing the way for a Trump photo op that the WH press person is comparing to Churchill appearing amongst bombed out ruins during WW2. Except Churchill didn’t have homes demolished with high explosives just so he could go stand there (obviously).
So, you had a bunch of people including the clergy basically causing no problems, but they were in the way and someone ordered them cleared out by force.
4 Likes
I don’t know. I don’t feel too badly for someone who’s attempting to burn down a building getting tear-gassed.
-
I’ve never been much of a Churchill fan.
-
This is a dumb avenue for us to go down, as one would think that the big anti-gubmint guy on the board probably wouldn’t support the act of assaulting innocent people and the clergy. And just so we’re clear, I don’t.
-
Are we even sure that this tear-gassing occurred? Granted, this is from the gubmint so it could very possibly be a pack of lies, but…
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm
The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP officers in the line of duty, the destruction of public property and the defacing of memorials and monuments. During four days of demonstrations, 51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.
Multiple agencies assisted the USPP in responding to and quelling the acts of destruction and violence over the course of the weekend in order to protect citizens and property.
On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.
To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.
Also interesting to note, is that thus far the pictures I’ve seen of the tear-gassing pigs clearing the way for Orangeman Uberleader, none of them are wearing gas masks. Which is weird, because it’s my understanding that cops also dislike tear gas. So when they’re gonna use it, they tend to put on a gas mask. I mean, this is crazy and all so hear me out, perhaps - wait for it - the media got this one wrong? Is that possible? Or is this a case of - wait for it - the gubmint being lying ■■■■■■■ shitheads once again? Or is the answer here just… yes? Yes!
And what monuments and historic buildings were vandalized and burned down? Cause dude - if you tried to break off Abe Lincoln’s stovepipe hat on the Lincoln Memorial, I’m pretty sure I’d be in favor of having you put up against the Washington Monument (America’s phallus) and shot. But that’s… uh… probably just me on that one, amirite? 
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10054
That’s… way too far down the conspiracy theory hole Mike. Not only were reporters present, but there’s video from multiple sources contradicting everything from the claims of the protests not being peaceful, to the gas masks, to the use of tear gas. The last one is probably the least obvious lie though, they’re claiming now that OC gas isn’t tear gas, since a journalist actually picked up a canister.
As for the thing on tear gas - it doesn’t discriminate. It isn’t controllable. You don’t get to pick and choose who gets health problems from it. And frankly on a personal level I think if something is banned for use in war, we might want to consider it’s a bad idea for use domestically.
2 Likes
What’s the conspiracy? That the Park cops are lying, or the media are wrong? Maybe they are lying and teargas was used. But I’m reluctant to take at face value what a reporter on the scene says about guns or police tactics, as it’s been my experience they don’t know the difference between rubber bullets and ear protection, just as I am reluctant (AF) to take the government’s word on jack ■■■■.
Maybe the protests WERE peaceful, and no bricks were thrown, no church basements were set alight, no monuments were vandalized, and no cops were injured. But gee, wouldn’t that mean we’d have to review a ■■■■ LOAD of video to know one way or the other? I mean, the possibility exists that both sides here - the gubmint and the media - are completely full of dog poo.
I don’t think one has to be a conspiracy theorist to distrust the media and government in the US. 
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10056
No, just no. This is something we have actual evidence on Mike. There’s no need for assumptions here, and claiming that everything is equally likely to be true simply because you dislike both sides is as bad as trusting them mindlessly. Something either happened or didn’t.
Seriously Mike, if multiple video sources, statements from sources ranging across demographics, and actual physical evidence isn’t enough, what is? At that point we’re hitting philosophical claims that everything might be an illusion, that’s just a different topic than politics.
1 Like
VaultHunter101
(So long, and thanks for all the fish)
#10057
Mike, I think you must have been hiding in a hole when this went down. The clergy in the church themselves have corroborated the reports. There’s plenty of video and eyewitness accounts. To be clear, in this case the ONLY violence was initiated by the police who had been instructed to clear the area so Trump could go stand and wave a bible around for the cameras. That’s it.
2 Likes
Arsonist
(FOR WHAT!?!?!)
#10058
Especially when cops are aiming cannisters at peoples ■■■■■■■ heads.
“Cop Riot” and “Sacred Fence” are my new two favorite words in my lexicon.
1 Like
There’s two issues here: 1) did they use tear gas, and 2) was the crowd violent?
Well, the physical evidence I’ve seen, pics of the canisters fired at the crowd, have “OC” written on them. That’s pepper ■■■■. Tear gas is CS or CN - or is everything classified broadly as “tear gas” now? Are we just arguing over ■■■■■■■ semantics? If you have evidence of tear gas being used, please show me. I want to know the truth, but my google searches are full of claims and reports, but short on actual evidence.
If the crowd was violent, gotta say I haven’t seen much evidence of that while googling. A few reports say some people threw some ■■■■. The majority of reports say no, that’s not true, no one threw anything. Which of course only means that that reporter didn’t see anyone in the immediate vicinity throw anything, but when that’s backed up by a lot of reporters, maybe that’s the case.
And no, I haven’t watched every ■■■■■■■ video, or read every ■■■■■■■ report on it. Why? Because as I learned when it was happening here in 2014, all sides (cops, protestors and media) claimed ■■■■ happened that wasn’t actually true. So I’ve learned since to let a story play out for a bit before asserting that this or that happened.
It’s not as existential as “I believe no one.” It’s that I distrust them all based on recent experience. What kind of moron would I be to ignore the recent past, events which were EXTREMELY similar to current events?
Our post limit is almost here. Soon, this thread will be destroyed and all of you with it. That’s what’s gonna happen, right?
1 Like
I see you typing, Temet. MAKE IT A GOOD ONE AS THE END (of thread) TIMES ARE UPON US ALL.
1 Like
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10061
Yes Mike, we will all perish in the great purge. Orrrr, you could be stuck with us. I’m thinking it’s probably the second.
As for the tear gas thing, as far as I’m aware it’s lachrymator agents in general, but I have by no means tracked the use of the word that way. From recollection, CS is the oldest, and CN the most toxic, but that’s just top of my head.
I don’t know about good, particularly given I had trouble tracking which of these was oldest. Regardless, wouldn’t be surprised if we hit the new thread tonight.
1 Like
There’s gonna be a Purge? ■■■■■■ 2020, man.
Yeah, I dunno either. All I could find was that the CDC classified them all as ‘riot control.’ So in that instance, “tear gas” is no longer chemical-specific (at least, as specific as one can be when you have at least 2 varieties). Which, if that’s what the larger argument - cops vs media vs protesters - is actually about, im gonna be irritated with everyone.
1 Like
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10063
Basically, the argument is, well, barely existent honestly. Even Republicans and the military are expressing fury at Trump, Barr, and even Esper on this one. There is some unclearness about their claims not have to used ‘tear gas’ based on semantics, but frankly I’ve seen the term used to broadly describe such riot control gasses in general (which there are quite a few of in police use worldwide). It seems disingenuous to claim this particular one doesn’t count. Regardless though, that’s part of why I was so surprised, there’s no real argument that it didn’t happen. Even Pat Robertson got angry about it, to put into perspective how broad the response has been.
1 Like
Right, saw all the anger and the crowd getting pushed back, but then saw the Park Police say they used smoke and pepper canisters and that they were mistaken for tear gas. ■■■■ it - not at all worth expending another ounce of energy on something ■■■■■■■ stupid like semantics.
1 Like
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10065
On which note… I think I’m going to go make the new thread, since bluntly we’re only three posts away anyways. So if you’ve got something crazy to say, now’s probably the time! Immortalize it for those who skip to the end of the thread!
1 Like
No, wait - it is not yet time. Soon, my child. Soon.
1 Like
TemetNosce
(Temet Nosce)
#10067
Too late Mike. And I’m posting this link before the last post! The horror!
3 Likes
Dang. 2020 can suck a fat one.
3 Likes
