Antifa attacks journalist in Portland

a reply to: thedigirati

Yeah I read that post...refreshing when people do there homework isn't it?

But to draw a remarkable parallel between your suggestion to round up all those "antifa's". Isn't that the same as to round up all muslims because some are terrorists?

You would never say that, right.

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: thedigirati

But to draw a remarkable parallel between your suggestion to round up all those "antifa's". Isn't that the same as to round up all muslims because some are terrorists?
Peace

See this is what I mean, I never suggested anything of the sort.

You are putting words in my mouth, and or "projecting"

you may wish I said this, I did not.

you may not support Antifa, my error, you just defend their actions.

a reply to: thedigirati
Not putting words in your mouth, just drawing conclusions to get this discussion going in the right direction.

But you agree then that it is actually quite impossible to indentify real antifa members from the normal anti-protest crowd (LARP wannabe revolusionists that search their parents closet for dark clothes) and that the people that should be brought to justice are actually the only one's using violence (ie beating).

You could argue that throwing a milkshake makes you part of antifa but that is the same as calling a muslim throwing his shoe is also a terrorist...

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

lets see if this works for you

Adolf Hitler was nice to Eva Bruan, so Nazi's weren't that bad in WWII.

this is correct right??

So, by YOUR logic, WWII should never have happened.

(throwing ANYTHING at another person without their consent is assult, in the USA, your comparison has no merit at all)

a reply to: thedigirati

That would be an incorrect statement. Adolf was an insane maniac but that doesn't mean every nazi was equally insane would be more correct.

I can understand that throwing anything at another person in the USA is assault but to demand police prioritise according to what you think is important is something I don't expect to be normal.

If a cop is in an ongoing bankrobbery situation do you demand he pauzes his work to arrest a person that has spit on you nearby?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

LOL you are correct he shouldn't but yes, he should by LAW.

It's not what I think, it what is called "Precedent" "that which proceeds before"

"if any infraction of the law is made it is to the discreation of the officer unless there is precedent"

so when there are competing protests, those with a permit get preference, through precedent.

the police should have stopped antifa the moment they showed up. Full stop.

if you are not wearing a mask and black you would not be stopped, they can be detained until their identity is known.

the Police can detain a person for 24 hours on a "whim" legally, you may not like it but it is the law.

if the police feel they cannot handle the size of the crowd, they can ask for help from the National Guard, it has precedent. This is why most of your "defense" is laughable because you think you know things that you really do not.

antfa can protest all they like, however their rights only extend to the rights of another, the moment anyone is touched by or any object is thrown by antifa (or anyone) they lose the right to freedom for a short time until they are tried by peers in court.

any time a police officer does not arrest someone ( anyone, not just antifa ) for an infraction, they can be penalized for deriliction of duty at a latter time, this might seem to suck for the Police, but they are "allegedly" held to a higher standard then the general population at large. ( under the color of law)

hope this helps you understand what is wrong with some of your points, it's not personal.

( as far as I can find, Hitler never shot anyone except when he was in WWI, as a soldier. Methanphetimines made the Reich insane)

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: thedigirati


But to draw a remarkable parallel between your suggestion to round up all those "antifa's". Isn't that the same as to round up all muslims because some are terrorists

No it’s not the same. ANTIFA Is a terrorist group regardless of how you want to define them and they’ve been labeled and looked at as such by the DHS and other agencies, the Muslim religion hasn’t. It would not be correct to compare ANTIFA to any religion, even if said religion had terrorist cells.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

My "assault" remark was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do not see it as assault but in America it could very well be and I respect that.

At what point in your opinion does it become "assault"? How hard does the object need to be? What velocity should it be thrown with?

In reality, it does not matter. Assault is assault, but is, yes, handled at officer discretion. If I toss a nerf ball at someone, technically it is an assault if they call it an assault, but an officer will likely shrug it off. If I throw that same nerf ball at someone and knock their phone out of their hand, breaking it, the officer will likely not laugh it off. But the officer will (should) at least check out the situation.

Your later comparison to stopping participation in a bank robbery because someone spit on me is laughable. A bank robbery is considered a dangerous situation and has no bearing on someone getting spit on. Even so, if someone reports a crime to an officer who is involved in another operation, the correct response is "wait over there and someone will get to you." Not "suck it up, buttercup."

In this case, however, the complaint was completely relevant to the very reason the police were there. Someone in the crowd had made a minor assault on someone else. The police were there because of the crowd and the chance that violence would erupt. Ergo, the reports were an indication that violence was erupting and the police were derelict in their duty by not following up on the complaint. If there were not enough officers to handle the situation, they call for backup and disperse the crowd. Not enough backup? The National Guard is available. There is no situation that can be beyond the ability of the police to stop if public safety is involved. If there is, we are by definition living under martial law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

The sole purpose of any police dept. is to “protect and serve” the general public. It’s gross negligence and a derelict of duty to not at the very least investigate a felonious crime, especially one in progress. PPD failed to do this.

Do you really believe that the PPD officers should be able to selectively pick and choose which laws they enforce and which ones they don’t?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay..that makes total sense (and thanks for the eloquent explanation) but what if police advised upfront not to enter a certain area because you would be at risk of getting hit with nerfballs and maybe damaging your stuff?

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
...but what if police advised upfront not to enter a certain area because you would be at risk of getting hit with nerfballs and maybe damaging your stuff?

Only the host can issue the liability waiver.

Silliness aside, if a scheduled and permitted event becomes dangerous, the police are supposed to shut it down.

The problem is that the police have been told to not shut down certain events until it gets to threshold A, and other events until it gets to threshold B.

And here in lies the issue. The police should be shutting down at a single set threshold....regardless of the events political leanings.

Thresholds will be set more by the local political leanings more than anything else.

a reply to: peck420

That also makes perfect sense but I understood that politcal leanings had nothing to do with it as mr.Ngo had non because he was an independent objective reporter.

If police warns Justin Bieber not to step in the moshpit at an Sepultura concert....you get the point.

(Please don't start on Sepultura fans or justin fans...it was an example)

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
That also makes perfect sense but I understood that politcal leanings had nothing to do with it as mr.Ngo had non because he was an independent objective reporter.

Stop playing dumb.

If police warns Justin Bieber not to step in the moshpit at an Sepultura concert....you get the point.

Not really. One is a private event, in which you waive certain rights to attend. Actually read your ticket once in a while.

Even equating the two actions would require massive mental leaps, or a general lack of brain power all around.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

this is part of your confusion.

the Police do not warn of "Potential" harm.

the Police give lawful orders. "you cannot enter here", "You can enter here".
( they can as private citizens, make suggestions)

the Government can warn of "potential" harm. "do not go to the Dominican republic, you could die"

they are NOT the same thing.

(that is also part of that whole freedom in America thing)

originally posted by: peck420
Stop playing dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to understand...

If police warns Justin Bieber not to step in the moshpit at an Sepultura concert....you get the point.

Not really. One is a private event, in which you waive certain rights to attend. Actually read your ticket once in a while.

Even equating the two actions would require massive mental leaps, or a general lack of brain power all around.

Yeah bad example...I should have thought that example a little more through.

Here's the thing though...I have been blamed of condoning the rape of women and I know me....I don't condone the rape of women so I'm trying to find the fault in my/others logic.

From what I get, if I hold a rally and I wanted no counter protest. All I had to do was create a puppet who incites the opposition and wait for police to arrest everybody?

Seems rather strange to me...

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Oh, you are going for the Jussie Smollet defense now?

BTW the words you are using do not mean what you think they mean.

A rally is not the same as a protest. maybe you should stick to German.

you can have a protest rally, bu that is not the same as a protest march.

a rally would be at a Venue, like a stadium or the mall in washington

you would need a permit.

a protest march would be on public streets, you would still need a permit to block the public street.

you can protest on sidewalks all you like at anytime, with no permit, as long as no one else is protesting in the same place.

see this is very simple, your "what if's" are already covered by precedent.

you may wish to google the 60's in America and see what protesting is like and what has already set precedents, then you will look less foolish than you do know.

ETA: I'll even throw you a bone, look up "Kent State" and 60's, see what conviction is like.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to understand...

No, you are not.

You have made a couple critical errors, typical of newer trolls. That's okay, I am sure you will get better with time.

Here's the thing though...I have been blamed of condoning the rape of women and I know me....I don't condone the rape of women so I'm trying to find the fault in my/others logic.

As much as I appreciate the economic study value of analyzing the price of tea in China, it is irrelevant to my daily tea purchases in Canada.

From what I get, if I hold a rally and I wanted no counter protest. All I had to do was create a puppet who incites the opposition and wait for police to arrest everybody?

Seems rather strange to me...

The only thing strange is how you think that no one is noticing your continued attempts to move the goalposts. Use better tactics. Verbal shifting is older than I am.

This is also why the left has been unable to combat Trump, btw. They are a one trick pony, in terms of propaganda and large scale population control, and Trump is using an array of tactics they are largely unfamiliar with.

As I already stated, stop playing dumb.

a reply to: peck420

Well that was useless...

Let's just be glad I was only playing dumb.

I leave you to your little circle...enjoy boys.

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

what if police advised upfront not to enter a certain area because you would be at risk of getting hit with nerfballs and maybe damaging your stuff?

Advising someone not to go somewhere does not absolve the police of their duty. It is not a solution. One should be able to walk anywhere they wish in public, wouldn't you agree? Advisories are to try and alert people that if they go to a certain area (usually one outside our police jurisdictions) they may be at greater risk of needing police assistance; they are not legal orders prohibiting free travel.

There are advisories out for the Dominican Republic due to some mysterious deaths recently. One is still allowed to go there, and one is still afforded protection (as such may be) if they choose to. There may be cases where protection will simply not be possible, such as in the midst of a hurricane, and advisories declare that; still, rescue will make every possible attempt to rescue someone even if they choose to ignore the advisory as soon as reasonably possible.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

From what I get, if I hold a rally and I wanted no counter protest. All I had to do was create a puppet who incites the opposition and wait for police to arrest everybody?

No, in that case the police arrest the puppet and warn everyone else. Send in two puppets and the police arrest them. Send in enough, and one of them is going to rat you out and the police will be arresting you for inciting a riot.

The problem is not limited to Antifa; the problem is, as someone just pointed out, lax law enforcement, and that problem is compounded when it is based on political considerations.

TheRedneck