Portland, Seattle, and Denver ban the use of tear gas against protestors

a reply to: Irishhaf

Having been subject to tear gas...quite by accident, during the Seattle riots of a few years ago. I'm not sure I wouldn't, in the short term, prefer a truncheon to hit me on the arm.

That stuff hurts, and burns, a lot.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Gryphon66

MLK was a wuffless Ol' Rabble-rouser. By himself, he was nothing more harmful than an accelerant that would shortly evaporate into the wind. The pages of history aren't distorted by his legend. He knew his role all too well.

He was left alone or adulated by liberal whiteys ... until somebody shot him in the face ... because they'd had enough and knew what needed to be done to end the ceaseless tearing of American society. Those were bad days ... and they were put to a relative end with his shooting.

Kind of reminded me of a funeral I went to once in New Orleans. Big drama!!

Your statement is that the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King was "what needed to be done"?

I want to make sure you're clear on that point.

My statement was that he was tearing the country apart. He needed to stop or be stopped. Didn't look like he was going to do that on his own (he was getting fat off of his dirty li'l shenanigans). Shooting him in the face was one way to do it. I'm sure there may have been other less-direct approaches.

He got shot in the face and, "I don't care that he died." (I think that might be what you're digging for ... and I'm not afraid to type it out here on the boards). MLK made his bed. That's the way I see it. Back then, people were far more prone to "do something" ... look what happened to JFK. He didn't deserve to be shot in the head, but it happened because it could back then.

The '60s would have been the best decade of my life had it not been for the disharmony people like MLK and Malcolm X sowed. It's a kinder, gentler, more politically correct world you live in ... because they're not around.

I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then‍—‌like all [Black] Muslims‍—‌I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years.

That was a bad scene, brother. The sickness and madness of those days‍—‌I'm glad to be free of them. -Malcom X

Who do you think is the one stirring the pot in the 2020s? Hmmm? It certainly isn't anyone with beliefs like mine. It certainly isn't President Trump, or anyone on his staff. Hmmm.

a reply to: Snarl

He was tearing the country apart? Single-handed? So it didn't have anything to do with Jim Crow laws, Black Americans seeking equal rights, Bull Conner's dogs? Nothing else but Dr. King?

I know you're not afraid to show us who you are. Thanks again.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Snarl

He was tearing the country apart? Single-handed? So it didn't have anything to do with Jim Crow laws, Black Americans seeking equal rights, Bull Conner's dogs? Nothing else but Dr. King?

He was their figure head.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Snarl

He was tearing the country apart? Single-handed? So it didn't have anything to do with Jim Crow laws, Black Americans seeking equal rights, Bull Conner's dogs? Nothing else but Dr. King?

He was their figure head.

So the real problem was them?

The Blacks looking for equal rights?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Snarl

He was tearing the country apart? Single-handed? So it didn't have anything to do with Jim Crow laws, Black Americans seeking equal rights, Bull Conner's dogs? Nothing else but Dr. King?

He was their figure head.

So the real problem was them?

The Blacks looking for equal rights?

No. The problem was him ... telling ... people they didn't have equal rights. I've never encountered 'a black person' who didn't have all the same rights I have. Never. Have you?

There. Now, you may have the last word ... because you always enjoy that. -chuckle

a reply to: 727Sky

I live near Portland and Mayor Ted Wheeler HAS NOT suspended tear gas - he wants to limit use but they can absolutely use it.

His words - no tear gas... “unless there is a serious and immediate threat to life safety, and there is no other viable alternative for dispersal."

A bunch of people, including a college professor, got gassed last night.

originally posted by: vampira309
a reply to: 727Sky

A bunch of people, including a college professor, got gassed last night.

What was the justification? Were they rioting?

a reply to: seagull

Ive been told I should get my sinuses checked out, coming out of the gas chamber my eyes were watery and my nose ran a bit and that was it.

Also I volunteered to take my mask off and take a couple huffs directly over the can.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: scrounger

Your post conflates a great many issues.

given the "great many issues" that have been brought up directly or that the issue itself (ex the geneva convention) has many aspects ... YES i tried to answer them all... you know "debate for accurate".

I'm ignoring the blatant appeals to emotion.

first you want to be called the kettle or the pot for that statement.. most of your arguments (but not all to be fair) are based on the very principle.. especially on this issue... along with EXACTY WHAT were my "blatant appeals to emotion"? oh wait, you dont have to do that... just throw out this statement and call it good right?

I said I'm glad to see some cities backing away from police state tactics.

again a statement with no EXACT examples .. maybe the reason you do that is becasue alot might show where they "backing away from police state tactic" would be in reality RIOT CONTROL TACTICS.. hardly the same thing... along with if they did back off of RIOT CONTROL TACTICS , INNOCENT people had propery destoryed, buildings looted, building burned and in short the police not acting let LAWBREAKERS rule...

You're trying to conflate that into my saying that the use of force to maintain the public peace is never justified.

That's not what I said.

um actually by continuing the logic that they are using "police state tactics " (btw YOUR WORDS) , not providing SPECIFIC SITUATIONS/PLACES/TIMES/EXAMPLES your overall GENERAL POINT is just that... you have YET to provide a REAL PLACE/TIME in this whole mess that such RIOT control tactics WERE JUSTIFED...

My first recommendation to prevent civil uprising would be for the police to stop executing citizens in the streets.


EXACTLY WHERE are police "executing citizens in the streets" as a matter of policy, being done COMMONLY, or specfic examples... If your gonna claim floyd was , that is an extreme view at best.

as usual you want to debate in generalities , emotional catch phrases, and propaganda but not specific cases.
were ALL THE FACTS can be analyzed and seen if what happened did happen.

along with separating the guilty from the innocent

fact from fiction

example that more WHITES are killed by police (be legal or not) than blacks...

but hey you dont want to engage in facts ... just rants..

deny ignorance indeed

scrounger