UC Berkeley: Student GOP group suing because they dont like the date the University told them to have Ann Coulter speak? (death, brainwash)

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Explain them ...

I suggest taking up a Juris Doctor.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I suggest taking up a Juris Doctor.

If you are incapable of explaining comments you make, then you have invalidated whatever points you were trying to prove.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by alliance

Lawsuit press conference. Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/xJJZrx1OmyU

I strongly recommend this be viewed before continuing this "discussion."

This is either inaccurate, or an over-simplification. The guest lecture was scheduled for early may. The speaker declined, because she couldn't make it. The university gave up on rescheduling, because it received threats from the Oakland group regarding Coulter's appearance, and they feared they couldn't guarantee her safety, nor students' safety. (See linked article in next post)

It was in yesterday's news that conservative students staged a protest, and there was also a pro-Coulter rally downtown; police were out in riot gear, anticipating more trouble from the Oakland anarchist group, but that didn't materialize. They worked to maintain order around the two events held by conservatives, as counter-protests occurred.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

When they university and the city sit to the side instead of instilling peace they are encouraging the use of violence by antifa leading conservative groups to arm themselves since the police refuse to intervene.

.

Nobody sat at the side yesterday, and the police were out in force, in riot gear, anticipating an appearance by violent anarchists. Nobody is leading anyone to arm themselves, and Berkeley police are being far from passive. Yours are untrue statements. Doesn't anyone read the news? This is old news by now, about a day and a half after the fact. The problem with the earlier events was that the university and police were caught by surprise.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/new...7ce5f37ba.html

[Independentthinking]

And then you get the "that's BS" (or the favorite of Tulemutt..."that's hogwash") response followed by "this is what really happened" (nevermind what you actually saw), LOL!

Why UC police let anarchists run wild in Berkeley - San Francisco Chronicle

From the previous event with Milo Yiannopoulos

You just can't make this stuff up and the nonsensical responses from Liberals


police made no attempt to stop the attack or arrest any of the rioters. Caught by surprise my ass. And the new policy calls for a minimum amount of force. That Liberal math is funny since $1 million dollars could buy you an army for a single event. But I'm sure taxpayers are fine with doling out that money.

The next step will be to get an activist judge who will listen to the insurmountable evidence against UC Berkeley and then smile and say "not guilty". It's how they roll.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

And then you get the "that's BS" (or the favorite of Tulemutt..."that's hogwash") response followed by "this is what really happened" (nevermind what you actually saw), LOL!

Why UC police let anarchists run wild in Berkeley - San Francisco Chronicle

From the previous event with Milo Yiannopoulos

You just can't make this stuff up and the nonsensical responses from Liberals


police made no attempt to stop the attack or arrest any of the rioters. Caught by surprise my ass. And the new policy calls for a minimum amount of force. That Liberal math is funny since $1 million dollars could buy you an army for a single event. But I'm sure taxpayers are fine with doling out that money.

The next step will be to get an activist judge who will listen to the insurmountable evidence against UC Berkeley and then smile and say "not guilty". It's how they roll.

Its not clear what you're arguing about here. Whats your point? That bad people showed up and raised hell and damaged things? Thats obvious. The issues of the thread are:
1. whether these are students and if so is their behavior condoned.
2. whether these protests and riots are a sign that "liberals" in general are intolerant compared to conservatives.
3. why arent the police stopping people from rioting.
4. And are these protests violations of "free speech rights."

Answers are obvious to the reasonably informed:
1. students are among the protestors but so far the riot instigators are outside agitators
2. the number of these agitators is very small and dont represent any significant element of liberalism
3. the police are following philosophy and tactics now accepted around the world: safeguard the public first
4. "Free speech" rights concern government interference - not counter protest.

There are a variety of laws being broken by riotous agitators. "Peaceful assembly" violations, personal harassment, vandalism, endangerment, assault ... all can be cause for arrest and conviction, and are taking place secondary to containment and public safety techniques.

"Free speech" infringement isnt at issue. You all need to study up on that.

So what would you have the police do in these volatile circumstances? Crowd control is a specialized field of public safety and policing. Lots of research and study available in textbooks and instruction manuals used by law enforcement. Think you know better? Let's hear about it.

As for your link supposedly showing the folly of the policing and university, etc, it appears you either dont read your own links or dont comprehend what you read. Some clips confirming who was rioting and the unoversity and police position:

We’d rather deal with broken windows than broken heads.

image of UC police standing by as “black bloc” protesters fired bottle rockets at them and used police barricades as battering rams to break the windows

Taking on the anarchists at the Berkeley protest with batons and tear gas might have resulted in arrests, but it would also have resulted in injuries — and not just to black bloc types. The hundreds of demonstrators who were behaving peacefully would have been in the middle of the mess.

“We’re not talking about people who, if you try to arrest them, are going to say, ‘I’m sorry’ and just let themselves be cuffed and taken in,” UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said of the anarchists. “There would have been confrontations that involved innocent bystanders, and we would have had far more than the six injuries we had.”

Having the police scurry for cover may have been a bad look on TV, but it was an easy call for campus officials, Mogulof said. “It was too dangerous for everyone.”

[alliance]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

42 minutes of listening to Ann Coulter spin with FOX? How a out you summarize the points you think are relevant to this "discussion."

About the response I was expecting. It's from a lawyer representing students in the lawsuit, not Ann coulter. It's very detailed in the situation, and may even have *gasp* relevant information in the case not previously known. Or it might not. Guess you'll never know.

I would say it's most likely that no one actually watched the video. Self-righteous attitude is easier when selectively ignoring any possible alternative to your dialogue. This applies to both sides.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

If you are incapable of explaining comments you make, then you have invalidated whatever points you were trying to prove.

Nonsense. I have neither the patience nor the time to educate others.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by alliance

About the response I was expecting. It's from a lawyer representing students in the lawsuit, not Ann coulter. It's very detailed in the situation, and may even have *gasp* relevant information in the case not previously known. Or it might not. Guess you'll never know.

I would say it's most likely that no one actually watched the video. Self-righteous attitude is easier when selectively ignoring any possible alternative to your dialogue. This applies to both sides.

You're either deliberately making an untrue accusation, or you didn't read my response to the video, perhaps selectively reading. Talk about "self-righteous"! It's this type of post that makes it clear that some people on this thread are only interested in flinging unfounded accusations toward others.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by alliance

About the response I was expecting. It's from a lawyer representing students in the lawsuit, not Ann coulter. It's very detailed in the situation, and may even have *gasp* relevant information in the case not previously known. Or it might not. Guess you'll never know.

I would say it's most likely that no one actually watched the video. Self-righteous attitude is easier when selectively ignoring any possible alternative to your dialogue. This applies to both sides.

As suggested: summarize any points you think are relevant and why.