Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So in my city, there were video clips circulating showing police using rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray on protestors several days in a row. One showed a person crying after getting pepper sprayed in the face. Another showed crowds of people screaming as the police used tear gas on them.
The problem I have is (in my city at least) the full story never seems to be shown. For example, at the first protest, there was a group of about 200 people who started setting cop cars on fire, throwing rocks and frozen water bottles at officers and smashing windows. The police use of force started after all this began. I was watching it live on the news. Would a reasonable person not conclude that they were justified to use pepper spray and tear gas to try and disperse a crowd when people were smashing windows, throwing rocks and trying to set things on fire?
At another -- people claimed on social media that the police "started throwing tear gas out of nowhere" but once more video footage was released, it showed that the mayhem again started when a few people started throwing rocks at the cops. People also criticized the cops for wearing riot gear. But was it not justified considering most of theses big protests became violent? Even if 50 out of 20,000 people at a protest are the only ones being violent, the cops would still need to use force right?
I ask this genuinely wanting to understand because from what I've seen in my city, the use of force has seemed justified considering the violent nature of several of the demonstrations.
Yeah. if there's reasonable evidence that force was unjustified, I'm open to that. But in my city it seems like stuff got violent BECAUSE of a few people who decided to bring rocks and frozen water bottles to a "peaceful protest."
nevermind the police, the president needs to override all of the govenors and call in the national guard, hose down all these people and tell them to go the ***** home already and get our country back into some sort of law and order, it is time already and the freaking BS needs to stop already.
nevermind the police, the president needs to override all of the govenors and call in the national guard, hose down all these people and tell them to go the ***** home already and get our country back into some sort of law and order, it is time already and the freaking BS needs to stop already.
Here's the thing -- Trump won't do that. Why? Because of how it might impact his electability.
So while many of his base think this is what should happen and love when Trump implies he might just have to take charge.....he never will.
He claimed he was going to fix Chicago -- so he sends a letter.
He claims he wasn't going to tolerate statues coming down -- they are down.
So in my city, there were video clips circulating showing police using rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray on protestors several days in a row. One showed a person crying after getting pepper sprayed in the face. Another showed crowds of people screaming as the police used tear gas on them.
The problem I have is (in my city at least) the full story never seems to be shown. For example, at the first protest, there was a group of about 200 people who started setting cop cars on fire, throwing rocks and frozen water bottles at officers and smashing windows. The police use of force started after all this began. I was watching it live on the news. Would a reasonable person not conclude that they were justified to use pepper spray and tear gas to try and disperse a crowd when people were smashing windows, throwing rocks and trying to set things on fire?
At another -- people claimed on social media that the police "started throwing tear gas out of nowhere" but once more video footage was released, it showed that the mayhem again started when a few people started throwing rocks at the cops. People also criticized the cops for wearing riot gear. But was it not justified considering most of theses big protests became violent? Even if 50 out of 20,000 people at a protest are the only ones being violent, the cops would still need to use force right?
I ask this genuinely wanting to understand because from what I've seen in my city, the use of force has seemed justified considering the violent nature of several of the demonstrations.
Excerpt: ( Well done! )
...........from what I've seen in my city, the use of force has seemed justified
Response:
........while the slanted coverage by the media has seemed unjustified............
They didn’t use enough. They needed to deploy fire hoses, LRADs and roof koreans.
Damn. Learned a new term today. Roof Korean is a real thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
