Ah yes, blocking a road. Perfectly good reason to pepper spray people. And of course, that puts these protestors right up there with radical Islam.No, it isn't. And it gets posted here routinely with the same four-letter word intensity.
From the OP article, quote:
"In a statement released Saturday evening, Graham police said Drumwright and the marchers hadn’t followed proper procedures for holding the event. The department said that it warned the group that it would not be allowed to close the road, said Lt. Daniel Sisk, a spokesman for the Graham police."
The police are not to blame here. The lemmings who believe the law as dutifully legislated by elected officials no longer applies to them are.
All of this idiotic caterwauling about voter suppression and "we were just going to the polls" is just that, idiotic caterwauling. If the local authorities allow your gathering but properly inform the group will not be allowed to block the roadways and then you go ahead and block the roadways, rational adults understand you then don't get to cry and whine because the police enforced the law. Ergo:
"The department defended its use of pepper spraying, by saying, “[T]he assembly reached a level of conduct that led to the rally being deemed unsafe and unlawful by unified command.”
Many liberal Democrats champion this notion that all violation of the law, to include rioting, looting, assaulting the police, shooting the police, rape, and murder, are all perfectly fine and acceptable as long as those crimes are committed in the name of Trump-hate. People right here in this "Christians Only" sub-forum believe and champion the exact same philosophy. But the tactics being employed here are obvious.
Ask yourselves. What other organized group routinely and willfully places children in dangerous situations hoping they will be harmed in some manner so they can then be utilized as props to promote an agenda?
The answer is, for one, radical Islam. Democrats are in good company.
That's not what was taking place. They were told to move off the street and they refused.So if you jaywalk, cops have the right to pepper spray you? After all, you’re breaking the law and blocking a street.
Ah yes, blocking a road. Perfectly good reason to pepper spray people. And of course, that puts these protestors right up there with radical Islam.
Perhaps if North Carolina didn’t have a history of suppressing the black vote this wouldn’t have happened.
...the irony in this part of your post? It's pretty amazing.Exactly.
This is nothing but a socio-political tactic. Most of these people are probably well-meaning. They're following their "leader", this guy who thinks he's some kind of local celebrity and obviously has an ego the size of the moon. They're all riled up with the belief that their young people are downtrodden and can't vote, for some undoubtedly vague and never-explained reason by their "pastor". Because it's simply not true. But hey, being a hero is more fun than speaking facts.
I take the above back, THIS part (with a slight tweak) would be one of the greatest ironic posts I've seen in a while, here it is with the tweakI really wish people who think that cops are all racist monsters, would volunteer to ride with the officers for a few days. When you're regularly being screamed at, threatened, harassed, attacked, even murdered, by one racial group, there is no other reasonable reaction but to become more wary and suspicious of that racial group. Their job is not to be socially appeasing, their job is to protect. Stop being violent and hateful, and they'll be able to lower their guard again. Just the way it works, people. (snip)(emph. added)
tulc(just a thought)When you're regularly being screamed at, threatened, harassed, attacked, even murdered, by police, there is no other reasonable reaction but to become more wary and suspicious of the police.
No jaywalking is breaking the law and blocking a street.That's not what was taking place. They were told to move off the street and they refused.
...THIS part (with a slight tweak)...
I'm not judging the motivation or justification of the protest just your comparison of a lone jay walker.I see. It is OK when you do it, wrong when they do it.
Given the tactics the American left is employing, that is exactly where it puts them.
If you had actually read any of those articles you linked you would know the segregationist history you are citing in an attempt to justify violence is all properly laid at the feet of the Democrat Party. Segregation, Jim Crow Laws, Poll Taxes, Voter Suppression, the KKK, all of these are proud Democrat policies and institutions.
Again, it is breaking the law and blocking the street. Why shouldn’t police use pepper spray to deal with it? And obviously I’m using an extreme example, but why not?I'm not judging the motivation or justification of the protest just your comparison of a lone jay walker.
Police respond differently to crowds then they do the individual. An uncooperative crowd can escalate very quickly where an uncooperative individual can be handled without the need of any sort of force. Also the motivations and messages are very different. With a crowd a message needs to be clear and direct and often one way and one solution where with an individual there is room for a conversation and more latitude applied. But sure if a jay walker was confronted by a police officer and the individual escalated very quickly pepper spray may be warrented but the pepper spray is used based on the escalation not the jay walking.Again, it is breaking the law and blocking the street. Why shouldn’t police use pepper spray to deal with it? And obviously I’m using an extreme example, but why not?
Not real clear on how a discussion goes huh? Let me try and explain: Someone makes a statement, you look at it to see if you understand what they're saying, think about how best to respond to get your point across. Since, as I understood it, the post I was responding to's point was apparently "We should give the police the benefit of the doubt because their job is difficult because people aren't always nice to them." I simply took their point, tuned it around and pointed out "Maybe that's a two way street in this situation? Maybe there's a group of people who have had multiple negative interactions with the police over the years and have a long history of being victimised by the police."When you can't form an original thought...
I used someone else's own words to point out an aspect of their argument they may not have considered. That's how discussions work.Just change what someone else actually said and attack that.
They were walking on the street to protest. The goal of jay walking is not blocking the street even if it results in this the goal is still to cross the street. With a protest being demonstrated on the street the goal is never to get off of it but continue to protest on the street and are explicitly blocking the street.No jaywalking is breaking the law and blocking a street.
And as I have said, I’m using an extreme example. I’m not seriously suggesting that the police do this. But it is the same thing, the law is being broken and the street is being blocked.They were walking on the street to protest. The goal of jay walking is not blocking the street even if it results in this the goal is still to cross the street. With a protest being demonstrated on the street the goal is never to get off of it but continue to protest on the street and are explicitly blocking the street.
You must have read a different article than what's on the OP. I don't recall looting or killing happening... your post is just hyperbole. In the real world there are more than the 2 options you present plus your scenerio you describe doesn't fit with what actually happened. Do you want me to say that if looting and killing where happening and children were in the protest than pepper spray is warrented.... Sure and while we're at it lets say Hitler and a child version of Hitler were both in the protest at the same time so of course you would be obligated spray them.Police officer: "But police chief, the protests in now turning into a violent riot! Stores are being looted! People are being killed!"
Police Chief: Just use the pepper spray to make them disperse."
Police officer: "But sir, they brought a child to the fight!"
Police Chief: "My Gawd! All there is left to do is take a knee in solidarity and defeat. It was an honor serving with you."
I'm not defending the actions of the police or the protest but you must see the gapping flaw in comparing it with a lone jay walker. Jay walkers do not block the street and if they do it has little impact. Crowds protesting on the street do block the streets and have a much larger impact. Those two should be treated differently.And as I have said, I’m using an extreme example. I’m not seriously suggesting that the police do this. But it is the same thing, the law is being broken and the street is being blocked.
You earlier mentioned an uncooperative crowd. But I don’t think this was an uncooperative crowd. In fact, most of the protestors were already on the sidewalk when the police started using pepper spray. These cops were scum. I would love to meet one and tell him that to his face but I would probably get pepper sprayed, never mind that I have freedom of speech.
Except according to the reports most of the crowd had already cleared the street. This could have been closer to few jaywalkers. In any event, as I have said, I am using an extreme example. I’m not making a direct comparison.I'm not defending the actions of the police or the protest but you must see the gapping flaw in comparing it with a lone jay walker. Jay walkers do not block the street and if they do it has little impact. Crowds protesting on the street do block the streets and have a much larger impact. Those two should be treated differently.
I suppose the next time a jaywalker refuses to get out of the street when the cops ask him to he'll be asking for a pepper spray to the face.No jaywalking is breaking the law and blocking a street.
File thehttps://www.newsobserver.com/news/l...d2ngTLbEbhfFZ9b0dXRBydZWEKe2BWo63iF1I40-GPDKg
tulc(thought this was interesting)
It is unlawful to block a road without filing the proper petition and having it accepted. And the crowd became unruly. Why does anyone think it is OK to block public roads as long as you have a Democrat message?So that's supposed to prove that children were pepper-sprayed in this particular case??
Most of the time, these yellow journalists know how to lie without actually stating it plainly. The assumption is that readers will "read into" the headline and the article, which is what usually happens.
Notice that the headline doesn't actually say that children were pepper-sprayed. In abbreviated language, it says that the police used it on protesters...and that children were among the protesters.
The way this routine works, the more detailed report is the article itself and it relays the information more accurately. By the time those readers who have the preferred prejudice get to it, they are already thinking what the paper wanted them to think happened.
But notice what the article actually says--
"Several children in the crowd were affected by the pepper spray.
"Melanie Mitchell said her 5-year-old and 11-year-old daughters were pepper-sprayed just after the moment of silence."
In neither of these statements does the newspaper affirm that children were sprayed with pepper spray.
It wouldn’t surprise me when you have cops behaving in an extreme manner as these ones were.I suppose the next time a jaywalker refuses to get out of the street when the cops ask him to he'll be asking for a pepper spray to the face.
There's nothing extreme about trying to clear people off the street. I'm not a huge defender of cops but this was basic stuff, you have a crowd of 200 blocking traffic. Pepper spray is the easiest way to disburse a crowd that refuses to leave. The article uses children as props, as though their illegal activity shouldn't be dealt with because children might be present. Ridiculous.It wouldn’t surprise me when you have cops behaving in an extreme manner as these ones were.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?