Discussion:
OT: But, but... ...rioters!
Add Reply
Alan Baker
2020-06-02 02:19:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
'Monday evening’s images of peaceful protesters in Washington, DC’s
Lafayette Square being attacked and gassed by federal law enforcement
officers were chilling.'

<https://www.vox.com/2020/6/1/21277610/monday-lafayette-square-tear-gas>

'Reflecting on them, what’s even more alarming is the context. The
officers began their assault just after 6:30 pm — less than half an hour
before a 7 pm curfew that had already been ordered by DC Mayor Muriel
Bowser was set to take effect. Legally speaking, the crowd should have
dispersed then and there would have been no problem with the president
strolling across the park to do his photo op at St John’s Church.
Realistically, the odds are good that the crowd would not have
dispersed. But starting at 7 pm, a group of officers forcibly expelling
protesters from the park would have been enforcing the law.

Doing it at 6:36 pm or so served no real purpose except to make the law
enforcement action flagrantly abusive. And that itself sends a powerful
message.'
Quadibloc
2020-06-02 03:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
'Monday evening’s images of peaceful protesters in Washington, DC’s
Lafayette Square being attacked and gassed by federal law enforcement
officers were chilling.'
<https://www.vox.com/2020/6/1/21277610/monday-lafayette-square-tear-gas>
'Reflecting on them, what’s even more alarming is the context. The
officers began their assault just after 6:30 pm — less than half an hour
before a 7 pm curfew that had already been ordered by DC Mayor Muriel
Bowser was set to take effect. Legally speaking, the crowd should have
dispersed then and there would have been no problem with the president
strolling across the park to do his photo op at St John’s Church.
Realistically, the odds are good that the crowd would not have
dispersed. But starting at 7 pm, a group of officers forcibly expelling
protesters from the park would have been enforcing the law.
Doing it at 6:36 pm or so served no real purpose except to make the law
enforcement action flagrantly abusive. And that itself sends a powerful
message.'
The officers should not have started using force until after announcing to the
crowd that because the area needed to be fully clear by 7 pm, the crowd was
requested to start leaving now, rather than at the last minute.

Then, this could be understood as a legitimate response to the fact that it does
take half an hour to clear people away, _if_ you have to do it by force.

If one asks for small, reasonable things, one has at least a better chance of
making the other guys look bad if they are not granted.

John Savard
s***@yahoo.com
2020-06-11 05:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
the official historical record of the 1968 political convention riot is that
the police were the ones rioting.

I suppose that ought to be the conclusion here also.
Paul S Person
2020-06-11 17:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
the official historical record of the 1968 political convention riot is that
the police were the ones rioting.
I suppose that ought to be the conclusion here also.
Well, it /could/ be.

But "childish acting out" is beginning, all things considered, to seem
more likely.

Example:

our mayor prohibits the use of gas to control rioters

the police decide to use flash-bangs instead

Can you spell "temper tantrum"?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...