1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?
Can you point to a time where Trump changed his demeanor towards the protesters that proves your claim here?
1. One guy gives into their demands and is still reviled. Why do you think Trump doing the same would help?
I didn't say that he has to give in to their demands. Where are you getting that? I believe that a change in Trump's demeanor would be a help in the situation. It certainly has not been tried thus far by the president.
Since the protests started he has been extremely aggressive, both in his rhetoric and in his actions. This approach has increased rather than reduced tensions. You appear to be advocating for more of the same failed approach. If it has been proven to not work, why do you think more of the same will suddenly start working? To me this makes little sense. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning on this.
3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.
Media manipulation has little to do with it. I believe that the motives of a man who brings an assault rifle to a protest because he violently disagrees with the protesters does indeed have bad intentions. This seems to have been corroborated by his (very predictable) actions. But you're right, this is not what the statements he released to the press after the fact to prove his innocence indicate that he was thinking.
3. If two videos showing him being chased and a witness saying the AntiFa side started it can't convince you, there is no helping you.
The teenager who committed the murders was certainly chased by protesters after he shot and killed the first time. That's on video and is very clear. I don't consider running to try and stop a gunman who has just shot another person to be an unreasonable act of violence. There we do appear to differ.
Can you provide the source that you're using that describes the protesters involved as AntiFa please?
So, by that token . . . you've repeatedly claimed that Ted Wheeler and Kate Brown want the president to march his jackbooted thugs into town without authorization. Can you point to the times they've been quoted saying this? Or are you using media driven talking points and mind reading powers to understand their motives?
As for the mayor and Governor, well, they have a duty to uphold the law, correct? They have to make sure the city and state stays functional so people can go about their daily lives. It sounds like they have abandoned their duties.
Nor is this an isolated incident. Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Kenosha, New York, all these places has had violent riots. What else could be the common factor? Seems like Democratic strong holds. Why would Democrats all of a sudden decide their cities needed a taste of lawlessness?
So, again . . . I've got to ask you . . . are you using media driven talking points and mind reading powers to understand the motives of others? Or do you have evidence that supports the very serious allegations you're making? Having this evidence was very important to you in this very conversation just a few posts ago.
FWIW, I think that it's reasonable to look at a situation and infer what people think by their actions.
Are Democrats letting situations escalate out of control and causing violence on their own? Maybe. But there are certainly other reasons why these areas might get violent. You mention New York . . . New York has a long history of race based policing, of unarmed black men being killed by police without cause, and of the police officers involved in the deaths never being held accountable. Chicago the same. So if you ask me why violent protests broke out there, the answer seems pretty obvious.
Then we have the situations that don't fit the 'Trump-hating Democrat' narrative at all. Like Kenosha.
Kenosha is yet another place where police used unreasonable force when dealing with a black man.
It makes sense that there were violent protests there. It is represented by Republican Bryan Steil in the House of Representatives, and by Republican Ron Johnson and Democrat Tammy Baldwin in the senate. The mayor of Kenosha requested that the national guard be brought in when protests became violent. None of this appears to play into the narrative that Democrats are masterminding a way to make Trump look bad and refusing to call in support when needed.
4. The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.
In your opinion . . . if one bad person puts 'PRESS' on their shirt who doesn't work for the press . . . the police should be given free reign to attack the press forevermore? This includes when the people the police are attacking are:
- clearly marked as press
- obviously not criminal / performing any misdeeds
- obviously not a threat of any kind
- are displaying visible press cards and identification
?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266546753182056453
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266925551941541890
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266945268567678976
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266910910137995264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267294124123750402
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266919447970942986
I can find hundreds of video clips of police purposely targeting press who were clearly doing their jobs and not a threat. Leaving aside the question of whether or not 'fake press' is really a thing as you're claiming . . . do you really argue that this is no problem?
4. Were they told that an "unlawful assembly" had been declared? Having a press badges does not allow you to ignore police instructions. Does having a press padge mean laws suddenly don't apply to you?
From this comment it appears you didn't actually watch the video that was taken. The police fired rubber bullets and tear gas upon people clearly marked as press from a distance, without giving any instructions, and without warning.
Having a press badge certainly doesn't mean that laws no longer apply. But there appears to be some confusion about what "unlawful assembly" means.
Here's a direct quote from New York state's legal code about unlawful assembly:
240.10 Unlawful assembly.
A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or
more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage
with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public
alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or
develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that
purpose.
As you can see, declaring 'unlawful assembly' does not apply to press covering the story in New York as they are not remaining with an intent to advance the purpose of tumultuous or violent conduct. I suspect that the rules are similar in other states as well, but feel free to check on your own.
Either way, you have not answered my question. Is it acceptable in your eyes for police to aggressively attack those who are:
- clearly marked as press
- obviously not criminal / performing any misdeeds
- obviously not a threat of any kind
- are displaying visible press cards and identification
?
The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.
If the police rooted out troublemakers, there wouldn't be any protests to begin with. Why do you believe that protesters have to be held to a much higher standard than police officers?
5. The violence detracts from the message. Protesters should report anyone that is instigating violence or is looting. I believe they have agency of their own to do such things.
I agree with you. Violence does detract from the message. I also agree that protesters should report anyone instigating violence or looting. Indeed, many did just that in different occasions (
https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-george-floyd-protests-police-and-protesters-try-to-stop-looting-11591377543,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/george-floyd-protesters-condemn-opportunistic-looting-violence). Could more be done on this front? Probably.
But again . . . it's important to hold police to the same high standard we hold protesters to. Police violence and lawlessness detracts from the message that the police want people to follow rules and behave peacefully. Regardless of the number of protesters who report looting - I fear that the looting will likely continue while the police continue to behave lawlessly.