Replies

Invar, this is not evidence of a police state. It is evidence of a circumstance where crowd control was imperative.

It was an idiotic idea to go out there and protest in a riot zone. The police needed to have the area cleared. Law abiding citizens should have understood and complied with the officers instead of causing trouble.

Not only did it interfere with the police trying to keep the area under control, it put the protesters in danger.

I wouldn’t want my wife out there. I wouldn’t want my brother out there.

Criminal activity has been taking place. Death and destruction have resulted. No the good people of the area decide it’s a great idea to mix decent folks violent thugs and rioters. Rational?

Here you hare fixated on the officers being armed. As I said before perhaps to you, those officers have my permission to shoot rioters on sight. End of story.

If you think that’s a police state, then you evidently don’t know what used to take place when rioters were observed doing what rioters do.

Care to talk about that precedent. Police state?

The rioters got a free pass for several nights. Is that your idea of a police state?

Wow...

Who here doesn’t get it?

Invar, this is not evidence of a police state. Oh really? Could have fooled me.

It is evidence of a circumstance where crowd control was imperative.

As it will be said is needed here or some instance like this one:

I guess it will just depend on what Authority declares it to be an instance where crowd control is deemed to be imperative.

Methinks the regime will declare something like this to definitely be an instance where crowd control is an imperative:

It was an idiotic idea to go out there and protest in a riot zone.

As it will one day soon be said it is idiotic to go protest Federal Buses transporting illegals into your town, or worse yet, protest the Federal government itself. Truly idiotic.

Such cases definitely call for the Civilian Security Forces to show up in MRAPs and tanks with mounted weapons sighted into the crowds.

Not only did it interfere with the police trying to keep the area under control, it put the protesters in danger.

Yes. Not only did stopping those busses in Murietta interfere with the Federal Government transporting 'refugees', but it put the 'protesters' in danger. So calling out the troops to contain them would definitely be in order.

Here you hare fixated on the officers being armed. As I said before perhaps to you, those officers have my permission to shoot rioters on sight. End of story.

Seig Heil! You make such a wonderful Comrade! To know that the regime can count on your permission to shoot the 'rioters' in the bottom two pics I posted on sight. End of story. You already love the Police State!

Care to talk about that precedent. Police state?

I have been all along. You simply do not get it. You approve a Police state now. What difference does it make who an armed Security Force with MRAPS and mounted weapons is called out to use against? It can be argued that anyone protesting the government or protesting anyone in authority is engaged in a 'riot' - especially after the Security Forces tonight decreed that the protest in front of them was no longer 'peaceful' by their own criteria.

Shoot on sight I think you said. End of story.

So sad so many American have even mentally traded the idea of self defense to a militarized police force.

I realize your posts weren’t addressed to me directly, but I want to clarify something anyway.

Under MO law, the protesters gathered tonight were guilty of disturbing the peace by simply standing in the street and blocking traffic.

Under MO law, when six or more of them agreed to violate state law by force or violence, they were guilty of unlawful assembly and when they actually used said force or committed said violence, they were guilty of rioting. (Well, not guilty until convicted, but you get the point.)

I have no problem with the police clearing the area. In fact, they first addressed the disturbance of peace by telling the protesters to get on the sidewalk and out of the street. Then they let it slide for quite a while when the protesters moved back into the street. Then they told them to get back from police vehicles at least 25 feet. That’s all well and good.

The problems, for me at least, were:

- pointing their rifles directly at protesters when no laws were being broken
- immediately launching (a whole of) tear gas when one person threw a bottle at the SWAT truck (Why not arrest the one person? It was one not six.)
- intimidating, assaulting, and arresting journalists
- illegally ordering journalists to turn off cameras
- choosing and using an extreme show of force when (a significantly) lesser force was an option
- a good deal more that it is too late to get into

In Ferguson, both sides are in the wrong. I will not pick a side. I choose justice and peace.