Portland police are the problem, not the solution ... Here’s how many people had protest charges dropped in September

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
You are going to have to be more specific, than just sounding incredulous. I have been in a number of situations where I've said, "Why the fuck did he/they do/say that. Now we are really in the shit.". And, the last thing that I want to do, is to dream about the shit that I've gone through. I'm sure there are a few domestics, that you might not want to talk about. Or, maybe could have been handled better.

If you believe that cops can't be their own worst enemy, or can put the lives of other cops in jeopardy, than it is you who is living in a dream world.



Seriously?? We are talking about ordinary mothers, fathers, students, and even children. We are NOT talking about some "sleeper cell", that has been plotting some strategy for the last 10 years. Try using evidence to support these claims. Just saying them over and over again, still don't make them true.

Did this liberal mayor and the council officials illegally obtain office? Were they all NOT voted in by a majority vote? If you don't like them, then just vote them out.

What venues does Antifa pick? Portland is one of the homes for 11 extremist White bigoted racist supremist groups. These Nazi fascist groups are exactly who Antifa targets. Many members even live in Portland, and are incensed that these people live among them. They don't believe in their divisive rhetoric, and want to do something about it. Not just do nothing and hope that these fascists get bored and stop. So they take photos, and expose the criminals for who they really are. Even to their bosses.

But they also come prepared to defend themselves from these insecure animals(the Real American Terrorists). Maybe you would prefer that they get the same treatment as Blacks did during the civil rights marches? So, what are some of these other venues selected by Antifa, where there was no racial injustice or fascist rhetoric?



This is just your narrative. So, they don't use guns or knives? You think that the gun-toten, bowie-knife wielding good old boy, would do the same? So, evidence please!! Don't you have cops already in the crowds arresting people committing these acts? Didn't you have ambulances supporting the police line to render aid to any fallen officer? I really can't comment until I see the evidence.



Again, all this does is beg the question. "Then why are you there?". If you can't engage the crowd to protect yourselves, then you are all idiots(with all due respect). With the exception of the White Night Riots, we formed an armada when trying to move any large crowd and restore order.

When I was in the CSTF/SCU we had a 4-6 line of us in the front. 3-5 lines of duty cops in riot gear behind us. 2-4 lines of volunteers and detailed officers, also in full riot gear. Behind them were 4-5 wagons. Behind them were a number of ambulances and medical/emergency vehicles and their personnel. And, behind them were a number of fire engines. Sergeants and lieutenants were placed along the sides. We would always move slow enough to allow anyone to get out of the way.

I remember my first experience. When I looked behind me, all I could say was, WOW!! This is impressive. I remember a tall Black woman who actually walked up to our lines, screamed abuses almost nose to nose. She then threw her milkshake at a very close friend of mine, which covered her face-shield and clothing. If looks could kill, but she didn't move from formation. The woman then screamed more abuses at us, and said she was going to call her lawyer, and went into the phone booth near the corner.

Once the rioting and damages began, we were told to move out. As we moved out, if anyone threw anything from above, the formation would stop, to allow some of us to smash in doors, remove the threat, and to put bodies on the pavement to be cycled to the rear. As we approached the end of the block, no one was throwing anything at us from above. As we reached the end of the block, the Black woman was still in the phone booth. We adjusted our formation to allowed my friend to move up closer to the middle of the line. We then destroyed the phone booth with the Black woman in it. She was again served as she was cycled to the rear. We then moved on. Once people saw this slow-moving juggernaut coming at them, order was restored. And no one was hurt(no officers).

Arrest were made from those who refused to move on, or tried to stand their ground. They all quickly found their way to the back of the armada. They were treated and cited, and put in the wagon until we were finished. Efficient and effective.

- Cops are human and make mistakes. Some cops shouldn't be cops. But the violence and destruction in Portland is not because of actions by the police.

- There is plenty of information available on Antifa tactics. I'm not doing google searches for you.

- There is a huge difference between holding a BLM march and instigating a riot and committing assaults and property destruction. I am not holding peaceful BLM protesters responsible for the Antifa terrorism.

- The riot tactics you described are standard riot tactics, and they are effective. I received training in those same tactics during my career. Portland Police have used them in the past, but for the most part, they are not allowed to use them anymore. They are not allowed to actually stop riotous behavior like assaults, arson, and property destruction because that might require the use of force, and the city leaders are too weak to allow it. Instead, they just let it happen, and then they "investigate" it later. They have made arrests well after the fact, after they investigate.

- You're right that the people elected these weak, feckless, leaders. Ultimately, the voters are to blame for this situation. They asked for this, they got it.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
- Cops are human and make mistakes. Some cops shouldn't be cops. But the violence and destruction in Portland is not because of actions by the police.
Then why were there 21 cases of excessive force(in Portland alone), theft(stealing a guitar), and other police criminal misconduct submitted to the DA? Or, should we just continue to pretend that these excessive police actions never happened?

- There is plenty of information available on Antifa tactics. I'm not doing google searches for you.
So, you want me to search the internet(which I have), and to look ONLY for evidence of the violence tactics that Antifa uses? To become subjective, biased, and closed minded in my search? Basically, to keep searching until I find something to prove myself wrong? Even though, YOU are the one making the accusations. YOU are the one with the burden of proof. And, YOU are the one who should be proving that you are right. You may not agree that Antifa should cover their faces, dress in black, carry weapons to defend themselves against armed racists, or agree with the methods they use to expose these real social terrorists. But I totally and unequivocally DO agree with these tactics, against these innate misanthropes.

I guess if Trump, and the right-wing lap-dog media all parrot, that BLM and Antifa bad, then BLM and Antifa must be bad. DUH! Never mind ALL the facts, or the WHOLE truth!

It's amazing! For decades these right-wing, fascist, racist, bigoted, Nazi supremist, criminals, have been spreading their divisive, discriminate, and hateful rhetoric throughout America. As long as only minorities complained, these ignorant insecure human waste of space would just ignore them. They could continue masturbating their own insecure egos, and the insecure egos of those like them.

It was only when other Whites(FBI, Government, Courts, Class Action Lawsuits) stood up to these cave-dwelling hominids, that social change became possible. Many who stood up to these cowards, were demonized, ostracized, threatened or killed. These people were called hippy's, White trash, long-haired, carpetbaggers, and were treated as troublemakers, N-lovers, and F'gots. These people who stood up to this abuse are the true heroes of change. These people are the real and true Americans.

- You're right that the people elected these weak, feckless, leaders. Ultimately, the voters are to blame for this situation. They asked for this, they got it.
Then stop bitching about it, and using liberal democratic idealism, as your blanket excuse for everything you don't like. Surely, there must be others who feel the same way as you do? So get together and start spreading your message. You DO live in a Democracy, right? Maybe, you can go out and march to get your message out? But make sure that all of the people like you are NOT armed, and that there is NO violence. Right? So, stop bitching and blaming, and start organizing and planning. Or, is the former much easier for you?

- There is a huge difference between holding a BLM march and instigating a riot and committing assaults and property destruction. I am not holding peaceful BLM protesters responsible for the Antifa terrorism.
No one here condones violence. But everyone here should know, that it doesn't matter if 10,000 animal rights activists, or 10,000 red cross volunteers, or even if 5,000 nuns decided to march down the main streets of Portland in protest. There will always be the possibility that violence will occur. And, the larger the crowd, the more likely the violence. We don't label/stereotype an entire race, because of the actions of a few people within the race. Right? So, we don't label/stereotype a movement/group because of the actions of a few within the movement/group. Right?

Okay, BLM good and peaceful. Antifa, bad and terrorists(because Trump and fake news says so). So what is your label for the Proud Boys, NSC, The Green Brigade, SPLS, or the NSM in Oregon? To me, it is always the message that is important. The violence is the distraction. The police are there to protect the citizens, and to stop the violence. They are NOT there to STOP THE MESSAGE. Instigators of violence, are only there to distract, denigrate, and to stop the message. This is what you will never understand.

Even the most peaceful and non-violent Anarchist or Fascist groups, should be condemned because of their message. Not because their lack of violence.

The riot tactics you described are standard riot tactics, and they are effective. I received training in those same tactics during my career. Portland Police have used them in the past, but for the most part, they are not allowed to use them anymore. They are not allowed to actually stop riotous behavior like assaults, arson, and property destruction because that might require the use of force, and the city leaders are too weak to allow it. Instead, they just let it happen, and then they "investigate" it later. They have made arrests well after the fact, after they investigate.
Then with all due respect Seth, YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS TO JUST STAND THERE AND TAKE A BEATING!!! Go home. The pay can't be that great. The "Blue Flu" usually works too!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
@Shellandshilo1956

Since you defend Antifa, you should do your research.

You said, "No one here condones violence." I don't think that's true. I think you condone violence as long as it's against a group you don't like.

I dislike any group with a racist message. I will however defend their right to free speech, and "free speech" means the right to exercise the right without fear of intimidation or assault.

One time during my career I had the unenviable duty to protect members of the Westboro Baptist Church at one of their disgusting demonstrations. I hated them and their message. But what outweighed my disgust for them was my respect for the 1st Amendment. If I had to do it all over again, I would, for that reason alone.

It's perfectly fine to "condemn" the message of any group. It is quite another deny them the right to free speech.

I agree with your last part. I reached a point where I felt the police should disobey orders and refuse - en masse - to even show up for a riot in Portland. They should just let it burn rather than just stand there to become targets. They haven't resorted to that, however. Most of them feel an obligation to their city and their profession, so they show up when ordered.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Since you defend Antifa, you should do your research.
What, you start off with an empty assertion? I don't defend Antifa or BLM. I defend the truth about Antifa and BLM. Since you claim that I don't do the research, then please enlighten me. What evidence can you posit from your UNBIASED research?

You said, "No one here condones violence." I don't think that's true. I think you condone violence as long as it's against a group you don't like.
Maybe I should have said, "No one here condones violence, for violence sake.". I assumed that this would have been a given. I also stated for clarity, that with any large demonstration there will always be the possibility of violence. Also, that handling violence is the job of the police. So if we ignore your nit-picking misrepresentation, I don't condone violence, BUT I AM NOT DISTRACTED BY IT EITHER! I also believe that preparing yourself, to face up against gun-toten, fascist right-wing groups, whose entire underlying message is violence, would be a damn good idea. We already know how these cowards react to UNARMED people.

I dislike any group with a racist message. I will however defend their right to free speech, and "free speech" means the right to exercise the right without fear of intimidation or assault.
Gee, they could have used more people like you during the civil rights marches. You do realize that the freedom of speech/expression is NOT absolute, and is NOT always protected speech? Thus, saying that you will defend "free speech", is saying that you will do nothing about ALL speeches/expressions. This rule also applies to Antifa as well. They also have the right of free speech to voice their opposition to this kind of rhetoric, "without fear of intimidation or assault.".

I just don't get it. Just who are you protecting? For decades these hate groups have been spreading intimidation, violence, and fear, with their divisive hate rhetoric. And, no one seemed to care. But, when a movement decided that preaching hate and self-proclaimed racial superiority did not represent their America, all of the closet bigots started looking for ways to denigrate and demonize their movement. Any violence and damages at any rally was always blamed on Antifa. Sometimes when they weren't even there. I mean what Antifa member would scream out to the cameras, "I am Antifa", and then smash a window, while the cops simply stood by?

Are you saying that we should just ignore, and leave these sick animals alone, and let their rhetoric racially divide our nation? But if you're White, their message is easy to ignore. But if you are a minority, it is inciteful, insulting, demeaning, insensitive, bigoted and racist. Maybe we should also just ignore all the unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities) who were killed by cowardly sociopaths in blue? Their deaths are only a statistical anomaly, right? All that matters is not to make noises. Or, it will just incur violence. This kind of conservative thinking is just tacit complicity.

It's perfectly fine to "condemn" the message of any group. It is quite another deny them the right to free speech.
Exactly HOW is Antifa physically denying these racist their right to free speech? What, "doxing", cyber-shaming? Do these animals have more a right to free speech than the members of Antifa? So, is cyber-shaming these good-old-boys, denying them of their right to free speech? Exposure is NOT assault , a threat, or intimidation. Here are two examples of biased, and one-dimensional reporting, that right-wing media uses to misrepresent, and mischaracterize Antifa,


I agree with your last part. I reached a point where I felt the police should disobey orders and refuse - en masse - to even show up for a riot in Portland. They should just let it burn rather than just stand there to become targets. They haven't resorted to that, however. Most of them feel an obligation to their city and their profession, so they show up when ordered.
You have NO obligation to stand in formation just to become targets! Even the Nazi soldier could disobey any illegal order. And, no riot in history has ever burned down the entire city. Your job is to uphold the law, arrest offenders, and to protect citizens and property. If you are NOT going to do any of these things, then(with all due respect) stay at home. Getting hurt for doing what you are paid to do is one thing. But getting hurt for NOT doing what you are paid to do, is another. Where in the training manual does it tell you to stand in formation and get pelted??
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
What, you start off with an empty assertion? I don't defend Antifa or BLM. I defend the truth about Antifa and BLM. Since you claim that I don't do the research, then please enlighten me. What evidence can you posit from your UNBIASED research?



Maybe I should have said, "No one here condones violence, for violence sake.". I assumed that this would have been a given. I also stated for clarity, that with any large demonstration there will always be the possibility of violence. Also, that handling violence is the job of the police. So if we ignore your nit-picking misrepresentation, I don't condone violence, BUT I AM NOT DISTRACTED BY IT EITHER! I also believe that preparing yourself, to face up against gun-toten, fascist right-wing groups, whose entire underlying message is violence, would be a damn good idea. We already know how these cowards react to UNARMED people.



Gee, they could have used more people like you during the civil rights marches. You do realize that the freedom of speech/expression is NOT absolute, and is NOT always protected speech? Thus, saying that you will defend "free speech", is saying that you will do nothing about ALL speeches/expressions. This rule also applies to Antifa as well. They also have the right of free speech to voice their opposition to this kind of rhetoric, "without fear of intimidation or assault.".

I just don't get it. Just who are you protecting? For decades these hate groups have been spreading intimidation, violence, and fear, with their divisive hate rhetoric. And, no one seemed to care. But, when a movement decided that preaching hate and self-proclaimed racial superiority did not represent their America, all of the closet bigots started looking for ways to denigrate and demonize their movement. Any violence and damages at any rally was always blamed on Antifa. Sometimes when they weren't even there. I mean what Antifa member would scream out to the cameras, "I am Antifa", and then smash a window, while the cops simply stood by?

Are you saying that we should just ignore, and leave these sick animals alone, and let their rhetoric racially divide our nation? But if you're White, their message is easy to ignore. But if you are a minority, it is inciteful, insulting, demeaning, insensitive, bigoted and racist. Maybe we should also just ignore all the unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities) who were killed by cowardly sociopaths in blue? Their deaths are only a statistical anomaly, right? All that matters is not to make noises. Or, it will just incur violence. This kind of conservative thinking is just tacit complicity.

Exactly HOW is Antifa physically denying these racist their right to free speech? What, "doxing", cyber-shaming? Do these animals have more a right to free speech than the members of Antifa? So, is cyber-shaming these good-old-boys, denying them of their right to free speech? Exposure is NOT assault , a threat, or intimidation. Here are two examples of biased, and one-dimensional reporting, that right-wing media uses to misrepresent, and mischaracterize Antifa,
Shell, in America, free speech is sacrosanct, even for the radical right and radical left. It is constrained by a few laws relating to public order and criminal conspiracies, but that's about it. We hold to the belief that even the most noxious speech should be protected because, by doing that, we protect the free speech of all.

So, for example, if the Westboros want to hold a demonstration with their "God Hates Fags" signs and "God Loves IEDs" signs, we must allow it. We may counter-demonstrate, and we may ridicule, for that also is our right. But we must allow it without assault or physical intimidation. That is a small price to pay to make sure that the freedom of speech is guaranteed and protected for all Americans. It is not "tacit complicity" in their message as you allege. It is defense of the 1st Amendment.

I had this belief taught to me by a professor in the early 70s. He was a bearded, long-haired, self-described left wing radical and member of the ACLU.

You have NO obligation to stand in formation just to become targets! Even the Nazi soldier could disobey any illegal order. And, no riot in history has ever burned down the entire city. Your job is to uphold the law, arrest offenders, and to protect citizens and property. If you are NOT going to do any of these things, then(with all due respect) stay at home. Getting hurt for doing what you are paid to do is one thing. But getting hurt for NOT doing what you are paid to do, is another. Where in the training manual does it tell you to stand in formation and get pelted??
It doesn't say that in any training manual. But the left wing mayor of Portland is also the Police Commissioner. He holds the same authority over the police department that the president holds over the military. By City Charter, the police department must obey his orders. His orders flow through the Police Chief, and he has the power to hire and fire the Police Chief at will.

I blame the voters, though. They elected him. This is what they get.
 

chris155au

Active member
NOPE! Your original comment never mentioned "violent contingents".
It really didn't need to. Anyone with half a brain would not read what I said as ALL BLM AND ANTIFA ARE HUMAN WASTE TERRORISTS.

Many well-meaning leaders have tried to placate rioter and failed.
John Lewis wasn't talking about placating rioters, so I cannot see why you are. Lewis said: “to the rioters here in Atlanta and across the country, I see you, and I hear you. I know your pain, your rage, your sense of despair and hopelessness. Justice has, indeed, been denied for far too long. Rioting, looting, and burning is not the way." Do you agree with him or not? You either do or you don't.

Everything that Antifa and BLM try to avoid.
It's certainly true that there were non-violent BLM protests, the vast majority in fact. But can you cite even ONE SINGLE non-violent antifa protest?

So, if they don't condemn the violence, then they must support it.
I'm glad that you don't have any problem with Trump not condemning white supremacy.

Evidence that either group supports violence, PLEASE!!
No problem at all:

ANTIFA:

"In Austin, Texas, law enforcement officials reported that Antifa was involved in violent activity, including the looting of a Target store. There were also law enforcement reports of Antifa activity in other cities, such as Minneapolis, Minnesota; Spokane, Washington; and Portland, Oregon." www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa

BLM:


"Alicia Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, respectfully disagreed with Lewis. “It’s a familiar pattern: to call for peace and calm but direct it in the wrong places,” she told The New Yorker. “Why are we having this conversation about protest and property when a man’s life was extinguished before our eyes? We don’t have time to finger-wag at protesters about property,” she continued. “That can be rebuilt. Target will reopen. The stores will reopen. That’s assured. What is not assured is our safety and real justice.” www.gq.com/story/why-violent-protests-work

Where are you getting these dates from?
Are you serious? These articles are from June last year! Do you ACTUALLY think that the 2020 riots ended in JUNE? My goodness. You should learn about what ACTUALLY happened last year before getting back to me. I'll be waiting.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It really didn't need to. Anyone with half a brain would not read what I said as ALL BLM AND ANTIFA ARE HUMAN WASTE TERRORISTS.
Well I guess that I have only half a brain then. Because when someone unconditionally calls two entire social movements "HUMAN WASTE TERRORISTS", then I can only assume that is what the person meant to say. If I called you, your family and friends, "HUMAN WASTE TERRORISTS", then I seriously doubt, that you would think I meant ONLY the bad elements. And, I really think you know this!

John Lewis wasn't talking about placating rioters, so I cannot see why you are. Lewis said: “to the rioters here in Atlanta and across the country, I see you, and I hear you. I know your pain, your rage, your sense of despair and hopelessness. Justice has, indeed, been denied for far too long. Rioting, looting, and burning is not the way." Do you agree with him or not? You either do or you don't.
Firstly, learn what placate means. By telling rioters that he feels their pain and rage, and understands their despair and hopelessness, but that rioting, looting, and burning is not he way, HE IS TRYING TO PLACATE THEIR ANGER AND HOSTILITY!

Do I agree with his attempts to try and placate these rioters? I TOTALLY AGREE! Did it work? DEFINITELY NOT! Was there a relevant point here?

It's certainly true that there were non-violent BLM protests, the vast majority in fact. But can you cite even ONE SINGLE non-violent antifa protest?
What, another appeal to absolutes? I have no idea why you keep trying this tactic. It just doesn't work. ONE, it a logical fallacy(special pleading, and appeal to absolutes).

TWO, since you obviously can't find any evidence to suggest that Antifa has ever illegally initiated any violence(not self-defense), or whose single purpose at all protests is to cause violence, YOU WANT ME TO FIND THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSION. This is like asking "Can you cite even one time when you stop beating your wife". Can you see it? The assumption and conclusion are already in the question. It assumes that the very fact in question is true. Whatever answer you give, will always be defending someone else's conclusion. You need to rephrase the question.

THREE, can you cite me EVERY SINGLE Antifa protest where violence DID occur? These are questions that should NEVER be part of any honest discourse. The real violence is what is being preached by these human low renters. IMHO. Why aren't you focused on these people who openly preach violence, commit violence, provoke violence, condone violence, and have been arrested and convicted for violence? Just who are you protecting here? The insecure White trash preaching their social poison, or the people who really want a UNITED STATES? This really is a no-brainer. But, I guess if the government says Antifa and BLM bad, then Antifa and BLM bad. Sit, Stay, Good Boy.

I'm glad that you don't have any problem with Trump not condemning white supremacy.
A misogynistic, egomaniac, narcissistic sociopath, with delusions of grandeur? I have NO problem with anything this type of person says. But I have EVERY problem believing anything this type of person says. People like this will say anything to suit their own agendas. ALL narcissists are chronic liars!

BLM:

"Alicia Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, respectfully disagreed with Lewis. “It’s a familiar pattern: to call for peace and calm but direct it in the wrong places,” she told The New Yorker. “Why are we having this conversation about protest and property when a man’s life was extinguished before our eyes? We don’t have time to finger-wag at protesters about property,” she continued. “That can be rebuilt. Target will reopen. The stores will reopen. That’s assured. What is not assured is our safety and real justice.” www.gq.com/story/why-violent-protests-work
I certainly agree with her as well. Why are we having a conversation about property damage, or the violence from instigators in a protest? Why aren't we talking about the injustice of over a 100 unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities) being killed by armed cowards? Or watching a pig posing over a man in hand cuffs, while a nation watches his life expire? But by all means, lets focus in on whether or not Target and Walmart will reopen. Or, on the instigators causing violence at these protests. Clearly, the real issues are not that important to you, right?

"In Austin, Texas, law enforcement officials reported that Antifa was involved in violent activity, including the looting of a Target store. There were also law enforcement reports of Antifa activity in other cities, such as Minneapolis, Minnesota; Spokane, Washington; and Portland, Oregon." www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-antifa
Although the title itself, sort of gives away its clear confirmation bias. Lots of cases of self defense. Lots of implied associations with fascist regimes(guilt by association), Lots of cases of "Being involved in". Lots of "maybes..", and "it seems likely that..". I also read about a moron "Self-proclaiming" to be Antifa, who was killed(the only fatal attack). But nothing to demonstrate that that Antifa is violently proactive. Or, nothing to disprove that its movement is NOT exactly what it claims be be. Anti-Fascists. Maybe I missed something!

Look I get it. If you want to demonize or denigrate any group(or person) that stands up to, or wants to change the "status quo", just call them violent, terrorists, communists, socialists, or anarchists. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. The label will always stick. I mean, when you can call a Major in the Army a communist and socialist, an no one questions it. It shows how powerful the media is at shaping reality. And, +
+just how ignorant and indifferent society really is. Sit Stay, Good Boy.

Are you serious? These articles are from June last year! Do you ACTUALLY think that the 2020 riots ended in JUNE? My goodness. You should learn about what ACTUALLY happened last year before getting back to me. I'll be waiting.
From memory you asked me where I got my 2 weeks of rioting from? This started because I was unaware of any riots causing $2B in damages. I found out that you were talking about the George Floyd demonstrations. The rioting amounted to just over $1B in damages. It occurred in over 140 cities, in a period of over a 2 weeks. The rioting started in Minneapolis on May 26. 2020, and ended June 6th, 2020. This was NOT the most violent(Detroit and LA), and NOT the most expensive in a single city, as you were implying. So, unless this indignant outrage is just "huff and puff", what exactly are you trying to say?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Shell, in America, free speech is sacrosanct, even for the radical right and radical left. It is constrained by a few laws relating to public order and criminal conspiracies, but that's about it. We hold to the belief that even the most noxious speech should be protected because, by doing that, we protect the free speech of all.
No, Seth. The Constitution is a dynamic, adaptable, and ever-changing living document. It was never meant to be absolute, static, or sacrosanct. This condition also applies to all of its Amendments. Again you are not telling the whole truth. Everyone is guaranteed the freedom to speak, or express themselves. But NO ONE is Constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to speak, or express themselves using unprotected speech/expression. And, you know this. People who engage in Unprotected speech/expression, can incur legal, financial, and criminal consequences.

You can look up all the speech/expressions that are NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. But these morons who advocate violence towards other races, always skirt around two unprotected speech categories. Hence why they always have lawyers around to vet their speeches. Remember it was law suits and the FBI that ended the Klan. These groups did violate these two categories. And were sued and/or arrested.

Speech integral to illegal conduct
Speech that incites imminent lawless action

Now I tend to think that a group marching down main street chanting, "Black Lives Matter only in Heaven", as being inciteful and provocative. And, would very likely incite some imminent lawless action. But that's just me. Without these groups actually and specifically saying that they want others to go commit violence, or to commit a specific unlawful act, it is still protected speech. But we all know that they wouldn't be surprised when the violence does happen? Right? But some groups HAVE slipped up, and have been sued. Because these criminals are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

It is sad that people feel so disillusioned and disenfranchised, that they can only find value in messages of hate.

It doesn't say that in any training manual. But the left wing mayor of Portland is also the Police Commissioner. He holds the same authority over the police department that the president holds over the military. By City Charter, the police department must obey his orders. His orders flow through the Police Chief, and he has the power to hire and fire the Police Chief at will.
Gee that sucks. But I serious doubt that if the mayor told the police chief to give "blanket parties to all new recruits", that many officers would follow that order.

Seth, in the end it will always be a personal choice. I know what choice I would make in a heart beat. My family is my real world. My job is only there to supports my real world. These people, liberal or conservative, would sacrifice my ass in a heartbeat. But my family will be there for me with every breath I take. I would not want to be like a close friend of mine, who now has a metal plate in his head. Because someone threw a brick at him during the Redfern Riots in Sydney.
 

chris155au

Active member
No, Seth. The Constitution is a dynamic, adaptable, and ever-changing living document. It was never meant to be absolute, static, or sacrosanct. This condition also applies to all of its Amendments. Again you are not telling the whole truth. Everyone is guaranteed the freedom to speak, or express themselves. But NO ONE is Constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to speak, or express themselves using unprotected speech/expression. And, you know this. People who engage in Unprotected speech/expression, can incur legal, financial, and criminal consequences.
Yeah, I have to say @SethBullock, I have found myself questioning whether it can be said that America has free speech, when the fact is that there are restrictions on speech. Of course, if America does NOT have free speech, then no country in the WORLD has free speech, as American certainly has the FREEST speech, even if not totally free.
 

chris155au

Active member
I certainly agree with her as well. Why are we having a conversation about property damage, or the violence from instigators in a protest? Why aren't we talking about the injustice of over a 100 unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities) being killed by armed cowards?
Why can't we talk about ALL of that PLUS the violence? If you agree with BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, that means that you agree with the violence. Plain and simple.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Police are the instigators of the violence in BLM and ANTIFA protests.
Antifa fascist terrorists love violence and they are the instigators. They think anyone who disagrees with them must be physically assaulted, preferably very badly. They also hate freedom.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Why can't we talk about ALL of that PLUS the violence? If you agree with BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, that means that you agree with the violence. Plain and simple.
What?? What form of twisted, irrational bullshit logic would make make you conclude that nonsense?

Clearly you didn't understand what Ms Garza was saying, because of the completely biased glasses that you wear. She sees(as I do) the illegal violence at these protests, as only diverting attention away from the legally supported violence being done to Black Americans, and other minorities. Why isn't the same level of outrage and intolerance vented on these unlawful deaths by cops? To point out a clear double standard,

If White cops are sent to a prestigious White school, because a White child was threatening other White children with a knife on the playground. Then every effort would be made to safely resolve this crisis. But if it were a Black school, with a Black child, threatening other Black children in a playground, the law says a White cop can shoot to kill(stop). And, they do!

So exactly HOW am I condoning the violence at these protest, by agreeing with her concerns?
 

chris155au

Active member
I certainly agree with her as well. Why are we having a conversation about property damage, or the violence from instigators in a protest? Why aren't we talking about the injustice of over a 100 unarmed Black Americans(and other minorities) being killed by armed cowards?
Why can't we talk about ALL of that PLUS the violence?
 

Squire

Active member
The protests and the violence have had the effect of causing police to reconsider ignoring crimes of murder of unarmed innocent blacks and other people by police.

Justice has been slow in arriving to the police, however, the protests are preventing police ignorng murders and assaults by police.

Why do police always body-slam people to the ground whether or not the person is a suspect in a crime? In the story below an old woman assaulted by police got a large compensation payment of $ 3 million and the cops have been charged with crimes and lost their jobs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/karen...slammed-by-loveland-cops-gets-dollar3-million

... A 73-year-old woman with dementia, who was violently thrown to the ground by cops for leaving a Walmart with $13 in unpaid goods, has been awarded $3 million by the Colorado city of Loveland. Karen Garner broke her arm and dislocated her shoulder when the two officers, Austin Hopp and Daria Jalali, tackled her to the ground and handcuffed her. The cops were then caught on camera laughing as they watched the body-cam footage back at the station. “I can’t believe I threw a 73-year-old on the ground,” Hopp said as they joked about her shoulder making a “pop” sound.

Garner’s lawyers released an internal police report on Tuesday showing that several higher-ups deemed the use of force to be reasonable. It contradicted Loveland Police Chief Bob Ticer’s claim that the department only realized how violent the arrest was when Garner filed a civil suit. Hopp and Jalali were charged with criminal offenses in May. ...
 
Top