Dang

Fish To Escape wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
No, had he not been murdered there would be no protests.

But, they have also charged the officer. He will face the jury, be convicted and jailed. The protesters then demanded that Freeman be replaced. Walz gives the case to Ellison and Freeman is out. That wasn’t good enough. Now they want the case taken away from Ellison. Oh well, it is what it is.

Heres the deal and it’s really really simple and shouldn’t be hard to understand. People, any people have a right in this country to protest anything. As long as those protest follow the laws they have that right. When the protesters violate those laws they become law breakers and subject to any and all penalties.

Not hard, follow the law all is good. Break the law go to jail.

Again, the protests are completely legal. Anybody not liking it can run for office and change the laws.

The handful of guys here that just want to argue are wasting everybody’s time. The law is crystal clear.

Just to be clear then Dutch, what are your thoughts on the peaceful protesters being tear gassed, including a couple priests from the church, 30 minutes before curfew so the president could take a picture in front of the church?

Ya well I have my opinion but it really has nothing to do with this thread. I’ll leave it alone and maybe you can suck somebody else in.

Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests? For all the tin foil hat guys who think the lefties are out for our rights I would think this should raise some red flags. I imagine most will like the strong armed approach by the president but personally it concerns me. New precedents being set all the time lately by this administration

Dutchboy wrote:

The line is drawn at the curfew hour. Prior to that time you are a peaceful protester. After curfew you are a lawbreaker subject to arrest and a fine.

The police and guard have used restraint when it comes to the curfew. They are warning people and giving them about a 1/2 hour before arresting anybody.

This is accurate. I respect someone’s right to peacefully protest (even though I would never do it myself) but when there are riots and our city is being destroyed to the point that a curfew needs to be enacted, that’s where I draw the line too. Every single person out there is aware of the curfew and they are all aware of the consequences. Rules are useless unless someone enforces them.

Law enforcement and the national guard can’t tell the difference between peaceful protestors and trouble makers once the sun goes down so the only logical solution is to remove everyone. If you don’t remove them, well, you can see what happens.

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Fish To Escape wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
No, had he not been murdered there would be no protests.

But, they have also charged the officer. He will face the jury, be convicted and jailed. The protesters then demanded that Freeman be replaced. Walz gives the case to Ellison and Freeman is out. That wasn’t good enough. Now they want the case taken away from Ellison. Oh well, it is what it is.

Heres the deal and it’s really really simple and shouldn’t be hard to understand. People, any people have a right in this country to protest anything. As long as those protest follow the laws they have that right. When the protesters violate those laws they become law breakers and subject to any and all penalties.

Not hard, follow the law all is good. Break the law go to jail.

Again, the protests are completely legal. Anybody not liking it can run for office and change the laws.

The handful of guys here that just want to argue are wasting everybody’s time. The law is crystal clear.

Just to be clear then Dutch, what are your thoughts on the peaceful protesters being tear gassed, including a couple priests from the church, 30 minutes before curfew so the president could take a picture in front of the church?

Ya well I have my opinion but it really has nothing to do with this thread. I’ll leave it alone and maybe you can suck somebody else in.

Seems like a fair question after your comments about protesting peacefully and respecting the curfew, after all the law is simple

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

It blows my mind people are focusing on protesters breaking curfew while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that a police officer MURDERED an unarmed, defenseless black man for absolutely no reason. How the protest upsets you more than the senseless murder by law enforcement really shows what is wrong with this country.

I have not heard of a single person that either hasn’t acknowledged the death of George Floyd or claims that his death was ok. I have heard 100% agreement that it was unjust. The offending officer has been charged with 3rd degree murder, and charges are pending on the other three.

Nobody is screaming about peaceful protesters, in fact, many people(LEO’s included) have proudly joined hands and protested in peace with them……

The lawbreaking rioting thugs are what pisses off the average person – regardless of what color they may be. If you break a window, loot, set fire, etc….. you are a lowlife thug that deserves consequence. White, black, brown, yellow, polka dotted, I do not care……you are a loser.

If you can’t see that, then maybe that’s also showing something wrong with this country…….

crappie55369 wrote:

Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests? For all the tin foil hat guys who think the lefties are out for our rights I would think this should raise some red flags. I imagine most will like the strong armed approach by the president but personally it concerns me. New precedents being set all the time lately by this administration

Every staunch 2A supporter I know has always told me that it is important so that people can rise up if the government tries to control them with the military. Here we go I guess.

For the record I am not anti-gun or anti 2A

It’s been a loooooooooong time since I’ve yearned for a “Vexilar vs Marcum vs Humminbird” or a “Mille Lacs Netting” thread, but we are in dire times.

buckybadger wrote:

It’s been a loooooooooong time since I’ve yearned for a “Vexilar vs Marcum vs Humminbird” or a “Mille Lacs Netting” thread, but we are in dire times.

If we started a truck debate thread I would abandon this discussion in a heartbeat

Timmy wrote:

I have not heard of a single person that either hasn’t acknowledged the death of George Floyd or claims that his death was ok. I have heard 100% agreement that it was unjust. The offending officer has been charged with 3rd degree murder, and charges are pending on the other three.

Nobody is screaming about peaceful protesters, in fact, many people(LEO’s included) have proudly joined hands and protested in peace with them……

The lawbreaking rioting thugs are what pisses off the average person – regardless of what color they may be. If you break a window, loot, set fire, etc….. you are a lowlife thug that deserves consequence. White, black, brown, yellow, polka dotted, I do not care……you are a loser.

If you can’t see that, then maybe that’s also showing something wrong with this country…….

Bingo. Thanks Timmy.

crappie55369 wrote:

Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests?

I have not heard of that…I have only heard of the use of military to stop rioting. Has there been a plan to use military force to shut down lawful protests?

From what I saw about the presidents photo shoot/public appearance earlier, the crowds were smoke bombed when they didn’t immediately disperse upon command – not tear gassed – to clear the way for the president to access the church that was vandalized. That is typical practice for any presidential visit to a public place. Trump, Obama, Bush, the Clinton, etc…..streets have been cleared for all of them to access.

Coletrain27 wrote:

You do realize if he just got in the police vehicle there would be no protest, right?

Coletrain27 wrote:

Maybe the Fentanyl and meth in his system made his brain not make the best decisions.

Not saying what the cops did was right but there was poor choices on the other side also

So anytime someone breaks the law, it is ok for the police to murder them? Great logic there bud.

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests?

I have not heard of that…I have only heard of the use of military to stop rioting. Has there been a plan to use military force to shut down lawful protests?

From what I saw about the presidents photo shoot/public appearance earlier, the crowds were smoke bombed when they didn’t immediately disperse upon command – not tear gassed – to clear the way for the president to access the church that was vandalized. That is typical practice for any presidential visit to a public place. Trump, Obama, Bush, the Clinton, etc…..streets have been cleared for all of them to access.

Nope, tear gassed. At least that is what a Minister from St. John’s church, Gina Gerbasi said. Maybe she was lying, who knows. There were some reports that rubber bullets were used as well but those were less consistent and I haven’t seen them confirmed. I don’t remember other incidents of presidents clearing out peaceful protests in a public place Using tear gas but maybe it is common practice. Seems unconstitutional to me

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests?

I have not heard of that…I have only heard of the use of military to stop rioting. Has there been a plan to use military force to shut down lawful protests?

As we have already seen it can be difficult to discern the difference between hooligans up to no good and peaceful protestors. Throw in the fact that the military is not trained on this type of action nor designed to be used as such and sounds like a pretty terrible and potentially dangerous idea to me.

But my concern isn’t so much for the moment at hand but that trump will continue to move the needle closer to this country being a lead by dictatorship. Every rotten government in the world has their leaders closely tied to their military and the rotten leaders often use the military to rule over their citizens and stomp out their ideas. Yeah yeah yeah can’t happen in America. Well I’ve already seen a lot in the last 3.5 years I didn’t think this country would ever tolerate out of their leaders. The times they are a changin’

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests?

I have not heard of that…I have only heard of the use of military to stop rioting. Has there been a plan to use military force to shut down lawful protests?

From what I saw about the presidents photo shoot/public appearance earlier, the crowds were smoke bombed when they didn’t immediately disperse upon command – not tear gassed – to clear the way for the president to access the church that was vandalized. That is typical practice for any presidential visit to a public place. Trump, Obama, Bush, the Clinton, etc…..streets have been cleared for all of them to access.

Here is an article talking about tear gassing and shooting rubber bullets at peaceful protesters for a photo op. I usually don’t trust this news source though maybe they are lying
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/backlash-use-tear-gas-against-dc-protesters-prior-trump-visit.amp

crappie55369 wrote:

Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests? For all the tin foil hat guys who think the lefties are out for our rights I would think this should raise some red flags. I imagine most will like the strong armed approach by the president but personally it concerns me. New precedents being set all the time lately by this administration

It’s completely reflective of people’s blind allegiance to their side or party. Just a few weeks ago there were people on here bitching all day that the government was abusing their powers because they couldn’t get a hair cut and ice cream. Now the president wants to use the military domestically and they’re fine with it.

Just like the people very recently on here asking what the protests accomplish (1st amendment) but are ready to rise up at the thought of one person somewhere not qualifying for a gun (2nd amendment).

There’s a way to be a fan of and stick to the constitution, there’s a way to stay consistent on your views of the government. But most people aren’t, they just go by what the “D” or “R” says on TV.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>coletrain27 wrote:</div>
You do realize if he just got in the police vehicle there would be no protest, right?

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>coletrain27 wrote:</div>
Maybe the Fentanyl and meth in his system made his brain not make the best decisions.

Not saying what the cops did was right but there was poor choices on the other side also

So anytime someone breaks the law, it is ok for the police to murder them? Great logic there bud.

You must not of read it all so I’ll repeat myself for you to try again. I said what the cops did wasn’t right but there was bad choices made on the other side also.

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><a

The lawbreaking rioting thugs are what pisses off the average person – regardless of what color they may be. If you break a window, loot, set fire, etc….. you are a lowlife thug that deserves consequence. White, black, brown, yellow, polka dotted, I do not care……you are a loser.

If you can’t see that, then maybe that’s also showing something wrong with this country…….

The president said that when the looting starts the shooting starts. You referenced breaking a window. So should anyone who is suspected of breaking a window be shot?

39degrees wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><a

The lawbreaking rioting thugs are what pisses off the average person – regardless of what color they may be. If you break a window, loot, set fire, etc….. you are a lowlife thug that deserves consequence. White, black, brown, yellow, polka dotted, I do not care……you are a loser.

If you can’t see that, then maybe that’s also showing something wrong with this country…….

The president said that when the looting starts the shooting starts. You referenced breaking a window. So should anyone who is suspected of breaking a window be shot?

No, absolutely not!

But if you drop a pencil you should be tarred, feathered, electrocuted, shot and then fed through a meat grinder.

The report I listened to on the radio talked about smoke bombs, and said they were incorrectly labeled tear gas……but this report says tear gas. Would be nice to know which is correct- and not pretending to!

I don’t believe the president visiting a historic church that was burnt through rioting is necessarily an evil move. Clearing a route for that visit would be standard – legal protest, citizens out for a walk, residents picnicking, whatever ……. it just seems like it would be standard practice to me.

And you know the full intentions of the window breakers How? this isn’t little johnny pee pants from down the street, these are “I’m adult” people.maybe it’s time for less excuses for these people and time for them to be responsible for their own actions.
Now the general protesters are a different story, they are in their rights and as long as they don’t break the laws and respectful of others rights and property I’m good with them, but when authority it’s time to move on, they need to move on.
And I’m thinking there’s a good share of them there not because the really give a damn deep down, but they are having a look at me not being racist moment and this event is the flavor of the month.

Timmy wrote:

The report I listened to on the radio talked about smoke bombs, and said they were incorrectly labeled tear gas……but this report says tear gas. Would be nice to know which is correct- and not pretending to!

I don’t believe the president visiting a historic church that was burnt through rioting is necessarily an evil move. Clearing a route for that visit would be standard – legal protest, citizens out for a walk, residents picnicking, whatever ……. it just seems like it would be standard practice to me.

If we are talking standard practice typically when you go to a church you enter it and pray. Per the pastors/preachers at the church all he did was stand outside and take a picture with the Bible. Aka PR move

Maybe he just wanted to see how the public would react if he had protestors tear gassed idk

39degrees wrote:

The president said that when the looting starts the shooting starts. You referenced breaking a window. So should anyone who is suspected of breaking a window be shot?

Did I imply that anyone suspected of breaking a window should be shot?

To take the presidents comment about looting/shooting, and somehow turning that into me equating “rioters who break a window, loot, and commit arson deserve a consequence” with “those breaking a window should be shot“ is a special type of logic.

crappie55369 wrote:

Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests? For all the tin foil hat guys who think the lefties are out for our rights I would think this should raise some red flags. I imagine most will like the strong armed approach by the president but personally it concerns me. New precedents being set all the time lately by this administration

He said if state leaders were not willing to take action or did not have the resources available to stop rioting and the destruction of property he would use the military to protect businesses and human lives. I’m sure there are a lot of business owners out there who have lost there businesses and life’s work and many others who possibly will if this continues – that would more than welcome the military being there. I myself don’t have a problem with the military being brought in if that’s what is necessary to protect businesses and citizens lives. Now if he wants to use then to stop or prevent peaceful protest – then I’d have a problem with that

Timmy wrote:

The report I listened to on the radio talked about smoke bombs, and said they were incorrectly labeled tear gas……but this report says tear gas. Would be nice to know which is correct- and not pretending to!

I don’t believe the president visiting a historic church that was burnt through rioting is necessarily an evil move. Clearing a route for that visit would be standard – legal protest, citizens out for a walk, residents picnicking, whatever ……. it just seems like it would be standard practice to me.

So to sum up:
-the minister that said it was tear gas was lying
-trump took a picture in front of the church with a bible and never went in: checking out the damage?
-tear gassing citizens to get out of the way of the president: perfectly normal

Always fun to watch people twist into pretzels trying to normalize this stuff. I am always fascinated by what the line will be for people to wash their hands of him. Violating people’s first amendment rights followed immediately by using a bible and a church as PR props has been the line for Quite a few people I know.

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>39degrees wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><a

The lawbreaking rioting thugs are what pisses off the average person – regardless of what color they may be. If you break a window, loot, set fire, etc….. you are a lowlife thug that deserves consequence. White, black, brown, yellow, polka dotted, I do not care……you are a loser.

If you can’t see that, then maybe that’s also showing something wrong with this country…….

The president said that when the looting starts the shooting starts. You referenced breaking a window. So should anyone who is suspected of breaking a window be shot?

No, absolutely not!

But if you drop a pencil you should be tarred, feathered, electrocuted, shot and then fed through a meat grinder.

Now that was downright funny. I mean actually made me howl, which i needed. I too am sick of the rioting and looting in my beloved state of Minnesota and across the country. I just believe shooting people needs to be justified. Not just looting means shooting.

About sums it up

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_8842.jpg
   

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests? For all the tin foil hat guys who think the lefties are out for our rights I would think this should raise some red flags. I imagine most will like the strong armed approach by the president but personally it concerns me. New precedents being set all the time lately by this administration

He said if state leaders were not willing to take action or did not have the resources available to stop rioting and the destruction of property he would use the military to protect businesses and human lives. I’m sure there are a lot of business owners out there who have lost there businesses and life’s work and many others who possibly will if this continues – that would more than welcome the military being there. I myself don’t have a problem with the military being brought in if that’s what is necessary to protect businesses and citizens lives. Now if he wants to use then to stop or prevent peaceful protest – then I’d have a problem with that

He did that yesterday

crappie55369 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>crappie55369 wrote:</div>
Anyone else worried about the presidents ideas of using the military to quell protests?

</blockquot
</blockquot

Did you have any trouble with your Governor bringing troops into a civil matter?

Fish you just seem like a very unhappy person and looking for someone else to blame for about anything. You Hate Trump, we all get it, , Funny how you preach tolerance to everyone and yet show none.

Pelosi pretended to quote Busch and Obama out of the Bible as she spoke today. Open up a Bible and have notes planted in the Bible.