You, my friend, have gone a little off the deep end.

 

I'm not saying shoot first. I am saying make it stop.

Let us never forget that it is the protestors who are committing criminal acts who are unquestionably in the wrong. They put their own lives and the safety of others at risk in addition to the destruction of property - which to those store owners and their families is probably worth a substantial amount.

If I owned one of the stores I would certainly not be ok with the "stand back and let them destroy the town" approach.

Geez...

 

Then you, like HB20 were totally taking my post out of context. Plantmanky said that if protests become violent then the protesters should be considered domestic terrorists and the police should "eliminate the threat. " I'm just not okay with that happening unless the police are being fired on or completely overwhelmed with no way to withdraw.

 

Then you, like HB20 were totally taking my post out of context. Plantmanky said that if protests become violent then the protesters should be considered domestic terrorists and the police should "eliminate the threat. " I'm just not okay with that happening unless the police are being fired on or completely overwhelmed with no way to withdraw.

 

Do you know what he meant by "eliminate the threat" or are you just assuming?

I bolded the words I took issue with directly from your quote.

Withdrawing is fine as long as the protests are lawful. When they become unlawful, they should be stopped. Stopped as peacefully as possible but stopped... Period. Unfortunately, peacefully isn't always an option rioters will allow.

Do you know what he meant by "eliminate the threat" or are you just assuming?

 

Since he was labeling terrorists I think it was pretty clear he didn't mean arresting them. How would you have taken it?

I bolded the words I took issue with directly from your quote.

Withdrawing is fine as long as the protests are lawful. When they become unlawful, they should be stopped. Stopped as peacefully as possible but stopped... Period. Unfortunately, peacefully isn't always an option rioters will allow.

 

So, like I said, you took it out of context. I was specifically referring to one person's post--not making a blanket statement.

Then you, like HB20 were totally taking my post out of context. Plantmanky said that if protests become violent then the protesters should be considered domestic terrorists and the police should "eliminate the threat. " I'm just not okay with that happening unless the police are being fired on or completely overwhelmed with no way to withdraw.

 

And yet you mentioned withdrawing again.

And yet you mentioned withdrawing again.

 

And it was AGAIN in the context of plantmanky's post that I specifically mentioned AGAIN in my post.

Ok. I think I will take your advice and :walk:

This is going nowhere.

Ok. I think I will take your advice and :walk:

This is going nowhere.

 

And it won't as long as you try to twist my response to one specific post into a blanket statement. Can you not see that I was only talking about one person's post?

 

Since he was labeling terrorists I think it was pretty clear he didn't mean arresting them. How would you have taken it?

 

Could have meant many things.

Could have meant many things.

 

Sure. But I'll ask again: If someone is talking about terrorists and says they are going to eliminate the threat how would you take it? He certainly wasn't talking about continuing to handle it like they have been. That was clear.

:deadhorse:

I'm laughing because that comment you tried to defend was the furthest thing from reasonable. It was a shocking comment out of left field and just made a little joke because it was ironic that someone named the voice of reason made such an unreasonable comment.

 

We were having a pretty civil discussion and you threw out a statement as if they would botch a prosecution on purpose. It really didn't fit in the discussion.

 

Fair enough. That comment probably was too far off base for the discussion at hand. Perhaps it is something to discuss in another thread but not at that point in this thread.

So if the protesters throw bottles you want the police to open fire on them?

 

On the individual yes, no issue with that. A bottle is a weapon and if thrown at someone can kill them.

On the individual yes, no issue with that. A bottle is a weapon and if thrown at someone can kill them.

 

So you'd answer bottles with bullets? Even though the cops are in riot gear? So a crowd of bottle throwers means you're opening fire on the crowd?