I would Shoot to kill everyone of the SOB's caught in the act of torching the Police Station or any other building or business.
A group of them are marching to Washington, DC from somewhere, I forget where, blocking traffic and rioting along the way. Someone, not the police, took a shot at them today, wounding one. People are getting fed up with the nonsense, particularly when they come into residential areas. Of course, whenever anyone fights back, the media labels them as white supremacists and pretends that everything was peaceful until the white supremacists got involved. Actually, increasingly I am hearing media people referring to anyone they don't like as "white supremists" and that's annoying. Is "supremacists" really that hard to say? Then, of course, there is the additional annoyance that most of these people are not white supremacists at all, but ordinary people who are sick of the laws not being applied to these people as quickly or as effectively as it should be.
@Ken Anderson During the worst of the uncontrolled rioting, looting, and murdering in Chicago, 1968 I think, Mayor Richard Daley gave authorities "shoot to kill" order.......soon, it quieted down. Frank
There is a permit issued for the protests in DC, I believe the anticipated number is around 40,000. They hypocrisy is disgusting. I was at the March on Washington in 2009. I spent a few hours hanging out at a Metro subway station when I saw the throng of folks here from out of state on their own dime who had no idea how to negotiate the thing. Pelosi called us "Astro Turf." When the Unions bused in the Useful Idiots and provided signs for them to carry, Pelosi called them "Grass Roots." This current stuff reminds me of "Occupy," where laws are merely tools to be used against the enemies of Democrats.
I'm sure it's just a continuation of it, funded by the same people, and intended to create enough havoc to elect Democrats.
Only a few months ago I supported the BLM protests. I saw antifa as a separate entity whose violence conflicted with BLM's peaceful protests. I'm sad to report that I see things much differently now. They all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Several BLM leaders openly admit their Marxist leanings. They don't want reform of the police but, rather, revolution against our democracy.
Yup. All part of Obama's Organizing for America/Organizing for Action. Another aspect of all this is that the Dems are perpetually in the spotlight, while the Republicans are told to "get the Hell out of here" when their terms are over. I get emails from various organizations of all stripes, and have for many years. When Obama was elected, a Democrat group sent out an email to "buy a bus ticket" for Dick Cheney. "His turn is over." For the first and only time in my life, I replied to one of those emails: I doubt they even read it.
These rioters want a shooting war so the media can concentrate on the pool of blood and convince they were all innocent bystanders. They want to play a media game. After the election they can clean house. The BLM and antifa have made it known they are anti christian now they are even yelling it out.
Another question that's kind of hard to articulate: if the 'peaceful' protesters know that violent protesters will be there ( and can't be swayed from their violence ) why would the peaceful protesters risk injury by the violence or arrest by the police, who can't differentiate the peaceful from the violent unless they catch them in the act. Can't they understand that the object of peaceful protest is lost if things turn violent. My questions aren't quite clear and even confuse me a little in asking them.
I'll say this again, darn glad this protesting/rioting/burning/looting isn't happening here in the city we live. I do have to agree with Lon, as well as a friend of our who says the same thing. But, do we really want to see the "OK Corral" happen if shooting by law enforcement did start? Another thing I'll say is........what a year this has been!
This is an excellent point, and something that I have wondered about, too. Holding a peaceful protest at the same time and place as there is going to be a violent protest does not make any sense at all. One of the things that the Qanon people have been saying for the last few years, is to stay home, and stay out of the way of the violence, and let the law enforcement deal with it, which makes sense to me. The only problem that I can see is when there is a peaceful protest going on, and the violent ones come along and attack the peaceful ones. One of the ways that the rioters are making it seem like peaceful groups are not peaceful, is by pretending to be something different than they are, and then fighting with themselves. For example, some of the Antifa people were trying to look like Qanon marchers, and doing a terrible job of it. They were all dressed in black and masks, and NO one had a MAGA hat. A few carried a flag, just to make it look more realistic; but they still looked like Antifa. Qanon does not have protest marches, in any case; but these people were chanting just like they do as antifa, and saying “where’s the press”, and not the Trump chant of “USA, USA !” We live in a Trump-supporting state, and next to a military base; so hopefully, we won’t have any violent protesters, but if it even looks like we might, we will be staying home, and off of the streets, just in case.
I have a couple of comments, one historical and the other contemporary. When I was involved in antiwar demonstrations in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was well-known that the protestors who were encouraging violence were often employed by a federal agency or police department. These would be the ones trying to drive a crowd into a frenzy, despite the fact that they hadn't been at any of the planning meetings and no one knew who they were. I doubt that they were sent there by the president, and may not have even been part of organized state action, although some of these actions were later acknowledged. However, they were people intent on fomenting violence where none had been planned. Of course, in some cases, these were probably grassroots people who felt a need to escalate things, but on many occasions, they were employed to disrupt and perhaps to give the police a reason to make arrests. The other was that as Antifa and BLM (largely the same people who were formerly known as Occupy) come into residential neighborhoods, threatening to burn homes and injure people, or as they are torching private property, it's only reasonable that people are eventually going to fight back, particularly since the police, in many of these cities, are restrained from providing even a semblance of protection from rioters who are all too often encouraged by the very people who were elected to govern the city or state. Even when someone is not protecting their own personal property, there are a whole lot of people in this country who feel strongly that someone needs to kick their (Antifa, BLM) ass and, while they may be hoping that the police or federal government will do so, not everyone is going to be as patient as others. Vigilante groups form for just such a reason.
I recall when the government would infiltrate protests to foment violence, but I was too young to be among the protesters (born in 1954.) Those same people have forever been doing it to whatever group they have disdain for: goad them into violence (or even act out the violence themselves), then point and say "See!! We told you those people were violent!!!" For the most part, our freedoms have always been under attack. The "I can't breathe" guy was a victim of government regs protecting the government's revenue stream, and died during enforcement by government agents. But when those agents back away when they really should be engaged as you state and we are left to our own devices, the agents shall point and say "See!! We told you those people were violent!!!" And another lying data point for attacking our freedoms (disarming us) shall be created.