Martin, I take you as honest anyway. Our disagreement is not about honesty. I won't look for a picture of secret police that proves them as such. A picture of a line of police at a distance could not show their lack of insignia or name tags, or illustrate how they will not name themselves. A video of them throwing peaceful protesters into unmarked vans should prove something but it wouldn't change yours or others' minds about this.
Here’s my point Dwight. They are not called the secret police by anyone but the media which flows over into the public which also (now) calls them the secret police. It isn’t your fault for calling them that. Nearly everyone does because that’s the way the media portrays them. Before they were called that they were best known as a division of the DHS. Also, the U.S. Marshalls that are on duty at each and every federal property and have been for eons, are Now misnamed the “secret police”. Do they go undercover such as the secret service does? nope. Are they in uniform, extremely well equipped, look like police and have the capability to defend against an onslaught of idiots as well as have the power to arrest said idiots? Yep. Then.......it ain’t no secret any more. They are federal police attached to the DHS. Really simple .......really. It’s almost like calling the Walmart brand of tissue paper Kleenex. Just because everyone calls it Kleenex doesn’t make it so.
The video of the two policeman taking a person into custody was on the internet I seen it . Later at a white house meeting which was televised showed the uniforms that the officer where wearing and it had ID you and I might have missed it but it was there.
What you and I see can be explained. Do you expect a policeman to walk into the middle of a riot and arrest someone that would lead to many injuries maybe some innocent? Or would you just get evidence of their crimes and approach them where less people around so the chance of violence would not happen. Please use logic.
I get you, Bobby. But if 'secret police' is a misnomer then that's unfortunate in at least one way: we do not need federal police or military, 'secret' or not, policing our cities. It's a step towards a fascist state.
I don't watch CNN at all. So ALL the protesters are violent anarchists? I credit those here with more sense than that.
I have no reason to believe that the ones who were arrested weren't. Otherwise, they'll have their day in court. They're not going to GITMO.
Okay, Ken. "no reason to believe that the ones who were arrested weren't. Otherwise, they'll have their day in court." Is that enough justification to accuse some of a serious crime? I can't prove they weren't violent. Does that automatically mean they are? Just for fun, someone be on my side for once. Just pretend.
We don't need police just ask Nadler it is a myth Jerry Nadler Antifa "Myth" comment is like George Costanza Faking Elbow Injury
And ya know if Jerry Nader says it, it’s gotta be true! I mean, an upstanding, long lasting career democrat congressman like that has all the answers and ya know what? He doesn’t even have to look at a video or listen to the radio or maybe spend a few beans to go and visit to come up with all the answers.
Okay. What, if you were King for a day, would you do about all the violence in all those democrat run cities?
When the police (local, state, federal) believe they have enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, they may arrest them. If a prosecutor or, in some cases, a grand jury, disagrees, they are released. Otherwise, they either agree on a plea deal or they go to court. You seem to think that they shouldn't be arrested unless they are first convicted. My dad would say, "They wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty." I disagree with that, too. There is such a thing as police abuse, and they are also subject to error. Innocent people are often arrested for crimes. That's why the justice system doesn't stop there. I was arrested or detained thirty-two times during anti-war protests in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but never convicted. In fact, usually, they were arresting people just to get them off the street, and they never came to court, and once we were brought to court as John Doe 1-100-something and Jane Doe 1-100-something because a part of the plan was to not carry ID and to not give our names. That was dismissed also. Of course, I wasn't burning buildings, thrashing cars, or beating people up. Being arrested or detained was to be expected, as it was simply a part of civil disobedience and a natural consequence of taking part in a protest of any significance beyond simply standing on a sidewalk with a sign. At the 1968 Democratic Convention, I was arrested while waiting for a crosswalk light in Chicago. Yes, sometimes it didn't make sense but my life didn't come to an end. My dad wasn't happy about having to arrange for my older brother to pick me up at the Cook County Jail, but I survived it. Our last couple of generations have never had to take responsibility for anything in their lives, so they naturally expect that they should be able to disrupt people and businesses, burn buildings, beat people up, and shoot people, all without any repercussions. After all, they're angry. The little darlings have never had to take responsibility for anything in their silly little lives, and they can't understand why any of this should change just because they're hurting people and disrupting everything.
That's an interesting history, Ken. I saw the anti-war protests in Denver and Oakland and elsewhere but was never tempted to join in. I wasn't comfortable with mass movements of any kind - even those I agreed with. If I was younger and healthy I wouldn't be on the street with BLM. I think MLK and Ghandi were right in championing complete non-violent resistance. They accomplished a lot with that strategy. I've stated several times that I'm for the peaceful protests and against the violence. What else can I do to convince you all that I'm not a communist agent?