Use of Force

Footage of Partial Blindings During Anti-Police Brutality Protests Contradicts Cops' Reports

One department said a protester was hit in the eye with tear gas after the canister bounced. Video shows something entirely different.

|

At least eight people across the country were hit in the face with rubber bullets and other less-lethal projectiles during the May 30 anti-police brutality protests that erupted after the death of George Floyd. Videos of these partial blindings, which challenge official statements put out by the various police departments, were released yesterday by The Washington Post.

While many of the departments involved claimed to have deployed rubber bullets, tear gas, and other less-lethal munitions to disperse protesters who were throwing objects at officers, footage from the incidents show many people who were partially blinded posed no "obvious threat" to police.

Before Balin Brake was struck in the eye by a tear gas canister in Fort Wayne, Indiana, video shows him standing with his hands in the air and then running away with other protesters. Brake turned his head for a moment to check the scene behind him when he was hit in the face with a tear gas canister. Other protesters helped him away from the scene.

Following the incident, the Fort Wayne Police Department issued a statement saying Brake was bending over to pick up a gas canister, presumably to throw it back towards police (in their telling), when a second canister was deployed, bounced, and hit him in the eye. Yet slow-motion video does not show Brake bending over, nor does it show the second canister bouncing on the ground.

Linda Tirado, a freelance photojournalist, was also included in the report. After being hit in the eye with what she believed to be a rubber bullet while covering a Minneapolis protest, Tirado described the sensation as her face "exploding." Tirado was struck after putting her camera down for a moment between shots. She was carried away by protesters and was later informed by a doctor that she is unlikely to ever recover her sight.

Use of force incidents during anti-brutality protests have renewed criticisms of the use of kinetic impact projectiles such as rubber bullets.

As Reason has previously reported, less-lethal munitions like rubber bullets can contain metal cores and are covered by rubber, plastic, and other materials. These munitions can cause penetrative damage and lacerations, both of which are contrary to their marketed use.

Footage from anti-police brutality protests shared on social media has highlighted the gruesome bodily injuries that can be sustained from such rounds. And while law enforcement describes rubber bullets as "non-lethal" or "less-lethal," 15 percent of rubber bullet injuries resulted in permanent damage—there is even risk of death if struck in the face.

Manufacturers and some law enforcement departments encourage officers to aim for lower extremities, such as buttocks and thighs, but videos like those collected by The Washington Post have shown officers failing to properly use these munitions.

NEXT: Don't Bail Out Bars, Let Them Reopen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These are the stupid prizes we are always telling you about.

    1. Cops who lie and abuse citizens are playing a dangerous game.

      1. They’re not the ones getting face blasted.

        1. But enough about Lord of Strazele’s mom.

          1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website.TRe if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online..

            ===============►Home Profit System

          2. Google pay’s us monthly… Everybody can earn now from home 10000+ USD monthly… I am just working 3 to 4 hours in a day and generate extra cash… You also can earn… you can join or check more information by below site………………………………….Money90

      2. The real easy argument about these “less lethal” tactics was recently exposed in one of the protests and is partly alluded to here.

        These devices like tear gas canisters are supposed to be okey-dokey to use on just anyone; they are “non-lethal”. Yet when a protester picks one up to throw back, they are charged with assault with a deadly weapon (or in this case, it’s justified to blind them). Well, which is it?

        1. Maybe police are just particularly whimpy, so it’s more deadly for them? They should take that stance officially.

        2. they are charged with assault with a deadly weapon

          Got a case number for this? Because the overwhelming majority of cases I’ve heard, the protestors are charged with misdemeanor assault and the fewer cases where they were charged with second or first, they were throwing canisters, rocks, swinging bats.

          Objectively, from the first video, if you switch places and say the civilian fired the canister from across the block and hit a cop in the eye, I have a hard time saying that the civilian should be charged with anything worse than negligence or misdemeanor assault and wouldn’t be at all surprised if a claim of ‘self-defense’ got them off.

          If the homeowners who were defending themselves from the BLM rioters drew down on someone, fired, and hit the person next to them, I’d be hard pressed to charge them with felony assault.

          1. Here’s one:

            https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/06/protester-recounts-getting-attacked-by-police-dogs-tear-gassed-at-walnut-creek-demonstration/

            He also was arrested for what police say was “assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer” and resisting or obstructing an officer. The deadly weapon apparently was a tear gas canister that police tossed toward him and other protesters and alleged he tossed back in their direction.

            1. That’s not a case number or even a police report. The article starts off with “Joseph Malott is arrested after failing to disperse after blocking the I-680 north bound freeway during a Black Lives Matter protest in Walnut Creek, Calif., on Monday, June 1, 2020. ”

              The paper goes on to say, “He also was arrested for what police say was “assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer” and resisting or obstructing an officer. The deadly weapon apparently was a tear gas canister that police tossed toward him and other protesters and alleged he tossed back in their direction.”

              Where’s the report that supports/contradicts this? It sounds like he was arrested under multiple charges but may not have been charged with any of them despite being factually guilty of at least two of them.

              Again, not saying cops should be shooting and siccing the dogs on innocent people but letting people sit in the middle of freeways and charging cops on shakier evidence than they drum up against undesirables is not a good/better solution.

              1. It sounds like he was arrested under multiple charges but may not have been charged with any of them despite being factually guilty of at least two of them.

                Additionally, the media has an on-camera history of describing things as mostly peaceful while standing in front of a burning building with looting going on in the background.

    2. Clearly, they need to wear eye protection while rioting.

      1. To be sure. And masks.

  2. Well, we can always go back to the sixties and National Guard troops with fixed bayonets.

    #defundeverything

  3. It’s a shame you tolerated the presence of rioters in your protests. Maybe if you had done a better job of policing yourselves you wouldn’t be treated like you’re just running cover for ANTIFA rioters.

    1. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy….CLICK HERE.

    2. It’s a shame right-wing protestors tolerated the presence of racists and bigots in their protests. Maybe if they had done a better job of policing themselves they wouldn’t be treated like they’re just running cover for Stormfront.

      Did I do that collective guilt thing right?

      1. Nope. Weeding out ideology is not equivalent to weeding out violence. Besides, the assumption is already that everyone right of Biden is a white supremacist.

        1. Oh I see. So collective guilt is a no-no when it comes to ideology, but is totally acceptable when it comes to acts of violence?

          So if one member of a group commits a violent act, everyone in the group is guilty?

          1. Oh I see. So collective guilt is a no-no when it comes to ideology, but is totally acceptable when it comes to acts of violence?

            Um, guy. The police aren’t out there tasked with stopping ideas.

            Yes there is a qualitative difference betweent the measures used to control a peaceful protest vs a riot.

            Wtf is this shit?

            1. I do so love it when the Baby Jefffies argue among themselves. It reminds of Robin Williams in The Fisher King.

          2. “So if one member of a group commits a violent act, everyone in the group is guilty?”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

            The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender’s accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

            The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended

            1. So everyone who showed up to protest at Charlottesville is guilty of felony murder due to the actions of James Fields Jr.?

              1. Sure.
                You realize that includes your leftist boos?
                They were, after all, the ones who initiated violence

                1. That is a ridiculously overbroad interpretation of “felony murder”. No one believes that this is your actual position on it. It is only convenient because it permits you to rage against the people you hate. But the moment that, say, everyone on Gab and 4chan were dragged to jail for “felony murder” based on the actions of Robert Bowers, you would be the first to cry foul.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist
                    July.15.2020 at 3:50 pm
                    That is a ridiculously overbroad interpretation of “felony murder”.

                    Being ridiculously overbroad yourself, that should appeal to you.


              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                July.15.2020 at 3:31 pm
                So everyone who showed up to protest at Charlottesville is guilty of felony murder due to the actions of James Fields Jr.?

                It’s interesting that you question the principle then when presented with ironclad evidence of said principle, immediately shift to deflection.

                Yes, if the Charlottesville protesters aided and abetted like BLM does, they belong in jail.

                1. You are dead on about Charlottesville. The Antifa people showed up and started a riot. They are accessories for the death that forseably resulted from that. That doesn’t let the asshole who did it off the hook, but a lot more people than him should have gone to prison over that.

          3. So collective guilt is a no-no when it comes to ideology, but is totally acceptable when it comes to acts of violence?

            Still getting it wrong. There is no way to determine if a person standing next to you at a peaceful gathering is racist unless they say something to confirm it, at which point you have the option to use your words to correct them or walk away. Guilt by association in that scenario is unfounded.

            But when the person standing next to you chucks a brick at the police, you can either attempt to detain them until the police take them into custody and testify against them or immediately leave the area. If you stay, ignoring or cheering the violence and failing to intervene, you are complicit, helping the perpetrator to hide by maintaining the crowd instead of singling them out. There are situations where inaction is a violation of the NAP and a riot is one of those.

            How you fail to make such simple logical connections is beyond me. It’s almost like you enter arguments having already made up your mind, in a pre-judging kind of way. We might call that ‘prejudice’. I seem to remember a time when prejudice was considered in a negative light.

            1. Still getting it wrong. There is no way to determine if a person standing next to you at a peaceful gathering is racist unless they say something to confirm it, at which point you have the option to use your words to correct them or walk away. Guilt by association in that scenario is unfounded.

              Or, you can stand there and do nothing and continue to stand next to the racist guy. Does that make you racist by association, or not?

              But when the person standing next to you chucks a brick at the police, you can either attempt to detain them until the police take them into custody and testify against them or immediately leave the area. If you stay, ignoring or cheering the violence and failing to intervene, you are complicit, helping the perpetrator to hide by maintaining the crowd instead of singling them out.

              So if you stay and do nothing with regards to the brick-hurling rioter, you’re complicit in a violent act. But if you stay and do nothing with regards to the guy next to you saying racist things, you’re… not complicit in racism? This is where your whole ‘collective guilt’ thing falls apart.

              How about this: Just don’t buy into any of these ‘collective guilt’ fantasies and judge each individual by his/her own words and actions.

              If you stand next to a racist guy saying racist things, it doesn’t mean you’re a racist unless you, by your own words, also say that you agree with the racist things.

              If you stand next to a guy hurling bricks at the police, it doesn’t mean you agree with it unless you, by your own actions, help the guy out.

              Get it now?

              1. This is where your whole ‘collective guilt’ thing falls apart.

                No. It doesn’t. You are wrong. By sticking around when violence starts, you become part of the riot. It is reality, not some fucking thought experiment.

                You cannot disassociate yourself from a riot. ‘I was at the protest and somebody threw a brick at a cop and I walked away but then somebody else lit a police car on fire, so I thought, I could go for some s’mores…’ is participating in the riot.

                You can disassociate yourself from racist comments. ‘I was at the protest and there was this guy who was totally racist and I walked away but somebody else lit up a hibachi, so I thought, I could go for some s’mores…’ is not participating in racism.

                If you stand next to a guy hurling mustard gas canisters at the enemy army, it doesn’t mean you agree with it unless you, by your own actions, help the guy out. Yet, you are still guilty of war crimes.

                Get it now?

                1. Right you are, Chuck P. The rest of these boobs just don’t get it. If you are in a crowd doing illegal things, then YOU are doing illegal things. Sorry, but society can’t work any other way. If you are in a mob and one person begins doing violent things, then either leave the mob, or detain and stop the person doing the violence.

              2. If you stand next to a guy hurling bricks at the police, it doesn’t mean you agree with it unless you, by your own actions, help the guy out.

                Get it now?

                Given the imprecision of teargas canisters, not to mention the intrinsic fog of conflict, even if the guy with the rock turned on you and the police fired at him in order to save your life, there’s little guarantee they wouldn’t hit you. If someone is smashing private property and assaulting you and the police approach with teargas, regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the only safe place is out of the range of the teargas canisters.

                Get it now?

                1. If someone is smashing private property and assaulting you people and the police approach with teargas

                  Assaulting *people* dammit. Physics stops the canister from hitting you. Not philosphy or intentions.

              3. We are judging individuals by their own actions.
                Chuck P. literally explained the action they are being judged for.

                1. Das ist natürlich nur ein Beispiel dafür was auf ao sex nrw wieder und wieder passiert

          4. Apologize for your white privilege, bitch.

            Now that’s collective guilt infesting an ideology. By all means, ignore that, tho.

          5. You are really ignorant…

          6. For the King’s Men, of COURSE they’re guilty. They are a standing army. They wear a uniform. The word “uniform” means “the SAME”.

        2. Just trying to understand the whole ‘collective guilt’ thing that the right wing has going on when it comes to Antifa.

          1. No you’re trying to play gotcha, and have decided that “peaceful protest is the same as riot to the police” is the hill you wanna die on.

            1. Oh you bet it’s gotcha. Most of the people here who are now blaming everyone who goes to a protest for the violent acts of a few, they would never ever think about blaming, say, everyone who protested at Charlottesville, for the violent acts of James Fields Jr. It’s a double standard and everyone knows it.

              Left-wing violence = organized mob, they’re all guilty!
              Right-wing violence = just a few bad apples!

              1. ‘LEAVE MY LEFTY BOOS ALONE!”

              2. I think that’s probably because it’s one guy in one instance.

                But you go on thinking you’ve got a gotcha because you think one guy = 1000’s of people across the country.

              3. chemjeff radical individualist
                July.15.2020 at 3:00 pm
                Oh you bet it’s gotcha.

                chemjeff radical individualist
                July.15.2020 at 2:39 pm
                Just trying to understand the whole ‘collective guilt’ thing that the right wing has going on when it comes to Antifa

                So you were lying, and you weren’t trying to understand anything you were going for a gotcha.

                A stupid one. Espcially since CHAZ had a higher death count than Charlottesville and CHAZ only happened in one city and wasn’t just one guy.

              4. “Most of the people here who are now blaming everyone who goes to a protest for the violent acts of a few”

                I can’t answer for anyone else, but if I was at a protest and someone started getting violent, I would *leave*. Protest OVER. I’m not going to provide “cover” for someone to be violent.

                1. There are credible reports out there from some protest of police actively preventing people from leaving.

                  1. No one is stopping anyone who is legit motivated. That’s a bullshit excuse.

                  2. Then the others need to meet the violent with violence or immediately turn them over to the cops. There is footage of this exact scenario playing out because the peaceful didn’t want to participate in a riot.

              5. they would never ever think about blaming, say, everyone who protested at Charlottesville, for the violent acts of James Fields Jr

                You are completely unable to resist shifting the goalposts. Fields was by himself in his own car without any other vehicles around him. It is not even remotely equivalent to any scenario discussed in this thread. A riot consists of the actions of many people, not one.

                Your argument is so disingenuous, you have your White Knight calling you out.

              6. But isn’t the main grievance of the protesters-and rioters-premised on the “collective guilt” of the cops? I mean, none of the cops being assaulted/getting screamed at/spit on/dodging bricks and bottles are chauvin. He’s in jail. Where’s the “individualism” in that?

                No one can be this obtuse. You’re a parody, Jeff. You’re just the rev with less name calling.

          2. Just trying to understand the whole ‘collective guilt’ thing that the right wing has going on when it comes to Antifa.

            No you’re not. Because you would seem to completely understand and, apparently buy into, the whole ‘collective guilt’ thing that the left wing has going on when it comes to slavery. No white person in America today has stood within a century of owning a slave (many not even on the same continent at the time), black or otherwise, but statues of Lincoln gotta come down because you know the right wing is wrong when they collectivise Antifa with violent protests.

            You’re a disingenuous dipshit and everybody knows it. You make OBL’s open parody schtick look respectible and genuine by comparison. You’re a part of the problem. You aren’t necessarily violent but you perpetuate the racism just as much as any Stormfront bigot.

          3. No, you’re deflecting. Everything in lefty ideology is centered around collective guilt or grievance. Not an individual in the lot.

            You are so un radical, dude.

          4. If you really want to understand it google “systemic racism”

      2. He says as if the entire BLM movement isn’t based on bigoted, racist essentialism. They are literally drawing the battle lines by skin color. Stormfront and the alt-right are just the opposite side of this coin. Fuck the coin. Making laws that create special privileges for “protected groups” based entirely on immutable traits is what created this animosity in the first place.

        Continuing the illiberal nonsense is only going to ensure that we never stop having these battles. Equality under the law (not attempting equality of outcome) moving forward is the ONLY solution to this. Attempting to right the wrongs of history is just agreeing to continue the cycle.

        1. That is the Left’s intent. One group against the other. Each group votes their rights away for “security” and to “get” the other group, leaving the “top men” in charge.

      3. Did I do that collective guilt thing right?

        No in fact, you did not. You DID come running to the defense of antifa again though.

        1. Only if you just ran to defend white supremicists. He didn’t even mention antifa.

      4. Weren’t most of the “racists” LaRouche fanatics?

      5. “Peaceful protesters” create the conditions necessary for violent protesters/rioters to attack people.
        “Conservative” protesters are not needed for the extremely few (and mostly just imaginary) bigots to be bigots.
        You and your ilk haven’t even begun to get what you deserve.

        1. “Peaceful protesters” create the conditions necessary for violent protesters/rioters to attack people.

          Sure, it’s all a conspiracy, isn’t it?

          “I’ll stand here peacefully holding the sign, and when the cops aren’t looking, you throw the brick and run away, then when the TV cameras are pointing my way, I will scream ‘help help I’m being repressed'”

    3. I hope only the people you invite show up at your protest. And if that doesn’t happen, I hope you get fcucked, too.

  4. Manufacturers and some law enforcement departments encourage officers to aim for lower extremities, such as buttocks and thighs, but videos like those collected by The Washington Post have shown officers failing to properly use these munitions.

    Maybe the crowds shouldn’t have rioted and that wouldn’t have been an issue? Such misuses and mistakes happen. I don’t blame the cops. I blame the violent idiots who created the situation.

    Does reason blame rioters for anything?

    1. Thry should’ve had open borders in their autonomous zone. Other than that, no complaints

      1. I wasn’t in on their policy decisions or anything but it seemed like their borders were pretty open. It was when you tried to leave that they brought a response that the most trigger-happy SWAT junkies would envy.

    2. You’re such a pathetic bootlicker.

      1. You are a fucking moron who bootlicks the mob. Fuck you. You and the rest of your ilk are not going to burn down the country. Too fucking bad.

        1. That’s right. Change can only occur according to means that don’t offend people like John. Like politely asking police not to murder them. Or filing a complaint in triplicate with the Bureau of Complaints in the Department of Unnecessary Departments. But don’t do anything that makes John at all uncomfortable or inconveniences him in any way.

          1. You should be inconvenienced with a brick to the face.

            1. And now RRWP goes full fascist himself

              1. They’re your words. Why are you running from them now?

              2. You’d have to know what fascist means in the first place, fat boy.

                1. The far fuck loves all that is leftist, including fascism.
                  See his staunch advocacy for cronyist social media censorship because it preserves the veneer of “private” company

                  1. LOL the guy who advocates for more state control over social media is the one calling ME a ‘leftist’

                    1. Section 230 is State control, guy.

          2. That’s right. Change can only occur according to means that don’t offend people like John

            Burning buildings down and holding cties hostage should offend everyone.

            1. That assumes Jeffy has any property to lose from rioters.

          3. chem, chem, chem…..c’mon. Now it is unfortunate that these things even happened, but who is really at fault here? Newsflash: It ain’t the cops.

            The duty of our government is to protect life, liberty and property. These rioters were/are destroying property. Sorry, but if you do that you belong in a cage. No need to file a complaint. Just disperse them, using whatever non-lethal means are needed.

            1. There is a continuum between “go in a corner and file the correct permits and have a protest where nobody cares about it”, and “go on a violent rampage”. And somewhere on that continuum, before it ever gets to violent riots, polite society gets pissed off. That is the point of civil disobedience. That is what protests ought to accomplish. The problem here is that those who get the most pissed off will never reflect upon that and will just demand that the police ‘restore order’ without addressing any of the grievances which brought the protestors out to protest in the first place. And their retort will always be “they should have protested in the ‘correct’ way”. Well, protesting the ‘correct’ way, meaning, not pissing anyone off, doesn’t accomplish anything.

              1. And somewhere on that continuum, before it ever gets to violent riots, polite society gets pissed off. That is the point of civil disobedience.

                Nope. You dont even know what the words you are using means.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#:~:text=Civil%20disobedience%20is%20the%20active,peaceful%20protests%20or%20nonviolent%20resistance.

                Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government. By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called “civil”. Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance

                You called for violence. We saw it.

                1. Fuck off Tulpa.

              2. Well, protesting the ‘correct’ way, meaning, not pissing anyone off, doesn’t accomplish anything.

                chem, no Founder ever promised that being an engaged and informed citizen advocating for change would be easy. You want ‘quick and easy’ solutions where they are not possible. Our system is designed to make changes slowly and incrementally.

                1. ^ This.

                  Doesn’t stop with “our system” either. Human nature and its evolution is a painfully slow one, but natural, none the less. The unnatural interference via government (or any other forms of collective force) subverts this otherwise naturally occurring progress (even if only slight faster than traditional evolution that our miraculous sentience allows for).

    3. Yeah, and how dare those reporters be…reporting!?! Outrageous, and clearly justifies shooting them in the face. I mean, they might have said something mean about our Heroes in Blue.

      1. *Goes to report on a riot, wonders why cops are treating it like a riot*

      2. Those guys who run with the bulls get gored sometimes.

    4. “Stop forcing me to punch you in the face”

      Your comment is so far into whattaboutism I can’t see the point. Police misuse their tools, and this is somehow someone else’s fault?

  5. Don’t block the fucking streets in a massive protest that is getting in the face of the cops, then. Mobs go from loud and “unruly” to straight up rioting very quickly. So don’t be in a mob that is loud and unruly with a bunch of “mostly peaceful” rioters mixed in. There might be consequences otherwise.

    1. When the cops pull someone over or go after someone at home or otherwise minding their own business, I am the first one to criticize them. I am also the first one to criticize them when they shoot someone needlessly even if the someone is a criminal. But, these went out there to block traffic, cause problems, and specifically to harass the cops and create the very circumstances that caused this to happen. So, fuck them. Yeah, if you go out and join in a mob and force the police to shoot tear gas to defend themselves and the property you are attacking, too fucking bad if one of the cops messes up and shoots you in the face with a tear gas round.

      1. I am the first one to criticize them.

        Would you criticize them online or would you join a protest about it? If you wouldn’t go outside to physically protest, is it because you fear you might be shot in the face?

        1. If the people “protesting” are a bunch of marxist jackasses who consistently engage in mob violence and destruction, then I wouldn’t join them.
          If you would if not for fear of police crowd control, it reveals a lot more about your character than theirs

        2. NO. it is because protests are stupid and pointless. Protests are valuable when you can’t communicate and showing up shows other people that they are not alone. In a free society, protesting is just a fucking jackass move that accomplishes nothing.

        3. Jeff says it’s called “collective guilt”. Take it and apologize.

        4. Would his pandering and virtue signaling impress you?

      2. I know, right? Why couldn’t those activists just stay at home and write sternly worded letters to their representatives? That would solve all the problems!

        1. “UH KNO RITE?” Hope you’re the next one to get batoned, fat boy.

        2. They can go protest in a park, and do so in a way that is clearly non-threatening. Getting up the cop’s faces is not non-threatening. When multiple people are doing that with hundreds of people behind them all screaming at the cops, it would be asinine to expect cops to be robots with no concern for their own welfare. The cops didn’t cause the situation, they are simply responding to it.

          1. They can go protest in a park, and do so in a way that is clearly non-threatening.

            In other words, protest in a way where you don’t have to pay attention to them.

            Isn’t that what the Tea Party crowd did, circa 2009? Did it work?

            1. Isn’t that what the Tea Party crowd did, circa 2009? Did it work?

              The Tea Party rioted for over a month straight, tore down monuments, vandalized property, and got people fired from their jobs?

              1. No, but I heard they took over part of a city at gunpoint and murdered some teenagers.

                1. That’s all wrong.
                  They just dragged people out of their cars and beat them, then shot and killed a few small children

              2. The Tea Party did the whole polite peaceful protest thing. Did the protests work? Did they accomplish the ostensible goals of the protest organizers?

                1. Thanks for confirming that the protesters deserved to get blasted.

                2. “IF YOU DON’T GIVE US SPACE TO DESTROY PROPERTY TO MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE YOU’RE A FASCIST!”

                3. So, protesters should be violent.

                  Got it.

                  Told pro lifers they were doing it wrong. Should’ve killed as many abortion docs as humanly possible.

                  1. I didn’t say protesters should be violent.

                    I did say that the polite way to protest – go off in a corner somewhere and get your permits and hold a nice little rally – doesn’t do shit to enact change, and the Tea Party crowd above all should understand that.

                    If voting for the ‘right’ candidates actually worked, why would there be this type of protests in the first place?

                    1. “I didn’t say protesters should be violent”

                      Only because you don’t have the balls to say it outright and rely on being oblique instead.

                    2. Throw a tantrum to get what you want now Jeff?

                    3. This is another Tulpa trick.

                      RWNJ: “So, chemjeff, you’re advocating for X then?” where X is a complete distortion of my actual position.

                      If I say “yes”, then Tulpa responds “you’re a garbage person for advocating for X”.
                      If I say “no” then Tulpa responds “you’re a garbage person for obviously lying”.

                      Either way, in Tulpa’s eyes I’m a garbage person. Which is the entire point of his trolling here.

                      So the correct response is “fuck off Tulpa”.

                    4. Hey everyone Jeff is seeing Tulpas again, someone must have convinced him he’s wrong and he needs a convenient excuse to run away.

                    5. Yes, you’re far too dishonest and far too much of a coward to directly state that you think violence is both necessary and justified to achieve your leftist goals.
                      If you had stated so, instead of passive-aggressively implying it,
                      I’d respect that.
                      I’m good with those rules, and I hope to see you at a “protest” someday soon

                    6. I’m with MLK on this one. Civil disobedience and nonviolent protest are the best way to accomplish change.

                      I know you are just too simple-minded to understand anything but brute force, but believe it or not, there are more nuanced ways to see change happen other than by sheer force.

                    7. I know you are just too simple-minded to understand anything but brute force

                      You’re the one called for violence.

                    8. Nowhere anywhere did I defend or advocate for violence of any type. You are just lying.

                4. They were able to let their voices be heard. That’s all they have a right to. They don’t have a right to get specific policy results. You’ve basically said multiple times here today that since these “protesters” aren’t getting the results they want they are justified in rioting. Does that mean if they continue to not get their desired result, they are justified in ramping up the violence even more?

                  1. No, they are justified in *nonviolent* protests in ways that go beyond what polite society demands of them. Causing traffic jams, sit-ins, disruptions that just make people upset rather than getting anyone hurt. That’s what I’m saying. Because change only happens when people are taken out of their comfort zones and made to see some of the uncomfortable truths out there which perpetuate injustice.

                    1. Sure. Whatever you say, dude.

                      < steps carefully away in a slow and non threatening manner

                    2. Why do you have a right to block anyone from using a street? Cuz you’re mad?

                      How collective can ya gat?

              3. “The Tea Party rioted for over a month straight, tore down monuments, vandalized property, and got people fired from their jobs?”

                It really is almost too stupid for words, isn’t it?

        3. The right to protest is not the same as the right to get the policy results you want. The right to protest is simply the right to speak your piece. If not enough of your fellow citizens agree with you to enact the changes you want, you don’t get to use force or threats of force to enact the changes you want.

          Learn to persuade. The crazy-man-with-a-sandwich-board vibe is probably the first thing you would have to ditch.

      1. “OH NO SOMEONE’S ATTACKING MY LEFTY BOOS!”

      2. It’s not like there’s dozens of videos or anything…

      3. Rolling Stone? Really? Give Haven Monahan my regards.

  6. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you’ll check my details by clicking the link

    >>>>CLICK HERE.

  7. I love how so many people here are blaming the protestors for having the nerve to protest in a way that slightly inconveniences polite society.

    You know what? Letter writing to a congresscritter doesn’t change anything. Voting for politicians who promise to change things but end up doing nothing, doesn’t change anything. Holding a polite rally in a peaceful park gets maybe one day of news coverage, and then nothing changes. You know what gets people’s attention? When polite society gets pissed off. Kaepernick takes a knee and you all lost your collective shit over it. Protestors block traffic and otherwise inconvenience you, and you get pissed off. THAT’S THE POINT. To piss off polite society so that maybe you will actually pay attention to their grievances and take a moment to understand WHY they are actually protesting. Because following the rules of polite society isn’t working for them. If letter-writing campaigns and voting for the ‘correct’ politicians worked to enact the change that they sought, don’t you think they would do that rather than protest in the street and risk being shot and killed by the police?

    So if you are angry at them for making you uncomfortable, then good. The protests are having their desired effect. Instead of blaming the protestors for making you uncomfortable, maybe you should examine why they are protesting, why their demands are making you uncomfortable, and what can be done to make things a little bit more just for everyone.

    1. slightly inconveniences

      If someone’s business going up in flames is a slight inconvenience, I’d hate to see your version of a major one.

      1. I don’t defend the property damage or the physical violence.

        I do understand the anger and frustration though. “Riots are the voices of the unheard” and all that.

        I have no problem though with blocking streets or even acting a little bit “unruly”. It’s not property damage, it’s not physical violence, it is a headache and a nuisance and that is the point.

        1. I don’t defend the property damage or the physical violence.

          Fuck off. They’re inseperable at this point.

          I have no problem though with blocking streets or even acting a little bit “unruly”.

          And I have no problem with them getting plowed into the asphalt if they do.

          1. Yes we know, you’re a little fascist. Did you learn this from the Nardz School of Fascism?

            1. And you’re a useless sack of commie vermin.

              1. Whatever, fascist boy. I’m about as much of a “communist” as John. But please do continue on about how you want to initiate violence against your political opponents. Do keep demonstrating how much you are a little fascist shithead. Maybe you’ll be invited to Nardz’s cocktail parties.

                1. If they’re destroying property and harassing people, then they deserve to get hurt. You’re just ass-mad that I have no interest in standing up for them when they do it.

                2. “please do continue on about how you want to initiate violence against your political opponents.”

                  chemjeff radical individualist
                  July.15.2020 at 3:01 pm
                  The Tea Party did the whole polite peaceful protest thing. Did the protests work? Did they accomplish the ostensible goals of the protest organizers?

                  1. Fuck off Tulpa.

                    1. Oh shut up and eat your own words your paranoid troll.

                3. Blocking roads is initiating violence.

                  You psychotics started this.
                  If liberty is to survive, you’ll soon be finished by others.

                  1. It is?
                    What violence is being initiated by just standing on a public road?

                    1. Your link only deals with interstate travel.

                      If restricting the free movement of people is “initiation of violence”, then is every red light and stop sign an act of aggression against you? This is ridiculous.

                      And we’re now at the point of the discussion where mere inconveniences like causing a traffic jam are now being exaggerated to the point of “initiating violence” so as to rationalize why a traffic jam is somehow more serious than an inconvenience. It’s trying to project your discomfort into something larger than it ought to be.

                    2. So wait you think it’s magically not a right intrastate?

                      Are you retarded?

                    3. “If restricting the free movement of people is “initiation of violence”, then is every red light and stop sign an act of aggression against you? This is ridiculous.”

                      RED LIGHTS AREN’T PEOPLE ON A ROAD WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL TO BE YOU FUCKING RETARD.

        2. I don’t defend the property damage or the physical violence

          That’s exactly what youre doing, you’re minimizing it by calling it an “inconvenience”

          1. Maybe there wouldn’t be riots today if you all hadn’t lost your collective shit when the protesting was limited to football players taking a knee.

            1. “Maybe there wouldn’t be riots today”

              And there you go again, excusing it and trying to shift the blame.

              It’s not someone else’s fault that you can’t control yourself and think your excuses justify it.

            2. You sure you want to go with “you didn’t give us what we wanted so this tantrum is your fault?”

        3. I so hope you have a loved one in desperate need of medical care and the ambulance is stuck behind one of these protests.

        4. I don’t defend the property damage or the physical violence.

          I do understand the anger and frustration though. “Riots are the voices of the unheard” and all that.

          You won’t defend it. You will just make excuses for it and criticize any effort to stop it. But you won’t defend it.

          You are the most fucking dishonest person on earth. You are worse than the Rev. He is a pathetic, ignorant asshole, but at least he is honest about it. You are just as bad but pretend not to be.

          1. KING (interview): I will never change in my basic idea that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the Negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral.

            MIKE WALLACE: There’s an increasingly vocal minority who disagree totally with your tactics, Dr. King.

            KING: There’s no doubt about that. I will agree that there is a group in the Negro community advocating violence now. I happen to feel that this group represents a numerical minority. Surveys have revealed this. The vast majority of Negroes still feel that the best way to deal with the dilemma that we face in this country is through non-violent resistance, and I don’t think this vocal group will be able to make a real dent in the Negro community in terms of swaying 22 million Negroes to this particular point of view. And I contend that the cry of “black power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/

            There goes Dr. Martin Luther King again, “making excuses for violence” and all that. Man, what a scumbag he was, wasn’t he John?

            His point is my point. Violence is not the answer but it’s not hard to see why some people would resort to violence.

            1. Yes there he goes making excuses for violence. He wasn’t correct there and you are not correct here. Thanks for admitting that you are a lying piece of shit who claims not to defend violence but then turn around do just that.

              1. Sure, MLK was “making excuses for violence”. You know, the guy for whom nonviolent protest was his entire brand. Whatever John. You really are a piece of work.

                1. You know, the guy for whom nonviolent protest was his entire brand.

                  1) you might want to check that

                  2) even Jesus busted out a whip and threw tables

                  1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/557021/

                    In 1956, after journalist William Worthy nearly sat on a loaded gun in an armchair in Martin Luther King Jr.’s house during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, he could hardly know that his report on the incident would become a mere footnote in King’s journey to nonviolence. Much like Worthy’s discovery of King’s weapon, I stumbled onto this anecdote quite by accident. The story provides a lens of nuance and complexity into the life of a man who has transcended into legend. King believed in nonviolence, but he did not start there; his moral suasion helped change the way we perceive nonviolent protest, but he abandoned it in the end.

                2. https://www.google.com/amp/s/timeline.com/amp/p/4de177a8c87b

                  By the end of his life, Martin Luther King realized the validity of violence
                  The riots of 1967 changed how the great man saw the struggle

                  Never stop desperately casting around for excuses before settling on one that makes you look even more ignorant Jeff.

                    1. Interesting article. Thanks for sharing that.

                      In that article, MLK “courted violence” but he himself was never violent in his protests.

                    2. So you ignored the other articles on purpose just to excuse MLK for keeping violent people around for dirty work.

                    3. He correctly anticipated that the police would overreact, violently, to their peaceful protests. When people saw Bull Connor unleashing police dogs on girls with pigtails, that was when people realized that what the police was doing was wrong.

                      If you want these protests to turn out the same way that the 1960’s civil rights protests turned out, then please, continue to advocate for Nardz’ point of view in “putting down” the protestors by any means necessary. Because that’s what will happen.

                    4. Still ignorring the other articles.

                  1. What’s most ignorant is invoking MLK to imply that conditions of his world in the 1960s are the same as 2020 USA.
                    It’s just a big middle finger to that man.
                    Disgraceful

            2. “but it’s not hard to see why some people would resort to violence.”

              Now do cops with rioters.

          2. Haha. Yup.

        5. chem, in your example, blocking traffic is an inconvenience. What happens when that becomes something more than inconvenience? For instance, blocking traffic stops emergency services in the area. That can kill people: gunshot victims, heart attacks, accidents, strokes, etc. You call it an inconvenience, but where does inconvenience give way to stupidly and needlessly risking others people’s lives.

          I viscerally disagree with Kaepernick, but I can respect how he goes about his protest. It is peaceful, non-violent.

          There is a world a difference between the two. Don’t conflate them.

          1. It is a difference in degree only. Only in the level of inconvenience.

            And by the way, don’t you think the protestors disrupting traffic know this? That their protest does have the potential to turn into something more, not just for others, but for *themselves*? Again I keep asking, if the polite society method of protesting – get permits, file the forms, go to a park, hold a rally, get maybe a day of news coverage, then everyone goes home – actually worked, why wouldn’t everyone do that? It’s safe, there’s no tear gas, there’s no rubber bullets, there’s no one getting arrested. If letter writing to congresscritters worked, why wouldn’t everyone just do that? That’s even safer! But those methods *don’t* work.

            Change only happens when people are made uncomfortable.

            1. “It is a difference in degree only”

              So you claim, but others call it banditry

            2. Someone dying because they couldn’t get emergency medical assistance and someone getting stuck in traffic is “a difference of degree only”? Ok.

            3. No chem, it is not a difference in degree. You are completely wrong about this. This is a difference in tactics. One is acceptable, the other is not. Guess what…your method is ‘not’.

              Has it occurred to you that perhaps a majority of the people are correct, and you are wrong? I know, profoundly humbling.

        6. “I do understand the anger and frustration though. “Riots are the voices of the unheard” and all that.”

          How certifiably insane do you have to be to think that the marxist “protests” fostered by the education system, encouraged by governments, and explicitly supported by Big Business are the voices of the unheard?

          1. And I failed to mention tech’s active aid to these people and simultaneous censoring of views that oppose them.

            Jfc

        7. Sorry. Cops were charged with murder. Nationwide protests were promoted by organized deep-pocketed efforts, not by grassroots. The whole narrative is BS. Obama/Biden had 8 years, what did they accomplish? Crickets. Trump has done way more in 3 years, but the MSM screams he is racist, fueling the crowd’s rage. Am I missing something?

      2. It’s almost like different people do different things at different times and places, and condemning them all or supporting them all is stupid.

    2. I love how so many people here are blaming the protestors for having the nerve to protest in a way that slightly inconveniences polite society

      No one is doing that.

      1. See above. “Why don’t they just protest in a park???”

        1. Suggesting they protest in a park is blaming them?

          Fail.

      2. And of course John:

        “But, these went out there to block traffic, cause problems, and specifically to harass the cops and create the very circumstances that caused this to happen. So, fuck them.”

        OMG THEY CAUSED A TRAFFIC JAM, SEND IN THE COPS WITH THE TEAR GAS

        1. “THEY’RE JUST BEING A BIT UNRULY, NOTHING TO SEE HERE GAIZ.”

        2. chemjeff radical individualist
          July.15.2020 at 2:53 pm
          And of course John:

          “But, these went out there to block traffic, cause problems, and specifically to harass the cops and create the very circumstances that caused this to happen. So, fuck them.”

          Those aren’t inconveniences. Fail.

          OMG THEY CAUSED A TRAFFIC JAM,

          Remember when you went at Christie for doing that?

    3. So if you are angry at them for making you uncomfortable, then good. The protests are having their desired effect.

      If by “desired effect,” you mean, “hope they get piledriven into the ground,” then yes.

      Instead of blaming the protestors for making you uncomfortable, maybe you should examine why they are protesting, why their demands are making you uncomfortable, and what can be done to make things a little bit more just for everyone.

      Nah, they’re worthless and so are you.

    4. Polite society is just slightly inconveniencing the protestors. If the protestors are angry at being made uncomfortable, then perhaps they should consider why the standards of civility and politeness exist.

      1. Standard of civility and politeness serve to defend the standards of the status quo. Which is often a good thing, but sometimes it is a bad thing. For the longest time it was considered blasphemous and heretical to consider that gays were anything other than mentally ill freaks. It took a lot of protests and even a few riots, which made a lot of people uncomfortable, before that sort of thinking began to change. Change doesn’t happen if everyone says happily ensconced in their comfort zones.

        1. Standard of civility and politeness serve to defend the standards of the status quo

          No, they exist to prevent violence.

        2. The point is that it is hypocritical to break the standards of civility and politeness because you think you have a good cause and then invoke those standards when the people you are irritating decide they have had enough of you.

    5. As is, you have protestors distancing themselves from BLM and complaining that it is being overrun with violence and claims at least tangential to police violence.

      Do they get to speak against the protest?

      You also have albeit more conservative blacks horrified that their communities are being burnt to the ground, and having to deal with the backlash that the violence will inevitably bring.

      Do they get to speak against the protest?

      And as crime rates rise, is this the vision of a more just society?

    6. If you advocated violent revolution to take power: again, that would be respectable. I’d disagree with and fight against your marxist goals, but your position would at least have integrity.
      Instead, you advocate throwing a collective temper tantrum to annoy people.
      You’re a chickenshit little bitch.

      “maybe you should examine why they are protesting, why their demands are making you uncomfortable, and what can be done to make things a little bit more just for everyone.”
      We have. We discuss it often here.
      They are throwing collective temper tantrums because orangemanbad, D string pullers want them to, and they want marxism. They are resentful psychotics who insist the rest of the world be as miserable and consumed by hate as they are.
      We don’t want marxism, misery, or to be consumed by hate.
      What could be done to make things more just for everyone is to declare all participants in these temper tantrums out-laws, as in existing outside protection of the law, and free decent human beings to put them down permanently. Failing that, it would at least be nice to see all the power structures (corporate America, tech, education, media, government) stop supporting their psychotic and hateful worldview.

      1. They are throwing collective temper tantrums because orangemanbad, D string pullers want them to, and they want marxism.

        So you aren’t listening.

        What could be done to make things more just for everyone is to declare all participants in these temper tantrums out-laws, as in existing outside protection of the law, and free decent human beings to put them down permanently.

        So you want the Bull Connor strategy then, only with more guns?

        1. You’re the one that called for violence.

          1. I did not call for violence anywhere. You are lying, and a creepy stalker to boot.

            1. Hey, fuckstick, detaining people against their will and blocking their access to services is violence. The whole civil rights movement thing was predicated on that. Speaking of which, you might not have noticed, but Rosa Parks wasn’t preventing anyone else from getting on the bus or the keeping the bus from moving. Her form of protest was actually directly related to what she was protesting. Same with the lunch counter sit-ins.

              Protesting police violence by blocking the freeway requires an active response by police and is actually counterproductive to preventing police violence. Rioting is an infinitely worse way to protest violence. Forming groups to follow cops around and film them all day long would actually inhibit police violence. Protesters don’t do that because it doesn’t attract news cameras and is like having an actual job instead of a party.

              Blocking the bridges in Portland on the eve of the Iraq war did nothing to stop the war. It was illegal and violent. You know what would have stopped the war? If 1000s of protesters had flown to Baghdad and camped out around the palace. The US military wouldn’t have dared to risk US casualties. I bet Saddam would have even bought them the tickets. He invited Sean Penn into the palace for Christ’s sake!

            2. Is there anything more jeff than going to a place to comment and calling a conversation you don’t like stalking.

  8. “footage from the incidents show many people who were partially blinded posed no “obvious threat” to police.”

    This is a profoundly stupid take. Footage shows that they pose no threat at the moment that they were struck? That’s just completely silly unless some officer walked up to them when they were not part of a crowd and bonked them on the head for no reason.

    You don’t fire tear gas at a person. You fire tear gas into a crowd. There should be some Loft to the trajectory though. If they are aiming tear gas canisters directly at people then that would certainly be reckless endangerment. But a large crowd in which some people are doing violent acts and others are not is not a case where you are an innocent bystander if you are a part of the crowd. And it certainly is not the case that someone used excessive force if you accidentally got hit by a tear gas canister that was fired into the crowd.

    Rubber bullets are somewhat of a different scenario. Depending on how they are deployed, they are certainly quite violent and should not be used to Simply spray down a crowd.
    And claiming that the threat to the officers does not exist is also silly. If there are 500 people on the street and 25 are throwing objects at the police, the entire crowd is a threat. Issuing a dispersed order is not unreasonable at that point. Ignoring that order to disperse is a choice to stand with the guys throwing objects at the police. Even if you didn’t think that that was the choice you were making at the time, that is what it is.

    I get that human nature is to stand there and Proclaim that you are doing nothing wrong and resist the order to disperse. I would feel the same way if I was standing there. That doesn’t make either one of us right. From the police point of view, there is no way to go through the crowd and tell 25 people who are causing trouble that they are the 25 who have to go home. That is physically impossible and probably quite dangerous.

    I got hassled like that a couple of decades ago during the Rodney King riots. I was in Atlanta at the time and kids were running wild in the streets. A couple of us were having a sandwich during our lunch hour wild kids went running by throwing rocks through windows. The police ordered everyone off the street. We were pretty young, about 30 or so. We knew they weren’t talking about us. We were just having lunch. When the police got to us, they did not see it that way. They made it clear that if we did not halt tale from that location immediately we would be arrested. We tried to protest that we were just having a sandwich and that discussion did not even get off the ground. My friend grabbed me by the shirt and we left.

    Sometimes you have to be reasonable and look at things from other points of view. Being part of the crowd where violence against property and people is taking place puts you In Harm’s Way.

    1. The crowd was there to cause problems. The tactic is old and very obvious. You get a “protest” that shows up and gets more and more violent and nasty. If the police do nothing, you proceed to burn and loot and have a great time showing that the police are no longer in control and you are. If the police do anything to stop you, you then have assholes like reason and Chem Jeff show up to say how evil the police are for taking efforts to stop you.

      The idea is to force the police to have to respond by making your actions finally intolerable. Then when the police do respond, claim to be “peaceful” and call the police tyrants. Indeed, the entire crowd isn’t violent. That is by design. You want some people just there “protesting” when they get in the way of the police trying to stop the violent ones. Everyone at these protests is either a violent thug or there to act as a human shield for a violent thug.

      This is leftist mob violence 101. And of course the useful idiots at reason fall for it perfectly.

      1. ^

        There are literally 6 decades of literature explicitly instructing that

      2. It is not civil disobedience to say “if the police do nothing, go ahead and riot and loot”.

        1. No, looting and rioting is criminal behavior and not civil disobedience. What the fuck are you even talking about?

  9. I can’t believe that video would lie like that but there it is.

  10. Once the cops start shooting, so should the protesters. Aiming for the face, of course.

    1. Nah. They’re not suicidal. They’re pussies.

  11. >>Before Balin Brake was struck in the eye by a tear gas canister in Fort Wayne, Indiana

    he was safe, totally in some other place not being shot by police.

  12. Nothing is less lethal than fewer and better cops.

  13. My answer is if you do stupid things, you suffer the consequences. I feel no remorse for what happened to them, if they were not there, nothing would have happened but they were there and it did happen. What did they expect? Did they expect the Police not to answer to their protests and antagonizing? If not, then they are stupid and see the top answer.

    1. Sometimes the police are wrong. Shooting rubber bullets at the face of unarmed protestors who are just shouting and holding signs is wrong. Yes they did that.

  14. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this ::.  TO LEARN MORE ABOUT

  15. I bet unreason never did an article on the peaceful and armed Black protesters at Stone Mountain, Georgia.

  16. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE► More Detail Here.

  17. HERE► Brilliant article. I had wondered how future generations would view the mind boggling hysteria that is currently gripping the whole world, especially Europe and the USA. We look back at past centurhysteria can be – like a stampede. Thought the writer was a historian, his analysis is so sharpies and wonder how they could have been so stupid. I guess it shows how powerful mass . He has seen through the Emperor’s new clothes!ReadMore.

  18. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ To over cusiouresome these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning for more detail visit the given link:Click For Full Details.

  19. The police aren’t out there declaring war on protesters. They would prefer to just stand there and watch the idiot puppets of the left shout their stupid little chants and hurl their vile insults. When there is violence it’s initiated by the “protesters.” At that point they become rioters and they deserve what they get.

  20. And speaking of partial blinding…

    How about the “protestors” shining lasers in the faces of police (as can be seen in the Portland video). That can damage vision permanently. Interesting that there’s no criticism of that in the media at all.

  21. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started….>>>>>>>>Click For Full Detail.

  22. Without excusing police who lie in their reports, I would like to point out that calling the people rioting and looting across the country ‘Protesters’ is an assault on sense. These are not ‘Protesters’, peaceably assembling for a redress of grievances. This is a number of troops of rabid baboons, running amok.

    To a great degree, my instinct is to classify any and all complaints of ‘Police Brutality’ lodged against the police these punks have been assaulting for weeks as cases of “Billy hit me BACK! It isn’t FAIR!”

    And, no, being at such a riot and not actually assaulting anybody or damaging any property isn’t an excuse, unless you were actively trying to corral the troublemakers and return the riot to protest standing.

    1. And, no, being at such a riot and not actually assaulting anybody or damaging any property isn’t an excuse,

      Excuse is the wrong word. (Bad) Serendipity is more like it. I don’t like to see kids get hit with foul balls at baseball games but the facts are, if you don’t want to get hit by a baseball (or see your kids get hit by them), stay away from ballparks. None of these people were on the way to the DMV, attending their parole hearings, or volunteering at the local soup kitchen when a (metaphorical) baseball game broke out.

      1. Far too much sympathy has been spilled over the four idiots who were shot at Kent State; “They weren’t part of the protests” we are told, or “They weren’t the ones throwing rocks!”.

        They were on a campus that had been rocked by RIOT for days. The ‘Protesters’ had done at least a million dollars worth of damage to the town, never mind the campus. And shortly before the ‘protesters’ had set fire to the ROTC building, and then interfered with firefighters on the scene. I’m sure the idiots who set the fire were thinking of the building in purely symbolic terms; nothing about “Are there gas mains we could set off?” or “What if the fire spreads to other buildings?”. Which means they were not only morons, they were dangerous morons.

        That was a good time to be far away from that campus, until the raging baboons dressed as college students were gone.

  23. Maybe, but when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

  24. Terrorists are burning down cities and murdering people left and right but reason is worried about a stray tear gas canister. You know what? Fuck these idiots who are tearing this country apart and fuck the Mensheviks who sit around smugly pointing out minor errors by cops while the world burns down around them.

  25. Before Balin Brake was struck in the eye by a tear gas canister in Fort Wayne, Indiana, video shows him standing with his hands in the air and then running away with other protesters. Brake turned his head for a moment to check the scene behind him when he was hit in the face with a tear gas canister.

    So… an accident then.

Please to post comments