"A Peaceful Demonstration Intensified"

There's peaceful, and then there's intensely peaceful.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Could be a new bit of terminology here. "You are being charged with an intensified peaceful demonstration, in the second degree. How do you plead?"

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.

Advertisement

NEXT: Laws Protecting Private Employees' Speech and Political Activity Against Employer Retaliation: Covering a Wide Range of Speech

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. terminology

    I believe it’s spelled “newspeak.”

    1. Yep: Newspeak.

      War is Peace
      Freedom is Slavery
      Ignorance is Strength
      Black Lives Matter

      1. “Black Lives Matter”

        Not to right-wing bigots and authoritarian clingers. Who seem to be attracted to this blog.

        1. Oh Arty,

          Black lives actually do matter to many of us. We like police protection because it protects black lives, because it protects black-owned businesses.

          But for the BLM movement, Black lives only “matter” as a resource to be sacrificed on the political altar. Far more black lives have been lost to the BLM movement and its riots than have been lost to any sort of illegal police violence in the last 50 years.

          That’s the tragedy. But why you continue to support BLM while it destroys Black Lives….I could not say.

          1. “Far more black lives have been lost to the BLM movement and its riots than have been lost to any sort of illegal police violence in the last 50 years.”

            You’re going to have to cough up some references.

            1. Apedad

              Far more black lives have been lost to other blacks than due to the actions of police officers.

              Far more black lives have been saved by police action than have been lost by police action.

              Apedad – if you were honest and objective, you would already know that.

              1. Your first ‘far more’ does not invalidate the problem BLM is addressing

                Your second is worse – what kind of person or organization would argue ‘we save people sometimes, so you should probably tolerate if we kill innocents a bit.’

                1. The problem BLM was addressing originally was a minor fraction of black deaths, and actually a bigger problem for whites if you normalized on crime rates. But still a genuine problem that deserved to be addressed.

                  The “problem” BLM is concerned with NOW is that inner city gangs want the cops off their turf. That’s what happens when you think you can form a useful alliance with inner city gangs.

                  1. Arguing ‘this is no big deal when you look statistically’ doesn’t really invalidate a cause.

                    1. Actually, at a certain point it does because the “cause” becomes so rare it’s not worth the cost of fixing. Not saying that’s the case for policing in general, there is much that can be fixed to make interactions safer, but it does do so for the “racist police murdering black people for no good reason” cause within that, not to mention the parasitic “destroy the White Supremacist institutions” that is BLM the organization.

                2. BLM long ago stopped being concerned with police mistreatment of blacks – But you already knew that –
                  Try to be a little more honest and objective with all the facts

                  1. And where exactly to you obtain your “facts” about BLM intentions and goals?

                    Do they have a website or have they posted some sort of manifesto somewhere?

                    1. Apedad – Dont tell me that you are that ignorant of the history of the BLM movement

                3. what kind of person or organization would argue ‘we save people sometimes, so you should probably tolerate if we kill innocents a bit.’

                  Er, a rational one ? So long as the person or organisation isn’t killing innocents deliberately, and is rationally calculating the risks of saving innocent people v. killing innocent people, I should have thought the fellow complaining would be the peculiar one.

                  Isn’t that the sort of calculation we expect police to do while going about their law enforcement duties ?

                  We see the results of police retreat in the face of BLM inspired riots in the increased rate of violence, inc murder in the cities.

                  The idea that policing can be attempted without risk of killing innocents is foolishness or knavery. Or foolish knavery.

                  1. BLM, and much of the country now, think the issue is that they *are* killing innocent blacks deliberately.

                    It’s not a risk analysis-based movement.

                    1. No, it’s one based on a deliberately mis-framed lie. Thanks for bringing that into focus.

                    2. Tell me truly, do you think the police officer who killed Mr Floyd intended to kill him ?

                    3. Does a cop shooting at a fleeing suspect intend to kill the suspect?
                      Cop doesn’t much care. But it’s still considered an intentional act.

                      Same here. Recklessness is the same as intent under the law.

                      A police force that targets blacks and black neighborhoods for extra enforcement, and also has higher use-of-force statistics for said enforcement, and doesn’t care about the higher death rate is intentionally killing blacks.

                    4. I’m not sure we were talking about the law, but since you raise it – no, intent and recklessness are not the same thing, although for some, but not all, offenses, reckless conduct may be treated in the same way as intentional conduct. Moreover when recklessness is treated in the same way as actual intent, it needs to be pretty damn reckless. Your heavy handed policing schtick doesn’t even hit the barn, never mind the barn door.

                      Moving away from the law and back to the “deliberate” killing of innocent blacks, if much of the country thinks that policing policies such as you describe constitute “deliberate” killing of innocent blacks, them much of the country will have to invent for itself a new word to convey the concept formerly known as “deliberate.”

                      Seriously, if you’re going to use up “killing innocent blacks deliberately” on police targetting criminals where most of the crime is, and occasionally killing innocents – when an actual wolf shows up, you’re toast.

                    5. I’m comfortable with calling the officer that killed Floyd pretty damn reckless.
                      These killings of blacks by officers caught on tape look like executions. Not premeditated, but intended.
                      The question when these come to trial rarely turns on whether the killing was intended, but rather whether self-defense provided justification.

                    6. “Tell me truly, do you think the police officer who killed Mr Floyd intended to kill him ?”

                      I can’t look into the officer’s head, but didn’t he keep kneeling for a couple of minutes after they couldn’t find a pulse?

                      I have heard a lot of cops saying he should be convicted. To date, I don’t think I have heard a single cop who disagrees with that.

                    7. Sarcastro : The question when these come to trial rarely turns on whether the killing was intended, but rather whether self-defense provided justification.

                      Because usually such cases involve the police officer shooting the suspect, not kneeling on his neck.

                      Absaroka : but didn’t he keep kneeling for a couple of minutes after they couldn’t find a pulse?

                      I have read that, but obviously an officer not finding a pulse and the suspect not having a pulse are not the same thing.

                      I have heard a lot of cops saying he should be convicted. To date, I don’t think I have heard a single cop who disagrees with that.

                      I fully expect him to be convicted of something, but an intentional second degree murder will be a stretch. Third degree – which is what he was originally charged with, and which does not require intent – is a much more likely runner.

                      Mr Chauvin is not likely to get a sympathetic jury, but objectively, proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt seems to me pretty much hopeless. Leaving aside all of the defense’s likely arguments about this being an approved police restraint technique, the danger of excited delirium, Mr Floyd being a powerful man etc, there’s the problem that intentionally committing a murder in front of a crowd of witnesses is an unusual MO.

            2. There are 400 more shootings this year in Chicago, compared to last year at this point. An increase of more than 40%. And at least 80 more homicides. Mostly among African Americans.

              What changed? Ah yes, BLM protests that suppressed the police.

              That’s just one city.

          2. “Oh Arty,”

            I am Arthur. Artie was banned by the Volokh Conspiracy for making fun of conservatives.

        2. Black Lives Matter”

          Not to black on black murder – which vastly outnumbers rightwing murder of blacks –

          But you already knew that

          1. Yeah, that’s not their particular cause.
            Similarly, the march of dimes doesn’t cure AIDS in Africa.

            So what?

            1. IF BLM cared about black lives they would address the abuse of blacks by other blacks. The corresponding benefit of changing their behavior would be far less need for policing in Black neighborhoods to address black on black crime, thereby reducing the probability of getting killed by the police.

              But you would already know that if you were being honest with yourself.

              1. BLM is a title – a slogan. Like Don’t Tread on Me. The Founders weren’t actually worried about getting stepped on. Similarly, BLM has always been quite clear that it was dealing with issues of policing of blacks.

                1. War is peace, Slavery is Freedom, and Black Lives Matter.

                  All the same.

        3. You are such a fag. All you do is cry on this site all day and present the absolute worst takes. If I were you, I’d ask Soros Law for my money back.

          1. Open wider, Obi. Your betters will resume shoving progress down your whining, bigoted throat in earnest soon.

            And you will comply with the preferences of your betters, as you have done throughout your life.

            Carry on, clinger. But solely so far and so long as better Americans permit.

  2. I keep going back to what has been the reality for college students for the past 20 years: if you’re present — within a *mile* — when things get ugly, you are guilty. No excuses — you shouldn’t have been there.

    The time to object to this was then — it’s highly hypocritical to object now. During the Red Sox World Series Riots of 2004, we had reporters for the student newspaper — known to the cops as such — being shot in the head with pepperballs. And that was just kids being loud, drunk, & obnoxious — not being a clear & present danger to the cops.

    Kent state was one thing — but I think it is time for the use of live ammo. A few *dead* Antifa terrorists will put an end to this — don’t the police have a right to self defense?

    1. I mean, like, we’ve already had dead cops….

      1. Is there is summary/list of the policemen killed in the various protests?

    2. I think it is time for the use of live ammo.

      Of course you do.
      You’ve been slavery for the blood of liberals since you started posting in March.

      1. Antifa/BLM definitely aren’t liberals, and I doubt it is fair to even call them Liberals. And what would you say about adults who kept sticking hands & legs into the lion’s cage?

        1. Antifa != BLM.

          And violence does not immediately mean it was Antifa.

          Telling analogy. Humans are not lions; we have free will and morality. When humans kill someone, there’s a choice involved.

          1. We have a new player, Black Armed militia, so far 3 people have been injured by an accidental discharge.

      2. I’ve been fairly anti-police. I’m getting close to the point of saying the police should start resorting to lethal force against the rioters.

        Enough with the riots already.

        1. Yep. I’m extremely skeptical of the police. And, I’m getting to the point where I think they should be using live rounds. So, chew on that for a moment, rioters.

          I want to be on your side, but you’re being such assholes that I’m hem-hawing about the state shooting you dead.

          1. Assholitude does not carry the death penalty.

            1. Until someone decides it does

            2. Prolonged, intensified assholitude — of the sort that blinds federal marshals, burns federal courthouses, and so forth — might well justify the use of lethal force. What’s the legal standard for defense of self and others when besieged by a mob that’s trying to burn a building down around you and throwing explosives at you?

            3. Violent riots that have resulted in injuries and death to both bystanders and police is much more than just assholitude.

          2. This is a bad idea.

            Either you shoot rioters, in which case the protests against the federal presence will continue because after all they aren’t rioters, and you will look both crazy and weak.

            Or you shoot protesters in which case I’m pretty sure given the moms and vets and videos, you will have screwed up badly.

            1. Since when does being a mom or vet inherently incur divinity?

              One can be either (or both) and still be a criminal. Many are — and shooting them in self-defense is justified.

              1. Jesus, you’re twisted.

    3. If the cops must sacrifice a few for the many, they should pick out the old, to minimize collateral damage.

      1. Or the female ones, since they are just there for affirmative action.

        Slippery slope?

        1. No, women or children, just old men, in there 70s or 80s who don’t have long to live anyway.

          1. FBI has mandatory retirement age of 57. Other Fed & State LEOs range from 50-60 — often it is full pension after 20 years so you can retire in your early 40’s and some do.

            1. I’m talking about which protesters they might shoot with “live ammo”

    4. There’s nothing like the eagerness of someone to have the paramilitary forces shoot to kill people protesting issues he favors. No threat required, just the satisfaction of a good kill from “live ammo.”

        1. Was she the “Mother of the Year” candidate who placed her children in a firefight with authorities because of white supremacy and silly delusions?

          1. Firefight means both sides were shooting — on;y the FBI’s sniper was.

            1. Do you contend an FBI sniper killed William Degan; that William Degan’s reported death was part of a hoax perpetrated by the Zionist Organized Government; that the day-before shooting by fugitives was no longer part of a “firefight;” or that the term “armed siege,” rather than “firefight,” would better describe the situation into which a shitty mother like Vicki Weaver was willing to place her children.

              1. No more of a shitty mother than those in Portland, so let the FBI shoot them too.

                And please town down the antisemitism, the FBI admitted that they screwed up on Ruby Ridge. They admitted it…

                1. What antisemitism? I was quoting the Weavers and their Aryan Nation pals — with respect to part of the conduct that properly attracted law enforcement attention.

              2. Degan died at the start of the encounter, before the Weaver family knew they were under siege. He died because when you shoot towards somebody, they tend to shoot back.

                In fact, the feds have since changed their rules, to avoid that sort of, “Honest, we were just shooting the dog. Next to him. No idea why he thought we were shooting at HIM!” scenario from continuing to happen.

                1. Vicki Weaver was killed long after a decent mother would have removed her children from that situation.

                  Before — and after Degan was killed -the authorities had every right to walk to the Weavers’ door to serve a warrant and disarm or detain everyone at that property.

    5. “I think it is time for the use of live ammo”

      How is that civility project progressing, Prof. Volokh? Still trying to claim the censorship at this blog is not viewpoint-based?

  3. This is pretty normal language, as I’ve seen it used.
    A peaceful confrontation intensifying means it’s getting violent – the intensifying modifies the confrontation (or demonstration), not the peaceful.

    Regardless, this post about language is really going to make for a lovely comment thread about how these protests are all Marxist riots and should be suppressed with maximum force.

    Really rationalizes well with how conservatives have been driving their cars into protesters and sometimes shooting them these days.

    1. Normal lying language, anyway. (Since the protest wasn’t peaceful before it ‘intensified ‘) “Intensifying ” normally means that something is becoming more of what it already was. When heat intensifies it becomes hotter, cold, colder.

      A genuinely peaceful protest becoming more intense doesn’t imply becoming more violent, except to people who have already come to think of “peaceful ” protest as involving violence. Whose language has already begun to incorporate elements of Newspeak.

      1. Right, dude, we know you’re a prescriptivist. You’ve been clear on that for literally years.

        I am surprised about EV’s take, though. If I can grok immediately what it means, is it really new?

      2. So if someone says ‘the peaceful confrontation intensified’ meaning it became violent, they’re trying to lie to you?! Seems pretty normal parlance to me.
        ==============
        If you think that the difference between a nonviolent protest and a violent one is a wide gulf, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
        Protest is about passion and discontent. Its natural state is to be angry and violent. It takes discipline to protest nonviolently – that was the genius of Gandhi that MLK imparted to America.
        But even those were not some different beast from violent protests.
        I lament the lack of discipline we’re seeing – I don’t think it’s helpful. But don’t pretend it’s somehow unnatural or proof of secret malign intent for a nonviolent protest to intensify meet force with force when confronted with uniformed troops gassing and beating them.

        1. Like I said: Newspeak. “Peaceful” protests are violent, because “peaceful” doesn’t denote anything opposite to violent to you. It’s just empty but approving noise indicating that the violence isn’t to be acknowledged.

        2. The text is “a peaceful demonstration intensified” . Why did you invent “confrontation”?

          1. I think it presents a more common example of the construction.

          2. Because even SarcastrO can’t really defend the newspeak, without turning into too much of a fool.

            Let’s examine it in other contexts…

            “The Romantic Encounter Intensified” (No, it didn’t intensify, it turned violent, as he forced himself on her). Hmm… I see a problem.

            “The Friendly Basketball Game Intensified” (As one of the players pulled a gun on the other one.) Hmm… More of a problem

            “The Book Club Discussion Intensified” (As Mary went nuts and pulled a knife on Julie)… Yeah, “intensified” doesn’t really describe what’s actually going on. In fact, it acts as a bit of a lie.

            1. So let me get this clear.

              Whether or not this is a regularly used construction, you argue it is inherently deceitful.

              Intensified doesn’t mean ‘became violent’ but it can mean that.

              1. “Whether or not this is a regularly used construction, you argue it is inherently deceitful.”

                People regularly lie. Are you going to claim not to understand that?

              2. Intensified doesn’t mean ‘became violent’ but it can mean that

                Sure, it can mean that, but only if it refers to something that is not the opposite of violent.

                “Intensified” can mean “became loud” but you can’t say “the silence intensified” to mean the silence became loud noise.

                1. Protests – even peaceful ones – are not the opposite of violent.

                  1. Do you even know what the definition of peaceful is?

                    Protests may not be peaceful, fine, but that doesn’t mean you get to call protests peaceful when the protesters are looting buildings, setting fires, assaulting and murdering people. Do words even have meanings on your planet?

                  2. Peaceful IS the opposite of violent.

                    Moment violence starts, peacefulness ends. Literally that very moment.

                    1. Which is why I hold that the modified word is ‘protest’ not ‘peaceful.’

                      I don’t find this hard to read. Y’all are stretching to make it unparseable.

                      It means what it says just fine, especially when read in context.

        3. “So if someone says ‘the peaceful confrontation intensified’ meaning it became violent, they’re trying to lie to you?! ”

          Well, yeah. If they were honest, they’d just say, “The peaceful confrontation turned violent.” Duh.

          1. Assuming that the initial lie wasn’t that the original protest was peaceful.

            1. Yes, just turn peaceful into violent in your brain and declare all else a media lie. That’s a healthy way to interface with reality.

              1. Well, you seem to think a riot with people committing arson can be “peaceful”. That’s a pretty weird way for YOU to be interfacing with reality.

                1. I don’t think riots are peaceful.

                  But yes, arson can be peaceful.
                  For instance: A flag burning of a stolen flag. It’s not cool; it’s a crime, but it is not violent.

    2. Identify one “conservative” who has driven a car into protestors or shot a protestor. These domestic terrorists are literally blinding federal officers and you spout off this crap. unreal.

      1. You can’t identity people who drive their cars though protestors and are not stopped and apprehended.

        1. @Pacific When have cars been driven (one presumes you mean violently or carelessly and not just driving slowly to get away from a mob and maybe get to somewhere they need to be?) through protesters and NOT ultimately found and apprehended?

          1. I don’t know. What has happened in these cases?

        2. “You can’t identity people who drive their cars though protestors and are not stopped and apprehended.”

          Can you say “helicopter”?!?
          Perhaps FLIR?

      2. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/21/880963592/vehicle-attacks-rise-as-extremists-target-protesters

        Right-wing extremists are turning cars into weapons, with reports of at least 50 vehicle-ramming incidents since protests against police violence erupted nationwide in late May.

        At least 18 are categorized as deliberate attacks; another two dozen are unclear as to motivation or are still under investigation, according to a count released Friday by Ari Weil, a terrorism researcher at the University of Chicago’s Chicago Project on Security and Threats. Weil has tracked vehicle-ramming attacks, or VRAs, since protests began.

        The 20 people facing prosecution in the rammings include a state leader of the Virginia Ku Klux Klan, as well as a California man who was charged with attempted murder after antagonizing protesters and then driving into them, striking a teenage girl. Video footage of some attacks shows drivers yelling at or threatening Black Lives Matter protesters before hitting the gas.

        1. And who wouldn’t trust NPR’s reporting on this, since their original cover photo for this article included an innocent driver who was attacked and had a gun pointed at him by peaceful protesters.

          50 right wing attacks went down to 18 pretty quickly in that article.

          1. Look up the names. They bring receipts.

            1. I was curious about this. Vehicle attacks can cause large numbers of fatalities – 86 in Nice and 10 in Toronto, for recent examples. If there are widespread intentional attacks on crowds of protesters the number of fatalities seems pretty low,

              AFAICT, the NPR article doesn’t actually list the 18 things they consider to be attacks. If you click through various links, you can find a Buzzfeed article that does list 18 incidents.

              I didn’t research all of them. Some have resulted in charges being filed (e.g. google ‘Bianca Orozco San Jose’). There is a little video of that. I’ll let the courts decide whether she was fleeing in fear or lost her temper, but that pretty clearly wasn’t someone trying to run down as many protesters as possible.

              For another one, consider the ones Buzzfeed lists as #16 and 17 in Columbia, MO. From the newspaper article “At times, individuals moved into the intersection and surrounded cars. KBIA reporters noted that bricks and rocks were thrown into the street in an effort to disrupt the flow of traffic.” In the short video, you see a stopped car honking, then driving away. I don’t really see a crazed driver trying to kill as many protesters as possible. What I see looks more like ‘protesters surround car that is trying to get away’.

              Even in the Provo incident where protesters open fire on the stationary car of someone who was just out running errands, the driver – even though wounded – looks to me like he was doing his best to avoid running over people, e.g. he braked to let people jump out of the way (n.b. this wasn’t one of the 18).

              The NPR article seems like pretty thin evidence that there is an epidemic of deliberate attacks on protesters.

        2. The concern truckers have is if a perp disconnects either air hose to the trailer, all 8 wheels will lock up and he’s stuck there, helpless.

        3. Their driving intensified.

        4. 18 deliberate right wing attacks none resulting in death – out of 1,000 + incidents over 60+ days of rioting including, murder, arson destruction of property

          Sacastro – you have lost any sense of objectivity

          1. Yes, lets think of all the times people didn’t drive into protesters.

            You realize you’re rationalizing assaults with deadly weapons against protesters.

            1. Sacastro – Are you really unable to grasp the difference between peaceful protesters and rioters.

              Honesty in your defense of the rioters is not your forte

              1. The stories I linked were about targeting protesters.

                1. The stories you linked to were not peaceful protesters

                  1. Video footage of some attacks shows drivers yelling at or threatening Black Lives Matter protesters before hitting the gas.

                    Most of the recent rammings have been captured on video. The footage follows a grim pattern: Protesters are shown walking peacefully when, suddenly, a car or truck appears in the frame and hurtles toward the crowd. People run, crouch and scream, “Oh my God!” Then the driver either manages to speed off or is surrounded and set upon by the outraged protesters.

                    Read more.

            2. Sarcastr0 — they have snow in Oregon and they have heavy plows capable of removing it. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eCTdY1dwig

              When someone uses one of these to clear the trespassers off I-5, with *hundreds* of them being killed or badly maimed, then you might have a point about deadly weapons. But not now.

              These trucks can plow wet slush at 35-45 MPH, a few thousand protesters wouldn’t even slow the truck down. It’d wing them all into the woods as their combined weight is far less than 6″ of wet slush.

              I don’t think these schmucks quite realize *just* how vulnerable they are out on the interstate highway, nor how much they are relying on the very rule of law that they seek to destroy.

              And I am *not* rationalizing assaults with deadly weapons against the trespassers — instead, I am merely pointing out the consequences of a society where people don’t respect the rule of law (which they seem to seek). When “might makes right”, the person with the 30 ton truck will be right…

            3. Protesters being in roads where they should not be and hitting vehicles they should not be hitting?

              If you start a fight with a guy who has a gun and the guy shoots you…that’s ALL on you.

              1. That’s not what is being described in the article.

                1. That is because the article is a lie.

                  1. You keep telling yourself that.

    3. One silver lining if the day ever comes when ANTIFA starts sending people off to the death camps is I get to find out what positive spin or defense Sarky is going to come up with for it in the comments.

      1. Rest assured I will not defend your being put into a death camp.

        Will you do the same for me, should the situation be reversed?

        1. The commies always put their enemies into death camps – typically death by hard labor – and then five seconds later, put their weak sister leftie allies in too. So you’ll be in the same Antifa camp as the rest of us.

          As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, the lefties who finished up in the camps kept on blaming themselves – they must somehow have departed from the Party line without realising it.

          But I don’t think Sarcastro will be doing that. He’ll still be offering gnomic asides, basted in ambiguity, that could mean almost anything.

          1. I agree with you.

            Where we differ is whether I see commies everywhere you do, and whether I see Antifa as leading to camps for either you or I.

            I’ve been called many things, but gnomic is a new one.

          2. Lee Moore — the better analogy is the “Night of the Long Knives.”

            These Antifa/BLM thugs are very similar to the German SA “Brownshirts” and people tend to forget what happened to them once they’d served their purpose…

            And no, I’m not advocating bloodshed, instead I’m citing historical fact as to what happened in Germany in the Summer of 1934.

            1. It’s the Black Lives Matter thugs vs. the Dr. Ed-Volokh Conspiracy Fan bigots — quite a contest.

    4. “This is pretty normal language, as I’ve seen it used.”

      Lol. Yeah, they talk that way in your bubble all the time, don’t they?

      1. …Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Writing or speaking.

        Do a Google Search, custom rage to before the Floyd protests. You’ll see it is quite common.
        https://www.google.com/search?q=peaceful+protest+intensified&sxsrf=ALeKk01a62Ow-GWsyKH1V26OA4xGfyNGkw%3A1595818486502&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F31%2F2020&tbm=

        1. Newspeak is filtering into all sorts of dishonest media. Thus, it is no longer wrong.

          War is peace.

        2. Nobody is denying that Newspeak has become common, Sarcastro. That doesn’t mean it isn’t Newspeak.

        3. It’s common for people in bubbles to invent euphemisms to disguise the smell of their more unpleasant attributes. But people outside the bubble do notice.

          What would a normal person think of someone who insisted on “peculiar institution” ? Using euphemism conveys information. About the speaker.

        4. So this has been in use for some time, but it is nevertheless Orwellian newspeak.

          How might one spot newspeak, versus just ordinary constructions that have been in use for a long time?

          1. Orwell literally wrote 1984 in 1948, (72 years ago!) and Newspeak was the term he gave something he was seeing THEN.

            So, yes, a term can have been in use for some time, longer than most people have been alive, and still be “Newspeak”.

          2. Slavery was rather widely called a peculiar institution. Just sayin’.

            For a group that can find “dogwhistles” in virtually everything, the Left seems unable to notice their Newspeak problem…

            1. So…you know it when you see it, then?

        5. Well, this is a flat out lie — if you actually set the filter date to May 25th, the date of Floyd’s death, there are zero occurrences of this construction. This first appears on May 29th, 2020. Prior to this, in discussion about the Hong Kong protests of 2019, the words “protest,” “peaceful,” and “intensify” do appear in articles, but never together.

          This is unarguably a new construction, your ineptitude with Google notwithstanding.

          1. Then put it in quotes. I got plenty. South Africa, Australia, Ireland (sort of)
            Use ‘intensify’ and you get Nigeria.

            It’s not a new construction.

            1. Then put it in quotes. I got plenty.

              Silly rabbit. You do realize when you put search terms in quotes you get less results, right?

              “Plenty” in your lexicon apparently means 4 hits anywhere in the world, anytime prior to 5/25/2000, right here.

              And two of those four being clear artifacts, since the search results reference an ABC article from yesterday.

              Is this really the hill you want to die on?

              1. The post I was replying to was complaining that the results were not for the specific phrase. Similarly, If you want more, you can just search for ‘peaceful intensified’, but then you get vastly more false positives.

                Yeah, the exact phrase doesn’t come up that often. But the construction ‘peaceful XXX intensifies’ meaning in context turned violent is neither rare nor abnormal.

    5. “Protesters in California set fire to a courthouse, damaged a police station and assaulted officers after a peaceful demonstration intensified.”

      The entire statement has to be taken as a whole, not the selection of one words to negate the point of the post.

      Protesters in California set fire to a courthouse, damaged a police station and assaulted officers after a peaceful demonstration turned violent.

      In that reading, “intensified,” is not proper, grammatically, as the peace did not intensify, instead, violence erupted.

      ABC worked hard not to tell the truth here. Very hard.

      1. The *protest* intensified.

        1. The romantic encounter “intensified”….

          What does that mean Sarcastro?

          1. That would depend on context, as with most things.

            1. And avoid the question..

    6. Do you get tired of defending dishonesty?

      Also, if the violence done by the so-called protesters in places like Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis doesn’t matter, why should the violence done to them in places like Austin matter?

      They want others to obey basic human civil society rules for their benefit. Or you want that for them. But they don’t obey such rules themselves.

      Someone might want to tell them “put your sword back into its place; for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” But they probably won’t believe it until after it’s too late for some.

      If people like you weren’t always defending them, they might stay home the night the tragedy happens — tomorrow or next week or whenever it does.

      1. You know, there probably are Jack Rubys out there who’d love to become famous. A tragedy could well happen, and it wouldn’t have to involve a gun.

        1. I don’t think we need examples from 50+ years ago. People in some of these cities might just decide that the authorities aren’t going to do anything. So they need to fight back themselves. And they can do it because the authorities aren’t going to do anything.

          Someday it’s going to be someone less like Jack Ruby and more like John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. And if they are smart and careful they might never get caught.

          1. I’m still thinking someone with Stage 4 Cancer and a snowplow. They are all automatic transmissions now, you don’t even need to know how to shift.

            1. That wouldn’t re-establish peace or deter the rioters’ behavior. It would just be a single tragic incident, not an ongoing threat that rioting has consequences.

            2. Yeah, you spend four paragraphs describing that carnage of liberal bodies elsewhere.

              Get help.

              1. Prof. Volokh uses the banhammer when commenters make fun of conservatives, but is silent when his right-wing fans evoke lethal violence toward liberals.

                It has been vividly demonstrated that this blog’s censorship is viewpont-controlled along partisan lines.

                How’s that “civility project” going, Conspirators?

      2. Do you get tired of defending dishonesty?

        Sarcastr0’s commitment to honest debate intensified long ago.

      3. The violent people should be arrested and charged. As many have been throughout these events.

        I do not believe nonviolent protesters should be so treated.

        1. Arrested by the local police under orders not to arrest them, and charged by the local DA who has a policy of releasing them without charges?

          1. That’s not true. You’re making up secret plots again.

        2. How about the “moms” in Portland whose job is only to be PR and a shield for rioters.

          At what point does one become an accomplice?

          1. Or maybe that’s not what their job is, because they’re part of the protests not the riots and you should not conflate the two.

    7. No, that’s not normal language. Nouns don’t “intensify”. The adjectives describing them, however, can “intensify”. A blue sky intensifying is a sky turning more blue, not turning more sky-like. And certainly not turning red.

      Natural language would read “a peaceful confrontation intensifying” as getting more peaceful. Perhaps Ghandi showed up. Or protest leaders led everyone in a song about tolerance and patience. No reasonable interpretation of those words would support an inference that the protest had turned violent. To be blunt, once it’s turned violent, it can’t be called peaceful anymore.

      1. Emotions are nouns. Love, anger, ennui. All can intensify.

        I didn’t read it as strange; others have used it in the past.

        No one was fooled into thinking there was no violence.

        Y’all are really reaching.

        1. That you KEEP referring to these as peaceful shows that some people were fooled into thinking that.

          1. Do you think the demonstration was never peaceful?

            1. “The peaceful bank robbery intensified . . .”

              1. In your analogy, protesting is inherently criminal. Maybe consider why you had to go there.

                Can a peaceful protest can never become violent without retroactively making the original protest not peaceful?

                I certainly don’t buy that.

                1. Your efforts at obfuscation with “retroactively” and absolutism with “never” don’t actually cover up the fact that anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ knew in advance that no vandalism or arson was going to result from the “anti-lockdown” protests earlier this year, but that they were going to accompany “BLM” “protests”.

                  But even if you really were so stupid that you couldn’t predict what would happen from the last 20 years of behavior at protests (and “protests”) in the US, it’s now weeks too late to pretend that you can go to a “BLM” “protest” without knowing you’re volunteering to abet a riot.

                  So, if someone in first few days was a participant in a “protest” that, astonishingly, somehow “turned violent”, then, fine, I’ll stretch “reasonable doubt” to cover them. They should have known better, but some people are just morons.

                  But now? Yeah, you, Sarcastr0, are the guy arguing, “Hey, driving a guy to make a bank withdrawal is legal, and is it the driver’s fault if his buddy drew a gun while he was in there? Sometimes people get upset at bankers!”

                  1. “it’s now weeks too late to pretend that you can go to a “BLM” “protest” without knowing you’re volunteering to abet a riot.”

                    I don’t think that’s true. There are a lot of BLM protests in smaller towns, etc, that are peaceful. IIUC, even Portland is pretty peaceful during the day and early evening.

                    OTOH, I’d agree that if you are ‘peacefully protesting’ by standing on the front line while the lasers, canned goods, and fireworks are sailing overhead, you ought to think about what you are complicit with.

  4. It’s their right to protest to peaces all credibility for their cause, Federal property, and local businesses and residences. Someone has ordered a very lame redux of the sixties civil rights movement, and it isn’t working.

    1. The someone is the Administration.

      The protests, both violent and non, were dying down just about everywhere – even Portland and Seattle – until the Feds came and provided a new villain to unify around.

      1. “The Devil made me do it.”

        Pathetic.

        1. Yeah, if you can’t argue the point made, it makes sense to erect a strawman to pummel.

          “The Devil made me do it.”

          1. Yeah, if you can’t come up with an actual reason that my analogy was wrong, it makes sense just to generically mock it and run away.

      2. Or, just maybe, the federal courthouse was attacked in order to elicit the response that the local PD refused to provide.

        1. Yes, that was the secret 3-D chess they were playing all along.
          Probably come up with by Soros.

          1. Why don’t you, then, tell us the genius thinking behind attacking Federal property which would compel federal forces to protect it. They thought they could get away with it?? Or, they thought it would create a greater confrontation/ conflagration to spread?

            Did these rocket scientist picketers and rock throwers fund, arm, and train themselves without big donors and pros helping? Did they strategize how to whip up a nation burning and create election season poison optics all by themselves?

            1. I think perhaps people aren’t thinking.

              1. It’s really a bad idea to think people aren’t thinking, when they do anything that takes more than a moment or so. It’s just another way of denying people agency in order to deny their guilt.

                1. Brett, people are positing a coordinated secret leftist agenda behind these protests to get the feds to crack down.

                  I don’t think that’s what going on; I think this is an expression of frustration. You say that’s also bad.

                  So which are these mask protests – an expression of frustration, or a coordinated and planned plot?

                  1. “Brett, people are positing a coordinated secret leftist agenda behind these protests to get the feds to crack down.”

                    That IS kind of a standard operational doctrine on the left: “Worse is better”? A standard goal of terrorism is to provoke a reaction which can be portrayed, ideally by cooperative media, as worse than the terrorism itself.

                    Part of that portrayal is refusing to identify the violence that was being responded to.

                    1. No, it IS the standard operating procedure of your fertile imagination.

          2. The people behind this are smart.

      3. Oh, bullshit. They weren’t dying down at all. That’s just your attempt to retroactively blame the violence on the federal response to it.

        1. You don’t think the violence has increased nationwide since the Feds moved in?!

          1. Does it ever occur to you that telling already-emotional people those types of bogeyman stories leads to exactly the sort of rioting and the inevitable tragic consequences you now claim to be concerned about?

          2. Every city and state is different. Riot-based violence has gone down since the riots started, generally, but this is not true for all cities (except the obvious point that many targets in soft areas are already destroyed, so they can’t be re-destroyed). In many cities, non-riot violence has increased significantly since the riots died down.

            When you look at the more reliable local newsreporting (remember, national media reported the Jussie Smollet story as totally true, even as the local cops and media investigated the obviously false claims) there was an uptick in targeted property damage in Portland before the feds began their operation.

          3. The fact that behavior X increased after event A says nothing about whether behavior X was or was not decreasing before event A.

            1. It doesn’t say *nothing* it’s a required condition.

              But since the protests in Portland, Seattle, Austin, etc. are explicitly saying they’re about getting the Feds out of Portland, I think the case for causality is very strong.

              1. So what the protesters “explicitly say” is presumed to be true? It’s unlikely that they would have an incentive to blame their actions on the federal presence in order to supply a veneer of righteous grievance, allowing them to continue the rioting with support from the media as a bonus? From what they “explicitly say” we know that if the feds left they would not burn down the courthouse and would cease the nightly rioting?

                1. If you’re going to argue that the increase in protests right after the Federal presence began is not caused by the federal presence, then what is your causal theory?

            2. Or in the alternative, post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

      4. What did the great Tony Blankley say about journalists, “I know they’re bastards but why do they have to be such stupid bastards”
        Are you a journalist Sarcastr0?

        1. Long way to go to call me a bastard.

      5. Show me the footage where Trump dared them to start tearing up the Portland courthouse

      6. And the violent protesters are playing right into DJT’s hands

        1. Voters see violet communists rampaging and the local Democrat mayors letting them do it. They see danger and they see Democrats don’t care about it.

          Democrats only want to complain about two guys arrested and released after 90 minutes in Portland.

        2. I’m very much against the violent protesters. They do their cause great injustice.

          But so far they don’t seem to be playing into Trump’s hands, in that the polling has not moved despite Trump’s efforts both in word and deed.

          1. Who is going to tell a pollster the truth when teachers get fired for saying “Trump is our President”?

            https://www.the-sun.com/news/1176818/michigan-teacher-fired-trump-president/

            1. Unskew those polls, Brett.

              Everyone secretly supports the shooting of protesters but are afraid to say it.

              1. Doubting poll numbers is not pretending they say some other specific thing.

      7. “The protests, both violent and non, were dying down just about everywhere – even Portland and Seattle – until the Feds came and provided a new villain to unify around.”

        Is that what they’re telling you on CNN and the NYT? The same guys that said that all black people have a common culture? Hopefully nobody will be tempted to take outlets like these seriously ever again.

        1. Ad hominem won’t get you where you want to go.

          1. You don’t know what “Ad hominem” means? Not surprising.

            1. You argue a thing is not true because of the sources that report it.

              1. When a source has been incredibly wrong on virtually everything they’ve reported for years…they kinda need to back up their claims.

                1. Then where do you get your facts, if not from the benighted media?

      8. The admin ought to have used live ammo. Reagan did…

        1. You already said that above. Still getting off on Kent State II, eh?

          1. Please find a talking-point that isn’t a half century old. Thanks.

          2. 1969 was before 1970…

      9. Violent images on TV will help Trump’s re-election.

        Sarcastro will soon be telling us that all those hooligans and thugs are Trump supporters.

        1. I will not. I already say it’s a bad idea.

          Most I’ll do is end up agreeing with Don Nico’s July.26.2020 at 10:30 pm post.

      10. Given that Portland was rioting for about 52 days straight without any involvement by Trump…can you back up the claim with anything but hope and dreams?

  5. I do not support the federal troops intervening in States where they’ve not been requested, except to protect federal property, law, official business and to carry our federal court orders, all of which, are not only their right but duty. And you know it.

    It’s clearly intentional the “protesters” are trying to harm federal property, so they, in effect, have invited in the Feds. It’s all a blame game to create destabilization, or at least the optics of chaos, and point the finger at the other side. You can’t seriously believe the protesters want not to be interfered with and that any Prez could allow federal property to be vandalized or burned down?

    1. [Above comment to Sarcastro.]

    2. I concur with your first sentence. I do not believe this federal response is anywhere near proportionate to the cause of protecting federal property, especially given that they are here against the wishes of state and local government.

      A footprint this big isn’t about protecting property, not about being constructively invited.

      1. Not a subscriber to the Powell doctrine?

        Racist!!

    3. It’s just the US Marshals. They’re not really “troops”.

  6. Let’s be clear about what is going on here.

    There is a pattern of a illegal “protests” inevitably turning violent, as the terrorists use the crowd as a way to feed their violent urges to attack honest police officers. Federal officers have been permanently blinded by lasers. Explosives and arson have been used to attack federal courthouses. Federal officers have been maimed with nails and more. Dozens to hundreds of law enforcement personelle have been infected with COVID to due these protests. And remember, they’re all there just trying to do their jobs, protecting federal property from rioters.

    What should happen is, as follows:

    1. These protests should require a permit. This permit should be strictly time limited to daylight hours (for example, 9 AM to 5 PM). Ideally this protest would occur in a neutral space, away from federal facilities, but this is just an ideal. However, once the time on the protest ends, Oregon (or other Local/State police as appropriate) should call on the protestors to disperse. Failure to disperse will be grounds for arrest, on charges of disorderly conduct. This should be made clear to the protestors ahead of time, they should know and expect to be arrested if they do not leave after the permit time. If the State/Local police requests assistance, the federal government should be willing to provide it.

    2. IF the Local/State authorities do not agree to such a situation, while simultaneously limiting/preventing Federal authorities from engaging in law enforcement operations to protect their officers, the following should occur:

    The Federal government should sue the locality and/or state for damages and a court injunction, under the principle of “State-Created Danger liability.” This is a well known liability. For those who need a quick lesson, if a police officer were to handcuff a person, then just “walked away,” then a criminal came in and broke the person’s knees, the state would be liable for the damages. The police officer created the dangerous situation, where the person was unable to defend themselves, and thus the state is liable.

    In a similar way, in the current protests, the Locality/State has directly put federal officers in danger due to their inaction, while simultaneously undertaking actions that preventing Federal Officers from protecting themselves and/or apprehending suspects. This has resulted in damage to federal property, and perminant injury and/or death to law-abiding Federal officers who are just doing their jobs. The Locality/State are directly liable here, due to this comibination of action and inaction, and a court judgement should be made to:

    1. Force the State/Locality to pay for any and all damages, including medical injury and emotional damages for those federal officers who have suffered
    2. Obtain a court injuction to stop this policy by the locality and state.

    1. How abut simply declaring a rebellion and suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus? Round up a couple thousand of them and fly them to GITMO. That’d be the end of this….

    2. Not the legal silver bullet you wish it was.

      state-created danger legal doctrine holds that a law enforcement officer can be held liable for injuries or deaths that occur because of a danger that the officer created

      That’s danger caused by affirmative officer action, not inaction.

      1. Once again, Sarcastro has failed to actually read the post.

        1. On the contrary, I believe me reference to affirmative officer action goes to the heart of your post.

          If that is not the case, please point out how.

          1. The original post referenced affirmative action, and how it was appropriate in the current situation.

            You just didn’t read it. Or ignored it.

  7. abc = gaslight

  8. Does the Constitution protect the right to Intensified Peaceable Assembly? It must be there somewhere, hiding in the penumbrae. Or perhaps it’s a tax.

  9. Let’s see, if a white couple in St. Louis who are probably die hard 2nd amendment supporters point their guns at peaceful unarmed protesters they are patriots standing up for the rights of all white Americans to potentially shoot anyone who is exercising their peaceful right to protest when that protest is for justice and equality.

    And if armed militia occupy and destroy federal property in the name of taking it back for their own use to make a buck, they are just protecting the American dream.

    And if other militia armed with assault rifles enter a government building in Michigan, why they are not a threat to government property that requires calling out the border patrol or even state law enforcement officers who actually have a right and duty to protect state property, they are just Americans exercising their right to threaten violence and death to politicians they do not like.

    But if a protester carrying a legally owned assault rifle approaches a car in Austin that is trying to run over protesters, even if that gun is not aimed at anyone the person in the car has a legal right to shoot him multiple times until he is dead, because he was the worng kind of 2nd amendment rights person.

    Welcome to Trump world, where the principles of conservatism don’t matter if you are violating them for the right cause.

    1. Hey, I like such a world, pity it doesn’t exist.

    2. Ha ha

      The “peaceful protesters” in Saint Louis were trespassing on private property. The couple claimed to have seen an AK type firearm in the far from peaceful trespassing protesters. They had just torn down the gate to the private residences, and the videos show that they were far from peaceful, as they shouted taunts at the couple and threatened them as they walked by, trespassing on private property the entire tie. MO has a generous Castle Doctrine that probably would have allowed the couple to have at least shoot the trespasser with the AK, and likely any other weapons.

      They have no right to “take back” the federal property. It belongs to all 330 million of us. And, your armed rioters committed numerous federal felonies in their zeal to take the property from the public.

      How do you know that the guy with the gun in Austin never pointed his gun anywhere near the guy who shot him? The shooter claims that he did. Moral of the story is to not point a gun anywhere near someone, esp someone stopped by a crowd that you are part of, in Texas.

      Oh, and no one were probably carrying “assault rifles”. Using that misleading terminology shows that you don’t have a clue about firearms.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if the protesters had fully auto weapons — they aren’t obeying any other laws…

      2. And one of their guns was inoperable but the DA made it operable to get the charges.

        And since they made the gun inoperable to use as a prop in a court case, they have paperwork to back up their claim. Courts aren’t too big on bringing functional firearms into court.

  10. Maybe the intensification was in the demonstration, not the peacefulness thereof. So it isn’t that they became intensely peaceful, it’s that they became intensely demonstrative.

    1. I don’t think this works. If you don’t qualify “demonstration” with “peaceful” then sure “intensified” can refer simply to “demonstration” and this could stretch to describing a demonstration that started as non violent becoming violent. But once you have put the qualifier “peaceful” in , “intensified” has to refer to “peaceful demonstration” – and even after intensification you have to be left with a peaceful demonstration of some kind.

      If you paint, your (initially pale) green colors do not become more intense green colors, if you change them to red. They may become more intense colors but not more intense green colors.

      Thus …

      The long feared terror of the bomber became real with the London blitz, though actual casualties were surprisingly light until 1943-45, after bombing intensified.

      …makes perfect sense. Bombing did intensify in 1943-45, and more casualties resulted. But….

      The long feared terror of the bomber became real with the London blitz, though actual casualties were surprisingly light until 1943-45, after German bombing intensified.

      …makes no sense at all. While bombing intensified in 1943-45, that was Allied bombing, not German bombing. German bombing failed to intensify. The intensification of bombing occurred because one sort of bombing – German – was exchanged for a different, much more intense sort of bombing – Allied.

  11. The extent the media is just plain bald face lying to cover up the attacks on federal law enforcement is astounding. One article actually used the following “protesters targeted buildings and officers with harmless fireworks…” I would like to line that reporter up against a wall and shoot “harmless fireworks” at him to see if he keeps that opinion….

    1. Of course you would. No need for arrest, evidence or trial, just “line ‘em up” and shoot. How libertarian!

      1. You really don’t get sarcasm do you Pacific….?

      2. These fireworks have injured several police. But the media reports as if they are harmless.

    2. Jimmy, it’s a violation of the Geneva Convention to shoot a flare gun at someone — and these fireworks are the same thing — burning metal salts. So how is this not a violation?

      1. Fireworks are not flare guns any more than a supersoaker is a firehose Ed.

        1. No, fireworks are more lethal.

        2. I hope you never are put in charge of any firework more powerful than a party popper, if you genuinely believe that. You’d probably end up killing somebody.

        3. Sarcastr0 is working extra hard to earn that “dumb bastard / reporter” sobriquet today.

          Flare guns top out at 37mm caliber. Unlicensed consumers can buy fireworks up to twice that diameter (three inches), so something like eight times the volume.

          Fireworks are not flare guns any more than a firehose is a super soaker.

          1. Your caliber metric is highly dubious.

            1. Michael P — If they are using “commercial grade” fireworks, as is reported, that’s the bigger mortars that you need a license for. I believe this is a Federal license, isn’t it?

              1. Yes, the ATF licenses display fireworks larger than 3″ diameter. I am not sure whether size or something else qualified the “commercial grade fireworks” mentioned by DHS at being used in the Portland riots, so I did not mention them specifically.

                Larger fireworks (like those shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c24eAPmQ3M) have been used often enough that I wonder about the provenance.

    3. Give me body armor or the structural integrity of a building, and I’ll take you up on that offer.

      1. Well Sarcastro we finally agree on something. Where would you like to meet? I’ll pick up some fireworks on the way and we can have fun.

        1. Don’t forget a high-powered laser.

      2. Kelvar won’t protect you from fireworks.

    4. It’s not astounding. The news media lie all day every day. I’d be astounded if I ever saw a fair or even-handed news report on any current event in the US.

      The news media hates you and wishes you harm. That’s all you need to know about them.

      1. It has been that way since at least 1994.

        Well I have to look that up for myself. I’m just going by what I see/read in the news media.

        – Darryl Hamilton

        That’s an interesting approach, kind of like trying to determine the actual
        intelligence and character of Black people by watching “Birth of a Nation”….

        – Christopher Charles Morton

        http://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.politics.guns/gZg_XyptjyU/NiPCvQIctwUJ

        1. Crichton’s Murray Gell-Man Amnesia Hypothesis is still the best piece of explanation of the uselesness of the media.

  12. This is a page out of the ‘peaceful’ muslim terrorist book so at least they get points for consistency.

    1. We all noticed many Muslims at the protests.

  13. This is one of many examples of the Hollywood media bending over backwards to call terrorist attacks peaceful when they happen to agree with the terrorists. This is what the former mainstream media have become.

    1. And vice versa. Everyone you don’t like is a terrorist.

    2. the Hollywood media

      LOL.

  14. Can I ask a serious question? What exactly are the demands of these intensifying protesters? What do they hope to achieve? Is their premise that “systemic racism” must be “dismantled” and that’s what they’re literally aiming for with the destruction?

    1. That is a very good question, and one that should be taken seriously. The answer I think is we don’t know and they don’t know.

      My hypothesis, totally speculative, is that this protest movement is the result of frustration, that for decades long there have been these injustices and now that the magic of video recording shows what has been happening the frustration of knowing and not having been able to do anything about it has just boiled over into irrational activity. I think much of the failing here is the failure of authorities to provide a venue for the protests, to allow the protestors to gather in a safe place and work off their anger.

      When that didn’t happen, and when the incredibly wrong headed policy was to send in federal officers the frustration and anger was made even stronger.

      It is hard to think of a single instance in the last three and a half years where the Trump administration has not taken a bad situation and made it worse. Seattle, Portland and the like are the rule, not the exception to that observation.

      1. I more think it is people bored by the lockdown.

        Bars are closed, meet “hook up” partners at the riot…

      2. My hypothesis, totally speculative, is that this protest movement is the result of frustration, that for decades long there have been these injustices and now that the magic of video recording shows what has been happening the frustration of knowing and not having been able to do anything about it has just boiled over into irrational activity. I think much of the failing here is the failure of authorities to provide a venue for the protests, to allow the protestors to gather in a safe place and work off their anger.

        It never occurred to them to stop voting for the people who keep perpertuating it?

        One of my longtime Usenet allies made this observation about Chicago.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/chicago-three-big-reasons-why-murder-city-usa-is-so-unsafe/#comment-2836333

        I’ll give you three reasons, having lived there until I joined the Army:
        1. The city “government” is as corrupt as any you’ll find in the third world. Members of the city council are in bed with the major gangs.
        2. The police department is as corrupt as the “government”, considering itself wholly outside the law. Until relatively recently, there was a home invasion, burglary and kidnapping ring operating INSIDE the most “elite” unit in the department.
        3. The population obviously LIKES these things, since they’ve been voting for them since before my grandmother moved there from Nashville… BEFORE WWI.

        Black Chicagoans elected and reelected Richard M. Daley for something like twenty+ years, DESPITE the fact that he profited politically from an organized torture ring operating INSIDE the Chicago PD. Most of the known victims of said ring were NOT Norwegian…

        Chicago is what it is because the Chicagoans WANT it that way. Sucks to be them.

        – Christopher Charles Morton

      3. If only Trump had taken the First step, or made US corporate taxes more competitive, or reduced regulations, or met with Nork to pacify him,or told the cheapass Europeans to pony up for their defense, or tightened sanctions on Russia and China, etc etc.

        Seattle and Portland deserve much more attention from the Feds if only to save the few sane people there.

    2. Right now, in Portland and Seattle it’s quite clearly have the feds leave.

      1. Zero chance of that. Even if the so-called protesters weren’t helping Trump in the polls.

      2. so they started the riots two months ago to get the federal presence of the last week to leave? That’s some genius level logic there.

        1. That’s not why they started the protests, nor the riots.

    3. They apparently do want to fuck the police. Even their kids want to fuck the police.

  15. The peace became so intense it burst into flame. Lol.

  16. “You are being charged with an intensified peaceful demonstration, in the second degree. How do you plead?”

    Your honor, my client pleads not guilty by reason of being a total moron.

  17. There are some genuinely destructive protesters, especially late at night. There’s also a secretive and violent federal police force spinning the protests in service of an aspiring authoritarian.

    Focus on the side you find more concerning.

    1. What secretive and violent police force?

    2. If only we had an aspiring authoritarian….

      1. Where’s Obama when you need him. He’d send in the drones to kill the Americans, just like he did before.

  18. Word Salad in the Time of Coronavirus: Who wants to live in a socially distanced, new normal, re-imagined future? By Curtis Ellis • July 22, 2020

    https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/22/word-salad-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/

  19. Reading that account, I’d have to assume the protest was intended to “turn violent” all along. “Wall of Moms” was there, and they’re just a group of human shields intended to prevent the police from arresting anybody without creating bad optics.

    1. As usual, Brett sees leftist plots everywhere.

      1. You’ll have to do better than positing an organic, sustained. and highly organized upwelling of protest, vandalism, and violence on behalf of “better policing”.

        From “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky:

        • Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty

        • Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new

        • The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign

        http://www.royalgazette.com/letters-to-the-editor/article/20161205/demonstrations-linked-to-rules-for-radicals-book

        1. Which proves nothing regarding your secret plot scenario.

          1. It proves that they are using the same tactics, and certainly there are some who are aware of the Alinsky writings. The NSA may be able to close the loop.

  20. The extent to which the media is attempting play down firework and arsons caused by them in astounding. First of shooting a firework at some isn’t just fun and games. It is assault and can cause serious injury. The fact that rioters are doing this is no small thing. it doesn’t matter that the police are wearing protective gear. It is still an assault which should be taken seriously.

Please to post comments