It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump says the 'alt-left' bears some responsibility for violence in Charlottesville

page: 35
62
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Fred, after only a few posts, your forthrightness has earned my respect.

You speak your mind, and you don't prevaricate.

That is rare.




posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

I believe in individual responsibility and accountability. People committing crimes should be arrested and prosecuted.
That does not relieve the city of its responsibilities to protect its citizens.
If they could not ensure the safety of their citizens they should not have permitted the event.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Cities are never responsible for the safety of its citizens. Look at Chicago. Also, would they lady that got killed have died if she didn't go? a reply to: shooterbrody



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Did I say that the city wanted public land to be used for a riot? No, I didn't. Does that make any logical sense even?

No, it doesn't.


You didn't say it. But it makes sense if you consider that:

- the city controls who uses the land and when
- the city permitted both of these groups to organize/protest
- the city didn't have the force necessary to manage the permits they issued

Either they wanted a riot, or they are grossly negligent in their duties.




As I understand it, one event was permitted inside the venue (the park) and the other outside. I'm not sure of the actual straight-line distance between the two points ... are you?


Nope. But then again, im not in charge of anything in that community. Apparently the folks at city hall don't know, either.



When the UTR factions presented a danger to public safety (was that the fault of the PD too?) their permit was revoked.


30 minutes before the event started. That sounds more like CYA than anything else. Or a political maneuver. But if you want a riot, that is how you get one: tell a bunch of mouth breathers they can meet, then try to yank out the rug at the last minute.



I'm not sure how many ways there are out of this park ... but often, there's one way in and one way out.

So again, to me, we have to look at the behaviors of the people involved.

Aren't people responsible for their own actions?

Or are you saying that proximity excuses violence?


All individuals are responsible for their own actions. That said, the city controls usage via permits, primarily to ensure the public safety. The fact that they put a match near the powder keg displays their negligence.

Im not excusing anyone here. Including the city that issued the permits and policed the event.




posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

I believe in individual responsibility and accountability. People committing crimes should be arrested and prosecuted.
That does not relieve the city of its responsibilities to protect its citizens.
If they could not ensure the safety of their citizens they should not have permitted the event.


Some questions and comments.

The permit request asks for the number of known participants. The police are asked if they will deploy, after looking at the permit and determining the topic. Will this event then cause a backlash, resulting in violence? The answer should be a resounding yes.

How many do you deploy? And then, based on the "usual" coverage from the mainstream media and how they spin stories like this, what tactic can they deploy to disrupt the violence, without the press and others who support their cause when the violence is broken up, from tearing the police department to shreds?

Let's use my water cannon comment. I want to see real opinions here, not "pie in the sky", seriously, what tactics should police use in these types of incidents? Water cannons? Mace? Bean bag shotgun shells? Uzi's?

Then, think really hard here on whatever choice you select. Answer then, how will the main stream media respond to that action?

I sit waiting for real responses.

Fred.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

www.charlottesville.org...
yes they are
in addition the sponsors of the event in charlottesville are on the hook for a lot more
the sponsors were required to have insurance
the sponsors were required to pay for the police/fire ect needed for the event

and if the city thought the event was dangerous to the public they could have not issued the permit
cause you know nazi rallies are never ever dangerous



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: icanteven
I get it. Nazis are going to Nazi. I don't need to hear the man who lives in the people's house imply some of the Nazis and white supremacists were good people.

Last chance to clear up the reality of what the president said--if you fail to comprehend after this, so be it.

The president was specifically speaking about the people ON BOTH SIDES who showed up there without the hate and intention of violence that both the white supremacists and the ANTIFA people did. Those people in bold are the ones that the president was referencing as good people.

Take it or leave it, that's up to you.


This isn't some abstract thing. Nazi and white supremacist views being entertained as a side represents an existential threat to the republic. There is nothing that these people stand for that is good, that is wholesome, that is "another side". They are evil.

Nazi-esque and racial-supremacy views have always existed as long as America has been a nation and long before that. Hell, even Native American tribes were racist against each other. And long after the U.S. is no longer a nation, there will still be these ignorant beliefs in the world.

But, to pretend that, all of a sudden, they have become some big threat to the nation is ridiculous. These idiots rear their ugly heads at relatively regular intervals, and a more just society always pushes them back in the shadows where they belong. Don't get to the point where you see this as a the-end-is-nigh incident. It's far from it, and there are those of use who abhor this type of behavior (on both sides of this Charlottesville incident) who are better trained and armed than most of them, so if it ever came down to it (which I don't think that it will), an uprising of these douches wouldn't last long.


We, as a nation, take our stability for granted. It saddens me to realize this. I interpret the sides differently than you. I see white supremacists on one side and those who are not white supremacists on the other. Picking the right side shouldn't be an intellectual exercise where you need to wait for all of the facts, or whatever nonsense the president said.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

www.charlottesville.org...
your questions have answers here



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

www.charlottesville.org...
your questions have answers here



No, they don't.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In rough order of your comments:

1. False dichotomy at best there Texan; it doesn't have to be one or the other or either.

2. Are you really suggesting that City officials don't know the distance in their own parks? That seems kinda silly.

3. Hmmm ... do you think the, shall we say "accoutrements" of the UTR folks (or the counter-protesters for that matter) may have had something to do with the concern? Maybe police and city officials did the best with the situation as it evolved?

(i.e. did they come in equipped with military armor and weaponry "better than the Police Department" as one comment form an official stated that I saw recently, sorry I don't have a citation.)

4. "Match near the powder keg" is a value judgement. How many large-scale violent actions do you think Charlottesville has seen? Perhaps, rather than negligent, they simply weren't prepared? I realize that might mean the same thing, but not necessarily.

5. So ... we blame everyone ... the UTR, the counter-protesters, the City, the media, Trump, Obama, Hillary, Robert E. Lee, God and everyone else? At some point do we just declare it a noisome cluster-f and move on?

LOL
edit on 16-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

so the requirements for a demonstration permit on the charlottesville city website do not have the answers you seek?
well good luck then
it is spelled out in black and white what the city requirements are
if you are seeking my opinion it is irrelevant
what is relevant is the requirements for the permit and the fact that by having said permit the city is on the hook for public safety
now if the requirements were held to the standards is a different story completely



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Perception has no place in a logical debate.



I agree, but that is what the problem is.

Different people's perspectives are clouding reality.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
I agree we can say it in the strongest terms.
That does not give us the right to initiate violence on them first.

True. I find mockery to be an effective tool.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In rough order of your comments:

1. False dichotomy at best there Texan; it doesn't have to be one or the other or either.


In my opinion, it is one. And all im issuing here is my opinion.



2. Are you really suggesting that City officials don't know the distance in their own parks? That seems kinda silly.


Im saying that the City Officials issued permits for events that they had no hope of managing, and this amounts to negligence on their part. Were they not in charge of permits, they'd have no blame at all. By taking that authority for themselves, they also kind of accept the responsibility said authority brings.

I cannot control how much someone drinks while at my home. But I am liable for their safety nonetheless.



3. Hmmm ... do you think the, shall we say "accoutrements" of the UTR folks (or the counter-protesters for that matter) may have had something to do with the concern? Maybe police and city officials did the best with the situation as it evolved?


That is possible. But if its the case, they suck at their jobs.



4. "Match near the powder keg" is a value judgement. How many large-scale violent actions do you think Charlottesville has seen? Perhaps, rather than negligent, they simply weren't prepared? I realize that might mean the same thing, but not necessarily.


Not being prepared to do the job you are elected for it the very definition of negligence.



5. So ... we blame everyone ... the UTR, the counter-protesters, the City, the media, Trump, Obama, Hillary, Robert E. Lee, God and everyone else? At some point do we just declare it a noisome cluster-f and move on?

LOL


You blame:

- anyone who threw a punch or inflicted violence
- the officials who permitted the event without providing for security

From the point of view of legal recourse, the primary recourse is against individuals involved. However, in the case of the individual who died, their family (in my opinion) should be able to sue the city for negligence. In the same way that when I permit people to use my home, I am responsible for their safety (and can be sued if they are harmed due to my negligence)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Fair enough. Opinions it is.

The confusion created was two-fold: It was a host of human errors and intentional provcation; Murphy's law applies.

The permits, er, permit the grounds to be used for the stated purpose but not for incitement, threats of violence, actual violence, or whatever prompted the City Officials to revoke. You seem to be completely dismissing that the situation was beyond any experience these Officials and Police Officers had previously had in Charlottesville. I can't agree that they were incompetent or negligent, but really I have no stake in it either way.

They suck at their jobs? Your opinion, fair enough.

Not being prepared to handle a singular occurrence is different from not being prepared for the job of running the city.

Perhaps they made the mistake on the side of trusting both sides? Perhaps they take seriously the idea of personal responsibility, that the actions that were taken are not because of police non-action ... but because of hatred and will-to-do-violence.

Blaming is meaningless at this point. The only real question is, do we (cities, States, the nation) learn from it?

I'm not an attorney, I can't speak to your legal opinion.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"From the point of view of legal recourse, the primary recourse is against individuals involved. However, in the case of the individual who died, their family (in my opinion) should be able to sue the city for negligence. In the same way that when I permit people to use my home, I am responsible for their safety (and can be sued if they are harmed due to my negligence) "

The city provided security. Good luck trying to win that case against the city in court. Ain't gonna happen.

Again, we seem to want to blame anyone but the actual individuals that perpetrated the crime.

Now, let's go back to my original question.

To everyone on this thread typing, please explain how the police force should respond to these kinds of riots.

Just not issue the permit. BUZZZZ. Wrong answer. ACLU steps in and sues the crap out of the city for "not allowing legal citizens to express their opinions"

Issue the permit, and have as many officers in riot gear as you can possibly gather up and deploy them, knowing also that the rest of the city must still be protected and enforced. All hands to battle stations!!

So, the permit had no choice but to be issued. The city responded with every cop they most likely could round up.

Now, the riot starts.

Let's see how creative everyone is.

What should the police forces do once the violence breaks out? What can they do THAT THEY WILL NOT END UP GETTING CREAMED BY THE MEDIA?

Awaiting answers.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I"m an ilk now?


Who gnu?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

your idea of water canons is a pretty good one.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

We declared war on Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany declared war on us.

Is this a fact or not a fact?


Nazi did first but it was the same day on Dec 11th, Japan was on Dec 7th after the attack. The question that has not been answered is would have the US declared war on Germany at all if Germany didn't do it first and join Japan?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

We stop with sympathizing with NAZIs.


You mistake respect for our freedom of assembly and speech with sympathizing with a really #ty group.




top topics



 
62
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join