San Jose Police Dept. admits BACKING OFF protesters to keep from INCITING them

Now we see a controversial statement coming from San Jose police about the anti-Trump protests the other day.

They seem to elude to an attitude that confronting law violating protestors would have somehow "incited" the other anti-Trump protestors.

Perhaps some of the same "reasoning" that the Mayor of Baltimore had about giving them some space?

I bet this was part of a creeping agenda.

And then we also have people blaming Trump for "daring" to go into Democrat pockets on purpose.

We already have heard comment from the Mayor of San Jose eluding to support of violent protesting haven't we.

opinionated article:
Unbelievable: San Jose Police Dept. admits BACKING OFF protesters to keep from INCITING them

On Thursday, June 2, 2016, approximately 300-400 protestors gathered outside a Trump rally in San Jose. The San Jose Police Department designated two locations for supporters and demonstrators. The Department had an operations plan in place in an effort to ensure the safety of everyone attending the event. However, officers were confronted by some protestors who became violent, aggressive and began to throw objects in their direction. A majority of the violence occurred at the conclusion of the event. While several physical assaults did occur, the police personnel on scene had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight the crowd and produce more violent behavior. As Trump supporters were exiting the Convention Center, officers directed the crowd away from the protestors and suggested alternate routes of egress in order to prevent violence or a large-scale confrontation. This required the forming of crowd control lines of uniformed officers to act as a physical barrier to facilitate the movement of the crowd out of the area. The San Jose Police Department subsequently made four arrests for incidents including assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful assembly.

Would just like to point out that this very thing was posited by one of our members the other day.

www.abovetopsecret.com... About halfway down.

ETA - I don't know how to pin from mobile but it's Torq's comment in that thread. I know we're not supposed to "name names" generally but in the interest of clarity (and a complete lack of malice) hopefully it's acceptable in this case.

The San Jose Police Department designated two locations for supporters and demonstrators.

Free speech zones and political quarantine at its finest.

I guess it's ok in this case because it theoretically keeps the liberal protesters corralled.

That said, glad to see the cops decided not to escalate the situation as they are wont to do.

a reply to: xuenchen

We wouldn't want to make the terrorists angry.

Seems to be a theme, foreign and domestic.

a reply to: Liquesence

Except for all those protestors that were chasing people down the road, yep they sure were "corralled" alright.

Generally speaking, allowing crime to be committed and then claiming it was allowed so that other crimes wouldn't be committed, maybe, is a bad way to do things.

Here's what the San Jose Mayor Liccardo has said:

“I condemn all acts of violence committed against people who exercise their rights to free speech and assembly, regardless of their political views," Liccardo said.

“Nothing that Donald Trump says absolves those individuals of responsibility for their violent conduct last ” Liccardo added that San Jose police and the District Attorney’s office are now investigating incidents of violence.

“Our police department and District Attorney's office will proactively and thoroughly investigate and prosecute the offenders, and Police Chief Eddie Garcia has called for all members of our community who have video and other evidence to submit that information to the authorities so it can be used for arrest of the violent perpetrators,” he said.

San Jose Inside

Your own article states the matters clearly. There were two zones set up for safety. The police used their bodies to physically barricaded the protesters and protect the supporters. They did everything they could to diffuse the very volatile situation caused intentionally by the Trump campaign.

What did you want them to do? Pull out Uzis and start mowing everyone down?

The violence has been condemned. By the Mayor, the Police, by Clinton and Sanders.

Donald J. Trump is still the only candidate promoting the use of political violence from his podium.

Another odd point....

San Jose Police Chief Under Fire for Allowing Attacks on Trump Supporters is Affiliated With La Raza

deep infiltration

a reply to: Gryphon66

Past tense matters.

Easy to deflect at that point.

What did the Mayor say and do *before and during*.

a reply to: xuenchen

I think this is called meeting the demands of "terrorists?" I thought the US didn't do that?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Past tense matters.

Easy to deflect at that point.

What did the Mayor say and do *before and during*.

Maybe to grammarians and other professional nitpickers ...

Why do you think you get to judge what the man can say or when he says it.

He condemns the violence that was committed (as it turns out, on both sides).

You're arguing here that more should have been done. What did you (past tense) want done?

Should the San Jose police have turned the street into a bloodbath?

And further, are you a law enforcement professional with experience in crowd/riot control?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another odd point....

San Jose Police Chief Under Fire for Allowing Attacks on Trump Supporters is Affiliated With La Raza

deep infiltration

Interesting points indeed made in that article ...

Some videos showed those attacks and suggested they were unprovoked, but others showed Trump supporters taunting protesters, ripping their Dump Trump signs and throwing the first punches. While it appeared to many onlookers that police allowed the violence to proceed unchecked, San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia insisted that it was more important for police to hold their “skirmish line” formations than to stop individual attacks. Four arrests were made.

Glad to see you're willing to acknowledge the violence on the Trump side as well here Xuench!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting. The thing is , is that I haven't seen these videos of Trump supporters throwing the first punch. Got a link?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting. The thing is , is that I haven't seen these videos of Trump supporters throwing the first punch. Got a link?

I didn't write the article. Maybe check youtube?

Hypothetical:

A small group of people go into a crowd and assault a single person, and nothing else.
Should the police not take action out of fear they might shoot others, or take action out of fear they might shoot others?

Further hypothetical:

The police chief has an "affiliation" with the group of people who have assaulted that single person.
Is not taking action equivalent to supporting the actions of that group of people?

a reply to: paradoxious
I said "shoot" in parts of the above post, but meant "assault".



ATS is giving me pains editing posts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha...you point things out without verifying them. I will be sure to remember that

originally posted by: paradoxious
Hypothetical:

A small group of people go into a crowd and assault a single person, and nothing else.
Should the police not take action out of fear they might shoot others, or take action out of fear they might shoot others?

Further hypothetical:

The police chief has an "affiliation" with the group of people who have assaulted that single person.
Is not taking action equivalent to supporting the actions of that group of people?

The only "affiliation" the the Chief had to La Raza was to attend a community roundtable. At least, that's all that was mentioned in the article.

Are you claiming that the protesters who became violent are all members of La Raza? How do you know that?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha...you point things out without verifying them. I will be sure to remember that

... and so you pointed me out pointing things out in an article that the author of this thread posted without "verifying" them?

That's beyond the pot calling the kettle black.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again. The OP made an argument based upon the Mayor's own words, and we all have seen the videos at this point. You based your counter argument upon a single sentence of hearsay of an article. You're attempting to refute the OP with hearsay. Total fail.

a reply to: Gryphon66

For starters they could have been somewhere in the vicinity of the groups of protestors and perhaps stepped in once people started getting chased down the street.

Still perplexed about that one.