Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

On 6/10/2025 1:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 10, 2025 at 8:04:27 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/9/2025 11:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Jun 9, 2025 at 7:52:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 6/9/2025 10:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Jun 9, 2025 at 5:40:44 PM PDT, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtravel@sonic.net>
    wrote:
   

    On 6/9/2025 8:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

      Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

      On 6/9/2025 5:33 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

      BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

     

      Encouraged by the mayor and city council, over the weekend, violent
      leftist protesters took to the streets and attacked police and
      federal agents while they were in the performance of making legal
      and constitutional arrests. This, of course, is the very definition
      of insurrection under the U.S. Code but none of our legacy media came
      anywhere close to using that term to describe it.  Insurrection is a
      crime they apparently believe only conservatives can commit. . . .

     

      Over Governor Newsom's objections, Trump federalized and deployed the
      California national guard. Newsom said army troops were unnecessary but
      police have been using anti-riot tactics, so what's the difference. The
      violent protests have continued for three days. News reports say that
      national guard troops have been deployed to protect federal property. If
      that's all they are being used for, I don't see how that usurps
      federalism. Newsom is going to court this morning anyway.

     

      Police declared all of downtown Los Angeles "an unlawful assembly area".
      Why didn't they just declare a straight-forward curfew? What does that
      mean for a building owner trying to get security guards deployed?

     

>
>
>
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/06/08/national-guard-los-angeles-protests-live-updates/84103374007/

     

      Reports I had read indicated there were all of 100 protesters.

            That was Friday. Numerous other people began protesting over the next
      several days.
     

    In part because of the overboard heavy handed Trump response.

        Oh, baloney. There's nothing heavy-handed about bringing in troops to
  protect
    federal property during a riot. This same thing happened in 2020 when
Antifa
    goons spent more than 150 days trying to burn down the federal
courthouse in
    Portland every single night while the local police did nothing to stop
them.
    It was up to the half dozen FPS officers on duty to protect the place, so
    Trump sent in federal agents from across the country to back them up, and
  just
    like you've done here, the leftists immediately blamed Trump's attempt to
    enforce the law and protect federal property as 'provocative' and
    'heavy-handed'.
        It's hilarious how you guys blame Trump for the dumpster fire Democrat-run
    cities have become, despite there being no constitutional authority for
the
    federal government to usurp police power from state and local governments.
  The
    president literally has no authority to do anything about it, yet the one
  time
    he did try and address the one small part of the problem he did have
  authority
    over-- protecting federal property from rioters trying to destroy it-- and
  the
    Left shit kittens and demanded he withdraw the 'troops' and stay out of
it.
        Even those on this newsgroup were trying to pull this nonsense:
        On 9/28/2020 01:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
      On 9/27/2020  10:11 AM suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
   

    Portland was a trial run for how much he [Trump] could get away with.

   

    How much he could get away with?!?!

   

    Trump sent federal cops to stop a federal courthouse and other federal
    buildings from being burned down by people whose express intent and
actions
    indicated that's exactly what they were trying to do. And then he withdrew
    them after the city and state promised to do the job they'd been
failing to
    do and protect the courthouse, a promise they almost immediately
    reneged on.

   

    Only in 2020 could stopping arsonists from burning down government
    buildings be considered controversial or something the president was
    'trying to get away with'.

   

    Meanwhile, those same 'mostly peaceful' protesters barricaded the
    doors to a police station and then tried to light it on fire with about
    three dozen people inside-- an attempted mass murder-- and the
    mayor and the D.A. did literally nothing about it.

   

    But Trump is the bad guy here, trying to 'get away with' something.

   

    The police/NG are also deliberately shooting reporters/journalists.  For
    the moment with rubber bullets but just the fact that they are picking
    them out specifically to shoot is extremely troubling.

        Notice how Dimensional doesn't seem to be "extremely troubled" by the
    widespread violence committed by the rioters.

>
  Yes.  While the rioters break laws, the cops gut principles.

    Exactly what principles have been gutted by the police in Los Angeles over
the
  last three days?

>
The extreme protections we purport to afford journalists.

 The vast majority journalists were injured were assaulted and battered by the
rioters, not by the police. These black-bloc types hate the media almost as
much as they hate cops. As for the ones hurt by the cops, if there's proof
that a journalist was specifically targeted, then by all means
discipline/charge that cop. But saying-- as I've seen leftist pundits do over
the last couple of days-- that the cops shouldn't be allowed to use things
like tear gas or pepper spray on the rioters because it also affects the
journalists on the ground is bullshit. If they can't handle getting dosed when
tear gas is deployed on a crowd, then they should find another line of work.

What I tried to answer is your question of how "deliberately shooting journalists" could be seen as worse than rioter violence.