Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

On 6/10/2025 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 10, 2025 at 8:12:50 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
 

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:43:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:50:35 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

Mon, 9 Jun 2025 19:27:13 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

>

Were these the same 'reports' that told you everything was 'mostly
peaceful', Dimensional? The crowd sizes were a helluva lot further
north than 100.

>

https://ibb.co/HDVhqC0s

>

Unless the scenes I saw were from somewhere outside the United States,
what I saw wasn't peaceful at all.

>

Then you weren't looking very hard. Yes, there were protests that
weren't peaceful, but there were also protests going on with large
numbers of people that were completely peaceful. Though the violence
is what is always going to get covered the most.

>
Do you think the chief of police uses a crystal ball, shawn, to make
decisions about predicting violence breaking out once large numbers of
people start protesting? Can he take that chance?
>

(I'm not clear what your comments have to do with my comments but hey,
I'll play along.)
>
He doesn't get to make that choice. If the protestors are peaceful and
following the law then there's nothing for the police to do.

 But even the peaceful ones were not following the law. Flooding out onto the
101 and shutting down the freeway may be peaceful, but it's not legal, and it
puts lives at risk.

Shutting the freeway is non-violent but, in CA anyway, hardly peaceful.