Hacker News Reader

Comment by HelixEndeavor | Hacker News Reader

Oh no violent rioters can't endanger the president's life what has this country come to :(

I disagree with your comment; these were not “violent rioters.” But I vouched for it, as it should not have been flag killed.

To HelixEndevour (I've tried to vouch/reply to your post, but unable)

I agree with the first part of statement: Violent rioters should not endanger the life of the President. Which is why, even if I don't like the current president or his methods (or anything, really), I understand the need to support security of white house.

But "Violent Rioters endangering president's life" should not be mixed up with "Capricious president endangers peaceful protesters' life". They are morally and tactically different scenarios.

By all accounts:

- Protesters were peaceful

- They were not approaching or endangering White House

- President decided to have an unannounced photo-op

- Without warning, trips used force to disperse crowds so the president can have his photo op

If you believe this is not a correct framework, I'd be curious to hear your perspective.

Cheers!

> By all accounts:

> - Protesters were peaceful

From MSNBC's own coverage

0:42 - Visible in the scene are fireworks being launched at cops.

https://youtu.be/dUn-BShWYOs?t=42

You are being lied to, and by all the reporters of the major networks who were on the scene, no less.

The rioters at White House and in Washington burned a church, defaced public property, including Lincoln memorial and WWII memorial, and injured 60 secret service members before backup arrived. They've looted entire districts in NYC. Burned a police precinct to the ground in Minneapolis. Destroyed entire neighborhoods. They seek to intimidate and incite fear and violence. They are spray painting "fuck 12" and "ACAB" all over America to instill anti police hatred, invoking true criminals to take advantage of the situation and kill cops: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retired-st-louis-police...

This is not a peaceful protest.

This would imply the president would have been unharmed if he just took a walk to the church. I think it's unlikely that nothing would have happened. They've been throwing bottles (possibly bricks), smacking people with signs, and harassed/chased away a Fox News crew.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/fox-news-crew-c...

A warning would have been nice.

> This would imply the president would have been unharmed if he just took a walk to the church.

This comment sounds very disingenuous, because it fails to take into account the fact that Trump's decision to go on an unplanned photo-op was designed to force a scenario devised explicitly to draw a reaction.

And please note that even the priest complained that he felt abused and betrayed by Trump because it was patently obvious that the goal of that stunt was not to visit church or talk to the priest.

In basketball there's taking a charge and flopping. Trump's photo-op at the church was a colossal flop.

As James Baldwin and Nikki Giovanni put it, if you have to use force to stay in charge you have no power, "your game ain't running"

Are you justifying this as corporal punishment for pre-crime?

The account was made 21 minutes ago. There is a chance that this was a ban dodger posting their first new post.

Likely, but it could also be someone who wanted to express their honest opinion without "ruining" their normal account. I didn't get to see the comment, so I can't really offer any commentary on it beyond that.