The cops are after evidence on arson and gun theft, not protests, as the headline says.
Riots are when people assemble and commit crimes. Especially felony crimes like arson, destruction of property, etc.
These are riots.
If we could know for sure the police weren't going to abuse their authority, there would have been neither protests nor riots.
I think this claim lost any validity long, long ago.
As long as you want to paint all protesters as rioters, then to be consistent you have to put all of the police into the same bucket as well.
No sane person can look at the riots and say this is protest it stopped being that long ago.
It stopped being that the moment it turned into riots.
Those still participating are complicit at the very least and I would hazard a guess are well fucking aware of what they're doing.
I should clarify, I am well aware there are still ongoing peaceful protests.
Those are not an issue, and nobody on this side is confusing them or labelling them as rioters.
If you want to see what biased but relatively fair coverage of this, go watch tim pool on youtube. There is a bit of exaggeration but by and large what he speaks is mostly pretty solid reasoning.
The extreme left has taken over this issue and is destroying our chances at finally removing trump. And I'm pissed about this, because the issues these riots started over are real, and need resolution, but these riots don't result in this outcome.
They result in more people falling down the right side of things.
Plenty of us sane people can still see the protests going on, the actual riots are not that common but are covered disproportionately by the press (but especially by FoxNews who is making out Portland and Seattle as apocalyptic hellscapes). I assume you are either in Portland and just not paying attention or you are getting all your information from the media.
I am saying what we have here is not protest. Its rioting.
I don't know what law enforcement have to do with this.
The thread started out with someone arguing that the "protests" are actually "riots". Someone else replied by pointing out "because there's riots and protests", which are not the same thing.
So then you replied with, "The cops are after evidence on arson and gun theft, not protests, as the headline says." – which I took (perhaps mistakenly) as an argument that the media's footage should not be considered as innocuous "protest footage", because the cops believe that it contains evidence of crimes.
But that seems like begging the question? Ignoring the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept (two suspects have been arrested and charged, but not tried), it seems problematic to argue that the media should handover its riot footage on the basis that the police believe it contains evidence of riotous activity.
Just as it would be problematic to characterize someone's personal email account as being non-innocuous, on the basis of what the police assert they might find if they do a few keyword searches of it.
The way this part was written in context was hard to parse for me - on first read it seemed that you were arguing that it would be fair to say that you were complicit. This reply shows that you intended this in a more hyperbolic way, or in such a way that you would mock-suggest that “surely this would not be fair,” which is obvious when I already know your meaning, but didn’t seem clear to me on first read.