But how about the guy in the cowboy hat who was just arrested for assault when he elbowed a protestor in the face. The protestor was on his way out of the rally. Certainly you cannot condone that behavior. So it seems not all people are “peacefully there” on both sides.
And you were there and actually know this!!! And you know they were silent and non-violent exactly how? Stop making up a narrative - unless of course you have proof of their non-violence.
Again, there is a need for civics lessons here - even non-voilent silent protestors can be thrown out (and should be thrown out, in my opinion) of a private rally paid for by someone else. No one has an obligation to allow protestors to demonstrate in his space on his dime.
You would have an argument if the protestors where across the street, but these are protestors are inside a venue where they are not welcomed and did not pay for the space. Let them pay for their own darn protesting space.
That line of conversation is from a category called nonsensical light-hearted humor. Its general purpose in a social setting is to bring a smile to your day and sometimes lighten a serious discussion. It serves no deeper purpose and participants typically do not ascribe any meaningful weight to their comments.
Which is why I’m loving the guy with the sign.
There was a recent rally at a university in NC where a young woman was repeatedly shoved for being a non-violent protester. Were students of the university not “invited”? Could you really expect to have no difference of opinion at a university? Was this a private rally at a public university? Is that even possible?
I think the initial cries of “get rid of him” by the speaker at earlier rallies has simply escalated and is now on both sides. Protesters would simply hold a sign up and get removed. Then they would get roughly removed. Then shouting started on both side. Now punches are flying. It’s really not difficult to see how it started.
As another NYer who does enjoy eating his hot dogs with ketchup since childhood, never knew it was a not NYer thing to do.
On the other hand, agree eating a pizza with a fork IS NOT a NYer thing to do. Among lifelong NYer neighbors and friends from childhood onwards, doing THAT signifies one is “not a real NYker” or an unusually prissy well-off upper-east sider type who isn’t willing to risk getting his/her hands dirty.
The latter would completely undermine the populist type campaign Trump has been running with great success so far.
Sure, fine.
However, you still have not explained why people should put up with any protests in a venue that the protesters did not pay for? Peaceful or not, the rally supporters has a right to kick out people they do not want.
I do not understand this idea that peaceful or not, people think they have some right to trespass in a space they are not wanted, not invited, and when expressly there to present a message opposite of what the people paying for the space are saying. This is beyond silliness a the is point. No, there is not such right. Why are people pretending like there is one?
Sadly, the protestors are going to get really hurt at some point.
I do agree it is better if the police do it the clearing, but if I were in such a crowd (I would not be because I do not attend such things as a person in the crowd) I would not hesitate to hit back three times as hard if a protestor invaded my personal space. I just do not take any crap like that.
@awcntdb, I think you may be incorrect about the “private space” thing. This was a rally held at a pavilion on the campus of University of Illinois at Chicago. Tickets appear to have been “sold” for the event and there was no special invitation to T’s supporters only. So anyone could attend and I am going to bet that the University would not rent a space on it’s campus unless all their students could attend if they so desired.
This link seems to indicate that tickets were sold as it indicates “sales ended.”
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/donald-j-trump-in-chicago-il-tickets-22576886074
Back more on track, it’s not only protestors being attacked at these rallies. There have been reports of at least two reporters/photographers injured as well.
"think you may be incorrect about the “private space” thing. This was a rally held at a pavilion on the campus of University of Illinois at Chicago. Tickets appear to have been “sold” for the event and there was no special invitation to T’s supporters only. So anyone could attend and I am going to bet that the University would not rent a space on it’s campus unless all their students could attend if they so desired.
"
This is correct. My 73 yo mother (not a Trump supporter, but always interested in politics) was going to go. Thankfully she didn’t - I didn’t need to rescue my mom from this! This was not a “private party” by invitation early.
"I love my hot dog with ketchup. I’ve been known a time or two to eat my pizza with a fork. Honestly, what is it to you? I lived in NY and worked in NYC. I don’t think anyone really gave a rats you-know-what what I ate or how I ate it. But if that’s important to you, carry on.
If that’s why you don’t like Trump, you might need to dig a bit deeper."
Oh good grief. It’s a Chicago “thing” not to put ketchup on a hot dog; some vendors don’t even offer ketchup as a condiment. It’s LIGHTHEARTED. It’s called HUMOR. Really, no one cares except in light-hearted jest.
Unless the person invading one’s space was threatening enough to justify invoking self-defense, hitting back 3 times as hard would usually unjustifiable constitute assault and battery at a minimum and thus, committing a greater legal violation than the invader of space.
Merely invading others’ space usually doesn’t rise to enough of a threatening level to pass the “self-defense” threshold.
Moreover, if someone could be agitated enough to strike back 3-times as hard against someone for “invading one’s space”…I’d hope that person gets a serious mental evaluation on his/her anger/other issues before he/she assaults someone for accidentally bumping into him/her in a crowded public place/venue such as a subway car or bus during rush hour.
As I was watching this confrontation live yesterday on CNN I saw protesters insulting the police officers that were lined up outside. Trying to instigate the police officers to attack them. The police just kept standing there straight faced and expressionless. A protester is cursing out a police officer and screaming all kinds of hatred at them and other protestors are laughing and supporting these protesters and putting their middle finger in front of the camera. What did these people accomplish. They looked like fools and only made themselves look bad. They did not convey any positive message and appeared to be there only to cause a disturbance and make trouble. If I were a family member of one of the police officers there I would be worried for them and their safety.
It is very difficult for security to screen out who may cause trouble when entering the facility.
I read online that security was looking for people all wearing the same teeshirts or offensive statements on clothing. It would be hard to figure out looking at the audience who is there to attend to listen to the speaker and who has come to create a disturbance. Only when something negative happens can security react and they have to make a quick assessment of the situation so that other people are not put in any danger. If the protester is putting other guests in attendance in danger with violent protests then they need to be taken out of the facility. If a protesters intention is to cause a disturbance or violence then they need to be prepared to face the consequences of being taken out or arrested.
If you were attending this event to listen to a speaker and a demonstrator attacks you what would you do? Would you hit back and try to protect yourself or just do nothing and wait for the police to come while your life maybe on the line.
One of the allegedly attacked reporters also happens to be working for Breibart.com which has been one of the staunchest media supporters up to this point:
Breibart and its CEO are backing Michelle Field up enough to the point of suspending another Breibart reporter who released a series of tweets questioning whether the assault even took place.
Also, contrary to Trump campaign’s assertions about the incident, there were witnesses who were present and saw the assault including this reporter:
^^^^
Michelle Fields has already filed assault charges against Lewandowski in Florida. She has the pics of the bruises on her arms to back her up.
Hard to believe that supposedly professional men are now manhandling female reporters because they don’t like the question she asked.
I had read that the reporter was not in the area where all the reporters were supposed to standing and then had stepped out of that area so there was no way for security to know this person was a reporter and not a protester.
Maybe to protect the safety of the guests and the speaker they might have to have the speaker in one location and it being broadcasted on screens in different areas. (not everyone is the same room)
^^
That was a male reporter who was thrown to the ground not Michelle Fields. Different incident.
Also, from the report and a few pictures of the Time reporter being tackled, he was tackled after only taking one step out of the area to position himself for a better camera shot.
Not exactly a threatening posture to justify getting tackled and assaulted by the secret service. Especially considering he was still mostly in the press box area and had press credentials.
I’ve heard a lot of things. I heard the main speaker of these events say the guy sucker punched in the video this thread is about was a violent guy. We saw him punch no one. If there was evidence that he did, it would have come out. But instead of the cowboy who punched him being called violent, the victim was called violent.
The thing is, this is all becoming so pointless a discussion. As a society, many Americans are distrustful of the media for various reason (one side saying it has a liberal bias, the other saying it ignores or inflames societal racism, the middle saying it sensationalized both sides). Add to that existing media distrust, a large number of us identify with a religion. Every religion includes a belief in things we can’t see it have incontrovertible proof of. We all have to have a leap of faith for our religions. The main speak here has capitalized on both of these existing belief systems at one for his supporters. They don’t believe what they see or hear. They can even go to the rallies and see it happen in person, but they still believe he isn’t a racist, misogynist bigot promoting violence and hate with a chuckle. Because they have faith and don’t want to believe what they see and hear. Instead they convince themselves that it’s an act, a joke, for a good reason, a media lie, or someone else’s fault.
It’s so frustrating and depressing to watch.
Frankly I don’t see the purpose of more debates or speaking engagements. It doesn’t matter how much money is spent on the campaigns or what negative advertisements are playing during commercial break. It is not going to change my mind on who I would vote for. The amount spent on these elections (millions of dollars) seems unnecessary. Money that could be used for a good cause instead that would benefit the citizens. I think of the budget cuts schools face each year and then all this money is being spent on elections. Meanwhile there are people going about in their daily lives just trying to get by. No matter who gets elected there are going to be people unhappy with the results.