Pretty sure we won’t see any baby kidding photos from those events. Who in their right mind would take their kid to one of these events?
When a candidate makes statement like:
“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that.” - Last month at a Las Vegas rally as a protester was being escorted out.
When another in a series of demonstrators was being led out, the candidate lamented what he called “the good old days” when “this doesn’t happen.” “They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,”
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell – I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” - In Iowa, where no tomato throwing incidents were reported before or after the quote.
Then acts (a tiny bit, but not much) repentant when his supporters turn violent. Disingenuous is the best phrase I can think of. There are no videos I have seen until possibly last night’s protests where any case could be made that the protesters were anything but peaceful – they aren’t taking the first swing, but poor treatment and violence-inducing comments from the candidate have been going on for weeks. But there are several videos of overzealous security and bad behavior by the crowd.
Protesters have been at many, many political rallies in the past. Did Code Pink protesters get beat up by the crowd? No. Just this guy’s supporter and security.
They interviewed a father on MSNBC (? maybe CNN) who brought his 2 young sons (not babies but early elementary school) to the Trump event in Cincinnati today. The reporter asked him if it made him nervous to bring his kids and he said no.
I wouldn’t even go to these events (as a supporter or protester). I couldn’t imagine bringing a small child. Why risk it? I understand exposing your kids to politics. I went to political rallies from a young age with my dad and those are some of my best memories. But it’s too danged dangerous to go to these. They’re ticking time bombs and there is no need to endanger kids.
When people in this country become so divided and become extremely disliking the people in the other camp, some may believe (correctly not) that it is about the time to do things beyond this.
It is not up to people to “take action” against others who are there to protest. Per your own logic, the person who pays for the venue can kick them out if he chooses, but rally supporters who did * not* pay for the venue have no right to assault anybody.
Furthermore, this was held in a University. As mentioned above, students who go to the uni have the right to be at the rally, whether they support the speaker or not.
I have a feeling that if we switch the political parties involved, you would think that the protesters were simply practicing their free speech rights (much like you supported the Bundys ILLEGALLY occupying federal land). Such is bias.
Oh, and FYI, peaceful protesters were assaulted before at this dude’s rallies:
I worked on a political campaign in 1988 and that was exactly what we were instructed to do. If someone holds up opposition signs, don’t engage them in any way, just surround them with signs for the candidate. If someone starts chanting something in opposition drown them out with pro-candidate chants but again, don’t engage them in any way. Anyone on our campaign who even hinted at the idea protesters should be roughed up would have been immediately fired.
So a CBS reporter who had been reporting on the campaign since last summer was arrested.
Deb, a well-liked producer among his peers, has been traveling with the Trump campaign since last summer. He’s what is known as a campaign “embed.”
Deb is Indian. He has never been to the Middle East (or India for that matter). And yet, he has repeatedly been singled out at events.
It’s times like this that I don’t like being a historian. It’s too easy to see history repeating itself. And, unfortunately, we all know the outcome when environments like this arose in the past.
As another former student of history & politics with a continuing interest, I’d like to think that with greater critical awareness and discussions in some parts of the mass media and on forums like this thread, there’s still enough time and chance for the possibly severe negative outcome to be averted.
** The OP started this thread with the intent of not bringing politics directly into it, yet I’ve had to clean up a lot of posts, if not delete several (because editing would take too much time). You’ve got one more chance to keep it on topic, and overt political discussion out; otherwise, it will be closed.**
The only reason there is so much violence at these events is that the speaker attracts, condones and incites the violence. The speaker is the leader and sets the tone. This would be true no matter the nature of the event. Violence breeds violence.
The police response, in my opinion, was predictable. The assumption usually is that the person with a darker skin color caused the problem. Everyone should have there smartphone video recorders on speed dial.
However, given that it seems clear that the police had full view of the incident, why did they tackle the black man? I speculate that the police may have had another agenda other than keeping the peace and that goes beyond what I mentioned in the second paragraph. What could that be?
It does not look like Deb (the reporter) was doing anything other than taking video of various arguments and arrests (outside of the venue of a canceled event) when the Illinois State Police apparently grabbed him from behind and threw him to the ground. The Illinois State Police said that he was charged with resisting arrest (but then what were they arresting him for in the first place to make it so that he was “resisting arrest”?).
It does not make the Illinois State Police look good.
unfortunately, for many years, “we” have continued to vote for stronger government that can force citizens to comply with a variety of edicts, which results in police forces around the country that overstep their bounds.
some people have unfortunately not learned the lesson, and continue to demand more government as the answer to their problems (occupy wall st, black lives matter, etc)
most law enforcement do positive things for society (so do most gun owners), but as the institution grows, the opportunities for abuse increase.
OWS, BLM, etc. are not the type of people who lobby for increased police powers. And the incidents described here involving the Cumberland County Sheriffs (appeared to pay no attention to the person who assaulted the person they were escorting out of the event, until it was pointed out to them later) and Illinois State Police (throw-down-arrested a news reporter for no obvious reason) have nothing to do with legally increased police powers or “bigger government”.
This is definitely not the ONLY reason. Major reasons are the benefits to the protestors in having violence - violence at a rally is very bad for the candidate. And the widespread desire to use any means within or without democratic principles to shut down one particular candidate and make him somehow go away.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the right to free speech works. A piece of property does not have a right; the right is the purview of a person or an organization.
Just because an event is held on the property of a public institution DOES NOT mean it is an “all can speak” public event. Universities rent out their stadiums and venues for events all the time. And the entities renting sell tickets to these events all the time as well. This does not mean because the event is in a school stadium that the event is public and anyone can come a speak their minds and disrupt the intended “message” of the proceedings.
Think about it - does a rock concert at a public university stadium now mean that people can come in and protest the band in the middle of playing? Or be allowed to hold up disparaging signs about the rock band during the concert disrupting the environment? Of course not. Those people are ceremoniously kicked out even if they also bought tickets.
What the right of free speech essentially stops is the university from limiting others speech, but it does not stop others from limiting speech at a private event held at a building in said public school. And we know this is the case because the organizers can ask for )the people presenting a different message than the organizers to be removed. If it were a free speech zone, the protesters could not be asked to move or be forcibly moved. And silence means nothing, as signage is still speech. Therefore, banners and placards saying a different/opposite message than the organizers can be removed even if the protestors are silent and non-violent.
My company, when I ran it, rented such “public” spaces all the time and had protestors removed on a couple of occasions. There is no free speech zone at a private event held on public property that is rented out to the organizer. It was easy enough to have the protestors carted off 100 yards down the street where they were only talking to themselves. No requirement that I allow them to protest at an event I organized and paid for.
Then how is the Westboro Baptist church allowed to “protest” at funerals? Surely they are private events on private property and yet they are legally allowed to hold their posters within clear sight of the private event and all of its participants.
The “punching” incident involved someone being led out of the event by police being punched by another event attendee, and the police not paying any attention to the punching until it was pointed out to them later (when they arrested the puncher for assault). Would you say that the puncher was justified in punching the one being led out of the event by police?
The incident at UIC was in a public area outside the venue of the (canceled) event.
@green with I think they only protest at burials, outdoors, they presumably aren’t allowed into funeral homes our churches to priest actual funerals or visitations.