Interesting piece

[WinterBorn]

I found this interesting.

Years ago in Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

Word of the incident spread quickly and, in a city already roiled by recent examples of excessive use of force by local authorities, and concerned about reports of bias in the justice system nationwide, even though it was cold and there was snow on the ground, a large number of locals gathered in the street where the incident had happened to protest almost immediately.

As the crowd grew, angry protesters shouted slogans and blocked the street; some business owners, fearing property damage, shut their doors. The local authorities called for uniformed backup; backup came, well armed.

The assembly was deemed "unlawful," and the crowd was ordered to disperse. The protesters began to throw snowballs in response. (Eyewitness accounts vary as to whether a few of the protesters also hurled hard chunks of ice toward the men in uniform; accounts also vary as to whether some protesters may have been armed with sticks.)

In response, multiple uniformed law enforcers fired on the crowd. By most accounts, the first protester to die was a black man. (Though he did not have a gun, authorities would later try to justify his shooting in court by asserting the men who shot him were terrified by his large size and "mad" appearance, which, a lawyer for the men who shot him claimed, was "enough to terrify any person.")

The year was 1770, the authorities were British soldiers, the protest would later be called the Boston Massacre (during which five protesters were killed, and six wounded), and the first protester killed in that conflict was Crispus Attucks, considered by many to be a heroic American patriot and the first casualty of the American Revolution.

If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the crowd should not have blocked the street, that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots.

And ponder that.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The redcoats won in court though

 

[Moonglow]

The redcoats won in court though

They fixed the system, hmm sounds familiar...

 

[Ringel05]

I found this interesting.

Years ago in Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

Word of the incident spread quickly and, in a city already roiled by recent examples of excessive use of force by local authorities, and concerned about reports of bias in the justice system nationwide, even though it was cold and there was snow on the ground, a large number of locals gathered in the street where the incident had happened to protest almost immediately.

As the crowd grew, angry protesters shouted slogans and blocked the street; some business owners, fearing property damage, shut their doors. The local authorities called for uniformed backup; backup came, well armed.

The assembly was deemed "unlawful," and the crowd was ordered to disperse. The protesters began to throw snowballs in response. (Eyewitness accounts vary as to whether a few of the protesters also hurled hard chunks of ice toward the men in uniform; accounts also vary as to whether some protesters may have been armed with sticks.)

In response, multiple uniformed law enforcers fired on the crowd. By most accounts, the first protester to die was a black man. (Though he did not have a gun, authorities would later try to justify his shooting in court by asserting the men who shot him were terrified by his large size and "mad" appearance, which, a lawyer for the men who shot him claimed, was "enough to terrify any person.")

The year was 1770, the authorities were British soldiers, the protest would later be called the Boston Massacre (during which five protesters were killed, and six wounded), and the first protester killed in that conflict was Crispus Attucks, considered by many to be a heroic American patriot and the first casualty of the American Revolution.

If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the crowd should not have blocked the street, that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots.

And ponder that.

GOD SAVE KING GEORGE!!!!

 

[DOTR]

I found this interesting.

Years ago in Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

You are a liar of course. He was hit in the head by Private Hugh White of the Kings 29th Foot Regiment. He was not local law enforcement but rather a soldier as an occupier by the centralized government in existence at the time. Makes all the difference in the world.
You could be talking about the customs workers incident but if so you badly garbled it and the customs officer was an employee of the Crown involved in an altercation on his off duty time...not "local law enforcement"

 

[DOTR]

I found this interesting.

Word of the incident spread quickly and, in a city already roiled by recent examples of excessive use of force by local authorities, and concerned about reports of bias in the justice system nationwide, even though it was cold and there was snow on the ground, a large number of locals gathered in the street where the incident had happened to protest almost immediately.

Another lie. Excessive use of force had not been a complaint of the colonists. The fact that there was a foreign force there at all was one complaint. The Townsend Acts another. There was a revolution in the air already and any excuse was used to further that cause of course. Impressment of seamen for the HMS Romney was another cause of friction.
There was no looting, no attacks on "local law enforcement". "Local law enforcement" was on the side of the locals.
So the only thing you can be saying is that revolution is in the air today and the blacks riot because their ultimate goal is to overthrow the government. You compare patriots who died resisting foreign soldiers to thugs caught stealing cigarettes with no political thought in their head whatsoever?

 

[DOTR]

I found this interesting.


In response, multiple uniformed law enforcers fired on the crowd. By most accounts, the first protester to die was a black man. (Though he did not have a gun, authorities would later try to justify his shooting in court by asserting the men who shot him were terrified by his large size and "mad" appearance, which, a lawyer for the men who shot him claimed, was "enough to terrify any person.")
.

Again..they were not "local law enforcement". They were hardened soldiers of the 29th and 8th Regiments sent as an occupying force. The local citizens felt they had no influence in the government which sent the soldiers, had not asked for them, and had been wronged by unfair laws passed without their consent. (Like gay marriage was imposed upon us by an unelected oligarchy in the Central govt for instance).

"a lawyer for the men who shot him claimed, was "enough to terrify any person."

Said lawyers for the accused being John Adams and Josiah Quincy.

 

[DOTR]

If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the crowd should not have blocked the street, that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots.

Actually no you havent. Unlawful assembly, hurling anything at cops and blocking public roads are criminal acts under our democracy...deemed so by the people's representatives.
Also using soldiers for law enforcement these days is illegal for just that reason.
When DC sends soldiers to overthrow local government then yes I support opposing the tyrants. But representatives passing laws is not tyrannical.

Do you really misunderstand/hate the US that much and its reasons for rebellion? You compare it to this?

 

[DOTR]

If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the crowd should not have blocked the street, that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots.

Actually no you havent. Unlawful assembly, hurling anything at cops and blocking public roads are criminal acts under our democracy...deemed so by the people's representatives. Also theft and drug use.
Also using soldiers for law enforcement these days is illegal for just that reason.
When DC sends soldiers to overthrow local government then yes I support opposing the tyrants. But representatives passing laws is not tyrannical.

Do you really misunderstand/hate the US that much and its reasons for rebellion? You compare it to this?

 

[WinterBorn]

I found this interesting.

Years ago in Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

You are a liar of course. He was hit in the head by Private Hugh White of the Kings 29th Foot Regiment. He was not local law enforcement but rather a soldier as an occupier by the centralized government in existence at the time. Makes all the difference in the world.
You could be talking about the customs workers incident but if so you badly garbled it and the customs officer was an employee of the Crown involved in an altercation on his off duty time...not "local law enforcement"

Occupying force? They were a military force stationed in a British colony.

 

[MikeK]

Occupying force? They were a military force stationed in a British colony.

There is a major defining difference between a public protest and an assaultive riot. Throwing objects at people, which includes police officers, is an assaultive act with lethal potential. At the very least it is attempted felonious assault and the targets of the attempt are not required to determine if the hurled objects are eggs, rocks, or explosives.

Throughout the past few months I have watched an endless stream of videos of rioters (called "protesters" by the media), both in the U.S. and in Europe, throwing everything from heavy wood objects, rocks, unknown liquids, lighted fireworks and actual Molotov cocktails (firebombs) at police. Each time I see this I am utterly amazed that not one of the affected police has fired a shot at the individual throwing, or preparing to throw, an object. Not one.

While I cannot intelligently comment about constraints on European cops I must say I am very surprised that individual American police unions and the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) have not addressed this issue. Shields or no shields, throwing a rock at line of cops is a lethal threat which calls for a lethal response.

 

[DOTR]

I found this interesting.

Years ago in Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

You are a liar of course. He was hit in the head by Private Hugh White of the Kings 29th Foot Regiment. He was not local law enforcement but rather a soldier as an occupier by the centralized government in existence at the time. Makes all the difference in the world.
You could be talking about the customs workers incident but if so you badly garbled it and the customs officer was an employee of the Crown involved in an altercation on his off duty time...not "local law enforcement"

Occupying force? They were a military force stationed in a British colony.

They were a force sent to subdue rebellious colonists who objected to the Towsend Acts.

 

[DOTR]

Occupying force? They were a military force stationed in a British colony.

There is a major defining difference between a public protest and an assaultive riot. Throwing objects at people, which includes police officers, is an assaultive act with lethal potential. At the very least it is attempted felonious assault and the targets of the attempt are not required to determine if the hurled objects are eggs, rocks, or explosives.

Throughout the past few months I have watched an endless stream of videos of rioters (called "protesters" by the media), both in the U.S. and in Europe, throwing everything from heavy wood objects, rocks, unknown liquids, lighted fireworks and actual Molotov cocktails (firebombs) at police. Each time I see this I am utterly amazed that not one of the affected police has fired a shot at the individual throwing, or preparing to throw, an object. Not one.

While I cannot intelligently comment about constraints on European cops I must say I am very surprised that individual American police unions and the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) have not addressed this issue. Shields or no shields, throwing a rock at line of cops is a lethal threat which calls for a lethal response.

I have come to the conclusion that a "protester" is any leftist or black who commits arson, assault, looting, murder in a large group which the media approves of.
And yes the police show great restraint. Greater than I think they should be required to.
David Horowitz said in "Radical Son" that the left is made up of cowards who attack people restrained by decency or law from responding in kind.
We see the truth of that statement demonstrated every day. Drug dealers and gangs and murderers walk the streets of inner city Chicago and St Louis all day every day. Not one "protester" does a thing about it.
Cowards pure and simple.

 

[OldLady]

Occupying force? They were a military force stationed in a British colony.

There is a major defining difference between a public protest and an assaultive riot. Throwing objects at people, which includes police officers, is an assaultive act with lethal potential. At the very least it is attempted felonious assault and the targets of the attempt are not required to determine if the hurled objects are eggs, rocks, or explosives.

Throughout the past few months I have watched an endless stream of videos of rioters (called "protesters" by the media), both in the U.S. and in Europe, throwing everything from heavy wood objects, rocks, unknown liquids, lighted fireworks and actual Molotov cocktails (firebombs) at police. Each time I see this I am utterly amazed that not one of the affected police has fired a shot at the individual throwing, or preparing to throw, an object. Not one.

While I cannot intelligently comment about constraints on European cops I must say I am very surprised that individual American police unions and the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) have not addressed this issue. Shields or no shields, throwing a rock at line of cops is a lethal threat which calls for a lethal response.

I disagree. Shooting unarmed citizens is what the protests are about. I don't in any way support throwing rocks or firebombs at police or at windows or bashing in cars, but it's not bullets. Those folks need to be arrested, which they are, with any luck. They get a face full of pepper spray or a fire hose aimed at them. It's a dangerous job the police have, and I feel for them, but shooting the protesters, calling fireworks or a brick "deadly force?" I don't agree.

 

[DOTR]

It's a dangerous job the police have, and I feel for them, but shooting the protesters, calling fireworks or a brick "deadly force?" I don't agree.

Oh you dont agree? Getting hit in the head by a thrown brick is devastatingly deadly. One of the officers in St Louis suffered a fractured spine from a thrown concrete block and is still in the hospital.



Molotov cocktails arent "deadly? What kind of insane are you?

 

[Vastator]

It's a dangerous job the police have, and I feel for them, but shooting the protesters, calling fireworks or a brick "deadly force?" I don't agree.

Oh you dont agree? Getting hit in the head by a thrown brick is devastatingly deadly. One of the officers in St Louis suffered a fractured spine from a thrown concrete block and is still in the hospital.



Molotov cocktails arent "deadly? What kind of insane are you?

View attachment 149866 View attachment 149867

The leftist dialogue kind. The most dangerous kind...

 

[MikeK]

I disagree. Shooting unarmed citizens is what the protests are about. I don't in any way support throwing rocks or firebombs at police or at windows or bashing in cars, but it's not bullets. Those folks need to be arrested, which they are, with any luck. They get a face full of pepper spray or a fire hose aimed at them. It's a dangerous job the police have, and I feel for them, but shooting the protesters, calling fireworks or a brick "deadly force?" I don't agree.

I should say the most egregious examples of potentially lethal force against police are taking place in Europe and are perpetrated mainly by emboldened Muslim migrants. But that doesn't excuse the same conduct by American citizens rioting against American cops the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the allegations against specific cops.

The reason you disagree with the idea that a hurled rock or firecracker has lethal potential is you've never been hit by one. These things are capable of killing, breaking bones, blinding, and disfiguring. In the legal context, hurling a rock, a bottle, a firecracker, or any other potentially harmful object is at least an attempted felonious assault -- which calls for a deadly force (firearms) response.

The purpose of a public protest is to demonstrate extreme dissatisfaction with some specific issue and to bring that dissatisfaction to the attention of governing officials. The purpose of a riot is to cause damage to public and private property and to cause injury to private persons or public officials. Failure to respond aggressively to rioters has an emboldening effect on assaultive and destructive groups and individuals.