Judge limits Detroit police

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

 

[2aguy]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This judge wants Detroit added to the list of burnt out cities......the joe biden voters will have more access to burning, looting, beating and murdering people, crushing the what is left of the states economy.........anything to beat Trump in November.....

The left is insane, they will do anything to get power over us....

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

Poor little commie, do I need to post the definitions or "NOT" or CORROBORATED"? It means no fucking evidence.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the intelligence on the Russian bounty program had not been corroborated by intelligence agencies and that they do not believe any attacks in Afghanistan that resulted in American casualties can be directly tied to it. The U.S. is still looking into the program and Milley warned that if it proves to have been real the U.S. "will take action."

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Sure it is, it demonstrates how fucked up commie judges are.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Nuisance suits like this just plug up the system, of course that's exactly what the commies Cloward and Pivien taught their deciples. Overwhelm and collapse the system, sound familiar?

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

Poor little commie, do I need to post the definitions or "NOT" or CORROBORATED"? It means no fucking evidence.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the intelligence on the Russian bounty program had not been corroborated by intelligence agencies and that they do not believe any attacks in Afghanistan that resulted in American casualties can be directly tied to it. The U.S. is still looking into the program and Milley warned that if it proves to have been real the U.S. "will take action."

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

.

What exactly does this have to do with anything I've said? I never bought the "bounty" B.S. I'm on record saying so long ago. So what are you ranting about?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Nuisance suits like this just plug up the system, of course that's exactly what the commies Cloward and Pivien taught their deciples. Overwhelm and collapse the system, sound familiar?

.

The argument for a very long time has been to not fight back. Argue in court. People bring their arguments to court and you still bitch. The reasons are clear.

Melania complains about people not peacefully protesting but she doesn't respond to the fact of Donald calling people peacefully protesting SOB's.

The reasons are clear.

 

[Ame®icano]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

Although unnecessary, that is a great decision by the judge. He's talking about protesters.

He didn't say a word about rioters, looters, and for them the rules stays in place.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

Poor little commie, do I need to post the definitions or "NOT" or CORROBORATED"? It means no fucking evidence.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the intelligence on the Russian bounty program had not been corroborated by intelligence agencies and that they do not believe any attacks in Afghanistan that resulted in American casualties can be directly tied to it. The U.S. is still looking into the program and Milley warned that if it proves to have been real the U.S. "will take action."

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

.

What exactly does this have to do with anything I've said? I never bought the "bounty" B.S. I'm on record saying so long ago. So what are you ranting about?

Sorry I confused you with another commie pushing a lie in another thread. Your contention that park police violated anyone's civil rights in Lafayette Park is another lie.

Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan of the United States Park Police said officers did not use tear gas against protesters near the White House on Monday, according to a statement released Tuesday.

Reports of officers using tear gas against protesters in Lafayette Park circulated Monday, with many saying the demonstrators were expelled from the area to make way for a photo opportunity by President Donald Trump at St. John's Episcopal Church.

According to Tuesday's statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, "became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons."

While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, "no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park."

U.S. Park Police Chief says no tear gas was used on Washington D.C. protesters before Trump's church visit

"No tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park," said Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan in a Monday statement.

www.newsweek.com

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

Poor little commie, do I need to post the definitions or "NOT" or CORROBORATED"? It means no fucking evidence.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the intelligence on the Russian bounty program had not been corroborated by intelligence agencies and that they do not believe any attacks in Afghanistan that resulted in American casualties can be directly tied to it. The U.S. is still looking into the program and Milley warned that if it proves to have been real the U.S. "will take action."

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

.

What exactly does this have to do with anything I've said? I never bought the "bounty" B.S. I'm on record saying so long ago. So what are you ranting about?

Sorry I confused you with another commie pushing a lie in another thread. Your contention that park police violated anyone's civil rights in Lafayette Park is another lie.

Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan of the United States Park Police said officers did not use tear gas against protesters near the White House on Monday, according to a statement released Tuesday.

Reports of officers using tear gas against protesters in Lafayette Park circulated Monday, with many saying the demonstrators were expelled from the area to make way for a photo opportunity by President Donald Trump at St. John's Episcopal Church.

According to Tuesday's statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, "became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons."

While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, "no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park."

U.S. Park Police Chief says no tear gas was used on Washington D.C. protesters before Trump's church visit

"No tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park," said Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan in a Monday statement.

www.newsweek.com

.

US Park Police spokesperson said it was a mistake to deny using tear gas. The acting chief then again denied using tear gas.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Nuisance suits like this just plug up the system, of course that's exactly what the commies Cloward and Pivien taught their deciples. Overwhelm and collapse the system, sound familiar?

.

The argument for a very long time has been to not fight back. Argue in court. People bring their arguments to court and you still bitch. The reasons are clear.

Melania complains about people not peacefully protesting but she doesn't respond to the fact of Donald calling people peacefully protesting SOB's.

The reasons are clear.

Poor thing, does a bit of rough language hurt your snowflake sensitives? And if those SOBs are depending on me and millions of others for their paychecks, they may as well find another line of work. I don't tune into sports to have commie bullshit pushed in my face. If a game even comes on the radio, I change the channel.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

Fact. I never supported the impeachment of Trump but I would have here in the way he violated people's civil rights.

Ignoring that bullshit was debunked, just proves you have no intellectual honesty.

.

It wasn't except in your mind.

Poor little commie, do I need to post the definitions or "NOT" or CORROBORATED"? It means no fucking evidence.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the intelligence on the Russian bounty program had not been corroborated by intelligence agencies and that they do not believe any attacks in Afghanistan that resulted in American casualties can be directly tied to it. The U.S. is still looking into the program and Milley warned that if it proves to have been real the U.S. "will take action."

Top Pentagon officials say Russian bounty program not corroborated

Defense secretary says Russian bounty program was taken seriously but not corroborated by intelligence agencies.

abcnews.go.com

.

What exactly does this have to do with anything I've said? I never bought the "bounty" B.S. I'm on record saying so long ago. So what are you ranting about?

Sorry I confused you with another commie pushing a lie in another thread. Your contention that park police violated anyone's civil rights in Lafayette Park is another lie.

Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan of the United States Park Police said officers did not use tear gas against protesters near the White House on Monday, according to a statement released Tuesday.

Reports of officers using tear gas against protesters in Lafayette Park circulated Monday, with many saying the demonstrators were expelled from the area to make way for a photo opportunity by President Donald Trump at St. John's Episcopal Church.

According to Tuesday's statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, "became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons."

While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, "no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park."

U.S. Park Police Chief says no tear gas was used on Washington D.C. protesters before Trump's church visit

"No tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park," said Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan in a Monday statement.

www.newsweek.com

.

US Park Police spokesperson said it was a mistake to deny using tear gas. The acting chief then again denied using tear gas.

So who would know more, the chief or a peon spokesman? I know, you'll chose to believe the one that confirms your bias. Typical commie.

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Nuisance suits like this just plug up the system, of course that's exactly what the commies Cloward and Pivien taught their deciples. Overwhelm and collapse the system, sound familiar?

.

The argument for a very long time has been to not fight back. Argue in court. People bring their arguments to court and you still bitch. The reasons are clear.

Melania complains about people not peacefully protesting but she doesn't respond to the fact of Donald calling people peacefully protesting SOB's.

The reasons are clear.

Poor thing, does a bit of rough language hurt your snowflake sensitives? And if those SOBs are depending on me and millions of others for their paychecks, they may as well find another line of work. I don't tune into sports to have commie bullshit pushed in my face. If a game even comes on the radio, I change the channel.

.

Right, "you should peacefully protest" is all a lie.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.

She acted on accusations, nothing more. 50 people could be rioting and a single protester could get caught in the police response and claim brutality. Of course that single protester is most likely cheering the rioters. That's been the MO of the left for decades.

.

You can read the article and reply based upon that or not. I'm guessing not.

I read it, the people are full of shit, the courts are what you commies turn to when you can win any other way. The police chief said the ruling won't change a damn thing, because they don't use those tactics on "peaceful" protesters.

.

Then her ruling is no big deal, right?

But I have to chuckle at the idea of turning to the courts being communist. I thought the argument has been that people need to turn to the courts as opposed to fighting back? No?

Nuisance suits like this just plug up the system, of course that's exactly what the commies Cloward and Pivien taught their deciples. Overwhelm and collapse the system, sound familiar?

.

The argument for a very long time has been to not fight back. Argue in court. People bring their arguments to court and you still bitch. The reasons are clear.

Melania complains about people not peacefully protesting but she doesn't respond to the fact of Donald calling people peacefully protesting SOB's.

The reasons are clear.

Poor thing, does a bit of rough language hurt your snowflake sensitives? And if those SOBs are depending on me and millions of others for their paychecks, they may as well find another line of work. I don't tune into sports to have commie bullshit pushed in my face. If a game even comes on the radio, I change the channel.

.

Right, "you should peacefully protest" is all a lie.

Protest on your bosses dime and see how long you last.

.