anaheim riots

[Shawnmoore81 623]

i havent seen this on here but im shocked this isnt the top story on the news. its 1 step below a war between people and police

 

 

http://rt.com/usa/news/shooting-anaheim-protests-brutality-986/

[BlueLineFish 615]

I'm surprised we haven't heard more as well. People acting like animals when they get upset. Guess its no surprise. Real winners who bring their children to riots and then complain when the police act against them while there are kids around. Same tactics that the cowards in the middle east use. Hide weapons in schools and hospitals and when they get bombed they say we killed innocent people. Real respectable

[Shawnmoore81 623]

The cops don't even need to be there. Send in ins and they will head for the hills

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Either way it should be reported

[this_is_nascar 162]

I never get wrapped-up into stories such as this. Consider the class of people protesting and that sums it all up. A bunch of idiots that don't have the intelligence or common sense to handle the displeasure in a more productive way. In every society within the US, you have a group/class of people that are just waiting for a reason to protest, loot, steal and beat-up innocent people.

[Sigman 41]

I never get wrapped-up into stories such as this. Consider the class of people protesting and that sums it all up. A bunch of idiots that don't have the intelligence or common sense to handle the displeasure in a more productive way. In every society within the US, you have a group/class of people that are just waiting for a reason to protest, loot, steal and beat-up innocent people.

 

This about sums it up.

[vjf915 456]

Guy Fawkes mask while protesting, classic.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

i brought up on here before that a group was trying to get riots started in penngrove because 2 cops ended up killing with a known drug dealer who was on pcp. they had ralleys, cops got death threats. one even pack his family up and moved to nashville. but now the 2 guys who headed this are trying to start a charter school. btw the school was going to be 2% white even though its located in a 1/2 and 1/2 district but in a mostly white town.

[Anselmo 87]

From what I read, the police killed gang bangers who were up to no good. While everyone, gangbangers included, deserves due process, I'm not sympathetic to the plight of gang bangers who are up to no good.

[this_is_nascar 162]

From what I read, the police killed gang bangers who were up to no good. While everyone, gangbangers included, deserves due process, I'm not sympathetic to the plight of gang bangers who are up to no good.

 

 

+1

[fumanchu182 23]

From what I read, the police killed gang bangers who were up to no good. While everyone, gangbangers included, deserves due process, I'm not sympathetic to the plight of gang bangers who are up to no good.

 

The reason they are trying to keep it quiet is because they don't want the shit to hit the fan. From the reports I have read is that the police are acting as judge, jury and executioner. First example Diaz, no gun in hand, no weapons = shot in the back of the head and the leg (7/22). Second incident was a man in handcuffs getting shot. When residents tried to take photos police blocked the view. <--- This account is from court papers served to the mayor.

 

If the police start shooting people in the back of the head for no reason and you have proof then yeah, break out the torches and pitch forks.

[Soju 153]

Consider the class of people protesting and that sums it all up. A bunch of idiots that don't have the intelligence or common sense to handle the displeasure in a more productive way.

 

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

[fumanchu182 23]

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

 

Fucing A right. +1

[this_is_nascar 162]

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

 

 

Yea, you're right. I don't have 1st hand experience of the class of people protesting. What I do have are statistics and past protests/riots that allow me to make a judgment guess of what "class" of people are involved in these protests. As far as 1st amendment rights, there's a proper and intelligent way to do that, rather the resort to the behavior that these idiots do.

[Kaiser7 33]

Guy Fawkes mask while protesting, classic.

 

I actually used to like that whole thing, but with some of the /btards out there during OWS they sort of ruined the symbolism, which, if i'm not mistaken, was for smaller government.

[vjf915 456]

if i'm not mistaken, was for smaller government.

 

It was. I just might have to watch V for Vendetta tonight.... 3 months until November 5th!!

[voyager9 3,438]

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I'm pretty sure the 1A does not cover throwing chairs through a Starbucks window. I don't agree with the characterization here on the 'class' of protester but lets also not pretend this was a quiet sit-in.

[pbkid6974 1]

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

 

these people have every right to protest.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

this right is guaranteed to them by the bold portion of the first amendment above. however, the bold italic underlined portion sets the requirement that no one is harmed by these protests. these people, judging by the photos, are acting very violent and therefor are not protected under the first amendment. they are nothing more than criminals. lock them up and throw away the key...

[BlueLineFish 615]

Protesting is one thing. This is will destruction of property, criminal mischief and outright disregard for the safety of others. Not something I think is a protected action. Definitely not what I would consider to be the right of free speech so let's not go defending these savages

[silverado427 10,767]

I know I'm profiling but are they even legal citizens. If not i say use the chipper.

[Red Solo Cup 11]

Funny at the end, bunch of people obviously with no jobs out protesting in daytime.

One fat white liberal wanders aimlessly through the frame. (no doubt a public sector retiree).

I like RT (Russia Today) they've had some good coverage of the financial crisis but you have to realize it's the Moscow propaganda mouthpiece so jumps all over "class warfare" type of stories.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Sadly I'd trust a Russian media source over an American. We didn't even report this. It should have been blasted everywhere like the Rodney king riots.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I know I'm profiling but are they even legal citizens. If not i say use the chipper.

 

Like I said in the beginning. Have ins pull up and they will run for the hills. I feel if your not a citizen you don't get our rights.

[Dan 177]

Can always count on RT (government funded Russian news corp) to air out the dirty laundry of the US. They may have ulterior motives, but if that's where we need to get it, then so be it... since our own news channels are obviously not carrying such stories.

[dave545 15]

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

yes peaceful protests not breaking windows, beating people up, kicking police vehicles and causing serious property damage, that is not protected under the 1st amendment right neither is going out on a shooting rampage covered under the second amendment right. this is not a protest but a riot so get those things straight your argument is void in this instance, perhaps in others like occupy wall street you would have some grounds and a leg to stand on with that argument.

[Red Solo Cup 11]

How about the election fraud in Mexico not covered here?

PRI gave out "gift cards" in exchange for votes.

Problem is, they promised 500 pesos, turns out the gift cards only had 100 pesos on them.

So they had "very large protests". (probably other issues too)

The news cycle is so fast on this stuff, you blink and you miss it.

Except for the shooting in Aurora ,we'll hear about that for months.

[db1775 4]

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest.

 

It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure.

 

I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

 

Generally a +1 to this comment. However, I'd really love to see these people get off their asses riot on the gangbangers who infect their neighborhoods for a change. It just strikes as kind of cowardly, yet typical, to push and provoke people you know aren't going to gun you down. I'd respect them more if they collectively went Charles Bronson on the people causing the problems in the first place.

 

And it always amazes me that urbanites riot when the scumbags among them are targeted by the police, as in the 1992 LA riots. As much as I cherish the Constitution, in practice I would choose something more substantive to put my kids in harm's way and riot over, like wrongful no-knock warrants on the incorrect address, or these lowlife gangsters shooting down little kids in the streets (ie Chicago), or TSA agent jamming their hands down my pants. There are so many good reasons out there to get angry, and people always choose the worst one.

[Soju 153]

Yea, you're right. I don't have 1st hand experience of the class of people protesting. What I do have are statistics and past protests/riots that allow me to make a judgment guess of what "class" of people are involved in these protests. As far as 1st amendment rights, there's a proper and intelligent way to do that, rather the resort to the behavior that these idiots do.

 

Instead of just saying you have 'statistics' and calling people idiots, how about you post said statistics? I can say I have statistics to prove otherwise, but it doesn't mean anything unless I actually post them.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the 1A does not cover throwing chairs through a Starbucks window. I don't agree with the characterization here on the 'class' of protester but lets also not pretend this was a quiet sit-in.

 

Agreed. It certainly doesn't. I can't defend that, and won't. I have as much of a problem with that as anything. There are always people who use valid reasons to protest as an excuse to do stuff like that. And that is sad.

 

 

these people have every right to protest.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

this right is guaranteed to them by the bold portion of the first amendment above. however, the bold italic underlined portion sets the requirement that no one is harmed by these protests. these people, judging by the photos, are acting very violent and therefor are not protected under the first amendment. they are nothing more than criminals.

 

I agree again. The people that turn to violence upset me. I hate that there are always people who ruin things for others. With that said, those people need to be dealt with, but it does not mean that everyone protesting is violent or has violent intentions. The portion of your quote I put in bold holds equally true for both the protesters and the police. As it is clear there are always people who use a protest as an excuse to commit crime, it is equally clear that there are police officers who use that as an excuse to use force on non-violent protesters.

 

 

yes peaceful protests not breaking windows, beating people up, kicking police vehicles and causing serious property damage, that is not protected under the 1st amendment right neither is going out on a shooting rampage covered under the second amendment right. this is not a protest but a riot so get those things straight your argument is void in this instance, perhaps in others like occupy wall street you would have some grounds and a leg to stand on with that argument.

 

I didn't make an argument that smashing windows and kicking vehicles was protected under the 1A, so please don't try and make it like I did. I made general statements that preventing people from protesting is unconstitutional, and that attacking people because of their perceived 'class' is an ad hominem logical fallacy that holds no merit.

 

 

 

Generally a +1 to this comment. However, I'd really love to see these people get off their asses riot on the gangbangers who infect their neighborhoods for a change. It just strikes as kind of cowardly, yet typical, to push and provoke people you know aren't going to gun you down. I'd respect them more if they collectively went Charles Bronson on the people causing the problems in the first place.

 

And it always amazes me that urbanites riot when the scumbags among them are targeted by the police, as in the 1992 LA riots. As much as I cherish the Constitution, in practice I would choose something more substantive to put my kids in harm's way and riot over, like wrongful no-knock warrants on the incorrect address, or these lowlife gangsters shooting down little kids in the streets (ie Chicago), or TSA agent jamming their hands down my pants. There are so many good reasons out there to get angry, and people always choose the worst one.

 

Agreed! I don't always understand that either.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

I'm all for a peaceful protest. Which is why I empty holster quite often. But if the cops turn violent on peaceful protesters I am all for fighting back. Chances are these guys were breaking shit and the cops wanted to disperse em. But I wanted to make that clear.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Instead of just saying you have 'statistics' and calling people idiots, how about you post said statistics? I can say I have statistics to prove otherwise, but it doesn't mean anything unless I actually post them.

 

 

 

How long have you lived on this Earth? All you need to do is spend a few minutes looking at every protest/riot that's made the news over the last 30-years and you'll quickly have your own "statistics" to be able to make a determination that the majority of those participating in these things are idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people. It's the few folks who protest properly, within the law, that you'll never hear about. I'd expect that number to be pretty low. Then you have the group of people that won't stand up for anything, but that's an entirely different topic.