(07-28-2020, 07:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: There are legitimate questions to ask about the photo op on June 1st.
The protesters were peaceful, and nobody tried to ask them to move.
Barr had no intent of answering those questions. He was asked why chemical irritants were used, and his answer was, "tear gas was not used." That's transparent bull.
He is right that It's not okay to try to burn down a federal courthouse, but it was also not okay to storm the office of a wildlife refuge. 27 armed rioters storms that office in January of 2016, and occupied it illegally for 5 weeks. yet they all eventually surrendered, they were all arrested, and nobody was injured.
This could all be handled differently, with less violence.

(07-29-2020, 07:57 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-29-2020, 01:06 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: It's kind of like when I point out that your analogy was flawed because a dude was killed while being arrested, but you ignore it.

The analogy doesn't have to be perfect.
The dude who died was (a) part of a group that was allowed to take over a federal building, (b) decided to be part of a smaller group to go on a little trip, © that smaller group was cornered on the road by a joint operation of FBI and Oregon State Police, (d) then he swore that he would die rather than be arrested. He attempted to run, and he told the officers to shoot them. All of the other people he was traveling with gave themselves up peacefully. Obviously his decision to run and die says more about him than it does about FBI tactics on that day.

none of those four things are immediately relevant to what's going on in Portland, because nothing like that has been allowed to happen, yet.

All I'm saying is that there is precedent to allow protesters to have the building they want, and then more or less lock them in it.