Charlottesville riots

[pinstripers]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/view-street-police-stood-adversaries-fought-081619839.html

[jdshock]

@jdshock, were there permits issued for the march and, if so, specifics about where they could march?

I don't actually know. I haven't seen the actual permits. The court documents in the article I linked to for the Unite the Right people made it look like their activities were supposed to be limited to the park itself. I assume the same would be true of the counter-protesters. One of the parks the counter-protesters were at was like 100 yards from the Unite the Right park, so basically any spill over was going to mean they overlapped.

Edit to add: I only know about permits for the Saturday events. Like someone else said, I don't think Friday night had permits.

[RoyalShock]

I believe the mayors ordering their police forces to stand down are doing so in order to ensure the survival of their police forces. I suspect there were people on both sides of this issue who would have no problem taking out a police officer.

I'd like to think this is the reason, but sadly, I think @WuDrWu: is correct.

The problem I have with it, is there are two groups trained to deal with these types of situations. One of those was there: the police. They should have further been backed up by the National Guard.

Regardless of which side you're on, if you're going to either commit violent acts or condone them by not leaving when things turn violent, what happens after that is your own fault.

[Aargh]

I'd like to think this is the reason, but sadly, I think @WuDrWu is correct.

The problem I have with it, is there are two groups trained to deal with these types of situations. One of those was there: the police. They should have further been backed up by the National Guard.

Regardless of which side you're on, if you're going to either commit violent acts or condone them by not leaving when things turn violent, what happens after that is your own fault.

Royal, I hate to say this because I really respect you, but that sounds like the dead woman was at fault because she was there. It pretty much exonerates the person who killed her, because she should have had the sense to leave because she should have known someone was going to successfully try to kill her.

[Aargh]

I have no problem acknowledging that there are nutjobs and people who endorse violence and killing on both sides of this confrontation.

I do not see an equivalence between endorsing violence to oppose Nazism and racism and endorsing violence to further Nazism and racism. That's a pretty huge difference.

We fought a war and lost hundreds of thousands of young men in the prime of their lives to oppose Nazism. The country as a whole endorsed violence to oppose Nazism. Now, it seems there are some who condemn violence to oppose Nazism.

If removing symbols of those who fought to continue slavery is disrespectful to the people who fought that war, then allowing Nazis to march in our streets unopposed is disrespectful to those who lost their lives in WWII.

[wufan]

I have no problem acknowledging that there are nutjobs and people who endorse violence and killing on both sides of this confrontation.

I do not see an equivalence between endorsing violence to oppose Nazism and racism and endorsing violence to further Nazism and racism. That's a pretty huge difference.

We fought a war and lost hundreds of thousands of young men in the prime of their lives to oppose Nazism. The country as a whole endorsed violence to oppose Nazism. Now, it seems there are some who condemn violence to oppose Nazism.

If removing symbols of those who fought to continue slavery is disrespectful to the people who fought that war, then allowing Nazis to march in our streets unopposed is disrespectful to those who lost their lives in WWII.

I don't see the logic here. I think it breaks down when you say "endorsing violence to further nazism." Nobody is endorsing violence.

[wufan]

Royal, I hate to say this because I really respect you, but that sounds like the dead woman was at fault because she was there. It pretty much exonerates the person who killed her, because she should have had the sense to leave because she should have known someone was going to successfully try to kill her.

Not really taking a side on this, but you could equivocate this to what happened with Cle...don't go to strip clubs at 3 am and you are less likely to find trouble. Not the way it should be, but sensible people should avoid situations where they can become a victim.

[Aargh]

I don't see the logic here. I think it breaks down when you say "endorsing violence to further nazism." Nobody is endorsing violence.

Listen to the interviews in the HBO piece. The people they interviewed were strongly endorsing violence. I'm talking about the people in Charlottesville, not the people posting here.

[wufan]

Listen to the interviews in the HBO piece. The people they interviewed were strongly endorsing violence. I'm talking about the people in Charlottesville, not the people posting here.

Got it!

[shockfan89_]

This thing about "if you're not 100% behind my side, then you are obviously supporting and defending the other side" is a bunch of crap and needs to stop.

I agree 100%. Just like condemning both sides doesn't mean you agree with either side. The MSM wants to push the narrative that by blaming both sides for the violence, Trump is siding with one side. It's fake news, it's BS, and it's laughable that CEOs were resigning from the President's manufacturing council because Trump blamed both sides for what happened in Charlottesville.

I am glad Trump came out Monday and called out certain hate groups, but it really doesn't matter who you are supporting or rallying against. If the group you are with turns violent over statues and names of parks, you are in the wrong.

I have no issue with statues coming down. It's the fact that some of these places are taking them down in secret or removing them in the middle of the night that concerns me. To me, that itself is worthy of a peaceful protest.

[shockmonster]

Listen to the interviews in the HBO piece. The people they interviewed were strongly endorsing violence. I'm talking about the people in Charlottesville, not the people posting here.

I don't have access to the HBO piece but your comment on acharlottesville sounds like most or a large number of Charlottesville people side with the KKK/violence, etc. I looked up the KKK and one piece said there was 3,000, and Southern Poverty Center (a left group) said 5000-8000 in 22 states. That is not very small fringe group out of 300 million plus. At its peak there were 4 million during the 1920s. We tend to talk at each other and not listen to each other. It's too bad when such fringe groups in America can get so much oublicity. But violence and 24 hr news tends to foster attention. I hope that my statements are not misconstrued to be supportive in many to these fringe groups.

[jdshock]

I'm blown away by the fact that Trump and Co. have latched onto this argument that Lee and Washington are equals.

Like, Lee and Washington would've been best friends when one created a nation with the sole purpose of disbanding from the union the other established.

[pinstripers]

I'm blown away by the fact that Trump and Co. have latched onto this argument that Lee and Washington are equals.

Like, Lee and Washington would've been best friends when one created a nation with the sole purpose of disbanding from the union the other established.

Nobody ever said that

[jdshock]

Nobody ever said that

Trump's lawyer literally said there's no difference between them. He said you can't be against one and for the other https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/u...l?mcubz=0&_r=0

[ShockCrazy]

Trump's lawyer literally said there's no difference between them. He said you can't be against one and for the other https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/u...l?mcubz=0&_r=0

Also the romanticism of Lee being a great general who didn't support slavery, but fought for his home is so wrong. He at best tried to absolve himself of blame. He wrote letters to his wife in which he said that he believed that it was through God's will that slavery existed, and if it ended it would be through God's will. Effectively saying not my problem to deal with. Also he had the stance that slavery made the African people much more better off, and would help them in the future. Also he get's credit for freeing the Custis slaves, which was actually just in his father-in-law's will. And he made them all serve the maximum 5 years after his f-i-l's death before releasing them. Yeah, real great guy. Great tactical general yes, noble hero, no.