• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters, ACLU sue over use of force at White House ahead of Trump's church visit

Top Cat

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
33,018
Reaction score
14,664
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Washington (CNN)Several protesters and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the federal use of force to disperse a peaceful protest in Washington, DC, ahead of President Donald Trump's photo-op at a local church.The lawsuit says the administration-directed police had "no legitimate basis to destroy the peaceable gathering" of people protesting the death of George Floyd.
"This case is about the President and Attorney General of the United States ordering the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people," reads the lawsuit.
Click to expand...


Protesters, ACLU sue over use of force at White House ahead of Trump's church visit - CNN
 
Last edited:
Did the protesters in Lafayette Park damage property or cause injury to any law enforcement detail or media correspondent? Were the protesters prohibited from protesting or were they merely asked to temporarily remove themselves from a public space so that others who also had a right to protest could do so?
 
Lutherf said:
Did the protesters in Lafayette Park damage property or cause injury to any law enforcement detail or media correspondent? Were the protesters prohibited from protesting or were they merely asked to temporarily remove themselves from a public space so that others who also had a right to protest could do so?
Click to expand...

They were asked to move and they didn't. They then started throwing things at the cops who in turn tear gassed them. This was not an incident where Trump ordered the SS to start indiscriminately firing on innocent babies... like Trump Haters are making it out to be. That said, there is no reason that Trump had to go to that Church for a photo op either.
 
Attention getting lawsuit, that is all this is about.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Attention getting lawsuit, that is all this is about.
Click to expand...

yep. peaceful protestors don't throw rocks and other objects when asked to move back.

so they weren't protesting they were rioting.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They were asked to move and they didn't. They then started throwing things at the cops who in turn tear gassed them. This was not an incident where Trump ordered the SS to start indiscriminately firing on innocent babies... like Trump Haters are making it out to be. That said, there is no reason that Trump had to go to that Church for a photo op either.
Click to expand...

sure there was he went because he could.
constitutionally protected. he can go where he likes.
 
ludin said:
yep. peaceful protestors don't throw rocks and other objects when asked to move back.

so they weren't protesting they were rioting.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about now?
 
Bodhisattva said:
They were asked to move and they didn't. They then started throwing things at the cops who in turn tear gassed them. This was not an incident where Trump ordered the SS to start indiscriminately firing on innocent babies... like Trump Haters are making it out to be. That said, there is no reason that Trump had to go to that Church for a photo op either.
Click to expand...
I will argue that Trump not only has the right but also has responsibility to acess the damages caused by the rioters. If he wanted to personally see it, he has the right to do it safely. That means creating distance between himself and the crowd.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
They were asked to move and they didn't. They then started throwing things at the cops who in turn tear gassed them. This was not an incident where Trump ordered the SS to start indiscriminately firing on innocent babies... like Trump Haters are making it out to be. That said, there is no reason that Trump had to go to that Church for a photo op either.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Symbolism is important.

The US saw violent rioting, even right outside the White House the evening prior. This led to the burning of the Church across from the White House.

The President needed to take a symbolic action demonstrating the government is still solid, can control the streets, and will no longer tolerate these unlawful actions.

The protesters were asked to move, they refused and sought to get closer. The Secret Service acted to move them back. Trump should rightly be able to present a strong face to the public, without having to deal with hecklers or worse.

The protesters were allowed to protest...anywhere but at that particular location and at that particular time.
 
ludin said:
sure there was he went because he could.
constitutionally protected. he can go where he likes.
Click to expand...

WRONG. Nobody can just go where they like if other people are already there... you can't push me out of your way just because you want to get to Point B... you can go around though.
 
OrphanSlug said:
What are you going on about now?
Click to expand...

Those peaceful protesters were asked to move back.
Those peaceful protesters began throwing things at police.

that is not being peaceful.
 
Bodhisattva said:
WRONG. Nobody can just go where they like if other people are already there... you can't push me out of your way just because you want to get to Point B... you can go around though.
Click to expand...

actually they can.
and no one was already there.
they wanted to move the security fence back just for safety after someone threw something at barr.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I disagree.

Symbolism is important.

The US saw violent rioting, even right outside the White House the evening prior. This led to the burning of the Church across from the White House.

The President needed to take a symbolic action demonstrating the government is still solid, can control the streets, and will no longer tolerate these unlawful actions.

The protesters were asked to move, they refused and sought to get closer. The Secret Service acted to move them back. Trump should rightly be able to present a strong face to the public, without having to deal with hecklers or worse.

The protesters were allowed to protest...anywhere but at that particular location and at that particular time.
Click to expand...


It is not up to the government to decide when and where people can peacefully protest...
 
ludin said:
actually they can.
and no one was already there.
they wanted to move the security fence back just for safety after someone threw something at barr.
Click to expand...

I have heard this from many cultists but I have yet to hear or see any proof of it.

And even if it happened the SS and capital police were already locked and loaded and in position to attack...
 
Outlook said:
Will ACLU represent the cops for injuries from being hit with rocks, bricks, bottles by the peaceful protesters?

Go luck with the suit. I can tell you it will not go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Who will the ACLU bring suit against in this case?
 
GDViking said:
I have heard this from many cultists but I have yet to hear or see any proof of it.

And even if it happened the SS and capital police were already locked and loaded and in position to attack...
Click to expand...

facts don't care about your feelings.
the police have the right to move protesters back from an area.

trump has a right to visit whatever he wants without being impeded by protesters.
your right to protest does not trump someone else's right to free movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom