Seems like DC people might "like" the idea of law enforcement again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Council did not prohibit MPD from using tear gas in a riot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Council did not prohibit MPD from using tear gas in a riot.

And how do you do that if a 1st amendment protest shifts to a riot, and you dont have riot gear? And who determines it is now a "riot"? Is there a checklist the Council drew up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Council did not prohibit MPD from using tear gas in a riot.

And how do you do that if a 1st amendment protest shifts to a riot, and you dont have riot gear? And who determines it is now a "riot"? Is there a checklist the Council drew up?

When you and your fellow klans men star killing police. When your enter federal property with the intent to over turn a free election, kill elected representatives and install an emperor. It is sad that people like will not acknowledge the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Council did not prohibit MPD from using tear gas in a riot.

And how do you do that if a 1st amendment protest shifts to a riot, and you dont have riot gear? And who determines it is now a "riot"? Is there a checklist the Council drew up?

All of these questions were equally relevant before the Council resolution - unless you think that MPD should be allowed to use tear gas etc. on peaceful protesters. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking the issue with the Republican terrorist takeover of the Capitol was that the Capitol police weren't allowed to use chokeholds on the protestors and not that the right wingers in charge of security deliberately understaffed the Capitol police and deliberately ignored requests for backup because they knew it was their own people who were the terrorists.

But of course you knew that and like all regressives are pushing a bad-faith argument falsely comparing largely peaceful protests in which the police used excessive force against everyone because of a few bad actors to a terrorist insurrection in which every single actor was inciting violence and breaking the law.

So do you deny that they used tear gas to quell the crowd, a riot control method our Council is sternly against? And Guardsmen have now been authorized to use lethal force. Again, what a difference a season makes!

Stop spreading misinformation. The Council prohibited use of tear gas, pepper spray, riot gear, rubber bullets and stun grenades by MPD (or federal police while on non-federal land) in response to First Amendment protests. When you violently force yourself into the US Capitol, that's not a First Amendment protest.

Any 1st amendment protest can unfortunately (and unpredictably) contain or be joined by non-peaceful elements and/or devolve quickly into a riot.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Council did not prohibit MPD from using tear gas in a riot.

And how do you do that if a 1st amendment protest shifts to a riot, and you dont have riot gear? And who determines it is now a "riot"? Is there a checklist the Council drew up?

All of these questions were equally relevant before the Council resolution - unless you think that MPD should be allowed to use tear gas etc. on peaceful protesters. Do you?

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

what did they do before the council resolution this summer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Police are bad if they are restraining leftist social movements.

Police are good if they are restraining rightist social movements.

All you need to know

Well...........yes. In this case, leftists were protesting state sanctioned murder of unarmed criminal suspects pretrial, which is not only horrific but also utterly unconstitutional.

On the other hand you had a murderous gang of thousands of braindead Republicans who performed a violent insurrection of Congress during the transfer of power.

The left is just. The right are terrorists.

[Anonymous]

OP it is hard to figure out how to teach the police, don't kneel on a guy's neck for ten minutes because of a fake $20; DO respond quickly to a siege of the Captiol/imminent threat of the overthrow of democracy.

I like the police, I respect them, I couldn't do their job. I'm willing to cut them a LOT of slack. Please just tell them to stop murdering (mostly black) people for random sh8t. thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

No, it means we never stopped letting them have riot gear to control riots with. We just stopped letting them have riot gear to use on peaceful protesters. Evidently the MPD is able to figure it out, so I don't understand why you're complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

No, it means we never stopped letting them have riot gear to control riots with. We just stopped letting them have riot gear to use on peaceful protesters. Evidently the MPD is able to figure it out, so I don't understand why you're complaining.

The MPD was called to the scene with riot gear long after the riot developed. Is this what you would have happen whenever peaceful protestors turn violent, rather than have it on hand as police + the Mayor have requested? Seems inefficient. So I am to gather that for the inauguration day, MPD will not be deployed with gear until called/authorized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

No, it means we never stopped letting them have riot gear to control riots with. We just stopped letting them have riot gear to use on peaceful protesters. Evidently the MPD is able to figure it out, so I don't understand why you're complaining.

The MPD was called to the scene with riot gear long after the riot developed. Is this what you would have happen whenever peaceful protestors turn violent, rather than have it on hand as police + the Mayor have requested? Seems inefficient. So I am to gather that for the inauguration day, MPD will not be deployed with gear until called/authorized?

It's weird how you have so little confidence in the MPD's ability to distinguish between a peaceful protest and a riot.