Tuesday Ethics, 6/2/2020: Stunts, Looting, Bad Great Movies, And “Understanding.”

Happy?

What the hell’s the matter with you?

1. On the President’s stunt visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church. I refuse to second-guess the President’s decision to walk across the street to  St. John’s Episcopal Church in D.C. to make an anti-riot statement, Bible in hand, since I do not believe it matters what he does right now. He will be criticized for it, and I refuse to participate in the gratuitous and destructive effort to make it impossible for him to lead and govern.

The immediate focus was on the fact that his way though Lafayette Park was cleared by police using rubber bullets and tear gas. The President was defying the protesters, and whether it was wise to do so, it was also his right to do so. If the President believes posing outside a riot damaged church is to the nation’s benefit, and that he should walk through protesters to do it, then he gets to make that call. If protesters are in the way or threatening his safety, they have to move. If they won’t move voluntarily, then some degree of force has to be used.

The news media has avoided mentioning it, but the protest was illegal: demonstrations in Lafayette Park require permits, and this mob had none. Moreover, the description of the group as “peaceful protesters” by the news media has to be viewed with skepticism. The past week has shown that “peaceful protesters” suddenly become violent rioters without warning, and even when they do, the news media is still likely to call them “peaceful.”

Other complaints about the episode involved the President’s use of the Bible. Yup, he used it as a prop! That doesn’t offend me particularly, since the Bible is used as a prop so often that I regard that as one of its major cultural functions. Presidents, in particular, have used it as a prop; I would argue that when they are sworn into office using the Bible, it’s a prop. I particularly remember Bill Clinton holding a Bible in photo ops when he was supposedly undergoing “spiritual instruction” during Monica Madness. Trump’s Bible was standard Presidential PR. but this President isn’t allowed to use the same tools available to his predecessors.

2. If you wonder why police appear to have no idea what to do about looters, wonder no more. Read this incomprehensible print version of humming from the Police website, circa 2005.

3. If one can’t comprehend the culture, one can’t accurately assess ethics within that culture. I work really, really hard to keep up to date with the U.S. culture, and it worries me when the value of something hailed by supposedly legitimate critics completely eludes me. I felt that way about “1917,” which critics celebrated as the most deserving Oscar nominated film, and I felt that way about “Parasite,” the ultimate Oscar-winner. Neither, however, flummoxed me  half as much as two critically acclaimed films, one British and 60 years old, the other recent and American, that I resolved to watch as an exercise in cultural literacy.

The American film was “The Disaster Artist,” which has won awards and has been almost unanimously praised by filmgoers and critics alike. It is yet another movie about the making of bad movies—Eddie Murphy’s “Dolemite is My Name” was another (and much, much better).

“The Disaster Artist” has James Franco playing the whack-job who wrote, directed and starred in “The Room,” widely regarded as one of the worst movies ever made. Franco’s film’s appeal, as far as I can see, is like the cruelest of reality shows: Look at this moron be moronic and he doesn’t even know what a moron he is!  “Ed Wood” had a similar theme, but with genuine wit and some insight into the nature of obsession and artistic creation. I have no idea why anyone would praise “The Disaster Artist,” and I’m an aficionado of terrible movies. I’d rather watch “The Room.” I’d rather watch “Plan Nine From Outer Space” twice.

The other film was 1960’s “Peeping Tom,” a serial killer movie which is apparently regarded as one of the greatest British films ever made. Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola and other major U.S. directors have lavished praise on it and claimed that it influenced their work; the movie was originally derided by critics, but has become a “classic.” I have absolutely no idea why.

These things worry me.

4. Ethics quote of the day from Ann Althouse:

On Twitter, Joe Biden said: “He’s using the American military against the American people.” Against or for? You have to admit he’d be using the American military against some American people, but the motivation is to protect other American people.
 The article also quotes Kamala Harris, saying: “He is a divider. He is clearly scared. And he cannot meet this moment that he has partly created because of his inability to understand the pain and the suffering.” I’m reading this idea of “understanding pain” as meaning willingness to tolerate chaos and destruction. Shouldn’t we all be scared of disorder? What are Democrats offering to do about the violence — anything other than purporting to understand it?

55 thoughts on “Tuesday Ethics, 6/2/2020: Stunts, Looting, Bad Great Movies, And “Understanding.”

  1. I am going to deviate from my more common “yay, Jack”. This time, I think DJT’s actions were unethical and he should be called out for it. That is not “piling on” and lessening his ability to govern. It has reached the point where he doesn’t need help for that. He is lessening his ability to govern. I frequently call out non-factual posts, memes, articles about him that are promulgated by the ” Resistance” and the “Trump deranged”. (Terms that are not generally used by me). This time he has gone beyond the pale. Here’s an article from an admittedly center/left publication, but one that consistently rates “high” for its factual reporting. His actions were, in my view, so unethical as to reach the level of “reprehensible”. (https://religionnews.com/2020/06/02/ahead-of-trump-bible-photo-op-police-forcibly-expel-priest-from-st-johns-church-near-white-house/

    • Michael. Had it been President Obama showing up for a photo-op, would all the Episcopalians be similarly outraged? Would there have even been any reportage about the details of the “clearing” exercise? I’d say, “no,” and “no.”

      And why is the church boarded up? Shouldn’t it be a sanctuary for anyone needing sanctuary? The clergy assigned to the church have abandoned their post? In the face of peaceful protests?

      • The clergy that were there were asked to leave. It was boarded up because there had been a fire in the basement the day before. I do think people would have been outraged of Pres Obama took the same actions. I know I would have but, then, I didn’t vote for the guy. I hate to ask because I am concerned that you will be offended and I try not to offend. Did you even read the article?

        • Your criticism is well-founded, Michael. I still find the episode another attempt to use Trump’s bull in a china shop proclivities to avoid dealing with the more important issues he’s dealing with, and to make him the issue. Stupid stunt, misuse of his position. Agreed.

          Almost nothing can prompt me to have empathy for anyone using a single incident in Minneapolis to attack the President, deface national monuments, and promote racial, political and social division. The President’s choice of tactics was wrong, but again, Anderson Cooper accused him of “hiding in his bunker.” Literally nothing he did would be immune from attack…from you, yes. But, sadly, you aren’t typical.

          • Mayor Bowser called him “scared” and “alone”. She is using this disastrous affair to take shots at Trump (from which she usually refrains) and wage a fierce Twitter war against him. She is also using it to advocate for Statehood.

            • The Mayor of DC shooting personal attacks at the President—who I doubt is ‘scared” and is definitely not alone–is also reprehensible, and, of course, he will respond in kind, and then the news media will say that he is racist, because Bowser is black. Aren’t you sick of this script?

              • As for statehood—talk about a Quixotic and pointless issue. It literally has no purpose other than to ramp up racial tensions. It’s like reparations, or eliminating the 2nd Amendment, or the Electoral College.

          • Dana Perino provided a bit of insight on the “bunker” thing (and she should know). She noted that it’s the Secret Service’s call to put the Pres into security, …not his option. She said they had to force Dick Cheney in on 9/11.

            • From my personal acquaintance with a different career Secret Service Agent, Dan is correct. The higher ups in the Agency call the shots regarding the President’s options for safety and travel . There are reasons for that. The President would need to lobby hard with them to have allowed the walk to the church. It was reminiscent of our military early rolling a tank batallion through downtown Baghdad quite unexpectedly.
              The stunt may have symbolized that only Godly
              intervention could help us out of this predicament. It didn’t seem to work and his motives are a mystery.
              As a possible side benefit, our adversaries are seeing that the President does not particularly fear for his personal safety, his reelection chances, or others opinions about lawful use of force. Others may see it differently.

        • I read the article, and I think you and OB are each partly right. People would have been outraged if Obama had done that, but it would not have been the same people, and he might well have gotten a pass from the Episcopalian clergy, many of whom are now little more than professional leftist SJWs, . Per the article, they gathered 20 or so of them from elsewhere to act as logistical support for the protesters/rioters. The claim of tear gas use also appears to be unfounded; there could well be other “inaccuracies”. One could also reasonably question whether there would have been protesters eager to throw things at Obama if he had walked up.

          • William.
            Apparently, the clearing of Lafayette Park was a decision made earlier by security personnel to expand the perimeter around the White House. One outlet stated Federal troops used “grenades” against protesters. The facts according to a WJLA reporter at the scene said the park police used smoke grenades which of course are not fragmentary. Further, the park police were pelted with frozen water bottles.

            The leader of the Episcopal diocese made a point to criticize the president on her church’s private property. According to a caller on Larry O’Connor show on WMAL this head of the DC diocese was originally from Minnesota but she failed to become the head of that diocese.

            Perhaps. St Johns Episcopal church should no longer be considered the “President’s Church.”

          • There’s also reportage that the Park Police had been attacked and were clearing the park without any knowledge of the planned Presidential dog and pony show.

        • Michael, I’m just being snarky about the boarding up.

          If the clergy want to virtue signal, why should a little arson scare them off? Why shouldn’t the church be open so protesters can shelter there if they are attacked by the police or stuck out on the street after the curfew rolls around? Aren’t the clergy for social justice? Shouldn’t the church have been burned to the ground to expiate the sins of the Church of England for being complicit in the slave trade? Shouldn’t the clergy have lit the fire?

    • I’m not ready to make an assessment yet. But the chief of park police has come out and said that it wasn’t tear gas, but smoke canisters, (I believe this for several reasons, one of which being there were horses in the videos and unmasked officers) that the protesters were not being peaceful when cleared out (although clearly not everyone there was participating in vandalism or standing on the monument) and there is also the curfew issue, which seems to have confused people (you don’t enforce curfew by waiting until 7 and then dispersing people; you have to give them time to disperse so that they are OFF the streets by 7, which is why the dispersal happened 20 minutes early.

      It makes the most sense to assume that Trump planned to go out as soon as the curfew was in place, that officers cleared the park so that people could get home by curfew, and that tear gas was NOT used (which again, makes gut sense because would you use tear gas in an area that the elderly president was about to walk into?)

      The church itself is Episcopalian, which in 2020 New York means, to be kind, an aging group of white liberals who stopped believing in the Bible decades ago but still enjoy the trappings of church. They have a tendency to be extremely politically active to the point that, sorry, I don’t much trust or care what they have to say about this incident. The importance of the church to Trump was clearly in the fact that it’s hundreds of years old and a cultural landmark.

      Factor in that the media tend to get these stories hella wrong when they have a chance to push their obvious personal agendas (see Covington Catholic teenagers) and I’m giving this story at least a week to play out before assuming anything.

    • Michael wrote, “This time, I think DJT’s actions were unethical and he should be called out for it.”, “His actions were, in my view, so unethical as to reach the level of ‘reprehensible’.”

      How is it unethical Michael?

      How is it reprehensible Michael?

      It’s my understanding that the protesters were illegally in the park protesting and they were illegally protesting beyond curfew. The protesters chose to break the law in more than one way.

      Sure you can call what the protesters did civil disobedience but that doesn’t make it any less illegal or justifiable. You cannot fault the police/secret service/national guard/etc for enforcing the law as they were told to do and if them enforcing the law gave the President of the United States’ a photo op that he wanted in the end, so what?

      Michael wrote, “That is not “piling on” and lessening his ability to govern.”

      Not piling on? That’s truly the most absurd thing you wrote and I call bull shit!

      The political left has been and is piling on absolutely every day with every action or inaction of President Trump; the President is literally and morally damned by the political left and the media if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t. It makes absolutely no difference what the President does he’s damned for it.

      Not piling on; that’s utterly absurd!

    • May I *try my hand*, so to speak? 🙂

      Quotes from the article:

      “The symbolism of him holding a Bible … as a prop and standing in front of our church as a backdrop when everything that he has said is antithetical to the teachings of our traditions and what we stand for as a church — I was horrified,” she told Religion News Service.

      In a time of tremendous ethical, moral and indeed existential confusion, it is almost impossible for any person or church to assert that they can define what is *antithetical* to the essential teachings. And indeed what Christianity stands for and is to stand for. What I just said has to be a starting point — the starting point — just to begin to have the conversation.

      In times of vast confusion, conflicts of interest, corruption of society and government, the hidden and visible power-games being played, the manipulation of the populace, the deception of the populace, I defy anyone to assert they have any sort of clarity and can a) instruct others and b) preach to others. It is a time of trickery, deception, false-fronts, and distortions. An individual Christian can only have the option of returning at an interior level to prayer and hopefulness, but how shall a Christian act politically and ge-politically? What support and what condemn? These are huge questions.

      However, with that said, we do witness a sort of ‘theater’ or ‘rehearsal’ of piety being performed for us. Yet I would suggest that though some of this can be and should be seen as ‘false’ and in a way ‘impious’, it is beyond doubt that many people in politics are (or seem to be) dedicated Christians with a genuine commitment. And they have this *hope* that can, somehow, help to right the course of America as a nation. In any case, the battle has come out into the open: the notion that Evangelicals can *pray over* Donalt Trump and through laying on hands infuse him with some kind of holy will . . .

      It seems to me that a very interesting topical study could be undertaken that would not be unsympathetic to the popular religious will to ‘reclaim America’ from its fallen state. If you study the radical individuals from the interior of the country (Randy Weaver, Louis Beam, etc.) who concluded that their country had been *occupied* you will quickly uncover their metaphysical assertions. This is a backdrop and underpinning of certain aspects of social conservatism of Trump’s base.

      “He didn’t come to pray. He didn’t come to lament the death of George Floyd. He didn’t come to address the deep wounds that are being expressed through peaceful protest by the thousands upon thousands. He didn’t try to bring calm to situations that are exploding with pain.”

      No one should *lament* the death of George Floyd as an hysterical mass lamentation event. This should be rejected absolutely. As a matter of fact any *sympathy* should be carefully analyzed and one should self-quarantine oneself to be sure one does not fall into the mass psychological hysteria. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of (Black) souls die every year at the hands of violent Black criminals. It is a misplacement of sympathy and a waste really of empathy to break down in lamentation about George Floyd and participate in a largely destructive event directed by hysteria.

      And one cannot put out of one’s mind that George Floyd after a life of bad choices contributed to the fate he suffered. This is no excuse for the cruelty he suffered.

      The Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, also criticized the move, accusing the president of using “a church building and the Holy Bible for partisan political purposes.”

      Sure, but do a bit of research and you will find a man with theological and social opinions that have questionable elements. Those questionable opinions (same-sex marriage is one) have political and social implications. There is hardly a way to avoid it. It is hypocritical, or simply ignorant, that he make this statement. You are either completely outside of politics and refrain from any temptation to get sucked in, or you directly involve yourself in issues that have political implications.

      “This was done in a time of deep hurt and pain in our country, and his action did nothing to help us or to heal us,” Curry said in a statement.

      This is totally sentimentalist. What I recommend — to heal — is various Apache attack helicopters that annihilate those who rampage on the street. OK? I am exaggerating of course. The point is that no indovidual participating in those ‘protests’ has any intention at all to heal either their self or anyone else, and if he tell me they *care* about George Floyd I will laugh in the Reverend’s face. This is a joke, really. These are events that rehearse the absurd. The absurd has broken out of its cage and storms across the land.

      “We need our President, and all who hold office, to be moral leaders who help us to be a people and nation living these values. For the sake of George Floyd, for all who have wrongly suffered, and for the sake of us all, we need leaders to help us to be ‘one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.’”

      There you have it: his revolutionary praxis. That the essence of his ‘Christianity’ is to be found in social activism eventuating in socialism. This is actually part of the problem, not the solution to the problem.

      • He quotes from the Pledge of Allegiance:

        The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America. Such a pledge was first composed, with a text different from the one used at present, by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army Officer during the Civil War and later a teacher of patriotism in New York City schools.

        The Pledge of Allegiance, in its original wording, was composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). There did exist a previous pledge created by Captain George T. Balch, a veteran of the Civil War, who later became auditor of the New York Board of Education. Balch’s pledge, which was recited contemporaneously with Bellamy’s until the 1923 National Flag Conference, read:

        We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag!

        What I wish to point out is only that I am aware of schools of thought in the Southern portion of the United States who right now do not wish to recite this *pledge* and take issue with it as a political and social imposition. These issues have to do with sectional politics of course, but I can assure you that it is these issues, in octaves that play out in our present, that have to be seen and understood.

        The point here, my point, is that the doctrines of Christianity, or Christianity as a lived philosophy, are not encapsulated by the Pledge of Allegience! Except perhaps for this Reverend.

        In any case, it should be obvious that everything he asserts is infused with political issues.

  2. Ed Wood also had the benefit of being a Tim Burton movie.

    The same movie in different hands probably would not have been as good.

    -Jut

    • Ann’s comment was very worthwhile. Maybe I’ll go back to reading her. She’d gotten a little self-indulgent for my taste, unlike the reliably lucid Thomas Menton/The Manhattan Contrarian, my other go-to guy for a healthy helping of on demand lucidity.

  3. “Teargassing peaceful protesters so Trump could get a photo op” is nothing but anti-Trump spin.

    Clearing a flagrantly illegal demonstration is a thing worth doing in itself. The protesters didn’t have a permit, and the clearing action took place 15 minutes before the beginning of the curfew, which the protesters clearly intended to violate. The action was a first and highly visible step demonstrating Trump’s commitment to re-establishing law and order in the District of Columbia, as he had just pledged to do in his speech.

    The purpose of the action was not to create a photo op. Rather, the purpose of the photo op was to say, “I told you what I would do, and now I am doing it. I told the governors what they should do, and now I am showing them how to do it.”

    • They do not stop being peaceful because a curfew starts in 15 minutes, they stop being peaceful after the curfew. As I understand it, the protesters were not in Lafayette square but on the street adjacent. I do not believe you generally need a permit to protest in public spaces like the sidewalk, Lafayette square is an exception due to it’s proximity, but again they were not in the park.

      The larger issue for me was the two-faced message. Literally, he used military personal to strip first amendment rights from citizens at the exact same time he said ‘That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America … to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans’. It was rank hypocrisy.

      Live news shot from Australian agency: youtube.com/watch?v=_Pti6ZiH7dQ

        • I hear lots of screeching and hysteria by the protesters, but nothing is happening except that a bunch of people who are required by law to leave are being pushed to leave. No excessive violence. They’re required to leave and if they refused, they’ll be compelled. What’s the alternative? Allow them to flagrantly defy the law? Minneapolis’s decision to allow that is what has led to almost a week of wanton looting and other violent depredations.

          • They should have been asked to leave. There was nothing illegal about what they were doing. The news reporter states there was not communication, just advancing police, rubber bullets, gas, and flashbangs. They hit a journalist in the stomach and back, further, the curfew does not apply to journalists. I’m just saying, if this is how we will have our rights protected, I’ll pass.

            • It is my understanding that three separate loudspeaker/bullhorn announcements were made, and ignored. I have seen several people who were there confirm this on Twitter, and the police chief said the same. I have also seen protesters deny this, but at this moment I am leaning towards believing the former. In which case, they WERE asked to leave. Three times.

            • Except that, as has now been confirmed, the media reports were substantially false, and this is being confirmed, finally, in DC. For example, there was no tear gas or “flash bombs.” From the Federalist:

              Facts were no barrier to their narrative. They spun a tale of violent, jack-booted cops running rampant through the streets over innocent docile protesters, using tear gas to clear the area. It turns out none of that was true.

              Every single major media outlet falsely reported that Park Police were unprovoked when they used “tear gas” to clear the area. If any of that were true, it might mark the first time in history that cops without gas masks launched tear gas in an area that the president of the United States easily walked through minutes later.

              After thousands of false tweets, print stories, and broadcast stories to the contrary, local journalist Neal Augenstein of WTOP reported that a Park Police source said “tear gas was never used — instead smoke canisters were deployed, which don’t have an uncomfortable irritant in them.” Further, the source said the crowd was dispersed because of projectiles being thrown by the “peaceful protesters” at the Park Police and because “peaceful protesters” had climbed on top of a structure in Lafayette Park that had been burned the prior night.

              Sgt. Eduardo Delgado, the public information officer for the Park Police, confirmed the agency did not use tear gas. And later this afternoon, United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan exploded the entire false narrative:

              On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

              To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

              Prior to getting the actual facts, nearly every major media outlet falsely reported that canisters of tear gas, not smoke canisters, were used against peaceful protesters. The false story spread internationally despite its lack of evidence. Here are just a few of the uncountable examples.

              • So the scenes shown on Australian live TV 25 minutes before the curfew were what, CGI? That the irritant smoke and flash bangs shown in the report didn’t exist? That those being attacked z including the Australian juornos – were acually committing acts of violence?

                Either that, or the Federalist article is economical with the truth. Have another look at the video, Jack.

      • How do you figure he was taking away First Amendment rights? When the President moves, the way is cleared as a matter of security. What rights of the demonstrator were taken away? They could have been moved anywhere in the vicinity, and they would have no rights complaints. When a Presidential motorcade drives through a street, pedestrians and others are cleared. Traffic is stopped. Protestors have to back off.

        You’ll have to explain your theory. I don’t get it.

        • I was personally displaced once for two hours in the Chicago area because the Obamas were going to a Jay-Z concert and the roads had to be cleared. At the time I was mildly annoyed but understanding; should I now be outraged that my civil rights were violated?

  4. Jack said: “whether it was wise to do so, it was also his right to do do.”.

    Might want to fix that one…it’s a little…odd.

  5. Doesn’t matter what our current POTUS does, it will be either ignored or spun as terrible. If the media had an ounce of common sense, they would at least let him be right twice a day…that way their protesting their bias would not be completely ridiculous. I am not a presidential scholar, but has any previous president during troubled times, walked through protests?

      • And speaking of the media, as we are given AIM’s COTD, all the teeny-boppers in “journalism” think they are reliving the Nixon era and they’re all going to have movies made about them when they succeed in running Trump out of town on a rail. They are seriously delusional and juvenile. Jim Acosta thinks he’s Sam Donaldson re-incarnate. Pathetic.

        • Actually, with the current revelations, wasn’t it Obama who illegally spied on the rival Presidential campaign? If they wanted to relive the Nixon investigation, shouldn’t they be going after Obama?

          • I’ll be happy if the facts get out. I don’t want to see past Presidents facing quasi-political prosecutions, even when they deserve it. If we could just get honest reporting and a solid non-partisan report, and have a consensus that what was done to the Trump campaign and the its administration was an attack on democracy itself, that would be enough.

  6. RE: The Disaster Artist:

    I’d say that in this case, the book really is better (even if I suppose the ethics of writing a tell-all about your friend’s weird movie might be kind of shaky, though Tommy seems to have largely given his approval in this case); there’s more focus on Tommy being perhaps the weirdest immigrant SUCCESS story this nation has ever seen, like The Godfather through the looking glass.

  7. #1 “The immediate focus was on the fact that his way though Lafayette Park was cleared by police using rubber bullets and tear gas.”

    Some observations after watching some Reuters video of the protesters being pushed out of the park…

    Watch the video below of the protesters being pushed out of Lafayette Park. Tear gas was not used, they used smoke and flask-bangs. There was one person that I think got either some flash-bang residue on his face or had his face in some concentrated smoke, even general smoke can irritate some in concentrated areas; they were washing his face off. It’s clear to anyone who know what happens around tear gas that there was no tear gas used to get them out of the park; also, the vast majority of the police were not wearing tear gas protective masks, that wouldn’t happen if they were using tear gas. The reports that the protesters were all non-violent is not exactly accurate, throwing things and threatening the police and MP’s is not considered nonviolent; I’d say that the majority of the protesters were non-violent. There was one female that actually yelled “we’re going to fucking kill you” (21:28) at the police and MP’s. There were things thrown at the police, I identified one water bottle (21:02) and at another time the police used rubber bullets immediately after things were thrown at them; (36:11) at this point in time the protesters were already out of the park about a block away.

    I’ve seen some other videos that were being used to claim the police used tear gas and rubber bullets to remove the protesters from Lafayette Park so the President could do his photo-op but they were a lie, they were well after dark.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.