Police Officer describes Donald Trump rally

[Pangean]

This must be registering in a emotional level.

How is sharing my concerns being a internet tough guy? You think I want to live in a world where people are honestly justified in building weapons to protect themselves?

Not all of us live in delusions. We have real problems with immigrants gangs around where I am. No one has been killed yet but people have been jumped and beaten badly enough to be hospitalized. There is a family three blocks down from my home who's son had a ear cut off.

You think I would wish this on someone? Wake up from your fairy tale and actually look at the world. People are fucking scared it isn't a tough front you utter retard.

Clearly from what you posted it has been emotional for you. You posted: "German here... ever since we stopped being able to rely on the police we turned to making home made weapons for protection. You would be surprised how effective a sealed off pipe filled with scrap metal and gun powder can be." That's how puffed up Internet Tough Guys talk. Germans have lots of legal options for protecting themselves. That's why I asked you about kleinen Waffenschein. But you as Internet Tough Guy want to talk about building illegal weapons that go boom. Your remaining emotional appeal to distract from that is noted.

[Paranoid Android]

I dislike Trump. I do see these disruptive protests, especially inside his rallies as wrong. Even though to me, Trump spews some of the most nationalism and hate to his supporters. I feel that the best is to protest outside and not incite the Trump supporters. It is counter-productive.

[Deleted]

Clearly from what you posted it has been emotional for you. You posted: "German here... ever since we stopped being able to rely on the police we turned to making home made weapons for protection. You would be surprised how effective a sealed off pipe filled with scrap metal and gun powder can be." That's how puffed up Internet Tough Guys talk. Germans have lots of legal options for protecting themselves. That's why I asked you about kleinen Waffenschein. But you as Internet Tough Guy want to talk about building illegal weapons that go boom. Your remaining emotional appeal to distract from that is noted.

You didn't actually read past the first sentence did you?

You know what. I don't think this is a productive use of my time. I can't debate with someone who can only latch onto small points and argue over trivial things while ignoring the actual topic.

Believe whatever insane thing you want to believe. Just don't be upset when reality doesn't reflect what you believe.

- - - Updated - - -

I dislike Trump. I do see these disruptive protests, especially inside his rallies as wrong. Even though to me, Trump spews some of the most nationalism and hate to his supporters. I feel that the best is to protest outside and not incite the Trump supporters. It is counter-productive.

What hate does he spew?

You all use this as a catch phrase but there never seems to be anything to it....

[Pangean]

Sure I did. It was an emotional appeal that you think somehow defends your nonsense about building illegal guns when there are plenty of legal remedy's for self protection in Germany. If you don't wish to debate about what you write your probably should consider not writing it.

[Felya]

Then every war ever would be seen as a loss, since people died.

Coming from 'battles and fighting' as being winning, I think this is a much better assessment.

- - - Updated - - -

The stories on the news sites and internet is how terrible trump supporters are, how they are racist and what ever else negative word you want to throw out. If they are such POS, why are not they not causing trouble at Clinton rallies to support their god Trump? Not hard to follow, any non biased person sees the logic

Your bias involves responding to me as if I am the media. I did not call them anything. It is your bias that is refusing to acknowledge how Trump him self has handled protestors. I will repeat again, BLM protested both Hillary and Bernie without devolving to what Trump has. The reason for it is that unlike Trump, they let them speak and responded to their concerns. As a result, there was no escalation. What do you want Trump supporters to do? Start protests because Bernie and Hullary let them speak and respond? The very thing that has hailed Trump as not a career politician is what makes him unable to handle protestors like Hillary and Bernie and McCain and Romney and every other politician that has run for office has been able to handle.

Trump is the anti-SJW, so here is the result of being anti, instead of dealing with the issue. When Trump has troubles in legislature are you going to once again complain how he is mistreated or realize that experience in politics, just like every other job, has considerable merit. Trump's failure as a politician to handle protestors is exactly what his support seems to want. You wanted incompetent, this is just the start. He isn't even in office yet...

I know, right?

What was won in Vietnam? The same 'battles and fighting'?

- - - Updated - - -

You misunderstood me. I was pointing out that the blockade around the wildlife refuge was maintained by the authorities, who would be immediately contacted by any emergency dispatch and be able to guarantee a clear path by the time any emergency response vehicle got to their location. As a protest is not maintained by the authorities, the dynamic is different. Obviously it is possible to clear a path in the city, but what I was saying is that it is a much different process to move a few police vehicles miles from where any emergency vehicle is being dispatched from vs clearing a path through or around a large group of protesters in heavy city traffic. I'm maintaining that they are not equivalent. That is all, I really don't see what the point of contention there is.

The point of contention is that it's a rediculous comparison, as in everything that you didn't quote in my reply. Traffic is diverted from blocked areas, the same way regular major events are diverted in major cities.

They occupied the wildlife refuge for a month. They did not block the roads. Any and all roadblocks were maintained by the authorities. So that's the first crucial difference. The second being the wildlife refuge is in a remote location. For contrast, just going by places I've lived:
You can set up a roadblock on 280 in the bay area and affect 100,000 people almost instantly. You can set up a roadblock on Apple Ave near the house I grew up several miles outside of the small town and probably not affect 100 different people if you left it up for a year. I also maintain these are not equivalent, and I really don't see where the point of contention is here either.

Do you believe these scenarios to be equivalent? is all I'm really asking. I say they are not, and I'm really confused why you seem to be trying to argue they are.

Yes, they are equivalent, because the Bay Area has considerable rerouting due to regular major events. You can maintain they are not equivalent, but when 49rs win the Super Bowl, please be sure to post how the parade is putting people in danger.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The point of contention is that it's a rediculous comparison, as in everything that you didn't quote in my reply. Traffic is diverted from blocked areas, the same way regular major events are diverted in major cities.

But that's what this whole thing originated from, that comparison that YOU made. You equated the disruption caused by a group of protesters blocking off a major highway with the police blockade established around the wildlife preserve. You brought up the Oregon standoff in response to a comment about right-wing protestors blocking off highways and causing mass disruptions. YOU brought it up. It is YOUR comparison, despite the fact that the militia in Oregon neither blocked off a highway nor caused what could be termed a 'mass disruption' due to the remoteness of the location.

You also noted a key difference in your statement right up there that I'm responding to.

the same way regular major events are diverted

A group of protestors shutting down a highway is not a 'regular major event'. When there are things like major sporting events and parades that are pre-planned, yes they do disrupt the normal flow and yes it is more difficult for emergency vehicles but:
- The events are planned, and the blocked areas are being blocked by the authorities with planning and communication
- There is a contingency plan already in place for emergency vehicles

These are two important differences, neither of which applies to a group of BLM protesters (the example used) shutting down a highway (as happened in the area I live). There is no pre-planning on how to re-route traffic. There is no backup plan for emergency vehicles already in place for the occurrence. The disruption intended to be disruptive rather than an unfortunate side-effect of something else which is managed to the best of the abilities of the planners to mitigate said disruption. In a protest the goal is to maximize disruption.

These are crucial points on why the situations are not equivalent.

Yes, they are equivalent, because the Bay Area has considerable rerouting due to regular major events. You can maintain they are not equivalent, but when 49rs win the Super Bowl, please be sure to post how the parade is putting people in danger.

I don't really know how to respond to this. I stated above why a pre-planned event is different than an unplanned protest. I do not know how to further explain that blocking a major highway and affecting 100,000 people almost instantly and blocking a remote road which might affect 100 people total are not the same, so I guess I maintain that those two scenarios aren't equivalent. Unless you have no concept of scale and simply see 'disruption', in which case yes, they are both disruptions.

So in your eyes, if protestors staged an unplanned march along the I-90 in Boston and shut it down for half a day and protestors staged an unplanned sit-in at a campsite for a month just off a country road 30 miles from the nearest town with a population of less than 150 people, these events are equivalent and are the same in scale and how people are affected? Because that's essentially what you're arguing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Violence from Trumpites doesn't happen at rallies, just everywhere else:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...uslim-student/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...9TN/story.html
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch...t-miami-rally/

Better clean up your base brah, wouldn't want to seem like a hypocrite.

[Felya]

But that's what this whole thing originated from, that comparison that YOU made. You equated the disruption caused by a group of protesters blocking off a major highway with the police blockade established around the wildlife preserve. You brought up the Oregon standoff in response to a comment about right-wing protestors blocking off highways and causing mass disruptions. YOU brought it up. It is YOUR comparison, despite the fact that the militia in Oregon neither blocked off a highway nor caused what could be termed a 'mass disruption' due to the remoteness of the location.

No, I compared liberal protestors blocking a Trump rally to conservative protestors taking over a wild life refuge. My comparison had nothing to do with blocking a highway, but entry to Trump rally.

You also noted a key difference in your statement right up there that I'm responding to.

Including comparing it to sporting event celebrations...

A group of protestors shutting down a highway is not a 'regular major event'. When there are things like major sporting events and parades that are pre-planned, yes they do disrupt the normal flow and yes it is more difficult for emergency vehicles but:
- The events are planned, and the blocked areas are being blocked by the authorities with planning and communication
- There is a contingency plan already in place for emergency vehicles

A highway block has nothing to do with Trump protestors.

These are two important differences, neither of which applies to a group of BLM protesters (the example used) shutting down a highway (as happened in the area I live). There is no pre-planning on how to re-route traffic. There is no backup plan for emergency vehicles already in place for the occurrence. The disruption intended to be disruptive rather than an unfortunate side-effect of something else which is managed to the best of the abilities of the planners to mitigate said disruption. In a protest the goal is to maximize disruption.

There is always planning for blocked roads, unless you are talking about places like Seattle where the city jaxterposed two plans over each, while still being able to maintain emergency access... Including as we speak with a protestor stuck on a tree in the middle of down town for a day now... or Moscow where the grid is a spider web, which was a huge mistake for traffic in general, regardless of protests...

I don't really know how to respond to this. I stated above why a pre-planned event is different than an unplanned protest. I do not know how to further explain that blocking a major highway and affecting 100,000 people almost instantly and blocking a remote road which might affect 100 people total are not the same, so I guess I maintain that those two scenarios aren't equivalent. Unless you have no concept of scale and simply see 'disruption', in which case yes, they are both disruptions.

I can't argue with you not knowing how to respond, when you admit plans exist for sporting events, but cannot be used without planning. The reason there are few remote roads, is because you are dealing with fewer people. Blocking a Trump rally does not have the same effect in a city, because there are plans to divert traffic in case of emergency. When an earthquake hit a few years ago, the emergency plan was put in effect and emergency personal had no issue getting around despite downed trees and fallen scaffolding. In NYC a scaffolding dropped a few months ago and there was no need for coming up with a plan, because it already exists.

So in your eyes, if protestors staged an unplanned march along the I-90 in Boston and shut it down for half a day and protestors staged an unplanned sit-in at a campsite for a month just off a country road 30 miles from the nearest town with a population of less than 150 people, these events are equivalent and are the same in scale and how people are affected? Because that's essentially what you're arguing.

In my eyes, blocking entry to a hall where Trump is holding a rally, has no impact on progressing through it for emergency vehicles, unless the city is dumb enouph to not have planning for emergency. Similarly to the way Boston does with the marathon... or the many time Patriots have won the super bowl... Those are not a one time use, toss it out, issue...

[Vash The Stampede]

What do you expect when Trumps says the stupid crap that he says? Trump made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

No, I compared liberal protestors blocking a Trump rally to conservative protestors taking over a wild life refuge. My comparison had nothing to do with blocking a highway, but entry to Trump rally.



Including comparing it to sporting event celebrations...



A highway block has nothing to do with Trump protestors.



There is always planning for blocked roads, unless you are talking about places like Seattle where the city jaxterposed two plans over each, while still being able to maintain emergency access... Including as we speak with a protestor stuck on a tree in the middle of down town for a day now... or Moscow where the grid is a spider web, which was a huge mistake for traffic in general, regardless of protests...



I can't argue with you not knowing how to respond, when you admit plans exist for sporting events, but cannot be used without planning. The reason there are few remote roads, is because you are dealing with fewer people. Blocking a Trump rally does not have the same effect in a city, because there are plans to divert traffic in case of emergency. When an earthquake hit a few years ago, the emergency plan was put in effect and emergency personal had no issue getting around despite downed trees and fallen scaffolding. In NYC a scaffolding dropped a few months ago and there was no need for coming up with a plan, because it already exists.

Ok, we're just not getting each other, so I'll say this and leave it be, you can add a final comment or not but we're just not going to make it.

On page 4, at the start of this whole thing, someone mentioned BLM protesters shutting down a highway, and that was one of the posts you quoted and responded to, so from that I interpreted that we were talking about protesters blocking access to things, not limited to protesters blocking a Trump rally. You need to specify if you are responding to a scenario that you don't mean that scenario, or its confusing.

Yes, my statements made it seem like I don't understand that cities have plans drawn up for unforeseen events. I do. What I didn't do a good job of communicating is that those plans still require the movement of personnel and equipment to safely manage and contain. At a pre-planned event those assets are already in place and ready whereas an unplanned event/incident everything is by definition not in place and must be organized and moved on the fly, which takes time. Similarly a parade route is planned, a protest march is not and any response must be adapted on the fly rather than knowing the entire picture of what is happening.
So a major pre-planned event still has advantages to a spontaneous event like a protest that makes the pre-planned event much easier to manage and contain.
To use your example, do you think the chaos in the aftermath of an earthquake would be easier to manage if it was known when an earthquake would strike vs needing to react with an emergency plan on the fly? Yes, the plan exists, but emergency equipment still needs to be mobilized, first responders who aren't on active duty need to come in, organize, and get to where they are needed vs all of that stuff already being in place and ready when the quake hits. I don't see how you can't see the advantage.

Also do you really think I don't know that remote roads are remote because there are so few people? That was key to the whole point I was making. There is a significant difference between affecting 500,000 people shutting down a road for half a day and affecting 100 people shutting down a road for a month. I refuse to believe this concept eludes you.

In my eyes, blocking entry to a hall where Trump is holding a rally, has no impact on progressing through it for emergency vehicles, unless the city is dumb enouph to not have planning for emergency. Similarly to the way Boston does with the marathon... or the many time Patriots have won the super bowl... Those are not a one time use, toss it out, issue...

Ok.
Does not answer my question.
Do you feel that an unplanned march on a major highway in a major city that disrupts traffic for hundreds of thousands of people for a day is equivalent in scale and effect to an unplanned occupation in a remote area that disrupts traffic for 100 people over the course of a month, especially given that a spontaneous event that day does not give the average citizen much of an opportunity to plan around while a several week on-going event does? Yes or no?

[warzerotwo]

When has be done so?

You people are like drones you repeat the same catch phases but that seems to be all you can do...

Trump is against immigration how does that relate to what you are saying?

I guess you missed...pretty much every time he opened his fucking mouth?