"Protester" Misconduct Catch All Thread

[blastula]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1346906840739803146?s=20[/TWEET]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, are they gassing or shooting these terrorists?

If not, why not?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

So, are they gassing or shooting these terrorists?

If not, why not?

I believe the National Guard was deployed in anticipation of crowds, but they were not armed. What a shame.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, are they gassing or shooting these terrorists?

If not, why not?

I believe the National Guard was deployed in anticipation of crowds, but they were not armed. What a shame.

Well, can someone walk across the street to do a photo op or something then? This is ACTUALLY a violent insurrection against your country.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Latest has been the DoD is refusing to send troops or the guard. Ref: Jim Wright's twitter feed.

 

[blastula]

Virginia agreed to send their guard.

Trump needs to be impeached again so he can be banned from office forever.

 

[TomC]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

I agree this is horrible, and the rioters should be prosecuted

However, back in Summer and during previous #BLM riots some lefty posters claimed that we should give in to rioter demands because they represent real grievances shared by many people.
I vociferously reject that attitude no matter who is rioting.

I remember when Trump promised to pay all the legal fees if his supporters got violent at one of his rallies.

Was that just another lie he told? Or will he keep that promise in the next few days?
He's super rich, he could keep it. If he cares about his supporters.

Time will tell.
Tom

 

[WAB]

Virginia agreed to send their guard.

Trump needs to be impeached again so he can be banned from office forever.

After this I highly doubt he could ever run again, let alone win.

But I agree, he should be forced to resign and removed ASAP

 

[repoman]

GRAPHIC WARNING

Protestor shot dead?

Show

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1346910534621224965

Or fell and being attributed to gunshot instead?

Show

https://twitter.com/eeecs_/status/1346916763582291968

 

[laughing dog]

So, are they gassing or shooting these terrorists?

If not, why not?

Because they are Pro-Trump white people.

 

[laughing dog]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

I agree this is horrible, and the rioters should be prosecuted

However, back in Summer and during previous #BLM riots some lefty posters claimed that we should give in to rioter demands because they represent real grievances shared by many people.
I vociferously reject that attitude no matter who is rioting.

Is it possible to forego "whataboutisms" just once?

 

[Elixir]

I agree ...
However...

Riiiight. You're a real smart and objective guy, however...
What? Not enough property damage for a pure unadulterated condemnation?

 

[Derec]

Riiiight. You're a real smart and objective guy, however...
What? Not enough property damage for a pure unadulterated condemnation?

I condemn it unequivocally.

But I also reserve the right to point out the hypocrisy of the Left. All of a sudden rioting and property damage matters. But it was defended since 2014 when #BLm started their rioting campaigns.

 

[Derec]

Is it possible to forego "whataboutisms" just once?

I believe what happened today is the direct outcome of downplaying and justifying rioting/violence from the likes of #BLM. I warned then that if we allow those riots to go on, there is nothing to prevent the Right from using similar tactics.

 

[Derec]

Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

This is Time Magazine back in 2014 defending rioting, arson etc.

Same author now.

You can't have it both ways. If you say political violence is justified for causes you support, you lost moral authority to condemn it when the other side does it.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree ...
However...

Riiiight. You're a real smart and objective guy, however...
What? Not enough property damage for a pure unadulterated condemnation?

Well, at least no one kneeled for the anthem, thank goodness.

 

[Derec]

Well, at least no one kneeled for the anthem, thank goodness.

Ah yes, Kaepernick, the hero of the Left who wants to see a cop killer freed.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, at least no one kneeled for the anthem, thank goodness.

Ah yes, Kaepernick, the hero of the Left who wants to see a cop killer freed.

Boo fucking hoo. You support Nazis and terrorists. Nobody cares about your whining about BLM. You'll never have the capacity to know the difference, either. Your posts here are nothing more than throwing poop hoping something will stick.

But on the bright side, this guy got a free podium today. TAKE THAT, LIBERTARDS.

 

[Derec]

Boo fucking hoo. You support Nazis and terrorists.

I do not. I never have. You are like Trump in how you deal with disagreements. Or a Sith - same thing.
I have always said that both extremes are to be condemned. But unlike you, I am not an extremist.

Nobody cares about your whining about BLM. You'll never have the capacity to know the difference, either. Your posts here are nothing more than throwing poop hoping something will stick.

But on the bright side, this guy got a free podium today. TAKE THAT, LIBERTARDS.

I hope he shares the cell with Colinford Mathis.

 

[Angry Floof]

I do not. I never have. You are like Trump in how you deal with disagreements. Or a Sith - same thing.
I have always said that both extremes are to be condemned. But unlike you, I am not an extremist.

But on the bright side, this guy got a free podium today. TAKE THAT, LIBERTARDS.

I hope he shares the cell with Colinford Mathis.

You just have no principles, just like all right wing authoritarian followers. Whatever conveniently works in a given moment is trotted out as "principle." You don't have them. The rest of your ilk don't have them. Trump doesn't even understand the concept, and neither do those violent dipshits storming the capitol today. How would you recognize someone who doesn't think like this?

 

[ronburgundy]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

I agree this is horrible, and the rioters should be prosecuted

However, back in Summer and during previous #BLM riots some lefty posters claimed that we should give in to rioter demands because they represent real grievances shared by many people.
I vociferously reject that attitude no matter who is rioting.

Black people criminally storming the Capital and violently assaulting dozen of police (all verified by even GOP Senators) would have been gunned down hours ago. Which is precisely what BLM is objecting to (objective racist bias by law enforcement), rather than every one of these terrorists and "protesters" who are objecting to democracy and that other people's votes were counted, which dethroned their criminal despot.

 

[Angry Floof]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

I agree this is horrible, and the rioters should be prosecuted

However, back in Summer and during previous #BLM riots some lefty posters claimed that we should give in to rioter demands because they represent real grievances shared by many people.
I vociferously reject that attitude no matter who is rioting.

Black people criminally storming the Capital and violently assaulting dozen of police (all verified by even GOP Senators) would have been gunned down hours ago.

They would have been surrounded and tear gassed while quietly milling around early this morning.

 

[abaddon]

I condemn it unequivocally.

But I also reserve the right to point out the hypocrisy of the Left. All of a sudden rioting and property damage matters. But it was defended since 2014 when #BLm started their rioting campaigns.

Someone wondered, in the "Now the Coup Starts" thread, what the republican posters here, and you, might say about what's happening today. I immediately thought, "Tu toques and false equivalencies"...

So, you think people shouldn't be critical of an armed insurrection against the USA if they weren't also critical of protests that damaged some property.

 

[Elixir]

..unequivocally. But

I'm not even going to read what came after "unequivocally ... But"
If it's not an equivocation (attempt) I apologize.

 

[Derec]

Black people criminally storming the Capital and violently assaulting dozen of police (all verified by even GOP Senators) would have been gunned down hours ago.

Hardly. More likely the media would be calling it a "peaceful protest" and "a reckoning about race" while Bowser would channel the former Baltimore mayor saying that we need to give those who wish to destroy space to do that.

 

[Derec]

..unequivocally. But

I'm not even going to read what came after "unequivocally ... But"
If it's not an equivocation (attempt) I apologize.

Look it up yourself. My condemnation of the DC riots is unequivocal.

But that does not mean I can't point out y'all's hypocrisy on political rioting.

 

[Elixir]

..unequivocally. But

I'm not even going to read what came after "unequivocally ... But"
If it's not an equivocation (attempt) I apologize.

Look it up yourself. My condemnation of the DC riots is unequivocal.

But that does not mean I can't point out y'all's hypocrisy on political rioting.

Right. Nobody can keep you from equivocating. Too funny.

 

[Derec]

Right. Nobody can keep you from equivocating. Too funny.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not equivocating. Equivocating would be something like "I can understand the rioters' anger". Which is ironically exactly what y'all have been doing since the Ferguson riots.

 

[ronburgundy]

..unequivocally. But

I'm not even going to read what came after "unequivocally ... But"
If it's not an equivocation (attempt) I apologize.

Look it up yourself. My condemnation of the DC riots is unequivocal.

But that does not mean I can't point out y'all's hypocrisy on political rioting.

I oppose destructive riots regardless the cause, but rioting in response to the objective fact of cops murdering people in the streets is, by any sane defensible ethical system, more understandable and less immoral than rioting because you oppose other people's right to vote and want to destroy the democratic system that deposed your criminal, white supremacist, cult leader despot.

 

[Derec]

I oppose destructive riots regardless the cause, but rioting in response to the objective fact of cops murdering people in the streets is, by any sane defensible ethical system, more understandable and less immoral than rioting because you oppose other people's right to vote and want to destroy the democratic system that deposed your criminal, white supremacist, cult leader despot.

Most of the riots were not in response to anybody getting "murdered". Michael Brown wasn't murdered. Freddie Grey wasn't murdered. Both led to very destructive rioting in 2014. Keith Scott had a gun, not a book, when he was shot by police. His family incited the riots in Charlotte in 2016 through racist lies.

 

[ronburgundy]

I oppose destructive riots regardless the cause, but rioting in response to the objective fact of cops murdering people in the streets is, by any sane defensible ethical system, more understandable and less immoral than rioting because you oppose other people's right to vote and want to destroy the democratic system that deposed your criminal, white supremacist, cult leader despot.

Most of the riots were not in response to anybody getting "murdered". Michael Brown wasn't murdered. Freddie Grey wasn't murdered. Both led to very destructive rioting in 2014. Keith Scott had a gun, not a book, when he was shot by police. His family incited the riots in Charlotte in 2016 through racist lies.

All the BLM related protests were in response to 500 years of government authorities threatening, assaulting, killing black people with impunity. To pretend that the reaction was to soley the immediately preceding incident is either the the epitome of dangerous stupidity or blatant dishonesty (or both).

 

[laughing dog]

Is it possible to forego "whataboutisms" just once?

I believe what happened today is the direct outcome of downplaying and justifying rioting/violence from the likes of #BLM. I warned then that if we allow those riots to go on, there is nothing to prevent the Right from using similar tactics.

I would not call these jackoffs the "Right". I think your slippery slope is silly. While you are certainly entitled to believe any silliness you wish, but that does not justify an apparent compulsion to "whatabout when the #BLM" or "whatabout Antifa" or "whatabout leftists".

 

[Angry Floof]

Is it possible to forego "whataboutisms" just once?

I believe what happened today is the direct outcome of downplaying and justifying rioting/violence from the likes of #BLM. I warned then that if we allow those riots to go on, there is nothing to prevent the Right from using similar tactics.

They're not doing anything in response to BLM. They're operating as rabid obedience machines to Donald Trump. They went their for the purpose of violence, claiming to be starting a civil war, all because their candidate lost an election.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Elixir]

Right. Nobody can keep you from equivocating. Too funny.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not equivocating. Equivocating would be something like "I can understand the rioters' anger". Which is ironically exactly what y'all have been doing since the Ferguson riots.

OMG. Using the allegation of hypocrisy to justify your equivocation... twisted.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

 

[Arctish]

If I go looking for the rest of the statements from which those quotes were mined, am I going to find anything that justifies the use of fiery backgrounds?

If I go looking for the fires in those pictures, am I going to find anything that justified pairing them with the words of Democrat Party politicians?

If I go looking for the source you used, am I going to find misogyny is an underlying reason why only female Democrat Party politicians are shown?*

*There are large blank spaces above and below the images of the four women. If they are images of men paired with mined quotes that my computer simply hasn't loaded then I retract my last question.

***ETA: Pelosi: "I Don't Even Know Why There Aren't Uprisings All Over The Country" Over Migrant Child Separation

Show

REPORTER: Speaker Ryan just said that he's not comfortable with the separation of children and their parents at the border. He said that legislation is the best way to deal with that. Do you agree with him, that legislation is the best approach? And have you talked to him about that legislation, and the possible (inaudible)?

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No.

And let me say this: First of all, this was act of the administration. They had been planning this for a while.

As a mother of five children, grandmother of nine, I'm sure any parents here, mother or father, knows that this is barbaric. This is not what America is. But this is the policy of the Trump administration. And the -- they can -- they've put down this practice, and they take it back.

And what they say to me is, "These mothers should never have taken their children across the desert, so they broke the law trying to get them into the U.S., so they're criminals. We're separating their children from the parent."

Do they have any idea the impact on families, on children? Probably -- well, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe they don't care.

But the fact is, they should know, and they should lift this policy that they have just put down -- that they put down. They've been cooking it up for a while.

Never mind to them, when we say these moms took these children, these parents took these children to escape possible death, rape, gang violence where they live, and they have no alternative but to try to seek asylum in the United States. No, that -- they know better. They -- they said these words: "We know better. We know how to take care of children. We're taking them away from their parents. We'll put them in foster homes or someplace."

We had a moms' summit here. I don't know if some -- well, maybe you came, or you didn't, but maybe you saw it -- a moms' summit here right around Mother's Day, and we talked about health of children. We talked about a number of subjects.

But on the health of children, Dr. Nadine Burke from the San Francisco Bay area, an expert on all this, told us that when you add stress -- we weren't talking about this subject. We were talking about stress for children in general. When you increase the stress on children the way so many subjects have, whether it's hunger or homelessness and the rest, you are changing -- you have -- can have the impact of changing their DNA.

Think of the stress of these children. They take a baby away from a nursing mother. They tell someone, you're going to -- "We're going to give the baby a shower or a bath," and then they take the baby, put them in a car seat, and drive them away. This is not normal. In fact, it's barbaric. It has to stop.

Now, what they're saying is, "Well, we'll find a way not to separate them." One of their ways not to separate the children is not to let them even seek asylum, which is a right that people have in the world, to seek asylum. So that's not a solution. The solution is not to tear children from their parents.

Don't stick peas up your nose. Don't stick a stick in your ear. What is it that they don't get about how stupid and wrong and immoral, and a -- and the Catholic Conference of Bishops, in their statement when they said, "At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The attorney general's recent decision elicits deep concerns, because it potentially strips asylum for many women who lack adequate protection." It close -- they closed by saying, "While protecting our borders is important, we can and we must do better -- must do better as a government and as a society to find other ways to ensure that safety -- that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer, and is immoral."

So the casual attitude that they're having about this: "Oh, no, we don't like that." The administration -- they can weigh in with the administration and stop it on a dime, and not wait for some concoction that really doesn't address the immorality of our lack of asylum.

When we had a hearing on a subject related to this, asylum-seeker refugees, et cetera, the American -- the Association of Evangelicals -- the evangelicals -- testified that asylum -- refugees, asylum, that is the -- they called it the crown jewel of America's humanitarianism.

Crown jewel of American humanitarianism. And in order to do away with that crown jewel, they're doing away with children being with their moms.

This is -- I -- I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be, when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.

It's a horrible thing, and I don't see any prospect for legislation here.

Hmmm.

Off to a predictable start. I don't see much point in continuing.

 

[Jokodo]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

If this were in Portland or Seattle, they by definition wouldn't be storming the Capitol, interrupting a session of Congress and trying to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

If, however, a black mob had tried to do what they did (say in 2016 as Obama's term was ending), there sure as hell would be dozens dead in the street before anyone enters the halls, and no selfies with police either.

 

[Jokodo]

To be fair, it's probably less the skin colour and more the political leanings of the "protesters" that softened the police. A mob of white communist or Islamist sympathisers would arguably have gotten themselves gunned down too, it's only when the protesters have fascist leanings that their friends in the police pose for selfies.

 

[J842P]

I oppose destructive riots regardless the cause, but rioting in response to the objective fact of cops murdering people in the streets is, by any sane defensible ethical system, more understandable and less immoral than rioting because you oppose other people's right to vote and want to destroy the democratic system that deposed your criminal, white supremacist, cult leader despot.

Most of the riots were not in response to anybody getting "murdered". Michael Brown wasn't murdered. Freddie Grey wasn't murdered. Both led to very destructive rioting in 2014. Keith Scott had a gun, not a book, when he was shot by police. His family incited the riots in Charlotte in 2016 through racist lies.

All the BLM related protests were in response to 500 years of government authorities threatening, assaulting, killing black people with impunity. To pretend that the reaction was to soley the immediately preceding incident is either the the epitome of dangerous stupidity or blatant dishonesty (or both).

So, then it isn't to people being murdered in the streets?

 

[J842P]

A yo Derec! My Man! Wassup! If that was a group of black people the police would have every right to fear for their lives and use deadly force right? Why aren't they?

If this was a group of Antifas/BLMers of any race in Seattle or Portland the DA would drop all charges.

If this were in Portland or Seattle, they by definition wouldn't be storming the Capitol, interrupting a session of Congress and trying to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

If, however, a black mob had tried to do what they did (say in 2016 as Obama's term was ending), there sure as hell would be dozens dead in the street before anyone enters the halls, and no selfies with police either.

Sure as hell? How do you know?

 

[Jarhyn]

If this were in Portland or Seattle, they by definition wouldn't be storming the Capitol, interrupting a session of Congress and trying to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

If, however, a black mob had tried to do what they did (say in 2016 as Obama's term was ending), there sure as hell would be dozens dead in the street before anyone enters the halls, and no selfies with police either.

Sure as hell? How do you know?

We know because when so much as a single racist statue was threatened with mere property damage, they posted armed guards in full tacticool to point guns at anyone who was brown? Just a guess here.

 

[J842P]

If this were in Portland or Seattle, they by definition wouldn't be storming the Capitol, interrupting a session of Congress and trying to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

If, however, a black mob had tried to do what they did (say in 2016 as Obama's term was ending), there sure as hell would be dozens dead in the street before anyone enters the halls, and no selfies with police either.

Sure as hell? How do you know?

We know because when so much as a single racist statue was threatened with mere property damage, they posted armed guards in full tacticool to point guns at anyone who was brown? Just a guess here.

So, you don't know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*There are large blank spaces above and below the images of the four women. If they are images of men paired with mined quotes that my computer simply hasn't loaded then I retract my last question.

***ETA: Pelosi: "I Don't Even Know Why There Aren't Uprisings All Over The Country" Over Migrant Child Separation

Show

REPORTER: Speaker Ryan just said that he's not comfortable with the separation of children and their parents at the border. He said that legislation is the best way to deal with that. Do you agree with him, that legislation is the best approach? And have you talked to him about that legislation, and the possible (inaudible)?

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No.

And let me say this: First of all, this was act of the administration. They had been planning this for a while.

As a mother of five children, grandmother of nine, I'm sure any parents here, mother or father, knows that this is barbaric. This is not what America is. But this is the policy of the Trump administration. And the -- they can -- they've put down this practice, and they take it back.

And what they say to me is, "These mothers should never have taken their children across the desert, so they broke the law trying to get them into the U.S., so they're criminals. We're separating their children from the parent."

Do they have any idea the impact on families, on children? Probably -- well, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe they don't care.

But the fact is, they should know, and they should lift this policy that they have just put down -- that they put down. They've been cooking it up for a while.

Never mind to them, when we say these moms took these children, these parents took these children to escape possible death, rape, gang violence where they live, and they have no alternative but to try to seek asylum in the United States. No, that -- they know better. They -- they said these words: "We know better. We know how to take care of children. We're taking them away from their parents. We'll put them in foster homes or someplace."

We had a moms' summit here. I don't know if some -- well, maybe you came, or you didn't, but maybe you saw it -- a moms' summit here right around Mother's Day, and we talked about health of children. We talked about a number of subjects.

But on the health of children, Dr. Nadine Burke from the San Francisco Bay area, an expert on all this, told us that when you add stress -- we weren't talking about this subject. We were talking about stress for children in general. When you increase the stress on children the way so many subjects have, whether it's hunger or homelessness and the rest, you are changing -- you have -- can have the impact of changing their DNA.

Think of the stress of these children. They take a baby away from a nursing mother. They tell someone, you're going to -- "We're going to give the baby a shower or a bath," and then they take the baby, put them in a car seat, and drive them away. This is not normal. In fact, it's barbaric. It has to stop.

Now, what they're saying is, "Well, we'll find a way not to separate them." One of their ways not to separate the children is not to let them even seek asylum, which is a right that people have in the world, to seek asylum. So that's not a solution. The solution is not to tear children from their parents.

Don't stick peas up your nose. Don't stick a stick in your ear. What is it that they don't get about how stupid and wrong and immoral, and a -- and the Catholic Conference of Bishops, in their statement when they said, "At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The attorney general's recent decision elicits deep concerns, because it potentially strips asylum for many women who lack adequate protection." It close -- they closed by saying, "While protecting our borders is important, we can and we must do better -- must do better as a government and as a society to find other ways to ensure that safety -- that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer, and is immoral."

So the casual attitude that they're having about this: "Oh, no, we don't like that." The administration -- they can weigh in with the administration and stop it on a dime, and not wait for some concoction that really doesn't address the immorality of our lack of asylum.

When we had a hearing on a subject related to this, asylum-seeker refugees, et cetera, the American -- the Association of Evangelicals -- the evangelicals -- testified that asylum -- refugees, asylum, that is the -- they called it the crown jewel of America's humanitarianism.

Crown jewel of American humanitarianism. And in order to do away with that crown jewel, they're doing away with children being with their moms.

This is -- I -- I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be, when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.

It's a horrible thing, and I don't see any prospect for legislation here.

Hmmm.

Off to a predictable start. I don't see much point in continuing.

Thanks for at least confirming the continued misquoting of Democrats to justify far right-wing violence. It has become tiresome to continually debunk right-wing lies on Memes that get spread online.

 

[Elixir]

So, you don't know.

Projection.
You don't know that the nose on your face is still there, any better than we know that a black mob would have incurred lethal force.

 

[J842P]

So, you don't know.

Projection.
You don't know that the nose on your face is still there, any better than we know that a black mob would have incurred lethal force.

That's just absurd. I know my nose is on my face through direct observation. You are claiming your *assumption* about a counterfactual is knowledge that you are certain of.

We saw many mobs which included many black people during the summer that didn't incur lethal force, certainly not dozens dead on the streets.

 

[Elixir]

So, you don't know.

Projection.
You don't know that the nose on your face is still there, any better than we know that a black mob would have incurred lethal force.

That's just absurd. I know my nose is on my face through direct observation.

I know a black mob would be treated with violence FROM DIRECT OBSERVATIONS.
Check your nose again - that's easy. You can do it any time.
I'll have to await the next violent response to a black mob to again observe what I have observed first hand, repeatedly, FOR OVER 50 years.
That's the only difference.

 

[J842P]

That's just absurd. I know my nose is on my face through direct observation.

I know a black mob would be treated with violence FROM DIRECT OBSERVATIONS.
Check your nose again - that's easy. You can do it any time.
I'll have to await the next violent response to a black mob to again observe what I have observed first hand, repeatedly, FOR OVER 50 years.
That's the only difference.

So, you can name the incident from the summer where dozens of BLM protesters were killed? Should be easy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://youtube.com/channel/UC4rGacttttd0YZ-eVGgr9gg

Here's the buffalo guys YouTube channel. He's a loony