Caption this photo

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Caption this photo

Post #1

Post by historia »

Image

Question for debate: What is going on in this photo? What message does it send?

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Caption this photo

Post #41

Post by historia »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:28 am
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:55 am
Here is a longer video showing the events. The person filming is right at the center of the protest and captures much of the action. Only the first 30 minutes are relevant for our purposes.
A simple problem here is that the video you posted is not the same video I posted. My video comes from a different cameraman with a different vantage point.
Actually, they are taken from roughly the same vantage point. In fact, at 5:02 in the longer video, the camera man pans around and you can see the Australian reporter.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:28 am
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:55 am
Second, the protest looks peaceful at the outset. I don't see any projectiles being thrown, and the police themselves seem at ease. This is also confirmed by reporters.
That's why it matters which video you watch.
The more important factor here is understanding when the video you posted picks up in the sequence of events. The Australian video doesn't show events before the police begin to press in toward the protestors to begin dispersing them, which is what my observation above is describing.

Rather, the Australian video picks up after the police begin moving in, but before they have completed the action by sweeping out the protestors, and so corresponds to this part of my observations:
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:55 am
Once the police begin to press in order to disperse the protest, however, the crowd becomes quite agitated. At that point, some protestors apparently begin to throw a few water bottles, as several people in the video turn around to implore those behind them to stop throwing things. That seems to work, as the crowd quickly returns to a more peaceful stance.
The Australian reporter and the man she is interviewing confirm this if you listen to the interview itself.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Caption this photo

Post #42

Post by AgnosticBoy »

historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:05 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:28 am A simple problem here is that the video you posted is not the same video I posted. My video comes from a different cameraman with a different vantage point.
Actually, they are taken from roughly the same vantage point. In fact, at 5:02 in the longer video, the camera man pans around and you can see the Australian reporter.
Perhaps at one point the two different cameras were in the same area, but at some point the two were trained elsewhere. I say this for two reasons:
- My video shows the police moving right up to the barricade that the protestors stood behind. In your video the police are not up to the barricade.
- Here's the more important point. My video shows a girl with a blue top flipping off the police. If our two videos were focused at the same point and the entire time, why is it only ONE camera captures this? Do you acknowledge that my video shows a bottle being thrown? In fact, even in your video at 5:02 to 5:30 you can see bottles on the floor right near the police. That is consistent with bottles that were thrown at some point.
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:05 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:28 am That's why it matters which video you watch.
The more important factor here is understanding when the video you posted picks up in the sequence of events. The Australian video doesn't show events before the police begin to press in toward the protestors to begin dispersing them, which is what my observation above is describing.
Your claim is that the police used force on a completely "peaceful" protest. My claim, which is corroborated by WH officials and video evidence, is that force was used in part because objects were being thrown.

The fact of the matter is that the police moving up to the barricades is not the same thing as using force by pushing protestors and firing on them. My video starts BEFORE any use of police force, and it shows protestors taunting and throwing things at them. And if one bottle was thrown BEFORE the dispersing, why shouldn't we consider that others were thrown? Just look at the floor in your video between 5:05 and 5:30. Before the cops even moved up to the protestors, you see bottles on the floor right in front of them. Did you consider that those were thrown, as well?
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:05 pm Rather, the Australian video picks up after the police begin moving in, but before they have completed the action by sweeping out the protestors, and so corresponds to this part of my observations:
They did not start the action of dispersing the protestors. That part is clear.
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:55 am Once the police begin to press in order to disperse the protest, however, the crowd becomes quite agitated. At that point, some protestors apparently begin to throw a few water bottles, as several people in the video turn around to implore those behind them to stop throwing things. That seems to work, as the crowd quickly returns to a more peaceful stance.
Well again, we can not conflate moving up to protestors with dispersing them or using force. For the first time, you're also acknowledging that the protest was not "completely" peaceful as some here and the mainstream media were reporting. Listening to the mainstream media would leave many to believe that the protestors weren't doing anything to provoke the police.
historia wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:55 am The Australian reporter and the man she is interviewing confirm this if you listen to the interview itself.
They do not confirm that any force was used on the protestors. They were only referring to the police moving up to the barricades that the protestors were behind and then the police stopped. No tear gas or pushing involved but yet you see things being thrown at the police.

koko

Re: Caption this photo

Post #43

Post by koko »

historia wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:30 pm
Perhaps we should clarify the issue a bit.

It seems to me the concern is not simply that the protestors were cleared out. But, rather, that police, without much warning, used tear gas and rubber bullets to expel peaceful protestors (including clergy at the church itself) out of the area a mere 28 minutes before Trump arrived there. It's both the severity and the timing of the action that gives the impression that this was undertaken to facilitate Trump's photo op at the church.


Guardsman Told Barr Protest Was Peaceful Before Violent Attack


The attorney general has insisted that the White House crowd was violent before he ordered an aggressive clearing of the area where Trump staged a photo-op.

A member of the National Guard directly informed Attorney General William Barr that anti-racist protesters were peaceful as Barr launched a violent police action against them before President Donald Trump walked to a church to pose with a Bible for a photo-op, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said Monday.

The “eyewitness” account provided to Norton from the officer who was on duty that day contradicts Barr’s insistence in a CBS News interview Sunday that the protesters “were not peaceful,” and that their actions warranted a law enforcement onslaught.

Protesters were charged, struck with batons and shields and rubber bullets, manhandled, and tear-gassed June 1 to make way for Trump to walk across the street from the White House so he could hold aloft a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

“The D.C. National Guard member spoke to Attorney General Barr, who was in charge, and explained that the crowd was peaceful — but troops from federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, remained,” said a statement Sunday from the delegate’s office.

MORE:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-bar ... aa32429385




This should help settle the issue once and for all. It's time for some people to stop defending every mess Trump creates and to defend the TRUTH.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Caption this photo

Post #44

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:22 am
historia wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:30 pm
Perhaps we should clarify the issue a bit.

It seems to me the concern is not simply that the protestors were cleared out. But, rather, that police, without much warning, used tear gas and rubber bullets to expel peaceful protestors (including clergy at the church itself) out of the area a mere 28 minutes before Trump arrived there. It's both the severity and the timing of the action that gives the impression that this was undertaken to facilitate Trump's photo op at the church.


Guardsman Told Barr Protest Was Peaceful Before Violent Attack


The attorney general has insisted that the White House crowd was violent before he ordered an aggressive clearing of the area where Trump staged a photo-op.

A member of the National Guard directly informed Attorney General William Barr that anti-racist protesters were peaceful as Barr launched a violent police action against them before President Donald Trump walked to a church to pose with a Bible for a photo-op, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said Monday.

The “eyewitness” account provided to Norton from the officer who was on duty that day contradicts Barr’s insistence in a CBS News interview Sunday that the protesters “were not peaceful,” and that their actions warranted a law enforcement onslaught.

Protesters were charged, struck with batons and shields and rubber bullets, manhandled, and tear-gassed June 1 to make way for Trump to walk across the street from the White House so he could hold aloft a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

“The D.C. National Guard member spoke to Attorney General Barr, who was in charge, and explained that the crowd was peaceful — but troops from federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, remained,” said a statement Sunday from the delegate’s office.

MORE:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-bar ... aa32429385




This should help settle the issue once and for all. It's time for some people to stop defending every mess Trump creates and to defend the TRUTH.
Video evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. Besides that I've reconciled how you can have video of evidence without eyewitness testimony. Whereas you haven't reconciled anything since you just ignored my evidence.

Here's the reconciliation. Some or even many did not see bottles thrown. But that still leaves room for bottles being thrown if they were done so out of the view of certain eyewitness testimonies. So the ones who didn't see it concluded that nothing was thrown whereas the one who did see it reported it or kept silent about it. This is not that difficult to figure out although I can see why some would not want to accept it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Later on I'll post a video of a supposed peaceful protest that ended with the Minnesota mayor being yelled at by a mob and even having a bottle thrown at him. Keep in mind, the mayor is a Democrat.

koko

Re: Caption this photo

Post #45

Post by koko »

The matter of the unrest in Washington DC has been settled. As for video "evidence" over testimony and multiple witnesses, I am mindful of a video shown by Fox years ago. It featured a right wing rally with large crowds applauding despite claims that the crowds were small. A video shown on TV did show large crowds. However, it was of an event that took place in summer with trees in full bloom. The rally took place in early spring when the trees were not in bloom.

As for Mayor Frey, his approval ratings as of the end of May was at 65% (same as Governor Walz). So while he was booed at the latest rally, his position as Mayor remains intact. He has said he wants major reform in the MPD. However, he has not offered a plan to implement any such reform. Hopefully, he will develop one soon. Police Chief Arradondo, his popularity ratings remain high as well.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Caption this photo

Post #46

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:17 pm The matter of the unrest in Washington DC has been settled. As for video "evidence" over testimony and multiple witnesses, I am mindful of a video shown by Fox years ago. It featured a right wing rally with large crowds applauding despite claims that the crowds were small. A video shown on TV did show large crowds. However, it was of an event that took place in summer with trees in full bloom. The rally took place in early spring when the trees were not in bloom.

As for Mayor Frey, his approval ratings as of the end of May was at 65% (same as Governor Walz). So while he was booed at the latest rally, his position as Mayor remains intact. He has said he wants major reform in the MPD. However, he has not offered a plan to implement any such reform. Hopefully, he will develop one soon. Police Chief Arradondo, his popularity ratings remain high as well.
It's been settled since my 1st post here. My video evidence seals the deal that some protestors were throwing things at the police before police force started.

koko

Re: Caption this photo

Post #47

Post by koko »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:36 pm

It's been settled since my 1st post here. My video evidence seals the deal that some protestors were throwing things at the police before police force started.

You've convinced yourself, now see if you can convince the mayor.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Caption this photo

Post #48

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:17 pm The matter of the unrest in Washington DC has been settled. As for video "evidence" over testimony and multiple witnesses, I am mindful of a video shown by Fox years ago. It featured a right wing rally with large crowds applauding despite claims that the crowds were small. A video shown on TV did show large crowds. However, it was of an event that took place in summer with trees in full bloom. The rally took place in early spring when the trees were not in bloom.

As for Mayor Frey, his approval ratings as of the end of May was at 65% (same as Governor Walz). So while he was booed at the latest rally, his position as Mayor remains intact. He has said he wants major reform in the MPD. However, he has not offered a plan to implement any such reform. Hopefully, he will develop one soon. Police Chief Arradondo, his popularity ratings remain high as well.
The Mayor's poll numbers have gone down. His own community shunned him and threw bottles at him when he refused to dismantle the police department. ..But of course another Democrat will likely fill in his seat.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: Caption this photo

Post #49

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:36 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:36 pm

It's been settled since my 1st post here. My video evidence seals the deal that some protestors were throwing things at the police before police force started.

You've convinced yourself, now see if you can convince the mayor.
We're talking past each other...so let's just full this thread up with all the evidence we can muster for our side because that's all it's going to amount to. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. You're not addressing my evidence so why should I address your evidence?

koko

Re: Caption this photo

Post #50

Post by koko »

I'm sticking with the facts as determined by the Washington DC mayor. Anybody wants to disagree? That's their business.

Post Reply