Is it appropriate for the President to violently clear out protestors for a photo op?

Recently, William Barr gave out orders to clear out peaceful protestors. The means used included rubber bullets. Flash Bangs. And Tear Gas. All of which can possibly be fatal in some circuimstances.

They did this for no other reason so that the president could walk across the lawn and take a photo op in front of a church.

Did the government take appropriate action here?

 

Absolutely.

Any other questions?

 

Yes. Symbolic actions are part of what presidents are expected to do.

 

I'm a Trump supporter. I voted no. With the big caveat- peaceful.

But FTR, he's using a law that Obama signed with overwhelming bipartisan support that makes anywhere the Secret Service goes a 'Federally Protected' location.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/347

 

If tar gassing PEACEFUL protestors is what you would like to consider "symbolic".......... Guess you must be a communist, and do not support the right to peacfully protest.

So whats up Commrade?

 

Even if those protests are 100% peacfull and non violent what so ever? Please explain your reasoning.

 

when the potus goes somewhere for a photo op, especially in a time when there are protesters scattered around during a period of obviously heightened security, they get moved back to a safe distance, they generally get asked first, then moved. Secret service doesn't play.

Given whats going on across the nation and some horrific scenes that i've seen, I can comfortably say that I have no issues with this and its just another attempt of the media to try and blow up a non story. carry on.

 

1) No tear gas was used.
2) The "protesters" were not peaceful.

 

Gosh... For protesters to be moved. the horror.... Because their entitlement to create a public nuisance is greater than perhaps creating a moment for national unity behind a president who is willing to subdue those who are looting and rioting in the streets. I suppose that anytime in the future, you know when liberals do essentially the same thing... that the left will unilaterally erupt in disdain and riot all the more.. oh wait... they won't.

The hypocrisy of those who believe only in their own entitlement, who refuse to acknowledge that anyone else may have an opinion, these are what we see toddling down the public squares these days, chanting useless drivel about how they have been underserved, etc.

So here's a news flash. Ask why. The Federal gov has spent something like 22 Trillion dollars in poverty elimination schemes over the years. It turns out that the vast majority of that money was never actually provided to the poor, but instead to the democratic party benefactors themselves. Gosh, the irony. And now? Those same feckless greedy F**ks think that starting a race war disguising their class war against the poor is their only out. Which, I suppose is why the elite media, and so many democratic business owners and leaders are suddenly all chipping in so folks won't target them.

 

Oh. And I would have voted no, it is not appropriate for a president to violently clear out protesters. Think about the precedent of that. When liberals ultimately do it when they are protested against, well... you get the point. I would assert that the park police and the secret service probably asked the nice protesters to leave. And they didn't. They were then probably ordered to leave under penalty of arrest, that seems to have also failed. I assume that the intent of the crowd was to take their violence directly to the president at that point. That seems unwise as a precedent also, given that for sure those same folks would have melted down had it been conservative protesters treating say Obama that way.

 

1. Yes there was.
2. Yes they were.

Why are you lying for these people?

 

I've read multiple accounts that dispute what you claim. From well established law enforcement authorities and no one beholden to the Trump Admin.

 

When police command you to move you gotta move. Don't delay.

 

I wonder why the armed protesters of a few weeks ago were not treated this way. You know, the ones who were protesting the government's closing of stores and businesses because of COVID 19. They were not tear gassed or shot with rubber bullets. And they had guns.

 

Source?

I believe you’re talking about two different incidents

 

In DC? I hadn't see that on the news

 

So you want to live in a police state where the police can order you to do anything and you should just what.... obey?

 

According to the leftist publisher of the 1619 project, looting and rioting aren't violent. So you have to be a little more descriptive. Another post said it right, Obama passed the law that said it was illegal to protest anywhere the secret service is located.

 

No laws had been broken by them at anytime during their protests? No secret service members were present?

 

That's a great point - given whats going on across the nation and some of the horrific scenes on display, was it really the best and safest time for POTUS to wander out for a photo op?

 

Nope, but he was also scolded for being forced into the bunker by the secret service.

 

It didn't happen in Wahington DC.

 

You disagree with the police you file an official complaint. Get a lawyer and sue them if you want. No that's not "exciting" like chanting and throwing things at them. But complaints and lawsuits are the means our society has chosen for people to deal with police misconduct. You don't "take it to the streets".

 

Also, they were White.

 

And black. I get that you don't see black people until its convenient, but there are black people out there who own guns, and protested the lock downs.