Do you have evidence of tear gas fired at peaceful protesters? I'm getting a Greta Thunberg "help I've been kidnapped by IDF" vibe from the tear gas claim.
There's a lot of videos of the contrary - LAPD pelted with rocks by aggressive mobs who are there to fight against "nazi scum" or fight for "stolen land" as they wave every other flag than American.
All the footage I've seen and social media I've seen goes the other way: that the people watching and filming the ICE raids were then fired upon by ICE.
I suspect the usual media chicanery - everyone reporting the story that their viewers want to hear.
Anyway. My point was that I could not do this. If I was asked to fire teargas at a crowd who were protesting kidnapping people off the streets and taking them to concentration camps, I could not do that. I would refuse that order.
You're posting misinformation. Tear gas is deployed when mobs surge in direct violation of orders not to, or to control violence and criminality by large crowds. Your attempt to frame it as "cops attacking peaceful onlookers" is in conflict with the evidence available.
Citation needed. I'm seeing videos of folks saying that ICE started it all.
Aljazeera is pretty good with unbiased coverage, and it doesn't lay the blame one way or the other [0]. It just says "(LAPD) declared the area an unlawful assembly, deployed tear gas, issued tactical alerts and made several arrests."
Literally the first thing listed is the declaration of an unlawful assembly. After that you have either compliance or non-compliance with the declaration.
Given the mountain of evidence of criminal damage, we can assume the declaration came after evaluating the scale of criminal behavior. Reading that as "cops fired first" sounds like cognitive bias.
Again, I think you're being fed different media reports than I am.
And the whole point of a protest is that it is defiance of authority. Having a protest declared "unlawful assembly" is kinda the point.
I'm curious what you saw from the "No Kings" protests from your point of view? Were they also unlawful, with mountains of evidence of criminal damage? The organisers estimate that 11 million people attended 2000 different locations around the USA, and it was almost entirely peaceful. What are you being told?
I saw the one where a journalist was shot with rubber bullets. What does the flag have to do with anything? Aren't you guys supposed to have freedom of expression?
The Australian journalist who wasn't wearing any media vest, standing in middle of road next to an unfolding high-tension incident so she could get a good shot? That journalist? The cop that shot her was in the wrong, but she didn't help herself attending the frontline of a riot in casual dress and going for the money-shot.
Freedom of expression isn't immune from ridicule or condemnation. In one NYC anti-ICE protest they're chanting "From Mexico to Gaza, globalize the intifada". You can argue that's freedom of expression, as is burning the US flag and other dopey unhelpful actions.
Back during the George Floyd riots, there were numerous videos of cops shooting rubber bullets at people just for lulz. There was one when a person standing inside and filming through the window got shot at, cracking the glass.
Most of those same cops are staffing PDs today, so they will behave exactly as they did back then. Nobody sane should give them any benefit of doubt.
She was being filmed by a camera crew, it was obvious she was from the press. Media vest - it's not Afghanistan - though deployment of military may give that impression. Really going for the 'she was asking' for it defense?
