Protests turn violent outside Trump New Mexico event

[OrphanSlug]

"If charges are warranted"? You're not sure?

I have not seen all of the available videos and/or pictures of the incident. But what I have seen suggests arrests and charges.

 

[nota bene]

There's been riots and violent protests under Obama, too. I'm not a Trump supporter but I guess it's the contrarian nature in me that resents being told, "you better not vote for this guy" (that's one of the messages I see behind these protests). Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't think sending the message that you'll get what you want so long as you're violent enough is a good idea. Rioting, property damage, trying to silence Trump are just not effective campaign strategies with me (but I'm just one vote).

Ah, don't add the disclaimer that you're just one vote--I think normal people agree that the rock-throwing, injuring police officers and smashing the windows of their patrol cars is just beyond.

Albuquerque city council member Dan Lewis:

The violence that we're seeing this evening is absolutely unacceptable, and it is not the fault of Donald Trump, his campaign, or the attendees at the rally this evening. It is directly the result of so called public interest groups, such as ProgressNM and the Southwest Organizing Project, fomenting hate.

These organizations this evening devolved from community action groups to hate groups by every usual measure. This was not a protest--it was a riot that was the result of a mob trying to cause damage and injury to public property and innocent citizens exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Today represents a dark day for the First Amendment in the city of Albuquerque. Albuquerque picks up the pieces after chaotic Trump rally protests | KRQE News 13

 

[jonny5]

There is no reason for anyone to be surprised by this. Trump intentionally and specifically went with language and campaign rhetoric that will get his opposition as angry as he can influence. No matter who organized this protest odds are things will only get worse as we get past the primaries and into the general election contexts.

I can only imagine the security that will be required just to have a debate between Hillary and Trump.

The reason is that some of us think its wrong to infringe on others speech. Im not surprised people are angry. Im surprised that they turn their anger over someones opinion , into violence.

 

[jonny5]

There's been riots and violent protests under Obama, too. I'm not a Trump supporter but I guess it's the contrarian nature in me that resents being told, "you better not vote for this guy" (that's one of the messages I see behind these protests). Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't think sending the message that you'll get what you want so long as you're violent enough is a good idea. Rioting, property damage, trying to silence Trump are just not effective campaign strategies with me (but I'm just one vote).

I dont remember any riots or violent protest against Obama. Can you provide an example? I seem to recall a few tea party people yelling at their representatives, but thats about it.

 

[Casca XV]

So the BAD Guys who instigate violence get to decide who gets to be president?

This might just be me, but someone who frequently enrages huge crowds of people to the point of violence probably shouldn't be President.

So the Bad Guys get to decide who is president?

 

[Mason66]

No, you're trying to shift the blame from spoiled rotten little liberals violating our laws and make it sound like it's Trump's fault. He has NO legal responsibility to avoid offending people, but the rioters have a legal responsibility to not break the law. I wish that the local LE had not just broken up the riot, but arrested every single rioter they could get their hands on and pressed full charges of vandalism, destruction of public property, use of violence to intimidate people. Throw the book at the whole lot. If you want to protest what Trump is saying, then are LEGAL ways to do it and I say "Go for it!!" There are legal ways to protest if what Trump says makes you angry, so his making people angry excuses NONE of the criminal actions these rioters carried out.

I agree with you. Here is what I posted in the other thread.

I think every protester that had their face covered should have immediately been detained, photographed and identified and documented.

Then the police go over the video from the night and arrest everybody that threw a rock, bottle or anything else.

Also they should arrest anybody that attacked the police officers and horses.

The police did nothing all night but be targets for the protesters anger. They needed to stomp that out quickly.

 

[Mason66]

The reason is that some of us think its wrong to infringe on others speech. Im not surprised people are angry. Im surprised that they turn their anger over someones opinion , into violence.

It occurred to me as I was watching this last night that the organizers want to create as much mayhem as possible to make the next city put restrictions or flat out refuse to let Trump have a rally.

We will have to see if that works out for them.

 

[Ikari]

There's been riots and violent protests under Obama, too. I'm not a Trump supporter but I guess it's the contrarian nature in me that resents being told, "you better not vote for this guy" (that's one of the messages I see behind these protests). Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't think sending the message that you'll get what you want so long as you're violent enough is a good idea. Rioting, property damage, trying to silence Trump are just not effective campaign strategies with me (but I'm just one vote).

Certainly on the fundamental I agree. There is no call for violence, this is a peaceful “democratic” (it’s in parenthesis due to Party Politics) process and while protest is part of that, and should be (the people need to be free to speak their minds and associate and redress government); violence is not an acceptable avenue to explore at this point.



However, on a deeper fundamental, so long as one or a group is violent enough, they will get what they want. It’s the history of mankind, right? Violence is the source of authority, even our own government uses it for this end. Not that this act of violence is justified, but humanity has long rewarded those who have been violent enough.



As it relates to this topic and this election cycle. Clinton v. Sanders and then likely Clinton v. Trump…I don’t know if we’re ever going to see as divisive an election cycle with so many different and neigh equally horrible candidates. The tensions in this election cycle are going to be through the roof. I think what we see here is just the beginning. The Clinton and Trump supporters are rabid, and the majority of America is stuck in-between, not really wanting either, but having little choice around it.



I mean, there is some choice, I’ll be voting third party for instance. But with Clinton and Trump going at it, it’s going to be dirty, it’s going to be mean, it’s going to be partisan to levels we’ve never even thought possible before, and it is going to be violent. This will be a black eye for America.

 

[faithful_servant]

That is more projection.

Trump always responsibility for what he says but I would agree he is not "legally responsible" for the actions of the cloud unless he incites them or encourages them. That did not happen in this case. These groups protesting, and turning violent, have responsibility for their own actions regardless. No one is off the hook here for engaging in division oriented politics that ended up a mess.

Our issue is trying to say Trump has no hand in why this became a mess. You can bitch about it all you want, but our rights come with inherent responsibilities of having them.

As for the group that turned violent, I agree if charges are warranted they should be filed on every single one of them.

But what's happening is that Trump is only saying things that offend some people, he's not saying anything "illegal". By the standard you're pushing, if a pro-unicorn spokesperson said something that offended an anti-unicorn group and that group rioted in response, then the pro-unicorn spokesperson is carries some of the responsibility for the riot. Your approach means that we allow the mob to silence voices of protest and opposition. It means that if you say something that I don't like, then I get to shut you up by getting a whole bunch of other like-minded people to join me and we all riot to intimidate you and our society into silencing your voice.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

If you observed the Nevada democrat convention you observed the fact that those violent douchebags tend to wear the same hat and are just looking for a different place to party. You may also note that those douchebags tend to be funded by the same leftist douchebags invested on stirring up violent acts. And they are just getting started.

The one thing you can count on? They would be making the same charges of racism no matter who was the nominee. They would be making the same charges of sexism no matter who was the nominee. And there would be the same level of violent poutrage no matter who was the nominee.

Sexism charges? Most likely. Racism charges? Wouldn't be a real election otherwise. Multiple accounts of protestors turning violent on a large scale without the candidate saying a word at the rally? Bull****. This hasn't happened to any other candidate in my lifetime, McCain and Romney never got this kind of vitriolic hate. Hell, even George Bush Jr. couldn't enrage people like this!

The crowds were there to protest him before he even spoke. Nice try Jesse, but fail.

:failpail:

So people have to let the bigoted authoritarian talk for a certain amount of time at every speech before confirming that he's still a bigoted authoritarian? Makes sense if you think about it - makes even more if you don't! Kind of like Donald Trump's "platform."

Seems to me that people who are waving the flag of a foreign country while burning ours [along with whatever is on the street] should be charged with trespassing/etc. and then summarily deported.

Well this is certainly on-topic. If there are laws on the books that side with you on this, by all means, prosecute away.

Yeah, mob rule should really decide who can be president. :roll:

No, but in an election to decide whi should be the highest representative of the people, we shouldn't have a President who openly insults entire swaths of the American people, and on a few occasions, entire states. This is what happens when you have a candidate that does **** like that.

Or maybe that's exactly who needs to be president.

NO. We've had enough division in this country. We don't need someone to give Obama a run for the title of the Great Divider.

This group is always violent. Nevada Democrats will confirm.

Again, I have never seen anyone running for President get this kind of vitriolic opposition.

That's what the rioters want to happen. They are trying to push political change through the use of violence, trusting that people like you will excuse their actions and blame it on Trump. It's dishonest, it's runs counter to American ideal about freedom (this is an attempt at mob rule instead of rule of law) and is literally criminal in how it's being executed.

No argument here. You're right about all of that.

That's the thing in a democracy, major rules. If you don't like it, you can leave.

And Trump doesn't have a majority. What's your point?

So the Bad Guys get to decide who is president?

If they're registered voters, they at least get a say in it.

 

[VanceMack]

Sexism charges? Most likely. Racism charges? Wouldn't be a real election otherwise. Multiple accounts of protestors turning violent on a large scale without the candidate saying a word at the rally? Bull****. This hasn't happened to any other candidate in my lifetime, McCain and Romney never got this kind of vitriolic hate. Hell, even George Bush Jr. couldn't enrage people like this!



So people have to let the bigoted authoritarian talk for a certain amount of time at every speech before confirming that he's still a bigoted authoritarian? Makes sense if you think about it - makes even more if you don't! Kind of like Donald Trump's "platform."



Well this is certainly on-topic. If there are laws on the books that side with you on this, by all means, prosecute away.



No, but in an election to decide whi should be the highest representative of the people, we shouldn't have a President who openly insults entire swaths of the American people, and on a few occasions, entire states. This is what happens when you have a candidate that does **** like that.



NO. We've had enough division in this country. We don't need someone to give Obama a run for the title of the Great Divider.



Again, I have never seen anyone running for President get this kind of vitriolic opposition.



No argument here. You're right about all of that.



And Trump doesn't have a majority. What's your point?



If they're registered voters, they at least get a say in it.

Has nothing to do with the candidate. The reality is that the left has ****ty candidates. Hell...we predicted this and talked about it a year before the campaigns started. The left has nothing to run on BUT poutrage.

 

[X Factor]

Sexism charges? Most likely. Racism charges? Wouldn't be a real election otherwise. Multiple accounts of protestors turning violent on a large scale without the candidate saying a word at the rally? Bull****. This hasn't happened to any other candidate in my lifetime, McCain and Romney never got this kind of vitriolic hate. Hell, even George Bush Jr. couldn't enrage people like this!



So people have to let the bigoted authoritarian talk for a certain amount of time at every speech before confirming that he's still a bigoted authoritarian? Makes sense if you think about it - makes even more if you don't! Kind of like Donald Trump's "platform."



Well this is certainly on-topic. If there are laws on the books that side with you on this, by all means, prosecute away.



No, but in an election to decide whi should be the highest representative of the people, we shouldn't have a President who openly insults entire swaths of the American people, and on a few occasions, entire states. This is what happens when you have a candidate that does **** like that.



NO. We've had enough division in this country. We don't need someone to give Obama a run for the title of the Great Divider.



Again, I have never seen anyone running for President get this kind of vitriolic opposition.



No argument here. You're right about all of that.



And Trump doesn't have a majority. What's your point?



If they're registered voters, they at least get a say in it.

Nice grandstanding. Let's see, you not only justify and excuse the violence, you think we should roll over for it. You'd make a fine politician.

 

[American]

Sexism charges? Most likely. Racism charges? Wouldn't be a real election otherwise. Multiple accounts of protestors turning violent on a large scale without the candidate saying a word at the rally? Bull****. This hasn't happened to any other candidate in my lifetime, McCain and Romney never got this kind of vitriolic hate. Hell, even George Bush Jr. couldn't enrage people like this!



So people have to let the bigoted authoritarian talk for a certain amount of time at every speech before confirming that he's still a bigoted authoritarian? Makes sense if you think about it - makes even more if you don't! Kind of like Donald Trump's "platform."



Well this is certainly on-topic. If there are laws on the books that side with you on this, by all means, prosecute away.



No, but in an election to decide whi should be the highest representative of the people, we shouldn't have a President who openly insults entire swaths of the American people, and on a few occasions, entire states. This is what happens when you have a candidate that does **** like that.



NO. We've had enough division in this country. We don't need someone to give Obama a run for the title of the Great Divider.



Again, I have never seen anyone running for President get this kind of vitriolic opposition.



No argument here. You're right about all of that.



And Trump doesn't have a majority. What's your point?



If they're registered voters, they at least get a say in it.

:failpail:

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Has nothing to do with the candidate. The reality is that the left has ****ty candidates. Hell...we predicted this and talked about it a year before the campaigns started. The left has nothing to run on BUT poutrage.

Yes, the left has ****ty candidates. So do the Republicans, or at least they did before an authoritarian liberal ran them all out of the primary.

Nice grandstanding. Let's see, you not only justify and excuse the violence, you think we should roll over for it. You'd make a fine politician.

You should know me better than that, X.

I don't justify the violence; in fact, I actually admitted that what they were doing was unconstitutional and reprehensible. I also acknowledge that Trump is a reprehensible, vile **** who is doing his best to cause these violent protests.

I'm tired of watching America's political class tear this country into two, screaming, petulant halves that blame each other for everything that's gone wrong in this country, and I'm sick of watching Americans fall for their bull****. If Hillary Clinton is a perfect representative of the kind of human garbage who sells their voice and influence to the highesg bidder, then Trump represents the other half of that coin: the vile bastard who buys politicians, manipulates our legal system to help him make a profit through gaming the courts.

But for some inexplicable reason, millions of Americans are treating him like he's some kind of outsider who's **** don't stink and who isn't up o his eyes in corruption. I have never been ashamed of my country, but I'm starting to feel pretty damn disappointed in my countrymen on both ****ing sides of the aisle.

:failpail:

Enlightening as always, American.

 

[apdst]

This might just be me, but someone who frequently enrages huge crowds of people to the point of violence probably shouldn't be President.

We as Americans should never tolerate violence being used to influence an election.

Do you think Lincoln should have never been President?

 

[apdst]

If you observed the Nevada democrat convention you observed the fact that those violent douchebags tend to wear the same hat and are just looking for a different place to party. You may also note that those douchebags tend to be funded by the same leftist douchebags invested on stirring up violent acts. And they are just getting started.

The one thing you can count on? They would be making the same charges of racism no matter who was the nominee. They would be making the same charges of sexism no matter who was the nominee. And there would be the same level of violent poutrage no matter who was the nominee.

JFK could be the 2016 Republican candidate and the Left would 's all a Nazi.

 

[Manc Skipper]

When the police announce beforehand that they will deal swiftly with any protesters, then it can hardly be a surprise when violence happens.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

We as Americans should never tolerate violence being used to influence an election.

Do you think Lincoln should have never been President?

I have already stated that while I don't condone the violence, I also don't condone Trump deliberately pissing off entire swaths of our country and then playing victim when people react badly to it.

Lincoln didn't claim Douglas had a tiny dick, mock entire states, or scream about suing everyone whenever he lost the primary in one of his states.

He also literally tore this country apart, although that was unintentional and rests solely on the heads of Southern politicians; Lincoln repeatedly said that he would not abolish slavery, despite fearmongering on the Democratic party's part thoughout the South.

In other words, the difference between Trump and Lincoln is that while both were polarizing figures in American history, Trump xivides us by design; Lincoln struggled to unite us despite our political differences.

 

[apdst]

I have already stated that while I don't condone the violence, I also don't condone Trump deliberately pissing off entire swaths of our country and then playing victim when people react badly to it.

Lincoln didn't claim Douglas had a tiny dick, mock entire states, or scream about suing everyone whenever he lost the primary in one of his states.

He also literally tore this country apart, although that was unintentional and rests solely on the heads of Southern politicians; Lincoln repeatedly said that he would not abolish slavery, despite fearmongering on the Democratic party's part thoughout the South.

In other words, the difference between Trump and Lincoln is that while both were polarizing figures in American history, Trump xivides us by design; Lincoln struggled to unite us despite our political differences.

This is America. Trump has the right to say anything he likes. The right to resort to violence in protest of that does not exist.

These violent protesters should be best down in the street and arrested, possibly deported. There should be zero tolerance for this behavior.

 

[apdst]

When the police announce beforehand that they will deal swiftly with any protesters, then it can hardly be a surprise when violence happens.

That's no excuse for the violence, either.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

This is America. Trump has the right to say anything he likes. The right to resort to violence in protest of that does not exist.

These violent protesters should be best down in the street and arrested, possibly deported. There should be zero tolerance for this behavior.

While I agree that violence in protest cannot be condoned, there are two points at which I disagree with your methodology.

First, I don't see why the punishment for these protests should be any more severe than a regular act of disturbing the peace.

Second, why deportation specifically? Even if some of them happened to be on a work visa, why that particular punishment?

 

[apdst]

While I agree that violence in protest cannot be condoned, there are two points at which I disagree with your methodology.

First, I don't see why the punishment for these protests should be any more severe than a regular act of disturbing the peace.

Second, why deportation specifically? Even if some of them happened to be on a work visa, why that particular punishment?

Not, "not condoned", but rather not tolerated. Condemnation and zero tolerance are two different things.

Doing nothing to quell the violence is tolerance. These rioters aren't just, "disturbing the peace". They're using violence in an attempt to influence a presidential election, all the while flying a foreign flag. Hell, some (most?) aren't even American citizens. That's borderline treason.

 

[VanceMack]

When the police announce beforehand that they will deal swiftly with any protesters, then it can hardly be a surprise when violence happens.

Its the cops fault. Its Trumps fault. Its NOT the violent protesters fault.

:roll:

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus.............

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Not, "not condoned", but rather not tolerated. Condemnation and zero tolerance are two different things.

Doing nothing to quell the violence is tolerance. These rioters aren't just, "disturbing the peace". They're using violence in an attempt to influence a presidential election, all the while flying a foreign flag. Hell, some (most?) aren't even American citizens. That's borderline treason.

I've always been leery of zero-tolerance anythings. By all means, break up the protests and throw the ones who don't comply with the police in the tank for a few days, but a zero tolerance policy risks getting people who were protesting nonviolently into serious trouble for the actions of others, or wirh the case of punishments as severe as deportation, could absolutely ruin a person's life without reason.

I suppose you could argue that this situation merits severe penalties, but that's why I have a problem with zero tolerance policies: they don't leave room for dealing with different situations.

 

[apdst]

I've always been leery of zero-tolerance anythings. By all means, break up the protests and throw the ones who don't comply with the police in the tank for a few days, but a zero tolerance policy risks getting people who were protesting nonviolently into serious trouble for the actions of others, or wirh the case of punishments as severe as deportation, could absolutely ruin a person's life without reason.

I suppose you could argue that this situation merits severe penalties, but that's why I have a problem with zero tolerance policies: they don't leave room for dealing with different situations.

There are laws against rioting. There is nothing radical about enforcing anti-violence laws. There is, however, something very wrong with not enforcing those laws. Any peaceful protesters should leave the second the violence begins. Or, if they suspect violence is possivle, do not attend.