Okay, let me try to explain this to you again: it's not us, it's you. You have a problem coping with disagreement. All this time you're repeatedly telling us that we actually believe what you do is a reflection of your inability to comprehend other people being able to hold different views.
This is your shortcoming. People might call you a liar because you twist, distort or make up evidence, but they don't usually say you actually believe what they do: and that's because everyone else here fundamentally gets how different people can have different views. This is probably also a lot to do with why you are hostile to (for instance) homosexuals and immigrants: you struggle with people who are different from you.
I thoroughly understand that people can disagree with me, I know you disagree with me on many things... but not this. You don't believe their actions are reasonable, I know this of you for a number of reasons.
First, nothing you've ever said has suggested a general support for hooliganism. That is not true of everyone here, some people support street violence in the general sense, but that's not your record. When people are screaming and cursing and blowing whistles in officers faces, even when ICE is doing their job the way they are supposed to, you know that's not heroism, it's not even really protest, it's hooliganism. Immediately before the shooting, the women weren't saying ICE should be abolished and immigrants protected, they were saying "you wanna come at us?", that's not a statement of protest, that's antagonizing, that's fighting words. They weren't acting as protesters, they were trying to be vigilantes, and I have trouble believing you support that in any sense.
But secondly, even if you did, even if you thought ICE was so terrible to be supportive of people rising up against them directly, you are reasonable enough to know that what they were doing is just counterproductive. At best, they prevent the immediate arrest of one migrant or group of migrants. It could just delay it a day, it could just delay it 2 minutes, but at most, someone escapes from ICE entirely because this car was in the way. But that doesn't advance the cause of abolishing or reforming ICE, if anything it sets it back. When people are organizing opposition to law enforcement, not in the sense of protest or changes to the actual laws, but physical opposition to the law enforcement officers, the general public, everyone who isn't entirely on board with these women, is liable to feel greater support for those officers. Their actions offered little to no direct benefit while risking setting back the politics of it against them. Genuinely, the only thing they did that advanced their cause in any way was get shot.
But thirdly and most directly, it's a contradiction of your position on this issue. You have not been arguing that ICE are Trump's gestapo like others, you have not been saying that this was the intended outcome, not just of the officer but also of the administration. You have been arguing that ICE is totally to blame, but because they are a poorly trained, poorly regulated force that is liable to have more than its share of trigger happy people in their ranks, and have been set loose with lots of guns and little oversight. If you believe that is the case, you would not tell people that it is reasonable to intercept them in the streets and taunt them. Not only is that not a solution to the problem, it's literally asking for this result.
So, from my perspective, one of two things is true: either you have made a sudden change in your general perspective, tossed aside all practicality, and given no thought at all about the implications of your statements OR you're fibbing about a point you think is unimportant to maintain the general disagreement. I am thoroughly certain it's the latter case.
(Other people here also know its insane, unreasonable behavior, they just support it anyway, cause they like it when their zealots become martyrs but have just barely enough sense not to express that opinion.)
"Expected protest"? Wowser. Heaven forfend that law enforcement agencies might have to deal with someone whose behaviour isn't "expected".
Maybe all protestors, criminals, and even all other members of the public that the police might potentially interact with should submit an official form stating their intended daily actions to the authorities at least 28 days in advance. Deviation from said plans are then grounds for the police to shoot them in the head, because their dangerous unpredictability indicates that they pose a potential threat to the life and safety of officers and the public.
Failure to properly declare all plans by the deadline will be grounds to be shot in the head, as people who do so must be anarchist Antifa domestic terrorists.
You all need to consider what a protest actually is. What of their actions actually indicates that they are peaceful protesters? How would you distinguish them from cop killers?
www.pcgamer.com
