Caption this photo

[historia]

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

[koko]

.

Please stop making UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

re "UNSUBSTANTIATED claims"

This clearly proves it is a PROVEN claim: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/86753207 ... -officials


This may not be what you see on the Fox network but it is a FACT whether you choose to believe it or not.

My video clearly shows that the bottles were flying before the crowd was pushed back. So far you have offered no evidence to show otherwise. If someone "says" otherwise it's clearly because they didn't see the bottles perhaps they weren't in a position to. That doesn't mean nothing was thrown.

Again, you have zero evidence to back up your claim that bottles came AFTER protestors were pushback.

Nonsense.

My link clearly and unequivocally shows:


"The plaza between St. John's Church and Lafayette Park was full of people nonviolently protesting police brutality late Monday afternoon when U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops, with the use of tear gas, suddenly started pushing them away for no apparent reason.

And then it became clear.

President Trump wanted to walk from the White House through the park to the Episcopal church.''



People were exercising their constitutional rights when Trump's jack booted thugs attacked them. My link fully substantiated what I said. You FAILED to prove your claim. All the evidence is there. You know it. God knows it.

[AgnosticBoy]

Nonsense.

My link clearly and unequivocally shows:


"The plaza between St. John's Church and Lafayette Park was full of people nonviolently protesting police brutality late Monday afternoon when U.S. Park Police and National Guard troops, with the use of tear gas, suddenly started pushing them away for no apparent reason.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand my point as opposed to you just purposely making misleading and unsubstantiated claims. But let's test that to see which is which.

Did you bother to look at my video? Does the part that I told you to look at show any pushing or tear gas being fired by police? And during that time, does it show a bottle being thrown?

If not, then perhaps you could figure out that the difference between your source and mine is timing. My source shows the conditions on the ground at a time prior to the time that your source shows. This isn't difficult to figure out, really.

[koko]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand my point as opposed to you just purposely making misleading and unsubstantiated claims. But let's test that to see which is which.

Did you bother to look at my video? Does the part that I told you to look at show any pushing or tear gas being fired by police? And during that time, does it show a bottle being thrown?

If not, then perhaps you could figure out that the difference between your source and mine is timing. My source shows the conditions on the ground at a time prior to the time that your source shows. This isn't difficult to figure out, really.

Just consider that the bishop who presides over the church blamed Trump whose Gestapo forces caused the problem, not the "rioters".

[AgnosticBoy]

Just consider that the bishop who presides over the church blamed Trump whose Gestapo forces caused the problem, not the "rioters".

Keep in mind that there is some law & order on this site. You can't just spew out nonsense (points that don't address my questions but rather DODGES or ignores it) in a DEBATE.

You did not answer my simple questions in my last post and that is very telling. Again, I presented video evidence. That video shows the time and condition which is a point when police force was not yet happening but yet bottles were still flying.

If the video shows bottles being thrown at the police BEFORE the police started using force to push back protestors, then is that different than your claim that the bottles were thrown AFTER the police used force (tear gas, pushing, etc)??

[koko]

We can go on and on until the end of eternity. But whether you like it or not, Mayor Bowser, D.C. police Chief Peter Newsham, and District’s Attorney General Karl Racine all criticized Trump's Gestapo thugs. You are entitled to your opinion. But that does not mean your words carry more weight than do these people along with those of Bishop Budde. All were there. You were not. And they attribute the problems to the jack booted thugs, not to the peaceful dissenters.

[AgnosticBoy]

We can go on and on until the end of eternity. But whether you like it or not, Mayor Bowser, D.C. police Chief Peter Newsham, and District’s Attorney General Karl Racine all criticized Trump's Gestapo thugs. You are entitled to your opinion. But that does not mean your words carry more weight than do these people along with those of Bishop Budde. All were there. You were not. And they attribute the problems to the jack booted thugs, not to the peaceful dissenters.

I don't care who criticized who. Our disagreement is about why the police used force and whether or not the protests was completely peaceful. I presented video evidence that shows the protests were not completely peaceful and that the unpeaceful acts started before the police used force.

So for the record and so that the police on this site can see, your unsubstantiated claims:
- The protest in DC were completely peaceful.
- Bottles were thrown AFTER the police made their show of force (pushing, using tear gas, etc) on the protestors.

I've offered video evidence showing otherwise and you clearly ducked and DODGED my evidence.

[historia]

I've presented empirical evidence that shows that the protests presented a security risks. Refer to the video I posted in my last post

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.

Some observations:

I've watched the video twice now and cannot hear any audible warnings from the police to disperse. Several reporters at the scene also confirmed that they didn't hear any warnings.

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.

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.

Things progress rapidly from there, however, as the police begin sweeping H Street from the east. The protestors are mostly raising their hands or kneeling, and don't appear to be violent. Nevertheless, the police forcefully disperse the crowd with tear gas and stun grenades.

[historia]

Given the above evidence, let's look at how the White House described the events.

In the first press briefing cited above, the Press Secretary claimed:

No tear gas was used and no rubber bullets were used.

This is grossly misleading, if not outright false. Empty tear gas casings and un-exploded grenades with rubber projectiles were found at the scene. We also have video evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses that corroborate that physical evidence.

Next she said:

The protesters were told three times over loudspeaker that they needed to move. And what happened was it grew increasingly unruly. There were projectiles being thrown at officers. Frozen water bottles were being thrown at officers. Various other projectiles. And the officers had no other choice than, in that moment, to act and make sure that they were safe and that the perimeter was pushed back, because as we all know, a church was burning in that very area the night before.

This is also misleading. The implication here is that the crowd grew increasingly unruly and violent when they were told to leave. But the evidence shows most protestors never heard the warnings, and only momentarily became agitated and threw a few things in response to police starting their dispersal action.

You also offered Barr's press briefing for consideration:

Barr gave two reasons for extending the security perimeter (refer to 36:10 to 38:40 minute marks). One reason is to better protect the White House property from protestors and their projectiles. The closer the protestors were to the White House (as they were real close, up to the gate, on Saturday or Sunday), then the more likely they'll be able to reach the White House so you obviously want to avoid that.

I think you may be accidentally conflating two different things here.

The protestors we are discussing were behind a security barrier on H Street at the north edge of Lafayette Square. They are over 800 feet (nearly three football fields) away from the White House. Clearly, they cannot hit the White House with projectiles from that distance. So this can't be the reason for extending the security perimeter.

The second reason is to provide a better security buffer so that security personnel have a wider space (as opposed to a tight space, perhaps distance from WH is a factor) to operate in.

AG Barr also mentioned that the reason he didn't continue with the same perimeter the next day is because the protestors were more peaceful that night compared to previous nights.

While I'm willing to give Barr the benefit of the doubt here, something about this explanation sits uneasy with me. If extending the perimeter an extra block was necessary because security personnel needed a wider space to operate in, then it's not clear to me why a single night of more peaceful protests eliminated the need for that extra space.

[emilynghiem]

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

I believe that the message it was intended to convey is “President Trump is a man of faith.”

I worry that I am becoming cynical, but the message I personally see is, “President Trump knows that Americans are more likely to vote for a hypocrite than an honest man.”

"HAVE FAITH"

Huh. I actually get to use those college photography classes I took in a debate. I never thought that would happen.

A good photographer wants his photo to have a clear subject. The subject is the first thing the eye notices in a photo. Everything else in the photo informs the subject.

In this picture, the subject is President Trump. He is in the center of the photo. He is framed with the Bible on his right and the church sign to his left. We are supposed to look at him first and the let the other aspects of the photo inform our view of him.

A photographer who wants to say “have faith” would make a symbol of faith his subject. For instance, the Bible could be held forward in the center, causing it to appear larger and putting the president in the background. That would make the holy book the subject and the message might be “have faith.”

However, in this photo the president is the subject and the Bible in a peripheral object there to inform our view of Mr. Trump. The message is not about faith itself, but about the president and him as a man of faith.

Maybe I just don't see him like others do.
My eye goes to the Bible as the darkest solid black object.
Trump looks troubled, so he looks far off in thought to me
while the Bible represents something timeless and stable to look at.

That's just how I see it.
When people ask me about all the conflicts surrounding Trump,
I tell them we aren't supposed to rely on people to dictate,
but are supposed to govern ourselves by the LAW.

So it might just be my bias that I look to the LAW
that is supposed to govern and unite us, regardless of Trump,
what he thinks or what we think of him. the LAWS are what
are supposed to be the central and common policy and standard.

[AgnosticBoy]

I've presented empirical evidence that shows that the protests presented a security risks. Refer to the video I posted in my last post

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. Did you watch my video? Did you see the bottle thrown?

Some observations:

I've watched the video twice now and cannot hear any audible warnings from the police to disperse. Several reporters at the scene also confirmed that they didn't hear any warnings.

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. No one video would capture every single vantage point. For this reason, you can't rule out that bottles were thrown but it wasn't captured on camera. But I've at least done better than having to just rely on that point, since I posted video that showed a bottle being thrown and it was BEFORE the police started using force.

Did you watch my video? Here it is again showing some protestors taunting and throwing a bottle at the police:
(watch the :25 to :45 second mark)