Destroying property isn’t violent. Buildings don’t have feelings.

Don't pretend like you do some profound research to check the validity of your sources less we pull up the receipts to your anti-vaxxer's covid conspiracy crock with the only defense being "when YouTube restricts something I pay attention."

You love focussing on the semantics of one detail to pretend it dismantled the whole point.

I didn't see you complaining about the Hitler / Trump pic rostasi shared a few pages ago. Now there's a profound observation that nobody has ever made before.

Most of his supporters are already yappin a variation of "he makes the trains run on time." Trump is clearly Mussolini, not Hitler.

Lol what would you do if a real conservative actually showed up on MB? Jump off a cliff? Eat your vegetables?

Alright, I decided to waste my time and actually read this to give you the benefit of the doubt. The only source the writer cites is the police. The police say they didn't use tear gas. The police say the protesters were violent. The police say they had weapons stashes. The police didn't even know about Trump's photo op. What moron takes the word of the people who committed the act as compelling evidence that they must have acted ethically? What blithering idiot takes such a flying mental leap off of a cliff?

A few things to consider. There are journalists who were there that attested that police officers were being pelted with objects, bottles, whatever before they did anything. And then you have other authorities there who say it wasn't tear gas. Then you have all of these media outlets who say it was tear gas, but can't provide evidence of it. What kind of moron gets mad for looking at the details of a story after-the-fact? Trump went out there to take a picture and even with all the video that was shot that gives us some insight into the events, nobody seems to have a clear chronology of exactly what happened and in what order.

As far as the ethics of it go, I guess it just comes down to whether or not you think officers are allowed to respond with any kind of force if they get pelted, assaulted, etc. You'd tell me that it's okay if someone kills a police officer if they were afraid because the police officer is in the wrong: they're a threat, right? But what about non-lethal force? If you attack a police officer for whatever reason, should they use a pepper ball to defend themselves?