"I'm asking the peaceful protestors to come out during the day."

[Duer 157099]

Translation: if you come at night, by definition, you are not peaceful and will be treated as such.

[elleng]

5. No curfew.

Easier to handle things if protesters are out in daylight. Reasonable.

[951-Riverside]

15. Its for your own safety.

Now shut up and go back to your designated areas, any resistance will be met with arrest and/or deadly force.

[kath]

2. I've never seen any time restrictions in the 1st Amendment - anybody else?

[whttevrr]

3. Only in Sundowner Towns...?

[elleng]

6. And there aren't any now.

[woo me with science]

16. Thank you. nt

[elleng]

4. No, not what he meant,

and clarified. Night makes difficult to determine what's going on, but even so, everyone's entitled to protest, day or night. No curfew.

[Duer 157099]

7. I think it is what he meant, although yes, he did try to CYA

Reading between the lines, there is no other interpretation to what he said.

1) If you are peaceful, come during the day
2) If you come at night, there's good reason for us to expect that you are not peaceful

ergo:
3) If you come at night, you get what you deserve. You have been warned.

[elleng]

8. No, and I don't agree with your 'ergo' interpretation,

'reading between the lines.'

[kjones]

10. It seems like a willful misreading

[kjones]

9. Terrible editorializing

Do you deny that there is violence at night?
Do you think it is wise to come to a place where violence is prone to happen?
Do you deny that having a large crowd of peaceful and violent individuals
makes it difficult to sort the two?

He also said it's people right to be there at night, and there is no curfew.
But if you are standing next to someone causing a problem, don't be surprised
if you get dragged into that problem.

I've said it elsewhere, it's really easy to criticize when you don't have to bear
responsibility for peoples' safety.

People were shot tonight. I'm sure somehow you blame that on the police,
but it really makes no sense to me.

For instigators, it's win-win. If cops aren't there, obvious win. If they are,
all they have to do is provoke the cops and everyone say "look at those
fascists." Win. It's pretty easy to provoke the cops too, what with protecting
the public being part of the job description. When there is violence and threats,
they are obligated to respond.

[elleng]

11. Yes. Thanks.

People here fail to recognize difficulty of the situation, including 'fog of war,' and want to blame police who, as you say, are obligated to respond.

Haven't seen discussion here of his distinction between peaceful protesters, most local, and those who came from elsewhere, and not so peaceful.

[bettyellen]

14. that would be because the LE have created that "fog" arresting journalists, and shooting smoke and

tear gas indiscriminately.

[woo me with science]

13. The right to protest that is guaranteed in our Constitution

does not specify approved protesting hours, nor does it say that protesters must keep moving.

The fascists making these demands know full well that a lot of these people work to survive during the day.

[bigtree]

17. exactly

. . . Johnson has reached his peter principle on his authority; his level of incompetency.

Civil liberties is a matter which is clear, from this statement, is over his big head. In his statement he's ignorant of history of the law and its relationship to progressive changes which he's been a beneficiary of - and he betrays an ultra-authoritarian disregard for the impetus, efficacy, and primacy of the rights of protest.

[Erose999]

18. The thing about civil disobedience is that it requires some level of disobedience. Protesting at

night is attrition, it forces the police to spend their budget on overtime hours. Hopefully this will cut into the budget with which they're getting surplus military geegaws like fucking tanks and shit.

Make the pigs work round the clock.