Originally Posted by Anteater

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?

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.