Thousands of Hondurans heading toward the US

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

May I ask the same of you?

I define a riot as any crowd of 10 or more people who use any means of violence (example: Pushing, shoving, fighting, throwing things, etc.) during any kind of protest.

Well, this wasn't a protest, ergo, it wasn't a riot.

[Eastern Awes Comal]

I say let them in. Criminals are criminals, but I doubt most have any intent other than to escape the conditions back home.

[South Ccanda]

I define a riot as any crowd of 10 or more people who use any means of violence (example: Pushing, shoving, fighting, throwing things, etc.) during any kind of protest.

Well, this wasn't a protest, ergo, it wasn't a riot.

i define protest as a group of people advocating for/against something and/or taking action to change a buisness, corporation, country, or ones own status

[Novus America]

I am sure it did, although tear gas is a gas, not something that sticks to you.

But yes it surely sucked. But also sucked less than other options.

But yeah, parents who brought their children into the situation could almost certainly be charged with reckless endangerment.

Imagine if shooting broke out. Kids could have died.

The only way it could possibly be reckless endangerment to bring your children to the US/Mexico border is if Mexico treats the CBP as an inherent danger to life and safety. Is that what you think? That American federal agents are a danger to anyone who approaches them, like a lion, tiger, or bear?

Do not drag you kids into a riot against the Border Patrol.
Though actually the Border Patrol handled this much nicer than some other organizations might have.

People didn't drag their children into a riot against the CBP. They brought their children to the US/Mexico border so they could claim asylum in the US, which is still legal, and the CBP attacked them with tear gas.

---

I am sure it did, although tear gas is a gas, not something that sticks to you.

But yes it surely sucked. But also sucked less than other options.

But yeah, parents who brought their children into the situation could almost certainly be charged with reckless endangerment.

Imagine if shooting broke out. Kids could have died.

The only way it could possibly be reckless endangerment to bring your children to the US/Mexico border is if Mexico treats the CBP as an inherent danger to life and safety. Is that what you think? That American federal agents are essentially equivalent to wild animals or a fire or a flood?

Do not drag you kids into a riot against the Border Patrol.
Though actually the Border Patrol handled this much nicer than some other organizations might have.

People didn't drag their children into a riot against the CBP. They brought their children to the US/Mexico border so they could claim asylum in the US, which is still legal, and the CBP attacked them with tear gas.

Where this occurred is clearly not near any legal entrance point, nor is it a commercial or residential area. It is a giant open sewer with a wall on the other side with no legal crossing.
There was absolutely no good reason to take kids across that sewer. The parents who do were completely unjustifiably reckless in doing so.

And the vast majority of the rioters appear to be adults males, though some of the pictures show adults literally dragging kids toward it.

You try to make this out to be that some kids were peacefully standing in line at the entry point and the Border Patrol used gas on them for no apparent reason.
But the videos show your BS narrative has nothing to do with reality.

The kids were taken there for no legitimate purposes, into a dangerous area they should not have been, to commit a crime.

Using kids a what appears to be human shields does not allow you to commit any crime without consequences.

And the tear gas was much safer for the kids than alternatives.
The Border Patrol did the right thing as it resolved the situation with no serious injuries or deaths. We cannot say the alternatives would have such a outcome.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Well, this wasn't a protest, ergo, it wasn't a riot.

i define protest as a group of people advocating for/against something and/or taking action to change a buisness, corporation, country, or ones own status

I feel like this definition is too broad, to be honest, since by this logic, every group of people organized to accomplish something qualifies as a protest. By this logic, a middle school debate club is a protest, as it is a group of people advocating for/against something, as is a group of people going to a job fair, as it is a group attempting to change their own status.

[Loben]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

[South Ccanda]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

they honestly make it sound like the second battle of Ypres lol

[Xadufell]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

they honestly make it sound like the second battle of Ypres lol

They wouldn't be using tear gas if they didn't have a reason to.

But they're just doing it because ICE = KKK
ObViOuSlY

[South Ccanda]

i define protest as a group of people advocating for/against something and/or taking action to change a buisness, corporation, country, or ones own status

I feel like this definition is too broad, to be honest, since by this logic, every group of people organized to accomplish something qualifies as a protest. By this logic, a middle school debate club is a protest, as it is a group of people advocating for/against something, as is a group of people going to a job fair, as it is a group attempting to change their own status.

well, protests have debates sooooo.
also, this is how merriam webster defines protest. "to execute or have executed a formal protest against (something, such as a bill or note)"
although it doesn't list many examples as i did, it can be assumed that my examples are just as valid.

[Vassenor]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

#everythingIdontlikeisHitler

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I feel like this definition is too broad, to be honest, since by this logic, every group of people organized to accomplish something qualifies as a protest. By this logic, a middle school debate club is a protest, as it is a group of people advocating for/against something, as is a group of people going to a job fair, as it is a group attempting to change their own status.

well, protests have debates sooooo.
also, this is how merriam webster defines protest. "to execute or have executed a formal protest against (something, such as a bill or note)"
although it doesn't list many examples as i did, it can be assumed that my examples are just as valid.

You, and by extension I, requested a definition "in your own words", but regardless, if it doesn't list examples, it didn't want to list examples.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I feel like this definition is too broad, to be honest, since by this logic, every group of people organized to accomplish something qualifies as a protest. By this logic, a middle school debate club is a protest, as it is a group of people advocating for/against something, as is a group of people going to a job fair, as it is a group attempting to change their own status.

well, protests have debates sooooo.
also, this is how merriam webster defines protest. "to execute or have executed a formal protest against (something, such as a bill or note)"
although it doesn't list many examples as i did, it can be assumed that my examples are just as valid.

Protests can’t really have debates. You can’t have thousands of people shouting different or varying beliefs. This is why chants and shouts are made, rather than a person on a pedestal talking to the other person. It’s why counter protests are stupid. They’re just people shooting at one another.

[South Ccanda]

well, protests have debates sooooo.
also, this is how merriam webster defines protest. "to execute or have executed a formal protest against (something, such as a bill or note)"
although it doesn't list many examples as i did, it can be assumed that my examples are just as valid.

You, and by extension I, requested a definition "in your own words", but regardless, if it doesn't list examples, it didn't want to list examples.

and i delivered, but you didn't like it, thus i had my buddy Meriam Webster back me up. also, its a dictionary, it only needs to list a few examples, not all eamples

[South Ccanda]

well, protests have debates sooooo.
also, this is how merriam webster defines protest. "to execute or have executed a formal protest against (something, such as a bill or note)"
although it doesn't list many examples as i did, it can be assumed that my examples are just as valid.

Protests can’t really have debates. You can’t have thousands of people shouting different or varying beliefs. This is why chants and shouts are made, rather than a person on a pedestal talking to the other person. It’s why counter protests are stupid. They’re just people shooting at one another.

having personally attended a few protests, you actually can have a civil debate if the person opposite you decides that they want to come to a common ground rather than shout and chant.

[Xadufell]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

#everythingIdontlikeisHitler

Conglaturations, you're winner!

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You, and by extension I, requested a definition "in your own words", but regardless, if it doesn't list examples, it didn't want to list examples.

and i delivered, but you didn't like it, thus i had my buddy Meriam Webster back me up. also, its a dictionary, it only needs to list a few examples, not all eamples

It's not that I didn't like it. I didn't, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I can't think of a single circumstance where a group would be organized and it would not qualify as a protest according to your definition.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Protests can’t really have debates. You can’t have thousands of people shouting different or varying beliefs. This is why chants and shouts are made, rather than a person on a pedestal talking to the other person. It’s why counter protests are stupid. They’re just people shooting at one another.

having personally attended a few protests, you actually can have a civil debate if the person opposite you decides that they want to come to a common ground rather than shout and chant.

It's a shame that so few people on either side are interested in listening.

[South Ccanda]

and i delivered, but you didn't like it, thus i had my buddy Meriam Webster back me up. also, its a dictionary, it only needs to list a few examples, not all eamples

It's not that I didn't like it. I didn't, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I can't think of a single circumstance where a group would be organized and it would not qualify as a protest according to your definition.

Just because there are a few exceptions when it comes to my definition, it doesn't entirely discredit my definition.

[South Ccanda]

having personally attended a few protests, you actually can have a civil debate if the person opposite you decides that they want to come to a common ground rather than shout and chant.

It's a shame that so few people on either side are interested in listening.

quite a shame

[Ifreann]

Trying to get by police officers isn't a riot.

may i ask how you would define a riot, in your own words, of course.

Some kind of serious mass violence and unrest.

---

The only way it could possibly be reckless endangerment to bring your children to the US/Mexico border is if Mexico treats the CBP as an inherent danger to life and safety. Is that what you think? That American federal agents are a danger to anyone who approaches them, like a lion, tiger, or bear?


People didn't drag their children into a riot against the CBP. They brought their children to the US/Mexico border so they could claim asylum in the US, which is still legal, and the CBP attacked them with tear gas.

---

The only way it could possibly be reckless endangerment to bring your children to the US/Mexico border is if Mexico treats the CBP as an inherent danger to life and safety. Is that what you think? That American federal agents are essentially equivalent to wild animals or a fire or a flood?


People didn't drag their children into a riot against the CBP. They brought their children to the US/Mexico border so they could claim asylum in the US, which is still legal, and the CBP attacked them with tear gas.

Where this occurred is clearly not near any legal entrance point, nor is it a commercial or residential area. It is a giant open sewer with a wall on the other side with no legal crossing.
There was absolutely no good reason to take kids across that sewer. The parents who do were completely unjustifiably reckless in doing so.

Why are you calling it a sewer?

And the vast majority of the rioters appear to be adults males, though some of the pictures show adults literally dragging kids toward it.

There weren't any rioters, because there wasn't a riot.

You try to make this out to be that some kids were peacefully standing in line at the entry point and the Border Patrol used gas on them for no apparent reason.
But the videos show your BS narrative has nothing to do with reality.

The CBP attacked them because the President doesn't want to give them asylum.

The kids were taken there for no legitimate purposes, into a dangerous area they should not have been, to commit a crime.

That the area was dangerous is only because the CBP attacked people.

Using kids a what appears to be human shields does not allow you to commit any crime without consequences.

No one was using kids as human shields.

And the tear gas was much safer for the kids than alternatives.

The alternative was to let them in. No danger in that.

The Border Patrol did the right thing as it resolved the situation with no serious injuries or deaths. We cannot say the alternatives would have such a outcome.

I'm confident that letting these people cross the border would not have caused any serious injuries or deaths.

[The Black Forrest]

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

Wow. Havent seen a godwin in awhile.

[South Ccanda]

Ifreann, they were in fact rioters, there was in fact a riot, and saying otherwise is just naive.

[South Ccanda]

"Just let them in, no harm in that."
Just letting them in is illegal. where they were trying to "Apply for asylum" was not a legal entrance point. What they did was illegal. tear gas is justified against a riot of criminal.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It's not that I didn't like it. I didn't, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I can't think of a single circumstance where a group would be organized and it would not qualify as a protest according to your definition.

Just because there are a few exceptions when it comes to my definition, it doesn't entirely discredit my definition.

That's not what an exception is.

With some of the responses here you'd think Waffen SS armed with zyklon B gassed the crowd.

Wow. Havent seen a godwin in awhile.

To be honest, I think it's kind of ironic that the only people making Nazi comparisons are apparently doing so in reaction to Nazi comparisons.

Ifreann, they were in fact rioters, there was in fact a riot, and saying otherwise is just naive.

Could we please get off the semantics as to whether or not it was a riot and talk about, just a thought, whether or not the actions of the guards were justified as a reaction to the migrants and/or whether or not the actions of the migrants were justified as a reaction to the guards?
I can lawyer definitions all day if you really want to do that, but it's growing increasingly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[South Ccanda]

well, in order to figure out whether the gaurds actions were justified, we have come to a conclusion that it was a riot or a crowd of reasonable people they took action against.