We can certainly write off that the photo is in DC and that the man slamming that woman is using the same gear as the officers who broke up the protestors for the photo as circumstantial- and the photo doesn’t have a clear label saying what is happening. But if we look outside the photo we CAN see that. This photo was taken by Ken Cedeno and belongs to Reuters. Below you can find a link to it as well as an article on the event using the photo. So now- while the photo doesn’t say it explicitly- we have citations to give it context as what the title says.
Well poo. It won’t let me post links. Google “Reuters dc protestors cleared” or search it by the photographers name. Reuters article is June 2nd 2020 and titled: “Protesters cleared by tear gas and rubber bullets for Trump photo op” this photo is 8/19.
Thanks for doing the research @guest_.
I was trying to make a point of how a statement was made yet there was no reference to validate the claim which I see as a tactic to help spread fake news.
Thanks for looking into it though. I'd like to know how Trump feels about such violence taking place. It doesn't make sense that he'd be giving orders for cops to be tear gassing civilians.
I agree with you whole heartedly. We see a picture and someone tells us: “look at the thing that shows bad things!” A quote- whatever- but seldom does this one image have sufficient- if any support or context- and being honest- most people aren’t going to check- especially if they keep seeing it over and over. We just assume SOMEONE checked or else it wouldn’t be everywhere.
As to how he feels it is tough to say. I haven’t seen any direct statement on how he feels specifically and directly on the issue of dispersing the church protestors. He has released a letter from his attorney calling the protestors terrorists (which one COULD read as agreement but that’s speculation.) he has stated that he supported the use of force in the Capitol during the protests- but only specifically mentioned the low flying helicopters in that quote. The closest I can find to indication of his feelings on the matter would be...
A quote from June 2nd on his Twitter:
“D.C. had no problems last night. Many arrests. Great job done by all. Overwhelming force. Domination,” followed by the tweet: “(thank you President Trump!).”
Which doesn’t directly address the specific case of the protestors around the church- but “great job done by all” with no mention of regrets or missteps strongly implies that he is including those events in his sentiments that he is happy with the events- or at least was happy with them when they occurred based on whatever information he had-
And there are photos and videos of him as he walked through the area while police were still quelling protestors- as well as accounts and photos of him making what appear to be “fist pump” gestures at police as they removed protestors. I have not found any photos of him observing tear gassing or anything other than police using more traditional arrest and control processes. So that part is ambiguous.
We DO have some insight to his thoughts in general on the subject. August 2015 he made the following statement in a speech (in regards to protestors disrupting a Bernie Sanders Rally):
“That will never happen with me,” he said at a press conference. “I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting or if other people will.”
We can find other quotes of him either making illusions to “beating the crap out of” or directly telling crowds to “beat the crap out of” protestors- but in most of those cases protestors weren’t just being disruptive- such as the case where he told the crowd to beat the crap out of... they were throwing tomato’s. Wether we consider those things proportional- we ant call that a lawful and truly peaceful protest- that is TECHNICALLY assault and it seeks sully but a person could be hurt by throwing almost anything.
In February 2016 he opined the “old days” being missed- and how you could beat protestors, stating one such protestor at the rally would have been “carried out on a stretcher (in the old days)”
More recently he has made statements as well as attempted to send federal agents or national guard units to cities with civil unrest to quell it- but again- these events have involved rioting, looting, and other violence and not only peaceful protests. So it seems that if he feels there is violence or illegal assembly he advocates violence as a response; and if there is not violence or illegal acts by protestors he can go either way. Evidence seems to indicate that he was pleased with the outcome of the DC protest control efforts and methods- but the missing piece is that we do not know if his stance has changed based on any specific information about the protestors he has learned since then- but the last evidence we have SEEMS to indicate he still felt the same as he did.
Good question. I looked at two sites and both cited the protestors were peaceful, both talked about the symptoms of "tear gas" and on both sites protestors stated they suffered "tear gas" like symptoms. From what I can see police acted without cause while Trump spoke of being an "ally of peaceful protestors". I'm starting to wonder about Trumps actions.
I was trying to make a point of how a statement was made yet there was no reference to validate the claim which I see as a tactic to help spread fake news.
Thanks for looking into it though. I'd like to know how Trump feels about such violence taking place. It doesn't make sense that he'd be giving orders for cops to be tear gassing civilians.
“D.C. had no problems last night. Many arrests. Great job done by all. Overwhelming force. Domination,” followed by the tweet: “(thank you President Trump!).”
Which doesn’t directly address the specific case of the protestors around the church- but “great job done by all” with no mention of regrets or missteps strongly implies that he is including those events in his sentiments that he is happy with the events- or at least was happy with them when they occurred based on whatever information he had-
“That will never happen with me,” he said at a press conference. “I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting or if other people will.”
More recently he has made statements as well as attempted to send federal agents or national guard units to cities with civil unrest to quell it- but again- these events have involved rioting, looting, and other violence and not only peaceful protests. So it seems that if he feels there is violence or illegal assembly he advocates violence as a response; and if there is not violence or illegal acts by protestors he can go either way. Evidence seems to indicate that he was pleased with the outcome of the DC protest control efforts and methods- but the missing piece is that we do not know if his stance has changed based on any specific information about the protestors he has learned since then- but the last evidence we have SEEMS to indicate he still felt the same as he did.