When the ratio of who is getting arrested vs who isn’t looks like it does then I start to wonder if they were there to protest or just create problems.
“Half of the people arrested weren’t students” doesn’t sound bad, unless you stop to realize one thing. The majority of those protesting were students.
Think about it. There aren’t that many non students there. The majority of the protesters were students. Yet HALF of those arrested were not students. How is that possible? Unless a lot of the non students just showed up to create problems.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. If the percentage is that high then a LOT of them were literally there just to create a problem.
Think about it. The vast majority of the people protecting were students. Yet HALF of those arrested were outsiders. There is only one way that happens. An I saying every single one of the outsiders were trouble makers? No and neither was the commenter. The point is you don’t get percentages like this unless people showed up to create problems.
Why a lot? Why can’t most of them just have been there to protest peacefully?
I went to anti-gulf war protests at Indiana University when I was in middle school in 1991. I was in the protest camp cooking food and doing odd jobs. I was an outsider. Was I an outside agitator?
How do you get to half of those being arrested being outsiders. When the vast majority of those protesting were students? The only way that happens is if those people that got arrested were there to create problems. If one person gets arrested maybe it was the individual maybe it was the cop. If you get to these kinds of numbers then I’m going to start asking questions and start looking at those who are getting arrested. Am I saying ALL those outsiders were Just there to create problems? No. That was never implied. But it can’t be ignored that half of those arrested are outsiders. So that means we have to logically start asking were those people there to protest or create problems. With it being half (and obviously everyone who created a problem didn’t get arrested) that means there was a significant amount of people there from the outside who were troublemakers.
No idea of how you came to a conclusion that I was saying that since you went to a protest that you were a troublemaker.
You’re meant to wonder that - it’s part of an intentional narrative. How is it possible? Because police don’t arrest everyone they detain. For one documented example of this, look to the Cop City protests in Atlanta:
There’s a certain irony, then, that in statements on Sunday’s arrests, Atlanta police officials have made a point of blaming “outside agitators” for taking up militant action. Out of 44 people originally detained in Sunday’s forest raid, the 11 people released without charge all had Atlanta addresses. Twenty-one of the 23 activists charged with domestic terrorism are from out of state.
When the ratio of who is getting arrested vs who isn’t looks like it does then I start to wonder if they were there to protest or just create problems.
“Half of the people arrested weren’t students” doesn’t sound bad, unless you stop to realize one thing. The majority of those protesting were students.
Think about it. There aren’t that many non students there. The majority of the protesters were students. Yet HALF of those arrested were not students. How is that possible? Unless a lot of the non students just showed up to create problems.
The claim is that they were outside agitators, i.e. there specifically to commit crimes, not that they were just outsiders.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. If the percentage is that high then a LOT of them were literally there just to create a problem.
Think about it. The vast majority of the people protecting were students. Yet HALF of those arrested were outsiders. There is only one way that happens. An I saying every single one of the outsiders were trouble makers? No and neither was the commenter. The point is you don’t get percentages like this unless people showed up to create problems.
Why a lot? Why can’t most of them just have been there to protest peacefully?
I went to anti-gulf war protests at Indiana University when I was in middle school in 1991. I was in the protest camp cooking food and doing odd jobs. I was an outsider. Was I an outside agitator?
How do you get to half of those being arrested being outsiders. When the vast majority of those protesting were students? The only way that happens is if those people that got arrested were there to create problems. If one person gets arrested maybe it was the individual maybe it was the cop. If you get to these kinds of numbers then I’m going to start asking questions and start looking at those who are getting arrested. Am I saying ALL those outsiders were Just there to create problems? No. That was never implied. But it can’t be ignored that half of those arrested are outsiders. So that means we have to logically start asking were those people there to protest or create problems. With it being half (and obviously everyone who created a problem didn’t get arrested) that means there was a significant amount of people there from the outside who were troublemakers.
No idea of how you came to a conclusion that I was saying that since you went to a protest that you were a troublemaker.
No. That is not the “only way that happens.”
New York is a huge city. Anyone can go to Columbia to protest. Many people feel sympathy and solidarity.
That assumes all arrested were arrested specifically for doing something wrong, other than protesting.
Why does someone not being a student at the school mean “they’re there to create problems?”
I don’t believe that was ever stated.
You’re meant to wonder that - it’s part of an intentional narrative. How is it possible? Because police don’t arrest everyone they detain. For one documented example of this, look to the Cop City protests in Atlanta:
(Sorry about the paywall, so quoting below):