> I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead. That wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely curious whether o

> I will not respond to your second attempt to make this about unrelated flamewar politics instead. That wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely curious whether or not you actually had a principled stance against protesters facing legal repercussions for being involved in a disorderly protest in which a minority of protesters committed acts of mayhem and destruction. If so, it should have been easy for you to apply that standard across the board. Instead, it appears that you actually do apply a double standard based upon your personal sympathy with the cause being protested. Which has left you in a closed circle in which you hate the police, so when a “protest” is little more than an organized smokescreen for acts of domestic terrorism against the construction site for a police facility, it’s automatically the police who are the bad guys for investigating the incident and not the people trying to burn down a public facility. And it is rather funny of you to accuse me of “flamewar politics” when you are the one advocating for people whose form of political protest entails literal flames.