re: #20 BongCrodny

The second part of the quote asks a hypothethical: when it would be appropriate to respond with violence after the police have initiated the violence.

I’m sure it’s been tried before but I doubt premeditated self defense against lawful police activity is not a viable legal defense. Also the dude seems fairly certain that the specific conversation led to the warning about protesters shooting police. Why would he be so convinced? If it really was a non violent strategy discussion he would assume the warning came from somewhere else. He knows the warning came from that specific conversation for good reason.
I also strongly suspect that if that comment had been posted by a Tea Party organizer you would have no trouble interpreting it correctly. I’m not that flexible.