5 ms·

Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the l

Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the looting starts the shooting starts" (not before this event, of course -- it's an example). You think rhetoric like that doesn't have the effect of empowering police to abuse their power against people they don't like?

spoiledtechie 6y ago
Police abuse their power when leaders pick sides? And what about the Mayor? Has he not chosen sides? He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue. Actions and words.
- snazz 6y ago
  Frey's actual power over the police and the Hennepin County Attorney is relatively limited.
- blunte 6y ago
  The mayor doesn't have authority over the police.
  - creaghpatr 6y ago
    Who does?
    - blunte 6y ago
      It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor (thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president does not control the military.
      - thejynxed 6y ago
        I'd like to know exactly when the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces doesn't control the military.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  The mayor told the police to do the one thing that could’ve stopped all of this: arrest the murderer. 100% of this is happening because police continue to refuse to arrest police.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue How, exactly? I mean, it's not like the rioters are following his orders (or maybe you're saying they are?!). If you're just saying it's his responsibility, then sure, but he's not the only one. Aren't community leaders, the police, the governor and the president likewise "allowing" the riots to continue simply because they haven't stopped them? I mean, Trump literally evoked an image of shooting rioters. Did anyone else do anything similar?
sparkling 6y ago
> when the looting starts the shooting starts Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.
- sparkling 6y ago
  If you are downvoting me, you are downvoting the constitution, so go ahead :)
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    Is the US Constitution a sacred cow?
    - sparkling 6y ago
      Yes
      - wtallis 6y ago
        From the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. A one-word answer to a question that was clearly probing for more details about your opinions is not an appropriate response.
    - kfrzcode 6y ago
      It is the supreme law of the land
- newacct583 6y ago
  Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters (it's right there in the tweet!), not expressing an abstract right of people to defend their own property. So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.
  - 6y ago
corrupt_measure 6y ago
> "when the looting starts the shooting starts" That's simply a recognition that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent, and a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified. In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole. Trump's tweet was just a recognition of that.
- popularrecluse 6y ago
  Thank you for Trumpsplaining that one. Boy, I need to get better at hearing it like it is.
kfrzcode 6y ago
Where's the HN-for-politicking? (not /r/*)
acobster 6y ago
"Not an argument for this site I guess," hence the downvotes, heh. I agree though. And I'd take it a step further and say that the institution of policing in the US has historically always been on the side of systemic violence. Police forces literally started as night patrols to catch runaway slaves, which as about as racist as it gets. If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it.
- banads 6y ago
  >If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it. The opposite, actually. The civil rights movement of the 60s was infiltrated, surveilled, and disrupted by secret police, and largely ended with it's greatest leaders being assassinated and mass riots. Then Nixon launched the War on Drugs in the 70s and mass incarceration began. In the 80s we saw Democrats and Republicans further ramping up the war on drugs, with the passage of laws such as the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, while at the same time it was soon revealed that the CIA was helping their Nicaraguan Contra friends raise money by importing billions of dollars of cocaine into inner cities as a part of the Iran Contra conspiracy, initializing the crack epidemic. The investigations into these wrong doings was quickly shut down, the investigative journalist leading the charge was suicided, and the government officials responsible were pardoned. Fast forward 30 years, and the mass incarceration levels have been holding steady and communities are even weaker by some metrics than they were before the civil rights movement, though perhaps we've made some marginal improvements in states where cannabis has been legalized, but we've still got a lot more to do: namely, ending the tyrannical and racist war on drugs at the Federal level.

spoiledtechie 6y ago

Police abuse their power when leaders pick sides? And what about the Mayor? Has he not chosen sides? He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue. Actions and words.

snazz 6y ago
Frey's actual power over the police and the Hennepin County Attorney is relatively limited.
blunte 6y ago
The mayor doesn't have authority over the police.
- creaghpatr 6y ago
  Who does?
  - blunte 6y ago
    It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor (thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president does not control the military.
    - thejynxed 6y ago
      I'd like to know exactly when the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces doesn't control the military.
tehwebguy 6y ago
The mayor told the police to do the one thing that could’ve stopped all of this: arrest the murderer. 100% of this is happening because police continue to refuse to arrest police.
newacct583 6y ago
> He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue How, exactly? I mean, it's not like the rioters are following his orders (or maybe you're saying they are?!). If you're just saying it's his responsibility, then sure, but he's not the only one. Aren't community leaders, the police, the governor and the president likewise "allowing" the riots to continue simply because they haven't stopped them? I mean, Trump literally evoked an image of shooting rioters. Did anyone else do anything similar?

sparkling 6y ago

> when the looting starts the shooting starts Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.

sparkling 6y ago
If you are downvoting me, you are downvoting the constitution, so go ahead :)
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Is the US Constitution a sacred cow?
  - sparkling 6y ago
    Yes
    - wtallis 6y ago
      From the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. A one-word answer to a question that was clearly probing for more details about your opinions is not an appropriate response.
  - kfrzcode 6y ago
    It is the supreme law of the land
newacct583 6y ago
Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters (it's right there in the tweet!), not expressing an abstract right of people to defend their own property. So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.
- 6y ago

corrupt_measure 6y ago

> "when the looting starts the shooting starts" That's simply a recognition that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent, and a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified. In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole. Trump's tweet was just a recognition of that.

popularrecluse 6y ago
Thank you for Trumpsplaining that one. Boy, I need to get better at hearing it like it is.

kfrzcode 6y ago

Where's the HN-for-politicking? (not /r/*)

acobster 6y ago

"Not an argument for this site I guess," hence the downvotes, heh. I agree though. And I'd take it a step further and say that the institution of policing in the US has historically always been on the side of systemic violence. Police forces literally started as night patrols to catch runaway slaves, which as about as racist as it gets. If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it.

banads 6y ago
>If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it. The opposite, actually. The civil rights movement of the 60s was infiltrated, surveilled, and disrupted by secret police, and largely ended with it's greatest leaders being assassinated and mass riots. Then Nixon launched the War on Drugs in the 70s and mass incarceration began. In the 80s we saw Democrats and Republicans further ramping up the war on drugs, with the passage of laws such as the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, while at the same time it was soon revealed that the CIA was helping their Nicaraguan Contra friends raise money by importing billions of dollars of cocaine into inner cities as a part of the Iran Contra conspiracy, initializing the crack epidemic. The investigations into these wrong doings was quickly shut down, the investigative journalist leading the charge was suicided, and the government officials responsible were pardoned. Fast forward 30 years, and the mass incarceration levels have been holding steady and communities are even weaker by some metrics than they were before the civil rights movement, though perhaps we've made some marginal improvements in states where cannabis has been legalized, but we've still got a lot more to do: namely, ending the tyrannical and racist war on drugs at the Federal level.