4 ms·

I’m a local. Here’s some additional context: “Follow up on video of people getting rubber bullets shot at them in their doorway from a source that was there. T

I’m a local. Here’s some additional context: “Follow up on video of people getting rubber bullets shot at them in their doorway from a source that was there. This was personally texted to me. Source is a teacher that works at my elementary school. Here’s what was posted. ‘That is my blue house across the street. Apparently this video has gone viral. What they didn’t show was the 20- 30 minutes of the rioters that surrounded the houses, were all over our neighborhood, the street, rioters running through my yard and screaming on the other side of my garden level bedroom window, and hiding in my alley. The neighbors are saying they were ‘just having a beer outside,’ as if this came out of nowhere and while it seems extreme from the national guard/police, the rioters were flooded in our neighborhood and they were trying to get them out. That was terrifying, and to be honest after being at the Minneapolis community clean up today and seeing all the burned down buildings, I am glad nothing was burned down or broken into. And they got them out. Idk who is out there at night! And yes black lives matter!!!! But these riots are scary AF. And they haven’t returned and are gone now and we are totally safe, and all had been quiet for hours. And apparently my upstairs neighbor had no idea the rioters were here at all ... #minneapolisriots #blacklivesmatter #georgefloyd #helpusall #feltprotected” Edit: apparently, additional information is... controversial? I don’t agree with the police conduct, but there is additional context here.

mbrameld 6y ago
Nobody managed to get a video of the rioters? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Additional context is welcome as long as it's either verifiable or doesn't serve an obvious agenda. Here's some additional context that's just as valid as yours: the "rioters" were actually defending the neighborhood from the police who had been there before your context began. The police were beating random people and shooting pets. The person that told me this lives in one of the houses in the video and she's a retired nurse who volunteers to care for hospice patients.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  Both your claim and the parent's claim are equally shocking, and the evidence for both is hearsay from someone who lives on the street. How do we know who is being sincere, who is pushing an agenda, who is mistaken, who is experiencing cognitive dissonance, etc.
  - danharaj 6y ago
    The history of police being bastards towards protestors? If you think you have no way of establishing priors you aren't examining the facts.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Of course there is that history. But there are also people who paint the police in an unwarrantedly bad light. People tend to forget that humans are overwhelmingly cooperative and good. Society would not be as stable as it is if people were as consistently bad as some people make them out to be. There are ideologies misrepresenting reality on both sides of this situation. It's so hard to concretely say anything in these situations without examining all the context available.
      - tehwebguy 6y ago
        It’s not a difference of ideologies: one class of people can almost always murder with impunity and the other class of people can’t.
        briefcomment 6y ago
        Does that mean we take away the benefit of the doubt for an entire class of people as soon as one person cries foul?
        tehwebguy 6y ago
        Yes! Now we are making progress. Police do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, ever, when they are working in their official capacity. They should have to bring proof.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Well, if the police are overwhelmingly good, where are the representatives of the police unions that are condemning the “few bad apples” that are killing unarmed Black people? Where are all of the “good policemen” who are saying racial profiling during “stop and frisk” is wrong. If they are complicit and silent they are not “good”. And I bet you have never been thought of as “suspicious” for walking from your house down the street to your mailbox.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  > The police were beating random people and shooting pets. Well, at least there'll be evidence for that, right? Dead pets?
bsanr2 6y ago
This doesn't pass the sniff test. If they were rioters, they would likely not be rioting on their own porch. Hence, ordering them to go inside would mean breaking into someone else's house. On the other hand, if they're legitimately on their own proerty, and if they're not being disorderly, then what is the rationale for that use of force? I hate to say it, but I'm doubting the veracity of this account. There's nothing in the video - trash or debris from a large crowd, in particular - to indicate that the area they were in, specifically, was in need of such force. And, again, the curfew did not forbid being outside on one's own property. If we're going to second-guess what we see with our own eyes - that these people were shot at by police without provocation - it's perfectly reasonable to then continue to drill down on what happened; question accounts, question logic. Or, we could employ Occam's Razor. Anyway, as a practical matter we should also be asking for the RUF that these police were operating under. That would clear up a lot.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  I’m not disagreeing with anyone about the inappropriateness of the police actions, but the account is not claiming that those shot in the video are rioters. Simply that the police we see were actively clearing rioters from the neighborhood and the porch people were caught up in it.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    The area does look remarkably clean to have just had rioters on the street. There’s zero trash or debris on the ground, zero evidence of paint or smoke canister usage anywhere, and all of the houses and cars are immaculate. If there were people on the street prior to these police/soldiers arriving, it’s hard to imagine that they were looting or rioting.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So that makes it a lot better that police made a mistake and did it.....
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The alleged presence of rioters in the neighbourhood justifies the police being there in armed convoy through the neighbourhoods. It doesn't justify any of their actions shown in the video, which shows a large section of street with no evidence of rioting and unprovoked fire on people in their gardens to a enthusiastic call to action usually reserved for strikes on military targets.
tehwebguy 6y ago
If the upstairs neighbor didn’t even know there were rioters nearby there weren’t lmao. Screaming isn’t rioting.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Where's the actual source? Given that it's using hashtags at the end, it's either a compilation of tweets or a post on some other site.

mbrameld 6y ago

Nobody managed to get a video of the rioters? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Additional context is welcome as long as it's either verifiable or doesn't serve an obvious agenda. Here's some additional context that's just as valid as yours: the "rioters" were actually defending the neighborhood from the police who had been there before your context began. The police were beating random people and shooting pets. The person that told me this lives in one of the houses in the video and she's a retired nurse who volunteers to care for hospice patients.

briefcomment 6y ago
Both your claim and the parent's claim are equally shocking, and the evidence for both is hearsay from someone who lives on the street. How do we know who is being sincere, who is pushing an agenda, who is mistaken, who is experiencing cognitive dissonance, etc.
- danharaj 6y ago
  The history of police being bastards towards protestors? If you think you have no way of establishing priors you aren't examining the facts.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Of course there is that history. But there are also people who paint the police in an unwarrantedly bad light. People tend to forget that humans are overwhelmingly cooperative and good. Society would not be as stable as it is if people were as consistently bad as some people make them out to be. There are ideologies misrepresenting reality on both sides of this situation. It's so hard to concretely say anything in these situations without examining all the context available.
    - tehwebguy 6y ago
      It’s not a difference of ideologies: one class of people can almost always murder with impunity and the other class of people can’t.
      - briefcomment 6y ago
        Does that mean we take away the benefit of the doubt for an entire class of people as soon as one person cries foul?
        tehwebguy 6y ago
        Yes! Now we are making progress. Police do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, ever, when they are working in their official capacity. They should have to bring proof.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Well, if the police are overwhelmingly good, where are the representatives of the police unions that are condemning the “few bad apples” that are killing unarmed Black people? Where are all of the “good policemen” who are saying racial profiling during “stop and frisk” is wrong. If they are complicit and silent they are not “good”. And I bet you have never been thought of as “suspicious” for walking from your house down the street to your mailbox.
DuskStar 6y ago
> The police were beating random people and shooting pets. Well, at least there'll be evidence for that, right? Dead pets?

bsanr2 6y ago

This doesn't pass the sniff test. If they were rioters, they would likely not be rioting on their own porch. Hence, ordering them to go inside would mean breaking into someone else's house. On the other hand, if they're legitimately on their own proerty, and if they're not being disorderly, then what is the rationale for that use of force? I hate to say it, but I'm doubting the veracity of this account. There's nothing in the video - trash or debris from a large crowd, in particular - to indicate that the area they were in, specifically, was in need of such force. And, again, the curfew did not forbid being outside on one's own property. If we're going to second-guess what we see with our own eyes - that these people were shot at by police without provocation - it's perfectly reasonable to then continue to drill down on what happened; question accounts, question logic. Or, we could employ Occam's Razor. Anyway, as a practical matter we should also be asking for the RUF that these police were operating under. That would clear up a lot.

germinalphrase 6y ago
I’m not disagreeing with anyone about the inappropriateness of the police actions, but the account is not claiming that those shot in the video are rioters. Simply that the police we see were actively clearing rioters from the neighborhood and the porch people were caught up in it.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The area does look remarkably clean to have just had rioters on the street. There’s zero trash or debris on the ground, zero evidence of paint or smoke canister usage anywhere, and all of the houses and cars are immaculate. If there were people on the street prior to these police/soldiers arriving, it’s hard to imagine that they were looting or rioting.
- scarface74 6y ago
  So that makes it a lot better that police made a mistake and did it.....
- notahacker 6y ago
  The alleged presence of rioters in the neighbourhood justifies the police being there in armed convoy through the neighbourhoods. It doesn't justify any of their actions shown in the video, which shows a large section of street with no evidence of rioting and unprovoked fire on people in their gardens to a enthusiastic call to action usually reserved for strikes on military targets.

tehwebguy 6y ago

If the upstairs neighbor didn’t even know there were rioters nearby there weren’t lmao. Screaming isn’t rioting.

fzeroracer 6y ago

Where's the actual source? Given that it's using hashtags at the end, it's either a compilation of tweets or a post on some other site.