7 ms·

Here's a pretty good list I've been seeing passed around Reddit with ~20 incidents of police brutalizing peaceful protestors in the last couple days: https://w

Here's a pretty good list I've been seeing passed around Reddit with ~20 incidents of police brutalizing peaceful protestors in the last couple days: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu3s6j/police_shoots_protestor_for_no_reason/fsg94zy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu3s6j/poli... The list is growing by the hour. Cops in America need to learn very quickly that their power comes only from the consent of the people they police, or they will be made to understand that fact.

sneak 6y ago
I wish that were true, but the complete history of policing in America suggests that the police there exist primarily to protect the land and facilities of the ownership class, and have never had nor needed any consent of those outside of the gentry. The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned, and the brutality will continue until such time that those trying to change the status quo will give up, as they stand no chance of victory in the physical battle this has become. See also: Hong Kong I frequently wonder if these police would be so eager for a fight with sticks if some fraction of the protesters were carrying the same rifles as their opponents. In theory, that is legal there, and I hope more people take the peaceful, rights-based approach that the Black Panthers did.
- komali2 6y ago
  Just because it's painful doesn't mean it's hopeless. Protests now, and when you get home, call, email, and write letters to every person that conceivably has authority over how the police act. Don't relent. They did arrest the murderer, after all.
- GiorgioG 6y ago
  > The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned Then these young people (in the U.S.) should stop fighting for gun control when it only works against them in times such as these. Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Could the police roll out tanks in response? Sure, but I do not believe the U.S. politicians would be willing to start all out war between police and civilians. I don't condone the looting and destruction of property. Having said that the curfews in place are a form of suppression/muzzling the peaceful protesters. The police have for too long had unchecked power in the U.S. I've always been taught to be respectful and have been treated in kind in my interactions with police (but I am white.) If a cop is having a bad day or he's just a bully, that should not keep bystanders from helping a victim of police brutality with the threat of "assaulting a police officer."
  - scarmig 6y ago
    The idea that the situation would be improved by the protesters being able to shoot police is... Questionable. The better solution is unarmed police: billions of people live in localities where most police they encounter don't have guns and may not be even authorized to make physical contact in the case of a conflict. The idea that all police must carry guns and must be ready to use violence "to protect us" is one of those assumptions you assume must be universal until you somehow find out that it very particular to certain locations.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      I wouldn’t go that far. The US has so many guns it would be suicide for police not to have them.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Just as the police have so many guns it would be suicide for the oppressed classes not to have them. (Just as we have seen.) The police in America are extremely well-armed, far better than the general public in most places. It poses a real danger, as we have seen playing out over the last few years.
      - scarmig 6y ago
        How would it be suicide? I walk around plenty of places in the US, many with lots of guns, and don't particularly worry about getting killed. It's only dangerous when you work under the assumption that the primary role of police is getting into altercations with people or doing things that require the potential for the immediate deployment of violence. The vast majority of police work doesn't require that. Some small proportion of police should be armed so they can be called in for the exceptional case, but that's not necessary for most cops. The potential cost and messiness of any kind of use of physical force (armed or not) is usually far higher than the cost of what it's intended to remedy.
      - h3cate 6y ago
        When you can walk into a supermarket and buy a machine gun off the shelf, I would agree with you. If you take the guns off everybody though, this changes completely. All of a sudden you don't need a lethal weapon and instead can start carrying none lethal weapons. That's a whole different debate though
h3cate 6y ago
That's the part I personally cannot wrap my head around with all of this. These people are the people they are paid to protect. The people who live in their own communities. Yet they are carrying out these acts like they're in a foreign country.
- bosie 6y ago
  > Yet they are carrying out these acts like they're in a foreign country. Which would make this better how exactly?
  - vesky 6y ago
    I did not take that as implying its somehow any better. I took it as a cultural separation that allows for an excuse to forgo morality in inflicting harsh threatments. (easier to bash someone's head in when they aren't your nextdoor neighbour). Stop assuming the worst of others as the default. Unless of course you're doing it in bad faith.
    - h3cate 6y ago
      Thank you, you're right. I would assume being in a war zone requires a completely different mindset to being a cop. One has a job of protecting and serving whilst the other has a job of completing the mission at all costs. To me, those two things require completely different mindsets.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    Because people generally care about their local community much stronger than a place they have no ties to?
  - bradgessler 6y ago
    It’s not better. Foreign operations are carried out by a military, who define an enemy and set objectives to destroy them. Policing is different. It’s a domestic affair where the objectives are to protect citizens and improve public safety. It gets very dangerous when police begin operating like the military, define the citizens they’re suppose to protect as “the enemy”, and then set objectives to destroy them.

sneak 6y ago

I wish that were true, but the complete history of policing in America suggests that the police there exist primarily to protect the land and facilities of the ownership class, and have never had nor needed any consent of those outside of the gentry. The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned, and the brutality will continue until such time that those trying to change the status quo will give up, as they stand no chance of victory in the physical battle this has become. See also: Hong Kong I frequently wonder if these police would be so eager for a fight with sticks if some fraction of the protesters were carrying the same rifles as their opponents. In theory, that is legal there, and I hope more people take the peaceful, rights-based approach that the Black Panthers did.

komali2 6y ago
Just because it's painful doesn't mean it's hopeless. Protests now, and when you get home, call, email, and write letters to every person that conceivably has authority over how the police act. Don't relent. They did arrest the murderer, after all.
GiorgioG 6y ago
> The more recent history suggests that the people who wish to deter or educate the cops are significantly outgunned Then these young people (in the U.S.) should stop fighting for gun control when it only works against them in times such as these. Can you imagine how these protesters would be treated if most of them were carrying a rifle? Could the police roll out tanks in response? Sure, but I do not believe the U.S. politicians would be willing to start all out war between police and civilians. I don't condone the looting and destruction of property. Having said that the curfews in place are a form of suppression/muzzling the peaceful protesters. The police have for too long had unchecked power in the U.S. I've always been taught to be respectful and have been treated in kind in my interactions with police (but I am white.) If a cop is having a bad day or he's just a bully, that should not keep bystanders from helping a victim of police brutality with the threat of "assaulting a police officer."
- scarmig 6y ago
  The idea that the situation would be improved by the protesters being able to shoot police is... Questionable. The better solution is unarmed police: billions of people live in localities where most police they encounter don't have guns and may not be even authorized to make physical contact in the case of a conflict. The idea that all police must carry guns and must be ready to use violence "to protect us" is one of those assumptions you assume must be universal until you somehow find out that it very particular to certain locations.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    I wouldn’t go that far. The US has so many guns it would be suicide for police not to have them.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Just as the police have so many guns it would be suicide for the oppressed classes not to have them. (Just as we have seen.) The police in America are extremely well-armed, far better than the general public in most places. It poses a real danger, as we have seen playing out over the last few years.
    - scarmig 6y ago
      How would it be suicide? I walk around plenty of places in the US, many with lots of guns, and don't particularly worry about getting killed. It's only dangerous when you work under the assumption that the primary role of police is getting into altercations with people or doing things that require the potential for the immediate deployment of violence. The vast majority of police work doesn't require that. Some small proportion of police should be armed so they can be called in for the exceptional case, but that's not necessary for most cops. The potential cost and messiness of any kind of use of physical force (armed or not) is usually far higher than the cost of what it's intended to remedy.
    - h3cate 6y ago
      When you can walk into a supermarket and buy a machine gun off the shelf, I would agree with you. If you take the guns off everybody though, this changes completely. All of a sudden you don't need a lethal weapon and instead can start carrying none lethal weapons. That's a whole different debate though

h3cate 6y ago

That's the part I personally cannot wrap my head around with all of this. These people are the people they are paid to protect. The people who live in their own communities. Yet they are carrying out these acts like they're in a foreign country.

bosie 6y ago
> Yet they are carrying out these acts like they're in a foreign country. Which would make this better how exactly?
- vesky 6y ago
  I did not take that as implying its somehow any better. I took it as a cultural separation that allows for an excuse to forgo morality in inflicting harsh threatments. (easier to bash someone's head in when they aren't your nextdoor neighbour). Stop assuming the worst of others as the default. Unless of course you're doing it in bad faith.
  - h3cate 6y ago
    Thank you, you're right. I would assume being in a war zone requires a completely different mindset to being a cop. One has a job of protecting and serving whilst the other has a job of completing the mission at all costs. To me, those two things require completely different mindsets.
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  Because people generally care about their local community much stronger than a place they have no ties to?
- bradgessler 6y ago
  It’s not better. Foreign operations are carried out by a military, who define an enemy and set objectives to destroy them. Policing is different. It’s a domestic affair where the objectives are to protect citizens and improve public safety. It gets very dangerous when police begin operating like the military, define the citizens they’re suppose to protect as “the enemy”, and then set objectives to destroy them.