4 ms·

And it happened again and again after the head of CNN spoke with the gov about Omar Jimenez. Either the gov has no control over MSP, the gov pseudo-apologized f

And it happened again and again after the head of CNN spoke with the gov about Omar Jimenez. Either the gov has no control over MSP, the gov pseudo-apologized for optics, or both. No one is safe from this mafia of savage, wild dogs. The actions of police prove the point of the peaceful protestors (as opposed to looters and pillagers the media conflates with the former as "protestors.")

lostmsu 6y ago
> looters and pillagers the media conflates with the former as "protestors." Problem is - they are the same crowd. It's not like peaceful protestors run away from looters and aggressors until there's like a block or two. They just continue standing next to them, when police is trying to disperse the crowd with gas and/or pepper, because some members are aggressive. In that situation a peaceful person getting sprayed feels unjustly attacked, blaming that on police instead of just staying away from people with bats, clubs, people throwing stuff, or looting. I read an account of protests from a sane person, and it was exactly like that. At some place police pushed harder into them at 3+PM, and he assumed they just did it out of aggression. What he did not (and could not have) know is that half an hour ago there was already a clash, and the area essentially became off limits due to looting. So he ignored the call to disperse (which he assumed was unjustified, as he personally and his immediate friends around him did nothing bad). I think the problem is that police needs to indicate more clearly when they want to get a violent person from the crowd, so that crowd would not stand in the way.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Instead of jumping into the argument to make a false narrative, you should really watch the videos in the OP first. These are journalists nowhere near looters and aggressors being assaulted, tear gassed or arrested.
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    I watched a few, and none of them seem to contradict what I just said. In the very first video, why does the guy continuously repeats "I am press" instead of just following the order of a police officer? The video does not show, but from the "I don't care" response it is clear they have more pressing matter, that determining if that particular guy is a representative of media. In the second video we see a guy hit by a rubber bullet elsewhere, and it is totally unclear if the area he came from was an area of active riot. The third clip is the only one where at least you can't clearly see any reasoning behind officers shooting directly into the camera crew. But realistically, you can't make any deductions from it, as there's no context shown whatsoever. Etc. BTW, I am not trying to polarize situation, I am just pointing out, that people participating in these protests make the job of police extremely hard by not following likely lawful orders to disperse from certain locations. Press included.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      What you're advocating for is essentially that the police are justified to inflict violence on anyone as long as they either give you an order or if there was a riot or protest somewhere within a five mile radius. All of the clips have all of the context you need. Claiming that you're trying to not polarize the situation by making the most disingenuous take you can make is nonsense. Considering your prior posts on this matter, I have all the context I need. Edit: Since I'm rate limited, let's try a test [1]. In this video, can you tell me what this man did to deserve being arrested? Specifically why it was only him that was arrested despite protesting peacefully and not a single looter or riot to be found. [1] https://twitter.com/sweeeetdee_/status/1267319103167107072?s=19 https://twitter.com/sweeeetdee_/status/1267319103167107072?s...
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        Yes, I am advocating exactly that (except you extended the bounds quite a bit). How else are you going to prevent looting without dispersing the crowd first? The instruments police uses to do that are already as harmless as possible in most cases. Additional: the whole thing spins as police officers personally being brutal. But the problem of instruments to disperse crowd is not decided by them personally, so I see no reason to blame them.

lostmsu 6y ago

> looters and pillagers the media conflates with the former as "protestors." Problem is - they are the same crowd. It's not like peaceful protestors run away from looters and aggressors until there's like a block or two. They just continue standing next to them, when police is trying to disperse the crowd with gas and/or pepper, because some members are aggressive. In that situation a peaceful person getting sprayed feels unjustly attacked, blaming that on police instead of just staying away from people with bats, clubs, people throwing stuff, or looting. I read an account of protests from a sane person, and it was exactly like that. At some place police pushed harder into them at 3+PM, and he assumed they just did it out of aggression. What he did not (and could not have) know is that half an hour ago there was already a clash, and the area essentially became off limits due to looting. So he ignored the call to disperse (which he assumed was unjustified, as he personally and his immediate friends around him did nothing bad). I think the problem is that police needs to indicate more clearly when they want to get a violent person from the crowd, so that crowd would not stand in the way.

fzeroracer 6y ago
Instead of jumping into the argument to make a false narrative, you should really watch the videos in the OP first. These are journalists nowhere near looters and aggressors being assaulted, tear gassed or arrested.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  I watched a few, and none of them seem to contradict what I just said. In the very first video, why does the guy continuously repeats "I am press" instead of just following the order of a police officer? The video does not show, but from the "I don't care" response it is clear they have more pressing matter, that determining if that particular guy is a representative of media. In the second video we see a guy hit by a rubber bullet elsewhere, and it is totally unclear if the area he came from was an area of active riot. The third clip is the only one where at least you can't clearly see any reasoning behind officers shooting directly into the camera crew. But realistically, you can't make any deductions from it, as there's no context shown whatsoever. Etc. BTW, I am not trying to polarize situation, I am just pointing out, that people participating in these protests make the job of police extremely hard by not following likely lawful orders to disperse from certain locations. Press included.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    What you're advocating for is essentially that the police are justified to inflict violence on anyone as long as they either give you an order or if there was a riot or protest somewhere within a five mile radius. All of the clips have all of the context you need. Claiming that you're trying to not polarize the situation by making the most disingenuous take you can make is nonsense. Considering your prior posts on this matter, I have all the context I need. Edit: Since I'm rate limited, let's try a test [1]. In this video, can you tell me what this man did to deserve being arrested? Specifically why it was only him that was arrested despite protesting peacefully and not a single looter or riot to be found. [1] https://twitter.com/sweeeetdee_/status/1267319103167107072?s=19 https://twitter.com/sweeeetdee_/status/1267319103167107072?s...
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      Yes, I am advocating exactly that (except you extended the bounds quite a bit). How else are you going to prevent looting without dispersing the crowd first? The instruments police uses to do that are already as harmless as possible in most cases. Additional: the whole thing spins as police officers personally being brutal. But the problem of instruments to disperse crowd is not decided by them personally, so I see no reason to blame them.