5 ms·

If you show up for riot duty wearing [1], you're likely to walk away with injuries. If this goes through, make sure to track police injuries during riots if you

If you show up for riot duty wearing [1], you're likely to walk away with injuries. If this goes through, make sure to track police injuries during riots if you want to be forthcoming. Violent protesters and instigators will throw things no matter whether you're in [1] or [2]. Bike squads on regular duty almost always look like [1] anyway. [2] might be a SWAT picture.

jeffbee 6y ago
[2] is the Alameda County Sheriff serving an eviction on a bunch of old women.
- lima 6y ago
  Just to make sure, this is a joke, correct?
- vsareto 6y ago
  Post your source, because this seems to indicate it is SWAT: https://reason.com/2020/01/15/oakland-uses-swat-force-with-tanks-and-an-armored-vehicle-to-evict-squatting-activists/ https://reason.com/2020/01/15/oakland-uses-swat-force-with-t... The other side is they didn't know it was only old women in the home.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Well I don't know who's going to be at the grocery store, so I better strap on my grenades. You can't be too careful.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      This is legitimately the argument I hear from my friends who are fans of open carry. Now, it's with AR's and AK's, instead of grenades, but that exact line is what they use. I find the fear simply fascinating and confusing.
    - vsareto 6y ago
      Grocery stores are public places, homes are not. Homes can be located in gang territory. Police ambushes do happen. I'm not saying they get it right 100% of the time, but serving warrants and bike patrol have way different risks. It's also entirely possible the warrant was unjustifiably a high risk warrant. In that case, SWAT could serve the warrant, and you get this situation. But that's not SWAT's fault.
      - AlexandrB 6y ago
        > But that's not SWAT's fault. Obviously it's no one's fault. We should just accept things the way they are and change nothing.
        vsareto 6y ago
        >Obviously it's no one's fault. We should just accept things the way they are and change nothing. I'm not saying that, you'd want to find out why the warrant was high risk or deserved a SWAT response. Someone made that call, and it may not have been SWAT themselves. And you should take actions to ensure it doesn't happen again and hold them accountable. If you find abuse of power, you need to get rid of that person. The key theme here is that you usually don't get all of the details about why things happened. Sometimes it's honest mistakes. Sometimes it's abuse of power. Sometimes there's miscommunication.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        This is the exact mindset that created the police state: There might be gang members, so rolling up in an armored vehicle makes sense.
      - scottlamb 6y ago
        That would be (partially) SWAT's fault. I don't expect police officers (SWAT or not) to be automatons who blindly follow orders. They need to stand behind their actions. They shouldn't serve a warrant like that unless they believe it to be a high-risk situation.
  - miles 6y ago
    The very link you provided states: "They came in like an Army for mothers and babies"
  - scottlamb 6y ago
    Quoting your source: "Dressed in riot gear, deputies from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office arrived at the house on Magnolia Street around 5:30 a.m." That confirms what jeffbee said. (Except the "old" part. If 34 is old, I'm in trouble.)
    - vsareto 6y ago
      Sheriff deputies can be on SWAT teams
      - scottlamb 6y ago
        Sure they can. jeffbee was still correct. And no matter what other hats they might wear, it's inappropriate to show up like this when there's no reason to anticipate any violence.
        vsareto 6y ago
        We can't end this debate without the warrant. You can acknowledge that you don't have that information and there's a chance it was justified before they rolled up if any of the people were known to be affiliated with dangerous people. If you know of a way to figure out if every situation is going to be dangerous before it happens, definitely put that forward. I'll acknowledge that it could have been some bored SWAT guys just looking to show off and it was completely unnecessary show of force and waste of taxpayer money.
        scottlamb 6y ago
        Justified? No. I agree there's a chance—a very very slim one—that they had information that would make me think their show of force was reasonable. But AFAIK, they didn't supply it. They didn't justify their actions to the general public or to any oversight agency, either ahead of time (understandable) or after the fact (less so), and nothing compels them to do so. They can execute the warrants as they see fit, using basically whatever ex-military hardware they like, without explaining themselves to anyone. I further believe that this lack of justification is routine. Even if there was a good reason, that do this routinely without being either compelled or persuaded to supply it is by itself evidence our police are militarized. American police collectively lost a lot of trust and authority. Obviously the most significant aspect is actually murdering people like George Floyd in plain sight while wearing a badge. But dangerous stunts like this are a contributor as well. Do they want to regain our trust?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
some_random 6y ago
Oh no, what a tragedy. Perhaps [1] will be less willing to use violence if they know that they may be hurt as well.
- vsareto 6y ago
  You'll get things thrown at you regardless of your intent or response. The anonymous violent protestors among the crowd don't likely know the cops personally, they're just there to inflict damage when they decide to throw something. You can choose to wear appropriate gear for what you're doing and prevent some damage, or eat a glass bottle to the face, arms, or legs (cops can do bike patrol AND riot control and use different gear -- there's no change in gear issuance needed). Wearing bike squad gear to a riot won't stop those assholes from doing harm. They might even prioritize you for a chance to see blood.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ashtonkem 6y ago
If you show up for protest duty in [2] you’re more likely to turn it into a riot.
- bradleybuda 6y ago
  Given the video evidence we've seen over the last week that most of the "riots" are in fact police riots, yes, it's time to disarm them.

jeffbee 6y ago

[2] is the Alameda County Sheriff serving an eviction on a bunch of old women.

lima 6y ago
Just to make sure, this is a joke, correct?
vsareto 6y ago
Post your source, because this seems to indicate it is SWAT: https://reason.com/2020/01/15/oakland-uses-swat-force-with-tanks-and-an-armored-vehicle-to-evict-squatting-activists/ https://reason.com/2020/01/15/oakland-uses-swat-force-with-t... The other side is they didn't know it was only old women in the home.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Well I don't know who's going to be at the grocery store, so I better strap on my grenades. You can't be too careful.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    This is legitimately the argument I hear from my friends who are fans of open carry. Now, it's with AR's and AK's, instead of grenades, but that exact line is what they use. I find the fear simply fascinating and confusing.
  - vsareto 6y ago
    Grocery stores are public places, homes are not. Homes can be located in gang territory. Police ambushes do happen. I'm not saying they get it right 100% of the time, but serving warrants and bike patrol have way different risks. It's also entirely possible the warrant was unjustifiably a high risk warrant. In that case, SWAT could serve the warrant, and you get this situation. But that's not SWAT's fault.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      > But that's not SWAT's fault. Obviously it's no one's fault. We should just accept things the way they are and change nothing.
      - vsareto 6y ago
        >Obviously it's no one's fault. We should just accept things the way they are and change nothing. I'm not saying that, you'd want to find out why the warrant was high risk or deserved a SWAT response. Someone made that call, and it may not have been SWAT themselves. And you should take actions to ensure it doesn't happen again and hold them accountable. If you find abuse of power, you need to get rid of that person. The key theme here is that you usually don't get all of the details about why things happened. Sometimes it's honest mistakes. Sometimes it's abuse of power. Sometimes there's miscommunication.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      This is the exact mindset that created the police state: There might be gang members, so rolling up in an armored vehicle makes sense.
    - scottlamb 6y ago
      That would be (partially) SWAT's fault. I don't expect police officers (SWAT or not) to be automatons who blindly follow orders. They need to stand behind their actions. They shouldn't serve a warrant like that unless they believe it to be a high-risk situation.
- miles 6y ago
  The very link you provided states: "They came in like an Army for mothers and babies"
- scottlamb 6y ago
  Quoting your source: "Dressed in riot gear, deputies from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office arrived at the house on Magnolia Street around 5:30 a.m." That confirms what jeffbee said. (Except the "old" part. If 34 is old, I'm in trouble.)
  - vsareto 6y ago
    Sheriff deputies can be on SWAT teams
    - scottlamb 6y ago
      Sure they can. jeffbee was still correct. And no matter what other hats they might wear, it's inappropriate to show up like this when there's no reason to anticipate any violence.
      - vsareto 6y ago
        We can't end this debate without the warrant. You can acknowledge that you don't have that information and there's a chance it was justified before they rolled up if any of the people were known to be affiliated with dangerous people. If you know of a way to figure out if every situation is going to be dangerous before it happens, definitely put that forward. I'll acknowledge that it could have been some bored SWAT guys just looking to show off and it was completely unnecessary show of force and waste of taxpayer money.
        scottlamb 6y ago
        Justified? No. I agree there's a chance—a very very slim one—that they had information that would make me think their show of force was reasonable. But AFAIK, they didn't supply it. They didn't justify their actions to the general public or to any oversight agency, either ahead of time (understandable) or after the fact (less so), and nothing compels them to do so. They can execute the warrants as they see fit, using basically whatever ex-military hardware they like, without explaining themselves to anyone. I further believe that this lack of justification is routine. Even if there was a good reason, that do this routinely without being either compelled or persuaded to supply it is by itself evidence our police are militarized. American police collectively lost a lot of trust and authority. Obviously the most significant aspect is actually murdering people like George Floyd in plain sight while wearing a badge. But dangerous stunts like this are a contributor as well. Do they want to regain our trust?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

some_random 6y ago

Oh no, what a tragedy. Perhaps [1] will be less willing to use violence if they know that they may be hurt as well.

vsareto 6y ago
You'll get things thrown at you regardless of your intent or response. The anonymous violent protestors among the crowd don't likely know the cops personally, they're just there to inflict damage when they decide to throw something. You can choose to wear appropriate gear for what you're doing and prevent some damage, or eat a glass bottle to the face, arms, or legs (cops can do bike patrol AND riot control and use different gear -- there's no change in gear issuance needed). Wearing bike squad gear to a riot won't stop those assholes from doing harm. They might even prioritize you for a chance to see blood.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ashtonkem 6y ago

If you show up for protest duty in [2] you’re more likely to turn it into a riot.

bradleybuda 6y ago
Given the video evidence we've seen over the last week that most of the "riots" are in fact police riots, yes, it's time to disarm them.