29 ms·

Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations. I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violenc

• jwilber 6y ago
  It’s the same here in Seattle as it was while I was in Berkeley during Ferguson. People protest peacefully, and police shoot tear gas into the crowd and attack whomever they can get their hands on. I’ll admit, the outright brutality I saw in-person in Oakland was worse than what I’ve seen here in the recent days. In Oakland, the police would purposely corral protestors into groups and literally beat the shit out of them. I saw this in-person multiple times. In Seattle, I haven’t seen that sort of corral behavior. However, police do shoot tear gas completely unprovoked and fire rubber bullets and mace without concern. In both places, no looting was occurring at the main scene of the protests. In both cases, numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves. In any case, it’s all the same: in a country that parades its freedom, people of color can’t protest without the president calling for them to be roughed up, and without the police willingly complying.
  • SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
    "numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves" I don't believe you. The umbrella guy breaking the AutoZone window with a hammer has no connection to any police department. Someone made that up on social media and people shared it because that's what people do. The only video I know of showing officers breaking a window is out of Seattle. It shows officers responding to a burglary in progress at a Target store. The officers had to chip away at the already broken glass windows so they could safely get in. (The burglars had broken the glass to get inside.) Once inside, the responding officers found and arrested the three burglars they had come for.
    • stonogo 6y ago
      Here you go. https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/gv2ogk/news_chopper_pans_out_as_riverside_county_sheriff/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/gv2ogk/news_ch...
      • ilyaeck 6y ago
        More people should see this!
      • monoideism 6y ago
        That looks very suspicious, but if this were really a widespread technique by the police, I'm assuming there would be more than a single video taken. I mean, we know the black bloc and similar groups engages in these tactics, they've been doing it since Seattle WTO 1999. I've seen it in person to protests I've been to (as a protester). It's very hard for me to believe that all of a sudden those people are no longer active in protests, and their place has been taken by (insert your politically-convenient group here).
        • vb6sp6 6y ago
          "This doesn't happen" (shows a video of it happening) "This isn't widespread" So how many videos do you need to see? 2? 10? 15???
          • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
            Would you find it acceptable to shoot some footage of a handful of looting/arsonist incidents and proclaiming “protesters are doing X”, just like we are complaining that “police” are doing X? Or would you correct someone and say that isn’t happening, and when confronted with a video of someone somewhere doing a bad thing, inform them of the fact that a few cherry picked anecdotes do not represent the activity of the broader population? You don’t have to answer.
            • yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    In any case, it’s all the same: in a country that parades its freedom, people of color can’t protest without the president calling for them to be roughed up, and without the police willingly complying. That’s a load of bullshit and you know it. This isn’t the situation.
    • kcorey 6y ago
      No, we really don't. The videos don't lie, trump does.
    • untog 6y ago
      In all seriousness, what is incorrect about that statement? Take a look at all the video taken since Saturday, then compare it to, say, the protests against lockdowns just a few weeks ago. Surely you see the very notable difference?
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        If you don’t see how inaccurate several parts of that statement are, I am afraid that it would likely not be a productive discussion for either of us.
        • untog 6y ago
          I see we’ve already downgraded to “several parts” of the statement. But you’re right, if you refuse to actually articulate your objection then no, we cannot have a productive discussion.
      • klyrs 6y ago
        > Surely you see the very notable difference? Is it the open carry of long guns? Is that what peaceful protesters should use to de-escalate the situation? Makes perfect sense. Cops love guns! Just some cool doodz having a chill gun party, come have a beer and a doobie, officer. Show you mine if you'll show me yours?
  • bradly 6y ago
    In a small suburb of San Diego the protest stopped traffic. Police forced the protesters off and then riots started and two banks were burnt down. Two weeks ago a San Diego police deputy was released from jail after serving only six months after sexually assaulting (why forced oral sex is not rape I’m not sure) 16 women that had called the police for help. He does not have to register as a sexual offender. Protesting is legal and a protest without a disturbance is not a protest, so arresting people causing a disturbance while shutting down non-violent disturbances is disappointing.
    • kortilla 6y ago
      Stopping traffic risks the lives of people in ambulances so it’s pretty hard to condone that. Make noise, block access to some businesses, etc, but don’t block streets and cause traffic jams that could kill people FFS.
      • jascii 6y ago
        I have never in my life seen an ambulance be stopped by a protest, nor have ever heard of such an incident ever occuring.
        • drocer88 6y ago
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IfyI69IQSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IfyI69IQSg
        • marcusverus 6y ago
          Not a protest, but this exact thing occurred during the Fort Lee Lane closure scandal, when people intentionally created road closures in New Jersey. This was national news for awhile [0] Also, a lack of media coverage for a thing doesn't mean it doesn't happen, nor does rampant media coverage mean a thing is common. Remember the summer of the shark? [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
  • throwablePie 6y ago
    Race relations between Oakland's black residents and Oakland police have been fraught for decades (probably at least since the founding of the Black Panther Party in Oakland in the 60s). But that doesn't justify the violent actions you've described. Unfortunately, some senior "dog whistle" politicians have labeled protesters "thugs" and "looters" and have called for "shooting" and "no quarter." These loose words are dangerous and may be unlawful: https://lawandcrime.com/george-floyd-death/republican-senator-called-for-no-quarter-military-response-to-looters-lawyers-note-thats-a-war-crime/ https://lawandcrime.com/george-floyd-death/republican-senato... As a result of these statements, some armed enforcers including police, National Guard, and U.S. military may interpret these bellicose pronouncements as a declaration of war or a granting of letters of marque and reprisal against protesters and their property. Good leadership would call for toning down the rhetoric but leadership appears to be in short supply. Gefickt, we are.
    • jariel 6y ago
      "have labeled protesters "thugs" and "looters" " Referring to looters as 'looters' is not problematic. Calling for shootings, using code-words like 'thugs' and referring to peaceful protesters as 'looters' is a problem - but let's not lose context here: there are riots and rioters are bad news. I think in these ugly times it's even more important to be cool and clear about things.
      • aspenmayer 6y ago
        In any given group, you can’t know with certainty whether past or future looters are present; looting is an action and not a quality. It is subjective. Is removing anti-riot barricades ‘looting’ if protesters remove them from the street and out of the control of authorities in order to exercise their right to protest? Branding someone a rioter empowers the utterer and subjugates the one deemed rioting in your framing. You seem to think it is justified to use violence against someone because of how you perceive their actions, even if they don’t hurt people, only property. There is a subtle but distinct difference. Using force to defend yourself and others has a long precedent and is largely uncontroversial in a public context such as this. However, a citizen in public generally can’t engage someone who is running away from them as they are not in imminent danger. Unless you think they are immediately returning with a weapon, you have to let them go once they get away or chase them and perform a citizen’s arrest. Shooting a fleeing person is frowned upon by the courts. Only police have that authority. Why then are citizens taking it upon themselves to prevent looting and rioting? Defending businesses and private property from the inside and the entryway is one thing. Chasing fleeing ‘looters’ is a situation for disaster. Besides mistaken identity, which is already causing defenders and protesters who fought looters to be detained by police while actual looters escape, there are problems with armed individuals running into crowds of undifferentiable groups of protesters, looters, and rioters. How will the defenders know when to stop beating people up? How will they know if the protester defending the person next to them from collateral damage isn’t another looter? They will see what they want to see in the situation, on both sides. Violence is not the way. I just don’t see how property damage is a mortal harm that justifies what I’m seeing. It may not be justified to damage the property, but as an individual or small group of defenders, there is no proportionality of response that makes sense against a large group of people. To start the fight is to lose on all sides. The protest will end when it ends. Lives shouldn’t end through protest, or through its consequences. One was enough to start this one. There’s a reason people do it, even if it may have knock-on effects. That’s the point. To shutdown protest because of its intended and unintended consequences is to make a means test for our constitutional rights. It’s not tolerated well in the streets or in the courtroom. The defenders are unknowingly or knowingly participating in a counter-protest movement against the current legitimate George Floyd protests. It is being promoted through dog whistles by the right wing. It’s actually really obvious that authoritarians aren’t wasting this crisis. They start as many fires as they put out. I’m including rioters in that last part.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • klahtnun 6y ago
    "people of color can’t protest without the president calling for them to be roughed up" Did Trump call for them to be "roughed up" before or after the protests turned into riots? A more intellectual honest version might be: "people can’t riot without Trump calling for them to be aggressively policed" The splintering of reality is the scariest thing going on in the U.S. Some of us are still trying to stay grounded in facts while others float away on clouds of propaganda.
  • ashtonkem 6y ago
    Here in Santa Monica the police ignored nearby looters to fire upon protestors. The two groups were largely unrelated and physically separated, making the police’s actions very hard to justify.
• ravenstine 6y ago
  To me, it was pretty clear that the police in Santa Monica and Long Beach allowed the looting to occur while treating the protesters like criminals from the outset. This isn't to say that other local precincts weren't significantly better in their treatment of protesters, but there's clear evidence that many police departments are either corrupt or completely inept in addressing violent crime. This has been a long time coming, too. In the last few years, many police departments around the country have thrown their hands up and publicly stated they won't be bothering with most property crimes. The way they see it, the only crimes worth their time involve people not committing real crimes at all or crimes involving guns or knives. Anyone who doesn't get why people don't trust the police has been living under a rock. This goes beyond just racism.
  • staticassertion 6y ago
    The police seem to clearly be allowing looting on purpose. SoHo was looted two days in a row. Where were the NYPD? There are 10's of thousands of uniformed officers Maybe you can say the first day they somehow missed it, but two days in a row? Come on. I refuse to believe that they didn't see this coming - they brag about how they're "gathering intel" on terrorist groups, but they couldn't check twitter to see #soho trending? They want the story to be about rioters so they're letting them riot. It's a way to shift the public opinion (same way some cops have been seen breaking car and store windows).
    • selimthegrim 6y ago
      This is them shaking the public down and saying they decide which laws to enforce.
      • staticassertion 6y ago
        Agreed, I actually think it's both - it's punishing the public and shifting the story.
        • selimthegrim 6y ago
• 99_00 6y ago
  Why did the police shoot teargas and pepper spray into the crowd?
  • xenospn 6y ago
    Without having any sort of insight into police behavior, I'm assuming two likely options: 1. They are given rubber bullets and mace without any form of de-escalation training, so they just use the tools they have at their disposal. 2. Just like any kind of organism, the police force needs to preserve itself and make sure it is necessary. The military doesn't like peace, and the police cannot thrive with peaceful protests. They do what they see fit to make themselves irreplaceable.
    • 99_00 6y ago
      I can't speak to your experience, but I've been in multiple riots, and you are right, teargas make some peaceful protestors violent and angry. From what I've seen, teargas and mace are used after a small minority of protesters become violent and the crowd is lawfully ordered to disperse. I can't say if these are the right tactics, but I have not seen police use these things for no obvious reason. The one situation where this wasn't the case is when peaceful protesters were blocking one of the two roads that was going to be used to transport multiple heads of state off of a peninsula after high level discussions. I assume this was due to some security consideration, but I don't know. The crowd was passive.
      • aoeusnth1 6y ago
        Police do use teargas and mace for no reason. There are dozens (hundreds?) of videos of exactly that from the last week, including an aerial shot of Seattle PD instigating with mace at point blank range on protesters who were behind a barricade.
        • 99_00 6y ago
          Were they lawfully ordered to clear the area before using force? If the lawful order was give, was it because criminals were using the peaceful protest as cover?
• drocer88 6y ago
  What events were you at? Everything is on video these days somewhere. Can you point us to an online video example that you were at?
  • jascii 6y ago
    Sorry, for the safety of myself, my fellow demonstrators, and my family I am not going to state the actual events I was at. Others have already shown examples, however here is an news article covering some incidents: https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-asks-evidence-individuals-inciting-violence-during-protests-people-respond-videos-police-1508165 https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-asks-evidence-individuals-incit... I have so far not seen any evidence of the opposite taking place, I would certainly appreciate some counter examples.
    • AuryGlenz 6y ago
      I certainly don’t think the police cars in NYC going through those pedestrians - the first example on the page - is a good example. People crowded around the vehicles and starting throwing things at them. While I would expect police to have more restraint/less fear than they did, that wasn’t the police starting violence. I would expect almost anyone to have the same reaction they did. There was another NYC incident that people were up in arms about without context and it turns out one of the police had been hit in the head with a brick.
      • wetmore 6y ago
        There is clearly a lot of space behind them when they drive through the crowd.
      • staticassertion 6y ago
        Two different police vans drove up to a barricade and there were virtually no people behind them. Where do you think they were going? Why do you think they drove into the barrier to begin with? Why could they not back up?
        • 6y ago
• zouhair 6y ago
  It's actually worse than that. Even in the killing of Floyd the Police claimed he resisted arrest, which was a lie[0], the coroner said it wasn't asphyxia that killed him (despite all the videos) and a private autopsy found that's not true[1]. They did all this amidst a huge public outcry, what do you think happens to some poor schmuck when no camera is around. Like this[2] and this[3]......... EDIT: Here is one where the cop force the poor guy to grab his baton and leave his fingerprints so he can accuse him of whatever he wants[4]. EDIT2: What do you know "his death [Floyd's] is on their hands [protesters and looters] as much as it is those officers"[5] [0]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/video-george-floyd-contradict-resist-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/video-george-floyd-contrad... [1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/george-floyd-autopsy/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/george-floyd-au... [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/07/27/mississippi-cops-went-to-the-wrong-house-and-killed-an-innocent-man-a-grand-jury-just-refused-to-indict-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/07/27/... [3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-woman-shot-killed-after-kentucky-police-entered-her-home-n1205651 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-woman-shot-killed... [4]: https://v.redd.it/yo3bpzzt9h251 https://v.redd.it/yo3bpzzt9h251 [5]: https://youtu.be/tIBoxt9maJs?t=64 https://youtu.be/tIBoxt9maJs?t=64
  • chooseaname 6y ago
    FFWD a couple months and Trump will be praising the police while fixating on the original coroner report.
  • js2 6y ago
    This officer claimed he feared for his life. No charges were brought. The dashcam video is supposed to be exculpatory, but that's not how I see it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/zachary-hammond-police-south-carolina https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/zachary-hamm...
  • DiffEq 6y ago
    How is it that this man, Floyd, has been turned into a saint? He was intoxicated and behind the wheel of a car! Had he not been stopped, and killed an innocent child, it might be on the 5 o'clock news but probably not; none of you would care and would still be insisting that everyone be forced to stay quarantined for Covid-19 reasons. Sure, clearly the cops handled this wrong, but what got Floyd there in the 1st place? High on drugs or alcohol, passing counterfeit money, and driving while under the influence - hardly the kind of model citizen/saint we want on the streets. All of you are hypocrites...lambasting people at the beach enjoying the sun and praising people out on the street vandalizing and looting....
• TheChaplain 6y ago
  From all the videos/pictures circulating I see both sides doing cheap-shots to escalate the situation and prove that their narrative is the right one. But when will people take a step back and start asking themselves; who profits on this turmoil?
  • jascii 6y ago
    Do you have any concrete examples where the protesters instigated the violence? I have not been able to find any.
    • colllectorof 6y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wz69m4hKsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wz69m4hKsw Someone at a protest was stabbed. Police was called to arrest the stabber and take the victim to hospital. They were actually leaving when some people started throwing rocks and bottles at them.
    • Kiro 6y ago
      I don't understand how you can think that all violence everywhere was started by the police. Yes, the police has probably been guilty of that, but do you really think all protestors are unanimously and inherently peaceful in every single place? Even in Sweden most protests are filled with bad actors and professional rioters who just want to cause a stir.
      • jascii 6y ago
        I never made any such statement, let alone "keep pushing". I simply asked for counterexamples to some of the examples shown in the media. Do you have any concrete examples in your situation in Sweden?
      • Ackshully 6y ago
        > Even in Sweden most protests are filled with bad actors and professional rioters who just want to cause a stir. That sounds very much like your own biased opinion rather than the statement of fact you are presenting it as. I'm open to any evidence of that rather outrageous sweeping statement though.
• jonlucc 6y ago
  I can weigh in a bit on what the police claim happened here in Indianapolis. They won't account for all of their CS deployments, which I think is crazy, but they did address why it started the other day (Saturday?). Their claim is that what they saw was some police inside the city/county building and a single person started hitting the glass on the building. Simultaneously, "previously peaceful" protesters started locking arms at one end of the street, blocking emergency vehicle ingress, so they let loose a bunch of (13 year expired)_CS gas. Is that believable? Sure, but locking arms is also a common thing during protests. The road was already blocked off and cars weren't going through. Also, they fired CS into crowds of protesters blocks away, claiming that they think the protesters are coordinating by secure communications and instantaneously turning violent across the city. Most of it seems like bullshit, and even if it's all true, locking arms on one side of a closed street is not at all unusual. They should have arrested the one guy hitting the glass and let the protest continue. By the way, they used this event to justify the curfews that haven't been raised since then.
  • viraptor 6y ago
    > blocking emergency vehicle ingress, so they let loose a bunch of (13 year expired)_CS gas. That doesn't make sense, unless they wanted the driver and other people in a not airtight emergency vehicle to end up in the gas cloud as well...
    • jonlucc 6y ago
      Right. And this is the justification given during a press conference the next morning; it's not some on-the-spot question asked to the deputy chief of Indianapolis Police. It's a dumb excuse. Plus, it's literally one block long. If you want police on that block, they can stop around the corner and walk in. The building isn't touching the street; it's a couple hundred feet back.
    • cavanasm 6y ago
      I'm in Richmond, Virginia, and according to people monitoring the unencrypted fire department radios on twitter (one of them a fairly reputable community organizer, but rate the source as you will), this exact situation supposedly happened on Saturday night. Fire department got called to a shoe store fire, they faced some impediment reaching the fire, police showed up and dropped tear gas all over the area, and the fire department ended up back on the scanner requesting an ambulance for the commander on site for tear gas exposure, and additional PPE from another department to help the other fire fighters cope. The building ended up being marked a complete loss, although I'm unclear of the nitty gritty details like timelines, source of the fire, etc. EDIT: I will also note that this, among other events, was used to justify calling for a curfew in town, and today, the mayor and police chief have condemned their own police officers for deploying tear gas on peaceful protests prior to the start of the curfews last night, and then putting forward a false justification (admitted by the police chief to have been a false justification, to be clear) for doing so.
• colllectorof 6y ago
  >the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith Seems fairly accurate. I'm just annoyed that many people can't grasp that awful police behavior and awful behavior from other actors are not mutually exclusive. There is lots of unjustified police violence and provocations against perfectly peaceful protestors. There is also systematic vandalism and arson by people who aren't peaceful protestors. And there is massive amounts of opportunistic vandalism and looting. All three can and do co-exist. This is not a two-sided conflict. More like three- or four- sided mess.
  • AlexandrB 6y ago
    One of the sides mentioned has a monopoly on the lawful use of force. Shouldn't we expect better from them in return?
    • CamperBob2 6y ago
      No, the police do not have a monopoly on the lawful use of force. Not in the USA... or, at least, not in most areas of the USA. It's ironic that the people trying their best to change that are also the ones who are most closely aligned with the victims of police brutality, politically speaking. One of many things I don't understand.
      • morsch 6y ago
        What are you hinting at? A second amendment thing? Because that really has nothing to do with the monopoly on use of violence. You can be violent without a gun. Who gets to be violent in a legal manner is an orthogonal issue. And how is it ironic? When has the second amendment ever done anything for victims of police brutality? How often has widespread gun ownership been used as an excuse for excessive police force?
        • CamperBob2 6y ago
          The second amendment has everything to do with the question of whether the police (or any other state-sanctioned agency) is entitled to a monopoly on the use of force. But like I said, I don't understand any of this. Maybe others can offer some insight.
• grecy 6y ago
  I've seen quite a few videos and read a lot of articles about what's going on, and from my perspective Law Enforcement are scared Sh&^less they will lose control and get completely over-run by the protesters. Realizing how angry the people are and how massively outnumbered they are they've decided to come out hard with violence in an attempt to squash the protests, which makes sense. I don't think it would take much for the people to overcome the Law Enforcement with their overwhelming numbers. Once the news gets around that it's happened in one place, that will embolden others to do the same. I just hope it doesn't get wickedly violent if it happens.
  • viraptor 6y ago
    They're not scared overall though. Yes, the guys on the front line against the riots, maybe. Those shooting at press, people on their porches, spraying directly in the faces of unarmed people passing by... no, they're not afraid.
  • mindslight 6y ago
    Overcome the police to what end, though? All most of the protestors want to do is protest, ie partake in some of their 1st amendment rights. So the protestors "overrun" the police and then what? Continue to stand in the street chanting? This feels like straight projection, and focusing on the few people taking advantage of the situation by looting etc. The police could solve that in a heartbeat by deploying small units into the protest crowds and working with the peaceful protestors, but first they'd have to give up on the goal of disrupting legitimate protests.
    • grecy 6y ago
      I don't know. I'm not saying it's productive or a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it feels like. People are only going to stand and watch their fellow citizens get shot point blank in the face with tear gas canisters, pepper spray and rubber bullets for so long. Law Enforcement are denying people their right to demonstrate, and I feel like people are going to fight hard to keep it. EDIT: I mean, watch this [1]. Those look like Police who are desperately trying to maintain control with the only means they know how - violence. Do you think everyone will continue to just watch them swing batons like the first few seconds and do nothing? [1] https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1267968926761312256 https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1267968926761312256
• bluedays 6y ago
  Time for another operation Pig Roast.
• abstractbarista 6y ago
  As another observation, I've been to the protests in Raleigh, and at least 75% of the initial violent actions have been from individuals in the protest. (I say 'individuals', not 'protestors', because the latter are peaceful people. The instigators are rioters and looters, a small minority of the people hiding within the former group.) The other 25% has been initial violent action from the police. Things like shooting gas and charging forward when protestors were simply standing still.
• easytiger 6y ago
  You think there is a clandestine 400 IQ policy such as this?
• throwaway894345 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm not trying to set any narrative, just giving my own data point, no one should extrapolate this more broadly. In my neighborhood, the event organizer wasn't even from my city and she was doing everything she could to get the crowd angry at police. Many of the others who spoke were calmer, more reasonable, more positive, sincere, etc, but she was trying to get people ramped up. The police weren't at the protest originally and she tried to use the lack of police presence to anger people ("look, the police don't even care about protecting you!") and then they merely showed up and it was the other way around ("the police are here to stop us!"). Seemed like she was trying to agitate people into provoking the police. Even still, the protest was generally peaceful on both sides; as far as I know, there was no police violence nor rioting/looting/etc. Proud of my hood.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• foob4r 6y ago
  I was at a peaceful rally in Seattle last night, and a bunch of cops kept closing in and started shoving people.
• dependenttypes 6y ago
  On the other hand all incidents of violence that I have witnessed so far was from the protesters to other protesters, and some against shops, shopowners, counter-protesters, and drivers. Although I am not doubting what you said, in my experience it seems that the protestors scatter and do not cause any unjustified violence when the police starts chaos.
• dgrin91 6y ago
  In at least some cases it has been initiated by protesters/rioters. E.g. in the spread sheet row 17: https://twitter.com/Stephon_Dingle/status/1266560921238937606 https://twitter.com/Stephon_Dingle/status/126656092123893760... And of course there was the case of the riots at the CNN headquarters. But I think this clearly & quantitatively shows that in general actions against journalists are initiated by the police force, which I don't find surprising.
• YarickR2 6y ago
  Welcome to Russia . Actually, since 1993 police actions in Russia were never that outright violent and cruel as they are now in the USA . I'm watching news coverage with disbelief and anger, and I'm wondering if the pot will continue calling various kettles around the world black.
  • baybal2 6y ago
    So, I not the only one feeling that the situation feels ominously similar to the august putsch, and 1993
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• SkyMarshal 6y ago
  Were you able to observe whether the police instigated the looting too?
  • jascii 6y ago
    The looters take advantage of the chaos apparently willingly and knowingly created by the police. I'd say holding the protestors responsible for it is a bit missleading.
  • darkarmani 6y ago
    So it's ok if the police use violence against protestors because there were a few looters?
  • chillwaves 6y ago
    Last I heard, protesting is enshrined in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and you cannot use the crimes of other people to crack down on all protesters.
• bananaphone234 6y ago
  From what I've seen is everything is peaceful during the day time, but after the curfews or when it becomes an unlawful gathering (i.e. blocking interstates etc.) is when police intervene. Which is what they job is supposed to be. The methods used for crowd control are acceptable when things reach the above mentioned criteria. Protests during daylight hours, and not breaking other laws is fully protected by 1st amendment, and I have seen no sign of police missteps in my city during these lawful peaceful demonstrations.
  • colejohnson66 6y ago
    If you’ve never seen videos of police tear gassing peaceful protestors, or driving into them with their cars, you’re living a very sheltered life. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-church-visit-angers-church-officials https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
    • klahtnun 6y ago
      And if you haven't seen many clear examples of opportunistic looting and people clearly thrill-seeking, you're living in a bubble: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5C38kayWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5C38kayWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5sKN2vOtZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5sKN2vOtZM https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvc5pt https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvc5pt https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvimlx https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gvimlx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokxrLLBjKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RokxrLLBjKA And many more examples are available...
  • hnick 6y ago
    There's still no need to aim for close range headshots like this and many other incidents https://i.imgur.com/medV8y6.gifv https://i.imgur.com/medV8y6.gifv
  • therealcamino 6y ago
    There are plenty of daytime abuses by the police in this twitter thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847 https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/126675152005...
• Shivetya 6y ago
  Well I would hope that many BHLs or similar, I am a Libertarian, as asking themselves, how did blue cities get to this point. The Democratic Party has been pretty much in control of politics in most major US cities for decades; it is only common rebuttal here on many stories that cities are losing out to rural suburban areas at the national level to Republicans. The question they should ask is, why did the party turn from the people who put it into power and become beholden to public employee unions which encompass police, fire, education, if not regular government employees. Easy answer, the support where the money comes from. People decry corporate money in politics but this money is more poisonous because of its out sized influence because of pressure they can put on any politician who tries to stand up to them; just go google stories of these unions protesting in the streets of the homes of politicians making moves against them, they have bought billboards and even homes nearby to put pressure down. TL,DR : This is all about money. The politicians have been more than willing to turn a blind eye to police malfeasance; if not problems in fire departments and education; because the money is too good and the groups involved have very big influence over the citizenry.
  • jascii 6y ago
    How did blue cities get to this point? An interesting observation here is that while the police forces are supposed to represent the populations they serve, the police unions (FOP) endorses Trump and so clearly takes a stand against that representation in "blue" cities.
• tonystubblebine 6y ago
  I think at some level, police are rioting to keep their jobs. I came around to prison abolition once I realized it was a goal that was meant to be achieved piece by piece. Cash bail. That's one piece. None of those people need to be in jail. They haven't been convicted of a crime and they overwhelmingly show up for their court date if released. The only thing they can't afford is their bail and that is used to get them to plead to crimes without the police having to prove anything. That's 470k people on any given night. * Drug possession. Like to smoke weed? Well, that's your choice and no need to throw you in jail over it like 1.4 million people each year. The other pieces are more radical or require replacement programs or just don't even have proposed solutions. But just above are two pieces of the incarceration system that the many people will agree could just be turned off. So, if you turn those off, what's the staffing change in police departments and correctional facilities? We're not talking about firing for performance (yet), this is just run of the mill right sizing. Gotta be efficient--can't give people jobs as a handout. What if you kept going down this line of reasoning. What if you ended racial profiling? Across the country black motorists are 20% more likely to be pulled over. Either black people are being targeted (the consensus) or white people are being given a free pass (my personal experience is that this is also happening). So either hire more police to pull over white people more often. We are doing hella drugs, driving drunk all the time, texting while driving, etc. Or, more along the lines of what everyone wants, there could be a 20% reduction in the staffing of highway patrol. I think if the will of the people was respected, police departments would probably be reduced by 25% across the country. Certainly in NYC, which has one of the highest cops per capita in the world even though we have the highest density and cops shouldn't have to walk far to do their jobs. If it were my policy though, probably 50% of police could be eliminated. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics * https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/police-stops-race-stanford-study-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/police-stops-race-stanford...
• rukittenme 6y ago
  I've had the opposite experience in Chicago. I live in a high rise in the loop. I was able to watch the "protests", "riots", whatever from above. I'm sure I'll get flagged but these are my honest impressions on the behavior of the CPD and the protestors. My biggest takeaway is local events translate to global action in the crowd (police or protestors). And it leads to all this misunderstanding. "What I was just standing here. Why are you pushing me?". Because jackass, a group of people 10 feet away from you threw rocks and bottles at the police. Sorry you got shoved but shit happens. Below are my unorganized thoughts. Just wanted to get them out. --- There were like 100k people at 2:30 (maybe more I didn't count I'm just guessing). These people were mostly peaceful. The worst thing they did was chant obscenities about the police and jump on the cars of bystanders. Not the worst thing in the world but not the nicest way to protest either. I don't hold it against them. By 6ish there were maybe 10 or 20 thousand hardcore protestors remaining. The people legitimately concerned about police brutality but not clinically-insane-enough-to-march-for-four-hours-saying-the-same-thing-to-no-one-in-particular went home. These diehards are mostly a bunch of power tripping assholes. "Fuck 12", "ACAB", "Pigs", running up to the police line and trying to 'punk' them out. Just stupid. The weaker and frailer they are the more it seemed they had to say. They know they have all the power when they're with the crowd. Its simultaneously the most pathetic and the most terrifying thing you've ever seen because one of these cracked out weirdos is probably going to try to light your building on fire soon. And then the fires start. Police cars, a 7-11, doesn't matter. The protestors block the street when firefighters roll up to put it out. They eventually move but I couldn't tell you why. Big shoutout to CFD for being total badasses. I wasn't about to walk out in the crowd even if I were disguised as a "protestor". They make their way to the fire, get it out ASAP and roll out before the crowd has a chance to completely engulf them. Though I never saw the bulk of the crowd leave the police lines. I have to criticize CPD a little here. I was legitimately concerned my wife and I were going to burn to death in our apartment. I didn't have faith that the CPD could prevent someone from lighting my building on fire. Thankfully it never came to that. The police were completely outnumbered and were generally powerless to do anything when the crowd was in its full force. There were people with hammers breaking up the sidewalk to use chunks of debris as weapons against the police. The police just stood there unable or unwilling to prevent it. In my mind, the police were present to A). soak up as much of the crowds rage as possible and B). prevent the really heinous shit from going down. I'm not talking murder. I'm talking burning an apartment building down with all the people inside heinous. Several murders happened behind the crowds (i.e. bad people are using the crowd as a human shield to do whatever they want). The police didn't (maybe couldn't) budge. Even if they did try to prevent it the crowd would have raged at their intrusion into "their" space. After curfew the cops went on the offensive. The police began to march. Pushing the remaining "protestors" further and further south outside of the loop. This involved rubber bullets and I assume tear gas but I couldn't actually see this part. Along the way the rioters looted every business (aside from the Crocs store hilariously enough) from Wacker all the way to Roosevelt. I assume they looted further down but I didn't feel like walking any further through the ruins of my city. That's basically it.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• tw04 6y ago
  Nobody shot tear gas into the crowd that burned down the 3rd precinct in Minneapolis. It was the exact OPPOSITE. Police left the premises hours prior to the gathering.
• beepboopbeep 6y ago
  I'm seeing the same. Even when people are acting out, the police are supposed to be a professional, trained force that is capable of keeping them selves in control and knowing when to back-off and regroup when things aren't in their control. All I see is crazed fighting from them. Wide eyed with fear, wild swinging, just indiscriminate violence. Is property damage bad? Sure. But good lord stolen Nikes are so inconsequential to what I'm seeing from the police right now. I am not a bleeding heart liberal, nor am I some apparently crazed republican. I just don't like seeing my fellow Americans getting killed and beaten. The fact that they are totally immune from prosecution and oversight makes the power dynamic of it all that much more infuriating.
• rayiner 6y ago
  Yeah, I don’t believe it. Rioting is natural human behavior. In Bangladesh we have violent riots after every election. The police aren’t instigating them, they are nowhere to be found. Why would I believe that Americans are any different?
  • krapp 6y ago
    >Why would I believe that Americans are any different? We don't have violent riots after every election, for one thing.
    • manigandham 6y ago
      America certainly had violent riots during elections. Also after sports games. It happens.
      • krapp 6y ago
        >America certainly had violent riots during elections. Not in recent memory, and certainly not as a regular occurrence. >Also after sports games. Ok, you got me there.
  • selimthegrim 6y ago
    I’m sure you know who Shibir and Chhatra League are? Who are their American counterparts?
    • rayiner 6y ago
      There are instigators involved in the hartals, no doubt. But working with the police?
  • pnw_hazor 6y ago
    It's different now. Early in the presidential campaign, anti-Trump demonstrators were blocking the road to the Reagan library to deny access to people heading to a Trump/GOP fund raiser I remember thinking, America is in for it now, the Rubicon has been crossed. Since then politically motivated violence has been embraced and celebrated by many luminaries. Welcome to the normal.
• beloch 6y ago
  Possible explanation: (Note: I am not saying this is what happened in any specific case, merely that it is plausible.) Police are on a common radio channel and coordinate their actions. Protesters aren't. If one protester takes violent action, most protesters may be unaware but all police will be. What you see as an unprovoked, violent response may actually have been provoked by something you simply weren't close enough to witness. This explanation is pure speculation. However, if true, it does prompt us to ask if police can find ways to localize their responses better. i.e. If violent response is necessary in a specific location, is there a way to make police relatively far from that location aware of it without signalling imminent personal danger to them, thereby priming them to over-respond to whatever is happening at their location? e.g. Instead of just hearing "They've pulled out knives!" over the radio, they might have a corresponding heads-up display showing where that message came from and where they themselves are in relation to that.
• oh_sigh 6y ago
  Consider that the police are heavily networked, whereas the crowd is not. It's possible that one section of the crowd is antagonizing the police, the police respond as a whole, but you have no idea why because you were 200' away in a different section of the crowd and didn't know about what that other section was doing. > that the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith. The police is composed of a bunch of individuals. It is highly unlikely that there is any kind of conspiracy to set the narrative of excessive violence by being...excessively violent? It doesn't even logically follow.
  • detaro 6y ago
    I'd say people misbehaving doesn't justify attacking non-violent people 200' away from that. Many examples of the recent days can not explained by "someone nearby did something, so it was an unlucky accident", and their police departments and local governments don't seem to care all that much. Which is fueling the anger, given this happens at protests against overreacting/overly aggressive police.
• ljm 6y ago
  Why else would the police get all this military equipment that they are so eager to try out? Never mind that you always see them as law enforcement and not a service to the community.
• Naracion 6y ago
  The following is a heartfelt text that one of my friends in my PhD program sent. She wishes this to be shared to raise awareness, so I'm sharing here for people who might not have a good understanding of the context. This is related to the relationship between the American police and the black populace, so imo relevant in this context. "Sorry for this lengthy message but here goes: My ancestors are African and Native American. My African ancestors were taken from Africa, brought here to America, beat and killed, and forced to be slaves since the late 1600s. Of course as slaves you have no rights, so my great-great grandmother was raped, which is how my my branch of the family came about. So I actually have white and black ancestors. The Civil War occurred, which most people think the north fought to help free slaves, but actually the north just didn't want the south to have slaves anymore because it was giving the south an economic advantage - not because they wanted to free black people. And although the north won, no one told slaves in the south this for many years, so they had no idea because they were not allowed to read. But eventually the word was spread and black people learned that they were technically free, but they could not own land, so they had no where to go. A few more benevolent slave masters gave some land to the slaves because, like my ancestors they were raped by the slave master and therefore the kids were part-family. This is why you see different shades of black people in America. My grandfather (born 1920) was forced to flee Texas as a young boy in fear for his life. He could've been another Emit Till. If you don't know who Emit Till is, please, please just search the name. It will break your heart (Also sidenote: the woman who was the cause of the Emit Till murder announced on her deathbed that she lied about it all). Moving along...so my grandfather moved to Detroit where things were just a little better for black people. He was the only black person in his engineering program at Michigan State, and endured brutality and abuse for just trying to get an education. Then we had WW2 where he was not allowed to vote or have rights, but served as a Tuskegee Airman, a troup of all black pilots who literally saved America's ass from Germany. If it were not for the Tuskegee Airman, we would have lost WW2. But he comes back after the war, and still has no rights, no freedoms. Blacks and whites were segregated and when black people made our own financial district and economy it was burned to the ground because it threatened white capitalism (see 1921 burning of black wallstreet in Tulsa Oklahoma). And then Jim Crow laws were put into place. Basically this meant that white people could legally discriminate against black people, which also included violent acts without repercussions. POLICE were created during this time to literally "police" black people because the slave masters did not have control anymore. So police did the slave master's dirty work and it was still legal. This is why people are protesting against police brutality with a focus on black lives. Because the police were specifically created to take our lives, but not the lives of others. And you can see this today, for example George Floyd. So when people say "all lives matter" it is just another way of covering up the real reason police were created, and it hurts that 400 years later we are still trying to get justice, within a country that we literally built with our black hands. We are the economy, which is why when we created our own economy, it rocked the US economy so much that they burned it down. We have tried to march peacefully, we have tried to kneel peacefully, we have tried to protest peacefully, and it has gotten us nowhere. So that is why many people feel that the only option left to make our voices heard is to hurt the economy. And that's what the rioting and looting is about. I'm not saying I condone it, but believe me, I understand it. Also if you have been following any of it, the vast majority of people being violent and breaking things are not black people, but actually white supremacists who dress up as protesters. They are trying to make black people seem violent so that the police take violent action against the protestors. Things are never as simple as they seem, so you have to know the history to understand the full scope if the situation, and guess what....they took the real history out of the textbooks! So yes, this is a heavy time for black people and I hope you all can start to understand why this is happening. Thank you for reading and being open-minded."
• bayonetz 6y ago
  The police are being told by the governors who are being told by the POTUS that the protestors must “dominated”. I’m not editorializing or interpreting here. Listen to Trump himself say it over and over again in the course of this phone call: https://soundcloud.com/the-daily-beast-politics/trump-audio https://soundcloud.com/the-daily-beast-politics/trump-audio I can’t stress how useful it is to hear this context first hand yourself.
• klahtnun 6y ago
  "all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police" You "witnessed" incidents "through the media"? It sounds like your perspective is as informed as anyone who is watching videos on the internet. And since you're a self-professed "bleeding heart liberal" you're likely consuming a biased selection of videos that fit into the narrative your tribe has endorsed. The "bleeding heart liberal" talking point is that police officers are "instigating" all of these riots. This is mental gymnastics and doesn't even make sense. Even children aren't allowed to use the "they started it" excuse. How do police responding to protests justify burning and looting? Even the very heart of the issue is not clear. Is it even true that black people are treated worse by police? Do black police officers treat black people worse than white police officers? Is it a racial issue or a class issue? Are poor white people treated better or worse? These are unanswered questions. Anyone who claims to know is confused or lying. The propaganda on the left is that even asking this question makes you a racist Nazi. You will hear "bleeding heart liberals" claim that "white people demonstrated with machine guns and the police did nothing to them" as if this counts as proof of something, ignoring the massive differences besides race. The obvious difference being that these weren't anti-police riots... It's very clear that anyone who cares about police reform should be disassociating themselves with the violent people who don't actually give a shit about the cause. And yet, instead, we see the "bleeding heart liberals" rushing to justify and rationalize it.
• notquiteacop 6y ago
  I tend to think that 100 cops against thousands of people will agitate for a reason. The reason is this - somewhere in that group of thousands is a punk that is going to try to hurt them. If they make the first move when there is a tension build up, they are forcing everyone else to be reactionary. At that point the people that are peaceful protesting will generally leave or move away. The ones interested in rioting will stay. Psychologically, they can read the difference and address the rioters more effectively by reacting preemptively. I get that everyone wants the cops to be kinder and gentler and maybe there will be that day, but there's also the other side of things. I've seen videos some cops in the UK that are so useless and passive that criminals can basically do whatever they want all the damn day long. No offense to the UK, the US also has the stereotypical donut eating cop. At some point you're going to have to decide what kind of society you want. If you want a society where cops don't make deadly mistakes, it would be a hell of a lot easier if we got a little privacy invasive and profiled people as risks early on and dealt with them then. If you don't deal with violent thugs preemptively, your cops for better or worse are going to be a little twitchy on the trigger finger. I can guarantee you that 98% of cops out there would gladly trade out the violence if they could without sacrificing the paycheck.
• fisherjeff 6y ago
  I‘m not sure this will help: https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847 https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/126675152005...
• rukuu001 6y ago
  It was the same 20 years ago when I turned up to these things.
• logicchains 6y ago
  >As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the crowd. Question to Americans: if the police really are acting this badly, why aren't y'all exercising your second amendment rights to defend yourselves? My naive understanding as a foreigner is that it's exactly what the second amendment is supposed to be for: protecting yourselves from an oppressive government. If the current situation doesn't warrant it, what situation would?
  • freeone3000 6y ago
    They're wearing full bulletproof vests, shields, helmets, and drive up in armored personel carriers. What, pray tell, would a semiauto rifle do against that, other than get you killed?
    • logicchains 6y ago
      The example gun-nuts usually point to is that Afghani farmers (and Vietnamese rice farmers) did a pretty good job of giving US soldiers trouble even though the solders were way better equipped.
      • loco5niner 6y ago
        I don't think that worked out very well for them though.
  • pbourke 6y ago
    > Question to Americans: if the police really are acting this badly, why aren't y'all exercising your second amendment rights to defend yourselves? Because that is a fever dream. The reality is that if you use a firearm on the police you get killed on the spot or it turns into a siege and you are killed some time later.
    • logicchains 6y ago
      Even when the protesters vastly outnumber the police? The police used much less force against the anti-lockdown protestors, who were armed, than against the unarmed BLM protestors. I don't think most police would be willing to risk their lives confronting a large crowd of armed protestors.
• lovehashbrowns 6y ago
  You are absolutely correct. A lot of these protests start out peacefully and are then instigated by police. Here's a video of the Seattle police instigating violence: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the_moment_it_all_happened/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the... A cop felt so threatened by a pink umbrella that he just had to have it, at all costs. I've been watching (and attending) a lot of the Portland protests and it's the same story here. Peaceful protesters, violent police. They're all fully geared and armed, and yet feel threatened by water bottles being thrown at them. They feel so threatened by the people that just having protesters get close to a fence around the Justice Center will cause police to start firing rubber bullets, flash bangs, smoke bombs, and tear gas at unarmed and unprotected protesters. Police feel so threatened by unarmed protesters that they now need the help of fully-armed, fully-geared, completely decked-out national guard. This is an embarrassment for police. Not that any of this is a surprise, anyway. A police officer felt so threatened by an unarmed, handcuffed black man that the had to murder the unarmed, handcuffed black man.
• josteink 6y ago
  > As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police If it's documented, it should be easy to produce documentation backing that claim, because to me that sounds incredibly unlikely.
• fellowniusmonk 6y ago
  I am not a bleeding heart liberal in Austin, TX but I live downtown and check it out everyday on my bike, I've seen the same thing.