19 ms·

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

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
        No one disagrees that in any group only a small number of bad actors are causing this issue. However, when a civilian acts inappropriately there are legal consequences. When a police office acts inappropriately there are few legal consequences and they are very-very-rarely enforced. I'll ask the question differently, "Is destruction of property what you expect from rioters?" Yes, 1% or less of rioters are going to be stupid. "Should they be reprimanded?" Sadly yes, and we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them. "Is destruction of property what you expect from police?" No, not even from the 1% or less that want to be stupid. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other. "Should they be reprimanded?" Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this. What are your answers to these questions lawnchair_larry?
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    How much clearer can you get that the police are committing property destruction and using it to blame protesters? Like there is no justification for the police doing this outside of using to make their own narrative so that they can bust some heads at the next protest.
  - TLightful 6y ago
    He just had a nervous twitch.
  - SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
    "numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves" I replied "I don't believe you." You responded by showing one video. I'm still waiting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jwilber 6y ago
  Multiple people have replied with evidence in this thread. I don’t know your view on the matter, but somehow I doubt that seeing videos will do anything to change your view on the matter anyway. I say this because in a thread about police brutality, you cherry-pick an argument counter to what videos have already shown. I do hope the continuing videos showcasing police brutality, during protests OF police brutality, do something to convince people that it is a very real problem.
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.

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
        No one disagrees that in any group only a small number of bad actors are causing this issue. However, when a civilian acts inappropriately there are legal consequences. When a police office acts inappropriately there are few legal consequences and they are very-very-rarely enforced. I'll ask the question differently, "Is destruction of property what you expect from rioters?" Yes, 1% or less of rioters are going to be stupid. "Should they be reprimanded?" Sadly yes, and we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them. "Is destruction of property what you expect from police?" No, not even from the 1% or less that want to be stupid. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other. "Should they be reprimanded?" Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this. What are your answers to these questions lawnchair_larry?
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  How much clearer can you get that the police are committing property destruction and using it to blame protesters? Like there is no justification for the police doing this outside of using to make their own narrative so that they can bust some heads at the next protest.
- TLightful 6y ago
  He just had a nervous twitch.
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  "numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves" I replied "I don't believe you." You responded by showing one video. I'm still waiting.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jwilber 6y ago
Multiple people have replied with evidence in this thread. I don’t know your view on the matter, but somehow I doubt that seeing videos will do anything to change your view on the matter anyway. I say this because in a thread about police brutality, you cherry-pick an argument counter to what videos have already shown. I do hope the continuing videos showcasing police brutality, during protests OF police brutality, do something to convince people that it is a very real problem.

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.