6 ms·

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 offi

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
    The Seattle PD tried this during the 2001 Mardi Gras riots. It earned the police chief (Kerlikowske) a higher level position
    - oblio 6y ago
      So they didn't try, they succeeded.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        Kerlikowske stood them down and it was controversial.
        oblio 6y ago
        Ah, it wasn't clear from the phrasing. I thought he got promoted for being "tough on crime".
- thephyber 6y ago
  > saying they decide which laws to enforce In practical terms, they already do it and US law allows them prosecutorial discretion.
m0zg 6y ago
I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting they do. If they arrest the looters, you will complain of "police brutality", since as a rule, criminals do not go into custody willingly. If they do not, you will complain of "looting". They also can't individually go after looters in this situation - too dangerous. Whatever they do they have to do as a group, without dispersing.
- YarickR2 6y ago
  We have no information about their action or inaction, we could only guess that ; judging now seems pointless.
- jascii 6y ago
  The looters take advantage of the chaos. The chaos seems willingly and knowingly caused by the police. I would at this point consider the police atleast somewhat responsible for the conditions that lead to the looting.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > willingly and knowingly caused by the police Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    - vkou 6y ago
      https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the_moment_it_all_happened/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the... Extraordinary enough? A birds eye view, of a protest that was peaceful for hours, until police grab for an umbrella, and start attacking the crowd. Here's an ant's eye view of the same event, by the way. @26:30 - the gas masks arrive, @28:20 - the gas masks take their place in the line, @30:00 - the umbrella gets grabbed, and the crowd gets attacked. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10220021035848747&id=1009114782&anchor_composer=false https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1022002103584874...
    - tomnipotent 6y ago
      Are you living under a rock? Reddit has a compilation thread of dozens of examples of police escalating situations, attacking press, pushing old men with canes to the ground, shooting residents ON THEIR doorstep, randomly grabbing civilians and assaulting them. The list doesn't seem to stop. Since 2001, police have taken more American lives than all other terrorist activities combined.
luckylion 6y ago
What would you have preferred? If the police shows up and the looting does not stop, they can either use force (aka violence) to make it stop, or they can go home, essentially giving up the rule of law in the area. Not showing up can be a tactical decision: you don't have to generate more bad press and more cries about police brutality and you also don't need to quasi-officially hand over the area to the looters. The state's power isn't real as in "we can crush you", it rests only in everybody's fear of the state being able to crush them. If there's a chance that the state has to back down, not seeking the confrontation sounds like a smart choice to me, even if it comes at the price of a day or two of looting.
- Miraste 6y ago
  They are still out crushing people. They've decided to target nonviolent protestors instead of looters. Softer targets perhaps.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  But they were already violent, just to the peaceful protesters. So why was there a massive police force at a peaceful protest, where they were already willing to brutally engage with the protesters, but not in soho where there were looters two days in a row? Your argument can't possibly be "Because they didn't want to escalate" or "They didn't want people to think they're violent" when they did escalate and were violent elsewhere. I am in full agreement that it was tactical - it allows them to punish a neighborhood and to shift the story.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  The looting is giving them political cover to attack those who directly threaten their identity. It's quite clear from their other actions where their priorities lie. They have no (personal) reason to stop the looting, and at the same time, occupying their attention, the opportunity to strike out at that (very personal) threat.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  I would have preferred that law enforcement enforce the law. If people are looting which is illegal, they should be arrested or at least deterred. If they are violent and resist arrest then the minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend them should be used. If people are protesting peacefully which is legal, they should be left alone.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I just love how everyone hates cops and talks about how every single one of them is worthless yet they expects them to save their store from being looted. You decided you were better off without me, fine, save your own store.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  > You decided you were better off without me, fine, save your own store. For what it's worth, this is why people hate cops! No one said anything about all cops being worthless, and you're saying that victims of crimes deserve it for not praising police brutality.
  - logfromblammo 6y ago
    The expectation of the public is that police should prioritize deterrence and investigation of property crimes above assembling a massive show of force to deprive peaceful protesters of their 1st amendment rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for redress of their grievances. Cops that are busy kettling up protesters for later official intimidation and violence are not available to respond to crimes happening elsewhere. Business owners are better off with insurance, alarms, and dedicated private security that won't abandon their protective duties every time they feel like pepper-spraying a liberal in the face for no apparent reason.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Right, but then why have the police at all?
      - logfromblammo 6y ago
        Is that a rhetorical question? There is no reason to have police that don't follow the Peelian principles.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
staticassertion 6y ago
On the topic of police refusing to do their job in order to punish backlash. https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904 https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904 > Politicians who cross the MPD find slowdowns in their wards. After the first time I cut money from the proposed police budget, I had an uptick in calls taking forever to get a response, and MPD officers telling business owners to call their councilman about why it took so long.
- mcv 6y ago
  That is just evil. That's police using their power as a protection racket. It should be illegal, and the officers involved should be put behind bars.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I have no context on this, but just reading that sentence, why wouldn't a budget cut raise response times? Is there context that suggests they're lying?
  - mrkurt 6y ago
    It wasn't an actual budget cut, it was a cut to a proposed future budget.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      Huh, interesting. I was presuming the police department propose their budget and then the city alters/approves it as they see fit. If they lower it then that would be fairly accurately described as "cutting money from their proposed budget". Is that different from how it works here?
cm2187 6y ago
So logically you would welcome Trump sending troops to end the looting?
mehrdadn 6y ago
> SoHo was looted two days in a row. Where were the NYPD? Local news reporting tries to explain what's going on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGT06zIUiY&t=2m01s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGT06zIUiY&t=2m01s "What you've been seeing is basically a cat and mouse game all night. The police have been here with a huge show of force, but they can't stop people, because they don't know that they've necessarily been looting. And so they're waiting for somebody to do something, police move onto the next block, and then someone does something." I don't know one way or another whether this is the whole truth, but it appears to play a significant role according to the reporter.

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
  The Seattle PD tried this during the 2001 Mardi Gras riots. It earned the police chief (Kerlikowske) a higher level position
  - oblio 6y ago
    So they didn't try, they succeeded.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Kerlikowske stood them down and it was controversial.
      - oblio 6y ago
        Ah, it wasn't clear from the phrasing. I thought he got promoted for being "tough on crime".
thephyber 6y ago
> saying they decide which laws to enforce In practical terms, they already do it and US law allows them prosecutorial discretion.

m0zg 6y ago

I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting they do. If they arrest the looters, you will complain of "police brutality", since as a rule, criminals do not go into custody willingly. If they do not, you will complain of "looting". They also can't individually go after looters in this situation - too dangerous. Whatever they do they have to do as a group, without dispersing.

YarickR2 6y ago
We have no information about their action or inaction, we could only guess that ; judging now seems pointless.
jascii 6y ago
The looters take advantage of the chaos. The chaos seems willingly and knowingly caused by the police. I would at this point consider the police atleast somewhat responsible for the conditions that lead to the looting.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > willingly and knowingly caused by the police Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - vkou 6y ago
    https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the_moment_it_all_happened/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the... Extraordinary enough? A birds eye view, of a protest that was peaceful for hours, until police grab for an umbrella, and start attacking the crowd. Here's an ant's eye view of the same event, by the way. @26:30 - the gas masks arrive, @28:20 - the gas masks take their place in the line, @30:00 - the umbrella gets grabbed, and the crowd gets attacked. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10220021035848747&id=1009114782&anchor_composer=false https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1022002103584874...
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    Are you living under a rock? Reddit has a compilation thread of dozens of examples of police escalating situations, attacking press, pushing old men with canes to the ground, shooting residents ON THEIR doorstep, randomly grabbing civilians and assaulting them. The list doesn't seem to stop. Since 2001, police have taken more American lives than all other terrorist activities combined.

luckylion 6y ago

What would you have preferred? If the police shows up and the looting does not stop, they can either use force (aka violence) to make it stop, or they can go home, essentially giving up the rule of law in the area. Not showing up can be a tactical decision: you don't have to generate more bad press and more cries about police brutality and you also don't need to quasi-officially hand over the area to the looters. The state's power isn't real as in "we can crush you", it rests only in everybody's fear of the state being able to crush them. If there's a chance that the state has to back down, not seeking the confrontation sounds like a smart choice to me, even if it comes at the price of a day or two of looting.

Miraste 6y ago
They are still out crushing people. They've decided to target nonviolent protestors instead of looters. Softer targets perhaps.
staticassertion 6y ago
But they were already violent, just to the peaceful protesters. So why was there a massive police force at a peaceful protest, where they were already willing to brutally engage with the protesters, but not in soho where there were looters two days in a row? Your argument can't possibly be "Because they didn't want to escalate" or "They didn't want people to think they're violent" when they did escalate and were violent elsewhere. I am in full agreement that it was tactical - it allows them to punish a neighborhood and to shift the story.
WalterSear 6y ago
The looting is giving them political cover to attack those who directly threaten their identity. It's quite clear from their other actions where their priorities lie. They have no (personal) reason to stop the looting, and at the same time, occupying their attention, the opportunity to strike out at that (very personal) threat.
OminousWeapons 6y ago
I would have preferred that law enforcement enforce the law. If people are looting which is illegal, they should be arrested or at least deterred. If they are violent and resist arrest then the minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend them should be used. If people are protesting peacefully which is legal, they should be left alone.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

I just love how everyone hates cops and talks about how every single one of them is worthless yet they expects them to save their store from being looted. You decided you were better off without me, fine, save your own store.

staticassertion 6y ago
> You decided you were better off without me, fine, save your own store. For what it's worth, this is why people hate cops! No one said anything about all cops being worthless, and you're saying that victims of crimes deserve it for not praising police brutality.
- logfromblammo 6y ago
  The expectation of the public is that police should prioritize deterrence and investigation of property crimes above assembling a massive show of force to deprive peaceful protesters of their 1st amendment rights to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for redress of their grievances. Cops that are busy kettling up protesters for later official intimidation and violence are not available to respond to crimes happening elsewhere. Business owners are better off with insurance, alarms, and dedicated private security that won't abandon their protective duties every time they feel like pepper-spraying a liberal in the face for no apparent reason.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Right, but then why have the police at all?
    - logfromblammo 6y ago
      Is that a rhetorical question? There is no reason to have police that don't follow the Peelian principles.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago

staticassertion 6y ago

On the topic of police refusing to do their job in order to punish backlash. https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904 https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904 > Politicians who cross the MPD find slowdowns in their wards. After the first time I cut money from the proposed police budget, I had an uptick in calls taking forever to get a response, and MPD officers telling business owners to call their councilman about why it took so long.

mcv 6y ago
That is just evil. That's police using their power as a protection racket. It should be illegal, and the officers involved should be put behind bars.
mehrdadn 6y ago
I have no context on this, but just reading that sentence, why wouldn't a budget cut raise response times? Is there context that suggests they're lying?
- mrkurt 6y ago
  It wasn't an actual budget cut, it was a cut to a proposed future budget.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    Huh, interesting. I was presuming the police department propose their budget and then the city alters/approves it as they see fit. If they lower it then that would be fairly accurately described as "cutting money from their proposed budget". Is that different from how it works here?

cm2187 6y ago

So logically you would welcome Trump sending troops to end the looting?

mehrdadn 6y ago

> SoHo was looted two days in a row. Where were the NYPD? Local news reporting tries to explain what's going on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGT06zIUiY&t=2m01s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGT06zIUiY&t=2m01s "What you've been seeing is basically a cat and mouse game all night. The police have been here with a huge show of force, but they can't stop people, because they don't know that they've necessarily been looting. And so they're waiting for somebody to do something, police move onto the next block, and then someone does something." I don't know one way or another whether this is the whole truth, but it appears to play a significant role according to the reporter.