3 ms·

The aerial video doesn't help at all. If you're being unkind to the protesters then the ground level video shows a protester shoving an umbrella in a policeman'

The aerial video doesn't help at all. If you're being unkind to the protesters then the ground level video shows a protester shoving an umbrella in a policeman's face which is the start of the entire thing. The policeman reacts as anyone would when someone shoves something in their face, they grab/bat it away. That causes others to reach over the fence which would appear threatening and then the spray starts. If you're assuming good intentions on the part of that protestor then the umbrella being over the fence and in the face of an officer was just an accident of being too close the fence so that their umbrella ended up in the police officer's face. The result is the same, the protester is crossing the line like the "I'm not touching you" meme. The officer has an umbrella shoved in their face and they react. https://www.slideshare.net/Matthewthig/4-11-am-im-not-touching-you https://www.slideshare.net/Matthewthig/4-11-am-im-not-touchi... From the officer's POV this (https://pasteboard.co/Jbm1UXn.jpg https://pasteboard.co/Jbm1UXn.jpg) is a protester trying to intentionally block their view or just annoy them. I know you won't accept that interpretation as remotely valid because you've already decided there is only one correct way to see it. I'm not placing blame and I'm not defending the police. I'm just pointing out your interpretation of what happened is just that, an interpretation. There is at least one other perfectly valid interpretation.

asiachick 6y ago
Here's another incident with 2 interpretations https://twitter.com/EDDIFUL/status/1267338642617364481?s=20 https://twitter.com/EDDIFUL/status/1267338642617364481?s=20 1) The simple police brutality 2) Kid grabs policeman, policeman reacts You can see the kid reach for the officer. The officer reacted. Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea. The officer is trying to pass. The kid effectively corners him into a wall, intentionally or not, and then reaches toward the officer. Maybe it was supposed to be a friendly tap on the upper arm but in the middle of such a situation it's not hard to believe whatever the kid reached for felt like a threat to the officer. Again I'm not trying to defend the police but if you want people to come together, if you want that 1/2 of the nation that's on the wrong side to support your cause, then you need less ambiguous examples. Otherwise it's just easy to dismiss it. Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality in that video.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > Again I'm not trying to defend the police You're doing a great job of it anyway trying to justify marching in brutes covered head to toe in armor all prepared for a gas attack and then mysteriously "reacting" to an _umbrella_ a minute later by bombing a crowd of people standing around chanting. You're doing some heavy concern trolling here. I see you. > The kid effectively corners him into a wall If I push between you and the wall, you have not cornered me into the wall. The person who pushes in is responsible for being there. > Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea Kid has a phone in one hand and sunglasses in the other. If you have no idea then you're intentionally not paying attention. > Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality Other than the visible brutality, there is no visible brutality. Well, by _that_ definition...
  - asiachick 6y ago
    I'm not trolling and dang should have banned banned your message for name calling. There is no brutality in that video. The officers wraps his arm around the kid and pulls him to the ground slowly and safely. There is no evidence in that video the kid got a single scratch or bruise. If there is evidence of actual violence it's not in that video. There are videos of actual violence. https://twitter.com/vantaepedia/status/1266055700515520512 https://twitter.com/vantaepedia/status/1266055700515520512 no need to use the ambiguous videos that don't actually help change minds but only preach to the choir. Black Lives Matter!
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > There is no brutality in that video Putting someone into a headlock and dragging them around by their neck when that person had not initiated violence is brutality. And that person clearly did not initiate violence. > The officers wraps his arm around the kid Sure, a gentle loving caress around the neck, and then a gentle loving pull by the neck, and then gently and lovingly putting him to the ground by the neck. > There are videos of actual violence. Both are videos of actual violence. Thank you for sharing that one.
      - deleted 6y ago

asiachick 6y ago

Here's another incident with 2 interpretations https://twitter.com/EDDIFUL/status/1267338642617364481?s=20 https://twitter.com/EDDIFUL/status/1267338642617364481?s=20 1) The simple police brutality 2) Kid grabs policeman, policeman reacts You can see the kid reach for the officer. The officer reacted. Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea. The officer is trying to pass. The kid effectively corners him into a wall, intentionally or not, and then reaches toward the officer. Maybe it was supposed to be a friendly tap on the upper arm but in the middle of such a situation it's not hard to believe whatever the kid reached for felt like a threat to the officer. Again I'm not trying to defend the police but if you want people to come together, if you want that 1/2 of the nation that's on the wrong side to support your cause, then you need less ambiguous examples. Otherwise it's just easy to dismiss it. Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality in that video.

ebg13 6y ago
> Again I'm not trying to defend the police You're doing a great job of it anyway trying to justify marching in brutes covered head to toe in armor all prepared for a gas attack and then mysteriously "reacting" to an _umbrella_ a minute later by bombing a crowd of people standing around chanting. You're doing some heavy concern trolling here. I see you. > The kid effectively corners him into a wall If I push between you and the wall, you have not cornered me into the wall. The person who pushes in is responsible for being there. > Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea Kid has a phone in one hand and sunglasses in the other. If you have no idea then you're intentionally not paying attention. > Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality Other than the visible brutality, there is no visible brutality. Well, by _that_ definition...
- asiachick 6y ago
  I'm not trolling and dang should have banned banned your message for name calling. There is no brutality in that video. The officers wraps his arm around the kid and pulls him to the ground slowly and safely. There is no evidence in that video the kid got a single scratch or bruise. If there is evidence of actual violence it's not in that video. There are videos of actual violence. https://twitter.com/vantaepedia/status/1266055700515520512 https://twitter.com/vantaepedia/status/1266055700515520512 no need to use the ambiguous videos that don't actually help change minds but only preach to the choir. Black Lives Matter!
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > There is no brutality in that video Putting someone into a headlock and dragging them around by their neck when that person had not initiated violence is brutality. And that person clearly did not initiate violence. > The officers wraps his arm around the kid Sure, a gentle loving caress around the neck, and then a gentle loving pull by the neck, and then gently and lovingly putting him to the ground by the neck. > There are videos of actual violence. Both are videos of actual violence. Thank you for sharing that one.
    - deleted 6y ago