3 ms·

So police violence is OK as long as it’s less than what the protestors do? That’s an absurd argument. Our taxes pay their salaries, and our taxes also pay thei

So police violence is OK as long as it’s less than what the protestors do? That’s an absurd argument. Our taxes pay their salaries, and our taxes also pay their legal settlements and fees when they get caught up killing unarmed black men and women. They live in a system fundamentally devoid of accountability. They deploy tools like tears gas and poorly tested “less lethal” ammunition that still has the ability to permanently and critically injure targets. No amount of violence against peaceful protestors should be tolerated. The police exist to protect the public, not treat them like enemy combatants.

mindslight 6y ago
> They deploy tools like tears gas and poorly tested “less lethal” ammunition Let's stop using abstract passive words like "deploy", and say what the police are actually doing - opening fire on crowds of protestors. I guess they're being nice by using ammo other than lead bullets like at Kent State, but fundamentally they're still shooting projectiles and innocent people are still being killed and maimed.
koolba 6y ago
Anyone that showed up to an 11pm “protest” the day after looters and rioters commandeered the previous night’s gathering knows exactly what they’re enabling and and the risks involved. At that point you’re aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority that are directly causing the damage and in doing so you can’t complain to be caught in the literal crossfire. If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them.
- augustt 6y ago
  My turn: if one cop in a crowd of 1000 commits an act of brutality, then it's well within our rights to defund them all.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If by 'our' you mean the Public at Large, it is within your rights to defund them all. The main counterargument is how would that help? The violent cop would still be violent. If the police were abolished they'd sign up as a violent gang member, and if a new not-police body is created they'd sign up to that instead. There is always a most-violent gang on the streets; we just call them the police if they are state-sponsored and ask them to follow the law rather than their own opinions. Defunding the police won't help that dynamic.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them. This is exactly what far right provocateurs want, to embed themselves inside legitimate protests and misbehave so that all are punished. Does that seem appropriate? Also, both cases of brutality I described above happened in broad daylight. Please tell me how this specific incident[0] represents appropriate conduct by the police. 0: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE
- physcab 6y ago
  Violence begets more violence, so I don’t see how that is a good strategy, unless you like seeing more violence
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them. This is an utterly unethical and immoral point of view. If one person commits a crime, a group should never be punished for it. This is collective punishment, and it (along with tear gas) is prohibited under the Geneva conventions.
  - mafuy 6y ago
    Look, I'm on your side, but what you said is just wrong. The GC prohibits poison gas, not tear gas. And if the safety of the officers and/or the "mob" is in danger, dispersing the crowd if perfectly reasonable. Because the right of humans to not get hurt is of higher priority than their right to assemble. Obviously, that should be done only when required, and with care.
    - drewbug01 6y ago
      The plain text of the protocol states: “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”. Seems pretty clear to me.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    It isn't so clear it is a 'punishment'. Conceptually the role of the police isn't to punish anyone, they mainly compel presence, absence of people or action of people. The tear-gassing specifically isn't to punish anyone. It is because their commanders think the situation is unsafe and that order needs to be restored. The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police. There are very fine lines involved, but there is a point where there isn't a reasonable expectation that the police should break ranks and move into a potential violent mob to arrest an individual. That would be asking them to take on too much risk. It isn't going to violate the Geneva Conventions.
    - corty 6y ago
      > The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police. It is rather the other way around there: The situation is made dangerous by presence of the police, the solution is the police pulling back.
- viklove 6y ago
  > At that point you’re aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority that are directly causing the damage and in doing so you can’t complain to be caught in the literal crossfire. By not showing up you're aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority of corrupt police officers who murder minorities in the street because they know they can get away with it.

mindslight 6y ago

> They deploy tools like tears gas and poorly tested “less lethal” ammunition Let's stop using abstract passive words like "deploy", and say what the police are actually doing - opening fire on crowds of protestors. I guess they're being nice by using ammo other than lead bullets like at Kent State, but fundamentally they're still shooting projectiles and innocent people are still being killed and maimed.

koolba 6y ago

Anyone that showed up to an 11pm “protest” the day after looters and rioters commandeered the previous night’s gathering knows exactly what they’re enabling and and the risks involved. At that point you’re aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority that are directly causing the damage and in doing so you can’t complain to be caught in the literal crossfire. If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them.

augustt 6y ago
My turn: if one cop in a crowd of 1000 commits an act of brutality, then it's well within our rights to defund them all.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If by 'our' you mean the Public at Large, it is within your rights to defund them all. The main counterargument is how would that help? The violent cop would still be violent. If the police were abolished they'd sign up as a violent gang member, and if a new not-police body is created they'd sign up to that instead. There is always a most-violent gang on the streets; we just call them the police if they are state-sponsored and ask them to follow the law rather than their own opinions. Defunding the police won't help that dynamic.
save_ferris 6y ago
> If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them. This is exactly what far right provocateurs want, to embed themselves inside legitimate protests and misbehave so that all are punished. Does that seem appropriate? Also, both cases of brutality I described above happened in broad daylight. Please tell me how this specific incident[0] represents appropriate conduct by the police. 0: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE
physcab 6y ago
Violence begets more violence, so I don’t see how that is a good strategy, unless you like seeing more violence
drewbug01 6y ago
> If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them. This is an utterly unethical and immoral point of view. If one person commits a crime, a group should never be punished for it. This is collective punishment, and it (along with tear gas) is prohibited under the Geneva conventions.
- mafuy 6y ago
  Look, I'm on your side, but what you said is just wrong. The GC prohibits poison gas, not tear gas. And if the safety of the officers and/or the "mob" is in danger, dispersing the crowd if perfectly reasonable. Because the right of humans to not get hurt is of higher priority than their right to assemble. Obviously, that should be done only when required, and with care.
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    The plain text of the protocol states: “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”. Seems pretty clear to me.
- roenxi 6y ago
  It isn't so clear it is a 'punishment'. Conceptually the role of the police isn't to punish anyone, they mainly compel presence, absence of people or action of people. The tear-gassing specifically isn't to punish anyone. It is because their commanders think the situation is unsafe and that order needs to be restored. The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police. There are very fine lines involved, but there is a point where there isn't a reasonable expectation that the police should break ranks and move into a potential violent mob to arrest an individual. That would be asking them to take on too much risk. It isn't going to violate the Geneva Conventions.
  - corty 6y ago
    > The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police. It is rather the other way around there: The situation is made dangerous by presence of the police, the solution is the police pulling back.
viklove 6y ago
> At that point you’re aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority that are directly causing the damage and in doing so you can’t complain to be caught in the literal crossfire. By not showing up you're aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority of corrupt police officers who murder minorities in the street because they know they can get away with it.