9 ms·
Protests about police brutality are met with wave of police brutality across US
- swarnie_ 6y agoConsidering i've seen armies less well equipped then your police force and civilian population i think its a miracle the shooting hasn't started yet. Y'all ever considered gun control or is that taboo? Maybe if you weren't all armed like you're going to a Texan wedding your law enforcement wouldn't have to be as well?
- CamperBob2 6y agoY'all ever considered gun control or is that taboo? "The police are completely out of control. They're basically a street gang funded by tax dollars. Officers with dozens of complaints are sent back to the streets with almost literal carte blanche to run roughshod over minorities without a trace of accountability. Their propensity for violence and escalation has practically torn our entire country in half, while prosecutors look the other way and city officials stand by helplessly. Also, they should have all the guns." Makes perfect sense. /s
- swarnie_ 6y agoBecause you militarised them. I'm sure walking 2 steps further down the wrong road will eventually get you to the right place. Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait.
- irrational 6y agoWell, it kind of already has happened, at least on a small scale. A number of police have been shot since this started, but not in enough numbers to really make a difference.
- CamperBob2 6y agoUnfortunately, I doubt we've made it 10% through this particular historical chapter so far. Certain people will see things like this [1], and they will start taking potshots at random cops who had nothing to do with it. And no, it won't help. [1] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-police-beating-temple-student-evan-gorski-protest-20200604.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-police-beating-te...
- NoahTheDuke 6y agoI like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state. I think what’s more likely is that instead of just filming police brutality, people will start shooting police officers who are caught abusing citizens.
- CamperBob2 6y agoI like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state. No, I did that to delegitimize (sic) reactions against random individuals. Aside from the obvious moral issue, every cop killed will probably result in a dozen more being hired, and a hundred more votes for the people doing the hiring.
- CamperBob2 6y agoAlso i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait. It turns out that you don't need to shoot any cops. You just show up armed to the teeth, and they leave you alone. They'll even stand aside while you muscle your way into state and Federal government buildings. (Of course, this only works if you're white, but never mind that.)
- tartoran 6y agoBad idea IMO. Really prefer not to see more militias dressed in civil clothes because thats what they become
- dragonwriter 6y agoThat works a lot better if you are in a political faction overrepreesented in law enforcement. Other armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police.
- CamperBob2 6y agoOther armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police. Correct, and we're being told that the solution to that is to take away their arms. This is, of course, perfectly consistent with the original political motivation behind gun control. Statistically speaking, if your death has a violent cause, it will happen at the hands of your own country's police or military forces. That's not a concern here in the modern-day US, but this is a historical aberration, one that may not prevail for much longer. Unilateral disarmament probably isn't the best strategy.
- dragonwriter 6y agoUS uniformed police services started out as ethnic gangs made into paramilitary forces to suppress other ethnic gangs in the urban north and slave patrols in the rural south. The problem does not have its roots in recent militarization, and has been constant for the whole history of police forces in this country. Shifting political preferences among the enfranchised have caused it to be a source of greater tension in the electorate, and changes in media have made it more visible, but it's not a new problem. > Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government The point of the 2nd Amendment was so that the people could be the security services and there would not be a need for standing military and paramilitary external and internal services (beyond small cadres to form a nucleus for the mobilized militia) which, in the founders view, inevitably led to tyranny. It was for prevention on a model that was abandoned though the amendment remains, not for response.
- pjc50 6y agoAre you arguing that the public need guns to shoot at the police?
- CamperBob2 6y agoNo. You need guns so they don't shoot you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/04/30/armed-protesters-storm-michigan-state-house-over-covid-19-lockdown/#3570a4069b5c https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/04/30/armed...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 6y agoEven if it made sense to consider gun control in the long term, why would it make sense now? Police already struggle with the tasks they've been assigned: "Fight stupid Drug War and don't brutalize innocents? Does not compute!" Why give them another impossible task that would set them at odds with another group of citizens? It might be good for Americans in the long run, because we'd all see our real enemies clearly for the first time. (I.e., now that police are attacking 90% of the nation, who are they not attacking?) However, this is wishful thinking because it assumes TPTB are stupid, which they manifestly are not. Once they have robocops they'll repeal 2A, followed swiftly by every other human right. Until that time, cops have to be recruited somewhere.
- SethTro 6y agoSome of this is being documented on Github. https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/reports https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/repor... There are several open issues that tech could help out on (IPFS backup, front end for viewing, ...)
- noble_pleb 6y agoIts a vicious cycle, unfortunately. The more rioting and violent protest goes on the streets, the more they will empower the police and thus even more chance for future brutality.
- loopz 6y agoIn the short-term it escalates the crisis, putting on display the lack of accountability and leadership, opening up positions for real leadership.
- siberianbear 6y agoIf the police ignore hooliganism on the streets, it just invites more hooliganism. If the police brutally put down hooliganism, it also invites more hooliganism. Probably, the right solution involves better policing of police, and throwing out the bad apples. But police culture is very insular, and their labor unions have quite a bit of political power. They protect their own. So, that's easier said than done. It's quite a catch-22 situation.
- tsimionescu 6y agoRegarding your first few statements, there is also a third option between ignoring the "hooligans" and brutally repressing them. It is listening to them and acquiescing to their very simple and legitimate demands - no more police brutality. I agree with your note about policing the police though, and the difficulties in doing that. Probably trying to reduce the power of police, and its role in society, will be more feasible than trying to get prosecutors to work against their colleagues in the force.
- kstenerud 6y agoWith so many guns in the USA, I'm a bit surprised that people haven't started shooting the police...
- loopz 6y agoThey're busy crimin', or staying in prison. Guess you're referring to criminals, and not non-violent protesters. Any escalation in violence, is a lost cause. Instead of focusing on extremists and extreme opinions, government and media should be there for every majority and minority. A partisan, is no leader of people.
- irrational 6y agoThe kind of people that own guns also tend to be the kind of people who don't see anything wrong with police brutality.
- Maarten88 6y agoI saw an interview[1] with radio host Charlamagne tha God who seems to promote gun ownership to the black community. It’s sad to say, but I think that might actually be a smart way to promote better gun ownership laws in the US. Using racism against itself: black people (legally, openly) wearing guns might be a good (but really dangerous) argument against any people wearing guns. [1] https://youtu.be/5qxdCopOeJ4 https://youtu.be/5qxdCopOeJ4
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fit2rule 6y agoA nation which allows itself to be willingly ruled by war criminals is, first and foremost, a victim of its own cowardice. The American People will never be safe until they properly prosecute their war criminals. American policing organisations are riddled with very real war criminals calling the shots. Don't be so surprised that what these people did to Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Yemen, they will do to the American people.
- loopz 6y agoThey will not do that, until leadership targets their own population and successfully ousts all principles and caring.
- readarticle 6y agoThe 18000 law enforcement agencies in the US are overwhelmingly controlled at the local and state levels. While a simplistic “get rid of the war criminals at the top” would be a nice solution, the reality of the problem is far scarier and more distributed than that.
- fit2rule 6y agoThe same policies and culture that allow Americans to demolish, with impunity, countless other sovereign states while proclaiming their own moral authority, are what's at stake here in the streets today. America has been kneeling on the neck of countless other nations, which also lost their breath, for decades. A nation which callously disregards these crimes, will eventually fall victim to the same mechanics, itself. America is ruled by a death cult which believes only in its own superiority over all other nations on Earth. Until this changes, the American people are as safe as anyone else this very real death cult puts in its sights, which is to say: not safe at all.
- readarticle 6y agoMy local police department is “ruled” by a city council composed of lawyers and real estate agents.
- tsimionescu 6y agoIt is revolting and amazing to me to see the lengths to which police in the self-styled freest country in the world go to brutally repress these protests; and even more so, the fact that there still exists some defense of their behavior in the media. In my own country, a former communist country in Eastern Europe, there were last year some anti-government protests that ended one night with the police gratuitously shooting tear gas at the crowd. This caused widespread outrage and was universally covered in the press. They didn't dare do it on subsequent protest nights again, and it remained a subject of discussion for months, with almost no defense even from the more government-friendly news outlets.
- 082349872349872 6y agoThey haven't even reached "brutally" yet. Dr. King advocated non-violent, economic, protest on 3.4.1968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23414101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23414101 On 4.4.1968 they showed him the violence inherent in the system. Do you have any good anti-authority songs in your country? I've been trying to think of what might be good ones in the US tradition. In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people, By the relief office I seen my people; As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking Is this land made for you and me? But that's an ancient one... probably the kids are way ahead of me on this front?
- tsimionescu 6y agoWe do have one [0], from 1990, a series of protests right after the 1989 revolution (the protests were violently squashed by miners with pickaxes summoned by the president of that time). It goes something like this (in a somewhat word for word translation, and keeping in mind that the big bad at the time were leaders of the former communist party): Better a vagrant, Than a traitor, Better a hooligan, Than a dictator, Better a hoodlum, Than a party activist, Better dead, Then a communist [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSlUW5Imylc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSlUW5Imylc
- 082349872349872 6y ago
- hereme888 6y agoAlright this is nonsense. Only a tiny, miniscule percentage of police are criminals. They are by far amazing people who protect us. The protesters are largely the violent ones, burning cars and destroying property, empowered by paid professionals and criminals like ANTIFA (which coincidentally are fascists themselves). Let a court and jury judge based on a complete set of evidence, rather than the edited video clips being collected. From what I've seen, the entire videos of what these protesters do oaint a different picture. And why is news like this even allowed on HN? Its what gets fights and trolling started.
- maest 6y ago> empowered by paid professionals and criminals like ANTIFA Can you back that up with any evidence? > Let a court and jury judge based on a complete set of evidence, rather than the edited video clips being collected. That's what the current system is doing, and many people feel the results aren't right, as they see many officers abuse their power without consequence. Hence all this talk about the thin blue line, qualified immunity, adminstrative leave being perceived as a paid holiday etc. Largely, I think there are 2 ways of thinking about systems and they're both valid. a. You determine which rules make sense from a first principles basis and you build a system. Whatever result comes out of the system, that is the correct result, because _the system is correct_. b. You determine which results you want to have and build a system aiming for those results. If the outcomes you're seeing don't fit with the results you want, then the system is wrong and needs changing. Grossly simplifying, it seems to me that the right largely thinks along the lines of a. and the left thinks along the lines of b. * The right argues for equality (same system for everyone), the left argues for equity (same outcome for everyone). * The right argues that the police is fine because there is a system in place that deals with abusive cops. The left argues the police isn't fine because the outcomes are unfair/disproportionate. Then the right retorts that the outcomes are disproportionate because the inputs are disproportionate (e.g. unequal crime rates across racial groups). Then the left says these inputs are themselves a result of the previous unfair system. Then someone starts name calling and the reddit thread gets locked down. And, I mean, intellectually, both view points are kinda valid. (As a side note, hardcore free market liberalists _really_ believe in a. As in, let the market be free and, whatever the outcome is, that's the _morally right_ outcome because the free market is infallible/the best way of allocating resources. I personally think that's wrong, not becuase a. is wrong, but because the free market needs certain particular conditions to function properly e.g. no monopolies, perfect information etc, and often those conditions are not met in the real world.) A corrollary of these views is that a. wants the system to stay unchanged and b. wants the system to change. If you're happy with the current system, you tend to subscribe to a. because of course you want things not to change. If you feel you're not getting a good deal, you're more likely to side with b. because you want the system to change. Interestingly, you also get crossover: * in the US, priviledged upper class whites (people benefiting from the system) siding with option b. (loosely liberals). These are called "beta cucks" by e.g. users of thedonald, the implication being that they're subjugating themselves to the lesser, underpriviledged groups. * also in the US, blacks who are part of the system (e.g. black LEOs, black republicans). Most common insults I've seen there are "bootlickers" and maybe "uncle Tom" (there was a recent video from the protests with a white protester calling a black LEO an "uncle Tom" which angered a bunch of people).