6 ms·

No. The majority of the protests were mostly peaceful. https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

No. The majority of the protests were mostly peaceful. https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/ https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... Police brutality is real https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The police are mostly peaceful too! But being mostly peaceful doesn't excuse the times when they're violent.
0-_-0 6y ago
Police are mostly peaceful
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Without taking a meaningful position here, how do you differentiate between the individuals on the street who are generally poor and powerless (and if you take them at their word, disenfranchised), while the police are backed by the institution, carrying military weapons, and legally empowered to use violence to stop them? This is a question I have struggled with, so I'm curious what your take is, and that of the rest of the community here. In the platonic ideal, of course, the protesters would be peaceful and affable people. On the other hand, in a platonic ideal, nobody would need to be protesting in the first place. Similarly, in the platonic ideal, police would be kind and friendly, but of course, then they wouldn't be defending the state from these individuals in the first place. So, where does that leave us? tl;dr: Does the situation change if we frame the protestors as "mostly poor, powerless and disenfranchised" and the police as "mostly powerful, backed by the largesse of the state and largely militarized" in this specific time and place? [edit] In a way, I would argue that the police are entrusted with using violence - in the right time and place - and are rarely held accountable for failing to do so. It's not the police' use of violence people are protesting in general (after all this is the monopoly they have been granted), but rather their lack of accountability for failing to do their jobs in the instances that they do.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    What’s with the wall of text? Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > What’s with the wall of text? Because, if you'd read it, it's much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. I felt an exploration might be interesting. You clearly disagree. > Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it. Yes, it is. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. I doubt even a pacifist monk would disagree. Where things get more interesting is what if an oppressive system comes at you, and isn't interested in your feedback or reforms?
      - bra-ket 6y ago
        > If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. Exactly. Only there is no 'oppressive system', but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon who's about to attack.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        So there's a few things here. > Only there is no 'oppressive system'. I think this is open to debate, and it's not fair to simply state it as fact given the evidence. > ... but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon and who's about to attack. Indeed, but that's also overly simplistic. A violent response is justified but isn't necessarily preferred, and degree matters. Proper training in de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, safety equipment, non-lethal, less-lethal and eventually if necessary lethal weapons are all available to officers. How you pick is a systemic question. How much training and what kind is a systemic question. And the results are measurable. Indeed Canada's per capita police shooting rate is 1/10th that of the US -- and Canada's pretty high as far as rich countries go! New Zealand police killed 2 or 3 people since 2015. It's overwhelmingly not a kill-or-be-killed situation, and further, the job of an officer is not to eliminate 100% of harm potential for themselves at all costs -- but instead to resolve the situation with the optimal outcome for all involved. The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded. I maintain the issue is one of accountability, between police not being held accountable for gross negligence, the unequivocal support from the police unions and of course, qualified immunity. I suspect people just want to feel like they're being treated fairly. If you don't hold anyone accountable it creates a negative feedback loop breaking trust and making the job more dangerous for everyone.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  Seems like a very low threshold of expectation for individuals entrusted with weapons, professional immunity and relatively safe jobs compared to garbage men and loggers and etc.
- o-__-o 6y ago
  I have an imposter! But friendly reminder that police are not your friends and you should not talk to the police unless it is absolutely necessary and even then stay tight lipped. Figure I’ll add a story about being black and driving a nice car. One day I had a flat tire and pulled into a gas station after hours to change the tire. I didn’t have a lug wrench and the kid working in the store didn’t have one either. So I called triple A. With an obvious , and I mean my rim was sitting on the ground, flat tire. Mr big bad cop comes up and questions me about why I’m here. I explain the AAA situation. He asks for my license, I ask why, because there were robberies here and I’m a suspect because I’m parked here. I make a dramatic turn to the flat tire on my car. And ask him where I’m going to drive off to. He puts his hand on his holster and asks if there is a problem. This is what happens more often than we realize and is the reason why my cars are no longer registered to me from a personal capacity, and why I have a dark tint on my windows. But more importantly it’s why people of color have an unfounded anxiety from simply driving a car. It’s a sad state of affairs but I am blessed that I can look back and laugh at the absurdity of the situation. After he took my license guess who showed up? He quickly got out of his cruiser, walked over, gave me my license and peeled out. I said “you’re not even going to say good bye?” as he was waking away. The AAA driver, also a white man, had some choice words for the police and we bonded on that during the ride back to my house.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    So the white guy also had bad encounters with the police? Maybe they're just dicks to everyone?
    - o-__-o 6y ago
      Maybe! But intimidating me because you want to run my license is a shitty move regardless of race.
  - jonfromsf 6y ago
    Hey sorry to derail from the larger point but I am super curious. Can you explain the registration thing to me? How does it help to be driving a car registered to someone else? I feel like that would make a cop more suspicious / be harder to explain.
- triceratops 6y ago
  "Mostly" isn't good enough if you're talking about police. To paraphrase Chris Rock, some jobs just can't have any bad apples. They're too sensitive.
RestlessMind 6y ago
"No. The majority of police are mostly peaceful. Violence at BLM protests is real." See how we can continue talking past each other?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The police are mostly peaceful too! But being mostly peaceful doesn't excuse the times when they're violent.

0-_-0 6y ago

Police are mostly peaceful

arcticbull 6y ago
Without taking a meaningful position here, how do you differentiate between the individuals on the street who are generally poor and powerless (and if you take them at their word, disenfranchised), while the police are backed by the institution, carrying military weapons, and legally empowered to use violence to stop them? This is a question I have struggled with, so I'm curious what your take is, and that of the rest of the community here. In the platonic ideal, of course, the protesters would be peaceful and affable people. On the other hand, in a platonic ideal, nobody would need to be protesting in the first place. Similarly, in the platonic ideal, police would be kind and friendly, but of course, then they wouldn't be defending the state from these individuals in the first place. So, where does that leave us? tl;dr: Does the situation change if we frame the protestors as "mostly poor, powerless and disenfranchised" and the police as "mostly powerful, backed by the largesse of the state and largely militarized" in this specific time and place? [edit] In a way, I would argue that the police are entrusted with using violence - in the right time and place - and are rarely held accountable for failing to do so. It's not the police' use of violence people are protesting in general (after all this is the monopoly they have been granted), but rather their lack of accountability for failing to do their jobs in the instances that they do.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  What’s with the wall of text? Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > What’s with the wall of text? Because, if you'd read it, it's much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. I felt an exploration might be interesting. You clearly disagree. > Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it. Yes, it is. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. I doubt even a pacifist monk would disagree. Where things get more interesting is what if an oppressive system comes at you, and isn't interested in your feedback or reforms?
    - bra-ket 6y ago
      > If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. Exactly. Only there is no 'oppressive system', but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon who's about to attack.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        So there's a few things here. > Only there is no 'oppressive system'. I think this is open to debate, and it's not fair to simply state it as fact given the evidence. > ... but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon and who's about to attack. Indeed, but that's also overly simplistic. A violent response is justified but isn't necessarily preferred, and degree matters. Proper training in de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, safety equipment, non-lethal, less-lethal and eventually if necessary lethal weapons are all available to officers. How you pick is a systemic question. How much training and what kind is a systemic question. And the results are measurable. Indeed Canada's per capita police shooting rate is 1/10th that of the US -- and Canada's pretty high as far as rich countries go! New Zealand police killed 2 or 3 people since 2015. It's overwhelmingly not a kill-or-be-killed situation, and further, the job of an officer is not to eliminate 100% of harm potential for themselves at all costs -- but instead to resolve the situation with the optimal outcome for all involved. The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded. I maintain the issue is one of accountability, between police not being held accountable for gross negligence, the unequivocal support from the police unions and of course, qualified immunity. I suspect people just want to feel like they're being treated fairly. If you don't hold anyone accountable it creates a negative feedback loop breaking trust and making the job more dangerous for everyone.
wavefunction 6y ago
Seems like a very low threshold of expectation for individuals entrusted with weapons, professional immunity and relatively safe jobs compared to garbage men and loggers and etc.
o-__-o 6y ago
I have an imposter! But friendly reminder that police are not your friends and you should not talk to the police unless it is absolutely necessary and even then stay tight lipped. Figure I’ll add a story about being black and driving a nice car. One day I had a flat tire and pulled into a gas station after hours to change the tire. I didn’t have a lug wrench and the kid working in the store didn’t have one either. So I called triple A. With an obvious , and I mean my rim was sitting on the ground, flat tire. Mr big bad cop comes up and questions me about why I’m here. I explain the AAA situation. He asks for my license, I ask why, because there were robberies here and I’m a suspect because I’m parked here. I make a dramatic turn to the flat tire on my car. And ask him where I’m going to drive off to. He puts his hand on his holster and asks if there is a problem. This is what happens more often than we realize and is the reason why my cars are no longer registered to me from a personal capacity, and why I have a dark tint on my windows. But more importantly it’s why people of color have an unfounded anxiety from simply driving a car. It’s a sad state of affairs but I am blessed that I can look back and laugh at the absurdity of the situation. After he took my license guess who showed up? He quickly got out of his cruiser, walked over, gave me my license and peeled out. I said “you’re not even going to say good bye?” as he was waking away. The AAA driver, also a white man, had some choice words for the police and we bonded on that during the ride back to my house.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  So the white guy also had bad encounters with the police? Maybe they're just dicks to everyone?
  - o-__-o 6y ago
    Maybe! But intimidating me because you want to run my license is a shitty move regardless of race.
- jonfromsf 6y ago
  Hey sorry to derail from the larger point but I am super curious. Can you explain the registration thing to me? How does it help to be driving a car registered to someone else? I feel like that would make a cop more suspicious / be harder to explain.
triceratops 6y ago
"Mostly" isn't good enough if you're talking about police. To paraphrase Chris Rock, some jobs just can't have any bad apples. They're too sensitive.

RestlessMind 6y ago

"No. The majority of police are mostly peaceful. Violence at BLM protests is real." See how we can continue talking past each other?