4 ms·

The second precinct was not burning, and was never in any danger of burning. It is located on the opposite side of the city from where protests were occurring,

by gsk22 5y ago

The second precinct was not burning, and was never in any danger of burning. It is located on the opposite side of the city from where protests were occurring, in neighborhoods that had seen minimal effects from demonstrations. If rioters had been advancing on the building, then surely their actions would be justified. But there was never any danger to property or persons at the second precinct.

kodah 5y ago
The article GP posted said there was five miles of distance between the two precincts. Five miles really isn't very far, so I can see why that would be concerning. Destroying stuff that has to be disposed of properly takes time (the link I provided above mandates how certain PII is destroyed - generally it's a specific type of shredder) while also allowing time for the people doing the disposal to retreat. I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Five miles is close in situations where indirect artillery is a factor, but it is a very long distance in a big city.
  - kodah 5y ago
    The average adult walks 3-4 miles per hour. In just over an hour they would be there.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Let’s be honest, “we had to destroy evidence because a riot was happening an hours walk away” is obvious nonsense. There’s genuinely no reason to treat that as anything other than undiluted bullshit. There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.
      - kodah 5y ago
        I don't think that's a "transparent lie", but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        If you don’t think it’s a lie, provide evidence that the precinct was under threat. “Someone could walk there in an hour” isn’t sufficient. > but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.
        kodah 5y ago
        There's no evidence for either of these conclusions. Just people debating what "a very long distance" is. Sure, spare your attitude in the future as well.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No evidence of danger backs my assertion, that they’re lying about why they destroyed the data. They’re claiming they destroyed it due to fears of the precinct falling; if they can’t back that assertion, then we know they’re lying. That leaves the question about why they’re lying, which is where losing the benefit of the doubt matters.
        kodah 5y ago
        I think you misunderstood what I'm saying: - there's no direct evidence that says the precinct was in danger, but it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity. - there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that. In Afghanistan I was part of three base attacks. All three were a surprise and two quickly overwhelmed our defense forces on the perimeter and they breached the base. One was in Musa Qalah, the other is one that made headlines in Camp Leatherneck. The chance to act is a very slim window and that's something you're reminded of continually. So yeah, I don't see it as totally unreasonable but I can see the other side of this argument as well.
    - thisisusa1 5y ago
      This is America, whilst technically possible, the average american adult has unlikely walked or even considered walking this distance in their adult life to date. On PBS food desert (comical from outside perspective) documentary the average interviewed person considered five miles / twenty minutes on a bus too far.
      - kodah 5y ago
        https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/ https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-... > Buildings along a 5-mile stretch of Lake Street in Minneapolis and a 3.5-mile stretch of University Avenue in St. Paul's Midway area experienced some of the heaviest damage. You might be able to say that various people did all the damage, but to my knowledge a smaller group of folks were responsible for the larger damage done.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        I'd highly recommend you double check the position of the 2nd precinct station on that map, it's in an area that's very lightly damaged. By my count there are only five instances of property damage closer than one mile to the station, and the nearest is 0.4 miles away. The closest serious damage, a destroyed building, is 2.7 miles away and on the other side of the river. Not exactly the map of a station in dire straits worried about getting overrun.
      - technick 5y ago
        I can't tell if this is satire or not because I haven't met one of these Americans in 41 years.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        I’m not sure if it’s satirical or not either, to be honest. Plenty of Americans can walk a few miles. Besides, it’s not like rioting is something that doesn’t take significant cardio vascular fortitude in its own right. Something tells me that individually lots of those rioters were more than capable of walking five miles over level, paved terrain. The real question is not whether or not a rioter could walk from there to here, but whether the riot will come here without being stopped or dissipating into smaller and easier to stop groups. If the riot disperses and 5% shows up at the other precinct, that’s a pretty easy thing for the cops to deal with; and if it isn’t I have questions about what all the public safety money is being spent for. And that's of course before we look at the terrain. The 2nd and 3rd precinct are on opposite sides of the river. That means that even if you were certain that the riot was coming for the 2nd precinct next, you have a very small number of bridges that you could defend to stop the riot. In fact, cops regularly prefer bridges to kettle and mass arrest both riots and protests, and that would have been the perfect opportunity had it happened.
- gsk22 5y ago
  I am speaking as someone who lives in Minneapolis, near the second precinct. I assure you nothing dangerous was happening anywhere near the second precinct building (which they had fortified heavily with multiple concrete walls, barbed wire, etc). If you don't trust my word - you can go look up a map of damage from the riots yourself.

by gsk22 5y ago

kodah 5y ago

The article GP posted said there was five miles of distance between the two precincts. Five miles really isn't very far, so I can see why that would be concerning. Destroying stuff that has to be disposed of properly takes time (the link I provided above mandates how certain PII is destroyed - generally it's a specific type of shredder) while also allowing time for the people doing the disposal to retreat. I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Five miles is close in situations where indirect artillery is a factor, but it is a very long distance in a big city.
- kodah 5y ago
  The average adult walks 3-4 miles per hour. In just over an hour they would be there.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Let’s be honest, “we had to destroy evidence because a riot was happening an hours walk away” is obvious nonsense. There’s genuinely no reason to treat that as anything other than undiluted bullshit. There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.
    - kodah 5y ago
      I don't think that's a "transparent lie", but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        If you don’t think it’s a lie, provide evidence that the precinct was under threat. “Someone could walk there in an hour” isn’t sufficient. > but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.
        kodah 5y ago
        There's no evidence for either of these conclusions. Just people debating what "a very long distance" is. Sure, spare your attitude in the future as well.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        No evidence of danger backs my assertion, that they’re lying about why they destroyed the data. They’re claiming they destroyed it due to fears of the precinct falling; if they can’t back that assertion, then we know they’re lying. That leaves the question about why they’re lying, which is where losing the benefit of the doubt matters.
        kodah 5y ago
        I think you misunderstood what I'm saying: - there's no direct evidence that says the precinct was in danger, but it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity. - there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that. In Afghanistan I was part of three base attacks. All three were a surprise and two quickly overwhelmed our defense forces on the perimeter and they breached the base. One was in Musa Qalah, the other is one that made headlines in Camp Leatherneck. The chance to act is a very slim window and that's something you're reminded of continually. So yeah, I don't see it as totally unreasonable but I can see the other side of this argument as well.
  - thisisusa1 5y ago
    This is America, whilst technically possible, the average american adult has unlikely walked or even considered walking this distance in their adult life to date. On PBS food desert (comical from outside perspective) documentary the average interviewed person considered five miles / twenty minutes on a bus too far.
    - kodah 5y ago
      https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/ https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-... > Buildings along a 5-mile stretch of Lake Street in Minneapolis and a 3.5-mile stretch of University Avenue in St. Paul's Midway area experienced some of the heaviest damage. You might be able to say that various people did all the damage, but to my knowledge a smaller group of folks were responsible for the larger damage done.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        I'd highly recommend you double check the position of the 2nd precinct station on that map, it's in an area that's very lightly damaged. By my count there are only five instances of property damage closer than one mile to the station, and the nearest is 0.4 miles away. The closest serious damage, a destroyed building, is 2.7 miles away and on the other side of the river. Not exactly the map of a station in dire straits worried about getting overrun.
    - technick 5y ago
      I can't tell if this is satire or not because I haven't met one of these Americans in 41 years.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        I’m not sure if it’s satirical or not either, to be honest. Plenty of Americans can walk a few miles. Besides, it’s not like rioting is something that doesn’t take significant cardio vascular fortitude in its own right. Something tells me that individually lots of those rioters were more than capable of walking five miles over level, paved terrain. The real question is not whether or not a rioter could walk from there to here, but whether the riot will come here without being stopped or dissipating into smaller and easier to stop groups. If the riot disperses and 5% shows up at the other precinct, that’s a pretty easy thing for the cops to deal with; and if it isn’t I have questions about what all the public safety money is being spent for. And that's of course before we look at the terrain. The 2nd and 3rd precinct are on opposite sides of the river. That means that even if you were certain that the riot was coming for the 2nd precinct next, you have a very small number of bridges that you could defend to stop the riot. In fact, cops regularly prefer bridges to kettle and mass arrest both riots and protests, and that would have been the perfect opportunity had it happened.
gsk22 5y ago
I am speaking as someone who lives in Minneapolis, near the second precinct. I assure you nothing dangerous was happening anywhere near the second precinct building (which they had fortified heavily with multiple concrete walls, barbed wire, etc). If you don't trust my word - you can go look up a map of damage from the riots yourself.