4 ms·

If it's protocol to shoot non-violent trespassers with "less-lethal" ammunition, that seems like a big problem. They weren't involved in theft or destruction, a

If it's protocol to shoot non-violent trespassers with "less-lethal" ammunition, that seems like a big problem. They weren't involved in theft or destruction, at least not at the point they were climbing a fence. It's kind of a distraction to turn this into "but it's private property" - that doesn't inherently excuse police action.

willcipriano 5y ago
If there isn't a legal basis for those arrests the headline should read: "Police violently commit extra judicial action against peaceful protestors". If I got a mob of angry people and stood them in front of your place of work and I incited them to rush towards it, when would you like the police to take action?
- codezero 5y ago
  A corporation and a personal home are different, and again, I'm not challenging the police's ability to act, I am challenging the magnitude of response given the context of the situation. If I have a mob outside of my home, I'm going to assume I will be dead and fight to the best of my abilities or run. These people were trespassing on property, not entering into a private home, so still not really addressing the concern I have. For my own opinion: I absolutely value individual private human life over replaceable corporate property. I find it unacceptable that our police force isn't trained to respond peacefully to a nonviolent threat of minimal immediate danger.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    While you were writing your comment I realized the flaw in that argument and changed my point to place of work. This is a better anology because that is exactly what it is. The people doing the manual labor to install a pipeline aren't responsible for environmental policy. Go climb over the fences they had around Congress if you want to find someone to blame. However in that case they won't use less lethal rounds.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - codezero 5y ago
      I don't think trespassing on open property is inherently threatening - I doubt the manual labor employees were at any time in risk or threatened by the protestors, maybe I need to do more homework, but this still isn't holding up. If they forcibly enter a locked building, that's also different than crossing a fence. If they force open a building and sit in the lobby with a sign, that's still different from forcing themselves further into the building, or causing destruction or damage to irreplaceable property (computers/data/private information). All of these things should require a different level of awareness of context and response magnitude by officers. Comparing them does nobody any good unless we're laying out the different levels of force/response we think is reasonable at what level of crime and at what cost to taxpayers or businesses. I don't really want to have that conversation because it's moot if we're starting at cops using "less than lethal" which isn't non-lethal, force against unarmed fence climbers. Just full stop.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

willcipriano 5y ago

If there isn't a legal basis for those arrests the headline should read: "Police violently commit extra judicial action against peaceful protestors". If I got a mob of angry people and stood them in front of your place of work and I incited them to rush towards it, when would you like the police to take action?

codezero 5y ago
A corporation and a personal home are different, and again, I'm not challenging the police's ability to act, I am challenging the magnitude of response given the context of the situation. If I have a mob outside of my home, I'm going to assume I will be dead and fight to the best of my abilities or run. These people were trespassing on property, not entering into a private home, so still not really addressing the concern I have. For my own opinion: I absolutely value individual private human life over replaceable corporate property. I find it unacceptable that our police force isn't trained to respond peacefully to a nonviolent threat of minimal immediate danger.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  While you were writing your comment I realized the flaw in that argument and changed my point to place of work. This is a better anology because that is exactly what it is. The people doing the manual labor to install a pipeline aren't responsible for environmental policy. Go climb over the fences they had around Congress if you want to find someone to blame. However in that case they won't use less lethal rounds.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - codezero 5y ago
    I don't think trespassing on open property is inherently threatening - I doubt the manual labor employees were at any time in risk or threatened by the protestors, maybe I need to do more homework, but this still isn't holding up. If they forcibly enter a locked building, that's also different than crossing a fence. If they force open a building and sit in the lobby with a sign, that's still different from forcing themselves further into the building, or causing destruction or damage to irreplaceable property (computers/data/private information). All of these things should require a different level of awareness of context and response magnitude by officers. Comparing them does nobody any good unless we're laying out the different levels of force/response we think is reasonable at what level of crime and at what cost to taxpayers or businesses. I don't really want to have that conversation because it's moot if we're starting at cops using "less than lethal" which isn't non-lethal, force against unarmed fence climbers. Just full stop.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]