5 ms·

I feel like the issue here is not necessarily that the surveillance happened, but it has the appearance of impropriety. I think a possible solution is to have a

I feel like the issue here is not necessarily that the surveillance happened, but it has the appearance of impropriety. I think a possible solution is to have a national law enforcement agency that can step in when local agencies run into issues that involve investigating their own. The number of protests involved here that turned violent is rather large. It would be silly to insist that local police not monitor public channels where protestors are organizing. We don't even get from this report if this was necessarily more work compared to a counterfactual where sit-ins or violent protests were against local schools or other government agencies. I get where people are skeptical, but that's why an outside agency could potentially be useful in doing the same exact work (if not more) while making it more clear there is no impropriety. >On March 6, 2023, it was reported that 23 people who had thrown large rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police, as well having set buildings and equipment on fire, had been charged with domestic terrorism. Only two of them were from Atlanta. One was from France, and one was from Canada. >On January 18, 2023, Georgia State Troopers and other agencies launched another raid. During the raid a trooper was shot in the leg, and a protester, Manuel Terán, known also as "Tortuguita", was shot and killed by police.[24] Police stated that Terán fired on them without warning.[25] Multiple groups, including other protestors, two independent journalists who had previously interviewed Terán, and Terán's family, have questioned whether Terán fired first, pointing to the lack of body camera footage of the shooting and calling for an independent investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City

ethbr1 2y ago
My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties. Nobody does things correctly all the time, so if I read an article that lauds one side and has crickets as to their failings... it's clear the author's intent was spin. In which case, why would I trust what they say? It's statistically unlikely that any one side has a monopoly on righteousness and good ideas. Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 2y ago
  > My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties. Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's no guarantee that any relevant impropriety took place on the part of both parties and even if it exists there is no requirement that it justifies the other's actions. This false balance just serves to blame victims and excuse abusers. Consider: Is it important to note that a robbery victim also received a parking ticket in her past? > Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things. Ok but where is the evidence that both parties did something bad? And that the response of the cops was justified and appropriate? The real problem here is that this is bad policing. They aren't improving public safety, they're harassing their political opponents.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Didn't write anything about justification. Just wrote that typically anyone with power abuses it. And that includes both sides. I've seen too many movements convinced of their own righteousness and neglect keeping their house in order. Or have you never seen a group who tolerates problematic individuals (and keeps silence about them) because they're "one of the group"?
    - mulmen 2y ago
      This still sounds like faulty logic. The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. Sometimes there really is just an innocent victim. Further, there's no reason to believe there are two sides to any issue. Reality is messy. Your test is too simplistic and fails basic validation.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        > The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. It proves a source has an editorial department that is either fine with the piece as written or didn't do due diligence. Rarely is there really just an innocent victim. Reality is messy.
tdb7893 2y ago
They've made this situation hard for themselves because while there is a practical reason to keep track of at least some of these protest activities but they've also shown themselves incapable and untrustworthy in handling their own affairs. Retaliation from police is a real and documented fear (I mean look at harassment of women who accuse a police officer of domestic violence) and incidents like not having any body camera footage is sadly much too common to believe the police can handle these situations in good faith themselves and ensure that first amendment rights are respected. The trust between them and the populace is broken and, at least the cities I've lived it doesn't seem like they are going to repair it any time soon (specifically the police in Chicago were a dumpster fire when I lived there. I knew someone whose dad was on the force who described the Chicago police as simply "bad people").
- mulmen 2y ago
  > there is a practical reason to keep track of at least some of these protest activities What reason is that?
  - tdb7893 2y ago
    Some monitoring of protests is necessary to ensure the safety of protestors and keep track of the potential for violence or other crimes from protestors or opportunists. For example I went to a BLM protest and it was pretty chaotic and there were counter-protestors and some minor vandalism of the local courthouse. Seeing how I was at a BLM protest I'm not a police fan but it was a chaotic situation with the potential to escalate so it so they should have a handle on what's happening and what the dangers are. It's an extreme example but January 6th is a good example of what happens when they misjudge those things. Edit: to be clear in the case of the BLM protest I went to the organizers coordinated with the police so I'm not aware of any particular surveillance for it.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      I agree the police should maintain public safety. I'm not convinced they should be monitoring public discourse or allocating resources based on that monitoring. Atlanta PD even agrees with me on that last point: > Moreover, throughout its intelligence reporting, the department acknowledges that public engagement with online postings does not necessarily correspond with the likely size of an event, suggesting that this monitoring is hardly useful for resource allocation. If event organizers want to request police presence that's fine. But I see no reason police should be expected or even allowed to use surveillance to predict the needs of such an event.
culi 2y ago
Impropriety is taking a protest that has been ongoing for 4 years and seen some of the most egregious abuses of the state's monopoly on violence against protestors and selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative Not to mention there should be holding a much higher standard of "propriety" of those that we arm and give power to. The systemic abuse of power here affects all of us members of this society. Not just these specific protestors
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative If a person is throwing Molotov cocktails and lighting buildings on fire to advance a political cause, that's technically terrorism and should be pursued in the way we pursue domestic terrorism. (Though I'm unclear how one differentes riots from terrorism under this framework.) We can, at the same time, be critical of Atlanta's policing methods. But that isn't both sidesing the problem. They're orthogonal issues. (I have difficulty believing someone torching buildings is seriously invested in police reform.)
  - renegat0x0 2y ago
    If society is not able to rebel, no political action can happen, at least in some parts od the world. Technically this might be terrorism, practucally it is a safeguard
    - marinmania 2y ago
      Political action is able to happen every couple years in Atlanta at the voting booth. Voting is the safeguard. The majority of people in Atlanta consistently vote for people who want to build a police training center. Just because you think your side is just, it does not give you the right to overrule the will of voters. Constitutional rights cannot be trampled on, but otherwise it's counterproductive to give extra care to the losing side of a political fight simply because they trespass and start fires.
      - 2y ago
culi 2y ago
> In April 2024, students at Emory University organized a protest on the university lawn against Cop City and the university's ties to Israel. A statement from protest organizers accused the university of being “complicit in genocide and police militarization” and called for "total institutional divestment from Israeli apartheid and Cop City at all Atlanta colleges and universities." The protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests. Law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets, and tasers during the crackdown. 28 people were arrested, including the university's philosophy department chair. > The arrest warrant for the festival attendees stated that domestic terrorism charges were brought against those based on probable cause, such as having had mud on their feet, and that those with legal aid phone numbers written on their bodies were considered suspicious. According to The Intercept, there is no information contained in the warrants that directly connects any of the defendants to illegal actions. Atlanta police chief Darin Schierbaum refused to comment when confronted by journalists about this allegation. > In May 2023, three activists were arrested and charged with felony intimidation of a police officer and misdemeanor stalking, with penalties up to 20 years in prison, for posting fliers and identifying the officer that shot Manuel Terán. That same month, three more activists were arrested and charged with charity fraud and money laundering for organizing a legal bail fund. Regarding the arrests, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr pledged to “not rest until we have held accountable every person who has funded, organized, or participated in” the protests. Hmmm seems like systemic abuse of power to me
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests Wikipedia cites two sources for this claim. The first doesn't appear to make it [1]. The second cites "a video posted online" by "a person who identified themself as Bella" [2]. This isn't credible evidence. Followed it through because there is obviously a massive difference between Emory calling in the cops because stuff was being destroyed and the cops teargassing a peaceful protest. [1] https://www.wabe.org/pro-palestinian-cop-city-protesters-arrested-on-emory-university-campus/ https://www.wabe.org/pro-palestinian-cop-city-protesters-arr... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/emory-university-protest-arrests https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/emory-univer...
mulmen 2y ago
> I feel like the issue here is not necessarily that the surveillance happened It is the issue. A local PD should not be surveilling innocent people for any reason, especially a political one. This is a clear abuse of power.

ethbr1 2y ago

My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties. Nobody does things correctly all the time, so if I read an article that lauds one side and has crickets as to their failings... it's clear the author's intent was spin. In which case, why would I trust what they say? It's statistically unlikely that any one side has a monopoly on righteousness and good ideas. Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mulmen 2y ago
> My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties. Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's no guarantee that any relevant impropriety took place on the part of both parties and even if it exists there is no requirement that it justifies the other's actions. This false balance just serves to blame victims and excuse abusers. Consider: Is it important to note that a robbery victim also received a parking ticket in her past? > Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things. Ok but where is the evidence that both parties did something bad? And that the response of the cops was justified and appropriate? The real problem here is that this is bad policing. They aren't improving public safety, they're harassing their political opponents.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Didn't write anything about justification. Just wrote that typically anyone with power abuses it. And that includes both sides. I've seen too many movements convinced of their own righteousness and neglect keeping their house in order. Or have you never seen a group who tolerates problematic individuals (and keeps silence about them) because they're "one of the group"?
  - mulmen 2y ago
    This still sounds like faulty logic. The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. Sometimes there really is just an innocent victim. Further, there's no reason to believe there are two sides to any issue. Reality is messy. Your test is too simplistic and fails basic validation.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. It proves a source has an editorial department that is either fine with the piece as written or didn't do due diligence. Rarely is there really just an innocent victim. Reality is messy.

tdb7893 2y ago

They've made this situation hard for themselves because while there is a practical reason to keep track of at least some of these protest activities but they've also shown themselves incapable and untrustworthy in handling their own affairs. Retaliation from police is a real and documented fear (I mean look at harassment of women who accuse a police officer of domestic violence) and incidents like not having any body camera footage is sadly much too common to believe the police can handle these situations in good faith themselves and ensure that first amendment rights are respected. The trust between them and the populace is broken and, at least the cities I've lived it doesn't seem like they are going to repair it any time soon (specifically the police in Chicago were a dumpster fire when I lived there. I knew someone whose dad was on the force who described the Chicago police as simply "bad people").

mulmen 2y ago
> there is a practical reason to keep track of at least some of these protest activities What reason is that?
- tdb7893 2y ago
  Some monitoring of protests is necessary to ensure the safety of protestors and keep track of the potential for violence or other crimes from protestors or opportunists. For example I went to a BLM protest and it was pretty chaotic and there were counter-protestors and some minor vandalism of the local courthouse. Seeing how I was at a BLM protest I'm not a police fan but it was a chaotic situation with the potential to escalate so it so they should have a handle on what's happening and what the dangers are. It's an extreme example but January 6th is a good example of what happens when they misjudge those things. Edit: to be clear in the case of the BLM protest I went to the organizers coordinated with the police so I'm not aware of any particular surveillance for it.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    I agree the police should maintain public safety. I'm not convinced they should be monitoring public discourse or allocating resources based on that monitoring. Atlanta PD even agrees with me on that last point: > Moreover, throughout its intelligence reporting, the department acknowledges that public engagement with online postings does not necessarily correspond with the likely size of an event, suggesting that this monitoring is hardly useful for resource allocation. If event organizers want to request police presence that's fine. But I see no reason police should be expected or even allowed to use surveillance to predict the needs of such an event.

culi 2y ago

Impropriety is taking a protest that has been ongoing for 4 years and seen some of the most egregious abuses of the state's monopoly on violence against protestors and selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative Not to mention there should be holding a much higher standard of "propriety" of those that we arm and give power to. The systemic abuse of power here affects all of us members of this society. Not just these specific protestors

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative If a person is throwing Molotov cocktails and lighting buildings on fire to advance a political cause, that's technically terrorism and should be pursued in the way we pursue domestic terrorism. (Though I'm unclear how one differentes riots from terrorism under this framework.) We can, at the same time, be critical of Atlanta's policing methods. But that isn't both sidesing the problem. They're orthogonal issues. (I have difficulty believing someone torching buildings is seriously invested in police reform.)
- renegat0x0 2y ago
  If society is not able to rebel, no political action can happen, at least in some parts od the world. Technically this might be terrorism, practucally it is a safeguard
  - marinmania 2y ago
    Political action is able to happen every couple years in Atlanta at the voting booth. Voting is the safeguard. The majority of people in Atlanta consistently vote for people who want to build a police training center. Just because you think your side is just, it does not give you the right to overrule the will of voters. Constitutional rights cannot be trampled on, but otherwise it's counterproductive to give extra care to the losing side of a political fight simply because they trespass and start fires.
    - 2y ago

culi 2y ago

> In April 2024, students at Emory University organized a protest on the university lawn against Cop City and the university's ties to Israel. A statement from protest organizers accused the university of being “complicit in genocide and police militarization” and called for "total institutional divestment from Israeli apartheid and Cop City at all Atlanta colleges and universities." The protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests. Law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets, and tasers during the crackdown. 28 people were arrested, including the university's philosophy department chair. > The arrest warrant for the festival attendees stated that domestic terrorism charges were brought against those based on probable cause, such as having had mud on their feet, and that those with legal aid phone numbers written on their bodies were considered suspicious. According to The Intercept, there is no information contained in the warrants that directly connects any of the defendants to illegal actions. Atlanta police chief Darin Schierbaum refused to comment when confronted by journalists about this allegation. > In May 2023, three activists were arrested and charged with felony intimidation of a police officer and misdemeanor stalking, with penalties up to 20 years in prison, for posting fliers and identifying the officer that shot Manuel Terán. That same month, three more activists were arrested and charged with charity fraud and money laundering for organizing a legal bail fund. Regarding the arrests, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr pledged to “not rest until we have held accountable every person who has funded, organized, or participated in” the protests. Hmmm seems like systemic abuse of power to me

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests Wikipedia cites two sources for this claim. The first doesn't appear to make it [1]. The second cites "a video posted online" by "a person who identified themself as Bella" [2]. This isn't credible evidence. Followed it through because there is obviously a massive difference between Emory calling in the cops because stuff was being destroyed and the cops teargassing a peaceful protest. [1] https://www.wabe.org/pro-palestinian-cop-city-protesters-arrested-on-emory-university-campus/ https://www.wabe.org/pro-palestinian-cop-city-protesters-arr... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/emory-university-protest-arrests https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/emory-univer...

mulmen 2y ago

> I feel like the issue here is not necessarily that the surveillance happened It is the issue. A local PD should not be surveilling innocent people for any reason, especially a political one. This is a clear abuse of power.