zlacker

>>oftenw+(OP)
Folks - don't be obtuse. Police commanders know exactly what will happen when they escalate with tear gas and rubber bullets.

Pro-police forces WANT mayhem. It makes people watching on TV afraid of the protests, and it changes the subject away from the widespread peaceful opposition to racist police violence.

>>just_s+k8
Minneapolis Chief of Police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medaria_Arradondo

Seattle Chief of Police: http://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the-department/...

St Louis Chief of Police: http://www.slmpd.org/chief_of_police.shtml

Atlanta Chief of Police: https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/atlanta_police_chief_erika_s...

Chicago Chief of Police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_(police_officer)

Oakland Chief of Police: https://climaterwc.com/2019/07/17/san-mateo-police-chief-sus...

People on HN seem to have a cartoon villain view of police, so I thought I'd share a few faces of police leadership in effected communities.

>>nostro+C9
It's crocodile tears. Police chiefs knew all along about the deplorable amount of racism and casual violence on their forces, they just chose to ignore them. Now the political winds are shifting and they have to go along to keep their jobs.

>>HarryH+6a
Change does not require looting and beatings does it? Wouldn't looting and beatings simply give the police more power, and be counter productive against making police more accountable?

Looters and those who bash people's skulls in are opportunists who don't care about change. The ones that want change see their opportunity slipping away.

>>briefc+gb
Yeah that's what people said for twenty years. So people wrote letters and went to court and the media. Turns out that didn't work.

Actually, have you seen Daniel Shaver's killing? No riot. Outcome: that policeman collects a pension and rests easy at home. So it is established your technique doesn't work.

When the good things don't work, eventually you get the bad things. That's not even through people changing. It's through the people changing. I remember reading in the WSJ or the NYT about one particular time in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's recent history when there was a bit of tension between their young firebrand wing and their older mellower leaders (though both were still religious). At the time, the older leader was in hiding (on account of the military looking for him) and there was a bit of violence so he came out to appeal for peace and was promptly arrested. This had the predictable effect of weakening the mellow side and turning the organization more radical (or so the article predicted).

So you don't have to turn people into rioters, you can just destroy the credibility of everyone calling for peaceful resolutions by dismissing them out of hand repeatedly. Eventually no one will listen to them. And then the only people with power in those groups are the firebrands. A complete own-goal if you're looking for peace.