zlacker

[return to "Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28"]
1. jascii+Wb[view] [source] 2020-06-02 18:48:41
>>laurex+(OP)
Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations.

I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the crowd.

I find it really hard to not come to the conclusion that the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith.

◧◩
2. grecy+5m[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:34:02
>>jascii+Wb
I've seen quite a few videos and read a lot of articles about what's going on, and from my perspective Law Enforcement are scared Sh&^less they will lose control and get completely over-run by the protesters.

Realizing how angry the people are and how massively outnumbered they are they've decided to come out hard with violence in an attempt to squash the protests, which makes sense.

I don't think it would take much for the people to overcome the Law Enforcement with their overwhelming numbers. Once the news gets around that it's happened in one place, that will embolden others to do the same. I just hope it doesn't get wickedly violent if it happens.

◧◩◪
3. mindsl+qW[view] [source] 2020-06-02 22:59:51
>>grecy+5m
Overcome the police to what end, though?

All most of the protestors want to do is protest, ie partake in some of their 1st amendment rights. So the protestors "overrun" the police and then what? Continue to stand in the street chanting?

This feels like straight projection, and focusing on the few people taking advantage of the situation by looting etc. The police could solve that in a heartbeat by deploying small units into the protest crowds and working with the peaceful protestors, but first they'd have to give up on the goal of disrupting legitimate protests.

◧◩◪◨
4. grecy+Q51[view] [source] 2020-06-03 00:11:37
>>mindsl+qW
I don't know.

I'm not saying it's productive or a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it feels like.

People are only going to stand and watch their fellow citizens get shot point blank in the face with tear gas canisters, pepper spray and rubber bullets for so long.

Law Enforcement are denying people their right to demonstrate, and I feel like people are going to fight hard to keep it.

EDIT: I mean, watch this [1]. Those look like Police who are desperately trying to maintain control with the only means they know how - violence.

Do you think everyone will continue to just watch them swing batons like the first few seconds and do nothing?

[1] https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1267968926761312256

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. mindsl+Dl1[view] [source] 2020-06-03 02:39:50
>>grecy+Q51
I usually try to understand all sides of an argument, even if I disagree. But I just don't see what the reasonable police position could be here, apart from the police forces that actually engaged with protestors (ie their employers) about their concerns. The hostile police would seem to insist on asserting baseless anti-American top-down control without reason or responsibility, similar to Trump, which explains the sympatico.

Constructively, maybe if the protestors do "overrun" the cops, then the protestors could setup a new justice system, arrest the criminal conspiracies, and try them under RICO. If there were enough protestors willing to work this justice system, it could even be a good time for cities to say farewell to the incumbent union and hire the new system to keep order instead.

But practically yes I agree things will get ugly if we keep going down this path. But since the police are over the line by aggressing against basic American values, the only peaceful resolution is for them to simply stand down and stop attacking protests. I don't see any other option that wouldn't be bargaining with totalitarianism.

[go to top]