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. jwilbe+ye[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:01:39
>>jascii+Wb
It’s the same here in Seattle as it was while I was in Berkeley during Ferguson.

People protest peacefully, and police shoot tear gas into the crowd and attack whomever they can get their hands on.

I’ll admit, the outright brutality I saw in-person in Oakland was worse than what I’ve seen here in the recent days.

In Oakland, the police would purposely corral protestors into groups and literally beat the shit out of them. I saw this in-person multiple times. In Seattle, I haven’t seen that sort of corral behavior. However, police do shoot tear gas completely unprovoked and fire rubber bullets and mace without concern.

In both places, no looting was occurring at the main scene of the protests. In both cases, numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves.

In any case, it’s all the same: in a country that parades its freedom, people of color can’t protest without the president calling for them to be roughed up, and without the police willingly complying.

◧◩◪
3. Spelin+0o[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:42:33
>>jwilbe+ye
"numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves"

I don't believe you.

The umbrella guy breaking the AutoZone window with a hammer has no connection to any police department. Someone made that up on social media and people shared it because that's what people do.

The only video I know of showing officers breaking a window is out of Seattle. It shows officers responding to a burglary in progress at a Target store. The officers had to chip away at the already broken glass windows so they could safely get in. (The burglars had broken the glass to get inside.) Once inside, the responding officers found and arrested the three burglars they had come for.

◧◩◪◨
4. stonog+ep[view] [source] 2020-06-02 19:47:13
>>Spelin+0o
Here you go. https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/gv2ogk/news_ch...
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. monoid+mx[view] [source] 2020-06-02 20:34:13
>>stonog+ep
That looks very suspicious, but if this were really a widespread technique by the police, I'm assuming there would be more than a single video taken.

I mean, we know the black bloc and similar groups engages in these tactics, they've been doing it since Seattle WTO 1999. I've seen it in person to protests I've been to (as a protester). It's very hard for me to believe that all of a sudden those people are no longer active in protests, and their place has been taken by (insert your politically-convenient group here).

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. vb6sp6+Ny[view] [source] 2020-06-02 20:43:29
>>monoid+mx
"This doesn't happen"

(shows a video of it happening)

"This isn't widespread"

So how many videos do you need to see? 2? 10? 15???

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. lawnch+AP[view] [source] 2020-06-02 22:21:44
>>vb6sp6+Ny
Would you find it acceptable to shoot some footage of a handful of looting/arsonist incidents and proclaiming “protesters are doing X”, just like we are complaining that “police” are doing X?

Or would you correct someone and say that isn’t happening, and when confronted with a video of someone somewhere doing a bad thing, inform them of the fact that a few cherry picked anecdotes do not represent the activity of the broader population?

You don’t have to answer.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. yazadd+n11[view] [source] 2020-06-02 23:39:03
>>lawnch+AP
No one disagrees that in any group only a small number of bad actors are causing this issue.

However, when a civilian acts inappropriately there are legal consequences. When a police office acts inappropriately there are few legal consequences and they are very-very-rarely enforced.

I'll ask the question differently,

"Is destruction of property what you expect from rioters?" Yes, 1% or less of rioters are going to be stupid. "Should they be reprimanded?" Sadly yes, and we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them.

"Is destruction of property what you expect from police?" No, not even from the 1% or less that want to be stupid. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other. "Should they be reprimanded?" Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this.

What are your answers to these questions lawnchair_larry?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. lawnch+661[view] [source] 2020-06-03 00:13:26
>>yazadd+n11
Aha, but the analogy that you made with those questions has a critical error. The correct analogy would be questions that read:

Is destruction of property what you expect from civilians?

Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of civilians are are going to be stupid and riot instead. And that is unacceptable.

Should they be reprimanded?

Absolutely. And we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them.

Is unwarranted destruction of property what you expect from police?

Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of police are going to be stupid and abusive. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other.

Should they be reprimanded?

Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this.

[1] We do not have data for either of these figures, so 1% is being used as a placeholder, and is not meant literally. I suspect that the percentage of criminals in the general population is far bigger than the number of police who destroy property for no reason, but I admit that I have no data for that.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. yazadd+Pc1[view] [source] 2020-06-03 01:08:01
>>lawnch+661
From what I can tell your only change was to add the word “unwarranted” before destruction.

Could you please help us understand your position on “Should abusive officers be reprimanded?”

And if we agree they should be reprimanded, what are your thought on how we build that system?

The system where we the civilians who witness or are victims of the abuse and other “good cops” who witness the abuse, can get legal ways to highlight and reprimand those few abusive police officers[0]?

[0] such that the person/people accusing (with evidence) the abusive police without worrying other police officers will “hold it against” the accuser.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. bigiai+Sr1[view] [source] 2020-06-03 03:52:04
>>yazadd+Pc1
He seems happy to accept that 1% (as a placeholder) of cops are murderers, and there's nothing we can do about that.

(He claimed that in the context of property damage, which hides the actual implications of that carelessness, because it wasn't police property damage that triggered this current unrest...)

I _strongly_ disagree. A cop committing assault or murder, while on the job, is a thing society needs to take great care does not happen. It's abhorrent to me to take a "shit happens" attitude to cop killings.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. lawnch+oC1[view] [source] 2020-06-03 05:30:40
>>bigiai+Sr1
Parent said property damage, not me. So your uncharitable assumptions about my intentions are way off on that point. If you want to reframe the issue from property damage to killing unarmed civilians, take it up with the parent. We were talking about the video of the cop randomly smashing windows.

Not surprisingly, your straw man is just as bad. Nobody said or implied anything remotely close to a “shit happens” attitude. Did you just not read the next sentence or something?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. bigiai+CE1[view] [source] 2020-06-03 05:52:43
>>lawnch+oC1
You said "stupid and abusive". Not the sort of terminology usually used for "property damage".

And yeah, I read (and just reread) your next sentence, and it still reads as a "shit happens" attitude to me.

As I read it, you're saying there's nothing we can possibly do to ensure that rate of "stupid and abusive" cops is any lower than the rate of "stupid and rioting" civilians. (Or the most optimistic reading of it I can see is that you think we can't do any better a job of ensuring a lower rate of stupid and abusive cops than we have now.)

I think we need to do a _way_ better job of screening cop applicants before giving them a badge and gun, and hold them to a way higher standard that is currently the case.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳
14. lawnch+ZQ2[view] [source] 2020-06-03 15:59:09
>>bigiai+CE1
You completely missed the point then and are absolutely wrong about what I said. Have a nice day.
[go to top]