zlacker

>>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.

>>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.

>>jwilbe+ye
In a small suburb of San Diego the protest stopped traffic. Police forced the protesters off and then riots started and two banks were burnt down.

Two weeks ago a San Diego police deputy was released from jail after serving only six months after sexually assaulting (why forced oral sex is not rape I’m not sure) 16 women that had called the police for help. He does not have to register as a sexual offender.

Protesting is legal and a protest without a disturbance is not a protest, so arresting people causing a disturbance while shutting down non-violent disturbances is disappointing.

>>bradly+1A
Stopping traffic risks the lives of people in ambulances so it’s pretty hard to condone that. Make noise, block access to some businesses, etc, but don’t block streets and cause traffic jams that could kill people FFS.

>>kortil+YF
I have never in my life seen an ambulance be stopped by a protest, nor have ever heard of such an incident ever occuring.

>>jascii+7I
There are a lot of people out there who have important things that have to do with their health. Just because someone is not in an ambulance doesn't mean they don't have somewhere important to be. Not everyone with a medical condition rides in an ambulance.

>>dbsmit+hs1
But the vast majority of medical conditions where routing around a protest or road closure would cause serious harm to an individual are probably in ambulances.

>>JamesB+By1
So just roll the dice that you’re not going to hurt anyone by blocking traffic? Who’s responsible if something does go wrong? That’s going to really help the cause.

>>jcims+FC1
We'd still have communism here if people were so obedient and concerned about blocking traffic that millions would not go into the streets for protests in 1989.

>>megous+CP1
Look people can build killdozers and flatten police buildings for all i care. The point is that blocking traffic is an escalation that could literally cost lives, either by denying travel in an emergency or by putting cars and human bodies in conflict.

>>jcims+uf2
We should really have laws against commuting, commuters block traffic way more frequently than protests do..

Work is an escalation that could literally cost lives..

>>jascii+4E2
You're just being obtuse now. It's a shame you don't value ordinary people's lives. It's a very privileged position to be in.

>>dbsmit+8O2
The simple fact is that no people have been killed due to a protest blocking the road. People have been killed by police violence.

Theoretical grandstanding over an unlikely hypothetical scenario to condemn protesters is being obtuse.

>>jascii+N23
Oh really, how do you know this? Given the scale of protests over time, I bet it is likely someone has. And if someone hasn't already, someone eventually will. Saying something has never happened so therefore it won't happen is ridiculous.

This is not theoretical grandstanding, this is recognizing a potential threat.

>>dbsmit+964
You don't think It'd be all over "Fox News" if it did?