With all that's happening the last few days, please don't generally associate Minnesotans with the violent riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy the innocent. Those images are being overlooked.
What happened is awful. These violent riots, and the violent images aren't reflective of Minnesotans at large. The violence doesn't reflect how genuinely upset people in Minnesota feel about what happened and greater the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be most great.
I have friends and colleagues asking me "what's going on with everyone in Minnesota?" and I have to explain to them that these images aren't representative of the place I call home and my neighbors I call my friends.
There are businesses that didn't do anything wrong which have have been effectively `rm -rf` because of a small group of bad actors. The Target on Lake Street didn't do anything. Banadir Pharmacy didn't do anything. Seward Pharmacy didn't do anything. The pawn shop didn't do anything. The WIC office didn't do anything. The liquor stores didn't do anything. MoneyGram didn't do anything. The tobacco store didn't do anything. Disrupting those businesses and the livelihoods of their employees and owners doesn't prove a point.
But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that.
https://tar1090.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adfd7f
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eigjb/3460872978
And this is the track of the drone over Minneapolis, which seemed to veer off around the time the story came out:
If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.
edit: Interesting, I left this post an hour ago and it was getting upvotes, now it's negative with no negative responses. I wish the down arrow only worked on posts you replied to first.
I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.
Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
That strikes me as a highly unexpected and odd situation to be the catalyst for "OK'ing" use within US.
That's not why people are looting liquor stores and target. Some people are just destroying things, there's always those groups of people in every riot. Sometimes people even travel to the riot just for the chance at destroying things.
However, people have been freaked out about aerial surveillance for decades. It gets the clicks.
Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.
I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.
A police station was burned today.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protests-looting-erupt-...
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-update...
Even with the “100 mile zone”, Minneapolis is more than 200 miles inland.
I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation?
This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area.
Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.
> https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/136371f4-aa38-476f-bd9a-...
On page 12:
"There was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle. It appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here."
Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles.
Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.
As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too.
Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/protesters-take-mi...
> The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
This is a straw man, the Predator is a weapons platform, nothing is being hidden here.
> What happened is awful. It doesn't reflect how genuinely kind people in Minnesota are and how we, collectively feel about what happened and the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be great.
Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long. The police do not act with such impunity against citizens "just in this off case". It needs to be systemic for the reactions to be this strong.
If you haven't experienced this personally, that's great! I will not question your experiences. But please understand that others have not had the same experience. They've had such a bad experience that they're willing to go out in the streets during a pandemic to say "enough is enough". The police have had enough experience to be well prepared with crowd control tools and to use them immediately on peaceful protestors, when they could have de-escalated. People don't burn down a building they consider a symbol of tyranny just because of a single incident; their experience so far has ingrained into them a deep hatred for the police who are meant to protect and serve them.
As others in this thread have said, please try to listen to other perspectives. People experience different realities, and all of them can coexist without having to disprove the other.
Also police helicopters are operated by local/state forces. This is a federal agency which is way out of its jurisdiction.
Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't.
Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
From CBP's standpoint, it makes sense. What other unmanned aircraft could carry the same sensor package, while also being incapable of being armed? There's the Global Hawk, which costs about 10x more than a Reaper.
There's a reason that a civilian agency like NASA owns so many fighter jets (F-15/16s). R&D is expensive and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. (Also worth noting-- NASA also owns some Predator drones)
I don't mind if there's a disruption. But I do mind needlessly inciting chaos for the purpose of creating mayhem. We don't know this person, yet, but as AG Ellison said in his tweet he looks like he's just there to provoke.
That's where the message gets lost.
Let's be honest, the country is voting to become an authoritarian police state. US voters have historically had a flirtatious relationship with strong authoritarian style presidents. Trump just more openly so than others. When you look at voting patterns over the last 40 years, it's pretty clear we've been trending in this direction for quite awhile.
I mean, they could. And firefighting planes could be rerigged to disperse chemical weapons, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them existing.
>Also police helicopters are operated by local/state forces. This is a federal agency which is way out of its jurisdiction.
I'm guessing it's on loan. It's hardly unusual or questionable for the feds to provide assistance to local police during periods of extraordinary crisis. However justified the people of Minneapolis may be in reacting this way to yet another police homicide, what else are the local police supposed to do now except try to restore order using whatever tools are available? Including drones that can provide immediate information about hotspots, crowds, fires, etc.
https://www.startribune.com/these-minneapolis-st-paul-buildi...
This is my home. I visit many of these businesses. I do business with two owners on that list. There are groups of people out here who, yes, are looting to loot and burning to burn.
I understand burning down the precinct though. I'm not upset about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
"[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
ETA:
> Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Who are we to make that call, in either direction?
Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them.
Looting and burning unrelated businesses have no justification whatsoever.
This is not the case and has never been the case. Presidents have different interpretations of executive powers. Trump clearly has an extremely authoritarian take on where the President sits in our government.
This is plainly obvious for everyone to see and a very non-controversial observation.
This is almost the exact same phrase that MLK used, and it makes complete sense. If we use violence (implicit or explicit) to exclude people from "polite" discourse, they will find other ways to communicate.
Edit: this was unnecessarily flippant. Real lives are being horrifically affected and I truly feel for your community.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Local-police-...
But really, there's little difference between a lot of civilian and light military aircraft. The Bell 206 that your local news station probably flies around was developed as a military helicopter.
There was a republican protest over COVID where there was mass theft, looting, and arson?
"The Flag is drenched with our blood, because so many of our ancestors was killed because we have never accepted slavery. We had to live on it, but we never wanted it. So we know the flag is drenched with our blood. So what the young people are saying now - give us a chance to be young men [...] we know this country was built on the black backs of black people across this country and if we don't have it you ain't going to have it either cos we going to tear it up. That's what they saying. And people ought to understand that. I don't see why they don't understand it. All across this country, they know what they've done to us." --Mrs Fannie Lou Hamer
"The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal" --Donald Trump, on white rioters
"...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!" --Donald Trump, on black rioters.
"Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn't really want the TV set. He's saying screw you. It's just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn't want it. He wants to let you know he's there. The question I'm trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word "looter." On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you're accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it's obscene." --James Baldwin 1968
There are people who want to destroy things. See: https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/1266127105621983238?... for a the current manchild of the hour. It often cascades from individuals like these.
He may be the poster boy of the chaos but I assure you, as someone who has been in these streets, he is not alone. Please, come join us and you can see for yourself.
There are countless innocent business owners who were ransacked, who were had their livelihoods changed that would beg to differ with you.
I understand the concept of being loud to be heard. I understand making a statement. I understand burning down the precinct.
What I don't understand is looting independent pharmacies, liquor stores, and restaurants to steal inventory and merchandize and break into safes.
https://www.startribune.com/these-minneapolis-st-paul-buildi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/gsum4h/minority_...
People are rioting because they see this as the only way forward, not because they want a new TV. They may get that TV in the process, but it's not the motivation.
That's a pretty absurd, carefully crafted hypothetical situation that does not apply here.
> .... Yes it does. That's literally why that Target was there. Did you read the link?
Edit: alright, on that point I partially concede. I didn't realize that, and that is disturbing. However - and I just can't believe I still need to keep repeating this - I'm simply not going to go firebomb it because I don't like it. There are plenty of things I really don't like. Do I firebomb them because I don't like them? No, I choose not to firebomb them. Because that's not something responsible citizens do, at least in my worldview.
This is what happens when you dismiss edge cases in systems that are critical. Law isn't some shitty web app that can afford to just go offline.
Are you talking about property damage, or actual violence like police killing unarmed black folks?
ETA:
> I'm simply not going to go firebomb it because I don't like it. There are plenty of things I really don't like. Do I firebomb them because I don't like them? Nope, I choose not to firebomb them. Because that's not something responsible citizens do, at least in my worldview.
I'm very, very glad that you and I have a voice in our communities/countries and don't need to resort to violence to get our message across. I'm not glad that the reason you and I have a voice and the people rioting in MN right now do not, is because we benefit from state violence and they are on the receiving end of it.
I'm not an American but have lived there in the past for many years. It has always baffled me how Americans are willing to blame the left or the right instead of the system as a whole. Maybe because if they did so, they would be undermining the very foundations that their country was built on.
>Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long.
These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators, and are implicitly condoned by a feckless and weak state and local government that would rather give ground (literally) than enforce the rule of law. Saying "enough is enough" means going to the polls, not burning down all of the businesses in your neighborhood that were already on the verge of collapse thanks to the pandemic. That people are making up excuses for this behavior is disturbing to me, and signals that America is farther along the path of Imperial collapse than I previously thought. What end do you think we end up with here by condoning this? Agitators taking over City Hall? Disbanding the police department?
Please don't excuse burning down entire neighborhoods. Thanks.
The second R in reduce, reuse, and recycle. /s
for example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
Who is President is very much matters. You clearly see this in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, where mass incarceration was in vogue, at the direction of the Attorney General (William Barr), who is part of the executive branch, leading the charge.
The cops brought this on themselves. There's nobody to blame here but them.
As for Blackhawks I’ve never seen them used by police forces, those in civilian use are not surplus military helicopters or even the UH-60 but rather it’s civilian version the Sikorsky S-70 which are used by fire departments and search and rescue crews.
It seriously blows my mind anyone does think this is justified or supports it. That is way beyond reason, even from an understandably aggrieved point of view.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
I'm not advocating for violence or destruction, this result right now sucks to the nth degree. But I am advocating that folks start paying attention to kneeling football players and other peaceful protestors instead of telling them to shut the fuck up.
Because you know what else sucks in addition to businesses burning? Folks dying for no other reason than the color of their skin. If you're asleep when it comes to human costs, but awake when it turns economical, take a look deep inside yourself.
If you make peaceful revolution impossible, if you deny justice for too long, this is the result. Don't pretend that society at large "didn't do anything". By doing nothing, we all did a whole lot of something.
It's also easy to forget that the people most harmed by looting are usually members of the (original) victims' own communities.
The police largely function as protectors of personal property and relationships of ownership. I mean, look at the very reason that the cops arrested George Floyd; an alleged fake $20 dollar bill. In a time of pandemic 4 police offers showed up to enforce the ownership of capital.
Those guys who the state dispatched to enforce the value of money then ended up killing a guy. Its quite possible that the people who are rioting and protesting feel pretty damn angry at their treatment under capitalism and don't give a damn ownership of resources right now. They might even feel angry about ownership of resources in general. This is their community, and I suspect it's not yours. They get to decide their relationship to owners of resources, not you.
CBP has used drones with FAA approval within the US since 2006; which does not included any use prior to 2006 which remains classified.
MPLS homeowner here (although I no longer live there).
I hear what you are saying and I am sympathetic to it - especially given my broad experience with all facets of Minnesotans all over the state.
However this violence should reflect on Minnesotans, including my own many years of residence there. We failed to make investments in the built and the social infrastructure - including policing - that would have made it impossible for bad actors like this to carry a badge.
It's very easy to look romantically at the Prairie Home Companion caricature of the Good Lutherans that quietly get the job done - and I wish that it were true. The fact is, we let I-35 drop into the river just like any other bunch of assholes.
How is this not glorifying violence? Replace "precinct" with "school" or "church" , makes it more obvious. .. especially since the precinct was still occupied when it was attacked.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-rap...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/spies-in-t...
But it's not different in the long: we should be aware of mass surveillance, because it can affect freedom of association (chilling), and can advance government abuse.
Citizens should always watch the government, so that we have a chance to rein them in. Its our government, not the other way around.
"There was an armed standoff with police,[5] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. The MOVE members fired at them and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms ensued.[32] Police went through over ten thousand rounds of ammunition before Commissioner Sambor ordered that the compound be bombed.[32] From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[31]) made of FBI-supplied Tovex, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[29]"
Police helicopters are modified civilian aircraft and yet they have been used by the police, through improvised means, to bomb people. The drone over Minneapolis is a MQ-9 reaper, aka "predator B", hunter-killer UAV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
"In 2006, the then–Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General T. Michael Moseley said: "We've moved from using UAVs primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper."[6]
The MQ-9 is a larger, heavier, and more capable aircraft than the earlier General Atomics MQ-1 Predator; it can be controlled by the same ground systems used to control MQ-1s. The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine). The greater power allows the Reaper to carry 15 times more ordnance payload and cruise at about three times the speed of the MQ-1.[6] "
It's almost like it's some sort of systemic problem
People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.
Only a fool would be evaluating the first case to judge whether the whole idea is valid.
I live a few blocks away from the location of the Floyd incident.
Attacking police officers (or really anyone, at all) shouldn't be encouraged, in my opinion. Ever.
Is an eye-for-an-eye the type of justice that's needed? I don't like it.
These are actual quotes:
"Fuck police, shoot the pigs!" "Innocents are gonna die" "This is just the start, you ready? You ready?" "We're going to burn this fucker down" "Kill the white folks! Kill whitey!"
Whatever. I've been labeled racist for not wanting to watch my city burn. Can't we have justice without violence?
From my perspective militarizing the police crossed the line some time ago
This is a scary response. We saw, today, a black CNN reporter arrested by state police on live television. If that’s how an educated, gently-speaking, Constitutionally-protected member of the press is treated, there is a root issue festering. Blaming it on agitators deflects from introspection.
A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years. That civic neglect has consequences. Those consequences are coming home to roost.
"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."
To look at a related question, where do you draw the line between stakeouts and planting GPS devices?
The question should not be some sort of line-drawing based on looking at the narrow capabilities of a particular device or practice change. It needs to be a look at what those capabilities do to the current balance of civilian rights and responsibilities, and whether we wish to live in a world of robotic surveillance and law enforcement.
The tail number in this example below is _AE0B60 and registration is n/a
Here's an example screenshot of what I mean https://imgur.com/a/A1p4N2c
Does anyone what this is, or why they don't have 'normal' registration info on adsb?
Its primary failure in enforcing the rule of law has been its inability to enforce it on police officers.
What we're seeing is the consequence of decades of lawless behavior by police. People have had enough of being terrorized by it.
http://www.milradiocomms.com/search_mil_hexcodes.php?type_of...
>A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years.
I don't understand how people can honestly think this is true. The Police Commissioner is literally the guy from Internal Affairs who filed a lawsuit against the city for not promoting black officers fast enough. The state attorney general is the guy who has proudly photographed himself with an anarchist handbook. All across state and local government in Minnesota you find people who are, allegedly, the kind that are supposed to address the "civic neglect" you assume to exist. What more do you want?
Body cams are meant make the police accountable to the people. Mass surveillance gives power to the government to track and squash dissent.
It's the same reason we demand transparency from governments, and privacy for the people.
I suspect it's not actually the case and there was some amount of calculation of the ex-officer's risk of flight, the likelihood that he would further offend, and the need to get some forensics, autopsy, and preliminary tox screen results.
In other words, if a civilian under the same set of facts would have also been arrested 4 days later, I'm fine with it. One criminal standard for everyone. Union rules don't have any place superseding criminal laws (and I haven't seen anyone presenting credible evidence that they do).
https://www.army.mil/article/180593/last_uh_1_huey_a_42_year...
Of course anyone with a $10 RTLSDR stick can see this info too but ADS-B exchange make it much more accessible.
2) Trump's authoritarian interpretation of these powers is pretty obvious and not really controversial. I think this is an obvious fact that requires little explanation.
Would would you only try to stop somebody who is stealing from you if they were white? If so that would be quite racist! Trying to stop anybody regardless of their race from stealing from you is not racist.
Regardless, according to the tweet you posted the policy is targeting poor people not people of color. 40% of poor in the US are non-hispanic whites. That means this policy would presumably also be targeting a huge number of white people as well.
SAR, medevac, fire fightings etc. are all roles that the Blackhawk is perfectly suited for and all for which it has dedicated variants.
As for law enforcement use again I don’t see a problem with it, the use of them is mostly restricted to very special cases (FBI/DEA etc) due to cost of both the aircraft itself and the operational costs.
The Mexican federal police is indeed essentially an army at this point since they engage in paramilitary operations against the cartels.
On the other hand Cobras have no use other than to spray a target with their auto cannon or missiles.
So I was really curious what police force in the US or anyone is operating attack helicopters.
At least you'll be paying for the nice, new police building.
Cry more about target losing televisions, if the death of yet another unarmed black man makes you feel nothing at least the looting does.
The UH-1 was developed as a medevac helicopter for the US army.
> Studies have found similar levels of depression and PTSD among drone pilots working behind a bank of computers as among military personnel deployed to the battlefield.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-dron...
Tip: don't use absolutes. Always leave some margin. As long as there is one single person alive or that has ever lived that conflicts with your statement, that will be used as a counter-example and will be nitpicked to death and people will focus on that, instead of the main point.
If you say "most people", that immediately deflects those arguments. I've learned that the hard way.
Is it that they are flying a UAV that was originally designed for military use?
Or is it that they are flying a UAV period?
What if it was a new UAV, designed just for law enforcement? No problems then?
Presumably this UAV has no weapons on it, so I'm unsure what the problem could be unless we just flat oppose former military equipment being used?
It's safer and cheaper to fly a UAV than a manned vehicled - helicopters crash routinely and need multiple crews to keep them on station for extended duration. If it was a decommissioned military UAV that's being repurposed - then the tax payer has been saved a great deal of money as well.
So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?
that is a massive leap in agency that doesn't seem appropriate at all. any cities' "moderates" (??) have extremely limited agency over "the problems in the police force": if the head police officer is elected, that's one, and perhaps city council members who control budgets or other things related to police work.
since you're strongly implying that civic neglect is what caused this issue, what are the civic actions that this city's moderates should have taken in order to have prevented these problems?
I think what you're failing to understand is that your kind of rhetoric is directly adjacent to the standard communist revolutionary rhetoric employed across e.g. South America.
>People are fed up with trying to work inside of a system that barely considers them human.
Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
That’s what the riots are about after all; I don’t think anyone needs it to move quickly, they just need acknowledgement justice is needed and will meaningfully move forward. There was previously no promise of that.
Looking after their own. Should I give them a cookie too and a belly rub?
The protests are not about officer promotions.
People aren't angry because they responded to the call.
Watch this video in case you haven't:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29/george-floyd-kneele...
> How is the US a police state?
There's not a simple yes or no answer to this question. But if you sincerely want to understand where people are coming from when they make the claim, you ought to do some research.
I'll give you a head start. Try googling:
"police spying without warrant"
"stop and frisk"
"police perjury"
"police license plate readers"
"police phone data"
Also, check out organizations like the ACLU, EFF and many others who work very hard to prevent the US becoming a police state.
Yeah, I'm a Marxist. I align with many (not all) ideas about proletarian revolution.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
We've seen how powerful people, the wealthy, politicians, and law enforcement have time and again broken laws and attempted to circumvent them for their own gain or to preserve the established order.
I think there's a strong naivety in liberal perspectives on non-violence. Liberal successes like the civil rights movement were finalized and won by non-violent leaders like MLK, and so he has been championed as a hero who represents the values that won the day. Students in school are taught that "the good guys" follow his approach. MLK is, without a doubt, a social hero to a very high degree. However, there's a HUGE other side to the civil rights movement. The state is incentivized to work with non-violent leaders because the alternative is credible threats of violence. When the bulk of the population thinks violence is never an option, your non violent offering loses its teeth.
You don't need to advocate for violence. But if it happens, focus on the root cause and empathize with why people are driven to this.
Accusing people who are trying to explain the logic of why reasonable citizens will take extreme actions as "communist revolutionary rhetoric" is neither here nor there. What if it is? Does that by itself make it false? Please engage with the facts, and if you can't, refrain from such nonsense. It won't take the discussion anywhere.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
The presence or absence of laws by itself means absolutely nothing. Can you not see how tone deaf you seem when there are all these people trying to express their frustration and you dismiss that with "why the f are you so angry, there are laws that protect you".
any form of government law enforcement personnel or equipment is drawing anger - regardless of form, function, or origin.
These people are poor, and are just afraid of getting killed and oppressed, by the predatory capitalistic and systemically racist American system.
Once burning and looting starts, well it's like fire, or panic buying.
Could you elaborate more? It is possible, I am not getting this.
https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2020/04/30/aerial...
We are talking here about SURVEILLANCE drones.
The armed protesters in Michigan were being jackasses but afaik they didn’t start looting or committing arson (or even hurt anyone for that matter). There is no equivalence here, it’s just as much a bullshit “both sides” argument as the one trump made three years ago.
If you make a given police enforcement mechanism cheaper, it will be used more. What does that do to your average person's sense of privacy/fear/trust? What kind of relationship do we want to have between citizens[2] and its government?
[1] That line is being blurred.
[2] Not subjects
There are smaller aerial drones that could be used, which would capture the same relevant footage, without the potentially miles-wide dragnet. That's my main objection here: innocent people shouldn't have to give up their rights because the government can justify it. A good justice system would do their best get the minimum amount of information necessary, in order to protect the innocent.
Maybe they extended the 100 mile constitution-exempt border zone: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
This is a model which is incapable of carrying armament.
Your racism is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I suppose in those situations, I'd be grateful for some law enforcement presence monitoring the situation and guiding folks on the ground to the most appropriate places needing the most attention.
Fewer problems. Presumably it would be much less capable. The sister comment[1] lays out how dangerous this UAV is, and how powerful. History has shown that the police/military are eager to gain capabilities, and very reluctant to part with them. If use of these very capable military grade drones becomes wide-spread, using them aggressively against live people becomes more probable. And very easy to do — they're already everywhere.
We should also think about how regulated their use should be! These have the capability to just provide 24h surveillance on certain areas, which would erode citizens' privacy greatly.
George Orwell would be proud (not of what we've become but for his predictions being so damn accurate).
I'd guess this is a Gorgon Stare drone.
https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-night...
Same scenario w/ a black guy. how long?
Same scenario w/ 3 Cops and a white guy?
Same scenario w/ 3 cops and a black guy?
I'm betting if you could do a study on all these scenarios of 'time to act/prosecute'... you'd find some major biases.
Would they need to do an autopsy or tox screen when there's video evidence from multiple viewpoints and the entire nation has seen the evidence and cops from other cities are calling for arrests? SEriously, this is clear cut. There is no ifs/buts.
3rd degree murder is also a joke, this is 1st degree, you don't kneel on someone's neck while paramedics and a doctor plead w/ you to stop because you're killing him without wanting to kill him, and not w/ someone you've known for 17 years.
The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store that is poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground. Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty. And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
If you want some facts, here's a list of all of the buildings damaged or destroyed by people "expressing their frustration". Notice that some are government buildings that provide services to the poor, who are obviously more affected by the ongoing pandemic. You can continue defending them, if you like.
>Dissent is the most American value. The country was founded on it.
This statement is thrown around all the time, but it's really an attempt at gaslighting people into thinking that chaos and calamity was what the people who started the American Revolution were fine with. Of course, the opposite is true, and the chaos and calamity of a weak and ineffective English Imperial Regime was what they were rebelling against and the final form of the revolution was an institution of essentially the same style of English Common Law but with distinctly American characteristics.
https://www.startribune.com/these-minneapolis-st-paul-buildi...
But this still shows how broken this is because now you have a drone survilence by some agency but people don't know which one and maybe a violation of responsibilities if it's actually operated by the border protection...
This is a failure of law enforcement, and drone surveillance is a lazy band-aid that they're applying to a situation they themselves have caused.
I certainly don't condone rioting, looting, and setting random buildings on fire. But the police created this situation.
"Needing the most attention"? Bah. The only thing the police should be doing in this situation is standing down, admitting their wrongdoing, and accepting punishment. That will do much more to stop the rioting and start healing the police-citizen divide than anything else they can do. But of course that's not going to happen; police as a whole seem more interested in militarizing and acting above the law.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...
Yes we can. In fact, this is the entire point of the police and criminal justice system - to reduce violence by providing a predictable and civil source of justice. Unfortunately yours has gone rogue, leading to the failed societal conditions you're experiencing.
Let's just assume he was at some recent point trained to restrain in this manner and he can prove it. It is very unlikely he would be convicted since he was following his training and was unaware of the danger. If they were to try to convict him, I would imagine the union would be more than glad to back him up in a lawsuit which he would likely win.
Since he was charged, I'm assuming they've reviewed enough to be confident he was not acting within how he was trained.
-Target's first dtop for deployment of new loss prevention techniques nationwide
-Refused to sell milk (teargas aid) to protesters
Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN.
>White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella?
Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?
do you think the laws are literally broken or figuratively broken then? also there are many laws at many levels of priority. some of them in effect enable you to kill protected classes of people under convenient circumstances
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/29/poli...
There are a lot of provocateurs and I don't think we can align any of their motives with those of the protesters. Many are trying to create a justification for violence against the protesters. Some are just "break shit and get free stuff".
(Edit: see map posted in a sibling comment. See position of Minneapolis on said map)
> So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?
What potential "mission-appropriate" use is a Customs and Border Protection drone performing 300 miles away from the border in a domestic unrest scenario?
Codes that begin with AE are military aircraft, which don't appear in any official (e.g. FAA) database. Enthusiasts have built somewhat ad hoc databases that include many, but not all of the military ICAOs.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11818476/deputies-blunt-force-neck...
This specific situation? Ya, sure, maybe.
What about the rioting, looting, setting buildings on fire, etc. in Berkeley because some students opposed Ben Shapiro giving a talk? How did the police create that situation?
> The only thing the police should be doing in this situation is standing down, admitting their wrongdoing, and accepting punishment.
How exactly are the police being "punished" by my store being looted by people who don't even know why the riot started in the first place, let alone give any damns about someone being murdered by one police officer.
How is people carrying off 6 new televisions, freshly robbed from a local store, going to stop the rioting and "heal" the police-citizen divide?
"Going to the polls" hasn't worked. Allowing the courts to dispense justice has done anything but that. What then? People get frustrated and angry, correctly feel like they have no voice and no options, so they unfortunately resort to violence.
Local businesses being destroyed is a horrible outcome of this, but I can't even make myself feel bad about the police precinct burning. (I do feel very bad for and worry about the safety of firefighters.)
If you want to blame anyone, blame the police for getting us to where we are today.
One significant consequence of that is it’s way easier to ramp up to a larger scale for whatever they might have in mind.
How so? Public spaces have already been ruled over and over to have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the plethora of surveillance cameras sitting in store windows, people's doorbells, streetlight cameras, and more already surveil anyone in any public area.
Is it just these UAV's are more visible so they make you think about it more?
Laws are meaningless when those responsible for enforcing them flaunt and ignore them, and the judiciary lets them off again and again with barely a wrist-slap.
People don't look at what's written in a law book and feel like the system is protecting them. They look at how the system actually acts toward them. And in this case, they're justifiably terrified.
I feel that since drones pose less risk to the lives of their operators, the desire to use them will be greater.
What other interpretation am I to draw? The person I was responded to said Target was intentionally creating new policies to put people of color in jail.
If anything the person I was responding to is the one that needs to take a more plausible explanation of what Target was doing.
>The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store meant to be deliberately poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground.
Stopping thieves is pro-customer. Stores have to mark up the price of the goods they sell to cover the losses from thieves. If less people stole then the price of goods would be less.
I also don't consider a thief to be a customer. Anti-thief is not necessarily anti-customer.
>Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty.
Completely unrelated to the topic of Target and possible racism.
Do you have a look on your door? That is a technology that is defending your wealth. Why not leave your front door wide open and let anybody come in and take anything they want?
I am guessing you dislike other people's wealth but are fine with your own.
>And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
The person I was responding to said "Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them." This seems pretty direct in the accusation that Target is guilty. If he doesn't think the blame is on Target then he would presumably have some level of sympathy for them.
Unfortunately I feel this is the direction most political conversations go as-of late. Talking right past each other.
To claim the other side has an utter refusal to engage is not just unfair, it's a perfect description of exactly the behavior you have just engaged in yourself. It would be more apt to substitute "utter refusal to engage" with "utter refusal to accept my opinion as fact".
I am the GP poster above. I thought I asked some provoking questions about why we have a problem with a former military drone (presumably demilitarized) flying over a city to conduct surveillance during a time of civil unrest.
Instead of thoughtful responses, this question has largely received criticism and claims that I support state violence. I haven't a clue how this is considered reasonable discourse - and it's no wonder the country grows further and further apart politically.
The ongoing militarization of state level police forces without the democratic consent of the governed for a start?
most unmanned drones used today have a far higher history of 'unintended forced landings' than most other military craft -- when you use planes that have a high risk of crash over metropolitan and suburban areas, the human risk multiplies.
The US military has 'lost' about 400 'large' drones between 2001 and 2014.
To put that 400 number into perspective, the US had 5 or 6 major airliner crashes between 2001-2013, and about 400 accidents (including non-crashes and minor incidents) over the period of 2004-2013.
I'd rather have any fighter jet in production right now over me than anything General Atomics had designed.
Here's an older WaPo article from 2016. From 2001-2016 400 military drone crashes occured. Military incidents are harder to find out about, otherwise I would have used that number.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/drone-crash...
>I feel that since drones pose less risk to the lives of their operators, the desire to use them will be greater.
absolutely true -- but don't let that make you think that loss-of-personnel is the most important metric for whether or not a mission flies.
This comment sounds like it's about attack drones. I concede that it's not necessarily about attack drones; a surveillance drone operator might facilitate and witness a lethal attack, and in that sense "cause" the destruction.
Was my parent's home. We were south of Fargo, outside of the city dike. Fargo is very, very flat farmland. Our house was 40' above the river. The top of the city dike was around 43'. We melted down the ice, put down a sheet of plastic, and then built a wall of sandbags. Bonus, it was very cold, so you essentially had to bag and place the sandbag before the sand froze. We put around 10k sacks around the house -- and saved it. Nothing like paddling a canoe to my brothers to resupply fuel for the generators powering the sump-pumps that handled the water that seeps in.
We got very, very lucky. The weather froze the ice a few inches thick and it stopped rising. Had water reached that last bag, Fargo would have been a giant swimming pool.
They're also both airplanes. Neither of them resemble a helicopter in any way.
My racism. Hahah. I love this tactic - no YOU'RE the racist cause uhh, oh, I know, low expectations!
What low expectations? I AGREE that it's great that people are burning down police stations and looting massive capitalist businesses. You're the one coming here with a twisted ethical system that somehow places property over people. And you call me racist, lol.
When the justice system itself has this dysfunction, however, that doesn't quite work.
Just playing devil's advocate - but this is democratically consented to.
Your elected politicians have specifically allowed the sale or transfer of retired military equipment to state and local police forces, for multiple reasons but the least-of-which was cost savings vs. scrapping all the prepaid equipment.
Similar, but admittedly not quite the same, to the sale of demilitarized Humvees, tanks and fighter jets to civilians. Or NASA owning and operating former US Navy F/A-18's, B-52's and more... war machines now repurposed for peaceful training and aeronautical research.
Oh wait, we have nearly 20 years of the endless war that proves that they will.
https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2015/07/l...
We can't allow agencies to borrow equipment and specialists? They should all buy their own, at tax payer's expense?
Would you feel any different if this UAV had been bought by local law enforcement instead of borrowed? If so, why?
I think there's a lot more to it than that. There's also the matter of a lot of war vets becoming police officers, the approach to policing they learned in the military, and their lasting effect on police department culture.
1) The guy was armed and leading a high speed chase
2) I don’t think there is a long, long, documented history of cops murdering the unarmed white guys without any real consequence
Just as a random question, how many people do you think know that these guys (https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-night...) are flying above American cities
They were saying “don’t kill me”. This argument is blatantly racist.
I have a suspicion, being a Senator for 40 years sort of removes you from the concerns of everyday Americans.
These are the same Senators (and Representatives) that vote for these measures. They'll never be the target of these surveillance schemes... and when they are, they throw a huge fit[1] because they're supposedly above all of it. They're the same people who ban guns from the public, but own operate and illegally traffic them themselves[2].
They're the same ones that don't have to be strip searched every time they fly, but I digress...
[1] https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/13/pelosi-alle...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/2...
Are you living in the same country as me? The “governed” love this stuff, and keep voting for the people that do it. Civil liberties has always been something that has to be achieved through anti-democratic means.
I've been saying for ages that these overseas actions are proving grounds for testing malicious tech - for it's eventual deployment against US citizens.
I guess it’s not too surprising that you would want to keep an eye out for rioting.
Missiles would be a whole new level of messed up, though.
Same goes for the policing. The amount of separation between the police and the policed, demographically, politically and so on is hard to defend.
I replied to your original comment, indicating my belief that the issue is substantially more complicated than your framing suggested, and briefly explained a couple reasons why. I have several more, if you honestly have any interest.
Your reply was to claim it is just about your property rights - the only relation to my comment was the response hierarchy. I honestly still don't see how that's not a refusal to engage.
One point:
> claims that I support state violence
Well, what do you call what's going on? (I do also consider intrusive surveillance a form of violence, but understand why some think that's dilutive to the term.)
It is not clear to me that insisting racism is creating a coalition that will change the system.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_...
Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.
Either the video is staged or not.
* if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
* if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
* they either did it of their own free will, or
* there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
* they want to steal things
* they want to break things
* they want to get back at Autozone
* they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
* the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
I think it's reasonable to conclude either:
* this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
* somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
* it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.
( edit: formatting )
edit: sorry, I did miss one:
* he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozoneI have no clue what you are talking about. What sci-fi theme are you talking about?
>All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful.
Again I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not making a conservative point. I am just refuting the claim that Target is racist for arresting thieves.
Also seeing how I am being upvoted and you are being downvoted I am guessing my "conservative thoughts" are relevant to many people.
>Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
And? That has nothing to do with Target which is all we are talking about.
It also doesn't justify destroying other people's property.
If this form surveillance makes it so I don't have to listen to as many helicopters outside my downtown widow, I'm all for it.
Mass surveillance of any kind is unacceptable, especially in a civilian context
> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves > * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent > * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
This is not reasonable at all.
2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.
Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.
And, it has nothing to do with the number of the options, 1 2 or 3. It has to do with the percentages of probabilities of each option.
It could be there's a 90% chance of the first option and a 5% chance of the second and a 5% chance of the third.
What possible situation did I miss in the collection?
https://i.imgur.com/Ijzt56t.jpg https://i.imgur.com/FR0qla3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/KDvP5Du.jpg
I'll have to dig up some of the 'end of days' photos where it almost breached the wall. You had to buy flood insurance early on... which was pricey, but covered a lot of the supplies. It was several thousand dollars for the 2009 construction.
We had 3 '500 year' floods. 1997, 2009, and 2011. The Red river flows north, which is an oddity. Lots of snow, with folks redirecting water caused some new records. Grand Forks was flooded out in one of those years - Fargo almost fell. By the time the third major flood happened - we were ready.
https://i.imgur.com/jhAIMMn.jpg
We set up a series of hesco bags and filled them directly. Worked great, and they came and picked up the bags to be reused in the Bismark flooding. Sand doubled in price each time... and the city really wanted this property on the cheap... so that last run took hours but cost about 20k. (yikes) After that, the city built a permanent dike that protected the property.
There is. Police disproportionately kill black men, but there is ALSO a long history of cops murdering unarmed white men.
Yeah, but it's not a risk to the government. The government is very good at weaseling out of responsibility for killing bystanders with little more than a settlement check. When people acting on behalf of the government get killed then that's when government gets held accountable.
Pervasive cheap surveillance which needn't be attached to a very expensive mobile weapons platform or be limited to just cameras could be a birds eye view of everyone's lives. Good justifiable benefits are obvious. With enough surveillance crime becomes really hard to perpetrate. We can pick out all the drug dealers and make tons of arrests before people adapt. Petty stupid crime like breaking into a car means the eye of Sauron sees you and follows you back to your house. Acts of violence that don't take place inside buildings could prompt an immediate response at least as fast as the cops are capable of dispatching a unit. Acts of violence within a unit could be detected by mikes outside on street corners if we were even more surveillance minded. Perhaps we can train it to detect the sound of a person being beat. I don't like people getting hurt do you? Acts of terrorism or mass violence are even more important to prevent. With enough smarts maybe we can flag people likely to go postal or at least notice what is happening 30 seconds before the shooting starts. 30 seconds before instead of 2 minutes after might make a HUGE difference in body count.
As great as that sounds I'm sure you can think of 100 more dystopian use cases. It doesn't do us much good to treat cars as faster horses and not bothering to consider the implications.
Of course they'll eventually call them "non lethal payloads" :P
The interesting things that could be done when you have a line of sight to these things, a little bit of knowledge of RF modulation and have nothing left to lose…
edited for clarity
What if voter suppression or gerrymandering exists? What if no candidate wants to address police brutality? What if issues are easily forgotten over a multi-year cycle with a complicit media?
Rioting shouldn't be a first choice, but polls don't fix everything.
I want a government that trusts us and respects our rights (e.g., non police state) and that helps to provide for the poor and vulnerable (e.g., healthcare).
I don't see any conflict between these goals. Our medicare providers are not flying drones and kneeling on necks.
I’m also not sure where what you describe exists and how it’s implemented. I am curious to learn if anyone has any sources on such a place: great healthcare, highly involved citizens and low government intervention in daily life. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, I am sincerely wondering about it.
The New York Times States
> By the end of the night, the authorities said they had arrested nine people, some of them accused of carrying banned weapons. But no major violence was reported.
People remember the consequences of sitting idly by during the rise of fascism. The proper response to fascist light is anger. Almost all the people were able to do this without getting arrested let alone setting buildings on fire.
> How exactly are the police being "punished" by my store being looted by people who don't even know why the riot started in the first place, let alone give any damns about someone being murdered by one police officer.
When order breaks down people a minority take advantage. Everyone knows why the riot started in the first place. You are justly angry about bad behavior but how angry were you when black person after black person was murdered? If you don't want order breaking down punish all the guilty especially officers who murder the citizenry.
There is no cause to review how he was trained or how his actions comport with said training except to prevent it from happening again. There is no scenario which allows you to knowingly cause the death of your fellow citizen without just cause. A police officer is "a normal person" the same laws that apply to me apply to thee. If those whose job it is to enforce the law treat another officer differently it is corruption and cowardice. Cowardice is a character flaw not a justification.
“We have made men proud of most vices, but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, God permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which they feel genuine shame. The danger of inducing cowardice in our patients, therefore, is lest we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
It took 8 minuted for him to die 3 minutes of which he was unresponsive while people warned the cop and asked him to stop. The victim informed the murderer of exactly how he was being murdered and asked him to stop. He called out for his mother then stopped speaking at all while he died in silence. The method he was being killed would have been completely obvious to anyone who possessed a pair of lungs or understood how breathing worked.
Nobody gives precisely one hot damn what manner of training he received. It was obvious he was murdering his victim to a human of ordinary capability. The logical conclusion is that he didn't care or wanted to murder him.
Is my list non-exhaustive?
It would include at least:
Police-state policies. Examples: laws against voluntary drug use, policies like stop-and-frisk, our incarceration rate, restrictions on contraception, etc., seem particularly in your face. Historically, the military draft. I'd oppose these.
Basic public-safety policies. Examples: Laws like speed limits, or driving while intoxicated, or some limits on gun ownership (e.g., folks with a history of violence shouldn't have machine guns). These will always annoy some people, but I'd support most of this.
Environmental and business regulations. These really make some folks mad. But I'm strongly in favor of clean air and water, solvent banks, safe working conditions, etc., and think regulations here are really important.
Social policies. Many people were/are violently opposed to school integration, affirmative action, gay marriage, etc. But I think we have a moral imperative to view and treat { blacks, women, gays, jews, ... } as real people, and history has shown that we won't do this on our own.
I certainly can see some cases where there are overlap between these. Example: government needed an army to enforce school integration. But, mostly mostly these are orthogonal, and lumping these into one "big government" bucket just makes it a muddy issue.
I could be wrong.
One would have to ignore a large part of history in addition to events over the last 20 years to make the claim that this was a knee-jerk reaction.
The corporate Empire has been built and it's occupying the lands of 280 million Americans.
It's Rome 2.0 and the Rubicon isn't as clear, but it's already crossed.
---
Minneapolis is in a de-facto state of war, there is no police presence in numerous areas currently, and locals have already setup their own road-blocks and community defense forces.
The Minnesota State Police have been arresting more reporters since CNN and targeting them with tear gas canisters and rubber-bullets at point-blank range. The MSP doesn't respect the Governor, and John Harrington and/or Matt Langer should be disciplined. That is, unless they want a full rebellion.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1266715217398030336
There does seem to be bias in media coverage and therefore society outrage or lack thereof.
i was expecting to see a raised home on the pic, not a better way to fill sandbags. oh well.
> Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[31]) made of FBI-supplied Tovex
And, while police can certainly instigate violence, I find it difficult to believe that someone had to steal a TV from target or loot the apple store (as happened in portland) because the police instigated them to.
If you look at the aerial view, you can spot the neighbors homes that did not make it and the edge of the city dike now in the back yard. Many houses flooded. Heartbreaking when you saw folks trying to have a fire truck flood their failing dike with clean water rather than have the sewage/etc fill the house.
