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.
> Pro-police forces WANT mayhem ... it changes the subject away from the widespread peaceful opposition to racist police violence.
I don’t think that typical “pro-police forces” want to own the narrative of their cause being racist and violent.
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.
I think they do. Many cops seem to be very racist and very violent. It doesn't seem like they care who knows it. Even when they do care, they might not turn on body-cams which should be a fireable offense and now it finally is in at least one case in Kentucky.
Above, they cherry-picked a few cops that just happen to be the chief of police. It's not that simple.
You don't understand the institutions involved if you highlight these examples. Police, police unions, district attorneys, etc. It's not simple.
Baseless accusation. The protests are mostly in the blue-voting cities, and the GP's list is representative.
[edit]
Here is how it works:
Minneapolis, Chief of Police: nominated (...) by the Mayor of Minneapolis (Betsy Hodges) [1]
Seattle, Chief of Police: [n]ominated by Mayor Jenny Durkan [2]
St Louis, Comissioner of Police: appointed as the 35th Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department on December 28, 2017 by Mayor Lyda Krewson [3]
Atlanta Chief of Police: Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed announced on December 1, 2016, that he had chosen Shields [4]
Chicago Superintended of the Chicago Police Department: The City Council on Wednesday voted 50-0 to appoint former Dallas Police Chief David Brown to lead the Chicago Police Department [5]
Oakland Chief of Police: Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced Monday that she has appointed former San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer as Oakland’s interim police chief [6]
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medaria_Arradondo
[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/carmen-be...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hayden_Jr.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Shields
[5] https://news.wttw.com/2020/04/22/david-brown-confirmed-chica...
[6] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-Mayor-ap...
What could possibly give people that impression?
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu3s6j/poli...
Yes, in the cities where most people in this country live.
Where people are most educated.
Where most minorities live.
But sure, them darn demz, at it again.
> The list of police chiefs & other officials is solid.
The list is solid ignorance of the institutions involved. It focuses on race of one part of police leadership and not police violence and the racist actions of many cops. Highlighting police chief race is a racial argument in the least and may be even a racist argument.
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.
I share your concerns over Qualified Immunity (and other problems). The relevant discussions are here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379910 ("As Qualified Immunity Takes Center Stage, More Delay from SCOTUS")
and here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386260 (a subthread of this discussion)
[edit]
>It focuses on race of one part of police leadership >Highlighting police chief race
Excuse me? Where are you going with this?
I've updated my post with clear, sourced information on how the police leadership got put in their respective roles, to clearly indicate how it works.
The examples are mostly appointment by the (locally elected) major or by the (locally elected) city council.
Citation needed. I think most cops are just normal people trying to earn a living.
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.
A government is supposed to be afraid of the electorate (Jefferson). They’ve lost that fear, and you see that trickle down from legislators all the way to law enforcement.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gu3qq1/cop_just_ca...
How would you describe the sheriff casually tossing the tear gas grenade as anything but cartoonishly evil? How would you describe his co-workers, holding the line, without even looking twice at his behaviour?
That's what I responded to. I'm curious if you truly think the people that I listed want to see their home towns on fire.
When given a choice to protect murderous cops or prevent a fire, they chose to protect the murderous cops. All the cops have to do is go to jail, get a court date, post bail and sit at home. Why can't a cop that murdered someone be that inconvenienced?
All of this does not mean that the reasonable peaceful path is not effective. It just tells us citizens must take part.
It is yet to be determined if looting and violence can result in change. What is most likely is that the government uses this to justify greater oppression.
Many other countries don’t seem to have this problem, why is it unreasonable to ask police to not kill people?
Chicago: 88% of police live in city
St Louis: 59%
Atlanta: 14%
Minneapolis: 10% (white officers: 5%)
Seattle: 12%
Oakland: 9%
Also, certainly in Minneapolis—and likely elsewhere—the police chief doesn't seem to have nearly as much control over rank and file officers as the union head does. This story gives more texture: https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/minneapoli...
This guy: https://youtu.be/b6cJQ1XBH8M who fits the cartoon villain side of things
You don't get the same resources, respect, or pension of the military. If you are let go/fired, you have little chance of finding something comparable close by.
It's not healthy for the psyche to be put into harm's way for an entire career span. There is probably a lot of untreated PTSD going on. It's not surprising that they are very leery of policies that would put them or fellow officers at risk, or be guinea pigs for policies pushed down from above.
People get awkward or remain guarded around police in social settings, so law enforcement tends to fraternize with each other and their families.
None of this makes for an environment that promotes transparency.
I'm not making any judgements for or against any of the events that have transpired. But I have sympathy for everyone involved. I suspect that the police-public dynamic will never be changed without a significant cultural shift in attitudes.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAqt_gHgAxk/?utm_source=ig_embed
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-video-appears-show-...
I would consider macing children to be "cartoonishly evil."
Violence and crime though will allow the government to justify greater oppression.
Claiming "pro-police forces WANT mayhem" paints the situation in a very generalized, unhelpful, us-versus-them light.
There are definitely some pro-police forces that probably want some mayhem, for exactly the reason you state. There's probably others that want mayhem for other reasons. Across the board, however, I'd imagine most pro-police groups of people prefer peaceful protests that don't put officer lives at risk, not to mention all the collateral damage to protestors, buildings, economies, etc. that also could be avoided.
It's entirely possible (and, I'd argue, likely) that pro-police people aren't some homogenous group of schemers. You can be enraged about police brutality, abuse, and misconduct -- and also enraged by violent riots.
How much do officers need to be paid not to shoot journalists in the eyes?
All the meanwhile the police are standing stoically in every single example.
At what point is it appropriate to escalate force against a crowd which is increasingly rowdy and hostile? In every single case, police so far have escalated gradually. First with commands, then coordinated movements, gas, flashbangs, and finally rubber bullets. Regardless of whether the majority of protestors are actually peaceful, in all of these confrontations the police are outnumbered 2-10x. The rioters are turning this into a life or death threat, as unruly mobs are wont to do.
In fact I've seen a decided lack of police brutality. I haven't seen a single case of anyone being beaten. And I also acknowledge that multiple groups have during the day been on camera calming down rioters and protecting the businesses of their communities.
But the narrative that police are being excessive currently is by my multitude of observations totally untrue and it is extremely dangerous for the media to push such an idea, as they have done by repeatedly and consistently claiming that the protests are peaceful while buildings and cars are burning behind them.
Just how long do you think the civil rights movement has been a thing? 50 years of doing things the way the white people demanded - peaceful protests, sit ins, black political leaders. Yup, it helped, it went down, but it never solved the problem, and I see no indication that it would have on a reasonable time scale. And the whole time you've got people STILL saying "no not like that. No you can't kneel at a football game. Shut up and dribble. Shut up and sing."
Nah. The money to pay back damaged shops should come straight out of the police budget for two reasons: 1. Failure to stop police brutality. 2. Failure to deescalate peaceful protests, in fact, for doing the opposite and firing on peaceful protesters and driving them to riot.
Absolutely disgusting the videos coming out of the last three days. A few burnt out targets is a small price to pay for popping the eyes of multiple people, for tear gassing little girls, for running over protesters, for letting go white people firing arrows at protesters. The cops are lucky it didn't get even more violent. They're damn lucky nobody snapped after getting shot by paintballs on their own porch and started firing back.
It works, and we should keep doing it until the lesson is learned.
This is the US; you only get to pick one of those.
Police officers are regularly held up as heroes, and often afforded special privileges in everyday life.
If anything, they are irrationally worshipped.
I'm not saying we get rid of all cops... But I also don't see any reason for them to have an Ironman suit for every officer.
The city has mandated residency requirements for nearly all city employees since the 1950s, but police and some other public workers are exempt, The Philadelphia Tribune reports. Approximately 30 percent of Philadelphia police officers live outside of Philadelphia, according to Acting Commissioner Christine Coulter.
In 2010, the police union won the right for officers who have five or more years of experience to live outside the city limits. Those terms have been in effect since 2012. Firefighters and sheriff’s deputies with five or more years of service were allowed to live outside of the city in 2016.
Lots of people do hard society-critical jobs that take an emotional/physical toll at wages far below that of a typical officer. Only one of those occupations has a serious violence problem.
I can’t even imagine a world where there are protests in the streets asking immunology PhD students who have no pension and make 19K a year with a college degree to stop killing people. And there will never, ever be a parade for those folks.
Stop excusing police. They are paid better than most for the job they do, even if most of that comp is back-loaded.
The only thing that may work is to get everyone to use their voice. Historically, probably only a tiny fraction of the population have used their voice. The vast majority of us need to stop being silent.
"Blacks commit crimes at higher rates than others."
"It's not a police problem, it's a crime problem."
"I don't want to hear this crap when I get home from work."
The inaction of police to reform themselves and elected officials to reform the laws that govern them is incentive to make it much easier for domestic terrorism to thrive.
Let them try...
I only have a vague idea what police officers make. Generally, I avoid begrudging anyone's salary.
I am not in favor of rioting/looting but historically, it has been proven effective in some cases to get changes made.
Consider that the US government deems what we want (no more police brutality) unacceptable, by definition, we need to work outside the system to solve the problem.
It's similar to 2a people I've met that think that somehow the constitution guarantees their right to overthrow the US government if it becomes tyrannical. That's absurd. The US government would never let itself be overthrown. There's no internal system for such a thing.
Especially worth looking at Rep. Joyce Beatty who is a 70 year old black woman who got peppersprayed with the protesters. An elected lawmaker was attacked by the cops. Think about it.
SJPD has been chronically understaffed since at least 2008 when there were large layoffs. The department prefers to hire fewer officers, but work the existing ones longer hours (hence lots of overtime).
There's lots of extremely brutal jobs that are thankless. People who pick your food. Visit central California during summer where people are picking produce in 100+ degree weather for 10 hours day. It's hard back breaking work.
Being a police officer is a well paid job with a pension where most of your day is filling out paperwork.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/6/7501953/nypd-mayor-arrests-unio...
I suspect the impass will be worked around rather than fixed. Quasi-police will take on some law enforcement duties. Technology will intercede in a big way. Our public anonymity is probably already out the door.
I wouldn't be surprised if many looters are tracked and identified even with face masks, even retroactively.
The relevant site guideline is to assume that others are commenting in good faith.
There are two public faces to every department anytime an officer-involved story hits the news.
The police chief is a slick salesperson to put the department in the best light and is accountable to the mayor / city council. The union leader is the slimy salesperson who always paints the suspect/chief/mayor in the worst possible light and who constantly repeats the refrain "the job is hard", "we are only human", "followed standard department procedure", etc. There are a number of notable union leaders who are detestable caricatures of cartoon villains.
Violent Protest: Guy got arrested
It's already achieved more, so I think we're good here. But the truth is that this is out of control of individuals. The system of groups of people responds to the stimulus in predictable ways. This was unavoidable.
Their day-to-day experiences, their relationship to the communities they serve, their physical distance from Downtown, the built environment of their own neighborhoods, the socio-economic make-up of their friends and family -- and on and on and on -- could be practically identical, but we'd count them differently in your list.
They're either murderous or have "lucky" bad aim.
Exceptions apply for swat snipers in hostage situation
Kinda.
In big cities in states with strong union laws, the burden is very high for cause to fire an officer. Even when there is a firing, the officer can appeal and sometimes be reinstated. It opens the department up to liability if they don't wait for the normal "follow the evidence, build the case" flow.
When there are big protests in big cities, the regional police departments actually share officers. I would bet that about half of officers on the riot line in Seattle were actually from surrounding suburbs or from the state police. I don't think Seattle's chief can fire one of those officers; he would have to do an inter-agency thing that I'm sure is pretty complicated.
Also, the chief has to walk a thin line of perverse incentives. He needs the department to be functional and to do that, he can't be seen as making an example of an officer (for "morale" reasons). He also has to consider that police officers will leave a department in droves and the chief ends up with more problems if crime rises due to "bad management" of the department.
Which is the whole point of the protests. If an officer is on a riot line and is murderous but the other officers on the line don't take them out (send them home or prosecute them), then the officers are just selectively enforcing the law (which I realize is a concept in US law enforcement) to the point of being corrupt.
There were 150 riots in the USA between 1965 and 1968, when LBJ was gathering the votes for civil rights.
The Selma march involved police using attack dogs and water cannons are peaceful marchers. It's damned amazing that (perfectly justifiable) violence against police didn't break out. The tools police use now would (and do) make it far more damaging.
I'm not defending sociopaths with badges, but the $200k doesn't sound outlandish to me, especially if the department is on a hiring freeze. It's expensive to hire talent (which is what a trained officer is) in California.
Everything you casually take for granted people had to die for.
Fyi this is an example I often see spoken of, and then when it gets linked to it's actually a man that was charging at protesters with a sword unprovoked.
not a happy cycle
"‘Paw Patrol’ Writers Defend Episode Where German Shepherd Cop Shoots Unarmed Black Lab 17 Times In Back"[1]
[1]: https://entertainment.theonion.com/paw-patrol-writers-defend...
I know several people personally who say this exact phrase, yet they mocked the football players who took a knee during the national anthem at games protesting exactly this issue.
Obviously most sane people would prefer an effective and peaceful protest, but there has yet to be one for this particular issue. So I am hardly surprised it has become this violent, especially with members of the police force and the president antagonizing people further. Also, I would add that any protest of great size naturally has people who try to take advantage of it and turn to anarchy. Shutting down such rioters with force seems to exacerbate the issue, as police force is what is being protest—an understandably difficult predicament.
I also assume bad faith from you so you can add that to your tattling.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Eschew flamebait."
If you consider the rest of this page, you'll notice that most of the commenters support the protests (though of course they are divided, just as people at large are divided) and doing so without breaking the site guidelines. It's actually a surprisingly not bad discussion—at least relative to the extremeness of what's going on right now.
Police swear an oath to uphold the law and it’s ostensibly their job to, when observing illegality, say “hey knock it off.”
Protesters do not swear an oath as a prerequisite to protesting. Protesters frequently do speak out against- and even forcibly prevent- looting and vandalism within their ranks, but if they don’t, it’s not a dereliction of duty in the same way as when cops ignore abuses in their ranks.
There was no looting, no vandalism, no riot, no burnt cars in that area. Nobody was behaving violently. It took ten seconds for a peaceful protest to turn into an assault on the public.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the...
Local news ran this video, cutting the first 20 seconds out, and blamed the crowd on starting violence.
Nelson Mandela was literally a marxist terrorist, yet is often held up as some kind of ideal of non violent protest.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the union (the members and the dues). They are not accountable to or elected by the public (in their role as union leader).
That said, they don't have to be cartoonish villains, but frequently are because their role is to pull heartstrings for police officers, not for the civilian/victim in the narrative.
I actually really like the guidelines of this site. @dang and the other administrators do a good job at keeping the conversation mostly civil and the guidelines are great principles and rules to aim for that end.
Maybe if you assume bad faith of a post (anywhere on social media), it might be time to skip over it or take a break.
I'm listening to the RabbitHole podcast[1] right now which is a pretty interesting analysis by the NYTimes of how social media / online content fuels impactful psycho/social impact on participants. I hope you find it interesting.