I see an umbrella put way over the fence. I see a policeman grab an umbrella that was way over fence. I see then someone else reach across the fence in response to the police grabbing the umbrella. I see the police then react to that person reaching across the fence.
I don't see blame. I just see tinder, a spark, and an escalation.
I'm fully 100% for "Black Lives Matter" and 100% against police brutality and the militarization of the police. But that video is too ambiguous convince all people. It's the same with the CNN reporter. People who want to see racism see a black reporter get arrested. People who don't want to see racism see 3 people getting arrested, one black, one white, one latino? Yes, racism exists but that video is also not proof of it.
First of all, it's two videos. Watch the aerial view in the immediate reply. (If you didn't see it, you can find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the...)
> I see a policeman grab
You see an attempted robbery resulting in the destruction of someone's private property.
> I see then someone else reach
You see a person trying to hold onto their property as they're pulled over the fence because a cop just assaulted them.
> I see the police then react
You see the police immediately start spraying and bombing and gassing, with the flimsiest excuse, an entire crowd of people who are literally just chanting.
This coordinated initiation of violence is extremely typical from the police playbook. Watch this third video from 26:30 as the filmer explains the meaning of a "posture" change when the police swap in gasmask brutes in place of the bicycle cops who were standing there before, showing that they planned to escalate from the beginning. https://www.facebook.com/omarisal/videos/10220021035848747/
Along with bringing in the heavy duty officers just moments before this happens, it's obvious that they just wanted an excuse to bring in their weapons
If you're assuming good intentions on the part of that protestor then the umbrella being over the fence and in the face of an officer was just an accident of being too close the fence so that their umbrella ended up in the police officer's face. The result is the same, the protester is crossing the line like the "I'm not touching you" meme. The officer has an umbrella shoved in their face and they react.
https://www.slideshare.net/Matthewthig/4-11-am-im-not-touchi...
From the officer's POV this (https://pasteboard.co/Jbm1UXn.jpg) is a protester trying to intentionally block their view or just annoy them.
I know you won't accept that interpretation as remotely valid because you've already decided there is only one correct way to see it.
I'm not placing blame and I'm not defending the police. I'm just pointing out your interpretation of what happened is just that, an interpretation. There is at least one other perfectly valid interpretation.
https://twitter.com/EDDIFUL/status/1267338642617364481?s=20
1) The simple police brutality
2) Kid grabs policeman, policeman reacts
You can see the kid reach for the officer. The officer reacted. Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea. The officer is trying to pass. The kid effectively corners him into a wall, intentionally or not, and then reaches toward the officer. Maybe it was supposed to be a friendly tap on the upper arm but in the middle of such a situation it's not hard to believe whatever the kid reached for felt like a threat to the officer.
Again I'm not trying to defend the police but if you want people to come together, if you want that 1/2 of the nation that's on the wrong side to support your cause, then you need less ambiguous examples. Otherwise it's just easy to dismiss it.
Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality in that video.
You're doing a great job of it anyway trying to justify marching in brutes covered head to toe in armor all prepared for a gas attack and then mysteriously "reacting" to an _umbrella_ a minute later by bombing a crowd of people standing around chanting.
You're doing some heavy concern trolling here. I see you.
> The kid effectively corners him into a wall
If I push between you and the wall, you have not cornered me into the wall. The person who pushes in is responsible for being there.
> Whether it was actually a threat I have no idea
Kid has a phone in one hand and sunglasses in the other. If you have no idea then you're intentionally not paying attention.
> Other than taking the kid down there is no visible brutality
Other than the visible brutality, there is no visible brutality. Well, by _that_ definition...
There is no brutality in that video. The officers wraps his arm around the kid and pulls him to the ground slowly and safely. There is no evidence in that video the kid got a single scratch or bruise. If there is evidence of actual violence it's not in that video.
There are videos of actual violence.
https://twitter.com/vantaepedia/status/1266055700515520512
no need to use the ambiguous videos that don't actually help change minds but only preach to the choir.
Black Lives Matter!
Putting someone into a headlock and dragging them around by their neck when that person had not initiated violence is brutality. And that person clearly did not initiate violence.
> The officers wraps his arm around the kid
Sure, a gentle loving caress around the neck, and then a gentle loving pull by the neck, and then gently and lovingly putting him to the ground by the neck.
> There are videos of actual violence.
Both are videos of actual violence. Thank you for sharing that one.
There is no intent to hurt, damage, or kill that kid and there is no evidence in the video of the cop on a bicycle taking down the kid that the kid was remotely hurt. Unlike other videos. So no, it is not actual violence.
And, no I'm not getting hung up on the word "intent". I'm pointing out if there is no actual hurt or damage then it's not violence.
As for the kids intent or the officer's perceived intent we'll never know unless the officer has a body cam and even if we did different people will likely see it differently just like the umbrella above. You see an innocent girl with an umbrella. Others see a girl intentionally putting her umbrella in the face of an officer and blocking his view effectively obstructing an officer. When he takes the umbrella clearly in his face people react and things escalate.
In any case you, and all the other downvoters, seemed to miss the entire point of my comments.
The point is there are multiple ways to see those videos. You claiming there is only one is about as relevant as telling someone their feelings are wrong. You can't tell someone else how they feel and you can't tell someone else what they see in those videos. If you showed those videos to 100 people and found that 50% (or even 20%) saw something different your rage that they didn't see the exact same thing you saw would not help you convince them they're wrong. If instead you understand those videos are actually not strong proof of your case you'd drop them for videos that are and therefore make your case better and help bring about the change you (and me) want to see.
