Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.
Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.
If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
Sandydragon wrote:
Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.
If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
This is true. They are protests, not riots.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
Stom wrote:
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
This is true. They are protests, not riots.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.
Incidentally, I've just read that a number of police officers where shot during protests. Whilst the violence is being toned down, events such as these shootings does nothing to advance the cause of addressing racism in policing.
If you want change you need to get the majority nodding in agreement. Shooting police officers does not help you get there.
Stom wrote:
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
This is true. They are protests, not riots.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.
I guess that’s good to know.
On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.
Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.
They are not all racist, in fact I suspect that the number who act unprofessionally is a significant minority.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.
I guess that’s good to know.
On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?
So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.
I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.
Sandydragon wrote:
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.
Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.
Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.
Sandydragon wrote:
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.
I guess that’s good to know.
On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?
So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.
I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.
I think a lot of the violence was provoked. A peaceful protest tear-gassed and baton-charged will lead people to strike out and, once the mob violence fuse has been lit, it will spill over everywhere. I haven't found any evidence that people were going out at the beginning to burn shit down, but lots of evidence of police overreacting and escalating on peaceful protestors.
I'm not saying everyone is innocent and no-one on the protester's side had any bad intentions, but the riots have very rarely come from nothing.
I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.
Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.
Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.
Puja
Do we know that they haven't been? Google 'Racist US Cops Sacked', plenty of example of where they have been sacked for racist behaviour.
You can't just sack someone for the hell of it, there needs ot be evidence so its also possible that in some cases there hasnt been the evidence to sack them.
Of course in some cases maybe the line management is racist. In which case those who appoint the line management need to be examined and a greater interest in local politics might help, as per Obama's article.
Stom wrote:
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
This is true. They are protests, not riots.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
It's also given us the police clearly pointing guns at entirely peaceful protesters to move them along in Washington curtailing the 1st amendment rights of those people so Trump could have a photo op with a bible. Trump was followed on his walk to the church by the Secretary of Defence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military who was in fatigues - which by any measure is the vast over reaction of an autocrat in seemingly seeking a military intervention to a breakdown of public trust because the police keep killing unarmed people, even people they've taken into custody and are responsible for.
If there's nothing to be built on Trump eviscerating the constitutional rights of American citizens, black and white, then it's certainly much harder to seek progress, though I still don't see an enticing alternative to peaceful protest. I would be happy to agree there are many fine police officers, and I certainly don't go with the Michael Moore line that if there are any bad cops it's failed system and they're all bad cops, but the balance of bad cops seems uncomfortably high. Not all bad police officers are as responsible as some others, many shouldn't have ever been judged qualified to begin with , and the training regimes, culture and accountability are borderline insane, and probably the wrong side of the border. For sure trying to hold to the line it's just a few bad apples looks barking.
Mikey Brown wrote:
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.
I guess that’s good to know.
On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?
So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.
I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.
I think a lot of the violence was provoked. A peaceful protest tear-gassed and baton-charged will lead people to strike out and, once the mob violence fuse has been lit, it will spill over everywhere. I haven't found any evidence that people were going out at the beginning to burn shit down, but lots of evidence of police overreacting and escalating on peaceful protestors.
I'm not saying everyone is innocent and no-one on the protester's side had any bad intentions, but the riots have very rarely come from nothing.
Puja
And there is absolutely evidence of US police overreacting to peaceful protest. But in those first few nights it certainly didn't appear that way, the heavy handed tactics have come later. The police couldn't even defend their own station which suggests they were struggling to contain the violence.
And yes they are often provided when there is significant anger. Not everyone on a protest march heads out to make a peaceful protest - sorry that's another fact. It could be one or 2 people throwing a brick out of frustration that escalates or someone could look to take advantage of the anger. Either is possible.
There have been some nice moments in this. The protesters who closed ranks around a police officer who'd been separated from his unit to ensure no harm came to him was a touching moment, humanity isn't necessarily doomed even if it looks like we're not going to trouble the dinosaurs for the longest stay on earth
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
It's also given us the police clearly pointing guns at entirely peaceful protesters to move them along in Washington curtailing the 1st amendment rights of those people so Trump could have a photo op with a bible. Trump was followed on his walk to the church by the Secretary of Defence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military who was in fatigues - which by any measure is the vast over reaction of an autocrat in seemingly seeking a military intervention to a breakdown of public trust because the police keep killing unarmed people, even people they've taken into custody and are responsible for.
If there's nothing to be built on Trump eviscerating the constitutional rights of American citizens, black and white, then it's certainly much harder to seek progress, though I still don't see an enticing alternative to peaceful protest. I would be happy to agree there are many fine police officers, and I certainly don't go with the Michael Moore line that if there are any bad cops it's failed system and they're all bad cops, but the balance of bad cops seems uncomfortably high. Not all bad police officers are as responsible as some others, many shouldn't have ever been judged qualified to begin with , and the training regimes, culture and accountability are borderline insane, and probably the wrong side of the border. For sure trying to hold to the line it's just a few bad apples looks barking.
Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?
Sandydragon wrote:
Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.
Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.
Puja
Do we know that they haven't been? Google 'Racist US Cops Sacked', plenty of example of where they have been sacked for racist behaviour.
You can't just sack someone for the hell of it, there needs ot be evidence so its also possible that in some cases there hasnt been the evidence to sack them.
Of course in some cases maybe the line management is racist. In which case those who appoint the line management need to be examined and a greater interest in local politics might help, as per Obama's article.
I have just googled that and 90% of the examples have come from them saying something on social media. There doesn't appear to be examples for cops who routinely stop black youths, who pull over black men for driving nice cars, who handcuff black men for walking round their own neighbourhood. There's not a widespread "Dude, not cool" culture in the US police and people appear to be allowed to be racist as long as they're not publically so where the "PC-brigade" can see them.
Even if not a majority of officers are overtly racist, a majority are happy to go along. It's an organisation that routinely behaves in racist ways - black arrest rates, black prevalance in stop-and-search, the countless stories of black men doing something innocent and getting Jonny Law down his neck because he looked suspicious. These things would not happen, certainly not with such prevalance, in an organisation dedicated not to being racist.
Sandydragon wrote:
Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?
Whether the majority are racist might depend on the benchmark for racism. But it's clearly a massive issue, and far too large to ignore.
I suspect they have a similar problem to us in that many officers just aren't that bright, but it's a tough dangerous job for often quite bad pay so there will be some low quality applying. And Iike many I'm hesitant to condemn those who take an oath to protect knowing they could face significant danger, and the pressures can be extreme, but they need so many reforms it's shocking, an
Sandydragon wrote:Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.
I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.
Sandydragon wrote:
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.
Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.
They are not all racist, in fact I suspect that the number who act unprofessionally is a significant minority.
I didn't say they were all racist PC Plod, I said they work for a racist organisation.
Sandydragon wrote:
Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?
Whether the majority are racist might depend on the benchmark for racism. But it's clearly a massive issue, and far too large to ignore.
I suspect they have a similar problem to us in that many officers just aren't that bright, but it's a tough dangerous job for often quite bad pay so there will be some low quality applying. And Iike many I'm hesitant to condemn those who take an oath to protect knowing they could face significant danger, and the pressures can be extreme, but they need so many reforms it's shocking, an
I suggest there is a wider problem over how the police actually police high crime areas (which tend to be largely inhabited by minorities).It is a dangerous job at times and I can understand (if not condone) why many have itchy trigger fingers (read my previous comment on training and being gung ho).
The problem often seems ot be that any investigation post incident is perceived to take too long and not be transparent. There are occasions when a white police officer will use deadly force on a black suspect and that use of force will be completely legitimate. But because the investigations process looks like a cover up, every case is seen as another flashpoint.
Sandydragon wrote:Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.
I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.
Puja
Thats a wide definition. Some neighbourhoods are high crime high risk areas to patrol. Police officers will make a show of strength in those areas because of the risks. Many of those areas happen to have minority communities. Is it racism to try and do your job and keep you and your colleagues in one piece? There is more to this than a racist mindset, more one of trying to police a battlefield. The solution here is wider than just the police.
If the areas in question were white would you still call it racism? Of course not. Its unreasonable to expect a police officer to act in a high risk area as if they were walking down millionaires row.
I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.
Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.
Sandydragon wrote:
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.
I guess that’s good to know.
On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?
So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.
I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.
No, not at all. I’m saying if it only takes an instance of perceived violence from protestors to sway the majority of public opinion then they’ve lost the battle already whether they act peacefully or not. We already know there are instances of setups, frauds, police instigating violence etc. Whatever you want to call it.
I totally understand the frustration with the way the protests are turning violent, I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I’m finding it really weird how easily the issues at the root of all this are seemingly being matched, in the eyes of many, by the violent acts in the protests. Despite a) we’re not really sure who is doing most of it b) we’ve seen countless more incidences of police brutality since this started c) this is generations of horrific treatment vs a few days of protesting and “riots”.
I get the urge for some to play devil’s advocate, but it’s pretty notable the issues that certain people choose to focus on out of all the things that are happening.
Stom wrote:
But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.
It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.
I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.
Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.
This is true. They are protests, not riots.
I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.
Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.
In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.
But, again, that is kinda the point... the more the media focus on limited violence, the more you get up in arms about violence... when in reality it’s a tiny, tiny minority. And some of them may even be setups.
Repeating the violence lines just plays into the hands of the racists.
Sandydragon wrote:Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.
I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.
I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.
Puja
Thats a wide definition. Some neighbourhoods are high crime high risk areas to patrol. Police officers will make a show of strength in those areas because of the risks. Many of those areas happen to have minority communities. Is it racism to try and do your job and keep you and your colleagues in one piece? There is more to this than a racist mindset, more one of trying to police a battlefield. The solution here is wider than just the police.
If the areas in question were white would you still call it racism? Of course not. Its unreasonable to expect a police officer to act in a high risk area as if they were walking down millionaires row.
Other points I would take as evidence of racism
The police are badly let down in this by social housing policies, by access to quality food and education, by access to community services, sports and arts. And the police are badly let down by the justice system, such as it is.
Although it's not just the US who refuse to spend less money in advance to avoid having a problem than a fortune on having and failing to deal with a problem
