How much clearer can you get that the police are committing property destruction and using it to blame protesters? Like there is no justification for the police doing this outside of using to make their own narrative so that they can bust some heads at the next protest.
That looks very suspicious, but if this were really a widespread technique by the police, I'm assuming there would be more than a single video taken.
I mean, we know the black bloc and similar groups engages in these tactics, they've been doing it since Seattle WTO 1999. I've seen it in person to protests I've been to (as a protester). It's very hard for me to believe that all of a sudden those people are no longer active in protests, and their place has been taken by (insert your politically-convenient group here).
> That looks very suspicious, but if this were really a widespread technique by the police
Giving your comment the benefit of the doubt, that does not address the fact that a while platoon of police officers witnessed a fellow police officer vandalize public property without any reason or justification, and they didn't even flinched or complained or even frowned upon that brand of unprovoked abuse.
That's pretty much one of the central points of the whole protest.
> they didn't even flinched or complained or even frowned upon that brand of unprovoked abuse
I have seen dozens if not over a hundred videos of the police acting inappropriately over the last few days. I have only seen a single video in which any of them were stopped or reprimanded by another cop and that one "good cop" was a woman of color. If this inappropriate behavior is done by such a small percentage of the police force and is frowned on by all the other good cops, why is there so little evidence of police policing themselves?
The video of George that started all this has 4 cops in it. The 3 cops that allowed him to kneel on georg's neck for 7 minutes are not being charged with anything at all. The one female cop even remarks that George should be moved to be on his side, then when she's ignored, doesn't bring it up again. Why should they police each other when nothing happens when they dont
>Have you seen dozens or hundreds of videos of civilians acting inappropriately?
Yes. I have also seen countless videos in which civilians were reprimanded by other citizens for acting inappropriately. They are trying to police themselves. Why can't the police police themselves?
>If a “woman of color” was seen starting a fire, would you be comfortable saying things like “black women start fires”? I sure hope not. Even if you had dozens of examples, it would still be wrong to make such a statement.
I don't know what you are trying to insinuate with this comment. I was not making any blanket statements about anyone beyond the general group of "police".
Joining the police is a choice. Being a woman of color is not a choice. Making a blanket statement about those two groups is therefore entirely different.
My blanket statement about police was also framed as a question. I said I have seen very little evidence I was wrong. If you think I am wrong, you could try providing an answer to that question rather than attacking the question itself.
If it were me, and I had a first hand account of what he did and whether he had a justifiable reason, I would have it documented and escalated after returning to the office, hopefully anonymously, or at least confidentially.
I would also keep an eye on that officer to see if there were more violations.
I would not break formation and try to handcuff another officer in the moment, because it would be strategically unwise.
Way to not read the post. You’re perhaps being a little naive. There is more than one way to accomplish things, and your way is not the most effective way.
Would you find it acceptable to shoot some footage of a handful of looting/arsonist incidents and proclaiming “protesters are doing X”, just like we are complaining that “police” are doing X?
Or would you correct someone and say that isn’t happening, and when confronted with a video of someone somewhere doing a bad thing, inform them of the fact that a few cherry picked anecdotes do not represent the activity of the broader population?
No one disagrees that in any group only a small number of bad actors are causing this issue.
However, when a civilian acts inappropriately there are legal consequences. When a police office acts inappropriately there are few legal consequences and they are very-very-rarely enforced.
I'll ask the question differently,
"Is destruction of property what you expect from rioters?" Yes, 1% or less of rioters are going to be stupid. "Should they be reprimanded?" Sadly yes, and we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them.
"Is destruction of property what you expect from police?" No, not even from the 1% or less that want to be stupid. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other. "Should they be reprimanded?" Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this.
What are your answers to these questions lawnchair_larry?
Aha, but the analogy that you made with those questions has a critical error. The correct analogy would be questions that read:
Is destruction of property what you expect from civilians?
Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of civilians are are going to be stupid and riot instead. And that is unacceptable.
Should they be reprimanded?
Absolutely. And we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them.
Is unwarranted destruction of property what you expect from police?
Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of police are going to be stupid and abusive. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other.
Should they be reprimanded?
Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this.
[1] We do not have data for either of these figures, so 1% is being used as a placeholder, and is not meant literally. I suspect that the percentage of criminals in the general population is far bigger than the number of police who destroy property for no reason, but I admit that I have no data for that.
And should reprimanded citizens continue to be citizens afterwards?
Yes, in almost all but the most extreme of cases. (And the people who make that determination are called "judges" not "cops".)
Should reprimanded cops continue to be cops?
No, in all but the most trivial and excusable cases. (And the people who make that determination should also be called judges not cops.)
If you get given a badge and a gun, and job that demand people to people to respect your authority, you not only get held to a higher standard than those of us without, but you also put your livelihood at stake if you choose to behave in a "stupid or abusive" manner.
It's abundantly clear to people outside the US that the cop who killed George Floyd needs to be fired and prosecuted for murder, the three cops who stood there and let him do it need to be fired and prosecuted for accessory to murder, and those four cops chain of command also needs to be investigated for culpability and almost certainly fired if not prosecuted as well. It seems unbelievable that some US citizens think otherwise. I expect that from cop unions, who've proven themselves time and time again to be completely devoid of humanity or morals, but find it unthinkable that anyone else can't see it clearly as evil thuggery from people who society has to demand better from. All four need to never be in any position of authority again. At least one of them needs to be in jail for life.
From what I can tell your only change was to add the word “unwarranted” before destruction.
Could you please help us understand your position on “Should abusive officers be reprimanded?”
And if we agree they should be reprimanded, what are your thought on how we build that system?
The system where we the civilians who witness or are victims of the abuse and other “good cops” who witness the abuse, can get legal ways to highlight and reprimand those few abusive police officers[0]?
[0] such that the person/people accusing (with evidence) the abusive police without worrying other police officers will “hold it against” the accuser.
He seems happy to accept that 1% (as a placeholder) of cops are murderers, and there's nothing we can do about that.
(He claimed that in the context of property damage, which hides the actual implications of that carelessness, because it wasn't police property damage that triggered this current unrest...)
I _strongly_ disagree. A cop committing assault or murder, while on the job, is a thing society needs to take great care does not happen. It's abhorrent to me to take a "shit happens" attitude to cop killings.
Parent said property damage, not me. So your uncharitable assumptions about my intentions are way off on that point. If you want to reframe the issue from property damage to killing unarmed civilians, take it up with the parent. We were talking about the video of the cop randomly smashing windows.
Not surprisingly, your straw man is just as bad. Nobody said or implied anything remotely close to a “shit happens” attitude. Did you just not read the next sentence or something?
You said "stupid and abusive". Not the sort of terminology usually used for "property damage".
And yeah, I read (and just reread) your next sentence, and it still reads as a "shit happens" attitude to me.
As I read it, you're saying there's nothing we can possibly do to ensure that rate of "stupid and abusive" cops is any lower than the rate of "stupid and rioting" civilians. (Or the most optimistic reading of it I can see is that you think we can't do any better a job of ensuring a lower rate of stupid and abusive cops than we have now.)
I think we need to do a _way_ better job of screening cop applicants before giving them a badge and gun, and hold them to a way higher standard that is currently the case.
It's well known that some people in society are crazy, so an occasional video of someone acting crazy doesn't really mean much. Police though need to be held to a higher standard. So a video of police doing something bad is much more impactful. And this isn't just a police officer doing something all alone, there are a ton of officers surrounding him and not stopping him.
> Would you find it acceptable to shoot some footage of a handful of looting/arsonist incidents and proclaiming “protesters are doing X”, just like we are complaining that “police” are doing X?
It's very easy to attribute actions to the police, since they very commonly wear easy-to-identify uniforms and it's illegal to impersonate them. The video above was of a uniformed police officer in the company of maybe a hundred others. It's the literal job of police to stop crimes, so if you see an officer commuting a crime and his colleagues see and don't intervene, you can assume some level of assent to the officer's criminal activity.
Even if you found a video of a looter/arsonist, how do you know they're a protester at all? If they are a protester, how do you establish what their faction is (BLM, anarchist anti-capitalist, Neo-nazi agitator, etc.)? How do you judge the attitudes of the other protesters to to their actions, given protesters aren't equipped to enforce the law and don't have the mandate to do so?
Yeah, at least 5. I've seen >50 videos of rioters destroying and looting, maybe 5 of them engaging in violence, and maybe 10 of police engaging in excessive force, so I feel pretty comfortable having established that there's a pattern in those activities.
I'd like to see about 4-5 of such videos. The more the merrier. I'm totally open to changing my mind.
There's no point in telling us how many videos you've watched in those categories, because "number of videos someone personally watched in each category" tells us more about that person's viewing preferences than the prevalence of those incidents. For example, here's a twitter thread of 170 (so far) videos of police excessive force. If you watch all of these then your updated statement has a different tone.
I wasn't providing those numbers to prove "my side", or any side. I was providing them as a benchmark for how many instances of an event became a pattern in my mind.
If you had read the comment carefully instead of rapidly responding with a "rebuttal" based on your ideology, you might have realized that.
I find the bigger issue to be the videos of police doing nothing to thwart blatant vandalism, and the contrast of those videos with the unprovoked attacks on what appear to be peaceful protesters.
The “politically convenient group” seems to be anyone being destructive, like ...
The sum of causing unnecessary damage and turning a blind eye to vandalism at least gives me confidence that there is a desire by many police officers to see property destroyed.
From that I can only guess at what the reasoning might be, but given that we’ve seen this method of undermining protests in the past, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume racist intent until there is evidence that begins to support an alternative conclusion.
Considering that police are being beaten badly and some killed attempting to stop
"protestors", I think it's not surprising that many have chosen to do nothing. Better safe than sorry.
Actually, there are dozens of different videos showing police being badly beaten as they attempt to stop vandalism. They just don't make the news as this isn't "progressive".
So is this how we've decided it's going to be? We have all protesters on one side, and if any protesters do anything bad, all get punished? (I also find some moderate irony in you claiming something doesn't make the news, then linking a news website.)
I can link a dozen twitter videos showing all kinds of people getting badly beat up by protestors - none of which ever made the news as it doesn't fit the progressive narrative - but I don't think its worth it. And frankly, it's not hard to find these by yourself.
Everyone now considers general violence and looting as legitimate actions in response to a crime committed by one police officer.
Floyd's death was a tragedy and Derek (the police officer) responsible must pay heavily for it - a 2nd or 3rd degree murder conviction should be handed down to set an example. That case should be scrutinised heavily - and it will be.
But I really don't understand why other people must suffer for one person's crime. The larger focus should be on the US police needing remedial training. Call up congressmen, call up senators. Rioting on the streets doesn't solve anything.
Calling up congressmen and senators hasn't solved anything. This has been an issue for thirty years, and no progress has been made. Violent crime is down, police use of force is up. What's going on wasn't working.
If you think this is one man, think again. Give me a city and I can give you the unarmed black person killed by police - Dallas, it's Botham Jean. Miami, it's Trayvon Martin. New York, it's Dwayne Brown. Years and years and so little done.
And now, people are now in the streets in reaction to police violence against people in the streets. If you see protesters being shot with tear gas for the crime of kneeling and shouting, people are going to come out and make their voices heard.
And this is working. Minneapolis Ward 3's district commissioner is calling for police abolition. For once, for absolute once, the media is actually on the side of the protesters, because once they got over the shock, they saw their own being attacked by police just as much. So before you say it doesn't solve anything, look at what it's already accomplished, and look what it can accomplish soon.
I got police sensitivity training when I travelled to the US - not a joke. How to talk to a US police officer, etc. Make sure you don't get out of your car - a lot of rules that Americans know implicitly.
But police abolition is not going to solve anything for you folks. It will mean an extraordinary increase in crime. I have lived in multiple nations and a strict police is better than police who do nothing. You will be at the mercy of crime lords. And no business store owner will open a shop in a police-free district.
All these rioters for freedom and dignity are fine on the TV. When people are on the wrong side of the mob, they change their minds pretty quick.
What I advocate for is a series of measures where trained members of the community, as a job, are in charge of primarily, defusing conflict, secondarily, preventing crime, and as a last resort, enforcing community standards and laws. No arrest quotas, limited jail, no cash bail, no mandatory minimum sentencing. This sounds like what I hear police are like in other places, but existing police power structures are powerful and resistant to reform, so wholesale replacement appears to be the best tactic.
I read through that article - naive and idealistic. I guess only a first-world citizen will believe it works. And not to put you down - I admire your innocence that you think this will work. This all breaks down as soon as someone from outside the community or someone powerful in the community introduces drugs which kill, a crime boss decides to beat up a few people for protection money, poor people or addicts decide to invade homes to steal your stuff, folks involved in 'community policing' decide to flex their muscles and make their 'fair' judgements which favour their own. You will feel utterly helpless.
Maybe you think all this won't happen. I have lived in poor and powerless communities earlier in life and seen all these things happen without a proper police presence. I had my sister assaulted when I was young and was unable to do anything about it. I despise 'community policing'. The cliques it creates is far worse than the full hammer of the full armed forces.
Anyways, I wish USA the best of luck. I really hope the looting and rioting in NY stops soon.
"Agent Provocateurs" are an old and well documented technique with examples varying from history through the civil rights era to the current day protests.
But it's also hard to dismiss it out of hand, given known true police behaviour. A very common view from the public is that cops are totally capable of that kind of behaviour. And whether the story about the cop setting the first fire is true our not, the believability of the story is as much a problem as the possible truth of the story.
> What's the process by which you established this as a known thing?
Primary, by power of observation. But OK, I'll make this as vague and 100% foolproof as I can, to start: there are people who dress in black, and masks, and destroy stuff and commit violence at protests. That's from actual observation. It's not just 1-2, there are groups of them. That's my personal observation from being at 2 protests with such groups.
OK, so what was the group dressed like that in black who were doing it in the video I posted, in the Trump inauguration? That guy is textbook black bloc. There are hundreds of mainstream media videos showing guys dressed like him burning and destroying in prior protests, from Seattle WTO 1999, to Occupy, to more recent protests.
I urge HNers to read that article you posted and decide for themselves if it's credible.
Then, read the wikipedia article I posted, refer to the sources at the end, google around, and decide for yourself.
An agent provocateur will always, except where it is physically impossible such as when no one of the right race is available for a group distinguished by race, outwardly appear as a textbook member of the targeted group. That's kind of central to the idea.
I'm characterizing the black bloc mostly by their tactics. Are you saying this guy blends into the group because he's dressing in black and destroying stuff, just like they do?
I think that we should publish short-sleeve mug photos of all these groups, because both anarchists and white supremacists often have identifying tattoos. Let there be light. The more transparency the better.
But unless I manage to convince myself that, somehow, police agent provocateurs or white supremacists were staging riots and destruction at Trump's inauguration (see video below[1], there are many others from those riots by mainstream media outlets), then my prior is currently that most of the people engaging in these tactics are the same people who have done it for the past 2-3 decades, which I've witnessed in person.
To clarify, are you suggesting that all this the riots, looting, and assaults are being done by agents provocateurs? Most of them? Some of them? Just that one autozone?
And they absolutely need to be held to a higher standard than "the public", because we give them guns and state sanctioned use-of-force. They cannot do their job without respect of their authority, and they do not have that respect, and they are doing the exact opposite thing of winning it back.
While not condoning the "textbook black bloc" actions, I can see why 2 centuries of systematic oppression might lead some people in some sections of society to think there are no other options.
I have no explanation for the current police behaviour that's more sympathetic than cynical South Park quotes. And if _that's_ how they want to be portrayed? Well, I guess they're achieving it...
(And as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I too have doubts about the veracity of that article I posted - but it's at least in mu mind, more than plausible. And _that_ is a serious problem. I too urge HNers to decide for themselves if they trust their local police force to think none of them would ever use unnecessary force, or go agent provocateur. If you have any doubt, you have a big problem.)
