Two thoughts: they should use tools like this by default within the police so the supervisors get by default alarms if their field officers do something brutal. And then you can do reporting up the whole hierarchy, how much stays unreported, which one is correct, tolerated, wrong and actually prosecuted. Could be a good way to held everyone accountable, reduce liability for lack of oversight and generally reduce the physical violence. Probably already on the work at the vendors of the bodycams.
Second, I think it is very challenging to correctly qualify some of the violence as correct or wrong. I believe this will always be a human process and the actually messy part
The assumption that supervisors would engage in disciplinary action against their officers committing such abuses of power is rather naïve considering the history of such things within of the NYPD[1]
Well, do not disagree with that, but the first thing which need to vanish is the excuse of everyone that they have no idea. And a single incident by a regular court process would be enough to fire the supervisor.
It is a tool in the end. How effective depends how you use it.
Now do the inverse analysis. Hold liable anyone in an official position who directly incited virtually an entire election-year of violent riots that mostly targeted and victimized innocents. There's precedent in the making for that type of liability.
I'm not sure you took the time to understand the technology that the article is about. Because it's geared at collecting event sequencing from terabytes of evidence. If you were interested in turning that technology on protesters, it is open source. But whatever you're saying about politicians here is a total non sequitur.
I can't believe the level of whataboutism in quick replies to this post. Have you considered maybe if policing authorities had been held to account in the first place, then these protests wouldn't have existed at all? You don't even have to think that far back to see it in action. The Ferguson protests happened in 2014. The executive had a measured response that addressed the issue, not even fixed, just addressed.
When public peaceful protests happened between then and now those groups were told to fuck off by the president and vice president. "Get that son of a bitch off the field". There's your catalyst, not groups of people who were so motivated by bad policing they went out on the streets to protest. The executive in power that was made aware of an issue, and said we not only reject it, but we will antagonize you for bringing it up.
These people were subject to violent policing that they were protesting. The irony is palpable, but we see it get excused as just political hacks egging them on, or it was justified because of adjacent activities.
While looting and vandalism took place in several neighborhoods during the protests, the demonstrations were largely peaceful.
The article doesn't address police violence against violent looters.
The article addresses
* delibrately kettling peaceful demonstrators excersing constitutional rights in order to charge them with breaking curfew.
* excessive force (beating with batons) person not breaking any laws.
* etc.
> What about ...
Your statement seems to be stating that if other people break the law then it is okay if I (as a police officer) beat you and cause you concussion and a trip to the hopital.
Nobody here did so and I've never heard anyone anywhere say so. In every instance ever there are various events often over days or weeks and when anyone of a certain stripe talks about the entire period it's as if Joe random stealing a playstation and Bob somebody standing in the street are part of a connected whole instead of disconnected events that share no meaningful connection beyond the tangential.
This complete failure of analysis comes through when the individual is completely incapable of disintangling disconnected events from each other as if people holding signs destroyed a community. This usually coincides with holding views opposite of the protestors wherein the speaker is attempting to degrade the opposition by fictitious association with criminality. It often further coincides with exaggerating actually negative events within scope in an attempt to generate an emotional instead of rational response.
Eg 10,000 people protest, 5 people loot a Walmart and we degrade the 10,000 by declaring that "protestors" burned down the city as if a meaningful portion of the people protesting looted the Walmart in protest rather than 5 opportunists.
If you look at it a little closer it's not much different from having a million immigrants having 99 rapes committed by citizens and 1 by an immigrant and declaring immigrants rapists even when the population commits the act at no higher rate than baseline.
It's manipulative, disingenuous, and unhelpful.
In short we never started calling looting protesting so have no need to stop doing so.
lol. I guess you can’t count. It was 100s if not more looting.
Oh loon you did the same thing you complained of. “5 people looted”. 5 people is just theft.
The real issue is conflating the two groups. When somebody is saying looters they are talking about looters, not protesters. Ans when somebody is talking about protesters they are not talking about looters. No reason to ever bring up protesters when talking about rioters or looters.
That being said. We are told that white silence is violence and the lack of action makes you complicit. So if there are protest going on and under the cover of the protest some subset loot or riot then maybe the protesters should be held accountable for not stopping said bad actions?
Between 15-26 million people protested at some point during this period. You are from your own mouth claiming that out of millions of people "hundreds" committed crimes. You are essentially making my point for me.
EG means for example it is meant to serve as an example of a a large number protesting a small number committing crimes not serve as a literal description of the exact number of criminals kind of like the entire protest didn't take place at a singular Walmart.
I don't think the world is so binary, if the entire mass of people in the streets were burning and looting we'd still be rebuilding today.
Someone taking a playstation and some overpriced sneakers from a story several blocks away from the protests does not make protests a violet uprising with arsonists and looters. It means the vast majority of those people were protesting, and a small minority were committing crimes.
You are describing looting at rhe same time saying it isn't looting. It is easy to dismiss property theft as a non-issue but it affects small business.
The "small minority" caused over 1B worth of damage at the time of the riots with some cities having never recuperated.
What cities never recuperated. 1B sounds like a lot until you realize that you are aggregating all sorts of negative events across a substantial period in a 23000B economy.
We can avoid future misadventures murdering fewer minorities in the future.
I c incitement is such a bullshit thing. People with god intent can and should continue to behave civilly.
The reality is we have the pre game chat logs where people are going to protest looking for an excuse. This happens on both sides on the political coin.
Second, I think it is very challenging to correctly qualify some of the violence as correct or wrong. I believe this will always be a human process and the actually messy part