The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: wmLambert on May 30, 2020, 12:56:01 PM

Title: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on May 30, 2020, 12:56:01 PM
In 1968, Vietnam War protestors rioted at the Democrat national Convention for Hubert Humphrey. That was the first time that anyone noticed professional agitators making a peaceful protest into a riot. Since then, there have been many photographers and journalists who noticed the same people stirring up protests, but no DOJ investigations to discover who these people are and who they are paid by. Third party investigators have tracked some of these people, and George Soros and other Democrat fundraisers have been named as those who want to create riots. It is not cheap to move protestors from city to city across the nation, but they show up at all the events that make the news.

The knee-jerk reaction is to claim that "both sides do it", but the reality is that people like Soros profit by tearing down the USA, and are certainly not conservatives. It is hard to trace the contemporaneous research done over the years, because anything that tarnishes the Left-wing image is routinely taken down.

The clashes over George Floyd has erupted into hundreds of small businesses looted and destroyed, Stores that had nothing to do with Chauvin and the other police. It is the rioting which is the goal - not protests over Blacks being targeted by White police. The numbers show Blacks being confronted by police has lessened dramatically, while Whites targeting has held steady. The cities where these riots are occurring are all Democrat-run locales. The KKK was the military wing of the Democrat party, and now it is Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. If you watch the crowds, you'll see the same agitators reappearing - just like in 1968.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2020, 01:34:39 PM
Do you mean to suggest that interested parties are stirring up outrage to further political motives, or do you mean to suggest it's law enforcement inciting an escalation of violence in order to green light suppression methods?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2020, 01:42:18 PM
Do you mean to suggest that interested parties are stirring up outrage to further political motives, or do you mean to suggest it's law enforcement inciting an escalation of violence in order to green light suppression methods?

Contemporaneous real time stuff, just watched a video on facebook of a group of Black Protestors trying to stop a white guy in a gas mask, dressed all in black, and carrying an unfurled black umbrella from smashing in the windows of an Auto-Zone. Mr. Gas Mask also attacked the guy with the smart phone.

There was even another clip of another group of people, dressed in the same manner, and also appearing to be entirely white, piling up pallets against shopping carts at a Target and setting them on fire.

The targeting or big national/multi-national companies is text-book anti-fa, even the attire would be strongly suggestive of them. But it's hard to call at the moment if it was anti-fa doing that, or someone pretending to be anti-fa. But I'm strongly inclined to suspect it is them.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on May 30, 2020, 03:52:07 PM
Do you mean to suggest that interested parties are stirring up outrage to further political motives, or do you mean to suggest it's law enforcement inciting an escalation of violence in order to green light suppression methods?

I don't follow your train of thought. If people like George Soros, who has been caught funding activists, is directly influencing riots, why can't you accept his own statements of why he does such things? The other political motive that can be laid at the feet of the DNC, and their para-military groups: Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, is that any negative actions can be used to point fingers at their political rivals. You cam't look at this without contemplating their mantras of "The ends justify the means", "never let a crisis go to waste", and projection.

Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect. There is zero green lighting of suppression methods. All groups tend to protect their reputation and will try to excuse lack of proper training - but that is more often coming from bureaucrats in the organizations, not from those in the front line. The blue line wants the training.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on May 30, 2020, 04:04:56 PM
Quote
Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect.

I just want to be sure I understand.  Are you saying that this officer had no bad intentions or negative feelings in this incident, that it was only the result of "bad training"?  Are the 18 other complaints that were lodged against him also the result of bad training?  If so, how much training over how long a period would he need in order not to kill handcuffed and unarmed suspects?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on May 30, 2020, 04:35:47 PM
Quote
Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect.

I just want to be sure I understand.  Are you saying that this officer had no bad intentions or negative feelings in this incident, that it was only the result of "bad training"?  Are the 18 other complaints that were lodged against him also the result of bad training?  If so, how much training over how long a period would he need in order not to kill handcuffed and unarmed suspects?

You are also clueless. It is not a binary set; either this or that. Chauvin was clueless about what he was doing. I'm sure he didn't want to kill Floyd - that would be murder one. He will be tried for murder three, involuntary manslaughter, because he was stupid. Being stupid does not mean he was intentionally evil - just culpable for what he did.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on May 30, 2020, 04:48:03 PM
There's also reports of right wing agitators heading into the area.

While there's certainly anarchist and riot tourists on the left, the right wing (especially the race war wankers) and the cops have more to gain by riots and arson.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on May 30, 2020, 05:01:42 PM
Quote
Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect.

I just want to be sure I understand.  Are you saying that this officer had no bad intentions or negative feelings in this incident, that it was only the result of "bad training"?  Are the 18 other complaints that were lodged against him also the result of bad training?  If so, how much training over how long a period would he need in order not to kill handcuffed and unarmed suspects?

You are also clueless. It is not a binary set; either this or that. Chauvin was clueless about what he was doing. I'm sure he didn't want to kill Floyd - that would be murder one. He will be tried for murder three, involuntary manslaughter, because he was stupid. Being stupid does not mean he was intentionally evil - just culpable for what he did.

It's interesting that you have such a firm conviction that you know what was in his mind.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2020, 05:07:13 PM
Quote
Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect.

I just want to be sure I understand.  Are you saying that this officer had no bad intentions or negative feelings in this incident, that it was only the result of "bad training"?  Are the 18 other complaints that were lodged against him also the result of bad training?  If so, how much training over how long a period would he need in order not to kill handcuffed and unarmed suspects?

You are also clueless. It is not a binary set; either this or that. Chauvin was clueless about what he was doing. I'm sure he didn't want to kill Floyd - that would be murder one. He will be tried for murder three, involuntary manslaughter, because he was stupid. Being stupid does not mean he was intentionally evil - just culpable for what he did.

It's interesting that you have such a firm conviction that you know what was in his mind.

Come on. The cop wasn't trying to kill anyone.

From his record he liked to "put people in their place," with "his authority," and this time his antics killed someone. By all means, let's string him up.

But let's not exaggerate and try to make it out like this man who knew he was being filmed decided to straight up murder someone.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on May 30, 2020, 05:40:45 PM
Quote
But let's not exaggerate and try to make it out like this man who knew he was being filmed decided to straight up murder someone.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but not sure who you're aiming at.  I doubt he was mugging for the camera, just doin' his job. Floyd was too drunk to drive home, submitted to being handcuffed and put on the ground, and kept complaining that the officer's knee on his neck made it so he couldn't breathe.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2020, 05:51:33 PM
Quote
But let's not exaggerate and try to make it out like this man who knew he was being filmed decided to straight up murder someone.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but not sure who you're aiming at.  I doubt he was mugging for the camera, just doin' his job. Floyd was too drunk to drive home, submitted to being handcuffed and put on the ground, and kept complaining that the officer's knee on his neck made it so he couldn't breathe.

Wow, aren't you tiresome? I agree with you on like 95 percent of the issues but christ, just go read back the thread. I'm about ready to understand what Crunch and Seriati have been saying about you and I expect an apology for that.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on May 30, 2020, 06:09:16 PM
I apparently leaped too quickly. My apologies.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on May 30, 2020, 06:22:47 PM
I apparently leaped too quickly. My apologies.

Apology accepted , God knows I've played Internet dumbass before reading posts too quickly and looking for a clever response. I only interact here sporadically but I'm always reading and I appreciate your view. :)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2020, 07:07:52 PM
There's also reports of right wing agitators heading into the area.

While there's certainly anarchist and riot tourists on the left, the right wing (especially the race war wankers) and the cops have more to gain by riots and arson.

Not going to disagree, it's why I had the disclaimer of:

The targeting or big national/multi-national companies is text-book anti-fa, even the attire would be strongly suggestive of them. But it's hard to call at the moment if it was anti-fa doing that, or someone pretending to be anti-fa. But I'm strongly inclined to suspect it is them.

Target would also be worthwhile.. uh target for Right-wing extremists because they were one of the first national retailers to stick their toes into the whole thing about transgender restrooms. So it could be false flag on the part of someone else, except I'd find it hard to believe that Anti-Fa wouldn't turn up for something like this, which raises the question of if those guys weren't anti-fa, where the heck was anti-fa?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on May 30, 2020, 09:23:52 PM
There's also reports of right wing agitators heading into the area.

While there's certainly anarchist and riot tourists on the left, the right wing (especially the race war wankers) and the cops have more to gain by riots and arson.

Those reports are mostly projection and false-flag operations. The David Dukes of the world are all former KKK Democrats, who find it handy to pretend to be Right-wingers. Once again, the GOP is the party who fought for the Eisenhower Civil Rights bills that the Democrats fought against. LBJ admitted he allowed the bills to go through to stick a thumb in the eyes of his own party, then bragged that his nanny-state Great Society efforts would keep his party in office:  "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years."

Why doubt projection when it rises up and hits you between the eyes?

As far as I've seen (and I've actually looked for it) there are no Right wing activists running undercover to start riots. False Flag operations go hand-in-glove with projection - and that is a Democrat specialty, too.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2020, 09:36:26 PM
As far as I've seen (and I've actually looked for it) there are no Right wing activists running undercover to start riots. False Flag operations go hand-in-glove with projection - and that is a Democrat specialty, too.

The "problem" here is "the left" has AntiFa.

"The right" now has "the Boogaloo" crowd to contend with, although I don't think right-wing quite fits with their politics such as they are. They're very pro-2nd amendment, which does align them loosely as conservative, but a number of them are almost anarchists of a non-socialist stripe... But their general tenor is about being able to defend your rights, which would make running around smashing things rather antithetical for them.

That said, if they were doing it, I'd expect them to be packing a gun while doing so, and those guys weren't armed in that way, which points back to anti-fa, but if you're going to false-flag, you'd dress to point at who you want it pointed at, not your own side...

Basically we can only hope for some arrests to be made and hope that those can shed some light on what exactly was going on there.

Note: The four armed men "guarding" the tobacco store and surrounding shops(as rioters had previously broken the windows of the store, and they'd heard about it and come to help)  were very likely to be Boogaloo types, they even referenced memes relevant to that grouping while being interviewed.
https://www.fox9.com/video/688824
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2020, 12:22:42 PM
Law enforcement is not the bad guys in this - except for poorly trained officers who must be punished for being clueless and hurting those they are sworn to protect. There is zero green lighting of suppression methods. All groups tend to protect their reputation and will try to excuse lack of proper training - but that is more often coming from bureaucrats in the organizations, not from those in the front line. The blue line wants the training.

I have to disagree with you.  There are too many officers that do these things not because of "poor training" but because they like to hurt or humiliate people and as officers they have impunity to get away with it.  The officer's prior record and his actions here leave me with little doubt about which kind he is (which I admit is biased of me, as I shouldn't reach a conclusion without all facts - but that just means I'd not be qualified to be a juror).  This was not a "poor" training problem, no training received by an officer tells them to put a knee on a suspects neck, the training specifically tells them to put a knee on the back and warns them of the danger of putting it elsewhere.  I also find beyond offensive that other officers cover for bad officers, when you cover up the worst out of institutional loyalty or brotherhood you bring yourself down to the same level.

I also don't think Floyd deserves the benefit of the doubt on intent.  Whether or not he intended to kill is irrelevant.  He intended to abuse, humiliate and punish - none of which is his actual job - and just like EVERYONE else in the country he should be responsible for the direct consequences of his intentional actions.

As far as who's behind looting and riots?  I don't care.  If it's white nationalists or Anti-Fa makes no difference to me, bring them in - by any means necessary - and lock the up for years.  Treat it the exact same way you'd treat it if someone burglarized a store and burned it down outside of a "protest."  Particularly for anyone coming from out of state.  End catch and release for protest terrorists.  I can guaranty you this, I'm not going to be rushing over to get white nationalists out of lock down the way some are doing for anti-fa.

As a further thought, it's particular troubling to me in the context of the progressive virtue signaling title of claiming "allyship" that anyone white would go to a protest and commit an act of violence when they should know full well that this will be blamed on a minority group and undermine the minority group's goals.  It makes a lie out of being an ally, and makes them into just another user entitled to "own" the suffering of a minority for their own goals.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on May 31, 2020, 01:35:40 PM
...There are too many officers that do these things not because of "poor training" but because they like to hurt or humiliate people and as officers they have impunity to get away with it.  The officer's prior record and his actions here leave me with little doubt about which kind he is (which I admit is biased of me, as I shouldn't reach a conclusion without all facts - but that just means I'd not be qualified to be a juror).

Your instincts are laudable, but I've seen what poor training allows and lets bullies get away with bullying. When I was at CJI, we had a staff of Phd. researchers who came from the rank and file of police, fire, and judiciary, and they put together a training curriculum that did a far better job of producing good officers than the State Police Academy. One thing we did was psychological vetting of the trainees. When we were finishing up a training program for how to respond to barricaded gunman incidents, there was one just down the Cass Corridor from CJI, where the poorly-trained police responded and several police were shot, and a police Chaplin was nearly killed.

We would have in operational police for extensive retraining, and it got a little weird when the undercover narcs came in, dressed like homeless vagrants. There was as much untraining as training required. From my POV, an officer like Chauvin would have been spotlighted immediately and retrained correctly or fired. It is not just knowing not to kneel on a neck that was poorly taught, but all the rest as well.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2020, 02:33:45 PM
I also don't think Floyd deserves the benefit of the doubt on intent.  Whether or not he intended to kill is irrelevant.  He intended to abuse, humiliate and punish - none of which is his actual job - and just like EVERYONE else in the country he should be responsible for the direct consequences of his intentional actions.

It should be pointed out that Floyd was the guy (presumably) killed by the police officer. Not the other way around.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2020, 02:39:20 PM
It should be pointed out that Floyd was the guy (presumably) killed by the police officer. Not the other way around.

You are 100% correct, I thought I took that mistake out.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on May 31, 2020, 08:59:49 PM
Those reports are mostly projection and false-flag operations. The David Dukes of the world are all former KKK Democrats, who find it handy to pretend to be Right-wingers. Once again, the GOP is the party who fought for the Eisenhower Civil Rights bills that the Democrats fought against. LBJ admitted he allowed the bills to go through to stick a thumb in the eyes of his own party, then bragged that his nanny-state Great Society efforts would keep his party in office:  "I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years."

Why doubt projection when it rises up and hits you between the eyes?

As far as I've seen (and I've actually looked for it) there are no Right wing activists running undercover to start riots. False Flag operations go hand-in-glove with projection - and that is a Democrat specialty, too.

Dude, the leftists going out to smash things aren't pretending to be cops or right wings. How on earth would leftists do false-flag operations during "leftist" riots? Not to mention, I doubt your usual sources would admit that rightist and cops are out there inciting violence. NB my sources are reporting when left-wing or adjacent people are getting violent.

We have widespread reports of cops deliberately targeting media personnel or using tear gas on peaceful protest, including crowds with kids in it. Not to mention driving through crowds. But I'm sure those are just magical projection videos.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on May 31, 2020, 10:56:36 PM
How on earth would leftists do false-flag operations during "leftist" riots?
They're double-false-flag operations, silly!  People know that rioters are smart now, and know how branding and marketing works, so nobody riots in support of their own ideals anymore - bad press!  But knowing this, almost all riots are now led by false flagists.

Unfortunately, everybody knows this now, too - so the modern riot operative now riots in support of his own demonstrations, knowing that the public will blame the false flag people of the opposing partisans.

It's pretty obvious.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2020, 11:27:29 PM
NO, it's a quadruple false flag where communists pretend to be capitalists that pretend to be democrats that pretend to be undercover cops!

Even if one were to entertain the idea that there was some bizarre incitement plot, it wouldn't absolve anyone who got incited.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 12:17:44 AM
How on earth would leftists do false-flag operations during "leftist" riots?
They're double-false-flag operations, silly!  People know that rioters are smart now, and know how branding and marketing works, so nobody riots in support of their own ideals anymore - bad press!  But knowing this, almost all riots are now led by false flagists.

Unfortunately, everybody knows this now, too - so the modern riot operative now riots in support of his own demonstrations, knowing that the public will blame the false flag people of the opposing partisans.

It's pretty obvious.

Which is why I said at the start it would be impossible to know unless some of these people were caught in the act. All we do know is some outside actors are taking deliberate measures to incite civil unrest and often leaving the area before law enforcement turns up -- which means they're not getting caught.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 12:27:07 AM
Well, thanks for the link TheDrake.

When you pair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evjkVfJ7HY

with:
https://itsgoingdown.org/now-this-fight-has-two-sides-what-the-riots-mean-for-the-covid-19-era/

Where you see them linking a twitter post from Crimethinc, where that same AutoZone is on fire presumably with an AntiFa member in front of it celebrating, I think we can safely presume AntiFa is more than happy to take credit for it, even if they didn't smash the windows themselves, they probably were the ones to burn it down.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 01, 2020, 07:35:54 AM
Clearly the riots are escalating. People are getting hurt, badly. Businesses that barely survived the lockdown are being decimated.

It’s time to respond or it’ll just get worse. National Guard needs to be deployed n every city where this iis happening and deliver some shock and awe to get this under control.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2020, 07:53:33 AM
George Floyd's brother:

"... why are you out here tearing up your community? Because when you’re finished and turn around and want to go buy something, you done tore it up. So now you messed up your own living arrangements."

QFT.

There is more video coming out about the arrest and though it doesn't absolve the officers of wrongdoing, if it had come out earlier perhaps a few people might not have gotten as outraged though maybe most of them still would have. The point is that the media seems to selectively release information and video, and cut and splice the video it does release, in a manner to stir up as much anger as possible. My understanding is it basically showed Floyd being combative when they tried to put him into the car. That still doesn't excuse the knee on his neck but it's not like they were just out to murder a black man that day either. The coroner's report also seems to show it wasn't the knee that killed him. It doesn't say what killed him and I shouldn't speculate but it seems like maybe the stress of the whole situation was too much for him to handle, like a panic attack. He should have gotten help with that instead of the treatment he received. A little kindness would have went a long way.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 09:35:36 AM
Dude, the leftists going out to smash things aren't pretending to be cops or right wings. How on earth would leftists do false-flag operations during "leftist" riots? Not to mention, I doubt your usual sources would admit that rightist and cops are out there inciting violence. NB my sources are reporting when left-wing or adjacent people are getting violent.

Regardless of whether this is actually what's happening, the argument would be something like "we need the police and The Man to look as bad as possible, so we will provoke them into taking violent actions against protesters." This isn't a new thing, and if the main objective is to get the police to tear gas a group of protesters and look like fascists, you might need agitators to escalate it to that level. Now that would be relevant in the case of a peaceful protest where cops standing by and watching didn't suit the fantasy of certain parties. In the case of an already ignited riot it wouldn't seem to be very useful for leftist agitators to come in and fan the flames.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 01, 2020, 09:50:49 AM
Interesting the shift in tone in the last two posts.  From the obvious and simple fact that a police officer murdered an unarmed man who was handcuffed, we're starting to see nuances in the interpretation of the events. 

Does "the media seem[] to selectively release information and video"?  Of course, as it always does.  It always gives the most pointed and digestible elements.  Does the omission of Flynn struggling (if he did; I haven't see it) change the facts or significance of the 8:46 that we have all seen?  Wait for the documentaries if you want to see every moment of what transpired.

Quoting Fenring with emphasis:

Quote
Regardless of whether this is actually what's happening, the argument would be something like "we need the police and The Man to look as bad as possible, so we will provoke them into taking violent actions against protesters." This isn't a new thing, and if the main objective is to get the police to tear gas a group of protesters and look like fascists, you might need agitators to escalate it to that level. Now that would be relevant in the case of a peaceful protest where cops standing by and watching didn't suit the fantasy of certain parties. In the case of an already ignited riot it wouldn't seem to be very useful for leftist agitators to come in and fan the flames.

Whether....would be...if...might...would...wouldn't.  Armchair musings on the maybe causes of violence without any actual opinion on whether any of these things occurred.  Any or all of them are possible, of course, as are many other things that point away from those things.  Do you think they happened?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2020, 09:53:04 AM
Regardless of whether this is actually what's happening, the argument would be something like "we need the police and The Man to look as bad as possible, so we will provoke them into taking violent actions against protesters." This isn't a new thing, and if the main objective is to get the police to tear gas a group of protesters and look like fascists, you might need agitators to escalate it to that level. Now that would be relevant in the case of a peaceful protest where cops standing by and watching didn't suit the fantasy of certain parties. In the case of an already ignited riot it wouldn't seem to be very useful for leftist agitators to come in and fan the flames.

Not great tactics though since protests turning violent tends to weaken messaging about the motivation for the protests. From a PR point of view, violence is usually to the benefit of the target of the protest. Which would be why cops are inciting violence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 10:28:00 AM
George Floyd's brother:

"... why are you out here tearing up your community? Because when you’re finished and turn around and want to go buy something, you done tore it up. So now you messed up your own living arrangements."

QFT.

There is more video coming out about the arrest and though it doesn't absolve the officers of wrongdoing, if it had come out earlier perhaps a few people might not have gotten as outraged though maybe most of them still would have. The point is that the media seems to selectively release information and video, and cut and splice the video it does release, in a manner to stir up as much anger as possible. My understanding is it basically showed Floyd being combative when they tried to put him into the car. That still doesn't excuse the knee on his neck but it's not like they were just out to murder a black man that day either. The coroner's report also seems to show it wasn't the knee that killed him. It doesn't say what killed him and I shouldn't speculate but it seems like maybe the stress of the whole situation was too much for him to handle, like a panic attack. He should have gotten help with that instead of the treatment he received. A little kindness would have went a long way.

Knowing what was in the hearts and minds of the police officers involved can only be speculated on. My own observations of watching George Floyd being held down is that the officers appear calm. I don't see hate or fear I see indifference. Indifference to often leading to the  'banality of evil'.

If we want better we all must demand better.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 01, 2020, 10:42:16 AM
Apparently there must have been some indications that rioters were planning on visiting the little main street in the town I live in. It's really one small street lined with antique shops, small bars, restaurants.

We drove down there (it's 5 minutes from my property) because we'd heard there was something going on. As we arrived we could see quite a few police vehicles but the dominant part of the situation was dozens (hundreds?) of private citizens standing vigil in front of each business, most visibly armed. Never seen anything like it in my life. Lots of red-neck looking folks but all acting peaceful and smiling.

To my knowledge, there wasn't any violence and no incidents to speak of. Whether they (pseudo antifa or otherwise) thought better of it, or there never was a "they" in the first place, I was pleased and oddly comforted to see a response from people who've seen enough and were willing to protect their town and businesses from being destroyed.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 01, 2020, 10:50:42 AM
They have every right to protect their community.  Any idea where those "indications" came from or what they were?

As to whether they were "pseudo antifa or otherwise," real antifa or otherwise, reports of outside agitators in a number of major cities have been disputed by news organizations that have reviewed records of people who were arrested.  It's clear that "government" is defending and justifying their actions after altercations with blamecasting, led in spirit by the fat man in the oval office.

OTOH, it also seems clear that some groups across the political spectrum and street level criminals are taking advantage of the situation to promote their agendas violently.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 10:51:43 AM
Whether....would be...if...might...would...wouldn't.  Armchair musings on the maybe causes of violence without any actual opinion on whether any of these things occurred.  Any or all of them are possible, of course, as are many other things that point away from those things.  Do you think they happened?

You seem to be so deadset on spurious readings of posts that it never occurs to you that you just didn't understand what was written. NH asked a hypothetical question, and I gave a hypothetical answer to it. He did not ask "why did they do it in this instance", he asked why they would do it. So I gave an answer about why they might do it. Maybe better to butt out if you can't follow?

Not great tactics though since protests turning violent tends to weaken messaging about the motivation for the protests. From a PR point of view, violence is usually to the benefit of the target of the protest. Which would be why cops are inciting violence.

I'm not sure to be honest. I suppose it depends on who your target audience is through such actions. I didn't make up that idea, btw, it's been a known theory for quite a while that the police (or others) plant agents provocateurs among protesters in order to push them far enough to justify the police cracking down on an otherwise legal protest. The argument goes that it's a fascist tactic to shut down free expression by justification of suppressing a riot. To the extent that the desire for police plants is to create legal pretext for use of force against the crowd and to make arrests, this could work.

But as we're discussing left-wing agitators, if you're looking at PR among right-wing viewers, it probably also inflames them against the protesters, which might be desirable to extremist 'leftist' since a bolstered enemy means a bolstered set of allies. But I suspect that you're right that among left-wing viewers the riots may actually communicate "this issue is serious!" and increase both its visibility and righteousness against the target. So I suppose if we give full credit to the idea of planted agitators, it might well be the case that violent leftists could suppose that making it violent helps the cause rather than hurting it. It would still be co-opting a peaceful protest for their own violent ends, and result it it looking like "our side" is unified whereas in fact most were peaceful and a side faction wanted it violent. I could see that, but no idea if it happened here. I agree that it would seem to mostly be more logical to suppose that the opposing side would plant agitators if the idea was to give pretext for police violence.

I just heard, btw, that at a peaceful protest in Montreal yesterday (they are happening all over) the police did start tear gassing the entirely peaceful crowd. It just goes to show how thin the line is between the police as enforcers of law and order, versus just enforcers of *order*. The 'law' part of it really doesn't matter as much to them, which I suspect is behind a lot of police aggression we see. Any disorder, even a guy standing on a street 'where he doesn't belong,' gets suppressed with immediate force. I think the populace would generally be happy if it was law and order.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 01, 2020, 10:57:41 AM
They have every right to protect their community.  Any idea where those "indications" came from or what they were?

As to whether they were "pseudo antifa or otherwise," real antifa or otherwise, reports of outside agitators in a number of major cities have been disputed by news organizations that have reviewed records of people who were arrested.  It's clear that "government" is defending and justifying their actions after altercations with blamecasting, led in spirit by the fat man in the oval office.

OTOH, it also seems clear that some groups across the political spectrum and street level criminals are taking advantage of the situation to promote their agendas violently.

I don't know. Could have been facebook/social posts, completely fabricated, both? I'm trying to measure the degree to which I rabbit-hole into some of this nonsense.

I honestly don't care who the bad actors are affiliated with. Organized, opportunists, whatever. Destroying property and indiscriminately attacking people needs a response. If our elected officials on both sides have an opinion on rioting, they seem content to keep it to themselves.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 01, 2020, 11:00:43 AM
Whether....would be...if...might...would...wouldn't.  Armchair musings on the maybe causes of violence without any actual opinion on whether any of these things occurred.  Any or all of them are possible, of course, as are many other things that point away from those things.  Do you think they happened?

You seem to be so deadset on spurious readings of posts that it never occurs to you that you just didn't understand what was written. NH asked a hypothetical question, and I gave a hypothetical answer to it. He did not ask "why did they do it in this instance", he asked why they would do it. So I gave an answer about why they might do it. Maybe better to butt out if you can't follow?

I took his doubting "question" as more of an opinion, your response as hypothetical.  Do you have an opinion?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 11:09:22 AM
I took his doubting "question" as more of an opinion, your response as hypothetical.  Do you have an opinion?

I do not have facts about what happened in this scenario. Maybe they could be found with extensive scrounging and some conjecture, but I wasn't interested to do that. Generally it would strike me as odd to suppose that this never happens. It's standard practice online to use vote brigading and astroturfing to achieve agendas, so it ought to follow that 'IRL' such tactics will be used. False flags are also 'common' practice in world history. So these tactics exist. Only question is what happened here, which I have no idea. But only a fool would think that 'people never organize nefarious actions'.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2020, 11:18:41 AM
I just heard, btw, that at a peaceful protest in Montreal yesterday (they are happening all over) the police did start tear gassing the entirely peaceful crowd. It just goes to show how thin the line is between the police as enforcers of law and order, versus just enforcers of *order*.
Not to say that this does not ever happen, but I am reading something quite different about the Montreal protest. From CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/george-floyd-montreal-police-racism-protest-1.5592643):
Quote
A Montreal anti-racism protest demanding justice for a black Minnesota man who died following a police intervention last week degenerated into clashes between police and some demonstrators on Sunday night.

The march had snaked its way through downtown Montreal on Sunday afternoon without incident, but Montreal police declared the gathering illegal about three hours after it began when they say projectiles were thrown at officers who responded with pepper spray and tear gas.

Tensions flared after the formal rally had concluded and some demonstrators made their way back to the starting point, in the shadow of Montreal police headquarters downtown.

Windows were smashed, fires were set and the situation slid into a game of cat-and-mouse between pockets of protesters and police trying to disperse them.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 11:57:24 AM
Not to say that this does not ever happen, but I am reading something quite different about the Montreal protest.

Yeah, I know the news reported that the police were provoked. I don't know, but people on my social media who were there say that the protesters did nothing to provoke them and that the tear gas began out of the blue. It's possible those I heard from weren't being honest, or were but just didn't see the provocation when it did happen. That being said, even if it's true that the police were "provoked" there is also the issue of what provoked means. Like, are we talking throwing rocks at them, or paper airplanes?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2020, 12:02:02 PM
It's almost impossible to diagnose - there were fires set and windows smashed, projectiles thrown... but when did the police start 'intervening'?  After the paper airplane, or after the fires were set and windows smashed?

And as you observed, people might honestly have not seen the triggers for the police action, and only seen the escalation.  And that's the other thing - escalation.  Mobs of people and police are prone to escalations, so things that start out trivial can escalate and become dangerous.  Identifying the 'fault' after the fact can be an exercise in futility.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 12:09:04 PM
The only mitigating thing I'll say it - and this is my bias speaking - I tend to assume off the bat that the police want to force an unruly crowd to disperse, whereas I wouldn't assume by default that a crowd wants things to get crazy. While I hate mob mentality and don't think much of anyone who submerges their own will and responsibility into a crowd, I expect nevertheless that many police at such an event are probably thinking "Green light to disperse? Green light? How about now?" I have trouble believing that they're enthused that the public is taking the matter so seriously and more likely than not want them to just go away. Also very likely is that police officers inherently feel threatened when faced with a force stronger than they are. Psychologically speaking, the entire office of a police officer rests on the premise that they are seen as the superior party in any interaction with a civilian. Take that away and the police are at minimum nervous, or at worst spoiling to prove they're the superior party. The protesters do not have a motive of that sort, although admittedly certainly protesters could have a bone to pick with The Man.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 12:40:05 PM
Dude, the leftists going out to smash things aren't pretending to be cops or right wings. How on earth would leftists do false-flag operations during "leftist" riots? Not to mention, I doubt your usual sources would admit that rightist and cops are out there inciting violence. NB my sources are reporting when left-wing or adjacent people are getting violent.

Regardless of whether this is actually what's happening, the argument would be something like "we need the police and The Man to look as bad as possible, so we will provoke them into taking violent actions against protesters." This isn't a new thing, and if the main objective is to get the police to tear gas a group of protesters and look like fascists, you might need agitators to escalate it to that level. Now that would be relevant in the case of a peaceful protest where cops standing by and watching didn't suit the fantasy of certain parties. In the case of an already ignited riot it wouldn't seem to be very useful for leftist agitators to come in and fan the flames.

AntiFa's goal is basically realization of Marx's strategy of "a people's revolution" by inciting the public to revolt against the standing government and replace it with an anarcho-socialist organization at the end.

Getting an anarcho-socialist organization at the end is high fantasy, and for all intents insane. The former United States would likely be invaded and occupied within a handful of years, and systematically "annexed" over time from there. And the Quality of Life for those living in that setting would steadily decline.

Meanwhile we have other Socialists, like AoC and Feinstein, that are making attempts at realizing at Socialist state from political action on the inside.

And now we have the Boogaloo guys who see Civil War as a certainty at this point, view the government as becoming increasingly totalitarian(which is valid enough), and as such view the government as their presumed primary enemy once that war does come, with Law Enforcement being their front-line foe. Although there is a lot of variation within "the Boogaloo" as a whole and I wouldn't be surprised if a considerable number of them don't view Law Enforcement Officers as being the problem, but rather the laws they may be asked to enforce(going back to the Sheriff's movement that's been discussed recently), its an area with all kinds of grey. But for them, defense of person and property is paramount, so for them, their two purposes, solidarity with George Floyd in the context of rioting would be to protest what happened, while also being heavily armed and helping businesses defend themselves from rioters. (And ironically, be more likely to use lethal force than the police in the same situation)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 12:43:38 PM
Regardless of whether this is actually what's happening, the argument would be something like "we need the police and The Man to look as bad as possible, so we will provoke them into taking violent actions against protesters." This isn't a new thing, and if the main objective is to get the police to tear gas a group of protesters and look like fascists, you might need agitators to escalate it to that level. Now that would be relevant in the case of a peaceful protest where cops standing by and watching didn't suit the fantasy of certain parties. In the case of an already ignited riot it wouldn't seem to be very useful for leftist agitators to come in and fan the flames.

Not great tactics though since protests turning violent tends to weaken messaging about the motivation for the protests. From a PR point of view, violence is usually to the benefit of the target of the protest. Which would be why cops are inciting violence.

It isn't "great" at all for a Leftist group like BLM, and by all reports, significant portions of BLM are actively cutting ties with Anti-Fa as a result of what's going on.

It is "great" for the goals of Anti-Fa however, as their objective is to destroy the existing system, not improve it in any kind of tangible way. They want to incite a mass revolt that topples the government, not "social reforms."
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 12:44:52 PM
AntiFa's goal is basically realization of Marx's strategy of "a people's revolution" by inciting the public to revolt against the standing government and replace it with an anarcho-socialist organization at the end.

Getting an anarcho-socialist organization at the end is high fantasy, and for all intents insane.

To be fair, even if there is AntiFa out there with stupid ideas, I wouldn't put much likelihood that they're grassroots. Much (much) more likely that they're useful idiots for an interested party that wants nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 12:51:25 PM
Not to say that this does not ever happen, but I am reading something quite different about the Montreal protest.

Yeah, I know the news reported that the police were provoked. I don't know, but people on my social media who were there say that the protesters did nothing to provoke them and that the tear gas began out of the blue. It's possible those I heard from weren't being honest, or were but just didn't see the provocation when it did happen. That being said, even if it's true that the police were "provoked" there is also the issue of what provoked means. Like, are we talking throwing rocks at them, or paper airplanes?

That's the problem with large protests and a small number of provocateurs. You could be standing 7 feet away from the provocateur when they "do their thing" and be oblivious to what they did(you weren't looking in their direction). But you certainly would be aware of the response that comes back.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 01, 2020, 12:57:46 PM
...we have the Boogaloo guys who see Civil War as a certainty at this point, view the government as becoming increasingly totalitarian(which is valid enough), and as such view the government as their presumed primary enemy once that war does come, with Law Enforcement being their front-line foe. Although there is a lot of variation within "the Boogaloo" as a whole and I wouldn't be surprised if a considerable number of them don't view Law Enforcement Officers as being the problem, but rather the laws they may be asked to enforce(going back to the Sheriff's movement that's been discussed recently), its an area with all kinds of grey. But for them, defense of person and property is paramount, so for them, their two purposes, solidarity with George Floyd in the context of rioting would be to protest what happened, while also being heavily armed and helping businesses defend themselves from rioters. (And ironically, be more likely to use lethal force than the police in the same situation)

"Boogaloos" is new to me. That is just dancing to Rock and Roll music. Hard to even find them from a search engine. Seems like a mighty small thing. Y'know, seven people calling themselves a movement can get major corporations to fear them for threatened boycotts, but they are no "movement."
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 01, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
Quote
AntiFa's goal is basically realization of Marx's strategy of "a people's revolution" by inciting the public to revolt against the standing government and replace it with an anarcho-socialist organization at the end.

Since no one in Antifa has spoken up to take credit, it's only speculation to keep repeating that they are behind any of this.  The Mayor of Minnesota has said that "white supremecists" and out of state groups are behind much of the rioting.  The best theory doesn't explain much, and is that we don't know who is doing what, but that they are doing it.

wmLambert, what's with your obsession with George Soros?  You've pointed a finger at him for some dark impulse driving nefarious actions by the Wuhan lab, tied him to the 1968 riots and several times raised his name as having something to do with the protests over the Flynn murder.  Are you not aware of the billionaires who are bankrolling rightwing efforts, as well?  How about a little equal time when you get a chance...

Quote
"Boogaloos" is new to me. That is just dancing to Rock and Roll music. Hard to even find them from a search engine. Seems like a mighty small thing. Y'know, seven people calling themselves a movement can get major corporations to fear them for threatened boycotts, but they are no "movement."

If you don't know anything about them, how do you know that they aren't?  Maybe they are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement).
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
"Boogaloos" is new to me. That is just dancing to Rock and Roll music. Hard to even find them from a search engine. Seems like a mighty small thing. Y'know, seven people calling themselves a movement can get major corporations to fear them for threatened boycotts, but they are no "movement."

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/
 
Is somewhat correct on a number of points as to what's going on with "The Boogaloo." But the author of the article has an obvious leftward bias and obviously skews things accordingly, but the Boogaloo is a very amorphous thing, and others have obvious interests in trying to co-opt it.

I've been aware of the "movement" such as it is for about a year now, because another friend of mine(who happens to be childhood friends with some of the Liberals I've referenced before--I met up with that circle of friends after they'd graduated high school) fell off the Libertarian wagon after the Tea Party failed to produce results and went further to the right, while most of his friends went left. (He's also not-white, while our mutual friends from that time are white)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 01:12:43 PM
The only mitigating thing I'll say it - and this is my bias speaking - I tend to assume off the bat that the police want to force an unruly crowd to disperse, whereas I wouldn't assume by default that a crowd wants things to get crazy. While I hate mob mentality and don't think much of anyone who submerges their own will and responsibility into a crowd, I expect nevertheless that many police at such an event are probably thinking "Green light to disperse? Green light? How about now?" I have trouble believing that they're enthused that the public is taking the matter so seriously and more likely than not want them to just go away. Also very likely is that police officers inherently feel threatened when faced with a force stronger than they are. Psychologically speaking, the entire office of a police officer rests on the premise that they are seen as the superior party in any interaction with a civilian. Take that away and the police are at minimum nervous, or at worst spoiling to prove they're the superior party. The protesters do not have a motive of that sort, although admittedly certainly protesters could have a bone to pick with The Man.

As in most organizations their will be bad apples. With Canadian officers I know the last thing they want is a escalation and 'Green light to disperse' and go get them. 

Ref the Toronto police officer who arrested the guy that killed a number of pedestrians. He was criticized by American law enforcement for not shooting the guy as he did put himself endanger as it appeared the man had a gun (the guy was attempting suicide by cop and made motions to shoot). The officer could have shot but because he didn't see a gun paused and found another way.  In the US it's 'better safe then sorry and deal with the paperwork after training. You threaten or me and I respond with overwhelming 'force'.   

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 01:31:19 PM
As in most organizations their will be bad apples. With Canadian officers I know the last thing they want is a escalation and 'Green light to disperse' and go get them. 

I couldn't tell you if it's the same in every Canadian city. Montreal in particular has a notorious history of rioting every year around hockey, so I'm not sure what the mindset of Montreal police are in this sense. My default mindset would be "they want to hurt you" whether or not it's actually the case. It's the safe assumption.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 01:40:49 PM
Quote
My default mindset would be "they want to hurt you" whether or not it's actually the case. It's the safe assumption.

I guess if I were one to riot I might say that's a safe assumption.

Still I find that statement troubling. If our underlying relationship to police or anyone for that matter is to assume the worst won't we create what we fear? Or at least be part of the problem?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2020, 01:43:11 PM
I couldn't tell you if it's the same in every Canadian city. Montreal in particular has a notorious history of rioting every year around hockey
Um, no.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 01:45:58 PM
If our underlying relationship to police or anyone for that matter is to assume the worst won't we create what we fear? Or at least be part of the problem?

Well, yeah. That's why efforts need to be made to connect with the neighborhoods and build relationships. Anyone whose relationship with the police consists of "they're hiding out waiting to catch you and ticket you" and nothing else is going to come away with the distinct impression that they're shakedown artists working as unofficial tax collectors. And in terms of neighborhood patrol, the lack of a friendly and regular presence other than when there's trouble, in which case the kick-ass squad comes in, likewise. It's up to them to build a better relationship. We can't do it on our side, they're the armed ones who we can't resist.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 01:46:45 PM
I couldn't tell you if it's the same in every Canadian city. Montreal in particular has a notorious history of rioting every year around hockey
Um, no.

No the police mentality isn't the same in every city, or Montreal doesn't have a history of hockey riots? Granted, I haven't heard of it happening lately.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 01, 2020, 01:49:26 PM
...In the US it's 'better safe then sorry and deal with the paperwork after training. You threaten or me and I respond with overwhelming 'force'.

...Or don't respond at all. With the advent of body cams and iPhone cams, it is easier to not do police work at all. Training does tell them to shoot center body mass when threatened, but it's so much easier not to allow oneself to get in that situation.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2020, 01:52:43 PM
No the police mentality isn't the same in every city, or Montreal doesn't have a history of hockey riots? Granted, I haven't heard of it happening lately.
I was responding to "rioting every year around hockey".

That happened five times in the modern era, the first in 1955, the last, and quite minor, coming 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 01:54:08 PM
...In the US it's 'better safe then sorry and deal with the paperwork after training. You threaten or me and I respond with overwhelming 'force'.

...Or don't respond at all. With the advent of body cams and iPhone cams, it is easier to not do police work at all. Training does tell them to shoot center body mass when threatened, but it's so much easier not to allow oneself to get in that situation.

That observations is that most people that take on a job want to do a good one. True there are those that will avoid work but they should be fired.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 01:54:11 PM
No the police mentality isn't the same in every city, or Montreal doesn't have a history of hockey riots? Granted, I haven't heard of it happening lately.
I was responding to "rioting every year around hockey".

That happened five times in the modern era, the first in 1955, the last, and quite minor, coming 10 years ago.

True, it was hyperbole. But I imagine is bespeaks a 'wild side' to Montreal that may differentiate it from, say, Toronto. That *might* have an effect on how the police are trained.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 02:00:19 PM
If our underlying relationship to police or anyone for that matter is to assume the worst won't we create what we fear? Or at least be part of the problem?

Well, yeah. That's why efforts need to be made to connect with the neighborhoods and build relationships. Anyone whose relationship with the police consists of "they're hiding out waiting to catch you and ticket you" and nothing else is going to come away with the distinct impression that they're shakedown artists working as unofficial tax collectors. And in terms of neighborhood patrol, the lack of a friendly and regular presence other than when there's trouble, in which case the kick-ass squad comes in, likewise. It's up to them to build a better relationship. We can't do it on our side, they're the armed ones who we can't resist.

I suspect it will take both sides to build a better relationship. If your always going to start from a place of distrust I don't see a way forward.

And if we always base our judgment on the worst case experience then no relationship works. I'm reminded of the saying that it takes 100 'at a boys' to undo the damage of a negative 'you suck' but the problem isn't the person giving the 'at a boys' or the 'you suck'  that problem belongs to the one who requires 100 at at a boys to get over something.  Or at least they have some responsibility for the problem
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 02:06:16 PM
I suspect it will take both sides to build a better relationship. If your always going to start from a place of distrust I don't see a way forward.

It is more or less natural for people to start from a place of relative distrust. This comes as a surprise to you? And yes there is a way forward, the weaker side being shown that the stronger side won't crush them. Trust develops. You can't tell a chicken to make the first move trusting a fox, it makes no sense.

By the way people are pretty quick to trust, so much so that it takes quite a lot to get them out of their complacency. So if there's significant mistrust it must have taken significant work to get it there. But it wouldn't take nearly as much work to repair it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 01, 2020, 03:15:53 PM
I suspect it will take both sides to build a better relationship. If your always going to start from a place of distrust I don't see a way forward.

It is more or less natural for people to start from a place of relative distrust. This comes as a surprise to you? And yes there is a way forward, the weaker side being shown that the stronger side won't crush them. Trust develops. You can't tell a chicken to make the first move trusting a fox, it makes no sense.

By the way people are pretty quick to trust, so much so that it takes quite a lot to get them out of their complacency. So if there's significant mistrust it must have taken significant work to get it there. But it wouldn't take nearly as much work to repair it.

relative distrust I think assumes that the door can still be opened where as a polarized position of distrust locks the door.

Glatdwell and others makes the case that in reality the majority of people 'default is to trust' - The majority of day to day interactions require trust or we would go nuts. As in all thing though balance and decrement is required. To much or two little tends to hurt us

Gladwell  "Human beings are by nature trusting — of people, technology, everything. Often, we’re too trusting, with tragic results. But if we didn’t suppress thoughts of worst-case scenarios, we’d never leave the house. We definitely wouldn’t go on dating apps or invest in stocks or let our kids take gymnastics." “It would be impossible! - Everyone would withdraw their money from banks,” - “In fact, the whole internet exists because people default to truth. Nothing is secure!" - 

Gladwell suggestion is that we should approach situations “with caution and humility” or in the language of Ornery where the welcome is  "you are wrong". suggesting a attitude of openness to being wrong which is important to the ability to learn.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2020, 04:38:18 PM
And the you have this kind of stupidity:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-rioters-set-fire-to-home-with-child-inside-then-block-firefighters-access-emotional-police-chief-details-incident

Quote
On Saturday, Richmond Police Chief Will Smith was overcome with emotion detailing one of the worst acts of violence carried out in the city during the previous night’s rioting, ostensibly over the death of George Floyd.

According to Smith, rioters set fire to an occupied multi-family residence with a child inside, then repeatedly blocked firefighters’ access to the scene.

Thankfully:

Quote
“Protesters intercepted that fire apparatus several blocks away with vehicles and blocked that fire department’s access to the structure fire,” Smith said. “Inside that home was a child.”

“Officers were able to –,” Smith attempted to continue, though he was overcome with emotion, “help those people out of the house.”

“We were able to get the fire department there safely,” the emotional police chief added.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2020, 05:36:00 PM
Strange that police are frequently too quick to fire pepper spray at protesters, but in case like this there is no mention of violence even though keeping people in a burning building hostage is literally a terrorist act that could legally me met with an immediate SWAT sweep. I am generally happy at any instance of de-escalation, but I have to admit that if any situation merited swift action without compromise it would be one like this.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2020, 06:19:43 PM
The challenge is that the protesters are people, too.

If you bring in a SWAT team to bludgeon their way through a violent mob, there is also a risk of death.

As far as "keeping people in a burning building hostage", is there any evidence that the members of the mob knew about the child in the building?  I find it likely that they were completely oblivious, no matter how obvious the risk would seem to us on the outside of the mob.  Of course setting fire to buildings risks killing people. But people in mobs do not generally think that way (or at all, for that matter.)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 02, 2020, 09:20:56 PM
Perhaps the big lesson from all of this is the fact that these are Democrat riots in Democrat cities, managed by Democrat Mayors and Governors. Has anyone noted a single Democrat Presidential candidate say anything against the looters and rioters? Someone in the higher echelons of power within the DNC is happy with this. Just one more thing to bring down the Trump economy as the Coronavirus seems to be petering out, and one more thing to use against the President.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 02, 2020, 09:24:09 PM
Perhaps the big lesson from all of this is the fact that these are Democrat riots in Democrat cities, managed by Democrat Mayors and Governors. Has anyone noted a single Democrat Presidential candidate say anything against the looters and rioters? Someone in the higher echelons of power within the DNC is happy with this. Just one more thing to bring down the Trump economy as the Coronavirus seems to be petering out, and one more thing to use against the President.

Sick.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 02, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
It seems like both sides think letting this continue is to their own advantage politically.

And not only that but the converse is true too; putting a stop to it with all the drama that will entail will not look good on camera.

The Democrats think this makes Trump look bad and Trump along with the Republicans see this primarily in Democrat controlled states and cities and figure it makes them look weak and mollycoddling to criminals. If the Democrat governors and mayors crack down and civilians get killed or even handled roughly it looks like they are no better than the police who got this whole ball rolling in the first place. Now Trump could maybe crack down and that might make him look good to his base but as long as this is mostly going on in Democrat controlled areas and the people in charge there rebuff his offers of assistance then he may figure his best play is to wait for the time being and maybe make his move when Republican controlled areas have their leadership asking him for help if things get out of control and they figure they need it at which time he has the military ride in like the cavalry to save the day, but only after people are begging for it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 02, 2020, 11:00:10 PM
It seems like both sides think letting this continue is to their own advantage politically.

And not only that but the converse is true too; putting a stop to it with all the drama that will entail will not look good on camera.

The Democrats think this makes Trump look bad and Trump along with the Republicans see this primarily in Democrat controlled states and cities and figure it makes them look weak and mollycoddling to criminals. If the Democrat governors and mayors crack down and civilians get killed or even handled roughly it looks like they are no better than the police who got this whole ball rolling in the first place. Now Trump could maybe crack down and that might make him look good to his base but as long as this is mostly going on in Democrat controlled areas and the people in charge there rebuff his offers of assistance then he may figure his best play is to wait for the time being and maybe make his move when Republican controlled areas have their leadership asking him for help if things get out of control and they figure they need it at which time he has the military ride in like the cavalry to save the day, but only after people are begging for it.

Way off base. The Democrats are pushing the looting and violence - and the media is happy to go along with them.

Ask yourselves why not a single MSM, except Fox News, has even mentioned Retired St. Louis police captain, David Dorne, killed as a pawnshop was looted. Here was a hero, but he doesn't fit the Democrat play book. There is a MSM attempt to blame the rioting and looting on White Supremacists, yet no such people have been noticed, anywhere. Certainly nothing to inspire the blame game. There are many false flag activists out there as well. One activist dressed himself up as a National Guard soldier, but he screwed up the costume and got arrested. He was heavily armed. Think about what his assignment may have been.

The GOP is not following a strategy of pretending the Democrats are "weak and mollycoddling to criminals." No pretense needed. If a line of citizens stand in front of their storefronts to ward off looters, they are probably GOP. The ones chanting "USA! USA! USA!" certainly are.

What is sad to me, is that many, many cannon-fodder Left-wing idiot-morons are getting arrested at the behest of the Soros-paid activists who set them up and then sneak away without getting caught. I'm not too empathetic, because the cannon-fodder are just too stupid for pity.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 03, 2020, 07:12:57 AM
David Dorn:
CNN  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html)
CBS News  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/david-dorn-retired-st-louis-police-captain-killed-unrest-george-floyd-death/)
NBC Chicago  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/death-toll-grows-in-national-protests/2282628/%3famp)

On a completely separate topic:
What is sad to me, is that many, many cannon-fodder Left-wing idiot-morons
If there's one person who really shouldn't insult people's intelligence, wmLambert...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 07:17:47 AM
Quote
What is sad to me, is that many, many cannon-fodder Left-wing idiot-morons are getting arrested at the behest of the Soros-paid activists who set them up and then sneak away without getting caught. I'm not too empathetic, because the cannon-fodder are just too stupid for pity.

Obsession.  Aren't you upset about the Adelsons, Charles Koch, Paul Singer, Mercers, Camerons, Yasses, Marcuses and others who have given $millions to fund Republican and conservative causes?  They and others like them have outspent the amount Soros has given to any groups by an order of magnitude.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2020, 08:23:20 AM
David Dorn:
CNN  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html)
CBS News  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/david-dorn-retired-st-louis-police-captain-killed-unrest-george-floyd-death/)
NBC Chicago  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/death-toll-grows-in-national-protests/2282628/%3famp)


So have we gotten justice for Floyd now? Or de we need to kill a few more cops? Could we just steal a few more Air Jordan’s and Luis Vuitton purses and be done? Nothing says justice like some sweet new scoots and a stolen bag! Well, except maybe a decent body count among police. Right?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 03, 2020, 08:34:34 AM
Why are you so obsessed with killing?  First, you want to kill people with COVID-19, now you want to kill people during  demonstrations.  You're all about the killing...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 08:53:43 AM
David Dorn:
CNN  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html)
CBS News  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/david-dorn-retired-st-louis-police-captain-killed-unrest-george-floyd-death/)
NBC Chicago  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/death-toll-grows-in-national-protests/2282628/%3famp)


So have we gotten justice for Floyd now? Or de we need to kill a few more cops? Could we just steal a few more Air Jordan’s and Luis Vuitton purses and be done? Nothing says justice like some sweet new scoots and a stolen bag! Well, except maybe a decent body count among police. Right?

Those aren't protesters, as you well know.  Opportunistic criminals and hate groups are taking advantage of the protests to carry out their own objectives.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2020, 10:36:56 AM
I'll interrupt everyone talking past each other to confess to a rather disheartening bit of bias on my part that just got shoved in my face.

The murder of Dorn was brought up above, and I admit my instinctive reaction to hearing about this old retired police captain from Missouri was to assume that he'd probably roughed up a few minorities in his time as well.

And then the links were provided (I would have Googled it but I was playing catch up) and it turns out he was beloved by the community and his colleagues, he tried his best to help youths before they irrevocably went down a bad path, and, yes, he was a black man.

So I'm playing the self reflection game on what my first reactions to things are based on at the moment.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
Perhaps the big lesson from all of this is the fact that these are Democrat riots in Democrat cities, managed by Democrat Mayors and Governors. Has anyone noted a single Democrat Presidential candidate say anything against the looters and rioters? Someone in the higher echelons of power within the DNC is happy with this. Just one more thing to bring down the Trump economy as the Coronavirus seems to be petering out, and one more thing to use against the President.

For starters, almost all of the largest cities have Democrat mayors. San Diego is the largest city with a Republican mayor, and they do indeed have violence, including banks being burned to the ground. The next largest is Jacksonville - rioting. Save yourself the time, and just respond with [insert excuse here].
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 12:52:49 PM
I'll interrupt everyone talking past each other to confess to a rather disheartening bit of bias on my part that just got shoved in my face.

The murder of Dorn was brought up above, and I admit my instinctive reaction to hearing about this old retired police captain from Missouri was to assume that he'd probably roughed up a few minorities in his time as well.

And then the links were provided (I would have Googled it but I was playing catch up) and it turns out he was beloved by the community and his colleagues, he tried his best to help youths before they irrevocably went down a bad path, and, yes, he was a black man.

So I'm playing the self reflection game on what my first reactions to things are based on at the moment.

Good call. When I posted the news that Dorne had not been mentioned by anyone except Fox - it was accurate. When Fox did a Lexis-Nexis search and found no other network had covered it, it was accurate. It is evident that the search engines lit up and the word got back to those complicit Democrat apologists, because they then started covering it as if their earlier silence never happened.

The new observation is that the Soros-funded activists are well-organized: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/must-see-exclusive-mysterious-stacks-bricks-delivered-numerous-us-cities-evidence-riots-organized/

Is there any doubt that someone is orchestrating it all?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 03, 2020, 01:50:05 PM
I would be very surprised if those bricks were the work of anyone on the left. It seems more likely to me that--if there isn't some innocent explanation--they're the work of someone attempting to discredit the protests by spurring them to violence. There's a reason cops are doing everything they can to provoke violence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2020, 01:58:03 PM
I would be very surprised if those bricks were the work of anyone on the left. It seems more likely to me that--if there isn't some innocent explanation--they're the work of someone attempting to discredit the protests by spurring them to violence. There's a reason cops are doing everything they can to provoke violence.

It's a little bit of all of the above, I think.

BBC wants to claim it's a myth. Other police agencies and local stations in those areas indicate it's a very real thing. Certain other areas have found those "piles of bricks" to have actually been otherwise benign(they were there for legitimate reasons), but removed them as a precautionary measure after it(the potential hazard) was pointed out anyway.

The issue here is that AntiFa has previously been reported as having discussed "staging" things like this in advance of protests in the past, so it is in their playbook. Whether or not they used that playbook, that's another matter.

Which is where you can get back into the psy-ops game of false-flag, double/triple/whatever false flag activities and so forth. Because of course people who oppose AntiFa are aware that AntiFa's playbook includes doing such things, so it'd be a good way to try to set them up...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 02:06:09 PM
I would be very surprised if those bricks were the work of anyone on the left. It seems more likely to me that--if there isn't some innocent explanation--they're the work of someone attempting to discredit the protests by spurring them to violence. There's a reason cops are doing everything they can to provoke violence.

Except that projection and false-flag operations are tactics of the Democrat party - and not something the GOP is noted for.

Look - we know Soros has funded activists. There is no argument. He has even explained why he wants to bring down the USA. We know the same activists show up at multiple places all over the nation - and young noble hearts who live in their parents' basement generally don't have the funds to fly all over the country to take part in every protest. It should be possible to trace where the bricks and pipes and other riot stuff has come from, and maybe find the cretins who put it there. The more sophisticated the operation, though, the harder it will become to prove anything.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 03, 2020, 02:07:17 PM
Except that projection and false-flag operations are tactics of the Democrat party - and not something the GOP is noted for.

Well there's 9/11...oops! Sorry, didn't mean to say that out loud.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 02:07:43 PM
Quote
The issue here is that AntiFa has previously been reported as having discussed "staging" things like this in advance of protests in the past, so it is in their playbook. Whether or not they used that playbook, that's another matter.

Since we know that right wing militant groups are trying to discredit and disrupt legitimate protests we can't assume that these "staging" activities are due to only left-wing groups.  So far I haven't seen evidence that antifa is behind any violence or staged disruptions.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
Quote
Except that projection and false-flag operations are tactics of the Democrat party - and not something the GOP is noted for.

Look - we know Soros has funded activists.

I think Crunch's goto statement applies more to you than anyone here besides him: smh.

BTW, you don't get extra credit for smearing George Soros on every thread.  Look to your own house before you attack others without evidence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2020, 02:13:15 PM
I'll interrupt everyone talking past each other to confess to a rather disheartening bit of bias on my part that just got shoved in my face.

The murder of Dorn was brought up above, and I admit my instinctive reaction to hearing about this old retired police captain from Missouri was to assume that he'd probably roughed up a few minorities in his time as well.

And then the links were provided (I would have Googled it but I was playing catch up) and it turns out he was beloved by the community and his colleagues, he tried his best to help youths before they irrevocably went down a bad path, and, yes, he was a black man.

So I'm playing the self reflection game on what my first reactions to things are based on at the moment.

Good call. When I posted the news that Dorne had not been mentioned by anyone except Fox - it was accurate. When Fox did a Lexis-Nexis search and found no other network had covered it, it was accurate. It is evident that the search engines lit up and the word got back to those complicit Democrat apologists, because they then started covering it as if their earlier silence never happened.

The new observation is that the Soros-funded activists are well-organized: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/must-see-exclusive-mysterious-stacks-bricks-delivered-numerous-us-cities-evidence-riots-organized/

Is there any doubt that someone is orchestrating it all?

Thank you so much for that heartfelt bit of encouragement.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 02:16:21 PM
Quote
The new observation is that the Soros-funded activists are well-organized

You could save a lot of space on these threads if every time you want to point out how evil Democrats are and how blessed and saintly Republicans are you just posted:

SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We'd all get your point.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 02:47:08 PM
Quote
The new observation is that the Soros-funded activists are well-organized

You could save a lot of space on these threads if every time you want to point out how evil Democrats are and how blessed and saintly Republicans are you just posted:

SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We'd all get your point.

Your call. You want to go there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQl_bV1uXLE

George Soros has transferred $18 Billion to his Open Society Foundation to support his political goals. Black Lives matter, AntiFa, Occupy Wallstreet, ...who doesn't he support?

Of course not all of that $18 billion goes to paying activists - much goes to the media to make sure all opposition is tainted as conspiracy theory. Look at the internet, the first two dozen search engines all return the verdict of how saintly Soros is, and how everyone against him is the problem. You stand where you stand, but accept the position you put yourself in. And yes, Soros is an owner of that Wuhan lab that started the Coronavirus. But, so is Bill Gates.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2020, 02:57:30 PM
Look - we know Soros has funded activists. There is no argument. He has even explained why he wants to bring down the USA. We know the same activists show up at multiple places all over the nation - and young noble hearts who live in their parents' basement generally don't have the funds to fly all over the country to take part in every protest. It should be possible to trace where the bricks and pipes and other riot stuff has come from, and maybe find the cretins who put it there. The more sophisticated the operation, though, the harder it will become to prove anything.

If the group is well funded then chances any bricks and much of the other paraphernalia they purchased was obtained months or even years ago and has been sitting in a storage unit somewhere just waiting for the occasion for them to both be ready for use, and hard to trace as there will be no "recent (unusual) purchasing activity" to find.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 02:59:11 PM
Here is another report of luxury cars dropping off the looters with power tools and suitcases, waiting for the looters to unload loot, then go back to get more stuff. These charge organized crime as the culprits.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8384139/NYC-looters-dropped-cars-tools-picked-driven-location.html
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2020, 03:02:14 PM
Quote
The new observation is that the Soros-funded activists are well-organized

You could save a lot of space on these threads if every time you want to point out how evil Democrats are and how blessed and saintly Republicans are you just posted:

SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We'd all get your point.

Your call. You want to go there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQl_bV1uXLE

George Soros has transferred $18 Billion to his Open Society Foundation to support his political goals. Black Lives matter, AntiFa, Occupy Wallstreet, ...who doesn't he support?

Of course not all of that $18 billion goes to paying activists - much goes to the media to make sure all opposition is tainted as conspiracy theory. Look at the internet, the first two dozen search engines all return the verdict of how saintly Soros is, and how everyone against him is the problem. You stand where you stand, but accept the position you put yourself in. And yes, Soros is an owner of that Wuhan lab that started the Coronavirus. But, so is Bill Gates.

Cool, coo coo coo co cool.

So, Soros is the devil. Perhaps because he put a lot of money , and hey look, so did Gates and others. Assuming in this paradigm they're evil as well.

Look, I have tried to be pretty equal regarding political speak. I'm a little commie sometimes, other times I machine gun off the liberals.

I'm asking you right now, not as an Ornery guy who you would feel comfortable asking others who wanted you to die to go suck your dick, what's your issue with Soros? Why do you keep bringing him up? You always do it, why? We're honestly all curious, just please answer for once in your life.

Soros. What's your deal?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 03:02:20 PM
Here is another report of luxury cars dropping off the looters with power tools and suitcases, waiting for the looters to unload loot, then go back to get more stuff. These charge organized crime as the culprits.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8384139/NYC-looters-dropped-cars-tools-picked-driven-location.html
There are 169 organizations with investments in Wuhan lab.  Soros does indeed invest in many other things.  You don't think Adelson, Mercer, Koch and a host of other conservative billionaires invest heavily in conservative and rightwing causes?  This leaves out all of the philanthropic investments Soros, Gates and many on the right make.  Do you sleep only on your right side and not cut your food because it would mean using your left hand?

SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Here is another report of luxury cars dropping off the looters with power tools and suitcases, waiting for the looters to unload loot, then go back to get more stuff. These charge organized crime as the culprits.

The Daily Mail?  That's an even less reputable site than your other sources.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 03:06:58 PM
...If the group is well funded then chances any bricks and much of the other paraphernalia they purchased was obtained months or even years ago and has been sitting in a storage unit somewhere just waiting for the occasion for them to both be ready for use, and hard to trace as there will be no "recent (unusual) purchasing activity" to find.

Nah... I doubt the need to stash bricks and pipes beforehand in storage facilities. It is all ubiquitous, and readily available. Any construction site has plenty of stuff that can be used at a moment's notice. If the looters don't care about stealing TVs and shoes, why pay for bricks? The investigation will center on the vehicles and where they come from.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2020, 03:14:08 PM
Since we know that right wing militant groups are trying to discredit and disrupt legitimate protests we can't assume that these "staging" activities are due to only left-wing groups.  So far I haven't seen evidence that antifa is behind any violence or staged disruptions.

And you probably won't see much in the way of evidence until/unless they start prosecuting members of the group. Just because you're not seeing any evidence of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And given that a lot of it is probably "cyber-intelligence" in nature, they'd be smart to only reveal the minimum necessary to convict.

None of the stupid leaking that happened back in the 1990's about how intelligence officials managed to track Bin Laden for example... Which in turn made him near impossible to track thereafter, and a great many others as well because they realized if we can do it to OBL, we could do it to them too.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2020, 03:19:23 PM
...If the group is well funded then chances any bricks and much of the other paraphernalia they purchased was obtained months or even years ago and has been sitting in a storage unit somewhere just waiting for the occasion for them to both be ready for use, and hard to trace as there will be no "recent (unusual) purchasing activity" to find.

Nah... I doubt the need to stash bricks and pipes beforehand in storage facilities. It is all ubiquitous, and readily available. Any construction site has plenty of stuff that can be used at a moment's notice. If the looters don't care about stealing TVs and shoes, why pay for bricks? The investigation will center on the vehicles and where they come from.

Just because the stuff is "out there" doesn't mean it's "right there" when they need/want it. So if some construction outfit hasn't inadvertently left such things available for their people to "opportunistically use" during a protest, they'd need to create the opportunity themselves.

As one expression goes, "It's better to be lucky than good. But the good make their own luck." And pre-positioning stacks of bricks along a protest route would fall into the "make your own luck" if your goal is chaos. The better part for those groups is their people don't even need to be the ones who use the bricks, just so long as somebody does, it's mission accomplished for them.

It also gets rid of the narrative talking point or potential photo op of "protestors were seen bringing sticks/clubs/bricks along with them to the protest" or being caught pulling them out of a bag.

Don't need to bring it with you, if you know to expect to "find them" along the way.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 03:19:29 PM
Here is another report of luxury cars dropping off the looters with power tools and suitcases, waiting for the looters to unload loot, then go back to get more stuff. These charge organized crime as the culprits.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8384139/NYC-looters-dropped-cars-tools-picked-driven-location.html
There are 169 organizations with investments in Wuhan lab.  Soros does indeed invest in many other things.  You don't think Adelson, Mercer, Koch and a host of other conservative billionaires invest heavily in conservative and rightwing causes?  This leaves out all of the philanthropic investments Soros, Gates and many on the right make.  Do you sleep only on your right side and not cut your food because it would mean using your left hand?

SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
Here is another report of luxury cars dropping off the looters with power tools and suitcases, waiting for the looters to unload loot, then go back to get more stuff. These charge organized crime as the culprits.

The Daily Mail?  That's an even less reputable site than your other sources.

Well, we know which side you are on. Are you a card-carrying member of AntiFa? Are you one of the activists that Soros has funded to infiltrate the internet? Just wondering. You pick your side, and that picking does define you.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 03:27:11 PM
...Just because the stuff is "out there" doesn't mean it's "right there" when they need/want it. So if some construction outfit hasn't inadvertently left such things available for their people to "opportunistically use" during a protest, they'd need to create the opportunity themselves.

Laydown lots have that stuff at any building site, and it all comes from providers, so the stuff is always there. It doesn't sound like these people would be afraid to steal the stuff on an "as needs basis." Organized groups are aware of not leaving traces, so contemporaneous scrounging seems most likely.

However stacks of bricks are heavy, so unloading equipment is probably part of the vehicle. That;s where I'd look first.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 03:50:14 PM
Quote
Well, we know which side you are on. Are you a card-carrying member of AntiFa? Are you one of the activists that Soros has funded to infiltrate the internet? Just wondering. You pick your side, and that picking does define you.

Are you getting swag for promoting SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?  Have you picked a side?  Sorry, dumb question.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2020, 03:51:15 PM
Quote
Well, we know which side you are on. Are you a card-carrying member of AntiFa? Are you one of the activists that Soros has funded to infiltrate the internet? Just wondering. You pick your side, and that picking does define you.

Are you getting swag for promoting SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?  Have you picked a side?  Sorry, dumb question.

Still smarmy.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 03:58:27 PM
Quote
Still smarmy.

Christ!  If you're going to reach for insults, get a *censored*ing dictionary!  Or use this page (http://www.literarygenius.info/a1-shakespearean-insults-generator.htm); I'll be happy to respond in Elizabethan :)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 03, 2020, 05:07:33 PM
Does it look something like this?

http://www.emotioneric.com/emotionfill/smarmy.html
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2020, 05:16:12 PM
Want to reiterate that the Daily Mail is the yellowest of yellow journalism. Ya'll don't know what it's like until you move here. It's like the Hannity/Maddow newspaper on display right there when you're just trying to buy coffee and maybe some smokes on the way to work.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 03, 2020, 05:16:33 PM
Does it look something like this?

http://www.emotioneric.com/emotionfill/smarmy.html

I don't know from smarmy, you tell me :).  How about this (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wIjT_VtPfSM/VpQh1xF48II/AAAAAAAAPz8/s_Ct5hRudvE/s1600/unctuous-ted-cruz.jpg)?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2020, 05:17:55 PM
What's even worse is people read and listen to this Hannity/Maddow newspaper.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 12:18:34 PM
Real honest to goodness people are wondering about the Blue States' release of criminals just before the rioting. Also, the instantaneous turn around of looters and rioters released within a few hours of being arrested so they can go back out onto the streets.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 12:32:56 PM
...I don't know from smarmy, you tell me :).  How about this (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wIjT_VtPfSM/VpQh1xF48II/AAAAAAAAPz8/s_Ct5hRudvE/s1600/unctuous-ted-cruz.jpg)?
  You do know from smarmy. because you were so angry someone put Cruz's picture on that meme when you know in your heart that you deserved that honor.

Funny they put Cruz on there, when he is certainly not smarmy nor unctious. Remember he has photographic-like memory for the spoken word. When he says something, you can be sure it is accurate and not posing disinformation.

The Democrats have made a paradigm of "reading between the lines." They may be forced to say something in front of the camera for the record, but they know their followers understand that what they say is not really what they mean. The politician who leaps to mind about "Smarmy" speechifying is Pelosi.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 04, 2020, 12:35:29 PM
...I don't know from smarmy, you tell me :).  How about this (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wIjT_VtPfSM/VpQh1xF48II/AAAAAAAAPz8/s_Ct5hRudvE/s1600/unctuous-ted-cruz.jpg)?
  You do know from smarmy. because you were so angry someone put Cruz's picture on that meme when you know in your heart that you deserved that honor.

Funny they put Cruz on there, when he is certainly not smarmy. Remember he has photographic-like memory for the spoken word. When he says something, you can be sure it is accurate and not posing disinformation.

The Democrats have made a paradigm of "reading between the lines." They may be forced to say something in front of the camera for the record, but they know their followers understand that what they say is not really what they mean. The politician who leaps to mind about "Smarmy" speechifying is Pelosi.

I'll say two things about your post.  First, that you never fail to disappoint.  Second, Thou mewling doghearted plebian!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 04, 2020, 12:39:55 PM
Of course, Trump never says anything that needs interpretation by his followers. Good thing projection is a sin of Democrats, eh?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 02:12:30 PM
...I'll say two things about your post.  First, that you never fail to disappoint.  Second, Thou mewling doghearted plebian!

Still smarmy and proving it. Everyone wondered why the criminals were let out because of Coronavirus - not just me. Everyone wonders why those arrested for rioting and looting were back out on the streets immediately. You are so smart, explain to us why the Blue state politicians did this.

What we see is simple to understand - but let me explain it to you, anyway. Blue State politicians control the states that screwed up the most with the Wuhan flu. They sent Covid-19 infected patients to senior nursing homes, they send a man to jail for playing catch in a park with his little daughter without masks in an isolated location, but release dangerous criminals into the street because of that same flu. The actions are not just illogical but worth looking at. These Blue State politicians issued unConstitutional fiats that destroyed the economy. No buying seed, but you can buy pot. The protests and rioters are coordinated - and the leading actors are all Democrats. Please explain the innocent coincidences.

But do it in such a manner that you can blame it on Trump. ...The Straw man, of course, not the good man.

Then end with another smarmy insult.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 02:51:21 PM
Just watching another interview with Rudy Giuliani talking about listing AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group. One of the things he said was apt. If they become classified as terrorists we may be able to get into their books and see how much George Soros has been paying them. Such thoughts are not outré, they are wondered by everyone.

One of the statements Rudy made was that the George Floyd murder was an opportunity to foment unity, because all the police denounced what Derek Chauvin did. At the same time - the incidents of police on Black outrages have been dramatically lessened and moving in the right direction. These protests should be supporting that momentum, not putting the brakes on it, and denouncing what is happening.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 04, 2020, 03:12:57 PM
Just watching another interview with Rudy Giuliani talking about listing AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group. One of the things he said was apt. If they become classified as terrorists we may be able to get into their books and see how much George Soros has been paying them. Such thoughts are not outré, they are wondered by everyone.

One of the statements Rudy made was that the George Floyd murder was an opportunity to foment unity, because all the police denounced what Derek Chauvin did. At the same time - the incidents of police on Black outrages have been dramatically lessened and moving in the right direction. These protests should be supporting that momentum, not putting the brakes on it, and denouncing what is happening.

You're a specimen that should be researched in the future.  You are perhaps the most gullible right wing sycophant I've ever seen, believing and parroting everything that crosses in front of your eyes from the most suspect and unreliable sources as if it is gospel.

Sad, even more than sad.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 03:31:31 PM
..You are perhaps the most gullible right wing sycophant I've ever seen, believing and parroting everything that crosses in front of your eyes from the most suspect and unreliable sources as if it is gospel.

Sad, even more than sad.

More smarmy insult - with no attempt to exonerate Soros, who according to you has never funded AntiFa and Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. What is really funny is that you missed the part about me being against disinformation - not about being pro-GOP or pro-Trump. If I mention the honest and truthful side that contradicts disinformation, do not pretend that is sycophancy. If you cannot dispute stated facts that refute your opinion, you always look to insult. Why continue Laughter by Intimidation when you know it is a discredited debate fallacy? You're not stupid - just obstinate.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 04, 2020, 03:36:30 PM
More smarmy insult - with no attempt to exonerate Soros, who according to you has never funded AntiFa and Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. What is really funny is that you missed the part about me being against disinformation - not about being pro-GOP or pro-Trump. If I mention the honest and truthful side that contradicts disinformation, do not pretend that is sycophancy. If you cannot dispute stated facts that refute your opinion, you always look to insult. Why continue Laughter by Intimidation when you know it is a discredited debate fallacy? You're not stupid - just obstinate.

You've provided no facts, just assertions.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 03:56:00 PM
You've provided no facts, just assertions.

No, I've said Soros has admitted funding AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. Those are facts. I did provide a link to an interview with Soros where he admitted giving $18 billion to change the USA political system. But no worry, if you are even slightly proficient, you can find your own sources that prove that - Heaven knows nothing I say will satisfy you.

Just on local TV coverage, we've seen an AntiFa guy bragging that his tattoo was paid for by George Soros. How many things must you see before you get the idea? Look up "Open Society Foundation" to help your searches. Go to YouTube to hear Soros explain in his own words. Don't take my word for anything. Look past the complicit search engines and dive down to get at the truth. You can do it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 04, 2020, 04:05:35 PM
No, I've said Soros has admitted funding AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. Those are facts. I did provide a link to an interview with Soros where he admitted giving $18 billion to change the USA political system. But no worry, if you are even slightly proficient, you can find your own sources that prove that - Heaven knows nothing I say will satisfy you.

Just on local TV coverage, we've seen an AntiFa guy bragging that his tattoo was paid for by George Soros. How many things must you see before you get the idea? Look up "Open Society Foundation" to help your searches. Go to YouTube to hear Soros explain in his own words. Don't take my word for anything. Look past the complicit search engines and dive down to get at the truth. You can do it.

You know it's a meme to say Soros paid for things, right?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2020, 04:12:05 PM
I'd be delighted to see a quote where Soros said he was funding Antifa. I'd be even more interested to know who he wrote the check to. I'm not about to plow through a 24 minute video, point out how you've misinterpreted or misquoted what he exactly said, and then have my response ignored.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 04, 2020, 04:16:12 PM
So...look. From my side of things, I don't mind Black Lives Matter. There's that instinctual part of me that because I'm white I start to get annoyed, but then I remember the name isn't about excluding whites, but drawing attention to black people's lives who were unnecessarily cut short by police interaction.

Antifa, I get there are some people doing bad things in it's name out there, but at the end of the day it's a really broad movement like 4chan's Anonymous. There is no central command, there is no one set of things that we can possibly hold them all accountable for.

And Occupy Wall Street...refresh my memory, but weren't they just a bunch of younguns/hippies that set up camps to inconvenience the money changers trying to make their way to the temple to do their business? What did they do to offend you so much you'd bring them back up like fifteen years later? Is it the idea behind the movement? Do you perhaps disagree with the metrics showing that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is diminishing?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 04:26:54 PM
So...look. From my side of things, I don't mind Black Lives Matter. There's that instinctual part of me that because I'm white I start to get annoyed, but then I remember the name isn't about excluding whites, but drawing attention to black people's lives who were unnecessarily cut short by police interaction.

Antifa, I get there are some people doing bad things in it's name out there, but at the end of the day it's a really broad movement like 4chan's Anonymous. There is no central command, there is no one set of things that we can possibly hold them all accountable for.

And Occupy Wall Street...refresh my memory, but weren't they just a bunch of younguns/hippies that set up camps to inconvenience the money changers trying to make their way to the temple to do their business? What did they do to offend you so much you'd bring them back up like fifteen years later? Is it the idea behind the movement? Do you perhaps disagree with the metrics showing that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is diminishing?

All three groups are composed of individuals, some who appear in all of them. Do not think of these groups as country clubs who vote on members. The more amorphous a group is, the easier it is to manipulate. These groups have never gone away, especially in the era of Trump, where the Leftist groups swarm social media.

In the days when John Kerry was protesting the Vietnam War, his group was led by a phony soldier with stolen valor. The FBI always put counter agents within these groups to get info on them. It has not discontinued the process now. I wish the DOJ was openly exposing these people, but until they do, treat them with caution.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 04, 2020, 04:40:37 PM
I'm not surprised there are members between all three groups. Leftist ideology is leftist ideology. I only wish I had the spare money to be able to bop around helping them all, but at the same time I'm unsuprised that there are young rich people with time and money to spare.

I'll ask again, where are you getting this information about shadowy cabals and Soros being literally Satan. I'm asking in good faith. Even if I disagree with it in the end (and I definitely do now,) I'm willing to look at your sources with an open mind.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2020, 04:41:10 PM
I was delighted to notice that wmLamberts Soros video was posted by a Flat Earther Channel. Their other videos include

"Nasa Fan Calls the Cops on Someone for Eating Burrito"
"Mouse in space: NASA BUSTED AGAIN"
"9/11 Signifying Destruction of Holy Kaaba - The Golden Ratio 1,618.."
"TRANSVESTIGATION Bill Gates is a WOMAN"
"Adrenochrome Harvesting and The Zionist Elite"

That last one I really had to look up. Luckily They helpfully included a FAQ under their freaky video.

Quote
The Elite are said to run massive child trafficking rings all around the world, buying and selling children for their own pleasure. Children are heavily used since they experience a huge spike of adrenaline from the pineal gland. In 2018, NCMECreports 424,000+ missing children every year in America.
A lot of the Elite are addicted to the substance. They participate in what is called ‘Spirit Cooking‘ and have parties surrounding the subject of human sacrificing. These people sacrifice children, eat the bodies, drink the blood and worship dark gods. This stuff tends to be quite addicting. Many who try the drug tend to have a hard time coming off it.
One prime example of the Elite and the famous drug is the example of Al Gore. Al Gore while using the airport was said to be carrying suitcases filled to the brim with blood.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2020, 06:23:23 PM
Actually, TheDrake, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that last one. The way elite uber-people think, it is entirely plausible that they would think something just like that. It's the billionaire version of Paltrow's crystals. And incidentally I do believe that there are high-up pedophile rings around, as well as prostitution rings. Child trafficking is a major problem in the world, and who do you think benefits from it? None of this is to take away from your general point, which is well placed.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2020, 06:28:23 PM
Fen, it starts out somewhat plausible if a little farfetched, but human sacrifice and suitcases full of blood? Particularly that the title is anti-semitic on top.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2020, 06:57:36 PM
Oh great - somebody is actually linking to a site espousing blood libel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel)

That's beyond shameful.  Being completely credulous and ignorant only excuses so much
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 09:26:26 PM
Project Veritas has released inside videos of AntiFa training activists. This is no longer something you can ignore. Accusing them is one thing. Seeing them do it is another.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2020, 09:27:05 PM
Fen, it starts out somewhat plausible if a little farfetched, but human sacrifice and suitcases full of blood? Particularly that the title is anti-semitic on top.

I didn't follow that link above, just saying I've heard of it in various forms. In the abstract the powerful preying on the weak and defenseless shouldn't come as a surprise. And there are weird occultists out there, to say nothing of people doing shocking things just because they are shocking to make themselves feel above it all.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2020, 10:45:52 PM
...I was delighted to notice that wmLamberts Soros video was posted by a Flat Earther Channel.

An interview in which Soros is doing all the talking needs to be dismissed because of why? Where videos get archived is interesting. Many things are taken down because they don't agree with those who own the servers. Wikipedia does that. Old stories about a political rival stays up forever on CNN, MSNBC, and other MSM, but a story that doesn't fit their mantra gets taken down because "The news cycle has covered that sufficiently so it no longer needs to stay available." I saw that contemporaneously with the Clinton "The Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument (Kaiparowits "monument")" It was gone almost instantly, but has slowly reemerged and can now be found. Not the original news - but the cleaned-up versions.

When the MSM deletes records of important stories, they sometimes miss those sites who archive them with coded titles.

Lara Logan has several interviews on AntiFa. Here is one: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6161083038001#sp=show-clips

Here is the Project Veritas video: https://www.wnd.com/2020/06/undercover-video-shows-antifa-teaching-hurt-someone/
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 01:26:16 PM
I’m challenged by people legitimately, peacefully protesting. I know it will mostly disappear after November, but I have questions for those holding signs.

Is there a specific policy, law or other “thing” that we should be examining and/or changing? War protesters want the war to end, PETA want animal products and cruelty banned, immigration protesters want to change laws to make it easier (or harder) for immigrants to enter the US. In all these examples there are tangible steps that have explicit results. All I ever hear on this topic is the need for “honest conversation” or a “national dialogue”. Wtf does that mean? The only thing I’ve seen resembling something actionable is “defund the police”. I suppose that’s something to at least argue.  Everything else seems like mushy, vague, feel-good nonsense. Not much different than Gal Gadot and other celebrities wistfully singing Imagine when the covid lockdowns began. Umm, ok?

And if I see one more company post (in large white font over a black square) “Acme Co. stands for equality and against racism” I’m going to puke. Really? Acme stands against racism? The courage and conviction to publicly state something like that in today's political environment is stunning. Years from now, people will remember that Acme made it known that they stood against racism, against a sea of others who stood for it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 01:32:31 PM
 I know posting this is going to severely impact my career, and could ostracize me from society but you know what? I literally don’t care:

***racism is bad***

Yes you read that right. Punish and pillory me however you want, I stand by my words.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 01:36:45 PM
It probably seems crazy to do something like this, but if I get even one of you to open your eyes and start thinking the same way, it’s worth whatever backlash I might get.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 06, 2020, 01:44:33 PM
Quote
In all these examples there are tangible steps that have explicit results. All I ever hear on this topic is the need for “honest conversation” or a “national dialogue”. Wtf does that mean?
...
And if I see one more company post (in large white font over a black square) “Acme Co. stands for equality and against racism” I’m going to puke. Really? Acme stands against racism? The courage and conviction to publicly state something like that in today's political environment is stunning. Years from now, people will remember that Acme made it known that they stood against racism, against a sea of others who stood for it.

I agree with your consternation.  After LBJ's Civil Rights Act, young people of my generation thought the problem was solved.  MLK Jr.'s Dream speech was irresistibly perfect.  Done and dusted.  Things only got worse when the hated "establishment" found other ways to impose its will on blacks by thwarting school and housing integration, through unfair policing and sentencing, and state disenfranchisement of voting registration, access to polling stations, and confiscation of voting rights for felons or even (in Alabama) those convicted of "moral turpitude".

That was all very real in the 1960's.  I've come to realize that much of what we now suffer from is the ongoing backlash from "white" America (of which I am a member) to the progress we thought had been made.

We don't need another conversation today any more than we needed LBJ or MLK to start a conversation back then.  We need continuous protest and effective demands for equal consideration to force change in all institutions of society.  It will never be done and dusted, so it has to never take a break like we fools did back then.

I confess that I'm speaking with both regret and a bit of guilt that we got distracted by the war in Vietnam and women's rights, which were winnable arguments, and somehow never returned to the greater challenge.  Or maybe we got married, had babies and started working and had no time to think more about actually doing anything about it, even if most of us (many of whom I am still friends with) never stopped thinking and talking about it.

Companies do have a small role in all this, but the problem is in the fabric of society itself. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DJQuag on June 06, 2020, 05:15:52 PM
ScottF

The issue being put forth is how minorities face disproportionate attention and response from a police force that has an aggressive and arrogant culture that also kills innocent whites.

That perhaps both the racial bias and the police culture issue  are something that should be looked at.

I'm kind of skeptical that you didn't actually get that, but on the off chance you didn't, that's the entire point of peaceful protests.

Some hippie inconvienced you with a sign somewhere, it annoyed you, and you went out asking questions on why they're doing it. You got an answer whether you agree or not. And that's why protestors shut down roads.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 06, 2020, 06:15:19 PM
That perhaps both the racial bias and the police culture issue  are something that should be looked at.

That doesn't jive with the word on the street. The hit topics to blog and protest about are only -isms. You will not see protest signs calling for better police/community relations. You won't see placards about police precincts armed with tanks, or about civil forfeiture. Neither will you see anyone calling for better policy in de-escalation, nor regarding the thin blue line. Especially this last item you would think would be front and center, but it's not. The object right now is racism, and nothing else.

I understand ScottF's point. First of all there's the issue of rampant and frankly ugly virtue signalling, which to me is walking on the ashes of the dead just as much as any other self-serving maneuver. Then there's the issue of corporate co-opting, which is perhaps more amoral but still pathetic. And regarding what the protests are calling for, I actually think they are not calling for anything. I mean, if you ask an individual they may have ideas, but all social media posting I see on the topic has one objective: to make people angry and stir up that anger. Anger is fine when in the service of a great goal, but if anger itself is the final end then that's just an exercise in tapping the adrenaline and endorphin button over and over. I hope that there are some people involved who want to see society healed. Most of the far left-leaning people on my social media seem to vary between the anxious "I told you we're all screwed, and the racists are probably coming for us next" and the militant "Gear up, let's go get'em boyz!!!" I don't hear anyone interested in other facets of this, at least not publicly.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 06, 2020, 07:05:03 PM
I know posting this is going to severely impact my career, and could ostracize me from society but you know what? I literally don’t care:

***racism is bad***

Yes you read that right. Punish and pillory me however you want, I stand by my words.

I'd dare venture out on a limb and say it's worse than bad in a great number of cases.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 06, 2020, 07:15:46 PM
That doesn't jive with the word on the street. The hit topics to blog and protest about are only -isms. You will not see protest signs calling for better police/community relations. You won't see placards about police precincts armed with tanks, or about civil forfeiture. Neither will you see anyone calling for better policy in de-escalation, nor regarding the thin blue line. Especially this last item you would think would be front and center, but it's not. The object right now is racism, and nothing else.

They're doing their part to further the cause of #activism. After the dust settles, they'll go back to their normal routine and completely forget about it. Until it starts trending again on social media. Then they'll do the #dance all over again, but not really do anything actually meaningful about it.

Quote
I understand ScottF's point. First of all there's the issue of rampant and frankly ugly virtue signalling, which to me is walking on the ashes of the dead just as much as any other self-serving maneuver. Then there's the issue of corporate co-opting, which is perhaps more amoral but still pathetic. And regarding what the protests are calling for, I actually think they are not calling for anything. I mean, if you ask an individual they may have ideas, but all social media posting I see on the topic has one objective: to make people angry and stir up that anger. Anger is fine when in the service of a great goal, but if anger itself is the final end then that's just an exercise in tapping the adrenaline and endorphin button over and over. I hope that there are some people involved who want to see society healed. Most of the far left-leaning people on my social media seem to vary between the anxious "I told you we're all screwed, and the racists are probably coming for us next" and the militant "Gear up, let's go get'em boyz!!!" I don't hear anyone interested in other facets of this, at least not publicly.

No, the new thing that seems to now be in vogue in many social media circles is to stir up conservatives by finding photos of soldiers fighting WW2 and declaring them to be AntiFa.

Some of the earlier ones claimed anti-Fascist, and they do get some bites on that, but not nearly what they see when go with AntiFa instead.

It's like they're completely clueless about AntiFa having been the name of a Communist para-military group formed in Germany in 1932. Or that the left-wing Anarcho-Communist groups of 1950's Germany resurrected the term AntiFa during the 1950's where it has remained in use since.

And they're making like they're completely befuddled and confused when people get confused and upset when people start insulting them for dishonoring the memories of the same soldiers they claim to be honoring.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 06, 2020, 07:52:41 PM
Saw an unironic post on my social media last night I think, which a supposed photo of a letter being mailed out by Trump's admin, telling people they should join "Trump's army". That phrase did appear in the photo, but no idea if it's a legit letter (maybe someone here has received one?). Anyhow all I could see in the letter was that it was soliciting people to join the cause, probably a solicitation for donations or something. But anyhow the social media caption was "Trump trying to raise an army against liberals" or something like that, with the comment "This is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler". The person sharing this evidently believes that Trump is about to burn down the Reichstag. Actually I've seen it suggested before many times that he wants to establish himself as a dictator for life.

Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 07:54:36 PM
I think what protesters probably want is more visible empathy. That might be a big difference between liberal and conservative, the liberal feels strongly that empathy should be expressed and vocalized, and the conservative may feel similar empathy, but isn’t as motivated to express it for stoic or other reasons.

Obviously this is easy to poke at by saying Conservatives often don’t have empathy, or that liberals are emotionally irrational but those are lazy counters. If I feel as strongly about certain kinds of injustice and would like to see them rectified, but *don't* go out of my way to express it beyond thinking/discussing a fix, it’s viewed as uncaring. More emotionally driven people feel better expressing empathy in public ways. It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 06, 2020, 08:01:07 PM
It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion. On the one hand, a call for empathy becomes instead a demand to publicly show certain things at prescribed times, and only for the hottest topics. And likewise, the call for law and order, eschewing emotional displays, becomes a nod and a wink towards leaving corrupt mechanisms in place, since it's mostly 'other people' targeted by it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 08:16:41 PM
It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion.

So...this:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 06, 2020, 08:18:14 PM
Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.

Ah, you stumbled upon the other part of the "language game" that is now being played in all of this as well.

The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

But as they've waved their magic wand and legitimized rioting as legitimate, (and some will extend that to looting as well as that inevitably follows rioting) they have turned his comments about confronting rioters into "confronting protesters."

Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters. They too have taken the above editorial memo to heart and call them protesters instead.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 08:34:42 PM
One man's protester is another's freedom fighter. Pass the bricks, grab some free Nike’s and, oh yeah almost forgot, “defund the police!”
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2020, 08:40:47 PM
From npr
Quote
In essence, "decolonizing your bookshelf" is about actively resisting and casting aside the colonialist ideas of narrative, storytelling, and literature that have pervaded the American psyche for so long

So we’re in the book burning phase.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 06, 2020, 08:45:04 PM
Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.

Ah, you stumbled upon the other part of the "language game" that is now being played in all of this as well.

The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

But as they've waved their magic wand and legitimized rioting as legitimate, (and some will extend that to looting as well as that inevitably follows rioting) they have turned his comments about confronting rioters into "confronting protesters."

Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters. They too have taken the above editorial memo to heart and call them protesters instead.

rioter = protester
looter= undocumented shopper
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 06, 2020, 08:49:24 PM
oh yeah almost forgot, “defund the police!”

That is by far one of the dumbest options offered. Certain funding should be reallocated. But the reality is, that for most police departments across the nation they are under-paid, under-manned, and under-trained. You don't fix that by cutting they budgets, you fix it by giving them better funding and exercising better judgement on what is being funded.

Yes please to more "community policing" where officers can spend more time on foot and engaging with neighborhood instead of cruising by in their police cruiser. But to do that, you need more police, not fewer.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 06, 2020, 09:28:17 PM
Quote
The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

It's moronic to even suggest that "leftists" think that rioting and protesting are equivalent.  I'm very disappointed that you would succumb to that partisan attack buzzspeak.

Quote
Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters.

That's scurrilous demonization.  Name any outlet that has pointed at rioters and called them protesters.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2020, 12:35:32 AM
It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion.

So...this:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Actually, I meant the opposite! Although you are right that people assume bad character when they see a bad result (which is akin actually to the critical theory lens of seeing an uneven result as implying a fault in the system's integrity). But I actually meant that each side in its turn actually becomes a hypocritical distortion of their own position, as a result of needing to defeat the other side over and above being true to their side. So it's not so much (in my argument) that people relentlessly see tortured hypocrisy, but rather than they inevitably succumb to tortured hypocrisy. This is why I think both sides are so obsessed with pointing to hypocrisy on the other side - because they're both correct.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2020, 02:24:21 AM
I've been trying to narrowly define hypocrisy to only mean what it is supposed to mean. Like decrying drug users for being moral deadbeats, and then being exposed as a drug user yourself, and most particularly if it is the same drug, or if you've make a blanket assertion about drug users in total. If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

Whether I always succeed in that vigilance is open for debate, but I try my best.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2020, 02:34:56 AM
If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

How is supporting the death penalty but opposing aborting logically inconsistent?

In one case, a jury of 12 people found somebody guilty of committing a crime punishable by death.

In the other case, a lone women decided somebody who is only guilty of existing should be punished by death.

What I do find logically inconsistent is the group that holds to the latter example as being acceptable, but the form is unacceptable(bonus points if that lone woman also happens to be part of that 12 person jury).
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2020, 02:49:39 AM
If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

How is supporting the death penalty but opposing aborting logically inconsistent?

In one case, a jury of 12 people found somebody guilty of committing a crime punishable by death.

In the other case, a lone women decided somebody who is only guilty of existing should be punished by death.

What I do find logically inconsistent is the group that holds to the latter example as being acceptable, but the form is unacceptable(bonus points if that lone woman also happens to be part of that 12 person jury).

I don't want to turn this into that debate. Let's just agree that no matter what else, it isn't hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2020, 03:26:37 AM
I've been trying to narrowly define hypocrisy to only mean what it is supposed to mean. Like decrying drug users for being moral deadbeats, and then being exposed as a drug user yourself, and most particularly if it is the same drug, or if you've make a blanket assertion about drug users in total. If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

Whether I always succeed in that vigilance is open for debate, but I try my best.

This is reasonable, but could be broadened into any generalized version of "you don't really value the thing you claim to value." Where it gets dicey is there are various 'flavors' of hypocrisy, ranging from "natural human weakness (failing to live up to one's own standard)" all the way to the other side where we have "the morality game is a puppet show to control minds." In the middle is where we see a lot of people wanting to feel like they have the moral upper hand but not caring enough about the log in their own eye. The NT quote is a fairly good benchmark of the typical case we see in daily life that pisses us off without being actually malevolent. Now that I think about it there's another axis of hypocrisy beyond being dishonest about what you're saying, which is the delusions of grandeur axis. This can be roughly stated as "I really believe what I am saying for other people, but I am above them and subject to different rules." This is a real thing, and is perhaps lurking beneath some of what we see on the other axis, but I think the two can exist independently (i.e. the elite/egalitarian axis, and the weakness/deceit axis). 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 04:17:39 AM
Sometimes the concept of hypocrisy is overridden by competing biases, where for instance ardent 2A rights defenders are afraid when they see a black man carrying a gun.  The drug example can be complicated in the same way depending on who the other person using the drug is.  The worst example are "family values" spouting conservatives whose family values platforms don't necessarily apply to themselves.  There's a saying that a conservative is a liberal whose been mugged and a gay rights defender is an anti-gay rights activist whose child comes out as gay.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 09:18:44 AM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 11:09:31 AM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true


What do you make of that?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 07, 2020, 11:15:06 AM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true

That was the protest were a horse said ACAB and took out its rider with a traffic light?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 11:22:44 AM
FOX News displayed a graphic showing how the stock market has responded to civil unrest after the assassination of MLK and the police beating of Rodney King and killings of Michael Brown and George Floyd. They now apologize for airing the "insensitive" graph, but I'm wondering what the context would have been.

Quote
Fox News apologized Saturday after showing a graphic depicting the impact of the killings of black men including George Floyd on stock prices. The graph aired on Friday during Fox's live news coverage and showed positive stock market changes one week after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and the police killings of Michael Brown and George Floyd, who were both unarmed when they lost their lives to white officers.

"The infographic used on FOX News Channel’s Special Report to illustrate market reactions to historic periods of civil unrest should have never aired on television without full context. We apologize for the insensitivity of the image and take this issue seriously," the Fox News spokesperson said in the statement.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 11:31:00 AM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true


What do you make of that?

I think the wording of the headline is unintentionally ironic and indicates a bias. You?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 11:49:33 AM
As in my previous post, context is important.  The headline is a shallow gloss over the story, which itself is a superficial account of events.  In reading several stories about London's protests yesterday, I see that there were massive gatherings that were largely peaceful and one reference to an incident outside of #10 Downing Street.  In this story I'm not seeing irony as much as not very good reporting.  Since the George Floyd protests all focus on police racism and overly aggressive tactics, there's a lot of anger everywhere.  No surprise that legitimate protests might spark "scuffles" with police in a few places.  That's different from rioters, looters and infiltrators determined to start confrontations and violence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 11:50:09 AM
ScottF

The issue being put forth is how minorities face disproportionate attention and response from a police force that has an aggressive and arrogant culture that also kills innocent whites.

That perhaps both the racial bias and the police culture issue  are something that should be looked at.

I'm kind of skeptical that you didn't actually get that, but on the off chance you didn't, that's the entire point of peaceful protests.

Some hippie inconvienced you with a sign somewhere, it annoyed you, and you went out asking questions on why they're doing it. You got an answer whether you agree or not. And that's why protestors shut down roads.

Realized I didn't respond to this. You're correct to be skeptical that I didn't get what the issue is because I do - and it wasn't the question I'm asking at all. If I ask your hypothetical hippie above why are you out here and they say it's to raise awareness, I'll say fair enough, awareness is an important first step.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to then ask "what would you like to see done to make things better for this issue?". Per my original post, the Iraq protester would immediately say get out of Iraq. PETA would say ban meat, etc.

My main point is this: if you can't articulate a cogent thought on what you'd like to actually see done in the real world, we're no longer having an adult conversation.  At least "burn it all down and see what happens" is an actionable idea, but that (thankfully) doesn't appear to be part of a peaceful protester's action plan.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 11:51:26 AM
The headline is a shallow gloss over the story, which itself is a superficial account of events. I'm not seeing irony as much as not very good reporting.

Fair
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2020, 12:16:49 PM
Is it wrong to describe a day as mostly sunny if the sun is obscured by clouds for an hour in the afternoon?

The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence. In Buffalo, a cop knocked a man to the ground who was not a threat, cracked his skull, and then stepped right over him. Why? Because he was disobedient. The cops have been charged, and 57 other Buffalo cops withdrew from special duty assignments in support of the cop that broke somebody's head for standing there when he was told to go home.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2020, 12:17:25 PM
Raising awareness is actually something being done in the real world. Especially if you consider that the goal is to raise awareness within the police and security services themselves.

Is it an effective way of raising awareness with police? Probably not, if you think of the police as just a collection of the people in uniforms. On the other hand, putting pressure on the hierarchy of police and security services, especially in the context of elected officials, which will then drive awareness down into the police services , then raising awareness by having large, generalized demonstrations might just be effective.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2020, 12:21:08 PM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true


What do you make of that?

Going out of their way to not call rioters what they are:

Quote
In a statement Dame Cressida, the UK's most senior officer, thanked officers at Saturday's protests in London for their "extreme patience and professionalism".

"I am deeply saddened and depressed that a minority of protesters became violent towards officers in central London yesterday evening," she said.

"This led to 14 officers being injured, in addition to 13 hurt in earlier protests this week.

See, they weren't rioting. They were simply "protesting violently."  :o
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2020, 01:14:46 PM
Can somebody be a rioter on their own? If somebody throws a brick through a window but everyone surrounding them is non violent, is it one rioter surrounded by protesters? Or is the real point that now they should all be called rioters?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2020, 01:41:53 PM
Raising awareness is actually something being done in the real world. Especially if you consider that the goal is to raise awareness within the police and security services themselves.

It is true that making people care about their surroundings more is a real thing. But I don't actually think the objective of these demonstrations is to reach out to police forces to get them to acknowledge that hurting people is bad and makes their jobs harder. That's not the tone, and that's not the message. I detect more anti-police messaging then helping-police messaging going on. So if the awareness raising isn't aimed at police, then it must be aimed at other people. For the most part it seems to be aimed at people who are already believers, which is where the bad form of activism heads: towards echo chamber navel-gazing. I will be the first in line to say I want police reforms, and I would support initiatives to head in that direction. I have seen zero social media posts about that, though.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 02:23:06 PM
BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true


What do you make of that?

Going out of their way to not call rioters what they are:

Quote
In a statement Dame Cressida, the UK's most senior officer, thanked officers at Saturday's protests in London for their "extreme patience and professionalism".

"I am deeply saddened and depressed that a minority of protesters became violent towards officers in central London yesterday evening," she said.

"This led to 14 officers being injured, in addition to 13 hurt in earlier protests this week.

See, they weren't rioting. They were simply "protesting violently."  :o

The police officer in this instance (https://au.news.yahoo.com/police-officer-rides-headfirst-into-traffic-lights-amid-pandemonium-in-london-042508394.html) was on horseback pushing protesters down a street and was knocked off her horse by a traffic light.  Chaos (or pandemonium, if you had a higher education) ensued due to the police breaking ranks and the horse bolting into the crowd.  Rioters?  Some in the protest crowd tended to the injured officer. Good samaritans?  It's so hard to come up with one name for all of the totality of protesters.  One cloud can ruin a sunny day.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 03:28:32 PM
The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence.

Ok, what would equal treatment look like from a police brutality perspective? If the majority of police killing blacks are themselves black, does that mean we should shift focus from race to police training and policies in general?

Quote
In Buffalo, a cop knocked a man to the ground who was not a threat, cracked his skull, and then stepped right over him. Why? Because he was disobedient. The cops have been charged, and 57 other Buffalo cops withdrew from special duty assignments in support of the cop that broke somebody's head for standing there when he was told to go home.

Was that incident a result of police inequality/racism in your opinion?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2020, 04:21:21 PM
John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2020, 04:22:30 PM
Quote
In Buffalo, a cop knocked a man to the ground who was not a threat, cracked his skull, and then stepped right over him. Why? Because he was disobedient. The cops have been charged, and 57 other Buffalo cops withdrew from special duty assignments in support of the cop that broke somebody's head for standing there when he was told to go home.

Was that incident a result of police inequality/racism in your opinion?

If that's the incident I think it is, the guy who was pushed over was an old white guy. So claims of racism are going to be hard to make stick.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 07, 2020, 04:23:01 PM
Protesters. Either the media doesn’t get how words work, or something else is going on...
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/3-protesters-track-officers-their-home-light-their-police-cars-fire-authorities-say/Y4BL2CZGHVCIZFP62CMDCVQJIU/
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2020, 04:24:03 PM
John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?

According to some people, everyone suffers from some form of mental illness. So yes?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2020, 04:26:20 PM
Protesters. Either the media doesn’t get how words work, or something else is going on...
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/3-protesters-track-officers-their-home-light-their-police-cars-fire-authorities-say/Y4BL2CZGHVCIZFP62CMDCVQJIU/

The lead in is even "better"
Quote
Three protesters are in jail Thursday after being arrested for trying to set police cars on fire with Molotov cocktails.

They're just protestors! What are you doing arresting them for simply expressing their views?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 07, 2020, 04:49:42 PM
Quote
Quote
Three protesters are in jail Thursday after being arrested for trying to set police cars on fire with Molotov cocktails.

They're just protestors! What are you doing arresting them for simply expressing their views?

The spot theory says that if you spread a brown spot (rioters) on a white shirt (protesters) to cover the whole shirt it's no longer a white shirt, it's brown (antifa).  Let's not beat around the bush (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0roufkagurw).
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2020, 05:02:21 PM
John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?

According to some people, everyone suffers from some form of mental illness. So yes?
According to some people, the moon is made of cheese, and the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2020, 08:20:49 PM
The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence.

Ok, what would equal treatment look like from a police brutality perspective? If the majority of police killing blacks are themselves black, does that mean we should shift focus from race to police training and policies in general?

Quote
In Buffalo, a cop knocked a man to the ground who was not a threat, cracked his skull, and then stepped right over him. Why? Because he was disobedient. The cops have been charged, and 57 other Buffalo cops withdrew from special duty assignments in support of the cop that broke somebody's head for standing there when he was told to go home.

Was that incident a result of police inequality/racism in your opinion?

Black cops can be biased also. Being black doesn't make you immune from making assumptions about potential threats. Studies have been done. The Buffalo case lands under the brutality issue. These are separable but not unrelated. Brutality occurs in a non-racial context, but more often in a racial context.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 08, 2020, 08:39:45 PM
I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

1. One of the police should definitely have provided assistance when it was clear the old guy was hurt.
2. Pursuing and physically getting in the grill of a cop who's in the middle of a moving defensive formation is an IQ test fail. That's not protesting, that's stupidity.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2020, 08:51:36 PM
I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

1. One of the police should definitely have provided assistance when it was clear the old guy was hurt.
2. Pursuing and physically getting in the grill of a cop who's in the middle of a moving defensive formation is an IQ test fail. That's not protesting, that's stupidity.

Like those idiots on their way to Birmingham from Selma who wouldn't disperse when confronted by a formation of cops, eh? They all deserved to go to the hospital. Why can't they just be obedient slaves, how dare they yell at a police officer?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 06:48:15 AM
I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

1. One of the police should definitely have provided assistance when it was clear the old guy was hurt.
2. Pursuing and physically getting in the grill of a cop who's in the middle of a moving defensive formation is an IQ test fail. That's not protesting, that's stupidity.

Trevor Noah said, "There's no right way to protest, that's what protest is."
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2020, 07:33:15 AM
I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

1. One of the police should definitely have provided assistance when it was clear the old guy was hurt.
2. Pursuing and physically getting in the grill of a cop who's in the middle of a moving defensive formation is an IQ test fail. That's not protesting, that's stupidity.

Like those idiots on their way to Birmingham from Selma who wouldn't disperse when confronted by a formation of cops, eh? They all deserved to go to the hospital. Why can't they just be obedient slaves, how dare they yell at a police officer?

That’s a false equivalency. The protesters with MLK did not attack or kill police officers, burn down buildings, or loot businesses.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 07:40:23 AM
Neither did 99.9% of these protesters.  Talk about false equivalency...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2020, 08:18:16 AM
Are you saying a small percentage gave the vast majority a bad reputation? You’re probably gonna want to get that one back.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2020, 09:21:43 AM
Quote
Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

The dubious milestone was reached on a day Chicago was roiled by another round of protests and looting following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis.

The 18 deaths tallied by the University of Chicago Crime Lab made May 31, 2020 the single-most violent day in six decades, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday. The Crime Lab numbers go back only to 1961.

Most, if not all, were black. Not a single protest, no signs with their names, no massive funerals with celebrity caskets. In fact, this barely made the news at all.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 09, 2020, 09:39:16 AM
Quote
Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

The dubious milestone was reached on a day Chicago was roiled by another round of protests and looting following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis.

The 18 deaths tallied by the University of Chicago Crime Lab made May 31, 2020 the single-most violent day in six decades, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday. The Crime Lab numbers go back only to 1961.

Most, if not all, were black. Not a single protest, no signs with their names, no massive funerals with celebrity caskets. In fact, this barely made the news at all.

Interesting that such arguments aren't changing the narrative this time.  A subtle  blame the victim argument, that excuses police using excessive deadly force on those that pose no threat to them. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 10:17:20 AM
Breaking News!! Trump tweeted this morning:

Quote
Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN  I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

and

Quote
Citing a report on conservative news network OANN, Trump said: "I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?" He also said Gugino "could be" an anarchist "provocateur," but provided no evidence for that assertion.

There is no conspiracy theory too weird and insane that he won't buy into it if it comes from one of his trusted sources.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2020, 10:24:57 AM
"Could be a setup" indeed, but the police walking that line had no way knowing that, and someone should have stopped to check on his welfare all the same. It wasn't like they were going to miss the presence of an officer for the whole less than 2 minutes it would take to determine he wasn't critically injured and radio for medical if needed.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 10:30:17 AM
Quote
"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup", what kind of setup did he concoct that cracked his head and made him bleed from his ear?  I'm inviting you to provide some sort of factual backup for your claim.  If you can't, why don't we say it's just as likely that it could have been a false flag operation by Trump cronies?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 09, 2020, 10:39:53 AM
Quote
"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup"...
I think you may have misread TheDaemon's intent with that post...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 10:44:23 AM
Quote
"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup"...
I think you may have misread TheDaemon's intent with that post...

I read him to mean that even if it was a setup the police acted inappropriately. I object to the premise that it might have been a setup unless someone (doesn't have to be him) can come up with support for Trump's claim.  You can say "could have..." for anything without evidence, for instance, that George Floyd could have committed suicide by cop.  He could have, couldn't he?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 09, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
I'm pretty sure " 'could be a setup' indeed" was meant to convey TheDaemon's strong doubt that it could in fact have been a setup - meaning he was mocking Trump's implication.

But I'm sure TheDaemon can clarify...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 09, 2020, 10:49:43 AM
Quote
Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

The dubious milestone was reached on a day Chicago was roiled by another round of protests and looting following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis.

The 18 deaths tallied by the University of Chicago Crime Lab made May 31, 2020 the single-most violent day in six decades, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday. The Crime Lab numbers go back only to 1961.

Most, if not all, were black. Not a single protest, no signs with their names, no massive funerals with celebrity caskets. In fact, this barely made the news at all.

Interesting that such arguments aren't changing the narrative this time.  A subtle  blame the victim argument, that excuses police using excessive deadly force on those that pose no threat to them.

It's more about proportionality not seeming to matter. If the main concern was actually addressing disproportionate harm to a particular minority, it would follow that there would be massive attention (to crunch's point, protests, demand for change, etc.) around the area where it's overwhelmingly larger than police-caused harm. So we have to accept it's not about seeking change based on the actual scale of harm, but external injustice as the specific cause - regardless of scale. I think it's ok to admit that?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 09, 2020, 10:51:46 AM
Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 09, 2020, 11:12:15 AM
Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.

If the country was protesting about why so many minorities were dying from diseases, I'd agree with you big time.  Focus on the diseases that cause the most harm, kind of makes sense right?

But we're agreed the current protests are focusing on disproportionate harm of a minority ultimately resulting from violence, not disease - right? I'm open to arguments on why specific causes of the violence should get more attention than others, but trying to shift the entire category to other causes of harm, like disease, seems disingenuous.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 09, 2020, 11:20:49 AM
I see your misunderstanding - no, the current protests are focusing on disproportionate harm of a minority ultimately resulting from police interactions as well as structural racism.  Addressing the effects of poverty,  structural racism, and police culture will all require different types of initiatives - though some of those initiatives might overlap -  as does addressing cancer.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 09, 2020, 11:25:12 AM
Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.

If the country was protesting about why so many minorities were dying from diseases, I'd agree with you big time.  Focus on the diseases that cause the most harm, kind of makes sense right?

But we're agreed the current protests are focusing on disproportionate harm of a minority ultimately resulting from violence, not disease - right? I'm open to arguments on why specific causes of the violence should get more attention than others, but trying to shift the entire category to other causes of harm, like disease, seems disingenuous.

Seriously? Harm from gang violence should be treated the same as harm from the people paid and charged with protecting us? Any of the bystanders would have likely have been shot and/or charged with assault if they had tried to remove Chauvin's knee from Floyd's neck. The same isn't true if that had been a random assault on the street. The police must be held to a higher standard. The focus ends up on police killings of black men. However the reason they become a flash point are all the unneeded stops and aggressive police tactics towards black individuals in America. The government has a monopoly on violence. Shoot at a cop coming through your door with a no knock warrant expect to end up dead or in jail, shoot at a druggy breaking down your door and get hailed as a hero on Fox News.

If police had better relations with the community they may have better luck reducing violence in other parts of society as well.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2020, 12:43:00 PM
Quote
"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup", what kind of setup did he concoct that cracked his head and made him bleed from his ear?  I'm inviting you to provide some sort of factual backup for your claim.  If you can't, why don't we say it's just as likely that it could have been a false flag operation by Trump cronies?

As already relayed to you by others, I am highly skeptical of it actually being a setup, which is why it received the best approximation I could make of giving it some mocking finger quotes.

Unless some actual evidence is produced to support the claim, I'd give it a less than 2% chance of being valid. It is given some validity because there are some fringe people out there who are fully aware of "the optics" of the policy roughly handling a harmless seeming old white guy. Given the number of people in their 70's that probably wish "they'd done more" in the 60's, I could see someone from that cadre being willing to play the role of "slip and fall guy" to create the very scenario that played out.

But that then puts us in the scenario  of getting "that guy" in the right place, to encounter "the right police officers" for the desired scene to play out... Which is where the low probability(I gave it a 2% chance, remember) comes in.

Now with all of that said, it still brings us back to the Police Officers themselves, and even if the old guy was there to play "slip and fall" antics for a camera, it doesn't excuse how the Police handled it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 09, 2020, 01:02:03 PM
Quote
As already relayed to you by others, I am highly skeptical of it actually being a setup, which is why it received the best approximation I could make of giving it some mocking finger quotes.

Unless some actual evidence is produced to support the claim, I'd give it a less than 2% chance of being valid. It is given some validity because there are some fringe people out there who are fully aware of "the optics" of the policy roughly handling a harmless seeming old white guy.
So now you've identified the real villain in this latest conspiracy cockadoodle.  The *censored*ing President of the United States is making this case!  I hope you agree that *he* needs to be defunded and reformed, and there's an obvious place and time to begin that process.

Also, thanks for clarifying what you meant.  I never accept the opinion about what somebody else meant.  I need to hear it from the original poster.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 09, 2020, 02:52:49 PM
I am now seeing multiple social media posts - perhaps spurred on by the 'de-fund the police' movement - which are arguing that rioting and looting should not be considered as violent acts, because they are a valid form of protesting and changing the system. In fact not only valid, but good, and the acts of rioting and looting are what people should be doing. The one argument in favor of this which does bear some resemblance to old ideas is that if non-violence does not shake the system, then violence is all that remains. This sounds similar to what Jefferson wrote, but the wrinkle in this formulation is that apparently looting isn't violence. I am wondering why this definition "not violent" is necessary; why not just say "we're all for violence"? Maybe it's an aesthetic thing, like they just can't see themselves as sporting berets, yellow Che t-shirts and military boots.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2020, 04:42:01 PM
The FBI doesn't consider either burglary or arson violent crime.

Quote
Violent crime consists of five criminal offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and gang violence; property crime consists of burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.[5]

However that's somewhat of a technicality. The reality is that it can be violent and cause bodily harm. It certainly would seem on a spectrum of violent acts. Then there's the question of what response is allowed, which varies by state. I.E. since the looters are violent, you may use deadly force against them. Then there's the concept of intimidation by appearing violent. If you have a sack of bricks and you're throwing them through store windows in anger, there's a reasonable expectation that the same person might well be willing to chuck them at people.

People espousing non-violent protest eschew all such actions, AFAIK.

As for "we're all for violence", that would be going too far the other way. It suggests that no line is drawn, while people might be all for burning down an old slave market or smashing a police car, but not injuring people in the process. The IRA would claim it was non-violent because they would provide warnings, aka bomb threats. I think it is obvious that claim was bogus.

I'm not making any statement of support for any point of view, just spitting out some thoughts.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 09, 2020, 09:42:21 PM
However that's somewhat of a technicality. The reality is that it can be violent and cause bodily harm.

I mean, if you're strictly defining violence as harming humans, then I guess that follows; damaging things cannot be definition be violent. But I don't really think that definition makes sense, personally. I would define it as aggressive actions that result in damage. In fact, damage isn't even required, as it's clearly within the common vocabulary to refer to even gestures and tones as violent in nature. But yes, I can see the line of argument where "no humans involved = no foul." Except for one thing: I believe the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh had the same priority, i.e. destroying property while sending an instruction to vacate in order to avoid casualties. But I don't think the FBI had any problem thinking of them as violent.

Quote
As for "we're all for violence", that would be going too far the other way. It suggests that no line is drawn, while people might be all for burning down an old slave market or smashing a police car, but not injuring people in the process. The IRA would claim it was non-violent because they would provide warnings, aka bomb threats. I think it is obvious that claim was bogus.

Yes, I didn't mean by "we're all for violence" that it should imply "any kinds of violence is ok." As an example of this distinction, MMA fighters clearly are 'for' violence, within parameters. Banned maneuvers, to say nothing of setting fire to the arena, are out of bounds violent actions, whereas punch an opponent is part of the program. "we're all for violence" does not need to imply willingness to burn down the world, all it means is that violence in and of itself is not considered unacceptable in context of (here) communicating a message. Don't even see why this should be objectionable, if we're being honest, since clearly some people do think violence of some sorts is ok; otherwise what would become of the "punch a Nazi" slogan?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2020, 10:47:29 PM
However that's somewhat of a technicality. The reality is that it can be violent and cause bodily harm.

I mean, if you're strictly defining violence as harming humans, then I guess that follows; damaging things cannot be definition be violent. But I don't really think that definition makes sense, personally. I would define it as aggressive actions that result in damage. In fact, damage isn't even required, as it's clearly within the common vocabulary to refer to even gestures and tones as violent in nature. But yes, I can see the line of argument where "no humans involved = no foul." Except for one thing: I believe the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh had the same priority, i.e. destroying property while sending an instruction to vacate in order to avoid casualties. But I don't think the FBI had any problem thinking of them as violent.

Except when they are. If the KKK throws a brick through your window, or decorates your lawn with a burning cross, it isn't peaceful protest they're engaging in.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 10, 2020, 12:20:45 PM
Don't even see why this should be objectionable, if we're being honest, since clearly some people do think violence of some sorts is ok; otherwise what would become of the "punch a Nazi" slogan?

Clearly, some do advocate violence, and usually justify it by some vague "gestalt" violence on the part of the punchee, which doesn't hold a lot of water. You started with a subset of things you see on social media posts. I see them too. People generally in the minority, I'd say.

There are significant reports of truly peaceful protesters trying to restrain the ones who want to damage property.

To be sure, the antifa and related far leftists think nothing short of the violent overthrow of the current government will be sufficient. Which is why I've stated I'm generally okay with treating them as a subversive revolutionary group. Care has to be taken to keep them separated out, otherwise you wind up with McCarthyism and people getting blackballed just because they listed to a radical give a speech, or visiting their house to discuss philosophy.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2020, 01:08:31 PM
The elderly "protestor" who caused two police to be suspended for pushing him to the ground has emerged as a person of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuKMYEjN6g&feature=emb_title[/video]
Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa. It seems he was using a scanner to capture the police frequency. That was why he was crowding the police when ordered to back off. He bragged about how many times he could get arrested and then get off.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 01:23:18 PM
Yeah, there's something a little off about the whole thing with Martin Gugino. He's on camera bragging about how he's down there to "have some fun" and it's pretty clear he was doing something pretty sketchy with his phone and scanning the police officers (Gugino is a former IT guy). He's since locked down his social media but it was virulently anti-police. He did everything he could to make this situation occur. In the end, I think he was looking for just this kind of confrontation, the "injury" is his big payday as well as becoming an icon for the cause. That the police were such willing participants is a shame.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 10, 2020, 01:38:24 PM
If he had an illegal jamming device, wouldn't the police have trotted it out by now? A stock cell phone doesn't have the power to jam communications.

Regardless of any history of agitation, he was clearly non-threatening in this instance. And even if he had a jammer, it doesn't mean you throw him to the ground. You confiscate it and charge him under FCC rules.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 02:04:54 PM
I don't really know the specifics of how this works but the story is that he wasn't jamming the police comms, he was trying to "skim" the information like frequencies from police devices so rioters could eavesdrop on police communications and better coordinate the evening's festivities.

I don't think the police took Gugin's cell phone so any evidentiary value there is long gone. The police likely didn't know he was trying to do something like skimming.

You can't say he was "clearly non-threatening". He is a known instigator. was refusing to follow directions, approaching police, acting very suspiciously, all during a riot. Not a lot there adds up to "clearly non-threatening". The push does not seem too extreme either. I suspect Gugin, as an experienced agitator, got the push he wanted and took a dive. Perhaps he misjudged and smacked his head harder than he anticipated but even that seems weird to me. Do you know how frigging hard you have to smack your noodle to actually cause blood to come out of the ears? ANd once Gugin hits the ground, he gets all comfortable, crossing his legs.  I've seen people get knocked out (you can see it on recent riot video if you want), they go down and stop moving, they don't get comfortable once down.

I dunno man, it all just looks weird as hell. I'm not sure what I see on that video.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 02:31:39 PM
Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa.
You should be able to provide a transcript of where the mayor made this statement.  At the very least, you should be able to provide a video recording, specifically of the mayor Byron Brown, making such a statement.

Can you do so, or are you really basing your accusation on a 'report' by the Russian apologist OAN, which itself is based on since discredited/retracted misstatements by other media outlets?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 02:39:53 PM
The Russians! LOL, right. Anyway

Quote
Buffalo, N.Y., Mayor Byron Brown (D) said on Friday that he was told a protester who was tackled and arrested by state police earlier in the week was a “major instigator” and an “agitator.”

Brown said state police officers were involved in the arrest of the protester, Myles Carter, last Monday and that the city does not have the ability to take action against them.

“What we were informed of is that that individual was an agitator. He was trying to spark up the crowd of people,” Brown told reporters, according to a recording of his comments reported by radio station WBEN.

“According to what has been reported to me, that individual was a key and major instigator of people engaging in those kinds of activities,” Brown added.

That's from The Hill, reporting from local radio. I suspect you'll start some quick hair splitting here or blame the Russians again.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 02:47:17 PM
Quote
I don't really know the specifics of how this works but the story is that he wasn't jamming the police comms, he was trying to "skim" the information like frequencies from police devices so rioters could eavesdrop on police communications and better coordinate the evening's festivities.

You mean like any of these (https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/best-police-scanner-apps/). Pretty popular and totally legal, right?  Maybe they should ask some of the white nationalist groups which ones they recommend.

Quote
I don't think the police took Gugin's cell phone so any evidentiary value there is long gone. The police likely didn't know he was trying to do something like skimming.

Right, it takes an after-the-fact conspiracy theory to make that call, since the police are obviously incompetent.  After they pushed him down, they just left him there bleeding from his ear with a cracked skull because they had more important things to do.

Quote
You can't say he was "clearly non-threatening". He is a known instigator. was refusing to follow directions, approaching police, acting very suspiciously, all during a riot. Not a lot there adds up to "clearly non-threatening".

Just watch the video, which you may not have done.  He was standing in front of them when they decided to march forward and pushed him out of their way.  Pretty damn threatening, eh?

Quote
Do you know how frigging hard you have to smack your noodle to actually cause blood to come out of the ears? ANd once Gugin hits the ground, he gets all comfortable, crossing his legs.  I've seen people get knocked out (you can see it on recent riot video if you want), they go down and stop moving, they don't get comfortable once down.
...
I dunno man, it all just looks weird as hell. I'm not sure what I see on that video.

You can't see what you're unwilling to see.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 02:48:42 PM
The Russians! LOL, right. Anyway

Quote
Buffalo, N.Y., Mayor Byron Brown (D) said on Friday that he was told a protester who was tackled and arrested by state police earlier in the week was a “major instigator” and an “agitator.”

Brown said state police officers were involved in the arrest of the protester, Myles Carter, last Monday and that the city does not have the ability to take action against them.

“What we were informed of is that that individual was an agitator. He was trying to spark up the crowd of people,” Brown told reporters, according to a recording of his comments reported by radio station WBEN.

“According to what has been reported to me, that individual was a key and major instigator of people engaging in those kinds of activities,” Brown added.

That's from The Hill, reporting from local radio. I suspect you'll start some quick hair splitting here or blame the Russians again.

You're grasping at straws, as usual.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 02:50:57 PM
The Russians! LOL, right. Anyway

Quote
Buffalo, N.Y., Mayor Byron Brown (D) said on Friday that he was told a protester who was tackled and arrested by state police earlier in the week was a “major instigator” and an “agitator.”

Brown said state police officers were involved in the arrest of the protester, Myles Carter, last Monday and that the city does not have the ability to take action against them.

“What we were informed of is that that individual was an agitator. He was trying to spark up the crowd of people,” Brown told reporters, according to a recording of his comments reported by radio station WBEN.

“According to what has been reported to me, that individual was a key and major instigator of people engaging in those kinds of activities,” Brown added.

That's from The Hill, reporting from local radio. I suspect you'll start some quick hair splitting here or blame the Russians again.

You're grasping at straws, as usual.

You can't see what you're unwilling to see.

It's funny how quickly your smarmy comments come back to bite you in the ass. That one had to be a new land speed record.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 02:58:59 PM
Quote
Buffalo, N.Y., Mayor Byron Brown (D) said on Friday that he was told a protester who was tackled and arrested by state police earlier in the week was a “major instigator” and an “agitator.”

Brown said state police officers were involved in the arrest of the protester, Myles Carter, last Monday and that the city does not have the ability to take action against them.

“What we were informed of is that that individual was an agitator. He was trying to spark up the crowd of people,” Brown told reporters, according to a recording of his comments reported by radio station WBEN.

“According to what has been reported to me, that individual was a key and major instigator of people engaging in those kinds of activities,” Brown added.

That's from The Hill, reporting from local radio. I suspect you'll start some quick hair splitting here or blame the Russians again.
Are you suggesting that "Martin Gugino" is an alias for "Myles Carter" or vice versa?

Otherwise, well done - you've shown exactly how wmLambert got it wrong.  That you don't realize that you have done so is especially delicious.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 03:19:57 PM
Sorry, too many windows open as I looked around and I clipped the wrong one. NY Post:
Quote
The elderly Buffalo protester knocked to the ground by cops in a viral video that has become an international symbol of police brutality was “asked to leave numerous times . . . after the curfew,” the city’s mayor said.

Explaining why he had yet to fire the officers seen pushing Martin Gugino, 75, to the ground, where he hit his head and bled onto the pavement, Mayor Byron Brown said, “I don’t want to jump ahead of the investigation. It is very important for officers to know they are getting due process,” according to WBEN Radio.

Brown referenced violence, vandalism, looting and fires being set during protests in the city, then described a “volatile” situation between protesters and police when Gugino approached the officers.

“He was in the area after the curfew. One of the things that happened before was conflict among protesters and there was a danger of fights breaking out, and police felt it was important to clear that scene for the safety of protesters,” said Brown.

We can go with fact checking sites (https://www.truthorfiction.com/buffalo-mayor-martin-gugino-75-year-old-agitator/):
Quote
Claim
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement in June 2020.
Rating
True

Quote
BREAKING: Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown claims that the 75-year-old protestor violently pushed to the ground by two police officers was an “agitator” and a “key and major instigator” of activities such as vandalism and looting

— US Protests: News & Updates (@USAProtests) June 6, 2020
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 03:51:40 PM
We can go with fact checking sites (https://www.truthorfiction.com/buffalo-mayor-martin-gugino-75-year-old-agitator/):
Quote
Claim
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement in June 2020.
Rating
True

Quote
BREAKING: Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown claims that the 75-year-old protestor violently pushed to the ground by two police officers was an “agitator” and a “key and major instigator” of activities such as vandalism and looting

— US Protests: News & Updates (@USAProtests) June 6, 2020
So much to unpack...

wmLambert literally wrote the following, and you came to his defense by inadvertently posting a rebuttal:
Quote
Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa.
Next, you link to truthorfiction.com ( :o ) in order to provide support, somehow, for using the word "agitator", as if that was the only claim wmLambert made (it was not, so your walk-back itself is exceptionally lame):
Quote
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement
But, see those quotes around the word "agitator"?  Those convey that a word is being repeated verbatim.  However, Mayor Byron Brown never used that word when describing Gugino.  So the fact check is on the most basic level incorrect.  Sure, truthyorfiction.com could have argued that the Mayor described actions that could be interpreted as agitating, but this 'fact check' did not do that.

Finally, you end your response with a quote making a claim that you yourself already showed as being incorrect in your earlier post

Is it really so hard to say "oops, I was wrong"?  It's probably less embarrassing than what you just did to yourself.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 03:54:10 PM
Quote
“He was in the area after the curfew. One of the things that happened before was conflict among protesters and there was a danger of fights breaking out, and police felt it was important to clear that scene for the safety of protesters,” said Brown.

Well, they cleared him out of the way and stepped right over his unconscious body.  Why do they hurt the ones they love?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 04:09:02 PM
As for this:
We can go with fact checking sites (https://www.truthorfiction.com/buffalo-mayor-martin-gugino-75-year-old-agitator/):
Quote
Claim
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said that 75-year-old Martin Gugino was being an "agitator" before local police pushed him to the pavement in June 2020.
Rating
True
Did you even open the link?  The site simply repeats the reporting of other media, without actually checking the source material

This 'fact check' can be summarized as follows:The question I have is whether you think this is how all fact checking works.

For instance, this is how Snopes did it (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/09/trump-gugino-tweet/).

Notice how Snopes provides a link to the actual transcript, as well as a link to the audio recording of the press conference.  The latter is what is called a 'primary source'.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 06:23:15 PM
Alright,you don’t like it. Keep your narrative if that makes you happy. I’m not here to fight his battles, just tried to answer your questions. Let lambert take it. You keep being ...  Fightin Ron.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 06:59:08 PM
You're adorable, Crunch 😘
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 11, 2020, 08:05:39 AM
You’re smarmy. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2020, 09:27:03 AM
He's been caught in the King's wood! Execute him!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 11, 2020, 10:03:39 AM
Its been interesting watching how hard some are attempting to change the narrative
- Their will always be bad apples most of the police take their oath to serve and protect seriously with no bias (a few do not represent the whole)
- Their was rioting and looting during the protests all protesters are looters and require heavy policing to stop them. (the few represent the whole)
- George would have died anyway due to his lifestyle so what the cop did isn't criminal - *censored* happens holding police accountable is dangerous to the safety of.... me (blame the victim)
- The Old man was a agitator. He wouldn't have been pushed if he stayed home. It's ok for Cops dressed in the latest protection to push old men because their is no better way to respond. (blame the victim)

Truthiness given birth to Blameiness: If a flaw no matter how small can be found with a victim, its the victim fault... unless its a cop where a flaw is 'just being human' nothing to see here, nothing to address.

The hypocrisy is amazing 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 11, 2020, 10:18:49 AM
Its been interesting watching how hard some are attempting to change the narrative
- Their will always be bad apples most of the police take their oath to serve and protect seriously with no bias (a few do not represent the whole)
- Their was rioting and looting during the protests all protesters are looters and require heavy policing to stop them. (the few represent the whole)
- George would have died anyway due to his lifestyle so what the cop did isn't criminal - *censored* happens holding police accountable is dangerous to the safety of.... me (blame the victim)
- The Old man was a agitator. He wouldn't have been pushed if he stayed home. It's ok for Cops dressed in the latest protection to push old men because their is no better way to respond. (blame the victim)

Truthiness given birth to Blameiness: If a flaw no matter how small can be found with a victim, its the victim fault... unless its a cop where a flaw is 'just being human' nothing to see here, nothing to address.

The hypocrisy is amazing

It's equally interesting you only see it one way. The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole" so it all has to go. Simultaneously, the left argues that the few rioters do not represent the whole. The exact same "hypocrisy" but you're not going to call that out, it's a one way street.

As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death. I dunno, you might dig up one somewhere but it was pretty unanimous that Chauvin was at fault here. I personally have pointed out how Chauvin might walk away from this because of the lack of forensic evidence but not said he should. In fact, just the opposite.

I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 11, 2020, 10:39:43 AM
I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

I had to shake my head at the national news trying to "disprove" the idea that Gugino didn't plant himself in the path of police. They found people who claim to have known him for years and claim that he's a good man, a man of peace, and a pacifist.

Very nice, very commendable.

Being a pacifist didn't stop MLK from putting himself in the path of riot police, getting beaten and subsequently arrested. So excuse me if I say that report proved nothing one way or the other.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2020, 10:46:28 AM
Its been interesting watching how hard some are attempting to change the narrative
- Their will always be bad apples most of the police take their oath to serve and protect seriously with no bias (a few do not represent the whole)
- Their was rioting and looting during the protests all protesters are looters and require heavy policing to stop them. (the few represent the whole)
- George would have died anyway due to his lifestyle so what the cop did isn't criminal - *censored* happens holding police accountable is dangerous to the safety of.... me (blame the victim)
- The Old man was a agitator. He wouldn't have been pushed if he stayed home. It's ok for Cops dressed in the latest protection to push old men because their is no better way to respond. (blame the victim)

Truthiness given birth to Blameiness: If a flaw no matter how small can be found with a victim, its the victim fault... unless its a cop where a flaw is 'just being human' nothing to see here, nothing to address.

The hypocrisy is amazing

It's equally interesting you only see it one way. The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole" so it all has to go. Simultaneously, the left argues that the few rioters do not represent the whole. The exact same "hypocrisy" but you're not going to call that out, it's a one way street.

As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death. I dunno, you might dig up one somewhere but it was pretty unanimous that Chauvin was at fault here. I personally have pointed out how Chauvin might walk away from this because of the lack of forensic evidence but not said he should. In fact, just the opposite.

I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

The activists who sat in the whites only section of diners weren't minding their own business and doing nothing wrong either. I do agree that they didn't attack him for no reason. They attacked him because he was non-violently disobedient.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 11, 2020, 10:50:28 AM
I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

I had to shake my head at the national news trying to "disprove" the idea that Gugino didn't plant himself in the path of police. They found people who claim to have known him for years and claim that he's a good man, a man of peace, and a pacifist.

Very nice, very commendable.

Being a pacifist didn't stop MLK from putting himself in the path of riot police, getting beaten and subsequently arrested. So excuse me if I say that report proved nothing one way or the other.

As if there's a proper etiquette for protesting.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 11, 2020, 10:57:16 AM
As if there's a proper etiquette for protesting.

From everything I've heard the etiquette is to do nothing that possibly draws attention or inconveniences anyone in anyway. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 11, 2020, 11:21:04 AM
Its been interesting watching how hard some are attempting to change the narrative
- Their will always be bad apples most of the police take their oath to serve and protect seriously with no bias (a few do not represent the whole)
- Their was rioting and looting during the protests all protesters are looters and require heavy policing to stop them. (the few represent the whole)
- George would have died anyway due to his lifestyle so what the cop did isn't criminal - *censored* happens holding police accountable is dangerous to the safety of.... me (blame the victim)
- The Old man was a agitator. He wouldn't have been pushed if he stayed home. It's ok for Cops dressed in the latest protection to push old men because their is no better way to respond. (blame the victim)

Truthiness given birth to Blameiness: If a flaw no matter how small can be found with a victim, its the victim fault... unless its a cop where a flaw is 'just being human' nothing to see here, nothing to address.

The hypocrisy is amazing

It's equally interesting you only see it one way. The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole" so it all has to go. Simultaneously, the left argues that the few rioters do not represent the whole. The exact same "hypocrisy" but you're not going to call that out, it's a one way street.

As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death. I dunno, you might dig up one somewhere but it was pretty unanimous that Chauvin was at fault here. I personally have pointed out how Chauvin might walk away from this because of the lack of forensic evidence but not said he should. In fact, just the opposite.

I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

The hypocrisy is on both sides as it regards the convenience of labeling the whole by the actions of a few as a excuse not to hold the few accountable.  This has to be addressed however is not a enlargement or issues that should cover up what is a real problem. One wonders why the right is trying so hard to change the narrative using these methods isn't to cover up the real issues the protests are about?

"The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole"" I've heard the idea as being expressed that way however if one is willing to lessen their are some good ideas in the concept. Asking the police to 'fix/handle the homeless, mental health and addiction issues isn't working. We are asking to much of the police. Having them not be the 'primary' in these cases and instead assisting those specifically trained to deal with the issues is I think worth trying.

"As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death." no they don't come right out and say it that's not how changing the narrative works. They just suggest things like pointing out a Guy had a drug problem or could be a member of a extreme group. Just wanting to get a clear picture were not suggesting anything by it - wink wink... It works as it does distract from the real issue and conversation.

The cop that pushed the old man isn't a bad man just a bad cop who wasn't able to control his reactions however the job requires a person to maintain control of themselves. I get it, dressed in riot gear and surrounded by 'your brothers' your out to do a job however as a officer of the law more is expected of you.  Sure the push likely wouldn't have been enough to trip up a younger person but was that the best way to respond to a single old man that wasn't threat to a man all geared up. The cop should have done better.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 11, 2020, 11:29:30 AM
Being a pacifist didn't stop MLK from putting himself in the path of riot police, getting beaten and subsequently arrested. So excuse me if I say that report proved nothing one way or the other.

As if there's a proper etiquette for protesting.

You need to remember those comments were in the larger context of "Whatever his reasons for being there were, it doesn't excuse how the police handled his act of civil disobedience." (failure to abide by curfew in this case)

Much like how the police often handled MLK's protests was not an appropriate response on their part, and helped make the case for MLK.

It still doesn't change the fact that MLK did what he did knowing that a violent response to his actions was likely. I can commend the bravery of the act while also pointing out the situation may not be as "natural" as some people want to think it was.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 11, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
Quote
It still doesn't change the fact that MLK did what he did knowing that a violent response to his actions was likely. I can commend the bravery of the act while also pointing out the situation may not be as "natural" as some people want to think it was.

That's true however history has shown that for change to a happen sometimes you have to push the boundaries. Had the police taken the opportunity to respond differently further protests would not have been required.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2020, 12:16:56 PM
In Albany, MLK was super frustrated because the chief there didn't bite on the poison apple. He arrested people non-violently protesting, but without brutality that MLK wanted to provoke. He eventually found more fertile ground in Alabama.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 11, 2020, 02:11:07 PM
In Albany, MLK was super frustrated because the chief there didn't bite on the poison apple. He arrested people non-violently protesting, but without brutality that MLK wanted to provoke. He eventually found more fertile ground in Alabama.

My reading of the Albany arrests is that King was disappointed because it didn't start a wider movement, not because the arrests weren't violent.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 11, 2020, 02:22:49 PM
Its been interesting watching how hard some are attempting to change the narrative
- Their will always be bad apples most of the police take their oath to serve and protect seriously with no bias (a few do not represent the whole)
- Their was rioting and looting during the protests all protesters are looters and require heavy policing to stop them. (the few represent the whole)
- George would have died anyway due to his lifestyle so what the cop did isn't criminal - *censored* happens holding police accountable is dangerous to the safety of.... me (blame the victim)
- The Old man was a agitator. He wouldn't have been pushed if he stayed home. It's ok for Cops dressed in the latest protection to push old men because their is no better way to respond. (blame the victim)

Truthiness given birth to Blameiness: If a flaw no matter how small can be found with a victim, its the victim fault... unless its a cop where a flaw is 'just being human' nothing to see here, nothing to address.

The hypocrisy is amazing

It's equally interesting you only see it one way. The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole" so it all has to go. Simultaneously, the left argues that the few rioters do not represent the whole. The exact same "hypocrisy" but you're not going to call that out, it's a one way street.

As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death. I dunno, you might dig up one somewhere but it was pretty unanimous that Chauvin was at fault here. I personally have pointed out how Chauvin might walk away from this because of the lack of forensic evidence but not said he should. In fact, just the opposite.

I don't think anyone is trying to blame the victim in Gugino's case. For me, I'm trying to understand what is happening. Gugino was not there minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, and police just randomly singled him out for attack for no reason at all and that's the anti-police narrative. It's not true but I don't think most of the left really care about what's true and what's not, they got bigger things to be concerned about.

The hypocrisy is on both sides as it regards the convenience of labeling the whole by the actions of a few as a excuse not to hold the few accountable.  This has to be addressed however is not a enlargement or issues that should cover up what is a real problem. One wonders why the right is trying so hard to change the narrative using these methods isn't to cover up the real issues the protests are about?
Because the issues are much more complex than the simplistic framework being created by the left. Have you gotten on your knees in front a black person to beg their forgiveness yet? It's the preferred next step. Did you know people that refuse to come out in open, vocal support of this are being fired from their jobs or even kicked out of school? This is not simple problem with simple solutions and refusing to allow anyone to ask questions or point out alternate opinions is not going to help.
"The argument to defund the police is "the few represent the whole"" I've heard the idea as being expressed that way however if one is willing to lessen their are some good ideas in the concept. Asking the police to 'fix/handle the homeless, mental health and addiction issues isn't working. We are asking to much of the police. Having them not be the 'primary' in these cases and instead assisting those specifically trained to deal with the issues is I think worth trying.
The "defund the police" is about total abolition. Not reform.

"As for Floyd, I have not seen a single person blame Floyd for his death." no they don't come right out and say it that's not how changing the narrative works. They just suggest things like pointing out a Guy had a drug problem or could be a member of a extreme group. Just wanting to get a clear picture were not suggesting anything by it - wink wink... It works as it does distract from the real issue and conversation.
Pointing out that Floyd was not a saint is not a microaggression for justifying his death. You infer that and that's on you.

The cop that pushed the old man isn't a bad man just a bad cop who wasn't able to control his reactions however the job requires a person to maintain control of themselves. I get it, dressed in riot gear and surrounded by 'your brothers' your out to do a job however as a officer of the law more is expected of you.  Sure the push likely wouldn't have been enough to trip up a younger person but was that the best way to respond to a single old man that wasn't threat to a man all geared up. The cop should have done better.

Everyone agrees the cop should have done better. You can argue that all you want and everyone will still agree. If the narrative you want is that Gugino was a harmless old man who simply found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time through no actual agency of his own, and was a doe-eyed, innocent victim,  then that's a nice fantasy but that's all it is.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2020, 02:24:05 PM
Quote
The Albany police chief, Laurie Pritchett, carefully studied the movement's strategy and developed a strategy he hoped could subvert it. He used mass arrests but avoided violent incidents that might backfire by attracting national publicity. He used non-violence against non-violence to good effect, thwarting King's "direct action" strategy. Pritchett arranged to disperse the prisoners to county jails all over southwest Georgia to prevent his jail from filling up. The Birmingham Post-Herald stated: "The manner in which Albany's chief of police has enforced the law and maintained order has won the admiration of... thousands."[10]

King's words:

Quote
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

King's strategy was to provoke a violent reaction with non-violent protest, which would amplify the outrage in public perception and expose the abuse occurring when no one is looking. That's my take on it.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 11, 2020, 02:42:55 PM
Quote
The Albany police chief, Laurie Pritchett, carefully studied the movement's strategy and developed a strategy he hoped could subvert it. He used mass arrests but avoided violent incidents that might backfire by attracting national publicity. He used non-violence against non-violence to good effect, thwarting King's "direct action" strategy. Pritchett arranged to disperse the prisoners to county jails all over southwest Georgia to prevent his jail from filling up. The Birmingham Post-Herald stated: "The manner in which Albany's chief of police has enforced the law and maintained order has won the admiration of... thousands."[10]

King's words:

Quote
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

King's strategy was to provoke a violent reaction with non-violent protest, which would amplify the outrage in public perception and expose the abuse occurring when no one is looking. That's my take on it.

Seems like a mixed bag.  The police chief avoided using violent means as a tactic to deny wider public exposure with the goal of thwarting the movement for racist ends. Because of the history of Albany race relations, King staged a non-violent protest expecting a violent response in order to gather public support for civil rights.  In that sense, King wasn't thwarted but instead disappointed and had to move on to another racist southern city to stage a similar protest. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 12, 2020, 09:41:51 AM
Crunch and wmLambert will appreciate this:

Quote
President Trump praised the use of tear gas and other force to disperse Minneapolis protesters, calling it a “beautiful scene” and describing the National Guard’s actions “like a knife cutting butter.”

“I’ll never forget. You saw the scene on that road … they were lined up. Man, they just walked straight. And yes, there was some tear gas and probably some other things,” Trump said in opening remarks at a roundtable on policing and race. “And the crowd dispersed and they went through. By the end of that evening, and it was a short evening, everything was fine.”
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 12, 2020, 12:05:22 PM
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has something to say:
Quote
And 3. The SFMTA will no longer transport SFPD to anti-police brutality protests.

The SF Police Officer's Association is cool with it:
Quote
Hey Muni, lose our number next time you need officers for fare evasion enforcement or removing problem passengers from your buses and trains. Shouldn't be a @SFPD  officer's job anyway
Quote
So we’re all clear. As city leaders demand cuts to SFPD, it needs to be clear what SFPD will no longer do. If a ride on an out of service bus to ensure peaceful protests is too offensive, then don’t send us in to provide “security” services to catch fare jumpers.

Sounds like a win-win for the police and the MTA. It'll be interesting if it plays out.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 12, 2020, 12:30:04 PM
Related:
Quote
The head of Chicago’s powerful police union said any cop in the city who takes a knee during George Floyd protests will be booted, according to a report.

John Catanzara, the new president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, said the gesture, seen throughout the nation during protests over Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis, is tantamount to betrayal of the uniform, he told Fox32 Chicago.

“I don’t believe it’s the time or place to be doing that,” Catanzara told the station. “If you kneel, you’ll be risking being brought up on charges and thrown out of the lodge.”

“Specifically this weekend,” he said. “This was about defunding and abolishing the police officers. And you’re going to take a knee for that? It’s ridiculous.”

 :o
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 12, 2020, 01:34:15 PM
Firing someone for that reason is probably against the law. Oh wait, they are the law, never mind citizen.

"We won't tolerate support for the movement protesting us" found in the police archives under D for duh.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 14, 2020, 08:12:20 AM
I'm reading in the news that there have been no credible sightings or claims of any presence of antifa in any city in the country since the protests began.  Despite claims that the organization was behind violence in different cities, no government agency at any level has come forward with any arrests or evidence of antifa action.  No bricks are cached or being thrown, no left-wing gun-toting militant marches, and recent looting is much less than in the early days (looting is not protest).  Recent protests have tended to be orderly, peaceful and focused on forcing change in police law enforcement practices and community welfare issues.  The CHAZ occupation isn't connected to antifa or any other group, and the burning of the Wendy's in Atlanta was a direct response to the latest police killing of Rayshard Brooks.

Anybody want to counter this with evidence to the contrary?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 14, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
Firing someone for that reason is probably against the law. Oh wait, they are the law, never mind citizen.

"We won't tolerate support for the movement protesting us" found in the police archives under D for duh.

If you can be fired for not openly supporting the protests, why can’t you be fired for doing it as well?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Crunch on June 14, 2020, 09:23:44 AM
Rayshard Brooks. He was “sleeping” in his car in the Wendy’ drive through around 10:30 PM. Breathalyzer put him at .108, well above the legal limit of .08.

It was going down like a textbook DUI arrest when Brooks suddenly started fighting both officers. “Witnesses reports and video shows Brooks wresting away an officer's Taser, and running away as the officers chased him. Security surveillance video footage shows that Brooks then turned toward Rolfe [the arresting officer] while running and shot the stolen taser at Rolfe. At that point, Rolfe fired his gun at Brooks, hitting him. Brooks died in surgery.”
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 14, 2020, 09:47:09 AM
Which means?  Why put "sleeping" in quotes?  Tasers aren't considered lethal weapons and have a limited range.  They shot him in the back as he was running away.  FWIW, the lawyers for the family said the cops didn't do a breathalizer test.  Do you know if it was done after they shot him?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 14, 2020, 11:19:55 AM
Apparently 7 years ago Key and Peele predicted how people would think police interactions should actually go down. Comedy Central clip, approx 2min long.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/mb4xpu/key-and-peele-standoff
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 14, 2020, 11:47:20 AM
...Why put "sleeping" in quotes?

Why ask about putting "sleeping" in quotes? From my time at CJI, we had a similar case in Detroit where an all-time sleaze-bag became the nation's darling because he was arrested and died on the way to the hospital. He went for the officer's guns, and caused the problem. There were enough street people who testified it was all the policemen's fault, until all the facts came out. Malice Green had sidewalk shrines and a whole Black Lives Matters movement before it existed. The Street people said the police who arrested him were known in the neighborhood as "Starsky and Hutch" because they were so abusive, until it came out they were new to the neighborhood and not old partners. Everything was made up, and it took years to salvage their reputations.

Malice Green was high on drugs and alcohol, and was clawing at the policeman's gun. The policeman used the less lethal weapon to retain his gun, which was his flashlight, Green was subdued and the EMT unit that took him to the hospital saw no reason to hurry because he wasn't in distress. He died on the way, and all medical experts said he died because of the drugs in his system.

All police know this history and know their weapons are not to be exposed. Any attempt to grab them is considered a death sentence.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 14, 2020, 11:49:44 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-10-at-11.25.12-AM.png?resize=600%2C300&ssl=1

Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 14, 2020, 12:18:15 PM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 14, 2020, 01:21:05 PM
This is the picture (https://ibb.co/ccDFWM5) Trump has had at least 5 people murdered to prevent you from seeing, absolute PROOF that he has had at least one brain transplant in the last few years.  Some say the first one didn't take and this is the scar that wasn't removed showing the second one.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 14, 2020, 03:11:46 PM
This is the picture (https://ibb.co/ccDFWM5) Trump has had at least 5 people murdered to prevent you from seeing, absolute PROOF that he has had at least one brain transplant in the last few years.  Some say the first one didn't take and this is the scar that wasn't removed showing the second one.

More likely to be a hair transplant scar. Or he's wearing a wig and that's a seam. :)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 14, 2020, 05:04:33 PM
This is the picture (https://ibb.co/ccDFWM5) Trump has had at least 5 people murdered to prevent you from seeing, absolute PROOF that he has had at least one brain transplant in the last few years.  Some say the first one didn't take and this is the scar that wasn't removed showing the second one.

More likely to be a hair transplant scar. Or he's wearing a wig and that's a seam. :)

NO! You're not taking this seriously**.  The "scar" is the drainage hole port drilled into his skull and is still used to deliver anti-rejection hormones.  There is PROOF! The surgeries were in Russia and we now know that the chief surgeon, Dmitri Hvorostovsky, died in January by "falling through a window onto a parapet below," a transparent attempt to "tie up loose ends".  The report of his death was intentionally disguised by claiming that he had fallen onto a "parakeet below," which makes no sense.  Joe Biden is holding onto this information and is planning to confront Trump with the TRUTH in their first debate, if he remembers to bring it up.

** It's amazing what just one gin and tonic can help one understand. I wish I knew what wmLambert uses to get to the places he goes.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 14, 2020, 05:11:37 PM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

wmLambert, aside from the fact you've gone off the deep end - you've made many claims about Gugino, and about what other people have said about Gugino.  For instance, in this post, you were misrepresenting what the mayor of Buffalo said about Gugino:

Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa.
You've been challenged to provide a transcript of where the mayor made this statement.  At the very least, you should be able to provide a video recording, specifically of the mayor Byron Brown, making such a statement.  But you continue to avoid supporting this claim.  Now, you are repeating a completely unsubstantiated claim about a planted bag of blood? 

At this point, since you refuse to substantiate your claims, and are now doubling down on them, we have to start asking whether this is purposeful lying, or maybe just a psychological problem.  TheDaemon and Kasandra are ridiculing this latest paranoia on your part, but it's a serious question - not even Crunch is likely to support this one with a straight face.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 14, 2020, 05:23:17 PM
You think 6oz of Bombay Sapphire means I'm not serious? 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 15, 2020, 03:07:21 AM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Wow. This is flat-earth level stuff, wmLambert.

You're showing us a photo of the guy bleeding out of his ear, when from the very start the claim was that he was bleeding out of his ear, and in the very video a person was shouting "he's bleeding out of his ear".

Have you even seen the video?

https://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregion/100000007175798/buffalo-police-shove-man-video.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title-area&cview=true&t=24

You want us to think that the guy tried to hide a bag of blood from a hundred policemen surrounding him, but you managed to locate such in a deliberately fuzzed-up photo.

EDIT: Here's some fact checks too:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/09/viral-image/no-evidence-buffalo-protesters-injuries-were-stage/
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/09/trump-pushes-conspiracy-theory-about-buffalo-protester/
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/09/trump-gugino-tweet/
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 15, 2020, 06:54:35 AM
You want us to think that the guy tried to hide a bag of blood from a hundred policemen surrounding him, but you managed to locate such in a deliberately fuzzed-up photo.
What I especially love about this conspiracy theory is how it depends on not just the police acting criminally, but that both the police and the ambulance techs must also act ineptly.

It requires Gugino to believe that he will be assaulted by police, of course, but he also must believe that none of them would come to his aid, and none of them would attempt to help him breathe by removing his mask once he was pretending to be unconscious.

It then also requires him to believe the paramedics wouldn't find the bag of blood while they recessitated him.

And of course, it actually then requires the police to act criminally and with complete disregard for the safety and well-being of an old man... which even if you believe Gugino is this criminal mastermind, the cops need to act in exactly the same way as they have been accused... It doesn't actually change anything about the cops' guilt.

Unless of course the cops knew Gugino was acting, but decided to leave all evidence of their innocence hidden so they could be later accused convincingly... that's it, they were in on it - maybe it's a false flag operation!!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 15, 2020, 11:04:16 AM
Which means?  Why put "sleeping" in quotes?  Tasers aren't considered lethal weapons and have a limited range.  They shot him in the back as he was running away.  FWIW, the lawyers for the family said the cops didn't do a breathalizer test.  Do you know if it was done after they shot him?

The officers did a sobriety test. I'm guessing the number came from a blood alcohol test after he was shot.

This is a death fully caused by officers carrying weapons on their person all the time. The man was already able to get a taser away from an officer. If he incapacitates an officer with the taser and takes his gun then the result is the officer could be the one getting shot.

We need to understand this, as long as the police carry a gun on their hip all of the time the police will treat every physical altercation as a life and death struggle. Because someone getting the upper hand on them for a second and taking their weapon could rapidly lead to their death. That's how police have to approach fights.

Quote
Video of the incident released by both witnesses and city officials shows Brooks cooperating with officers during a sobriety test. When the two officers move to arrest him, video shows a scuffle among the three men. During the scuffle, Brooks gains hold of one of the officers' stun guns and runs away. The officers chase him, and when Brooks turns around and appears to point the stun gun at Officer Garrett Rolfe, the officer shoots him.

Quote
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/14/876762714/anti-racism-protests-outcry-after-shooting-in-atlanta-clashes-in-paris-and-londo

Officers potentially could and probably should have handled this better. But this isn't a George Floyd case and likely wasn't something caused by Brooks's race. If anyone fights with police to the point of taking a taser and then trying to shoot the cop with it, don't be surprised when you get shot. If Brooks had thrown the taser down and just run then he's slightly more sympathetic but this isn't the case to make an example of police racism.

CBS Sunday morning news did an excellent take on police violence this past week. First they highlighted the case of a man who died after being tasered 31 times while handcuffed. Second they highlighted how often police pulled guns or used aggressive stop and frisk techniques on black men.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charles-m-blow-on-race-and-the-power-held-by-police/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charles-m-blow-on-race-and-the-power-held-by-police/)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-examiners-under-fire/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-examiners-under-fire/)

This shows white people end up dead at the hands of police sometimes too. But that black men end up having the police treat them very aggressively far too often for absolutely no reason.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 15, 2020, 11:35:24 AM
This is a death fully caused by officers carrying weapons on their person all the time. The man was already able to get a taser away from an officer. If he incapacitates an officer with the taser and takes his gun then the result is the officer could be the one getting shot.

We need to understand this, as long as the police carry a gun on their hip all of the time the police will treat every physical altercation as a life and death struggle. Because someone getting the upper hand on them for a second and taking their weapon could rapidly lead to their death. That's how police have to approach fights.

Yes and no. There were at least two officers present. Until he somehow managed to incapacitate one of the two and started moving towards the incapacitated cop, there was no reason to consider escalation to deadly force(shooting) in that specific circumstance.

At least, as per what I recall of my own training for (general) security watches. "Deadly force" was only (unconditionally) authorized when somebody was under threat of loss of life, or "national security" was at risk. (And "national security" in that context basically meant that someone was about to potentially gain access to an armory of one kind or another) Of course, there were some other conditionals in play, but none are applicable to that situation.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 15, 2020, 11:56:34 AM
It's not entirely clear to me that the police had cause to arrest him, since he was parked at the time and he had not (apparently) failed a breathalizer test. It didn't look like he failed the sobriety test, either, but he did admit to having (I think) one drink.  That's why I asked earlier when it was done, since the portion of the video I was able to watch before it froze didn't show them performing the test.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 15, 2020, 12:09:16 PM
It's not entirely clear to me that the police had cause to arrest him, since he was parked at the time and he had not (apparently) failed a breathalizer test. It didn't look like he failed the sobriety test, either, but he did admit to having (I think) one drink.  That's why I asked earlier when it was done, since the portion of the video I was able to watch before it froze didn't show them performing the test.

DUI laws allow for cops to be complete bastards on this front. Parked or not doesn't matter.

Keys in the ignition are sufficient for a DUI conviction, even if he wasn't in the driver's seat. As "keys in the ignition" meet the legal criteria to demonstrate intent to drive.

I'm at 1 remove from a guy who received a DUI for being drunk in the sleeper cab of his truck while 16 hours into a "34 hour restart" for his hours of service. But because he needed to have the keys in the ignition in order to run the Air Conditioning in the truck...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 15, 2020, 12:12:01 PM
This is a death fully caused by officers carrying weapons on their person all the time. The man was already able to get a taser away from an officer. If he incapacitates an officer with the taser and takes his gun then the result is the officer could be the one getting shot.

We need to understand this, as long as the police carry a gun on their hip all of the time the police will treat every physical altercation as a life and death struggle. Because someone getting the upper hand on them for a second and taking their weapon could rapidly lead to their death. That's how police have to approach fights.

Yes and no. There were at least two officers present. Until he somehow managed to incapacitate one of the two and started moving towards the incapacitated cop, there was no reason to consider escalation to deadly force(shooting) in that specific circumstance.

At least, as per what I recall of my own training for (general) security watches. "Deadly force" was only (unconditionally) authorized when somebody was under threat of loss of life, or "national security" was at risk. (And "national security" in that context basically meant that someone was about to potentially gain access to an armory of one kind or another) Of course, there were some other conditionals in play, but none are applicable to that situation.

I see your point. However, I think its asking too much of a cop who was just in the middle of a fight and had his tazer forcibly taken from him to allow himself to get tazed because there is still another officer on the scene. I think there probably was a resolution to this that resulted in an arrest and no one being tazed or shot but this isn't a case where I want to Monday morning quarterback every decision the cop made amped up on adrenaline in the heat of the moment. The cops should have done better but IMO they didn't behave in a way that rises to the level of criminality.

Sitting here on Monday morning I recognize:
1) It is improbable that running away, shooting over the shoulder with a tazer of anyone actually being hit by the tazer.
2) Even if he had been struck by the tazer that other than being embarrassed by being shot by his own tazer he likely wouldn't have received any serious injury and the man would likely have continued running away.
3) Things the cop might have been thinking in the moment. A skull fracture from falling down after being tazed is a possibility. Its also possible, but exceedingly unlikely, he tries and succeeds in firing a second round at his partner and proceeds to take their guns and kill them both.

This isn't a case I'm outraged about. I think it is a case that can instruct us on better police training and tactics but not one that revels something rotten in the system where cops like Chauvin are out to humiliate, dominate, and abuse the people they're arresting.

I think cops should receive more hand to hand combat training. MMA/Judo style training along with weight training and how to effectively fight as a team so they can safely subdue one unarmed man without pulling guns. This is something they should paid to do everyday, 30 minutes of fitness per day and a 1 hour class per week on self defense, hand to hand combat, and effective team restraint tactics.

I also think there should be a shift to keeping guns locked in squad cars, maybe put the gun on your hip to do an initial search but once they knew the person is unarmed they could place the gun back in a gun safe to lower the threat of deadly violence. This also requires police always be in pairs. Without more training and specifically training that reduces their dependence on guns progress is going to be slow. There are a whole host of other police reforms that could be on the table as well, but these are the ones I think would have helped in this specific case.





Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 15, 2020, 12:30:20 PM
Quote
The cops should have done better but IMO they didn't behave in a way that rises to the level of criminality.

Shooting a suspect at the scene is supposed to be a response to a direct threat to the officer(s) or bystanders, which can't ever be the case when the suspect is not armed with a lethal weapon and is running away.  There was no excuse to shoot him in the back. 

The shooting raises two other points.  First, officers should not find themselves in a situation where their lethal reactions are driven by "the heat of the moment."  Training should teach them how to overcome their emotions and how to look for alternative solutions to shooting.  The other is that the officer fired at least two shots at a fleeing suspect.  Who or what was beyond the suspect who might have been hit by bullets that either missed him or passed through him?  This was a somewhat busy restaurant, so we can't see cars or walkers who might have been in the line of fire. 

Bottom line, this was a total cluster*censored*.  Firing and arresting the officer who shot his gun is not only appropriate, but a necessary response.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 15, 2020, 12:40:09 PM
I can't tell if it's just because we're on the outside but I get the impression that cops tend to see shootings as unfortunately inevitable or at least there's nothing they can do to prevent shootings. Do you know how many plane crashes we'd have if the aviation industry had the same attitude?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2020, 12:45:17 PM
I can't tell if it's just because we're on the outside but I get the impression that cops tend to see shootings as unfortunately inevitable or at least there's nothing they can do to prevent shootings.

That's a charitable interpretation. I'm sure there are some who feel legitimately grieved, others who feel "hey that's what happens", and yet others who feel like "it'll cause a ruckus but the good folks can know there's one less scumbag on the street." There are probably also wackos enjoy outright enjoy it, but let's put them aside for now.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 15, 2020, 12:58:02 PM
Quote
The cops should have done better but IMO they didn't behave in a way that rises to the level of criminality.

Shooting a suspect at the scene is supposed to be a response to a direct threat to the officer(s) or bystanders, which can't ever be the case when the suspect is not armed with a lethal weapon and is running away.  There was no excuse to shoot him in the back. 

If the officer shot him in the back while he was fleeing then you have a point. However if the videos show, as the npr write up indicated, that he was aiming the tazer at the officer then the calculus changes somewhat.

I fell while running at full speed a couple of years ago. I landed okay, distributed the impact over most of my right side, but I still broke my wrist in the fall. Same situation if someone tazed me running that fast and I fall uncontrolled forward and strike my head instead of my knee, hip, and wrist then I could easily have ended up with more serious head injuries. This goes to another point about police and tazer's as well, while they are typically non-lethal it doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Officers overuse tazer's as well, that just doesn't get as much attention because the person usually only has minor injuries. But I bet if we dig into deaths at the hands of police we can find a significant (more than 10) were a direct or indirect result of a tazer.

Firing this cop is probably justified because of the other reasons you pointed out about the dangers of firing a gun in a crowded area.

Criminal charges probably is a waste of money. A jury isn't going to convict unless the review of the tapes I read is inaccurate. If he's aiming a dangerous weapon, even a non-lethal one, at the officer at the time of the shooting after overpowering the officers physically then its a tough sale that the officer was committing a criminal act. I think it is pretty unfair to say an officer must allow himself to get tazered, because at that point he is incapacitated and mostly defenseless. The reports indicate it was only two officers on the scene. 10 cops there and one gets tazered it probably isn't a big deal, with only two that's shifting the balance of power considerably. Cops are human, we should expect more of them in so many ways, and we should demand the sadists, like Chauvin, get cleaned out of policing. But doing more than firing this cop who had just been assaulted and was about to be tazed is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 15, 2020, 01:03:10 PM
I can't tell if it's just because we're on the outside but I get the impression that cops tend to see shootings as unfortunately inevitable or at least there's nothing they can do to prevent shootings. Do you know how many plane crashes we'd have if the aviation industry had the same attitude?

Absolutely. The problem in this situation is training, equipment, and what happened in the 10 minutes leading up to the struggle, pursuit, and shooting. This looks to be a case where better training, better communication, better laws, and less reliance on weapons could have prevented the situation where any weapons were drawn, much less a shot fired.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 15, 2020, 01:29:31 PM
Two black women protesters in Florida have been murdered in the past week, one after being raped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/15/oluwatoyin-salau-found-dead-tallahassee-black-lives-matter-protest-missing/3190606001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/12/black-lives-matter-protester-reported-missing-florida-after-tweet/3174915001/
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 15, 2020, 01:40:28 PM
Of course a taser only has about a 15-25 foot maximum range. So the officer most likely could have stayed out of range while he waited for backup. An ultimate solution would be to make it impossible for anyone other than the officer to fire their weapon, but the tech isn't quite there yet.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 15, 2020, 01:41:24 PM
If the officer shot him in the back while he was fleeing then you have a point. However if the videos show, as the npr write up indicated, that he was aiming the tazer at the officer then the calculus changes somewhat.
If it's the video I saw, he was running away, seemed to turn partially/briefly back towards the police, turned away from the police again, then continued running, at which point he was shot.  It would seem he may have discharged the stun gun while turning (which may be why he turned briefly). It should also be noted that his momentum during the 1.5 second video clip was consistently away from the police.  He wasn't advancing towards them.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 15, 2020, 03:02:17 PM
Yes and no. There were at least two officers present. Until he somehow managed to incapacitate one of the two and started moving towards the incapacitated cop, there was no reason to consider escalation to deadly force(shooting) in that specific circumstance.

At least, as per what I recall of my own training for (general) security watches. "Deadly force" was only (unconditionally) authorized when somebody was under threat of loss of life, or "national security" was at risk. (And "national security" in that context basically meant that someone was about to potentially gain access to an armory of one kind or another) Of course, there were some other conditionals in play, but none are applicable to that situation.

I see your point. However, I think its asking too much of a cop who was just in the middle of a fight and had his tazer forcibly taken from him to allow himself to get tazed because there is still another officer on the scene. I think there probably was a resolution to this that resulted in an arrest and no one being tazed or shot but this isn't a case where I want to Monday morning quarterback every decision the cop made amped up on adrenaline in the heat of the moment. The cops should have done better but IMO they didn't behave in a way that rises to the level of criminality.

This comes back to a refrain I've had with prior service military types who served on the ground war side of things. If the police officer had been trained as part of a squad, that wouldn't have any kind of meaningful "ask" to make on his part. He's supposed to trust that his squad has his back. In this case, he should have trusted that the other officer had his back. He didn't. He was obviously still operating in "lone wolf" mode.

Quote
Sitting here on Monday morning I recognize:
1) It is improbable that running away, shooting over the shoulder with a tazer of anyone actually being hit by the tazer.
2) Even if he had been struck by the tazer that other than being embarrassed by being shot by his own tazer he likely wouldn't have received any serious injury and the man would likely have continued running away.
3) Things the cop might have been thinking in the moment. A skull fracture from falling down after being tazed is a possibility. Its also possible, but exceedingly unlikely, he tries and succeeds in firing a second round at his partner and proceeds to take their guns and kill them both.

I'm kind of curious as to how effective a tazer would even be through body armor. That aside, I do fully agree with one soundbite that either NBC of ABC had the other night on the matter. "It's hard to take seriously a claim of mortal peril against a tazer when the same law enforcement agency routinely claims tazers are non-lethal weapons."

Item number 1 can be rightfully called a monday morning quarterback call.
Item number 2 goes back to the earlier point about not trusting the other officer to have his back. If he had (somehow) been successfully tazed, the other Officer would be entirely in his rights to open fire on the suspect if the suspect starts moving towards the downed officer.
Item number 3 also comes back to "didn't trust the other officer." For the suspect to get his hands on the other(tazed) officer's gun, he'd have to get to it before the other officer could either secure it, or kick it away to somewhere else. He'd also have to not get shot while attempting to get the gun.

Risk of bodily harm from a potentially uncontrolled fall is somewhat valid, but not grounds to claim fear of loss of life, and gets back to the problem of how tazer use is commonly described by law enforcement. If it's "safe enough" for police to consider it non-lethal when tazing an upright person, they're going to have a hard sell on suddenly being lethal when its turned on a cop.

Quote
I think cops should receive more hand to hand combat training. MMA/Judo style training along with weight training and how to effectively fight as a team so they can safely subdue one unarmed man without pulling guns. This is something they should paid to do everyday, 30 minutes of fitness per day and a 1 hour class per week on self defense, hand to hand combat, and effective team restraint tactics.

I also think there should be a shift to keeping guns locked in squad cars, maybe put the gun on your hip to do an initial search but once they knew the person is unarmed they could place the gun back in a gun safe to lower the threat of deadly violence. This also requires police always be in pairs. Without more training and specifically training that reduces their dependence on guns progress is going to be slow. There are a whole host of other police reforms that could be on the table as well, but these are the ones I think would have helped in this specific case.

You don't even have to go quite that far in some respects. If they're working in pairs, one is always armed while the other shifts between armed/unarmed states as needed. You just make sure that after initial contact has established the suspect is unarmed, the unarmed officer takes over interactions from there.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 15, 2020, 03:20:12 PM
Risk of bodily harm from a potentially uncontrolled fall is somewhat valid, but not grounds to claim fear of loss of life, and gets back to the problem of how tazer use is commonly described by law enforcement. If it's "safe enough" for police to consider it non-lethal when tazing an upright person, they're going to have a hard sell on suddenly being lethal when its turned on a cop.

Plus, firing the gun after the stun gun has already been discharged will have zero effect, unless the police officer manages to fire his gun after the stun gun has been discharged but before the electrodes reach him and successfully incapacitate him.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 15, 2020, 03:25:42 PM
Quote
Criminal charges probably is a waste of money. A jury isn't going to convict unless the review of the tapes I read is inaccurate. If he's aiming a dangerous weapon, even a non-lethal one, at the officer at the time of the shooting after overpowering the officers physically then its a tough sale that the officer was committing a criminal act.

Yeah, but it's already been "determined" to be a homicide.  They will have to arrest the officer, and suffer the consequences if they withdraw the charges before trial.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 15, 2020, 03:26:29 PM
The shooting raises two other points.  First, officers should not find themselves in a situation where their lethal reactions are driven by "the heat of the moment."  Training should teach them how to overcome their emotions and how to look for alternative solutions to shooting.  The other is that the officer fired at least two shots at a fleeing suspect.  Who or what was beyond the suspect who might have been hit by bullets that either missed him or passed through him?  This was a somewhat busy restaurant, so we can't see cars or walkers who might have been in the line of fire.

From what I recall, police initiated contact around 10:30pm with the suspect as he was sleeeping while parked in the drive thru.

It varies from location to location but in many areas, it is not uncommon for Wendy's stores to be shut down by 10 PM. Given he was sleeping in the drive thru lane, I'd lay odds the store was closed. There may have still been some workers present doing cleanup/post-shift work getting things ready for the morning crew, but that would have only been a very small number of people.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 15, 2020, 03:28:18 PM
I don't generally like speculating on things for which we don't have direct evidence, but I agree with pretty much everyone's assessments of this situation.  Gosh, when does that ever happen on Ornery???
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 15, 2020, 05:54:19 PM

From what I recall, police initiated contact around 10:30pm with the suspect as he was sleeeping while parked in the drive thru.

It varies from location to location but in many areas, it is not uncommon for Wendy's stores to be shut down by 10 PM. Given he was sleeping in the drive thru lane, I'd lay odds the store was closed. There may have still been some workers present doing cleanup/post-shift work getting things ready for the morning crew, but that would have only been a very small number of people.

The bodycam video has been released (https://gazette.com/body-cam-footage-of-rayshard-brooks-death-shows-calm-then-chaos/video_9fcd0a8a-aeae-11ea-a655-9f5a3f7f9fe2.html)  You can see that the drive through is open and busy.  His car is stopped right in the middle of the line and he is asleep in it.  He also administers the breathalyzer on camera.  I was surprised at how dangerous the physical scuffle looked to me.  The officers were being careful not to be overly rough, no strikes thrown just trying to restrain him. Even 2 on one they were not able to control him and he was able to get a tazer away from one of them.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2020, 06:57:23 PM
The bodycam video has been released (https://gazette.com/body-cam-footage-of-rayshard-brooks-death-shows-calm-then-chaos/video_9fcd0a8a-aeae-11ea-a655-9f5a3f7f9fe2.html)  You can see that the drive through is open and busy.  His car is stopped right in the middle of the line and he is asleep in it.  He also administers the breathalyzer on camera.  I was surprised at how dangerous the physical scuffle looked to me.  The officers were being careful not to be overly rough, no strikes thrown just trying to restrain him. Even 2 on one they were not able to control him and he was able to get a tazer away from one of them.

Thanks for the link. I have a few comments about this:

1) The ground game of the cop on top of him is weak. It should not be that hard to sustain control of a struggling person if you have full top control of them. Sure, they can manage to get away, but the cop couldn't even sustain it for more than a few seconds and was thrown off easily. So this is pretty sad wrestling/jiu jitsu skills.

2) Although he was resisting fully, none of that looked like "fighting back." It much more closely resembles an animal panicking and trying to escape. This is no different from an animal rescue situation when they're cornered in their cage and getting anxious and going into fight or flight. Yes, that does then require forcible actions for sure. But he was not out to hurt anyone, and I don't believe for a second he was trying to threaten anyone. He was just wriggling to get out like a rabbit does from the mouth of a bird of prey.

3) When they shot him in the back the main threat he posed consisted of "he's getting away!" That is no grounds for lethal force. This is no different from a car chase; cops on foot, in car, or any other mode should follow in pursuit until he could be rounded up and captured. He was not running toward anyone, nor did he fit the profile of some kind of dangerous criminal about to go take hostages or something.

Now (1) is more an observation than a criticism, in the sense that I can't expect good ground fighting skills when they're not focusing on that in training. But given how many of these altercations take place in all the various cam footages over the years, *clearly* ground fighting should be a primary focus of police training, as restraining someone non-lethally should be their primary tool. After that should maybe be track and field, since the only reason to shoot this guy was to avoid breaking a sweat running after him calling for backup.

(2) is a classic case of cops mistaking panic or (sometimes) mental illness for a threat against them. They need to know that if they are creating the hostile condition (i.e. by being present as a police officer) this will put people on edge, and people already on the edge will freak out sometimes. If they can't handle that they have no business being on the scene and are unqualified.

(3) is the main problem, where "he's unruly" creates a bee-line in their brains to "shoot him!" If this is all they're capable of then I sorta must admit there is some sense to what another poster wrote about how maybe the police should not be allowed to have guns any more. We recently tried giving my baby some new toys like a little xylophone, but unfortunately he's too young to understand commands and doesn't understand that he can't hurl it to the ground (it's heavy and will break the floor). He can't handle it yet so we have to take it away for now, which makes him sad. Even sadder would be breaking the floor, where "floor" means the lives of civilians.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 15, 2020, 11:09:26 PM
If the shots in the back were multiple seconds after he had turned back around and continued running away  with the taser I could be persuaded that criminal charges could be warranted. My earlier analysis was based on the fact that the man was turning and aiming the taser at him at the time he was shot. Those are different scenarios.

I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 16, 2020, 01:35:57 AM
If the shots in the back were multiple seconds after he had turned back around and continued running away  with the taser I could be persuaded that criminal charges could be warranted. My earlier analysis was based on the fact that the man was turning and aiming the taser at him at the time he was shot. Those are different scenarios.

I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 16, 2020, 01:58:14 AM
I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?

I don't think that even really qualified as an aimed taser. That said, juries have evidently cleared police officers of murder charges in even less ambiguous situations where the deceased was white. So I'd agree with the likely outcome being a hung jury.

The only other way to address the "limited immunity" thing the courts have foisted on the legal system is to change the laws to codify into law situations which the respective states or cities(for their own officers) do not desire limited immunity to apply. At the state level they can go one step further and potentially enhance the penalties.

Part of the problem most of these cases with Law Enforcement involvement is you either run up against Limited Immunity, or the situation the officer was involved in doesn't "translate well" to the relevant statute when compared against their job. The only way to address that is to adjust the laws to so they can translate more effectively.

I guess the other option is to put them on another legal track entirely and subject them to something comparable to the Military's Court Martial system. But people on both sides of things probably wouldn't like that option very much, for wildly different reasons.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: msquared on June 16, 2020, 07:58:34 AM
Chris Rock had a piece on the cops and being black.  You laugh now but it resonates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

msquared
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 16, 2020, 09:22:57 AM
If the shots in the back were multiple seconds after he had turned back around and continued running away  with the taser I could be persuaded that criminal charges could be warranted. My earlier analysis was based on the fact that the man was turning and aiming the taser at him at the time he was shot. Those are different scenarios.

I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?

In this case, I still think the gun is an overreaction but given the laws that generally apply to police it probably isn't a criminal act. Ideally the police would respond to a "non-lethal" weapon in kind. But I'm not sure that this officer had his taser available at this point.

As to why this would ever be the case. Imagine a kidnapper who uses a taser to abduct people. Your options are shooting him or becoming a captive. This scenerio isn't close to the one shown by the officer here, his best defense for lethal force would be fear of serious injury as a result of falling while being tased. And I'm sure if you just look the lists of people seriously injured or killed by police tasers the point could be made to a jury that the officer had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. And that is the standard police are judged by.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 16, 2020, 09:41:41 AM
I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?

I don't think that even really qualified as an aimed taser. That said, juries have evidently cleared police officers of murder charges in even less ambiguous situations where the deceased was white. So I'd agree with the likely outcome being a hung jury.

And I think any criminal penalties of this case come down to that fact. If the man just looked over his shoulder while running away and then turned and kept running then a serious case could be made for criminal charges. On the other hand if the shots were fired while he was trying to aim a taser over his should based on the "reasonable fear" doctrine the police operate under the officer likely isn't guilty of the laws as written. Also being tased while holding a pistil is probably pretty dangerous for yourself and those around you.

Either we have to accept this state of affairs or change the laws and remove guns from the hips of officers. This is why I would never regularly carry a firearm. Any physical altercation immediately becomes a life or death struggle when a handgun is within reach.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 16, 2020, 09:51:41 AM
If the shots in the back were multiple seconds after he had turned back around and continued running away  with the taser I could be persuaded that criminal charges could be warranted. My earlier analysis was based on the fact that the man was turning and aiming the taser at him at the time he was shot. Those are different scenarios.

I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?

In this case, I still think the gun is an overreaction but given the laws that generally apply to police it probably isn't a criminal act. Ideally the police would respond to a "non-lethal" weapon in kind. But I'm not sure that this officer had his taser available at this point.

As to why this would ever be the case. Imagine a kidnapper who uses a taser to abduct people. Your options are shooting him or becoming a captive. This scenerio isn't close to the one shown by the officer here, his best defense for lethal force would be fear of serious injury as a result of falling while being tased. And I'm sure if you just look the lists of people seriously injured or killed by police tasers the point could be made to a jury that the officer had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. And that is the standard police are judged by.

With the current laws and defense based on how they are trained the officers are unlikely to be held convicted of a crime.

I think this case demonstrates the systemic problem within policing as it regards training. The grounds for when deadly force can be deployed are too broad
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 16, 2020, 10:26:37 AM
I wonder how the "defund the police" team would have seen this unfold in that new model.

You've got a highly inebriated individual who's unresponsive and then physically resists. How would the trained counselor manage that situation?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Pete at Home on June 16, 2020, 10:52:39 AM
It's not entirely clear to me that the police had cause to arrest him, since he was parked at the time and he had not (apparently) failed a breathalizer test. It didn't look like he failed the sobriety test, either, but he did admit to having (I think) one drink.  That's why I asked earlier when it was done, since the portion of the video I was able to watch before it froze didn't show them performing the test.

DUI laws allow for cops to be complete bastards on this front. Parked or not doesn't matter.

Keys in the ignition are sufficient for a DUI conviction, even if he wasn't in the driver's seat. As "keys in the ignition" meet the legal criteria to demonstrate intent to drive.

I'm at 1 remove from a guy who received a DUI for being drunk in the sleeper cab of his truck while 16 hours into a "34 hour restart" for his hours of service. But because he needed to have the keys in the ignition in order to run the Air Conditioning in the truck...

I have a DUI from Vegas for pushing a car down the street while intoxicated.  Apparently, when asked by police why I was pushing my car, I said "because I'm too drunk to drive, Officer."
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 16, 2020, 10:57:30 AM
There are probably several factors in play. First off, most models still call cops when there is a suspected crime involving public safety, like DUI. But let's hypothetically say that somehow a counselor is going to approach him sleeping in his car. The first thing is, he doesn't immediately get triggered like when he stares disoriented into the cops maglite. He doesn't feel threatened at the presence of armed individuals. He probably doesn't panic and try to flee. In other words, less likely to escalate. The counselor also isn't using this as an opportunity to search his car for contraband, so if he did have a bag of weed he's got nothing to worry about.

Then there's the question - how does every other profession deal with someone who physically resists and is unarmed? Like the often mentioned ER doctors, orderlies, and nurses? There's also the possibility of just letting someone go when they physically resist. That dude, should he have lurched out of his car, probably staggers a half block and falls down. Even if he escaped into the wilderness, you have his car. You know where he lives. Would it be so terrible if he "got away" briefly?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 16, 2020, 11:07:21 AM
It's not entirely clear to me that the police had cause to arrest him, since he was parked at the time and he had not (apparently) failed a breathalizer test. It didn't look like he failed the sobriety test, either, but he did admit to having (I think) one drink.  That's why I asked earlier when it was done, since the portion of the video I was able to watch before it froze didn't show them performing the test.

DUI laws allow for cops to be complete bastards on this front. Parked or not doesn't matter.

Keys in the ignition are sufficient for a DUI conviction, even if he wasn't in the driver's seat. As "keys in the ignition" meet the legal criteria to demonstrate intent to drive.

I'm at 1 remove from a guy who received a DUI for being drunk in the sleeper cab of his truck while 16 hours into a "34 hour restart" for his hours of service. But because he needed to have the keys in the ignition in order to run the Air Conditioning in the truck...

I have a DUI from Vegas for pushing a car down the street while intoxicated.  Apparently, when asked by police why I was pushing my car, I said "because I'm too drunk to drive, Officer."

That's pretty funny.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 16, 2020, 11:11:26 AM
There are probably several factors in play. First off, most models still call cops when there is a suspected crime involving public safety, like DUI. But let's hypothetically say that somehow a counselor is going to approach him sleeping in his car. The first thing is, he doesn't immediately get triggered like when he stares disoriented into the cops maglite. He doesn't feel threatened at the presence of armed individuals. He probably doesn't panic and try to flee. In other words, less likely to escalate. The counselor also isn't using this as an opportunity to search his car for contraband, so if he did have a bag of weed he's got nothing to worry about.

Then there's the question - how does every other profession deal with someone who physically resists and is unarmed? Like the often mentioned ER doctors, orderlies, and nurses? There's also the possibility of just letting someone go when they physically resist. That dude, should he have lurched out of his car, probably staggers a half block and falls down. Even if he escaped into the wilderness, you have his car. You know where he lives. Would it be so terrible if he "got away" briefly?

That's one potential outcome, and I agree with you in principle. Another outcome is he knows that a counselor isn't likely to compel him to do a damn thing and, being drunk as a skunk, he decides to just leave in his car and kills someone down the street.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 16, 2020, 11:19:53 AM
Keys in the ignition are sufficient for a DUI conviction, even if he wasn't in the driver's seat. As "keys in the ignition" meet the legal criteria to demonstrate intent to drive.

I'm at 1 remove from a guy who received a DUI for being drunk in the sleeper cab of his truck while 16 hours into a "34 hour restart" for his hours of service. But because he needed to have the keys in the ignition in order to run the Air Conditioning in the truck...

I have a DUI from Vegas for pushing a car down the street while intoxicated.  Apparently, when asked by police why I was pushing my car, I said "because I'm too drunk to drive, Officer."

Which would be consistent with "keys in the ignition indicates intent to drive" despite any other evidence to the contrary. Although in your case you were clearly "operating a motor vehicle" even if the car was in neutral and the engine was shut off. In order to steer, you needed to have key in the ignition to disengage the interlock on the steering wheel.

I'm still slightly confused as to the legal basis that they managed to construct for the DUI for bicyclists and the guy on a horse.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Pete at Home on June 16, 2020, 11:20:28 AM
If the shots in the back were multiple seconds after he had turned back around and continued running away  with the taser I could be persuaded that criminal charges could be warranted. My earlier analysis was based on the fact that the man was turning and aiming the taser at him at the time he was shot. Those are different scenarios.

I still think it ends in a hung jury but not a clear not guilty verdict that would have come if the taser was being pointed at the time the shots were fired.

Why is an aimed taser sufficient justification for shooting with a gun?

In this case, I still think the gun is an overreaction but given the laws that generally apply to police it probably isn't a criminal act. Ideally the police would respond to a "non-lethal" weapon in kind. But I'm not sure that this officer had his taser available at this point.

As to why this would ever be the case. Imagine a kidnapper who uses a taser to abduct people. Your options are shooting him or becoming a captive. This scenerio isn't close to the one shown by the officer here, his best defense for lethal force would be fear of serious injury as a result of falling while being tased. And I'm sure if you just look the lists of people seriously injured or killed by police tasers the point could be made to a jury that the officer had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. And that is the standard police are judged by.

With the current laws and defense based on how they are trained the officers are unlikely to be held convicted of a crime.

I think this case demonstrates the systemic problem within policing as it regards training. The grounds for when deadly force can be deployed are too broad

The actual standard is "reasonable fear" not just actual fear.  The officers would have needed to fear for their lives and this fear must be demonstrably reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the decision.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 16, 2020, 11:20:55 AM
There are probably several factors in play. First off, most models still call cops when there is a suspected crime involving public safety, like DUI. But let's hypothetically say that somehow a counselor is going to approach him sleeping in his car. The first thing is, he doesn't immediately get triggered like when he stares disoriented into the cops maglite. He doesn't feel threatened at the presence of armed individuals. He probably doesn't panic and try to flee. In other words, less likely to escalate. The counselor also isn't using this as an opportunity to search his car for contraband, so if he did have a bag of weed he's got nothing to worry about.

Then there's the question - how does every other profession deal with someone who physically resists and is unarmed? Like the often mentioned ER doctors, orderlies, and nurses? There's also the possibility of just letting someone go when they physically resist. That dude, should he have lurched out of his car, probably staggers a half block and falls down. Even if he escaped into the wilderness, you have his car. You know where he lives. Would it be so terrible if he "got away" briefly?

There is also the chance he tells a councilor to take a hike and speeds off drunk in his car and goes onto kill someone in a car crash. We can't know every possible outcome, cops are probably going to be the ones dealing with drunk drivers for a while. I just think we need to retrain police away from their reliance on guns when confronting unarmed people. But maybe I've just seen too many Andy Griffith shows to think that a modern police force could function without a gun on their hip.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 16, 2020, 11:23:21 AM
Then there's the question - how does every other profession deal with someone who physically resists and is unarmed? Like the often mentioned ER doctors, orderlies, and nurses? There's also the possibility of just letting someone go when they physically resist. That dude, should he have lurched out of his car, probably staggers a half block and falls down. Even if he escaped into the wilderness, you have his car. You know where he lives. Would it be so terrible if he "got away" briefly?

That is the other problem in play here, although a case could be made that he posed a danger as he was technically armed so long as he had possession of the taser. But as soon as he drops the taser(which hadn't happened when he was shot), he wouldn't be a threat to public safety in general. Even if he may be a threat to himself.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 16, 2020, 11:25:25 AM
The actual standard is "reasonable fear" not just actual fear.  The officers would have needed to fear for their lives and this fear must be demonstrably reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the decision.

Quote
While their intended purpose is to avoid the use of lethal force (firearms), 180 deaths were reported to have been associated with Tasers in the US by 2006. By 2019 that figure had increased to over 1,000[31][32] It is unclear in each case whether the Taser was the cause of death, but several legislators in the U.S. have filed bills clamping down on them and requesting more studies on their effects.[33] A study led by William Bozeman of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center of nearly 1,000 persons subjected to Taser use concluded that 99.7% of the subjects had suffered no injuries, or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises, while three persons suffered injuries severe enough to need hospital admission, and two died.

A good defense lawyer could probably make a case for "reasonable fear" from being tasered. Highlight the deaths and more serious injuries from falling while running on asphalt.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 16, 2020, 11:29:34 AM
There are probably several factors in play. First off, most models still call cops when there is a suspected crime involving public safety, like DUI. But let's hypothetically say that somehow a counselor is going to approach him sleeping in his car. The first thing is, he doesn't immediately get triggered like when he stares disoriented into the cops maglite. He doesn't feel threatened at the presence of armed individuals. He probably doesn't panic and try to flee. In other words, less likely to escalate. The counselor also isn't using this as an opportunity to search his car for contraband, so if he did have a bag of weed he's got nothing to worry about.

Then there's the question - how does every other profession deal with someone who physically resists and is unarmed? Like the often mentioned ER doctors, orderlies, and nurses? There's also the possibility of just letting someone go when they physically resist. That dude, should he have lurched out of his car, probably staggers a half block and falls down. Even if he escaped into the wilderness, you have his car. You know where he lives. Would it be so terrible if he "got away" briefly?

That's one potential outcome, and I agree with you in principle. Another outcome is he knows that a counselor isn't likely to compel him to do a damn thing and, being drunk as a skunk, he decides to just leave in his car and kills someone down the street.

They could bring a parking enforcement individual and boot the car. That prevents your terrible outcome without violent confrontation. Maybe in the future, cops will have the ability to disable cars remotely. Maybe we'll outlaw all but self-driving cars. Maybe you don't think that's likely, but my point is that as a society we should figure out strategy and tactics to avoid physical confrontation.

Anyway, I already stipulated that this isn't a case for alternate methods, just exploring the possibility. If it helps to focus, consider a publicly intoxicated guy who's passed out in the street and doesn't have a car instead.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 16, 2020, 11:32:34 AM
There is also the chance he tells a councilor to take a hike and speeds off drunk in his car and goes onto kill someone in a car crash. We can't know every possible outcome, cops are probably going to be the ones dealing with drunk drivers for a while. I just think we need to retrain police away from their reliance on guns when confronting unarmed people. But maybe I've just seen too many Andy Griffith shows to think that a modern police force could function without a gun on their hip.

It would be a strong case for a "rule of two" for many situations. You go through the process previously outlined. Two officers involved, both armed until its demonstrated the person isn't a threat, then one of them continues the interaction while unarmed from that point forward if the person is being cooperative, then if things "head south" it isn't immediate life or death for that officer as the suspect has no gun to grab from the officer. From there it's up to the second officer to maintain an over-watch on the situation, and either disarm and join in the physical fight, or stay back and let the two fight it out until/unless it looks like the other officer is in mortal peril.

They may not be great fans of having to stand back and watch their buddies get roughed up, but that also makes for a strong incentive for all of them to take lessons on grappling and unarmed combat in general.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: fizz on June 16, 2020, 11:37:25 AM
I had a similar experience when I was younger: when i was a student at University, I was a volunteer stretch bearer for the Red Cross.

One time, we were called to take care of a drunk person. When we arrived, the drunk had just woke up and was feeling decidedly uncooperative... now, we couldn't obviously force him to climb on the ambulance, but leaving him be without him signing a paper where he assumed full responsibility would not have been allowed out of us, we could have had troubles, so we contacted our equivalent of 911 (118, for the curious) and asked instructions.

Shortly after a patrol car of Carabinieri arrived on the spot (one of the 3 police corps we've, it's a military corp and usually don't take care of low-level disturbances, but evidently they were the ones available that evening).

An officer dismounted the car, very calmly watched the situation, advanced up to the drunk yelling man and without warning quickly slapped him two times. Not very strongly, but neither a light tap.
He then quite gently but still very confidently stated "you're going with them".
From what I remember, the officer was not armed. The other officer, younger, that was near the car instead was.

At that point anyway the drunk man, quite surprised and suddenly silent, thought for a moment about it, and answered "I think I'm going with them".

As the drunk man seemed more cooperative, they let us do our things and only followed the ambulance up to the hospital.

Now, i don't think they exactly acted according to protocol, but I've to say that it worked quite well...
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 16, 2020, 01:15:48 PM
Quote
An officer dismounted the car, very calmly watched the situation, advanced up to the drunk yelling man and without warning quickly slapped him two times. Not very strongly, but neither a light tap.
He then quite gently but still very confidently stated "you're going with them".
From what I remember, the officer was not armed. The other officer, younger, that was near the car instead was.

At that point anyway the drunk man, quite surprised and suddenly silent, thought for a moment about it, and answered "I think I'm going with them".

As the drunk man seemed more cooperative, they let us do our things and only followed the ambulance up to the hospital.

Now, i don't think they exactly acted according to protocol, but I've to say that it worked quite well...

That reminds me of a story in the news a couple of years ago when a man in London was threatening people with a sword.  The police came and a phalanx held up glass shields and basically boxed him in until he dropped the sword and was taken to a hospital.  There was a story on the news yesterday about a policeman who was shot in the hand in St. Cloud Minnesota (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/us/st-cloud-police-shooting-minnesota/index.html).  The injured policeman and his partner disarmed the suspect and arrested him without drawing their weapons.  So it can happen here, but doesn't nearly as often as it should.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: fizz on June 16, 2020, 02:33:57 PM
Well, in London the basic policy is still the Peelian principles of policing by consent, although I hear in recent years it was weakened a bit.
Of course, they like most of Europe are helped by a decidedly smaller percentage of firearms in circulation, outside organized crime.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 16, 2020, 02:48:04 PM
In my mind, "policing by consent" is the only way to police a free society.  In the US the model has closer affinity to "policing by authority," one step (albeit a large one) short of requiring a compliant population.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 16, 2020, 03:40:30 PM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/martin-gugino-protester-skull/index.html)

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 16, 2020, 04:23:54 PM
In my mind, "policing by consent" is the only way to police a free society.  In the US the model has closer affinity to "policing by authority," one step (albeit a large one) short of requiring a compliant population.

Now you're starting to sound like an arch-libertarian on this matter.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 16, 2020, 04:33:51 PM
You sure he's not an anarcho-syndicalist?

Fox reports Monty Python joke as real news (http://pic.twitter.com/Yo34yuQvlD)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: rightleft22 on June 16, 2020, 05:13:15 PM
Fox News ran Photo-shopped images in coverage of Seattle’s protests
Huge breach in ethics... I wonder if anyone will get fired.  Not going to bet on it
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 16, 2020, 05:29:03 PM
They're also running pictures of Minneapolis fires from May for stories and chyrons about Atlanta and Seattle weeks later... it's not like it's ever been a real news organization, but now it's just getting silly.

Fox uses Minneapolis fire footage for Atlanta police shooting story (https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1272855695952678914/photo/2)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 16, 2020, 05:44:46 PM
In my mind, "policing by consent" is the only way to police a free society.  In the US the model has closer affinity to "policing by authority," one step (albeit a large one) short of requiring a compliant population.

Now you're starting to sound like an arch-libertarian on this matter.

Odd that one can believe in a specific and strong set of laws and still believe they are supposed to reflect a higher set of rights rather than controls over behavior.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be confused with a libertarian if we spent more than 5 minutes chatting, although some might think I tend to be arch at times.  If I had even a glimmer of what "anarcho-syndacalist" means, I might be able to figure out if I am one, but I do lean toward Monty Python.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 16, 2020, 11:59:11 PM
Fox News ran Photo-shopped images in coverage of Seattle’s protests
Huge breach in ethics... I wonder if anyone will get fired.  Not going to bet on it

I have seen so many articles and exhibits of various news stations doing this that I consider it standard at this point. They fake footage, coverage, even setting up stages and effects.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2020, 03:28:19 AM
Video is so easily manipulated, I ignore it unless it is raw and uncut. I prefer the written word.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 17, 2020, 07:33:55 AM
I don't gather statistics on how often FOX manipulates photo, video and chyron images, but for the amount of time I watch FOX (which I do occasionally) vs. other networks, they do that far more often than any other network.  Every once in a while I tune into FOX on a perverse impulse to see if they will label a Republican legislator outed in an affair or as being gay with a (D) in the chyron, or follow up a Republican arrested for financial misconduct with a story about George Soros, even though he rarely does anything newsworthy.  The next time one of those things happens, bet a friend and you'll stand a decent chance of winning a beer.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 19, 2020, 06:05:44 PM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/martin-gugino-protester-skull/index.html)

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....
And now, because he was old and weak enough to allow himself to be pushed over and have his skull fractured (and maybe more because irresponsible people like wmLambert repost libelous and easily disproven conspiracy theories) Mr Gugino  will not be able to return home due to receiving death threats (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/06/18/martin-gugino-to-recover-at-undisclosed-location-amid-death-threats/amp/)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 19, 2020, 10:56:43 PM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/martin-gugino-protester-skull/index.html)

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....
And now, because he was old and weak enough to allow himself to be pushed over and have his skull fractured (and maybe more because irresponsible people like wmLambert repost libelous and easily disproven conspiracy theories) Mr Gugino  will not be able to return home due to receiving death threats (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/06/18/martin-gugino-to-recover-at-undisclosed-location-amid-death-threats/amp/)

So the tube that the blood came from is unimportant? Look at the photo. There was no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion?. The videos showed Gugino moved toward the police and then he propelled himself backward when the police officer held out his hand to keep Gugino away. According to his own social media (which were taken down) he bragged about how many times he was arrested and got away. Being threatened seems to be a goal - not a fear.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 19, 2020, 11:05:32 PM
wmLambert, I'm pretty sure you don't realize how coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs you are making yourself sound.

I also have no confidence that you are capable of appreciating how far removed you now are from reality.  If, however, you have seen mental health assistance in the past, then I apologize: I would suggest that you at least talk to a family member about your current situation.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 20, 2020, 12:16:18 AM
Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/martin-gugino-protester-skull/index.html)

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....
And now, because he was old and weak enough to allow himself to be pushed over and have his skull fractured (and maybe more because irresponsible people like wmLambert repost libelous and easily disproven conspiracy theories) Mr Gugino  will not be able to return home due to receiving death threats (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/06/18/martin-gugino-to-recover-at-undisclosed-location-amid-death-threats/amp/)

So the tube that the blood came from is unimportant? Look at the photo. There was no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion?

I've looked at the photo. I've also looked at the video. There is no tube, there is only an arrow saying there was one in a photo that people have deliberately blurred in portions (you can see the unblurred portion that prove this must have been deliberate) because clearly the unblurred photo wasn't convenient enough for the lying narrative people want to spew about this.

All you're saying is random nonsense -- stuff like "There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur. Who ever told you you need "blood on the back of the head" to have a concussion? Is this now a medical fact. Please provide citation here.

Nothing you say is remotely SANE, let alone true. Open your own frigging eyes and stop spewing every single piece of lie you're being spoonfed.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 20, 2020, 07:27:19 AM
Quote
Nothing you say is remotely SANE, let alone true. Open your own frigging eyes and stop spewing every single piece of lie you're being spoonfed.

Zealots can see the cosmic truth in the least grain of sand.  I've stopped responding to wmLambert's posts because you can't argue or even have a conversation with someone who thinks like that.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 20, 2020, 09:25:33 PM
Well I saw a youtube video posted by the flat earth society that proves there weren't even any police near him, he threw himself to the ground in an empty courtyard.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 20, 2020, 10:09:05 PM
Well I saw a youtube video posted by the flat earth society that proves there weren't even any police near him, he threw himself to the ground in an empty courtyard.

I'm oddly sympathetic with flat-earthers, as for one example the basketball would keep rolling away otherwise, but I am skeptical about this claim.

A city councilwoman posted a statement about the CHOP shooting.  Our conservative members (some of whom are good people) might liken this to a flat-earth belief, but I'm evenly sympathetic to the blue marble point of view.

Quote
Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the black protester who was tragically killed this morning by gunfire at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Socialist Alternative and I stand in solidarity with the family and friends of the victim, and with the injured protester now in the hospital, as well as with all community members and fellow activists.

Though we await confirmation of the details of the killing, there are indications that this may have been a right-wing attack. If so, this would not be the first such attack on the Capitol Hill Black Lives Matter protest. As many recall, an armed man drove into the protest action on June 8, and shot black activist Dan Gregory, who had heroically intervened to stop the driver.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 20, 2020, 10:40:56 PM
Funny thing, when you block professionals from accessing a crime scene in a timely manner, anything that is found once they're "allowed" to access it becomes suspect.

They made the search for the shooter that much harder, unless there happened to be a half-dozen people running smartphone video recordings of the events as they happened, and they captured enough of the right kind of footage to ID the shooter.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 20, 2020, 11:24:57 PM
He was probably a terrorist Antifa agitator who shot himself to make the right wing look bad.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 21, 2020, 12:49:01 AM
On another front, protesters have removed statues of Francis Scott Key and Ulysses S. Grant on the grounds that both of them owned slaves and were connected to families who owned slaves.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 21, 2020, 04:15:15 AM
I suppose that the nation who didn't want to remove Confederate statues, deserves getting even more statues than that toppled.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 21, 2020, 06:51:07 AM
I suppose that the nation who didn't want to remove Confederate statues, deserves getting even more statues than that toppled.

Agreed.  By definition, statues of Confederate Army generals or the Confederate battle flag are symbols of treason.  The same people who proudly defend them now claim to do it in defense of everything those symbols opposed.  The added irony is that nearly all of the generals were losers of almost every battle they led their troops into and the troops themselves were almost never owned slaves.  To say they were misguided is being too kind. So, what are we supposed to call those who carry guns in defense of those things today?  Misguided doesn't come close.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 21, 2020, 01:11:02 PM
..."There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur.

Interesting. Then why was there a pool of blood if his head wasn't cut?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 21, 2020, 01:15:31 PM
BTW; I am a former Creative Director and Animator.Producer, and have the skills to create such a doctored photo, myself. What is missing is the bio-history of Gugino which makes him the obvious point of interest.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 21, 2020, 01:42:29 PM
...I've looked at the photo. I've also looked at the video. There is no tube, there is only an arrow saying there was one in a photo that people have deliberately blurred in portions (you can see the unblurred portion that prove this must have been deliberate) because clearly the unblurred photo wasn't convenient enough for the lying narrative people want to spew about this.

I went to the video and snapped a closeup of Gugino on the ground and the tube is there as is the pool of blood that dripped from the tube to the side under the ear, and not where his head supposedly hit the ground. You did not look at the video, because I did and saw it, exactly like in the photo. Quit covering up. I bet you don't even get paid for doing this like the other AntiFa agitators do. Please reconsider why you are doing this, and projecting your own chicanery onto me.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 21, 2020, 04:18:51 PM
I also took a close up of the side of his head, and there was no tube. I also followed up with a friend of mine in the ambulance service - actually married to the medic who cared for Gugino afterwards - he saw the blood coming from his ear, and there was no evidence of either a bag or a tube.

 ::)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 21, 2020, 04:26:39 PM
..."There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur.

Interesting. Then why was there a pool of blood if his head wasn't cut?
Google is your friend:

Healthline: skull fracture (https://www.healthline.com/health/skull-fracture#causes)
Quote
Serious symptoms of a skull fracture include:

  • bleeding from the wound caused by the trauma, near the location of the trauma, or around the eyes, ears, and nose
Johns Hopkins: Head Injury (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/head-injury)
Quote
Moderate to severe head injury (requires immediate medical attention)--symptoms may include any of the above plus:
  • Blood or clear fluid draining from the ears or nose
Merck: Skull Fracture (https://www.merckmanuals.com/en-ca/home/injuries-and-poisoning/head-injuries/skull-fracture)
Quote
Certain symptoms suggest a fracture at the base of the skull:
  • Blood may collect behind the eardrum, or if the eardrum is ruptured, blood may drain from the ear.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 21, 2020, 04:30:38 PM
BTW, are you really suggesting Gugino does not have a fractured skull, given that he has been hospitalized, you know, with a fractured skull?

Or are you positing that he prepared himself ahead of time by fracturing his skull before assaulting the police, or that he managed tp have somebody fracture his skull after the video was taken?  Or are you suggesting that he managed to fracture his skull during the fracas, of his own volition, and had prepared the blood bag in advance, just in case the skull fracture wasn't sufficient to cause bleeding?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 21, 2020, 06:48:01 PM
Why yes, yes I am.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 22, 2020, 10:16:08 AM
I've been looking into the statue situation. If the purpose and motivation is to address the glorification and outright celebration of the US' racist past, there's a lot more work to do. Cases in point:

Berkley: George Berkley was a slave owner.
Stanford: Leland Stanford said “I prefer the white man to the negro as an inhabitant to our country. I believe its greatest good has been derived by having all of the country settled by free white men.”
Yale: Elihu Yale Was A Slave Trader.
Princeton: Named after a town that is named after dictator.
Harvard: Haven't found a direct connection to racism yet, but I'm sure it's there.

These are just our elite/ivy league schools, there must be hundreds more that need addressing.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 10:48:20 AM
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.  The discussion around each person honored for the contributions and denigrated for their transgressions is how to weigh the balance.  Each should be judged independently and on their merits.  As for the Confederate Generals, their names wouldn't even be known except that they were traitors on the losing side of a war against the United States with the sole purpose of preserving the institution of slavery.  What do they have to balance that against?

This is not a new discussion and not specific to our national heritage.  One of the most famous anatomists whose amply-illustrated Atlas of Human Anatomy books have been used for generations to teach medical students did his "dissections" on both dead and living prisoners in Nazi concentration camps.  The medical field has struggled to answer the question of whether to ignore his contributions to the field since that was first recognized.  We have a copy but I never open it.  Is that enough?  Should I destroy it or donate it to the med school library for students to refer to?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 11:10:36 AM
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.  The discussion around each person honored for the contributions and denigrated for their transgressions is how to weigh the balance.  Each should be judged independently and on their merits.

Not sure if you think there is an objective way to do this, but just as the John Stuart Mill enthusiasts need to have it pointed out that there is no objective scoring system available to us to measure greatest good, I'll point out to you that any scoring on who has how much merit is going to be completely arbitrary and based on the whimsy of whoever is doing the judging. Ask an SJW-type whether a Confederate general who was a kind person and cared for his family should be seen, they will no doubt assign maximum penalty to the Confederate part and zero to the rest, content to brand him a villain. You, yourself, seem to blithely find the word "traitor" taken as a given.

At any rate, having a round-table discussion about the merits or demerits of a particular Confederate 'hero' is hardly on the menu of the current cancel culture.

Quote
As for the Confederate Generals, their names wouldn't even be known except that they were traitors on the losing side of a war against the United States with the sole purpose of preserving the institution of slavery.

You must be one of them Yankee Doodle Dandies!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 22, 2020, 11:32:34 AM
Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 11:40:08 AM
Quote
Yankee Doodle Dandies

I hadn't thought about that epithet in a long time, but it was an insult directed at American colonists who identified with the anti-English cause.  In other words, gays and fops, aka liberals.

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Nobody argues that Noah and his offspring, as well as Adam and Eve where white, except that they almost certainly were not.  So it is at deepest level of human morality and ethics a subjective question, but that doesn't mean we can't pare away a lot of more superficial considerations that make it seem subjective but don't really. 

It seems a pretty easy answer to me to the question of what did those generals do to balance against their treason on behalf of slavery.  Not much for some, nothing for the rest.  Good riddance.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 11:57:14 AM
Quote
Yankee Doodle Dandies

I hadn't thought about that epithet in a long time, but it was an insult directed at American colonists who identified with the anti-English cause.  In other words, gays and fops, aka liberals.

I suspect the song "Yankee Doodle Dandee" was meant to be about how the North had no class and no 'society' in the sense of knowing how to dress well and be an enlightened gentleman. The song says that an idiot Yankee puts a feather in his cap and thinks that he's now dressed fashionably (macaroni). I expect it was a play on the general concept of the North having power and money but being otherwise uncultured. Maybe there was a gay connotation back then? But I'm not sure, as being a dandy in English culture was by no means a queer connotation or even negative; it basically meant you were monied and cared about physical presentation a lot. I think the idea here isn't that the Northerners were dandies (i.e. queer) but rather that they coveted the dandy refinement of Southern gentlemen and stupidly thought they could spent their new money to buy it. There's the antipathy towards nouveau riche and all that.

Quote
There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.

I think you're sort of proving my point here. This case in point is telling: just by using the term "patriotism" to mean loyalty to the Federal government above all, shows you are using a modern and also potentially partisan value judgement to assess the "character" of people who lived 150 years years ago, notwithstanding the fact that they saw the union as consisting of an alliance of a series of independent nations, called states. The idea that someone should have allegiance to the union over and above their own state seems obvious to many people now (especially in the North), but back then I doubt this would have been considered a normal standard for defining patriotism.

And this is why any so-called judgement of past people is just going to be an exercise in echo-chamber politics, where truth is buried under slogans mantras.


Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 12:06:21 PM
We could quibble endlessly about the meanings of phrases and words in historical vs. current usage, so I won't spend much effort on it.  Two people can have opposing views on who is or isn't patriotic, but patriotism doesn't and never has applied to one's state, even before the Civil War.  The simplest and most universal definition is "love of country."  I'll let you decide for yourself if the secessionists were patriotic.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 12:11:25 PM
We could quibble endlessly about the meanings of phrases and words in historical vs. current usage, so I won't spend much effort on it.  Two people can have opposing views on who is or isn't patriotic, but patriotism doesn't and never has applied to one's state, even before the Civil War.  The simplest and most universal definition is "love of country."  I'll let you decide for yourself if the secessionists were patriotic.

So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'? I would suggest that the notion of the U.S. being one country and the states just being districts within that country is a fairly new one. I don't think this is quibbling about historical terms, this is literally the topic. Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 12:21:04 PM
Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 12:28:11 PM
There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Your problem here is you immediately stepped into the problem of judging prior generation by modern standards rather than the standards of their time.

For 1860's America, you were a citizen of your state first, the United States seconds. In the case of Robert E. Lee for example, his failing was that he was a patriot to Virginia first, and a patriot to the Union second, so when Virginia parted ways with the union, his loyalty compelled him to honor the call of duty from his state.

In that era, if he had sided with the Union, while the northerners may have lauded him all the same, he would have also been deeply suspected by many on the north because of his dis-loyalty to his home state of Virginia and the Confederates would have regarded him as one of the most vile sorts of traitors imaginable. Even though in that scenario he never spent so much as a minute as a member of the Confederacy.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 22, 2020, 12:28:18 PM
Quote
There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.

I think you're sort of proving my point here. This case in point is telling: just by using the term "patriotism" to mean loyalty to the Federal government above all, shows you are using a modern and also potentially partisan value judgement to assess the "character" of people who lived 150 years years ago, notwithstanding the fact that they saw the union as consisting of an alliance of a series of independent nations, called states. The idea that someone should have allegiance to the union over and above their own state seems obvious to many people now (especially in the North), but back then I doubt this would have been considered a normal standard for defining patriotism.

And this is why any so-called judgement of past people is just going to be an exercise in echo-chamber politics, where truth is buried under slogans mantras.

I don't think we need to go back into history and remove honors and things named for everyone who ever owned a slave, was a racist, etc. However, removing honors and statues to the men who led a rebellion against the united states to preserve slavery isn't a hard sell to me. The civil war is still the war in which the most Americans died; more than all the other wars we've fought in combined. Honoring the men who led the war to dissolve the nation isn't justified in any way. There's no declaration of independence or constitution to point to like with the founders. You don't have things like the League of Nations that Wilson advocated, you have their sole leadership of an armed insurrection against the country.

I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 12:30:45 PM
Quote
So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment. 

Quote
Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.

I have no idea what raw nerve I must have touched in you.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 12:33:12 PM
I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

Speaking of that, if the Democrats want to virtue signal on this, given many of their current targets also happen to be prior Democrats.

I'll take them much more seriously when they start going after anything attached to Woodrow Wilson. until then, they can pack sand. In my book, he was far worse than just about any Confederate General
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 12:33:19 PM
Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 12:35:23 PM
Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.

I was being slightly sarcastic in that response, but echoing the statements reported by the press at the time it happened. Grant's statue was taken down because he owned a slave, and his wife's family owned a lot of slaves.

The "additional material" beyond the immediately previous was information I discovered while doing some research of my own.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 12:38:26 PM
Quote
So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment.

Actually I don't know to what extent there is a technical distinction between a "union", a "confederation", and a "nation" consisting of independent states. Really the devil may be in the details, in terms of which entities in the union have which powers and responsibilities. In comparing the U.S. to the EU, I suppose the question would be in how much infrastructure the EU has that is comparable to the Federal apparatus at the founding of the U.S. I don't really know the answer to that, and since I brought up the EU I suppose the burden is on me to support my analogy. So from that standpoint I'm not knowledgeable to back it up further other than to say that I think it is specious to define "patriotism" at the founding of the U.S. as loyalty to the union above all just because that's what it means now.

Quote
Quote
Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.

I have no idea what raw nerve I must have touched in you.

This really had nothing to do with you, but you will increasingly see a tendency (I predict) in assessing past people and events by today's accepted morals. I don't think we're too far off from the Ancient Greeks being declared anathema because they had slaves.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 12:40:54 PM
There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Your problem here is you immediately stepped into the problem of judging prior generation by modern standards rather than the standards of their time.

Why is that my problem?  I understand how their loyalties were divided, but they chose their state and culture over their country.  And they fought and died to preserve the "peculiar institution" of slavery, not for any higher cause.  If you want to avoid imposing revisionist thinking, don't bring up "states rights," which is a purely modern invention.

Quote
For 1860's America, you were a citizen of your state first, the United States seconds. In the case of Robert E. Lee for example, his failing was that he was a patriot to Virginia first, and a patriot to the Union second, so when Virginia parted ways with the union, his loyalty compelled him to honor the call of duty from his state.

And that was a horrible error of misplaced loyalties on his part.  He chose treason over patriotism, given the definition of those terms both then and now.

Quote
In that era, if he had sided with the Union, while the northerners may have lauded him all the same, he would have also been deeply suspected by many on the north because of his dis-loyalty to his home state of Virginia and the Confederates would have regarded him as one of the most vile sorts of traitors imaginable. Even though in that scenario he never spent so much as a minute as a member of the Confederacy.

Doing the ethical and moral thing can be a bitch, but people of superior character and judgment do it anyway.  Cheering for the home team isn't a sign of ethics or morality, but identification.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 12:42:44 PM
I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

I think my point is less to do with me wanting to assess them with you, and more to do with the fact that the group doing the deciding right now is essentially a radical faction and does not represent the will of the majority. Imagine if a group from the Westboro Baptist Church got to make the decisions about whose statues in your town would stay up or go down? I bet you wouldn't like that very much. The actual reasons for their decision-making would be beside the point, and hey, maybe even some of their arguments could be good from time to time (I dunno about that, but...). But it's irrelevant to debate the particulars, because you know that it's a far-right religious group that is making value judgement that are highly idiosyncratic to its particular beliefs.

Having an actual public debate about whether there is value is such statues would be...ok, I guess. I don't find it that important a topic, but I suppose it's reasonable to ask whether some old statue should forevermore take up prime real estate in public areas. But this isn't that.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 12:43:50 PM
Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.

I was being slightly sarcastic in that response, but echoing the statements reported by the press at the time it happened. Grant's statue was taken down because he owned a slave, and his wife's family owned a lot of slaves.

Would you please raise your hand next time?  My sarcameter has been registering a lot of false negatives lately.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 01:03:42 PM
Quote
So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment.

Actually I don't know to what extent there is a technical distinction between a "union", a "confederation", and a "nation" consisting of independent states. Really the devil may be in the details, in terms of which entities in the union have which powers and responsibilities. In comparing the U.S. to the EU, I suppose the question would be in how much infrastructure the EU has that is comparable to the Federal apparatus at the founding of the U.S. I don't really know the answer to that, and since I brought up the EU I suppose the burden is on me to support my analogy. So from that standpoint I'm not knowledgeable to back it up further other than to say that I think it is specious to define "patriotism" at the founding of the U.S. as loyalty to the union above all just because that's what it means now.

The better analogy would likely be to compare it to the former USSR in a lot of respects.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 22, 2020, 01:03:57 PM
I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

I think my point is less to do with me wanting to assess them with you, and more to do with the fact that the group doing the deciding right now is essentially a radical faction and does not represent the will of the majority. ....

I don't think tearing down statues is a great protest but I do understand its symbolic significance and while being destructive is largely non-violent and generally doesn't harm any individual or business. I wish there were better ways to remove the offending statues. However in much of the South the statues have been protected by state laws to prevent the cities where they are located from being able to remove them via a democratic process. This causes issues where a local city or college wants tries to remove a confederate memorial via a democratic process only to be overruled by the state government.

Two confederate statues in Raleigh were torn down and when the governor ordered the two remaining on the state capital to be removed to prevent more vandalism and destruction he was criticized by republican leaders in the legislature for violating the state law they passed 4 or 5 years ago specifically to make it nearly impossible to get confederate statues taken down or moved to areas of less prominence.

Bad laws at the state level have forced these statues to remain despite popular local support in having them removed. So while I'm not a fan of statues being toppled willy-nilly because mob removal isn't a good situation there is a specific reason for the frustration and impatience of the protesters.

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2020, 02:36:47 PM
What was the oath again? At the time, it read thus:

Officer and Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 22, 2020, 03:21:36 PM
The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

But they were fighting in an evil cause. And people who loved them for the fact they fought in that evil cause were the ones that erected statues of them.

If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either. Same is the situation with the Confederacy and modern-day USA, and you guessed it, black people.

In regards to the question of whether it should have been a democratically elected government rather than a mob that should have taken the statues down -- yes, YES, the former would have been preferable by far. But that argument should only be made as a frigging point of condemnation towards those democratic government that DIDN'T take the statues down. WHY DIDN'T YOU? Why didn't you take the statues down, why didn't you rename the military bases named after Confederate generals?

Why did you, democratic governments of the past century, make a point to keep adding insult to injury against a segment of your population, and then gasping in surprise when that segment of the population REBELS against the continuing insult?

This is really a no-brainer -- *censored*ing take down the Confederate statues, you bloody scumbags. *censored*ing take down the statues to your Adolf Hitlers, your Goebbels, your Goerings -- if you want to have any chance of peace with the descendants of their victims. Treat the Confederate flag as you'd treat the Nazi flag. That'd be a start.

All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed: Remember that. And if a segment of the population doesn't feel as if they've consented to how they're being treated, that's when the government loses legitimacy in its eyes.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 03:35:59 PM
What was the oath again? At the time, it read thus:

Officer and Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.

Well, I guess I can see why the Oath was changed to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" and further stipulated "all enemies, foreign and domestic" as well. Rather than "all their enemies or opposers"

And in the case of the Confederate Generals, I don't think any of them were ever viewed as traitors as they "honorably resigned" their commission when they felt they could no longer uphold their oath.

Rather than pretend to upholding that oath while preparing to betray the Union in some other way.

Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution. Some of them(Lee) even waited until the rebellion had already started before resigning(as Virginia didn't leave the Union until after things had gotten underway), so you can argue the merits of their resigning, when and how they did so at the onset of a war as being a betrayal of that Federal Oath. You'd even be right in large part. But it doesn't change the matter that for that time, especially for someone from the original 13 states, you were loyal to your state first, the federal government second.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 22, 2020, 03:36:49 PM
If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either.

This isn't the best analogy, because Hitler and the Nazi party (if we agree their statues should not be up) were not "the Germans" during WWII. A better analogy if you're talking about Southern Civil War generals would be whether a statue of Rommel should be up in modern day Germany; a military commander who wasn't a Nazi. He fought for Germany, but was not of the faction specifically intent on killing Jews, for example. These are understood not to be the same thing in the WWII scenario. A better comparison if you want the Hitler/Nazi analogy would be to have a statue up of a Southern Plantation owner or slave trader; i.e. someone directly implicated in and in fact a supporter and participant in the slavery system. If you want to be technical then every man, woman, and child in the South was 'connected' to it, just like every German in WWII was 'connected to' the Holocaust in some way, but just being Southern didn't make someone an evil slaver ipso facto, even a Southern general. That they fought for their side was a geographical reality, and yes it did have to do with whom their highest allegiance was for, but fundamentally you might as well call every single person who lived in the South as evil and wicked if you're going to say that fighting for 'your side' meant you were fighting for evil. Reality doesn't work like that.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 22, 2020, 03:38:39 PM
Now, before any snowflakes bring up Godwin's Law on Aris let's put this in context - the comparison to Hitler in this case may actually be an understatement - the population of slaves at the time of emancipation being on the order of 4 million people, and the many generations of abject misery those people and their forebears were subject to being arguably as bad as that suffered by the Jews in nazi Germany, not to mention Jim Crow laws eating another 100 years and the generational damage that is still being felt today.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 03:42:23 PM
The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms as PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 22, 2020, 03:43:09 PM
Anyone who was fighting for the Nazis or the Confederacy was fighting for evil. What that says about the person in question depends on their motivations and personality. How we should regard those people depends on what we know about why they fought.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 22, 2020, 03:47:23 PM
If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either.

This isn't the best analogy, because Hitler and the Nazi party (if we agree their statues should not be up) were not "the Germans" during WWII. A better analogy if you're talking about Southern Civil War generals would be whether a statue of Rommel should be up in modern day Germany; a military commander who wasn't a Nazi. He fought for Germany, but was not of the faction specifically intent on killing Jews, for example.
Not really, since these generals were very specifically fighting to implement the Confederate constitution, which contained these gems, among others:
Quote
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
So yes, they were very explicitly fighting to keep blacks enslaved.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 22, 2020, 03:51:00 PM
The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.
Yes, a person may be smart, but people are stupid, and mobs are morons.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 22, 2020, 04:05:29 PM
The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 04:42:22 PM
Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.

In your case, those two were pointed out in case you didn't know they had no connection to the Confederacy and supporting its rebellion.

But with "they owned slaves" being grounds for removal. Then:

The National Anthem needs to be changed, it was written by a Slave Owner.
Washington DC needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.
The Washington monument needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.

The Declaration of Independence needs to meet a shredder, it was written by a Slave Owner and signed by many more slave owners.

The United State Constitution needs to meet a shredder, it was was signed by Slave Owners, and had significant input from them, in particular one James Madison.

The 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights need to go as well, since Madison was involved in those too. So no more freedom of the press.

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC needs to be replaced, he owned slaves, can't be memorializing a slave owner.

The White House and the Capital Hill probably should be torn down, slave labor was likely involved in their initial construction and upkeep at times in the past.

The state of Washington needs to be renamed, as it was named to honor the first President of the United States, who was a slave owner.

Mount Rushmore needs to have two of its 4 heads removed(Washington and Jefferson), as they were slave owners.

Any statues of Benjamin Franklin need to be removed, anything that memorializes him needs to be removed, he owned slaves too.

Alexander Hamilton bought, sold, and traded slaves although it is unclear as whether or not he used any slaves himself.  So to be safe, he cannot be memorialized either.

Jacksonville, Florida needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of Andrew Jackson, he owned slaves. Likewise, any statuary of him needs to be purged.

Also in that vein, this means:
The $1 dollar bill(George Washington) needs to be replaced,
If we still had $2 bills, they'd need replaced as Jefferson is on those, he owned slaves
the $10 Bill has Hamilton on it so it needs replaced because of slaves,
the $20 bill has Andrew Jackson on it and he owned slaves, needs replaced
the $50 bill had Grant on it, he owned a slave, needs replaced.
the $100 bill has Ben Franklin on it, he owned some slaves, needs replaced.

Of the first 12 presidents of the United States only 2 of them, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams never owned a slave. Two more of the first 12 (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) didn't own slaves while serving as PotUS but did own slaves at other points in their life.
Fillmore(#13) and Pierce(#14) did not own slaves at any point, there appears to be some dispute on if Buchanan(#15) owned slaves or not, Lincoln(#16) did not own slaves at any time, but Johnson(#17) had owned slaves before, as did Grant(#18), Grant was the last president to have ever owned a slave at any time in their life.

This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 04:45:42 PM
Quote
But it doesn't change the matter that for that time, especially for someone from the original 13 states, you were loyal to your state first, the federal government second.

There were 34 states in the US when the Civil War started, and of the states that seceded, only 5 were "original" colonies. West Virginia didn't become a state until the war was already 2 years old.  Doesn't matter whether you want to call it technically treason, they did it for slavery, so I will call out their ethical and moral ideals as evil.

Quote
Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 04:50:03 PM
Quote
Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.

I'll have to walk that one back, they do meet the definition for treason as they obviously "levied war against the United States" but the lack of prosecutions speaks volumes as well.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 04:51:19 PM
Quote
This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.

That's pathetic.  You should be jailed, if not executed, for your many egregious sins, about which I have no information.  Let's line everybody up and kill them all (not me, them).  Talk about an absurd argument.

Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 04:53:03 PM
Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 04:54:46 PM
Quote
Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.
I'll have to walk that one back, they do meet the definition for treason as they obviously "levied war against the United States" but the lack of prosecutions speaks volumes as well.


Yes, it speaks to a wish to return to comity in the face of a new reality.  Unfortunately, we're still waiting for most of that new reality and with examples like police brutality against blacks and the noose that was hung in Bubba Wallace's garage, we aren't anywhere close to where we're supposed to be.

There's even a movement in Congress to enact laws to restore the rights embodied in the Civil Rights Act.  We all know that won't go anywhere in a Republican Senate.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 22, 2020, 04:55:30 PM
Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

Try to focus on one thing at a time.  We can't fix every problem all at once.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 22, 2020, 05:39:14 PM
Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.

In your case, those two were pointed out in case you didn't know they had no connection to the Confederacy and supporting its rebellion.

But with "they owned slaves" being grounds for removal. Then:

The National Anthem needs to be changed, it was written by a Slave Owner.
Washington DC needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.
The Washington monument needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.

The Declaration of Independence needs to meet a shredder, it was written by a Slave Owner and signed by many more slave owners.

The United State Constitution needs to meet a shredder, it was was signed by Slave Owners, and had significant input from them, in particular one James Madison.

The 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights need to go as well, since Madison was involved in those too. So no more freedom of the press.

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC needs to be replaced, he owned slaves, can't be memorializing a slave owner.

The White House and the Capital Hill probably should be torn down, slave labor was likely involved in their initial construction and upkeep at times in the past.

The state of Washington needs to be renamed, as it was named to honor the first President of the United States, who was a slave owner.

Mount Rushmore needs to have two of its 4 heads removed(Washington and Jefferson), as they were slave owners.

Any statues of Benjamin Franklin need to be removed, anything that memorializes him needs to be removed, he owned slaves too.

Alexander Hamilton bought, sold, and traded slaves although it is unclear as whether or not he used any slaves himself.  So to be safe, he cannot be memorialized either.

Jacksonville, Florida needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of Andrew Jackson, he owned slaves. Likewise, any statuary of him needs to be purged.

Also in that vein, this means:
The $1 dollar bill(George Washington) needs to be replaced,
If we still had $2 bills, they'd need replaced as Jefferson is on those, he owned slaves
the $10 Bill has Hamilton on it so it needs replaced because of slaves,
the $20 bill has Andrew Jackson on it and he owned slaves, needs replaced
the $50 bill had Grant on it, he owned a slave, needs replaced.
the $100 bill has Ben Franklin on it, he owned some slaves, needs replaced.

Of the first 12 presidents of the United States only 2 of them, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams never owned a slave. Two more of the first 12 (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) didn't own slaves while serving as PotUS but did own slaves at other points in their life.
Fillmore(#13) and Pierce(#14) did not own slaves at any point, there appears to be some dispute on if Buchanan(#15) owned slaves or not, Lincoln(#16) did not own slaves at any time, but Johnson(#17) had owned slaves before, as did Grant(#18), Grant was the last president to have ever owned a slave at any time in their life.

This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.

Oh, I see, you're of the "all or nothing" persuasion.

Because you're afraid they'll go too far, you don't want them to do anything at all.

Well, if it's a choice between toppling all the statues, and toppling none of them, I know I'd be on the side of "all of them". You could have gotten away with toppling only those statues deliberately honoring those who defended slavery (namely Confederate ones) and the worst slave-traders. But American government's utterly *braindead* defense of those inexcusable statues, means you'll get more than that toppled, as I said. Be happy if it now stops short of having to rename your capital to something like "Lincoln DC".

I don't think that anyone currently wants to blow up half of Mount Rushmore. I'd oppose it, if that makes you feel better. It's a big creation, an achievement of itself of worldwide fame. There may have been pyramids made to honor pharaohs using slave-labour, and I wouldn't want them demolished either.

Of the other suggestion'd you'd made, half the time you conflate "creation by slave-owner" (like the anthem) with "creation made to honor a slave-owner" (statues, depiction on currency).

Btw, removing Jackson from your currency would be more than fine. Replace him with Martin Luther King, or Tubman (who was once intended to replace Hamilton, but that got cancelled)

Quote
Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

No, I'm first telling this to the idiot who doesn't want even the statues *within* the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow toppled.

You'll first get to accept that no-brainer, then you get to discuss about whether other statues outside that scope may be suffered to exist.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2020, 05:53:48 PM
Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

That's a decent point, but misses the right answer. The right answer is, why did we wait so long to pull down Jim Crow statues that people started hating all of American history instead of just that period?

Grant's statue probably doesn't get messed with if we got rid of all the Lee statues. The fact that they're going too far is precisely because we didn't go far enough until they fermented into a steaming pile of hatred. That's on us.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2020, 06:47:43 PM
...why did we wait so long to pull down Jim Crow statues that people started hating all of American history instead of just that period?

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2020, 06:51:48 PM
Sometimes stupidity is simply breathtaking.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 22, 2020, 07:22:36 PM
Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Oh, you want all the Confederate statues up, because you respect history so much. /s

Did you also lament the toppling of statues of Lenin in Ukraine, or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2020, 07:31:45 PM
Quote
On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2020, 07:36:10 PM
Quote
On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 22, 2020, 07:44:15 PM
Quote
On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

So they were destroying recent history. /s
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 22, 2020, 08:16:43 PM

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 23, 2020, 12:50:23 AM

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 23, 2020, 01:17:25 AM
Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 02:30:18 AM
Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Which also moves it into local solutions for local issues for the most part, or else we stumble into international condemnation of the Taliban destroying statues created by non-Islamic groups thousands of years before. Or ISIS/ISIL doing to same in Iraq and Syria.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 23, 2020, 06:43:59 AM
Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Which also moves it into local solutions for local issues for the most part, or else we stumble into international condemnation of the Taliban destroying statues created by non-Islamic groups thousands of years before. Or ISIS/ISIL doing to same in Iraq and Syria.

Way to pretend there is some sort of slippery slope here.  Get rid of the monuments to generals who fought to preserve slavery in the US.  Why do you keep weaving and dodging?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 07:12:02 AM

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.
wmLambert decries tearing down literally "anything" as "simply vandalism" - do you also disapprove of the removal of monuments to traitors and those who fought for the generational subjugation and enslavement of millions of people?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 23, 2020, 07:46:24 AM
Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Kinda seems like you're using a different reason in each situation, and such a thing always makes it look as if it's justification-after-a-fact, an excuse meant to justify a pre-arrived conclusion.

Saddam Hussein's statues were "sufficiently recent". What does it matter that they were monuments to himself, who determines what's sufficiently recent and what isn't? Why is it not "erasing history" as wmLambert and ScottF have claimed for other statues?

Instead of not "erasing history", now it's suddenly about the Confederate statues being icons "actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected"? What does that have to do with whether toppling a statue is "erasing history" or not?

--

I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 23, 2020, 08:49:58 AM
Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Now we're at risk of being pedantic about the definition of history but generally speaking, books are history.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 08:57:46 AM
Instead of not "erasing history", now it's suddenly about the Confederate statues being icons "actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected"? What does that have to do with whether toppling a statue is "erasing history" or not?
This.

So many confederate statues were erected generations after the end of the civil war, as a direct response to growing societal acceptance of the equality (sorta) and legal and economic gains of those "uppity negras", at the same time as Jim Crow laws were being enacted throughout the south and blacks were being lynched wholesale.

Why should it matter that the worst types of racists  "actually desired or genuinely pursued" those statues at the time?  That's an argument for taking them down.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 10:54:47 AM
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?

Pretty much.

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 23, 2020, 10:58:54 AM
If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

And going back to Charlottsville repuclian lawmakers have made it insanely difficult or impossible for confederate statues to be taken down or moved to less predominate places. And as someone pointed out earlier if we had taken down all the confederate generals the mobs/extremes wouldn't have the tacit support to take down the others. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 23, 2020, 11:15:17 AM
Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

Once again: If I have to choose between either removing both Hitler and Churchill statues or removing neither of them, I will rather choose to remove both of them.

Taking down Jefferson and Washington is sad, but keeping the Confederate statues isn't just sad, it's horrific.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 12:20:41 PM
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?

Pretty much.

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.
Why?  Seriously.  What value is there in hunks of metal that have the specific forms of men, represented triumphally, who fought to enslave millions of people?  What is the benefit of grouping them all together in a warehouse of racist slavers, so that acolytes can in the future subsume themselves in the awesomeness of the statues' magnificence?  Do you believe the aesthetic of these statues, their inherent beauty, is such that it makes them worthy of being kept around - as opposed to, say, melted down to slag and repurposed into other works that might not be reminders (not just to clearly ignorant white folk, but also to to the descendants of those enslaved) of men who protected the rape, murder, possession, dispossession and forced labour of millions of people?

There is literally no meaning in a statue of William Bedford Forest that cannot be equally and better communicated by a) explaining the effects of racism in the USA and b) not even mentioning his name, never mind immortalizing his likeness.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 12:32:46 PM
If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.
Why?  Seriously.  What value is there in hunks of metal that have the specific forms of men, represented triumphally, who fought to enslave millions of people?  What is the benefit of grouping them all together in a warehouse of racist slavers, so that acolytes can in the future subsume themselves in the awesomeness of the statues' magnificence?  Do you believe the aesthetic of these statues, their inherent beauty, is such that it makes them worthy of being kept around - as opposed to, say, melted down to slag and repurposed into other works that might not be reminders (not just to clearly ignorant white folk, but also to to the descendants of those enslaved) of men who protected the rape, murder, possession, dispossession and forced labour of millions of people?

There is literally no meaning in a statue of William Bedford Forest that cannot be equally and better communicated by a) explaining the effects of racism in the USA and b) not even mentioning his name, never mind immortalizing his likeness.

Lack of imagination on your part does not constitute a failing on mine. The statues themselves are a testament to the fact that such people existed, and that others venerated them for their heinous views. That you are incapable of conceiving of ways to subvert those statues for the purpose of instruction, speaks more to failings on your end than anything else.

Erasing these things doesn't prevent it from coming back in the future. Preserving them, and turning them into things worthy of mockery and derision, now that preserves the record, and sends a powerful message to those in the future, in more ways than one.

You don't cure the wrongs of history by hiding the evidence, that only perpetuates the problem.

Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 23, 2020, 12:47:52 PM
...
Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.

If the concentration camps were being maintained as "German culture" and the greatness of the Germanic peoples during WW2 then they should probably be destroyed as well. Its the Republican party in the South that has steadfastly refused to purpose these monuments and made it nearly impossible for any city, college, or place where they are located to do anything with them either. If you want to keep them in city squares as memorials to the brave dead who fought to preserve slavery then don't be surprised when at some point people decide to tear them down.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 12:53:28 PM
If the concentration camps were being maintained as "German culture" and the greatness of the Germanic peoples during WW2 then they should probably be destroyed as well. Its the Republican party in the South that has steadfastly refused to purpose these monuments and made it nearly impossible for any city, college, or place where they are located to do anything with them either. If you want to keep them in city squares as memorials to the brave dead who fought to preserve slavery then don't be surprised when at some point people decide to tear them down.

At what point have I ever defended what the Republicans did on that front? I don't think anyone on this forum is going to defend what the Republicans did in those states. Most of us supported relocation of the statues back then, and still would support the relocations now.

It also still doesn't make the expanded destruction of monuments any more acceptable.

If they'd limited themselves to Confederate statues, I'd be sympathetic, as that would be "a proportionate response" to what was done. But what they're doing now is crossing lines that never should have been if they wanted to be taken seriously and fairly, and defending those who did it does them no favors.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 23, 2020, 01:07:37 PM
Now that you mention it, why isn't there a statue of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia?  It would remind them of their history.  That same goes for the Napoleon, who could have statues all over Europe and in Egypt, Shah Pahlavi of Iran and every other deposed leader or failed revolutionary.  They all represent "history".  Back at home, Richard Nixon deserves one, too.  Eventually, someone will want to build one for George Bush to honor his horrific warmongering.  We Must Never Forget Our Heritage!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 01:10:44 PM
Erasing these things doesn't prevent it from coming back in the future. Preserving them, and turning them into things worthy of mockery and derision, now that preserves the record, and sends a powerful message to those in the future, in more ways than one.

You don't cure the wrongs of history by hiding the evidence, that only perpetuates the problem.
a) keeping these statues also doesn't prevent "it" from returning, so that's just silly, and
b) getting rid of statues whose very design venerates the people being memorialized is not hiding evidence - again, unless you are trying to point out the history of statue making in the Jim Crow south.

You also don't need hundreds of these statues and memorials around, and video or documentary representations could easily be used for "mockery" of the confederacy and slavery, if that is really the goal. 

Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 23, 2020, 01:16:03 PM
Trump's already got a statue (https://ibb.co/cLGLT6K), but the erection didn't last very long.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 23, 2020, 01:19:52 PM
This discussion is again just a bloody distraction.

The conflict isn't actually about the trivial distinction of "destroying them" vs just "relocating them", the actual conflict has always been between people who want to remove them from their current places of honor vs people who want to keep them in those places of honor.

That's what happened in Charlottesville. You did NOT have on one side the people who said "Move the statue to a museum" and on the other side the people who said "Melt the *censored*er down". Instead you had on one side the people who want it to remain where it was, and the *OTHER* side was the one who said to remove it (and I don't think the latter people cared much about the trivial distinction between placing it in a museum vs melting it down, as long as it was removed one way or another).

If everyone was supposedly in favour of at the very least relocating them - then these statues wouldn't be still in the places they were toppled from.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 23, 2020, 04:09:58 PM
Quote
On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

Lee was also the guy we were fighting against.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 06:21:22 PM
King George was the guy they were fighting against.

Lee was also the guy we were fighting against.

Not at the time those statues were erected. That war was in the past by then, nobody was waging a shooting war against Lee by then.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 08:05:57 PM
Not at the time those statues were erected. That war was in the past by then, nobody was waging a shooting war against Lee by then.
Technically, nobody was waging a shooting war against King George, either.

But do you really want to make the respect of statuary contingent on the existence of a shooting war?  Because as far as black folks are concerned, the shooting war continues today, and its a war that waged on after the end of the civil war, with direct links from Jim Crow laws, lynchings, sundown towns, segregation, red-lining, and private industry penal systems to the ongoing over-incarceration of blacks, denial of voting rights and militarization of the security apparatus.

Your point is that, essentially, if there is an ongoing "shooting" war involving the forces championed by Lee, then unilaterally taking down those statues would be... acceptable.  And there is, so... tear down those statues, right?

Of course, that is the point, isn't it?  Statues to Lee and his ilk, meaning those who championed the enslavement of millions of black people, and who championed the right to continue to enslave black people in perpetuity, are anathema to the black population of the country, if only because of what they once stood for; but it's not ONLY that - it is also that the majority of these monuments were raised expressly as a big f-u to the black population who's lot was slowly improving in the generations following the civil war; and they are also symbols of a war that is still killing, incarcerating and keeping blacks dispossessed today

It seems like empathy died at some time in the last century in the USA.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 23, 2020, 10:28:34 PM
LOL

https://www.nhregister.com/metro/article/CancelYale-trending-on-Twitter-nationwide-15354862.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu_Yale
Quote
The records of this period mention a flourishing slave trade in Madras. The nature of Yale's involvement is disputed. Some sources portray him as a heroic abolitionist, almost single-handedly ending the slave trade in Madras. Indeed, after English merchants began to kidnap young children and deport them to distant parts of the world, the administration of Fort St George stepped in and introduced laws to curb the practice. On February 2, 1688, Elihu Yale decreed that henceforth, slaves should be examined by the judges of the choultry before being transported. Transportation of young children, in particular, was made unlawful. On the other hand, some sources suggest that he permitted a law that at least ten slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe. In his capacity as judge he also on several occasions sentenced so-called "black criminals" to whipping and enslavement.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 23, 2020, 11:12:19 PM
I'm sure there is a point to that post..?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 12:32:38 AM
I'm sure there is a point to that post..?

I think he's saying that Yale needs to be torn down...or perhaps renamed, according to the BLM logic.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 24, 2020, 12:54:43 AM
His rhetoric is a double edged sword.

He's going for an "all or nothing" approach, when the people are now closer to accepting "all" rather than being willing to continue suffering "nothing".

When the argument is "Don't take down General Lee, or else you'll soon have to take down Jefferson and Washington" -- then the point also being made is simultaneously the opposite: "Dude, we're absolutely 100% certain we should take down General Lee, so what you're doing is actually convincing us that we should take down those other people as well."

That's the danger with slippery slope arguments: once you make the slippery slope argument, you can't then say "Nope it turns out those situations are vastly different after all, and there's no need to cancel Jefferson just because you're cancelling Lee"

If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 24, 2020, 02:19:01 AM
His rhetoric is a double edged sword.

He's going for an "all or nothing" approach, when the people are now closer to accepting "all" rather than being willing to continue suffering "nothing".

It isn't my rhetoric though. I'm not the one toppling statues of Grant and Francis Scott Key for having owned slaves.

Quote
When the argument is "Don't take down General Lee, or else you'll soon have to take down Jefferson and Washington" -- then the point also being made is simultaneously the opposite: "Dude, we're absolutely 100% certain we should take down General Lee, so what you're doing is actually convincing us that we should take down those other people as well."

That's the danger with slippery slope arguments: once you make the slippery slope argument, you can't then say "Nope it turns out those situations are vastly different after all, and there's no need to cancel Jefferson just because you're cancelling Lee"

See, this is where things get slippery. There is evidence to suggest Lee was "overly harsh" with his slaves, but he also was coming at runing his plantation after a career in the US Army, where mind you, flogging was legal for use as a disciplinary option fortroops and sailors until January 1861. As such, it is extremely likely you'd find records of Lee either having ordered, or been within "one or two removes" from whites who had been flogged. In that context, he's not going to be very hesitant about using harsh measures against slaves if he'd also do it a white guy.
 
There were some other things he did with his family's slaves that were despicable, like failing to honor requests for slaves to be freed, breaking up said families when they objected to not being immediately freed(because the estate was deeply in the red), and other !^@& like that. What become relevant here is that 1) He was not an eager defector to the confederacy, he only sided with them because Virginia did. 2) The war ended for him when he surrendered, from what I'm aware of, from that point on he worked to help heal the wounds caused by the war. He didn't live for very long after the war concluded, passing in 1871 IIRC, but he was trying to make amends by all accounts. Even in the face of being very personally slighted by the Union in the form of his family estate in Arlington being turned into a cemetery for Union Soldiers, among other things. He had reasons to carry a grudge, but he made the effort to move on.

Which then becomes a challenge with General Lee and his positive achievements, and he had several. And trying to decipher to which thing a particular statue of him may have been commissioned. Not every statue of Lee is necessarily bad, a small number of them are probably quite good in their intentions, although there probably are a great number of them with more dubious intentions behind them.

But right now, all the narrative is at present is "He fought for the Confederacy, he's evil, tear it down."

Most of the other Confederate Generals may be entirely different stories, I'm sure a few of them never truly stopped fighting the war, and have at them. But the criteria people are using to pass judgement on the memorials and statues is extremely binary and black or white in their choice matrices which is really weird for the a social movement which seems to want to be all about those "shades of grey" on just about every other subject under the sun.

It's rank hypocrisy on one front, and alarming in other ways. They'll cry about how people in modern society should be excused their serious crimes because "it's society's fault" they turned out that way, but when dealing with historical figures in their historical context they can't be bothered to look at what "society's role" was in their decisions at the time.

Quote
If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Most statues to Jefferson are for the Declaration of Independence and his other other roles, including PotUS, he fulfilled during the early days of the country. Same thing for George Washington, he's honored as the General of the Continental Army during the Civil War, and for being the first President of the United States. Their slave ownership isn't even on the proverbial RADAR for most people, and in some respects, that is a mistake as well, as it is another form of "erasing history" as people would rather not think about that particular fact. But this binary decision tree BS needs to stop, and anyone who is excusing people who are pursuing it really need to look at the person in their mirror very long and very hard.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 03:52:00 AM
If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 24, 2020, 04:14:48 AM
Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.

First of all, as I've said numerous times already, if we need to choose between tearing down all the statues or none of them, I'm with "all of them", without a doubt, so I'd urge you to be very careful about opposing middle solutions and compromises.

Secondly, yes ofcourse I can assign motivations. Saying that the reason a statue was erected matters, doesn't mean I need be agnostic about what the *censored*ing reason was, nor do I need pretend that any random bull*censored* excuse has any relevance. If you really want to establish a formal process (which isn't really in the cards anymore) you could have opinion polls asking people what the person is famous enough to have deserved a statue.

If the answer of most people is 'He fought on the side that wanted to keep millions of people enslaved' then the statue goes down.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 24, 2020, 07:30:31 AM
If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.

Basically, if you can find anything good in a person's background, no matter how great the evil of their legacy is, you can build a statue in their honor.  Most of the Confederate Generals for whom military bases have been named were pretty poor leaders who lost most or all of the battles they led their troops into.  We could honor them for killing fewer US soldiers than they would have if they had won, which was a good thing.  I could see having a statue in their honor if that was the inscription on the pedestal.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 24, 2020, 08:14:44 AM
The only reason Lee is famous is because he led Confederate troops during the civil war.

That's it.

If you asked anybody today, or even 100 years ago, who he was and what he did, you would NOT get "he served in the army of the USA, basically inn the engineers corps," or "he ran West Point for 3 years," or "he did reconnaissance work in the Mexican-American war."  Dozens (hundreds?) of statues and memorials to the man were not erected during the Jim Crow south because he was involved in building a bridge or a fort, or because he administered West Point for a few years.

No, the one memorable thing he did was lead the Confederate forces.  That's it.  And that is what his mythology is built on.  Famously honourable, leading the doomed south against the unrelenting forces of the north, against incredible odds, almost pulling victory from the teeth of defeat.  A proud son of the south, a symbol of resistance against all things "Yankee", even today.

And every single monument to the man is built for the purpose of celebrating that work.  A work, I will repeat, in service to the states, one of who's primary stated objectives was to maintain the enslavement of millions of people. Let's not pretend otherwise.  It's not just unbecoming...  It's also insulting to everybody's intelligence, but more importantly, it's insulting to the black population of your country who recognize that many, if not most, of these statues and memorials were erected primarily as a celebration of their historical subjugation, and as tools to continue that subjugation.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 24, 2020, 10:27:44 AM
I don't really think many of the people tearing down and destroying things are troubled by specific reasoning, or thinking about it much at all. Legendary blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn's statue in Austin is one of the latest casualties. I suppose his spin on Texas blues can be considered cultural propagation of original blues artists. And he is white so...burn it!

There are a small number of "troubling" monuments being destroyed for legitimate (or legitimately perceived at least) reasons. The majority of the destruction we're seeing is not that. It's simply easier to destroy than create.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 24, 2020, 10:54:45 AM
I don't really think many of the people tearing down and destroying things are troubled by specific reasoning, or thinking about it much at all. Legendary blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn's statue in Austin is one of the latest casualties. I suppose his spin on Texas blues can be considered cultural propagation of original blues artists. And he is white so...burn it!

There are a small number of "troubling" monuments being destroyed for legitimate (or legitimately perceived at least) reasons. The majority of the destruction we're seeing is not that. It's simply easier to destroy than create.
And where did you find the statistics on this?  It's an interesting hypothesis, but one that could only be borne out via selective reading (or possibly highly curated reading)

Much like the generalization that the vast majority of protesters are also antifa and looters.

I also am impressed with your thorough understanding of the motivations of the protesters, which required you to ignore the stated rationales for tearing down the monuments (rationales consistent with decades long political attempts at removal) while using a crystal ball to gaze into their true inner motivations... this post would seem to be an exercise in confirmation bias rather than reasoned analysis.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 12:58:37 PM
The only reason Lee is famous is because he led Confederate troops during the civil war.

That's it.

If you asked anybody today, or even 100 years ago, who he was and what he did, you would NOT get "he served in the army of the USA, basically inn the engineers corps," or "he ran West Point for 3 years," or "he did reconnaissance work in the Mexican-American war."  Dozens (hundreds?) of statues and memorials to the man were not erected during the Jim Crow south because he was involved in building a bridge or a fort, or because he administered West Point for a few years.

That may be true of Lee, but as ScottF mentioned I don't think these mobs are doing a thorough study of history to make sure they are picking the correct targets, and weighing the pros and cons of each historical figure. The fact that Lee may be 'right on target' is sort of beside the point, because I'm sure you can find plenty of famous people from the South pre-civil war who were both "part of the system of slavery" and also hailed as folk heroes. As an example, should Davy Crockett be considered to be a historic villain? Is it enough to show that someone was Southern, and didn't oppose slavery outright, to call them a villain? The current slogans on social media include things like "Those who remain silent are on the side of the oppressor". Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale. Maybe not as bad as a Confederate general by this calculus, but still evil enough to be visually cancelled, I'm sure. I mean, just to be safe, many people in the South now may have been around during Jim Crow times, so they are probably on the list as well. Maybe just restart the civil war, just to be safe.

I'm going a bit silly on the specifics, only to show that a mentality of historically punitive actions is more or less the type of idea that actually occurs in countries with frequent coups and revolts, or like places in the Mid-East where territorial disputes are alive and well centuries after the fact. There's a joke in Henry V, by Shakespeare, where they dredge up an old document proving some historical claim to land, which Henry uses to justify invading France. This sort of reasoning is a fig leaf for the fact that he was spoiling for a fight in the first place, most likely to prove his mettle as king and also for the spoils of victory. And this is really my point: when people are spoiling for a fight, there is more going on than the particular objections they make to justify an action. In Henry's case, it may have been as simple as "warlike Harry", whereas in our case now we are clearly dealing with anger and other issues. But trying to rationalize and intellectualize every target of the anger is almost certainly misguided. 
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2020, 01:22:15 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/24/882765659/unrest-in-madison-overnight-leaves-statues-toppled-state-senator-injured (https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/24/882765659/unrest-in-madison-overnight-leaves-statues-toppled-state-senator-injured)

Quote
Two statues toppled, including one of an abolitionist. Several windows smashed at the state Capitol. A state senator attacked by a group of demonstrators. A small fire set outside a local jail.

I won't argue that protesters in many areas aren't going too far. Clearly they did in Madison last night.

They were protesting the arrest of a black man.

Quote
The arrest of a Black man earlier Tuesday sparked the unrest. He was taken into custody after bringing a megaphone and a baseball bat into a restaurant on the city's Capitol Square.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 24, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
Quote
Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale.

Did you ask him what he meant with that sign?  My first thought is that he might have meant that by not speaking out (he didn't advocate or say he was ok with violence), you are tacitly endorsing the violence that is taking place against blacks.  Maybe not, but you have apparently already formed an opinion.  What do you think he means?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 01:42:35 PM
You cannot reason with a mob, nor should you ever ascribe reason to a mob. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons the mob formed. Injustice, or economic inequality, or corruption in politics; these things can eat away at public morale, until it cracks. The vector of the breakdown may be a specific topic, but that doesn't mean it's the full cause. Not to gaslight the specifics of the objections to police brutality, since I'm essentially in agreement with those objections, but anytime we are dealing with a mob mentality a new problem has entered the room.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 01:46:44 PM
Quote
Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale.

Did you ask him what he meant with that sign?  My first thought is that he might have meant that by not speaking out (he didn't advocate or say he was ok with violence), you are tacitly endorsing the violence that is taking place against blacks.  Maybe not, but you have apparently already formed an opinion.  What do you think he means?

"Has" was perhaps misleading; "there is a sign in his neighborhood" might be clearer. The meaning is not 100% clear to parse, but his interpretation (and mine, for the moment) is that it means something like "if you are not part of the movement then you are not only part of the problem, but a violent perpetrator, and violence is justifiably met with violence." It sounds to me like it's equating disagreement with violence (a variation on the 'safe' culture in universities, where disagreement makes people feel physically threatened) and therefore alluding to a threat (against those who are silent). It's also likely a motte and bailey situation, where if asked the sign maker would claim it just means "you're hurting us by being silent", which is not exactly an outrageous claim, but where the hidden meaning is "when we come for you don't say you didn't deserve it."
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 24, 2020, 01:48:40 PM
Seems a bit like you're reading a lot into a little.

[Edit to add]: I was just looking at a web article about protests and this image was at the top (https://ibb.co/QQ5nDFk).  She doesn't look violent to me.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 24, 2020, 01:57:52 PM
Seems a bit like you're reading a lot into a little.

[Edit to add]: I was just looking at a web article about protests and this image was at the top (https://ibb.co/QQ5nDFk).  She doesn't look violent to me.

No one does, until they do. And hey, I can come up with a slogan too: "tacitly supporting violence is violence." Maybe she won't personally burn down someone's shop, but maybe she'll stand by while others do.

I'm not actually trying to impugn her, btw, just using the logic being displayed in the other direction.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 24, 2020, 02:13:56 PM
Is Davy Crockett known exclusively for his role in a) fighting for slavery and b) committing literal treason against the USA as is Lee, or is he known primarily for other things?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 25, 2020, 09:44:18 AM
Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.
I don't think anybody ever responded to this, but since I have seen this type of comparison pop up a few times recently, it's worth a discussion.

Germany has kept the court room at Nuremberg as a 'museum'.  There are multimedia presentations of the atrocities. There is graphic video.  There is an acceptance of the shame of what was done.  There is not a single statue of a nazi to be seen.  There is nothing that could in any way be considered 'honour' or even an apologetic for anybody involved, including foot soldiers.

Now let's talk about concentration camps. Again, there is not a single statue or monument depicting a nazi. Not a single one.  What you will see are statues and monuments to the victims.  Monuments that depict their suffering, the horror, and yes, their strength and resistance.  All statues of those involved in perpetrating the horrors of the Shoah have been destroyed.

If you want an equivalency, then let's talk about the actual concentration camps in the USA - the slave markets and the plantations.  What would be equivalent would be to convert those plantations and markets as museums honouring the millions killed and enslaved.  Each plantation should prominently display statues and monuments to the victims and survivors of the holocaust perpetrated in the USA.  And they should maintain no representations of those responsible for the crimes, except in the descriptions of their wrongdoings.  These plantations would be maintained as shrines and museums in perpetuity.

That would be the comparison you were trying to make.

But let's be honest.  The USA has never fully accepted the responsibility for what was done to those people, and almost nobody in the south wants to actually remember that shame in a way equivalent to what Germany does; whereas many, many are addicted to the pride they associate with the confederacy.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 25, 2020, 11:18:21 AM
But let's be honest.  The USA has never fully accepted the responsibility for what was done to those people, and almost nobody in the south wants to actually remember that shame in a way equivalent to what Germany does; whereas many, many are addicted to the pride they associate with the confederacy.

Here's where the comparison breaks down. The reason WWII shocked the world and continues to be the Godwin gold standard is because of the sheer newness of what the Nazis did: a combination of social re-organizing, industrial level (and style) murder, and efficiency being the ethic stamped on all of it. This was not just another war, and it has left its mark. The people there were made to feel ashamed, for better or worse, because of the incredible horror that broke the history books and invented a new kind of boogeyman. Let's call them innovators, to be morbid.

Slavery in the U.S., however, was the continuation of a historic and standard practice across much of the world, going back to Ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that. There were times and places that didn't have it, and many that did, and the U.S.'s fault lies mostly in that they were the last great nation I'm aware of to dispense with the practice. That is not good, and it's worth asking how it was maintained longer there than in, say, the English colonies (~30 years longer). Maybe there were special economics in play, I really don't know. Either way, the idea that the correct result of this is to see to it that the proper shame is inculcated in the South for this practice (which they inherited and grew up with) seems to me contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing. Granted, the danger in not doing that is in having the defeated side feel like slavery ended because they were bloodied, rather than because it was wrong. But even then you give it a few generations and that tends to take care of itself; anything more is punitive IMO.

And let's face it, the Nazis tried to take over the world and commit genocide, and many Germans at the time voted for them. No one in America ever voted to introduce slavery, it was already a way of life; and slavers didn't ever try to take over the world and commit genocide. So even if we agreed that 'recognition of the shame of it' was necessary, the comparison the Nazis isn't viable at this point in terms of what the shame is about. I see what you're saying about Confederate pride even to this day, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a celebration of slavery - at least not the way some would claim it is. It's no coincidence, actually, that Gone With the Wind is getting cancelled now, because it's a strong argument for there really being something to lament about the fall of the South in the Civil War, even though it was a historical inevitability. There are many things about the Confederacy that no doubt retain a nostalgic or romantic appeal, such as fighting against encroaching industrialism, the last breath of the great American aristocracy, etc etc, that people might cling to. The Alamo has been a popular tourist attraction over the years, and its "brave men, lost cause" thing has a huge romance attached to it; that mythos seems understandable on its own without needing to argue that Alamo fans are exclusively celebrating killing Mexicans. And yeah, probably some of them are just racists, too.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 25, 2020, 11:30:36 AM
Reconciliation is usually partnered with "truth" - but that "truth" part was ignored in the USA.  Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

It's not a matter of requiring "shame" - shame is a natural outcome of accepting what was done, but isn't necessary nor likely to continue in perpetuity.  But clearly, those who lynched, wrote Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sundown towns... there was no shame, there.  I don't say that people should feel shame today for what happened 150 years ago.  I'm just saying that the USA never significantly accepted responsibility, and certainly not in the same way as did Germany (which is where TheDaemon's post was bringing us)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 25, 2020, 11:49:41 AM
Reconciliation is usually partnered with "truth" - but that "truth" part was ignored in the USA.  Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

Wait, back that bus up a moment. I get the fixation on the Blacks as they are the single largest "wronged group" but it isn't just them that were historically wronged in the United States. So claiming that poor treatment of blacks in the rest of the country is directly linked to the practice of slavery is a extreme misnomer.

Quote
It's not a matter of requiring "shame" - shame is a natural outcome of accepting what was done, but isn't necessary nor likely to continue in perpetuity.  But clearly, those who lynched, wrote Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sundown towns... there was no shame, there.  I don't say that people should feel shame today for what happened 150 years ago.  I'm just saying that the USA never significantly accepted responsibility, and certainly not in the same way as did Germany (which is where TheDaemon's post was bringing us)

So how about the poor historical treatment of Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian immigrants? They were never enslaved in the United States, but the treatment the Chinese saw in particular came pretty close to it. Why is it just about the black people?

How about the poor historical treatment of the Native Americans? The USA had no history of enslaving them.

How about the poor historical treatment of Catholics? They were predominately Irish and Italian, both of which are white nationalities. Even better, the first indentured servants in the United States were Irish, English, and Scottish. (What morphed indentured servitude into slavery was a Free Black Man(one of the first 20 Africans in the colony of Virginia; who had gone through an indenture himself) getting a court to agree with him screwing over another black man. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/))

How about the poor historical treatment of Mormons? Oh right, they weren't enslaved.

How about the poor treatment of Jews in many parts of the country? Oh right, not enslaved.

How about the poor treatment of Eastern European immigrants(many of which were Catholic)? Oh right, not enslaved.

But Blacks? Oh yes, their poor treatment was entirely about their having been slaves.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 25, 2020, 12:02:55 PM
We're still talking about how taking down (or rather, keeping) statues of Lee, Forrest, and Jackson is like Germany keeping Dachau as a museum, right?  Is that still your contention?
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 25, 2020, 12:07:29 PM
Slavery in the U.S., however, was the continuation of a historic and standard practice across much of the world, going back to Ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that. There were times and places that didn't have it, and many that did, and the U.S.'s fault lies mostly in that they were the last great nation I'm aware of to dispense with the practice. That is not good, and it's worth asking how it was maintained longer there than in, say, the English colonies (~30 years longer). Maybe there were special economics in play, I really don't know. Either way, the idea that the correct result of this is to see to it that the proper shame is inculcated in the South for this practice (which they inherited and grew up with) seems to me contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing. Granted, the danger in not doing that is in having the defeated side feel like slavery ended because they were bloodied, rather than because it was wrong. But even then you give it a few generations and that tends to take care of itself; anything more is punitive IMO.

And let's face it, the Nazis tried to take over the world and commit genocide, and many Germans at the time voted for them. No one in America ever voted to introduce slavery, it was already a way of life; and slavers didn't ever try to take over the world and commit genocide. So even if we agreed that 'recognition of the shame of it' was necessary, the comparison the Nazis isn't viable at this point in terms of what the shame is about. I see what you're saying about Confederate pride even to this day, but I'm not at all convinced that this is a celebration of slavery - at least not the way some would claim it is. It's no coincidence, actually, that Gone With the Wind is getting cancelled now, because it's a strong argument for there really being something to lament about the fall of the South in the Civil War, even though it was a historical inevitability. There are many things about the Confederacy that no doubt retain a nostalgic or romantic appeal, such as fighting against encroaching industrialism, the last breath of the great American aristocracy, etc etc, that people might cling to. The Alamo has been a popular tourist attraction over the years, and its "brave men, lost cause" thing has a huge romance attached to it; that mythos seems understandable on its own without needing to argue that Alamo fans are exclusively celebrating killing Mexicans. And yeah, probably some of them are just racists, too.

Due to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the end of the wholesale slavery in Europe, there is little continuity between the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other slave-holding traditions in the Old World. So it's not really accurate to say it was a continuation of a global practice.

Slavery in the American South is notable for its on-going echoes in the society of a superpower and for the horrific war fought in an attempt to preserve it. While the slave-holding ideology was inherited from the Dutch, Portuguese, or British it was actively developed and maintained by Southern intellectuals. White Supremacy isn't something that the South (and the US generally) just have lying around but is actively fostered and encouraged to the benefit of specific interests..
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 25, 2020, 12:29:07 PM
We're still talking about how taking down (or rather, keeping) statues of Lee, Forrest, and Jackson is like Germany keeping Dachau as a museum, right?  Is that still your contention?

If that's how you took it, you mis-understood the argument.

You keep the statues around, but probably not where they were, and instead move them into a museum or comparable type of venue where they can be presented in a context comparable to those locations.

That is far more preferable to simply destroying the statues.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: NobleHunter on June 25, 2020, 12:34:37 PM
If that's how you took it, you mis-understood the argument.

You keep the statues around, but probably not where they were, and instead move them into a museum or comparable type of venue where they can be presented in a context comparable to those locations.

That is far more preferable to simply destroying the statues.

Then you'll be in a constant fight with racists over restoring them to places of honor. Not to mention there's too many of the damn things and few have any artistic merit. Nor do museums necessarily want them. Most institutions have too many artifacts to display so making these statues available to the public has opportunity costs.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 25, 2020, 12:40:20 PM
White Supremacy isn't something that the South (and the US generally) just have lying around but is actively fostered and encouraged to the benefit of specific interests..

Well there you've hit it. The problems in America IMO tend to be traceable to the political systems and power structures, and this is no different.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 25, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
Not to mention that the statues have been designed to be triumphal.  Man holding a sword in victory, riding his mount, head held high and defiant.

What, would you paint a penis on his head, maybe replace the head of the statue with that of a donkey?  There is literally nothing short of changing the statue itself that would remove the desired aesthetic.  Putting a plaque underneath, or showing a video in another room, then showing Lee riding his horse victoriously... it's a waste of time - the statue itself does nothing for that conversation, but provide an example that racists will fight tooth and nail not to allow their icons to be destroyed, and still wield enough power to get their way.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 25, 2020, 12:43:34 PM
...Racism in the USA continued in such a way as to continue to subjugate blacks as much as legally possible (and even more than that) for generations after the confederacy was defeated.

No, Fenring is on the right track, though. the point is not the need for reconciliation - the issue is political and economic power, and the conscious effort to garner it in spite of morality. The price has been paid to alleviate any "shame". Thousands of abolitionists died to give slaves their freedom. But once the GOP won that effort, the slavery-based Democrat Party fought to regain control of what they had lost. The slate was wiped clean, but the hand of greed and avaricious grubbing for power wrote a new scenario.

Reconciliation and reparations are buzz words used by the Left to tell the world that their betters did not do all that good a job of beating them. The worse the Left acts, the more they project their own desires onto the Right. Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn were hilarious, but dead-on when they talked about how the current protestors are beyond doubt the stupidest and least-informed activists ever. They tear down statues of abolitionists and of Lincoln because they are ignorant - not because of some nuance about how the statues were posed. Carlson and Steyn suggested statues that the current stupid protestors could stand behind. Mark Steyn talked about a Jesse Smollett statue, with him posed with a meatball submarine in his hand during a Polar vortex being beaten by two guys he hired to act like Trump supporters at three in the morning. They'd probably leave flowers as a shrine.

How about a statue of Colin Kaepernick taking a knee? That would inspire them to tears. It could be surrounded by little statues of Democrats kneeling in homage. (Although Pelosi would need a helping hand statue to stand again... Would her helping hand statue be posed in one of those "subservient" positions that incite them to topple statues? Gotta be careful!)

This same ignorance lends the activists and disinformationists weapons for them to wield.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 25, 2020, 12:47:36 PM
Thanks for the...uh...help.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 25, 2020, 12:52:03 PM
Here's a better example.

It was previously linked by me that there are efforts to remove a particular statue of Lincoln in Boston because it makes Blacks uncomfortable due to how the black man is posed in the statue.

One minor detail seems to have been lost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Memorial

Quote
According to the National Park Service, the monument was paid for solely by former slaves:
Quote
The campaign for the Freedmen's Memorial Monument to Abraham Lincoln, as it was to be known, was not the only effort of the time to build a monument to Lincoln; however, as the only one soliciting contributions exclusively from those who had most directly benefited from Lincoln's act of emancipation it had a special appeal ... The funds were collected solely from freed slaves (primarily from African American Union veterans) ...

So black activists want to tear down a memorial erected by their black ancestors?

Edit to add: Fredrick Douglas was the keynote speaker when it was dedicated as well.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: wmLambert on June 25, 2020, 01:06:10 PM
...So black activists want to tear down a memorial erected by their black ancestors?

That was the main "nuance" I posted about. The complaint was that Lincoln was freeing the slaves, but the slave in question was in a subservient position. Not an accurate depiction. The slave was rising, in what many have descrribed as a sprinter in the starting blocks at the start of a race - not kneeling.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 27, 2020, 05:53:03 PM
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 27, 2020, 06:02:23 PM
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419

I thought this response to that one was more instructive, although it uses more words.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MoPolitiks/status/1276984343928471552
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 27, 2020, 07:54:17 PM
Finally, a handy flowchart to help determine whether something is racist or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1276983652988092419

Scott, I think you're better than this. I know you're trying to jest, but that link suggests you think most things people call racist aren't. I know you can discern better, no matter where you might like to draw the line. I request that you provide an example of something you don't think is racist but a lot of people think is.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Fenring on June 27, 2020, 11:32:27 PM
Scott, I think you're better than this. I know you're trying to jest, but that link suggests you think most things people call racist aren't. I know you can discern better, no matter where you might like to draw the line. I request that you provide an example of something you don't think is racist but a lot of people think is.

You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on June 28, 2020, 12:00:06 AM
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 28, 2020, 01:42:58 AM
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

I'm in agreement with much of what you said TheDaemon. I do see and dislike the religious aspects of this.

Our disagreement lies in that I'm seeing this new religion much like I'd see Christianity rising from the ranks of the slaves of the Roman Empire. Though I hate the Christians for what they later did, e.g. to people like Hypatia, when they in turn became dominant, if at an earlier period of time I had to choose between them and Nero or Caligula, I'll still choose the Christians.

You are seeing the seeds of a future oppression against white people: I think you're possibly correct, much like Christianity contained within it the resentful seeds of oppression against non-Christians.

But in the meantime non-white people are still the ones being oppressed, still the ones who are underprivileged, and I'll rather side with the slaves of the Roman empire rather than the masters.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on June 28, 2020, 05:44:37 AM
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

I'm in agreement with much of what you said TheDaemon. I do see and dislike the religious aspects of this.

Our disagreement lies in that I'm seeing this new religion much like I'd see Christianity rising from the ranks of the slaves of the Roman Empire. Though I hate the Christians for what they later did, e.g. to people like Hypatia, when they in turn became dominant, if at an earlier period of time I had to choose between them and Nero or Caligula, I'll still choose the Christians.

You are seeing the seeds of a future oppression against white people: I think you're possibly correct, much like Christianity contained within it the resentful seeds of oppression against non-Christians.

But in the meantime non-white people are still the ones being oppressed, still the ones who are underprivileged, and I'll rather side with the slaves of the Roman empire rather than the masters.

It may go against human nature to correct sins without becoming just another version of what you reject, but humanity does learn and adapt.  The result of freeing the slaves doesn't have to be enslaving ourselves to what the slaves suffered.  White privilege is real, but call it a caste system if that term is more acceptable to you.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: ScottF on June 28, 2020, 11:38:35 AM
White privilege is real, but call it a caste system if that term is more acceptable to you.

Yes, I'm in agreement with this. In the US today, poverty and class have greater overall oppressive effects than racism. That said, for many in the lower castes, the two are inextricably linked - historical racism having established the initial foundation and future patterns locking people into these castes in the first place.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on June 28, 2020, 02:59:14 PM
As long as one uses the word "historical" to mean "from 1492 through, literally, today"
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDrake on June 28, 2020, 03:23:08 PM
Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

For starters, that's horse*censored*. You bought a sandwich at subway? Racist!

Get out of the hyperbole, and actually make a case.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on July 02, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
Oh in a recap of the past week:

5 people have been shot, 2 of whom have died to my knowledge(both black) in the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP area(which has now evidently been shut down)

The "finale event" for the CHOP consisted of the people working "security" for them shooting up a SUV being driven by a black teen(one of the two dead) and his younger brother.

Provo, Utah has arrested a BLM protester for shooting a motorist.

In Louisville, KY a radical (and black) BLM protester having having been asked to leave the protest, returns later that night and opens fire on the gathered protesters, killing a photojournalist and injuring a few others before other people in the protest returned fire and disabled him (good guys with a gun surface)
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: Kasandra on July 02, 2020, 03:57:57 PM
Oh in a recap of the past week:

5 people have been shot, 2 of whom have died to my knowledge(both black) in the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP area(which has now evidently been shut down)

The "finale event" for the CHOP consisted of the people working "security" for them shooting up a SUV being driven by a black teen(one of the two dead) and his younger brother.

Provo, Utah has arrested a BLM protester for shooting a motorist.

In Louisville, KY a radical (and black) BLM protester having having been asked to leave the protest, returns later that night and opens fire on the gathered protesters, killing a photojournalist and injuring a few others before other people in the protest returned fire and disabled him (good guys with a gun surface)

These are not protesters, but criminals and/or gang bangers.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 05:02:24 PM
These are not protesters, but criminals and/or gang bangers.
No, they're Democrats armed by Pelosi and Schumer.
Title: Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
Post by: TheDeamon on July 05, 2020, 12:54:04 PM
Going to link to the CNN version of this just to demonstrate skew at work:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/seattle-protesters-car-death/index.html

Quote
At about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, the suspect allegedly drove into a group of protesters on a section that the WSP had closed about midnight. Mead said a car drove around a series of "support vehicles" that protesters were using to block I-5 and protect themselves, and onto the shoulder of the freeway, where protesters were standing.

1) The driver of the vehicle is black.
2) "The series of support vehicles" that CNN alludes to was two vehicles parked perpendicular to the direction of vehicle travel across the freeway. So not even enough to fully block off the freeway... But enough to set up an oncoming motorist with a Trolley Problem because those vehicles would have blocked the driver's view of the protesters behind them.
3) The protesters were wearing black.
4) They also happened to be protesting on the exit end of a curve on the freeway.

Now the freeway was supposedly shut down by police for over an hour beforehand so there are questions as to how the guy managed to get on the interstate in the first place(other than he may entered by way of entering through an exit ramp), but his being black tends to say whatever happened, he wasn't racially motivated in his actions. I guess in an ironic twist, he may have been looking to join them... right up until he accidentally ran some of them over.

https://newsone.com/3970690/dawit-kelete-seattle-protest-hit-run-driver-identified/