Charlottsville

[Seriati]

And the violence continues to escalate. Yesterday in Phoenix police had to use tear gas to disperse protesters outside of a Donald Trump rally after police started being pelted with rocks, sticks, and other detrius.

You received bad information - someone not part of the protesters nor in the crowd of people making up the protests had thrown a single empty water bottle - there were no 'rocks, sticks and other detrius' and it wasn't the protesters who did the throwing of the water bottle.

I read multiple accounts, none of them seem as specific as you are here about who started it.  Can you provide a source.  Most accounts indicate rocks and multiple bottles thrown at the police.  I've not seen anything that indicates a person "not a part of the protesters" was involved.

I think your claim is honestly unprovable, so I'd really like to understand how you came to believe it.

[LetterRip]

I live in Phoenix.  As to reports - it is only Sgt. Jonathan Howard, the spokesman for the PD,  and Police Cheif Jeri Williams that have claimed anything other than an empty water bottle.  They claim that the protesters "gassed the police".

Phoenix Police Chief Jeri L. Williams said that most of the thousands who turned out for the rally and to protest it gathered peacefully, but she described a small fraction as breaking down fencing and throwing rocks, water bottles and gas at officers outside late Tuesday night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/23/i-wouldnt-call-it-chaos-phoenix-police-defend-response-outside-trumps-rally/

There are two eyewitness accounts that have been quoted in the press, one who didn't see anything, and the other saw an empty water bottle and also 'what looked like a sparkling fire cracker'.  The 'sparkling fire cracker' is the tear gas canister being thrown back.

From what I've heard second hand someone did indeed pickup the first canister and throw it back (and apparently burned their hands - this was from my facebook feed - unfortunately facebook randomly adds and removes stuff from feeds, so it isn't there for me to quote directly), so it is consistent with the eyewitness account reports in the press.

So, what do you think is more likely - some officer shoots off a canister of tear gas prematurely, and someone throws it back... or protesters bring their own tear gas (which they would have to buy illegally, and the possess illegally) with the intention of throwing it at the police (committing a felony).

Known incidences of protesters bringing their own tear gas in the history of all protests - 0
Known incidences of protesters throwing back a canister of tear gas that the police have thrown at them - not particularly unusual
So do you really want to go with the narrative of 'protesters bring tear gas and throw it at police'?

[Seriati]

There's pictures of the guy throwing the police gas canister back that you can find.  Not sure why I would doubt that.

There are reports, and I can't tell you their sources because the media doesn't provide them, of multiple water bottles and rocks/bricks.  It's not clear to me why you would discount that.  FB is a good resource to let you know that something happened or to flag items that the MSM may have missed, but you generally can't trust it for "reporting."

And again, do you have any basis for the rather extraordinary claim that the provoker was not associated with the protesters?

In a semi-related note, I think I've come to the conclusion that anyone covering their face at a protest or rally should be arrested and held for incitement (make it a 24 holding period without any long term consequence).  If we have a law that requires that anyone donating $100 to a political related event has to be disclosed to anyone who wants to know, it seems very odd to protect the identity of people that are most likely to commit crimes in a riot or to provoke one.

[TheDrake]

I find it perplexing that in this age of ubiquitous video recording, there's not one person with the media or otherwise who has film of the entirety of interactions. Where's Zapruder when you need him?

I put more burden on the police. We should have hundreds of body cams showing every angle. Naturally, such things can always be taken out of context, even the famous photo of the Birmingham protest is open to some amount of interpretation (I won't go deeply into that here, it's a long story). Which is why a complete and intact record is needed, not selected clips.

The style of protest helps this. When that cop at UC Davis used pepper spray on seated individuals, it was clear that these people were not being aggressive and were not posing a threat. It exposes who is really being violent. The biggest danger of the Antifa style of protest, is that they will help cops paper over their excessive use of force in a way that people will feel ambivalent about.

I know other people have other thoughts on that incident, and the appropriateness of the action, but it is clearly less ambiguous than some of the more recent activity. The most difficult part is that unlike King's organization, there is no central leadership that can clearly define the most appropriate tactics for the best political outcome.

In King's own words:

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.

Having a strong leader making these statements made it more difficult for authorities including police to portray him and his supporters in a poor light.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

There's pictures of the guy throwing the police gas canister back that you can find.  Not sure why I would doubt that.

Because the story from the Phoenix PD is that the protesters initiated a gas attack on the Phoenix PD, and you appear to take them at their word.

There are reports, and I can't tell you their sources because the media doesn't provide them, of multiple water bottles and rocks/bricks

They are all the same source - the Phoenix PD Chief and the spokesperson, it is unclear why some papers aren't directly attributing the claim but they are the sole source - the same source claiming gas attacks were initiated by the protesters.

And again, do you have any basis for the rather extraordinary claim that the provoker was not associated with the protesters?

Your basis for it wasn't is the source claiming that the protesters initiated gas attacks on the police.  If you are willing to swallow the enormous lie, then sure I can see why you have no problem accepting the rest.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that if the protesters brought tear gas and initiated attacks on the police that my source could be incorrect that the empty water bottle wasn't from the protesters.

Now then, do you believe that the protesters initiated a tear gas attack on the police or will you concede that it is an absurd premise and that, in fact contrary to the Phoenix PD statement, that the Phoenix PD tear gassed the protesters first and any tear gas that the PD was exposed to was in fact their own tear gas - possibly returned via a throw by a protester?

If you are willing to recognize that the Phoenix PD has made an absurd claim - do you think it possible that maybe, just maybe, they added in the claims of rocks and bricks because it sounds kind of bad to have your Police Department tear gas attack a peaceful crowd - even if it was accidental.

In a semi-related note, I think I've come to the conclusion that anyone covering their face at a protest or rally should be arrested and held for incitement (make it a 24 holding period without any long term consequence).  If we have a law that requires that anyone donating $100 to a political related event has to be disclosed to anyone who wants to know, it seems very odd to protect the identity of people that are most likely to commit crimes in a riot or to provoke one.

Sure, as long as we eliminate at will employment, so that employers can't fire people on the basis of holding contradicting political opinions to ones employer.  While I'm sure some, perhaps many, wearing masks are bad actors - there are likely also those who have a reasonable fear that their employer might fire them for engaging in political protests.

[Fenring]

In a semi-related note, I think I've come to the conclusion that anyone covering their face at a protest or rally should be arrested and held for incitement (make it a 24 holding period without any long term consequence).

You say that because you never tried to attend a protest against the Church of Scientology. When I was living in New York City I came across protesters a few times who were either organizing or on their way to protests against the Scientologists, and they told me in no uncertain terms that either you go masked or you don't go anywhere near that. What Scientologists do is record people who protest them and proceed to identify and destroy them. Doxxing is child's play compared to what they're prepared to do to discourage people giving them trouble. Giving full benefit of doubt, masking yourself for a protest is the only way sometimes to guarantee there won't be retribution against you for expressing your opinion in public.

On the other hand I totally see the case some have made that going around masked seems suspicious, and we can recall the discussion about Muslim women covering up and whether that's a security risk or not. Offhand it's hard to choose sides on this without either giving or refusing to give the benefit of the doubt to a protester. If you believe protesters are well-meaning and don't want harm to come to them for protesting, then it's hard to say they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves. On the other hand if you give them no benefit of doubt and assume they bear malice and mask themselves to avoid being ID's, then you'd suggest they should show their face if they have nothing to hide. The anti-surveillance part of me is winning this inner debate right now and I will tend for now to suggest that people should be allowed to mask themselves at protests on the chance that they really feel harm will come to them if they don't.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

There's pictures of the guy throwing the police gas canister back that you can find.  Not sure why I would doubt that.

Because the story from the Phoenix PD is that the protesters initiated a gas attack on the Phoenix PD, and you appear to take them at their word.

Proving that something didn't occur is very difficult.  If you have dozens of people saying no one threw a rock, at a rally with thousands of people, it could be true that none of them saw a rock thrown and that a rock was still thrown. 

I don't find it reasonable to discount reports that they were thrown by the police without more evidence.

They are all the same source - the Phoenix PD Chief and the spokesperson, it is unclear why some papers aren't directly attributing the claim but they are the sole source - the same source claiming gas attacks were initiated by the protesters.

How do you know they are the same source?  How did you ascertain that not one member of the media talked to anyone to back their claims?

Why wouldn't the anti-Trump media be all over the false claims of the police?

And again, do you have any basis for the rather extraordinary claim that the provoker was not associated with the protesters?

Your basis for it wasn't is the source claiming that the protesters initiated gas attacks on the police.

Maybe you are confused.  It's your claim that you can identify the attacker and have knowledge that the attacker was not associated with the protesters.  I made no claim on this point. 

Keep in mind you're claiming several things that are unlikely and difficult to prove, but this one is tantamont to claiming that its proven this is a false flag operation.  You'd need some real evidence to show that.

If you are willing to swallow the enormous lie, then sure I can see why you have no problem accepting the rest.  I'm perfectly willing to concede that if the protesters brought tear gas and initiated attacks on the police that my source could be incorrect that the empty water bottle wasn't from the protesters.

What lie did I swallow?  I pointed out there are pictures of the protestor throwing the police gas grenade back, which supports the idea that the gas was brought by the police.   

Now then, do you believe that the protesters initiated a tear gas attack on the police or will you concede that it is an absurd premise and that, in fact contrary to the Phoenix PD statement, that the Phoenix PD tear gassed the protesters first and any tear gas that the PD was exposed to was in fact their own tear gas - possibly returned via a throw by a protester?

Maybe you should just look back at what I said where I already conceded this.  Literally the exact point that there is pictoral evidence showing the police canister being thrown back.

If you are willing to recognize that the Phoenix PD has made an absurd claim - do you think it possible that maybe, just maybe, they added in the claims of rocks and bricks because it sounds kind of bad to have your Police Department tear gas attack a peaceful crowd - even if it was accidental.

Again there are multiple accounts, even from protestors, of aggressive actions (shaking barriers for example).  Is it possible that among thousands of angry protesters that are yelling, shaking things and being aggressive, none threw water bottles they had in hand?  Sure.  But given that water bottles get winged by people in all kinds of less incendiary circumstances it doesn't seem likely.

Bricks and rocks?  They are confiscated at literally every protest, which means they were almost certainly at hand.  Why would you doubt they were thrown?  Proven, I have not seen proof they were thrown.  But it's an exceptional claim to make that they definitely were not thrown.

Sure, as long as we eliminate at will employment, so that employers can't fire people on the basis of holding contradicting political opinions to ones employer.

You mean like firing the Google engineer?  Does this protection apply to those with unpopular conservative views?

While I'm sure some, perhaps many, wearing masks are bad actors - there are likely also those who have a reasonable fear that their employer might fire them for engaging in political protests.

I'll concede that's a possibility.  However, it seems far more likely that they are trying to prevent their identification from cameras to avoid felony charges than that they are trying to avoid being fired by their bosses.  I'd be happy to consider protecting the peaceful expression of political views as a category for discrimination in firing decisions.

[TheDeamon]

There's pictures of the guy throwing the police gas canister back that you can find.  Not sure why I would doubt that.

Well, unless those pictures came from somewhere else. Wouldn't be the first time file footage from somewhere else was presented as happening at a "current event."

[TheDeamon]

Now then, do you believe that the protesters initiated a tear gas attack on the police or will you concede that it is an absurd premise and that, in fact contrary to the Phoenix PD statement, that the Phoenix PD tear gassed the protesters first and any tear gas that the PD was exposed to was in fact their own tear gas - possibly returned via a throw by a protester?

Maybe you should just look back at what I said where I already conceded this.  Literally the exact point that there is pictoral evidence showing the police canister being thrown back.

An additional issue to bring up with that photo is that it is a "snapshot in time" without any real context. So even if the location is correct, how are you sure that photo is of the first round of tear gas to be fired into the crowd?

As to masked/unmasked protesters and free speech rights. I think the easy test on that is to go with the favorite fallback that the Supreme Court typically will fall back on: Public Safety.

IF law enforcement can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a judge with __ hours of a protest taking place that there is "a credible threat of violent activities" occurring either as part of the protest itself, or in response to it(by the counter protesters), then the police can mandate an "exclusion zone" of ___ hundred feet proximity to said threatened event where anybody who enters the exclusion zone with their identities concealed will be subjected to detention by police. So the Anti-Scientology protesters can continue their activites as there is no history there to indicate their presence in masks is presenting "a public safety risk" to anybody except themselves if they encounter an irate Scientologist.

Wouldn't be the first time the courts have said "Sure you can go ahead and protest, but you can't do it right there, you need to move your protests over about 200 feet in that direction."

[TheDrake]

Funny thing about masks. The Nazis run around without masks, but they're the most likely to lose their jobs. MLKs bunch, I don't remember seeing them run around in masks. Mandela. The dude in China in front of a tank. Would that image have been as powerful if he was wrapped in swaddling clothes? No. Probably not.

As far as getting fired by somebody for peacefully marching against hate - why are you working for them anyway? Now, if you get fired because you like throwing things at police...

[Gaoics79]

I think the increasing prevalence of Doxxing and personal attacks on protesters and others who are video recorded might make masks more, rather than less prevalent. In other words the mask is a symptom rather than a cause. But as TheDrake notes, the type of people most prone to masking up seem least prone to being personally targetted these days for their political views.

Personally I think Doxxing is reprehensible in all but the most extreme cases, and firing someone for their political views is bordering into McCartheyism territory outside of maybe public figures like sports stars and CEOs. If it becomes rampant, to the point where an ordinary citizen need fear for his livelihood over, say, wearing a Trump hat (and I think we're nearly there)  I'd be sympathetic to people masking up in order to excercise their constitutionally protected rights.

[TheDrake]

I'll own my Johnson bumper stickers. Nobody seems to dox Libertarians. Go team go!

Hard to get mad at people who want lower taxes, the end of the drug war, marriage equality, and non violence.

[Fenring]

Hard to get mad at people who want lower taxes, the end of the drug war, marriage equality, and non violence.

Non-violence, eh? I'll kill you!

[Seriati]

There's pictures of the guy throwing the police gas canister back that you can find.  Not sure why I would doubt that.

Well, unless those pictures came from somewhere else. Wouldn't be the first time file footage from somewhere else was presented as happening at a "current event."

Well to be fair, I think I have to reduce my confidence in that concession.  I take your point that I may be deceived by pictures from other events, but last night I watched what appeared to be the protesters lobbing 3 gas canisters into the police line in a matter of 5-10 seconds.  As they were all still burning, and pretty much didn't start spewing gas until they landed, it's almost impossible to believe they could have initially be shot by the police, recovered before they  activated, and thrown back.  One sure, three?  Highly improbably.  Certainly seems to lend support to the direct police statement that the protesters brought their own gas.

Edited to add:  I actually think LetterRip read me initial statement incorrectly, and thought I was denying the idea that the gas came from the police.  I was not then, but in light of what I saw last night, I have now moved into considering the questions unsettled, perhaps even in favor of the police statement.

[TheDrake]

Hard to get mad at people who want lower taxes, the end of the drug war, marriage equality, and non violence.

Non-violence, eh? I'll kill you!

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Zapp Brannigan

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

you conceded that a canister was thrown back, not that the police did the first canister and that the protestors almost certainly did not bring their own tear gas canisters and innitiate attacks on the police with their brought tear gas as the Phoenix PD was claiming.

I have not claimed I can 'identify' who threw the water bottle, that has never been claimed by me.

As to rocks and bricks being thrown - they were in downtown Phoenix near the Convention center - I'm pretty sure they would have had to bring rocks and bricks with them, there likely isn't any place to find a rock or brick probably within a half a mile of the Convention Center it is all concrete, glass and steel in all directions.

As noted previously every cop has a body camera - so there should be tons of video evidence if anything being claimed by the PD is true.  Since one claim is so absurd that it can be rejected out of hand, I see no reason to lend credence to the other claims without video evidence.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

you conceded that a canister was thrown back, not that the police did the first canister and that the protestors almost certainly did not bring their own tear gas canisters and innitiate attacks on the police with their brought tear gas as the Phoenix PD was claiming.

I can't "concede" un-provable assertions.  There is a fact about the protesters and gas that we don't know.  Either they had canisters and used them or they did not. 

There is logic to the idea that they threw back police canisters (in that few people generally carry gas canisters), but that's not conclusive.  There could be physical evidence of the canisters - if it was collected.  As I said, the video tends to sway towards believing they may have brought canisters.

I have not claimed I can 'identify' who threw the water bottle, that has never been claimed by me.

Yes you did:

You received bad information - someone not part of the protesters nor in the crowd of people making up the protests had thrown a single empty water bottle - there were no 'rocks, sticks and other detrius' and it wasn't the protesters who did the throwing of the water bottle.

You can't make the claim that the person is "not part of the protesters nor in the crowd" without that.  Or did I misunderstand somehow?

As to rocks and bricks being thrown - they were in downtown Phoenix near the Convention center - I'm pretty sure they would have had to bring rocks and bricks with them, there likely isn't any place to find a rock or brick probably within a half a mile of the Convention Center it is all concrete, glass and steel in all directions.

You'd have better personal experience than I do, but there's no place in Manhattan where one would not be able to find rocks or bricks within half a mile.  Not sure you realize how big area that is, and how many decorative items that people generally have around. 

There's not one green space or tree in that area?  Not one public sitting area?

As noted previously every cop has a body camera - so there should be tons of video evidence if anything being claimed by the PD is true.  Since one claim is so absurd that it can be rejected out of hand, I see no reason to lend credence to the other claims without video evidence.

I agree there should be video evidence.  It has not however been my experience that police cams are ever released at this stage in the game.  They almost always consider them as part of the investigation and if they release them at all, they only release them reluctantly and in low numbers.  So while you are correct, they probably could "prove" their claims in the court of public opinion, they are almost certainly more concerned with proving it in actual court, and hence you can't assume a negative inference from the lack of release.

[Seriati]

By the way, just looking at Google Map shows multiple parks and green spaces within a couple blocks of the Phoenix Convention Center, am I looking at the wrong place?  Is there no construction going on nearby?  It just seems really improbable.

Not to mention, Anti-fa often does bring bricks and rocks with them.

[TheDrake]

IGD on Phoenix (Occupied O'odham Lands)

The barricades were in our way so O’odham and Diné relatives took to the task of dismantling them, as riot clad police unleashed a torrent of pepper balls on the bloc and anyone near by. The authorities, ever fearful that any individual or collective act may shake the chains of domination, fired round after round of pepper ball projectiles at the reinforced banner, and then lowered their aim to peoples legs. The bloc held our ground under the barrage until canister after canister of tear gas (we counted 7 in a matter of seconds in our immediate area) were launched and a wall of poison washed over us forcing us away from the barrier. Street medics swiftly treated those unprepared for the assault, police targeted anyone throwing bottles, rocks, and trash with tear gas and pepper balls.

When they talk about "the bloc" they mean the Antifa guys girded up for warfare. By their own statement, they had rocks.

This is the reality that prepares us for these moments, and it didn’t begin with Trump, or Loreal’s cold blooded murder. It is state violence perpetrated by colonizers for hundreds of years in these lands. Liberal movement police maintain that social arrangement by attempting to suppress and control resistance. They posture to appease their funders, their storm makes it rain dollars to perpetuate their unending anti-oppression gala.

While liberals and media spin accusatory wheels with the “anti-fa threw the first punch” condemnation, let us clarify that it does not concern that punches flew; after all, colonization is war. Indeed the first punch was thrown long ago, with the force of colonial terror and genocidal wars that have been inflicted upon Indigenous Peoples in the so-called “US.” This is the context in which we continue to wage resistance. This blindspot forces liberals to march in unending circles, with, around, and through, colonial power

They make it quite clear that they were there to throw punches. That they deny the authority of the Constitution or any of its agents. And that, in fact, they would rename and remake the very United States itself as an entity.

[Gaoics79]

This is the beauty of these nutbars - they will just flat out tell you what they're about. They're not even "extreme" relative to the commonplace madness that infests academia. The media just won't report on this sort of thing.

[TheDeamon]

Hard to get mad at people who want lower taxes, the end of the drug war, marriage equality, and non violence.

Non-violence, eh? I'll kill you!

No need, I've already got "Vinny" on the way to kneecap him and break his arms, just to help make sure he sticks that ideal. 

[TheDeamon]

By the way, just looking at Google Map shows multiple parks and green spaces within a couple blocks of the Phoenix Convention Center, am I looking at the wrong place?  Is there no construction going on nearby?  It just seems really improbable.

And honestly, being Phoenix, I find the assertion of "no rocks within a half mile" to be a particularly long stretch. Phoenix is in the middle of a very water starved desert that is frequently among some of the hottest places in the nation. The "in vogue thing" for public spaces in particular is to showcase ways to landscape and beautify an area without use of water intensive landscaping. Which usually involves use of native vegetation, and LOTS of decorative rock, because rocks don't require water as part of their basic upkeep.

I'd be shocked if someone had to go more than 20 feet into a park in Phoenix without coming into sight of all kinds of rocks.

[TheDeamon]

This is the beauty of these nutbars - they will just flat out tell you what they're about. They're not even "extreme" relative to the commonplace madness that infests academia. The media just won't report on this sort of thing.

Pretty much, they're unafraid of flat out stating their positions because they know the media isn't interested in advertising those at this time. AntiFa "needs more momentum" before the press can really get any traction out of running a narrative asking if AntiFa is a threat to the nation.

The "other problem" is incidentally, I think in some respects, you'd find that AntiFa is probably the brainchild of people who were party to Anonymous and its decision to target and protest Scientology given it's acknowledged history of dirty tricks and tactics against people who speak ill of it. Occupy Wallstreet had backing from some quarters of Anonymous as well, and it's a very safe bet that AntiFa is an outgrowth of Occupy Wallstreet.

But that presents a problem in actually trying to define "what is AntiFa?" Kind of like Occupy Wallstreet was also rather amorphous in reality. In one corner you have Anonymous (which may just be doing it for "teh lulz"), in another you have Stalinist groups like the Revolutionary Communist Party, and so on and so forth.  So in that respect, "AntiFa" likely runs a full range in reality at present, although as it "develops a reputation" that range will likely narrow as some people start to put distance away from it. But in the mean time, depending on which AntiFa member you speak to, you'll probably get different answers as to what it actually is, although the Theme will undoubtedly remain fairly consistent. Specifically in regards to Donald Trump being bad, everything else is probably negotiable.

[TheDeamon]

you conceded that a canister was thrown back, not that the police did the first canister and that the protestors almost certainly did not bring their own tear gas canisters and innitiate attacks on the police with their brought tear gas as the Phoenix PD was claiming.

I only now happened to catch some footage from the Convention Center, and I have to say I'm very strongly inclined to believe that AntiFa turned up spoiling for a fight, even without an Anarchist Site posting an accounting of things from the perspective of an AntiFa member.

Unless you can think of totally benign reasons for a normal run of the mill Citizen of the United States to turn up to a peaceful protest while wearing a gas mask.

Although I do have to give props to the officer who nailed that particular protester in the nuts with a teargas canister. 

[Fenring]

Occupy Wallstreet had backing from some quarters of Anonymous as well, and it's a very safe bet that AntiFa is an outgrowth of Occupy Wallstreet.

Where do you get this from? I'm curious what source you have to back up either claim. Antifa is a movement that predates Occupy Wall Street in its intellectual roots, and the violence it employs (in theory and in practice) have nothing to do with anything the Occupy people believed. Further, the movement of which Antifa is a radical variant is a movement in opposition to the Occupy people; they are the competition, not the same people. As the militant strain of the gender/race studies SJW crowd, their mission statement is to break down lines of power as defined along physical and personal characteristics, which is completely contradictory to the Occupy notion of issues being broken down along lines of class and political influence. The former type of people hate when the latter kind treat different people (whites, blacks, men, women, different nationalities) as being all in the same boat and oppressed by, for example, the banking system. Antifa is about creating divisions among the population, while Occupy was about showing how most of the population (the 99%) is on the same side and that a small minority are the problem. No, Antifa has zero to do with Occupy or any of its notions, uses methods most of the Occupy people would abhor, and is made up of totally different types of people than those who camped out at Wall Street.

What the two groups have in common is that they employed social media to self-organize to an extent, so from a technological standpoint Antifa is a successor to Occupy in terms of the modern version of how protests are mounted. But that's about it.

[NobleHunter]

Unless you can think of totally benign reasons for a normal run of the mill Citizen of the United States to turn up to a peaceful protest while wearing a gas mask.

Because they think the police will use tear gas on a peaceful protest. It's not an uncommon belief, or even false.

[TheDrake]

Some portion of the individuals now identifying as Antifa were Occupy protesters, WTO protesters, etc. The problem the visual press and to a lesser extent written press has with anarchist movements, is that they have no leader to put on camera and express the groups aims. It's largely unbottled rage with very little clear focus. Anarchists want to tear down the government they see as oppressive, but they have few thoughts on exactly what would replace it. I suspect this is much like how the communist revolutions go. Fueled by an appropriate level of anger at their monarchy, dictator, etc, they fight to take it down. Then suddenly the equality for all message degenerates into paranoia and a new ruling elite.

As for the gas mask, I would nod to Noble Hunter, but amend the statement to say "a protest in which they have no intention of respecting barricades and intend to try to punch people in the street."

This ain't MLK and his bunch.

[Seriati]

The problem the visual press and to a lesser extent written press has with anarchist movements, is that they have no leader to put on camera and express the groups aims.

That's a mischaracterization.  They have leaders, they don't have spokesmen.  When an organization is organized in cells - deliberately by the way - it's very difficult to control or reign in.  This is why terrorism is tough to stop as well.  The cells themselves often have focus and very specific and clear goals.  The media finds it easier to label things as "not having leaders" or "no clear goals" than to do the diligence, but that doesn't make it accurate.

[Fenring]

Some portion of the individuals now identifying as Antifa were Occupy protesters, WTO protesters, etc.

That some individuals may protest more than one cause would be no surprise, nor that some extremists within one protest might move on to be the mainstream within another one. But my comment was in reply to the claim that antifa was an outgrowth of Occupy, as if the two movements have anything to do with each other. They don't. In fact, I think Antifa is more than likely an outgrowth of those who would like to squash the sentiments brought to light with Occupy.

The problem the visual press and to a lesser extent written press has with anarchist movements, is that they have no leader to put on camera and express the groups aims.

Why is the word "anarchist" being used in this context? Some Occupy people were anarchists, others not, while the presence of anarchists within Antifa is very likely negligible. Anarchism is the very antithesis of the authoritarian dogmas of Antifa.

[LetterRip]

The video claiming to show the cannister being thrown that started everything shows a number of canisters have already been used.  So again it appears clear that someone is throwing a canister back.

Seriati - regarding the distances - two blocks to the nearest park could be right - that is about 1/4 of a mile (9 blocks per mile) - so a half mile diameter rather than radius.

You can't make the claim that the person is "not part of the protesters nor in the crowd" without that.  Or did I misunderstand somehow?

If I randomly claim some stranger is a member of your family, you claim they aren't - me saying "well if they aren't a member of your family then you must know their identity, so who are they".  Your not knowing who they are does not make them a member of your family and you claiming they aren't a member of your family does not put the burden on you to prove either their identity nor their relationship.

Regarding their being sources other than the police for the claims of "rocks and bricks" being thrown at the police - if a paper had an anonymous source - they would quote such source and state they were anonymous.  If there were any collaborating evidence for the claim the papers would be all over it, since it would be a major scoop and source of validation especially for the 'conservative' news sources.  The lack of a source is thus reasonably taken as a lack of evidence.
 
Regarding the police in general - if they were to say, *censored* up and unreasonably tear gas, pepper spray, etc. peaceful protesters without sufficient provocation - do you think they would

A) Own up to their mistake and apologize for the error
B) Fabricate a story and insist it was initiated by the protesters and maintain that story unless ironclad evidence contradicting the claim appeared in public

I'd say option B would happen 99.99%+ of the time.

Also what do you think the odds of a police screw up are in tense situations - I'd put it at least 1 in 5, probably closer to 1 in 2.

Given those two factors - I'm disinclined to take the police at their word.

TheDaemon - regarding the gas mask - given that a significant percentage of protests and protesters have been gassed by the police, no nefarious motive is necessary - just normal prudence.

[Seriati]

Seriati - regarding the distances - two blocks to the nearest park could be right - that is about 1/4 of a mile (9 blocks per mile) - so a half mile diameter rather than radius.

Did you look at Google Maps?  I was being generous on the  "two blocks" as it looks clear there are parks that close.  It looks like there are numerous places even closer that may have bricks or rocks.  Even your revised half mile diameter looks like it would include them

You can't make the claim that the person is "not part of the protesters nor in the crowd" without that.  Or did I misunderstand somehow?

If I randomly claim some stranger is a member of your family, you claim they aren't - me saying "well if they aren't a member of your family then you must know their identity, so who are they".

If you looking at my family reunion, pick a person and say they are "not part of my family nor in the crowd" then that's a different claim.  You didn't claim uncertainty, notwithstanding that seems to be what you want to defend.  You claimed that the person committing violence was not part of the protesters or in the crowd.

That's a very specific claim.  I did not ask if you knew them personally.  I asked how you can make such a claim if you don't know who engaged in the throwing behavior.

Regarding their being sources other than the police for the claims of "rocks and bricks" being thrown at the police - if a paper had an anonymous source - they would quote such source and state they were anonymous.  If there were any collaborating evidence for the claim the papers would be all over it, since it would be a major scoop and source of validation especially for the 'conservative' news sources.  The lack of a source is thus reasonably taken as a lack of evidence.

You seem to think throwing things is an unusual circumstance.  Look at the seized items from any protests really, and you'll find a remarkable array of dangerous items, some of which are obviously weapons and some of which could be innocent.  You'll also almost always find dangerous looking brick chunks and rocks.

In any event, there is no inference either way.  Your logic about the media is flawed, violence at protests and the presence of weapons is routinely deemed not a story.  There are plenty of incidents of actual violent protests that turn into riots where the level of damage and the weapons used are barely covered.  There's literally nothing that indicates that anyone but you really feels that determining beyond a shadow of a doubt that a rock or brick was thrown is vital to understanding the situation.

What would you accept as proof anyway?  Do you need an actual video?  Or is just having a rock in evidence enough?  How many police witnesses are enough?  Is the answer that even if a dozen saw it, you'll still say not enough because you have prefilled in a corruption motive?
 

Regarding the police in general - if they were to say, *censored* up and unreasonably tear gas, pepper spray, etc. peaceful protesters without sufficient provocation - do you think they would

Beats me.  Find some peaceful protesters that are gassed and we'll talk about it.

In the meantime, you don't get to assume that anything the police say is a "proven" false statement.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

I'm using logical inference, not assuming.

Yes I think video evidence is necessary for the claims that the police are making.  There were literally thousands of cameras in the vicinity - numerous news crews; the police cameras; and many thousands of phones.  It should be trivial to show supporting evidence of legitimate claims.

Empty water bottles and protesters throwing gas canisters back are thus far the only things shown on video - with huge economic motivation by news sources to find video supporting the police claims - since it would be extremely news worthy.

So I think an adverse inference is completely warranted until and unless the police or some other source shows evidence in support of the police claims.

[TheDrake]

Why is the word "anarchist" being used in this context? Some Occupy people were anarchists, others not, while the presence of anarchists within Antifa is very likely negligible. Anarchism is the very antithesis of the authoritarian dogmas of Antifa.

I used it because they use it. Websites purporting to be about anarchism very much support direct violent action and black bloc tactics - the same used by Antifa. I won't debate whether they are supporting the true spirit of anarchism, or what being an anarchist means, since it encompasses lots of groups and viewpoints. Also, Antifa traditionally includes many groups who are not anarchists. I wasn't trying to draw a one-to-one equivalence, but they are sympathetic viewpoints rather than opposing.

With respect to leadership, I'm not saying some voices are not more powerful than others in their movements, but rather that they have no authority, and each cell kind of figures out their own platform. Which is why occupy wound up with a laundry list of demands for political reform, financial reform, labor reform, environmental reform, and multiple lists being posted by whoever felt the urge.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

I'm using logical inference, not assuming.

I don't think so.  I said you don't get to assume that anything the police say is a "proven" false statement.  There's no logical inference that gets you there either.

You seem to think the police have every reason to lie, even if in general, they have no need to lie.  Yet, you can't seem to remember that the protesters would have even more reason to lie, and we know that they are politically motivated and highly energized (or else they wouldn't be there), whereas the police are there in their professional (not ideological) capacity.

Yes I think video evidence is necessary for the claims that the police are making.  There were literally thousands of cameras in the vicinity - numerous news crews; the police cameras; and many thousands of phones.  It should be trivial to show supporting evidence of legitimate claims.

It should be "trivially" easy to show a film of a rock being thrown?  Do you think every camera was focused on every person for the entire time?  Do you think that every second of every protesters presence is on literally thousands of cameras?

For all I know it is trivially easy to prove, maybe they do have a video, but lack of a video IS NOT PROOF that it didn't happen.

Empty water bottles and protesters throwing gas canisters back are thus far the only things shown on video - with huge economic motivation by news sources to find video supporting the police claims - since it would be extremely news worthy.

Lol you keep making this empty claim.  There is virtually zero economic motivation to find this video.  It's not going to magically put this issue back on the news, it's not going to sell more tv ads, the pictures that have already been used were barely economically valuable.

So I think an adverse inference is completely warranted until and unless the police or some other source shows evidence in support of the police claims.

In other news, no one drowns at the beach unless life guards put forward video showing that they drowned.

[TheDeamon]

Why is the word "anarchist" being used in this context? Some Occupy people were anarchists, others not, while the presence of anarchists within Antifa is very likely negligible. Anarchism is the very antithesis of the authoritarian dogmas of Antifa.

I used it because they use it. Websites purporting to be about anarchism very much support direct violent action and black bloc tactics - the same used by Antifa. I won't debate whether they are supporting the true spirit of anarchism, or what being an anarchist means, since it encompasses lots of groups and viewpoints. Also, Antifa traditionally includes many groups who are not anarchists. I wasn't trying to draw a one-to-one equivalence, but they are sympathetic viewpoints rather than opposing.

"Anarchism" is as varied as there are adherents. In the case of AntiFa, in some respects, we're almost back to the 19th Century with some of them, as per Wiki's little stub that likewise lacks any citations.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism or anarcho-socialism) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.  Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.  The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.

It looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism is the main page for most things anarchy though.

As to one further example of overlap between various types of Anarchists and Occupy Wallstreet in particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism

Insurrectionary anarchism is a revolutionary theory, practice, and tendency within the anarchist movement that emphasizes insurrection within anarchist practice. It is critical of formal organizations such as labor unions and federations that are based on a political programme and periodic congresses. Instead, insurrectionary anarchists advocate informal organization and small affinity group based organization. Insurrectionary anarchists put value in attack, permanent class conflict, and a refusal to negotiate or compromise with class enemies.

In regards to "permanent class conflict" Occupy Wallstreet was right up their alley as it basically embodied class warfare what with "We are the 99%" and what not.

The "hard one" to demonstrate would be to link any Anarchist "movement" with Anonymous and their efforts against Scientology as per an indirect inference I made earlier. Except it looks like the Insurrectionists should be particularly hostile to just about any form of Organized Religion, so a connection could likely be made there as well without much effort.

[TheDrake]

It should be "trivially" easy to show a film of a rock being thrown?  Do you think every camera was focused on every person for the entire time?  Do you think that every second of every protesters presence is on literally thousands of cameras?

Sure, it might be hard to find one solitary guy throwing a single rock. But then, you probably shouldn't go to the tear gas for a single rock. In general, you would expect there to be a number of people with rocks and throwing them. Or somebody holding one. Or several on the ground in the aftermath. It is also true that sites like IGD specifically talk about bringing bags of rocks and wooden dowels as part of standard black bloc tactics. I'm mixed on what might have happened in this specific case. At the very least, some body cam (not sure if Phoenix has them).

videos

From those videos it doesn't seem to back up police claims. There was no tear gas visible until the police shot one, then somebody kicked one back. Everything being thrown seems to be empty water bottles, though it would be easy to miss a rock. Mind you these videos are on a website called policeone, catering to cops and fans of cops. If anyone had an economic incentive to find damning video, I suggest the guys selling non lethal weapons would have it.

Note that the cops don't seem to be reacting as though they are being pelted by rocks. Nobody appears to be making the kind of overhand throw that would be consistent with throwing a rock. Now you could say that maybe they were all out of rocks by this point. But if you're getting tear gassed, angry, and feeling self-righteous, I'd generally say you wouldn't be throwing bottles if you had rocks.

For all I know it is trivially easy to prove, maybe they do have a video, but lack of a video IS NOT PROOF that it didn't happen.

What is the burden of proof then? I'm no longer at a point where I'm going to take the word of police with no corroboration. If a major news organization, particularly international, reported it as an eyewitness I'd take it as fact.

[LetterRip]

There are 2900 officers in the Phoenix PD, but not all of them are equipped with body cams - 300 as of start of June.

There appears to be around 500 Phoenix PD in the line - so all else being equal - some 50 police body cams are probably present.

[Gaoics79]

It is perplexing to me that in 2017 we seem to have scarcely more video of these protests than we got 10 or even 20 years ago. We should have a video recording of every protest, from start to finish, posted on Youtube and from more than one angle.

If the police have this available and are keeping it under wraps, maybe it's time they start posting the video online. Otherwise, they're just going to keep taking it on the chin again and again.

Incidentally, I am in complete agreement with the person (I think Letterip) who suggested that an adverse inference can be made against anyone who has video, but chooses not to release it. However, I include the protesters in that group along with the police. From the murkiness of the record in this case, I infer that both sides are guilty of misconduct and we should assume they are both blameworthy.

[TheDrake]

jasonr, don't you think that the police as the authority in this situation have a greater duty to be truthful, since we give them the power to use lethal force? I don't see an equivalent burden on a random citizen with cellphone footage, though I do agree someone should come forward if they have such.

[Gaoics79]

Except they're not "random" citizens. They're organized protesters. And with smartphones, it's correct to say that they likely have more plentiful and accessible cameras than the police (I presume police cannot pull out their iPhones to record.)

Also I am guessing police are subject to stringent legal constraints in terms of how and when they release video to the public, whereas the protesters can do as they please.

To me it is a wash.

[LetterRip]

jasonr,

that is a reasonable alternative position.  I think there are many reasonable alternative perspectives here.

In my view though, the video footage that we have already directly contradicts the official statements by the police.

1) No rocks
2) The tear gas had been initiated by the police before the crowd throws a tear gas canister (back?) at the police

Also I guess I'm not sure what video you would want from the protesters?  Isn't the footage that contradicts the police statements sufficient?

[Gaoics79]

Letterip, I'm assuming that 100% of protesters present has a smartphone, which means that there is going to be one high resolution digital video camera for each and every protester on site. Right off the bat, the number of cameras (and possible perspectives) dwarfs what the police will ever have available on site. In addition, I am going to assume that pretty much every aspect of the demonstration, more or less anything that happens of significance, will be recorded by someone in the vicinity. If a rock is thrown, chances are it's either on camera or at least the immediate aftermath is.

So if there's a question of what happened here or what happened there, even assuming the crowd is largely just a bunch of ad hoc demonstrators with no affiliation or organization, it's on video on someone's phone, guaranteed.

Yes, the police are more organized and can probably access video more easily and quickly, but on the other hand, they are also under procedural constraints about what they are going to release and when (and under what circumstances), whereas the protesters aren't. (unless they are afraid of incriminating themselves, which is less a legal / procedural constraint so much as a fear of being prosecuted)

So as I see it, both groups have access to video, both groups have self-serving motives and both groups have advantages and disadvantages. In terms of the access to video footage, it isn't clear to me that the police have the advantage.

Also I guess I'm not sure what video you would want from the protesters?  Isn't the footage that contradicts the police statements sufficient?

It may be. On the other hand, video footage may also be selective. When the cops release a video of a protester throwing a gas canister at police (without showing the video depicting where the gas cannister came from) that's a dishonest self-serving use of video, just as it would be if a protester released a video of a cop bashing a protester on the head, without showing the part where the protester threw a rock at the officer's head (for example).

My assumption, by the way, is that within both the police and organized protest groups, there are high resolution, high quality videos of pretty much the entire event. Even back in 2003 when I used to witness small scale protests on campus at school there was always a video guy - and this is in the pre smart phone days. So if that video isn't being released to the public, there's a very good reason for that.

[TheDeamon]

Yes, the police are more organized and can probably access video more easily and quickly, but on the other hand, they are also under procedural constraints about what they are going to release and when (and under what circumstances), whereas the protesters aren't. (unless they are afraid of incriminating themselves, which is less a legal / procedural constraint so much as a fear of being prosecuted)

Agreed. Police can't and won't "just release footage" particularly when its part of an active investigation/litigation issue. Anything they release is going to be screened and cleared by the local DA first before anything sees airtime... Unless someone decides to leak it, but that's another matter.

Likewise, any protestor that has footage is likely to be leery of posting it in full because of it possibly being tracked back to them(by either/or both sides!) and being put through the wringer for reasons determined by which side is doing so.

[Seriati]

It should be "trivially" easy to show a film of a rock being thrown?  Do you think every camera was focused on every person for the entire time?  Do you think that every second of every protesters presence is on literally thousands of cameras?

Sure, it might be hard to find one solitary guy throwing a single rock. But then, you probably shouldn't go to the tear gas for a single rock. In general, you would expect there to be a number of people with rocks and throwing them.

LR kind of put this concept in without it being challenged, but I'd like to point out that I'm not aware of the standard for using tear gas.  I seriously doubt it requires that one or more rocks be thrown, I suspect this analysis is a bit of red herring to imply the two events are absolutely linked.  From the accounts, we have a crowd that was ordered to disperse and did not, we have a crowd that had shaken and/or attempted to knock down barricades, we have a crowd that was throwing water bottles - some empty, by some accounts full as well. 

I can not categorically say that this would not justify tear gassing to disperse the crowd.  It depends on whether the officers have limits on its use that require it only be used to disperse a riot, or whether they are permitted to use it prevent a riot.  The latter is tremendously discretionary standard.  I'm not aware that they ever face charges for using it in these circumstances, which makes it likely.

If they threw rocks that it just makes it more justified, but I doubt that it's all relevant to whether they had the authority to act.

For all I know it is trivially easy to prove, maybe they do have a video, but lack of a video IS NOT PROOF that it didn't happen.

What is the burden of proof then? I'm no longer at a point where I'm going to take the word of police with no corroboration. If a major news organization, particularly international, reported it as an eyewitness I'd take it as fact.

The "burden of proof" relates to whether someone is charged with a crime.  If you see charges coming out of the protest, then the police and the prosecutors will have to meet a burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof in defending an internet reader's interpretation of fragmentary news accounts.

[Fenring]

The "burden of proof" relates to whether someone is charged with a crime.  If you see charges coming out of the protest, then the police and the prosecutors will have to meet a burden of proof.

No, this is only one possible meaning of "burden of proof" and I so no reason to imply that other posters meant it the way you do. There are even two separate Wiki articles on the burden of proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Burden of proof is a general concept that far supersedes the particular scenario of a legal case, even though it's very relevant to law. There are issues of burden of proof in various arenas in life that have nothing to do with law. It's a basic concept of argumentation.

[Seriati]

Fenring, I understand the concept, but I disagree that you are correct about what they are asking.  Go back and read their statements.  They want the police to provide video proof of rock throwing.  The police statements said rocks were thrown, but that isn't good enough, they have to a video, or else as they have said its proof it didn't happen.

That's a legal type of proof.  Demonstrate with objective evidence independent of your own honor that this happened. 

[Fenring]

Fenring, I understand the concept, but I disagree that you are correct about what they are asking.  Go back and read their statements.  They want the police to provide video proof of rock throwing.  The police statements said rocks were thrown, but that isn't good enough, they have to a video, or else as they have said its proof it didn't happen.

That's a legal type of proof.  Demonstrate with objective evidence independent of your own honor that this happened.

If people here were calling for sanctions or punishment to be levied against the police for misconduct then I'd agree with you. We've seen other cases here where a seemingly outrageous police action met with calls for censure against that officer. But on this topic the Ornery posters are arguing about who to believe in regards to the police account of what happened. It's about establishing the plausibility of one story versus the other, and to whit no one is talking about prosecuting either side. So it's not a legal issue, it's just about trying to figure out how to suss out the credibility of either side and form an opinion on what went down.

[TheDrake]

If they threw rocks that it just makes it more justified, but I doubt that it's all relevant to whether they had the authority to act.

And in such case, the authorities should say we used tear gas because they wouldn't disperse not because of rocks and tear gas. They may well be justified under the law to do that, just as cops in the sixties were legally justified using high pressure firehoses. How we feel about the actions of our agents very much depends on the truth of the matter.

The "burden of proof" relates to whether someone is charged with a crime.  If you see charges coming out of the protest, then the police and the prosecutors will have to meet a burden of proof.

I didn't mean a formal burden of proof, I shouldn't have used the phrase. I mean "what proof should convince the average citizen of the truth of a statement made publicly about events"

[Seriati]

But on this topic the Ornery posters are arguing about who to believe in regards to the police account of what happened.

I don't care who anyone believes.  That's different than articulating that one side is lying.

It's about establishing the plausibility of one story versus the other, and to whit no one is talking about prosecuting either side.

Honestly, it's not about plausibility.  If it were then everyone would acknowledge that the police account is plausible, as is the protestor account. 

So it's not a legal issue, it's just about trying to figure out how to suss out the credibility of either side and form an opinion on what went down.

There isn't enough information to make that determination.  Rules of assumption, e.g. the police are lying if they don't produce video, have nothing to do with trying to suss out credibility and everything to do with setting hurdles for what one doesn't want to believe. 

[Fenring]

Seriati there are plenty of real-life situations where you won't find conclusive data that prove one story or another. The best you can do is to form a balance of evidence and bring the credibility of both sides into it. LR is arguing that the credibility of the police is low, and jasonr is saying the credibility of both sides is low. Neither is talking about criminal charges, and no one is saying that either side's story is literally impossible (which is how you're interpreting the word "plausible"). True, you can go agnostic and say that without definitive video evidence you'll decline to form an opinion, but the brain basically doesn't work that way, and moreoever, most people on some level feel the need to form an opinion even in the face of incomplete data. You can scoff at that if you like, but I don't know if you've worked out to its final form what it would look like if people never worked on a deductive conclusion and only went based on straight facts. People would then have to believe almost nothing!

I think it's pretty clear what it means when we're trying to figure out what happened. An event occurred, we don't know what its facts were, and we basically create a set of probabilities about what happened. That's the best we can do. Actually that's more or less what happens in physics, too. Treating it like a court case where an opinion of this sort can be dismissed because the argument wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of a criminal charge is a real red herring.