Protestors vs. Rioters

[wmLambert]

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.

[Fenring]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[wmLambert]

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.

[Kasandra]

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?

[wmLambert]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Kasandra]

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.

[DJQuag]

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.

[Kasandra]

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.

[DJQuag]

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.

[Kasandra]

I apparently leaped too quickly. My apologies.

[DJQuag]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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?

[wmLambert]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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

[Seriati]

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.

[wmLambert]

...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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Kasandra]

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:

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?

[NobleHunter]

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.

[rightleft22]

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.

[ScottF]

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.

[Kasandra]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[ScottF]

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.

[Kasandra]

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?

[Fenring]

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'.

[DonaldD]

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:

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.

[Fenring]

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?

[DonaldD]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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)

[TheDeamon]

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."

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[wmLambert]

...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."

[Kasandra]

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...

"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.

[TheDeamon]

"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)

[rightleft22]

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'.   

[Fenring]

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.