Protestors vs. Rioters

[Kasandra]

FOX News displayed a graphic showing how the stock market has responded to civil unrest after the assassination of MLK and the police beating of Rodney King and killings of Michael Brown and George Floyd. They now apologize for airing the "insensitive" graph, but I'm wondering what the context would have been.

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

"The infographic used on FOX News Channel’s Special Report to illustrate market reactions to historic periods of civil unrest should have never aired on television without full context. We apologize for the insensitivity of the image and take this issue seriously," the Fox News spokesperson said in the statement.

[ScottF]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

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

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

What do you make of that?

I think the wording of the headline is unintentionally ironic and indicates a bias. You?

[Kasandra]

As in my previous post, context is important.  The headline is a shallow gloss over the story, which itself is a superficial account of events.  In reading several stories about London's protests yesterday, I see that there were massive gatherings that were largely peaceful and one reference to an incident outside of #10 Downing Street.  In this story I'm not seeing irony as much as not very good reporting.  Since the George Floyd protests all focus on police racism and overly aggressive tactics, there's a lot of anger everywhere.  No surprise that legitimate protests might spark "scuffles" with police in a few places.  That's different from rioters, looters and infiltrators determined to start confrontations and violence.

[ScottF]

ScottF

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main point is this: if you can't articulate a cogent thought on what you'd like to actually see done in the real world, we're no longer having an adult conversation.  At least "burn it all down and see what happens" is an actionable idea, but that (thankfully) doesn't appear to be part of a peaceful protester's action plan.

[ScottF]

The headline is a shallow gloss over the story, which itself is a superficial account of events. I'm not seeing irony as much as not very good reporting.

Fair

[TheDrake]

Is it wrong to describe a day as mostly sunny if the sun is obscured by clouds for an hour in the afternoon?

The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence. In Buffalo, a cop knocked a man to the ground who was not a threat, cracked his skull, and then stepped right over him. Why? Because he was disobedient. The cops have been charged, and 57 other Buffalo cops withdrew from special duty assignments in support of the cop that broke somebody's head for standing there when he was told to go home.

[DonaldD]

Raising awareness is actually something being done in the real world. Especially if you consider that the goal is to raise awareness within the police and security services themselves.

Is it an effective way of raising awareness with police? Probably not, if you think of the police as just a collection of the people in uniforms. On the other hand, putting pressure on the hierarchy of police and security services, especially in the context of elected officials, which will then drive awareness down into the police services , then raising awareness by having large, generalized demonstrations might just be effective.

[TheDeamon]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

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

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

What do you make of that?

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

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

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

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

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

[TheDrake]

Can somebody be a rioter on their own? If somebody throws a brick through a window but everyone surrounding them is non violent, is it one rioter surrounded by protesters? Or is the real point that now they should all be called rioters?

[Fenring]

Raising awareness is actually something being done in the real world. Especially if you consider that the goal is to raise awareness within the police and security services themselves.

It is true that making people care about their surroundings more is a real thing. But I don't actually think the objective of these demonstrations is to reach out to police forces to get them to acknowledge that hurting people is bad and makes their jobs harder. That's not the tone, and that's not the message. I detect more anti-police messaging then helping-police messaging going on. So if the awareness raising isn't aimed at police, then it must be aimed at other people. For the most part it seems to be aimed at people who are already believers, which is where the bad form of activism heads: towards echo chamber navel-gazing. I will be the first in line to say I want police reforms, and I would support initiatives to head in that direction. I have seen zero social media posts about that, though.

[Kasandra]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

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

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

What do you make of that?

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

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

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

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

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

The police officer in this instance was on horseback pushing protesters down a street and was knocked off her horse by a traffic light.  Chaos (or pandemonium, if you had a higher education) ensued due to the police breaking ranks and the horse bolting into the crowd.  Rioters?  Some in the protest crowd tended to the injured officer. Good samaritans?  It's so hard to come up with one name for all of the totality of protesters.  One cloud can ruin a sunny day.

[ScottF]

The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence.

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

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

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

[DonaldD]

John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?

[TheDeamon]

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

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

If that's the incident I think it is, the guy who was pushed over was an old white guy. So claims of racism are going to be hard to make stick.

[ScottF]

Protesters. Either the media doesn’t get how words work, or something else is going on...
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/3-protesters-track-officers-their-home-light-their-police-cars-fire-authorities-say/Y4BL2CZGHVCIZFP62CMDCVQJIU/

[TheDeamon]

John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?

According to some people, everyone suffers from some form of mental illness. So yes?

[TheDeamon]

Protesters. Either the media doesn’t get how words work, or something else is going on...
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/3-protesters-track-officers-their-home-light-their-police-cars-fire-authorities-say/Y4BL2CZGHVCIZFP62CMDCVQJIU/

The lead in is even "better"

Three protesters are in jail Thursday after being arrested for trying to set police cars on fire with Molotov cocktails.

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

[Kasandra]

Three protesters are in jail Thursday after being arrested for trying to set police cars on fire with Molotov cocktails.

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

The spot theory says that if you spread a brown spot (rioters) on a white shirt (protesters) to cover the whole shirt it's no longer a white shirt, it's brown (antifa).  Let's not beat around the bush.

[DonaldD]

John Lennon was murdered by a man with mental illness.  Are all murders the result of people with mental illness?

According to some people, everyone suffers from some form of mental illness. So yes?

According to some people, the moon is made of cheese, and the Earth is flat.

[TheDrake]

The demands are pretty simple, and you'll see it on all the signs. Equal treatment. Equal treatment by race, and equal accountability for police using violence.

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

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

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

Black cops can be biased also. Being black doesn't make you immune from making assumptions about potential threats. Studies have been done. The Buffalo case lands under the brutality issue. These are separable but not unrelated. Brutality occurs in a non-racial context, but more often in a racial context.

[ScottF]

I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

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

[TheDrake]

I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

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

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

[Kasandra]

I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

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

Trevor Noah said, "There's no right way to protest, that's what protest is."

[Crunch]

I watched the Buffalo video and have two thoughts:

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

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

That’s a false equivalency. The protesters with MLK did not attack or kill police officers, burn down buildings, or loot businesses.

[Kasandra]

Neither did 99.9% of these protesters.  Talk about false equivalency...

[Crunch]

Are you saying a small percentage gave the vast majority a bad reputation? You’re probably gonna want to get that one back.

[Crunch]

Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

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

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

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

[rightleft22]

Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

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

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

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

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

[Kasandra]

Breaking News!! Trump tweeted this morning:

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

and

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

There is no conspiracy theory too weird and insane that he won't buy into it if it comes from one of his trusted sources.

[TheDeamon]

"Could be a setup" indeed, but the police walking that line had no way knowing that, and someone should have stopped to check on his welfare all the same. It wasn't like they were going to miss the presence of an officer for the whole less than 2 minutes it would take to determine he wasn't critically injured and radio for medical if needed.

[Kasandra]

"Could be a setup" indeed

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

[DonaldD]

"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup"...

I think you may have misread TheDaemon's intent with that post...

[Kasandra]

"Could be a setup" indeed

If you want to argue it was a "setup"...

I think you may have misread TheDaemon's intent with that post...

I read him to mean that even if it was a setup the police acted inappropriately. I object to the premise that it might have been a setup unless someone (doesn't have to be him) can come up with support for Trump's claim.  You can say "could have..." for anything without evidence, for instance, that George Floyd could have committed suicide by cop.  He could have, couldn't he?

[DonaldD]

I'm pretty sure " 'could be a setup' indeed" was meant to convey TheDaemon's strong doubt that it could in fact have been a setup - meaning he was mocking Trump's implication.

But I'm sure TheDaemon can clarify...

[ScottF]

Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

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

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

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

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

It's more about proportionality not seeming to matter. If the main concern was actually addressing disproportionate harm to a particular minority, it would follow that there would be massive attention (to crunch's point, protests, demand for change, etc.) around the area where it's overwhelmingly larger than police-caused harm. So we have to accept it's not about seeking change based on the actual scale of harm, but external injustice as the specific cause - regardless of scale. I think it's ok to admit that?

[DonaldD]

Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.

[ScottF]

Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.

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

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

[DonaldD]

I see your misunderstanding - no, the current protests are focusing on disproportionate harm of a minority ultimately resulting from police interactions as well as structural racism.  Addressing the effects of poverty,  structural racism, and police culture will all require different types of initiatives - though some of those initiatives might overlap -  as does addressing cancer.

[yossarian22c]

Cancers kill more black people than police interactions.  We should cure all cancers before making any attempt to address police violence.

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

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

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

If police had better relations with the community they may have better luck reducing violence in other parts of society as well.

[TheDeamon]

"Could be a setup" indeed

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

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

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

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

Now with all of that said, it still brings us back to the Police Officers themselves, and even if the old guy was there to play "slip and fall" antics for a camera, it doesn't excuse how the Police handled it.

[Kasandra]

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

Unless some actual evidence is produced to support the claim, I'd give it a less than 2% chance of being valid. It is given some validity because there are some fringe people out there who are fully aware of "the optics" of the policy roughly handling a harmless seeming old white guy.

So now you've identified the real villain in this latest conspiracy cockadoodle.  The *censored*ing President of the United States is making this case!  I hope you agree that *he* needs to be defunded and reformed, and there's an obvious place and time to begin that process.

Also, thanks for clarifying what you meant.  I never accept the opinion about what somebody else meant.  I need to hear it from the original poster.

[Fenring]

I am now seeing multiple social media posts - perhaps spurred on by the 'de-fund the police' movement - which are arguing that rioting and looting should not be considered as violent acts, because they are a valid form of protesting and changing the system. In fact not only valid, but good, and the acts of rioting and looting are what people should be doing. The one argument in favor of this which does bear some resemblance to old ideas is that if non-violence does not shake the system, then violence is all that remains. This sounds similar to what Jefferson wrote, but the wrinkle in this formulation is that apparently looting isn't violence. I am wondering why this definition "not violent" is necessary; why not just say "we're all for violence"? Maybe it's an aesthetic thing, like they just can't see themselves as sporting berets, yellow Che t-shirts and military boots.

[TheDrake]

The FBI doesn't consider either burglary or arson violent crime.

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

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

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

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

I'm not making any statement of support for any point of view, just spitting out some thoughts.

[Fenring]

However that's somewhat of a technicality. The reality is that it can be violent and cause bodily harm.

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

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

Yes, I didn't mean by "we're all for violence" that it should imply "any kinds of violence is ok." As an example of this distinction, MMA fighters clearly are 'for' violence, within parameters. Banned maneuvers, to say nothing of setting fire to the arena, are out of bounds violent actions, whereas punch an opponent is part of the program. "we're all for violence" does not need to imply willingness to burn down the world, all it means is that violence in and of itself is not considered unacceptable in context of (here) communicating a message. Don't even see why this should be objectionable, if we're being honest, since clearly some people do think violence of some sorts is ok; otherwise what would become of the "punch a Nazi" slogan?

[TheDeamon]

However that's somewhat of a technicality. The reality is that it can be violent and cause bodily harm.

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

Except when they are. If the KKK throws a brick through your window, or decorates your lawn with a burning cross, it isn't peaceful protest they're engaging in.

[TheDrake]

Don't even see why this should be objectionable, if we're being honest, since clearly some people do think violence of some sorts is ok; otherwise what would become of the "punch a Nazi" slogan?

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

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

To be sure, the antifa and related far leftists think nothing short of the violent overthrow of the current government will be sufficient. Which is why I've stated I'm generally okay with treating them as a subversive revolutionary group. Care has to be taken to keep them separated out, otherwise you wind up with McCarthyism and people getting blackballed just because they listed to a radical give a speech, or visiting their house to discuss philosophy.

[wmLambert]

The elderly "protestor" who caused two police to be suspended for pushing him to the ground has emerged as a person of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nuKMYEjN6g&feature=emb_title[/video]
Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa. It seems he was using a scanner to capture the police frequency. That was why he was crowding the police when ordered to back off. He bragged about how many times he could get arrested and then get off.

[Crunch]

Yeah, there's something a little off about the whole thing with Martin Gugino. He's on camera bragging about how he's down there to "have some fun" and it's pretty clear he was doing something pretty sketchy with his phone and scanning the police officers (Gugino is a former IT guy). He's since locked down his social media but it was virulently anti-police. He did everything he could to make this situation occur. In the end, I think he was looking for just this kind of confrontation, the "injury" is his big payday as well as becoming an icon for the cause. That the police were such willing participants is a shame.

[TheDrake]

If he had an illegal jamming device, wouldn't the police have trotted it out by now? A stock cell phone doesn't have the power to jam communications.

Regardless of any history of agitation, he was clearly non-threatening in this instance. And even if he had a jammer, it doesn't mean you throw him to the ground. You confiscate it and charge him under FCC rules.

[Crunch]

I don't really know the specifics of how this works but the story is that he wasn't jamming the police comms, he was trying to "skim" the information like frequencies from police devices so rioters could eavesdrop on police communications and better coordinate the evening's festivities.

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

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

I dunno man, it all just looks weird as hell. I'm not sure what I see on that video.