National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Dwarvenhobble]

Because he was trying to get the preacher off stage, which is what you recommended, and the preacher went to the ground when people started to grab him. You can see it in the video.



That's what people are saying. I don't think it requires lethal force back, but this is America.

I've seen a longer version of the video.

They shot him running away. That's the screwed up thing. Also for the record he apparently died in hospital of the injuries not on the scene so while I will say yeh it doesn't need lethal force it does seem slightly like the officer in question wasn't aiming for lethal force as such.

You say that as if that isn't already the status quo for the ultra wealthy and major corporations, and this is tradition dating back to the days of the Pinkertons. Or that in the case of many major cities, most notably NYC, contemporary police departments were largely legitimized street gangs.

To an extent but it will be more widespread and less regulated though.

I fail to see the point being made here. Neither tstorm823 nor me were talking about any marches.

We were talking about the polarising effect of censorious language, and whether it alone turns somebody to the opposite extreme.

And I weighed on on how some forms of extremism can play out and how people can end up extreme or how extremists come to be seen as normal.

No, you're describing the work of a particular subset of feminists. "Suffragette" refers specifically to the struggle for suffrage.

Well they didn't just vanish they likely changed their names. I think some of the suffragettes in the USA became part of the temperance movement for example.

I'm not the one who originally brought it up, but I do think it's funny.

I mean look at this. Is this not the funniest thing you've seen all day? Start reading from the edits. https://archive.fo/wip/XPuKV

I'll say my end game as I brought it up.

To stop the stupidity before Chaz collapses and things get worse there.

I mean there's been two different reports of robbery so far.

Dude in his car saying some-one attacked him and stole him wallet and car keys.

Another dude saying some-one raided his tent taking his Mac-book, $400 in cash and his power bank too.

There's been less confirmed reports of multiple rapes.

What if we didn't rely on the permission of a small class of private owners to allow people to perform productive labor? In any case, it is silly to weigh business insurance rates against the continued violence and murders perpetrated by the state.

So what's the plan?

break through the concrete and start farms again?

You can start your own business but when you expand beyond a garage you'll need a premises which will mean insurance assuming you don't want to risk losing everything easily.

It seems silly to care about insurance rates until you look a the bigger picture and see how it will drive out smaller local companies. How it will lead to an area becoming deprived how it will impact the lives of people for years to come in said areas if not generations to come.

What's the point in winning the revolution to rule over ashes?

 

[tstorm823]

The NYPD are openly threatening the Mayor and his family, there are lynchings going on in California that are just being labeled suicides with zero investigation, police departments across the country are banning the use of tear gas then immediately using it anyway (often expired tear gas), the police union in Minneapolis plans to try to get the four disbarred officers rehired, officers across the country are showing solidarity with their fellow class traitors by quitting en masse as soon as any “bad apples” get punished for assault, our first amendment is being trampled on as press are targeted by police for assault and arrest, AND WE SPENT PAGES ARGUING ABOUT A REPORT FROM THE PIZZAGATE GUY ABOUT HOW A SINGLE RAVING STREET PREACHER MAY HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED. White people just want their excuse to not care. Their moral fable that all this anger is misplaced and everyone just needs to be as sterile as them. Well, I’ve no desire to teach anyone to distance themselves from their own illusions, I’m not your psychiatrist. Some day they will come for you, and then you’ll get your easily forgotten moral message, perhaps you’ll have the old poem written on your gravestone. But if it is a lesson you’d rather not learn too late, maybe stop LISTENING TO THE PIZZAGATE GUY and stand with the oppressed rather than their oppressors.

You mean one union threatened the Mayor with the threat of transparency, the coroner in California made a preliminary ruling while state inspectors are brought in for a deeper investigation, and you continue spreading propaganda because hey, what's the point in other people's tragedies if you can't push an ideology with them.

 

[Revnak]

You mean one union threatened the Mayor with the threat of transparency, the coroner in California made a preliminary ruling while state inspectors are brought in for a deeper investigation, and you continue spreading propaganda because hey, what's the point in other people's tragedies if you can't push an ideology with them.

A red moon rises in the East. Narrow is the way but long is the path. You will be the fifth. Do not waver.

 

[Houseman]

That's the heart of it. When you get down and analyze a lot of these arguments, they ultimately come down to finding an excuse not to give a shit. Once you see the pattern, you can't unsee it.

It also works the other way, when arguments are dismissed out of hand because you refuse to give the other party the benefit of the doubt and go straight to assuming things about them, like ulterior motives or their ethnicity.

Just assuming that white people think X and black people think Y seems a bit racist.

Want me to draw up another matrix on the possible outcomes of assuming bad/good faith based on your interlocutor's intentions? The only path on ever reaching a possible understanding is to assume good faith. If it turns out your interlocutor is acting in bad faith, you've wasted nothing but your own time. If it turns out the person was honest, you've just pushed him away from coming to an understanding.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The NYPD are openly threatening the Mayor and his family,

Is this the Mayor and his family calling to abolish the police force with the Police force guarding them pointing out the Police can just walk away if that's how he feels so he can see what happens without them?

there are lynchings going on in California that are just being labeled suicides with zero investigation,

We don't know yet all we know is two black men were found hanging

the police union in Minneapolis plans to try to get the four disbarred officers rehired,

The one who knelt on his neck shouldn't be but the others with retraining etc I can seem more of a case for.

officers across the country are showing solidarity with their fellow class traitors by quitting en masse as soon as any “bad apples” get punished for assault,

Because they don't feel supported. They're worried once incident going viral shot from a certain angle and they're done.

I mean that image of the Police officer pointing I think it was a tear gas launcher at a child. It's an illusion of perspective the officer was pointing the thing outward and the man with the child on his shoulders was not in line with him in reality but only lined in due to the angle of the shot.

The officers want to know their pensions aren't going to vanish. They want to know there will be fair investigations not knee jerk unilateral moves being made. They're quitting because why should they bother when they're seen as expendable or of no value by people?

our first amendment is being trampled on as press are targeted by police for assault and arrest, AND WE SPENT PAGES ARGUING ABOUT A REPORT FROM THE PIZZAGATE GUY ABOUT HOW A SINGLE RAVING STREET PREACHER MAY HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED. White people just want their excuse to not care.

Under Jim Crow rules I wouldn't be considered white.

Their moral fable that all this anger is misplaced and everyone just needs to be as sterile as them.

Targeting random businesses is misplaced anger.

Some day they will come for you, and then you’ll get your easily forgotten moral message, perhaps you’ll have the old poem written on your gravestone. But if it is a lesson you’d rather not learn too late, maybe stop LISTENING TO THE PIZZAGATE GUY and stand with the oppressed rather than their oppressors.

They'll come for me you say?

What if people have already tried to come for me. Not fully IRL but I'm sure some would have if they could. It wasn't the ones I thought would be the ones coming for me in the end though. It wasn't the ones being proclaimed to be "On the wrong side of history" in this case who decided to try and cancel me before.

 

[Trunkage]

I just looked up the training time for the police forces in Australia realising I had no idea how long their training is.

AFP: 24 weeks
NSW: 32 weeks
VIC: 31 weeks
SA: 27 weeks
WA: 28 weeks
NT: 30 weeks
QLD: not listed, but I’d presume its in line with the other states.

I had a friend do it in QLD. I seem to remember he was training for a year. But I don’t think all of that was at the academy. So perhaps sometime was spent in a precinct, under a supervision

He also had to have a bachelors degree, preferably in Science, before he could join. I dont know the bar for other states and countries.

They also don’t get training in that Killology nonsense. They do get trained to aim to kill when they unholster their weapon. But it’s a last resort. You have lots of tools that needs to be used first. Also, an assailant can run 7 meters before most police can unholster a weapon, let alone the general public

 

[Revnak]

They'll come for me you say?

What if people have already tried to come for me. Not fully IRL but I'm sure some would have if they could. It wasn't the ones I thought would be the ones coming for me in the end though. It wasn't the ones being proclaimed to be "On the wrong side of history" in this case who decided to try and cancel me before.

I hate you so I’ve no interest in going point for point here, but you do realize you just extended a Nazi metaphor to being cancelled online? “The Holocaust is when leftists get uppity in my mentions” is what you are saying. I’m presuming actual state violence will escalate to state violence equaling that of the Nazis, at least I have an out here. You just dove headfirst into nonsense.

 

[Buyetyen]

They also don’t get training in that Killology nonsense. They do get trained to aim to kill when they unholster their weapon. But it’s a last resort. You have lots of tools that needs to be used first. Also, an assailant can run 7 meters before most police can unholster a weapon, let alone the general public

Interesting fact: US police departments in most states have a sort of cultural exchange program. It allows US law enforcement to receive training and the like from law enforcement in other countries. Which sounds fine on paper, but the problem swiftly emerges when you see who is on the list of countries our cops are being trained by:

Israel
China
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Colombia
Hungary
Egypt

It's almost as if a militarized police force and the erosion of civil rights is the goal.

 

[ObsidianJones]

It also works the other way, when arguments are dismissed out of hand because you refuse to give the other party the benefit of the doubt and go straight to assuming things about them, like ulterior motives or their ethnicity.

Just assuming that white people think X and black people think Y seems a bit racist.

Want me to draw up another matrix on the possible outcomes of assuming bad/good faith based on your interlocutor's intentions? The only path on ever reaching a possible understanding is to assume good faith. If it turns out your interlocutor is acting in bad faith, you've wasted nothing but your own time. If it turns out the person was honest, you've just pushed him away from coming to an understanding.

Now, do you see why that is a problem?

That every time a bit of impropriety happens, there needs to be an argument? That you didn't see the entirety of the tape, that you don't know what happened before, that you weren't there, that this person isn't a saint, that ok this time might be bad but you need to look at the bigger picture.

That one side gets to command and dictate how the conversation flows. If they did something wrong, they absolve themselves. That their statements weigh more than yours or mine, and what they say is how the actual official record will state.

Or, screw it... that there needs to be an argument for the punishments that are doled out without a care in the world. I have to say one more time, no one cares if you arrest people for doing wrong things. We all want that. But you don't get to kill for a fake 20 dollar bill that you don't even know if Floyd knew about. You don't get to bring up his past when we're talking about a current egregious instance, especially when it has nothing to do with the current 'crime' that's being committed. Just as I would say if someone tried to justify malfeasance happening to you because of you intentionally crashing a car into someone because you were drunk or angry.

That the bar gets continually lowered from excessive force to justifiable force against the Black Community. Because of how dangerous of a job it is, force is allowed no matter what. That you can get a bullet in the back for running away... That the public will see any form of criminal activity as reason for violence.

Even if every cop from now on is honest that they legitimately thought their life was in danger when they pulled the trigger, should we not stop and consider why this is the case and still find that this is a danger to the Black Community, ergo still having the need for Black Lives Matters?

Because we're seeing how blacks are faring in this world. And it seems to a great deal of people that their lives are in danger every time a police officer even looks at them. Do you want to hear the argument that the black person had reason to fear for his life and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a black person's actions if he killed a cop our of the fear of his own life in many people's minds? Will we have the same people who are defending cops and just telling the rest of the public to have an open mind and not to rush to judgement in turn defend these black people? Who will use these current times as understanding of why a black person would think about shooting first at an officer who made even the slightest questionable movement?

I think we all know the answer is no, they wouldn't. Because the idea is no matter how dangerous, you need to comply with the law.

And that's all we're asking from Officers as well. Not hide behind the laws you make up to do worst stuff to the community you're supposed to look after.

 

[Houseman]

Now, do you see why that is a problem?

That every time a bit of impropriety happens, there needs to be an argument?

I'm not saying that there needs to be an argument. I'm saying that, if you want to argue, you should assume good faith, since that's the ONLY possible path that leads to convincing your interlocutor. If you can't do that, maybe take a break.

That you didn't see the entirety of the tape, that you don't know what happened before, that you weren't there, that this person isn't a saint, that ok this time might be bad but you need to look at the bigger picture.

That's what the courts do. That's what one's defense attorney would do for you their client, minus the "this person isn't a saint" thing.

That's called the presumption of innocence. You wanna see oppression? You wanna see racism? Remove that from the legal system and see what happens.

That one side gets to command and dictate how the conversation flows. If they did something wrong, they absolve themselves. That their statements weigh more than yours or mine, and what they say is how the actual official record will state.

Wait, sorry, what are we talking about? I thought we were talking about internet arguments. Are we talking about cops now?

Even if every cop from now on is honest that they legitimately thought their life was in danger when they pulled the trigger, should we not stop and consider why this is the case and still find that this is a danger to the Black Community, ergo still having the need for Black Lives Matters?

I'm sorry, can you rephrase that? I can't understand this sentence.

Because we're seeing how blacks are faring in this world

I think we're seeing only one side of the story. This is where the "despite being %13 percent of the population..." statistics come up, and then we'd go into hypotheses on why these statistics are the way that they are.

Sorry, I can't understand the majority of your post, and I don't know what you're trying to say or what point you're trying to make. I think you need more punctuation.

edit:

Do you want to hear the argument that the black person had reason to fear for his life and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a black person's actions if he killed a cop our of the fear of his own life in many people's minds? Will we have the same people who are defending cops and just telling the rest of the public to have an open mind and not to rush to judgement in turn defend these black people?

This sword cuts both ways.

Do you want to hear the argument that the cop had reason to fear for his life, and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a cop's actions if he killed a black man out of fear for his own life? Who is out there telling the black community to have an open mind and not rush to judgement when it comes to encounters with police?

It's as if one or both sides are saying "MY prejudice is justified, and theirs isn't!"

Both groups have prejudiced members among them. Rioting only widens the divide. Cops attack when riots happen, and one side thinks "Look! More police brutality! See, I was right all along! This confirms my prejudice!", and when black people riot, cops say "See, they can't behave! This confirms my racism!" and then both groups only end up with deeper trenches and the problem worsens.

 

[Trunkage]

Interesting fact: US police departments in most states have a sort of cultural exchange program. It allows US law enforcement to receive training and the like from law enforcement in other countries. Which sounds fine on paper, but the problem swiftly emerges when you see who is on the list of countries our cops are being trained by:

Israel
China
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Colombia
Hungary
Egypt

It's almost as if a militarized police force and the erosion of civil rights is the goal.

The US made killology up all on their own. But inspired particularly by the Israeli police.

Because the Israelis are well known for having the Palestinians under control (/sarcasm). I don’t know what the US see in that police force, because they aren’t very effective. China is way better at hiding crime against humanity and civil liberties (Hong Kong excluded.)

Another interesting fact: I was talking to a person from Hong Kong, still has family there. When rioting, the broke a lot of pro-Chinese businesses but looting was generally non-existent. I didn’t know about that second part. I don’t know why destruction of property is fine but theft is a step to far. But it’s an interesting line they made

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I hate you so I’ve no interest in going point for point here,

Well yes extremists do tend to hate it and not like engaging when they find resistance to their ideology and a person not immediately receptive.

but you do realize you just extended a Nazi metaphor to being cancelled online?

Except it doesn't stay online.

I mean I remember a certain youtuber and Scientist people tried to cancel by sending letters to his work, the local media and the Police claiming said Scientist was a Neonazi. The Scientist in question lives and works in a country where that sort of thing carries a death sentence. Luckily it was BS based on the ravings of a few angry deluded people online so no-one believed it.

Can the metaphor only be applied one way can you not end up fighting the monster so long you become the monsters yourself?

“The Holocaust is when leftists get uppity in my mentions” is what you are saying. I’m presuming actual state violence will escalate to state violence equaling that of the Nazis, at least I have an out here. You just dove headfirst into nonsense.

Oh it was more than uppity in my mentions lol. I had some-one repeatedly attempt to dox me.

You think the violence will escalate but is that not a slippery slope fallacy?

Your present argument is "They will come for you one day so attack them first". What if they don't come for anyone. Not actually come for them and instead you're seeing patterns where none truly are?

You don't get to bring up his past when we're talking about a current egregious instance, especially when it has nothing to do with the current 'crime' that's being committed. Just as I would say if someone tried to justify malfeasance happening to you because of you intentionally crashing a car into someone because you were drunk or angry.

That the bar gets continually lowered from excessive force to justifiable force against the Black Community. Because of how dangerous of a job it is, force is allowed no matter what. That you can get a bullet in the back for running away... That the public will see any form of criminal activity as reason for violence.

Ok in the George Floyd case I have to say Houseman has a point I think.

You also have a point.

George Floyd didn't deserve to die (yes I've seen the video of him 'resisting' and honestly it doesn't warrant what happened and was hardly some violent scuffle or anything)

The point is his past may have had an impact on how police approached him.

Lets say the cops ran hims plates and got his name come up. Lets say they ran his name though the system. The system comes up with previous for armed robbery with a firearm. They don't know he's changed. They don't know he's trying to turn his life round. They do now know they're more likely than not about to faced an armed person based on precedent on his file

On the case of the most recent one.

Yes shooting him in the back was stupid when he posed 0 threat but lets be clear here he was running away after having tried to shoot an officer with a tazer and then ramming his own car into the police cruiser.

Even if every cop from now on is honest that they legitimately thought their life was in danger when they pulled the trigger, should we not stop and consider why this is the case and still find that this is a danger to the Black Community, ergo still having the need for Black Lives Matters?

Because we're seeing how blacks are faring in this world. And it seems to a great deal of people that their lives are in danger every time a police officer even looks at them. Do you want to hear the argument that the black person had reason to fear for his life and his fight or flight response flared up? Will that excuse a black person's actions if he killed a cop our of the fear of his own life in many people's minds? Will we have the same people who are defending cops and just telling the rest of the public to have an open mind and not to rush to judgement in turn defend these black people? Who will use these current times as understanding of why a black person would think about shooting first at an officer who made even the slightest questionable movement?

It's two different attitudes.

Police are meant to be suspicious of everyone and see threats because one lapse and they're dead.

People are supposed to be able to trust the police and not go for them


An initial move would be to make it so police have to start with a Taser and Mace and use that for a year or two initially before being given firearms so they can learn to assess threat level and understand they don't need their gun to solve things.

 

[MrCalavera]

Judge Dredd is also a better trained, better behaved and more moral police officer than many of the ones in real life who commit atrocities like the George Floyd murder. Like Judge Dredd without the broad remit that Mega City One allows, would be a better class of cop than America is currently enjoying.

Judge Dredd is who they want to be. Judge Lex is who they are. (I didn't read the comics, so that's a reference to the movie. The good one.)

Another interesting fact: I was talking to a person from Hong Kong, still has family there. When rioting, the broke a lot of pro-Chinese businesses but looting was generally non-existent. I didn’t know about that second part. I don’t know why destruction of property is fine but theft is a step to far. But it’s an interesting line they made

It's not about the money, it's about sending a message.
Optics matter. That way it's harder to spin petty theft as the reason for riots, rather than the desperation.

 

[Revnak]

Another interesting fact: I was talking to a person from Hong Kong, still has family there. When rioting, the broke a lot of pro-Chinese businesses but looting was generally non-existent. I didn’t know about that second part. I don’t know why destruction of property is fine but theft is a step to far. But it’s an interesting line they made

Eh, if they’re damaging businesses somebody’s stealing goods, the argument may just not be as convincing there so it’s not used as much (though personally I’ve seen plenty defend the CCP using the “they’re all looters” logic). Riots always involve some looting.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The Fight to Abolish the Police Is the Fight to Abolish Capitalism - Left Voice

With the current uprisings against police terror, it is imperative that we understand how to rid ourselves of state repression and achieve real abolition. The struggle requires an understanding of police violence as well as of capitalism.

www.leftvoice.org

Targeting random businesses is misplaced anger.

Not at all. The core function of police- the reason why the ruling class allows money to be spent on them existing at all- is to prevent the property of the rich from being destroyed or taken. Destroying the property of the rich, or taking it, especially if it can be done with impunity, and despite the existence of the police, attacks their reason for existence directly. If there is no amount of police that can protect the property of the rich; if their conduct provokes more destruction of wealth than would occur in their absence, then the rationale for maintaining them in their current form is strained. Destruction and looting also spreads out the attention of police departments and gives them less resources to use cracking down on protestors or murdering random homeless by impromptu firing squad.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Ok in the George Floyd case I have to say Houseman has a point I think.

You also have a point.

George Floyd didn't deserve to die (yes I've seen the video of him 'resisting' and honestly it doesn't warrant what happened and was hardly some violent scuffle or anything)

The point is his past may have had an impact on how police approached him.

Lets say the cops ran hims plates and got his name come up. Lets say they ran his name though the system. The system comes up with previous for armed robbery with a firearm. They don't know he's changed. They don't know he's trying to turn his life round. They do now know they're more likely than not about to faced an armed person based on precedent on his file

On the case of the most recent one.

Yes shooting him in the back was stupid when he posed 0 threat but lets be clear here he was running away after having tried to shoot an officer with a tazer and then ramming his own car into the police cruiser.

Then if that's the case, then the officers acted in a prejudicial manner. Point blank, it doesn't matter for anyone else if you're acting out of your presumptions, no matter the past of the individual.

Say there's an argument with a well known abuser. He was arrested for it, you've seen it, he's admitted it. He's in a bar that you go to. And he's having a heated conversation with a woman. If it gets too heated in your mind and you slam him into a wall because you feel in your gut that he's going to haul off and hit this woman... congratulations. You committed assault and he has every reason to sue you.

Even if you were defending, even if you were just being a good guy, and even if he was a known physical abuser, he didn't do anything. He got loud. That's allowed. You were more than welcome to get in between. Everyone would thank you for talking things out. But you got physical. And no matter his past, you had nothing at that point to warrant a physical response.

You act with the situation at hand. That's supposed to be police procedure 101. What he did in the past was the past. We deal with the present. And we only use the past if this is a third strike situation, or to see a pattern of behavior. We do not use it to justify violence after the fact.

And that's what is happening. If he paid his debt to society, then he paid it. It can't be held over his head every time he's stopped. It can't be used to justify treatment because he 'could' be like that. All that matters if he's like that now or not.

It's two different attitudes.

Police are meant to be suspicious of everyone and see threats because one lapse and they're dead.

People are supposed to be able to trust the police and not go for them

An initial move would be to make it so police have to start with a Taser and Mace and use that for a year or two initially before being given firearms so they can learn to assess threat level and understand they don't need their gun to solve things.

But hey, that's the same for the other side of the coin. As we're seeing now. Because no matter how many dead bodies that the cops create, they wear the uniform of the good guys, so they are always faultless.

And that's the problem. Because while I admired cops to the point that I was going to be one just ten years ago, I realize that cops are just human beings. Civil Servants. We have to leave ideals at the door when you're dealing with life or death situations. Not every black person who was killed by cops was killed unjustly. I completely get that. Not every cop is a good guy. A good number of people have trouble with that. And that's where the disconnect comes into play.

Because if you're prone to believing one party over another, then that party can say anything. We've seen proof in this very thread about how cops call out other cops for BS and get punished for it. Their voices don't get heard, and we're told by the other cops that everything they did was above board and legal. And we're all supposed to dust our hands of the situation and just take their side of it? How am I supposed to trust the police if I've seen that all my life?

This is what is happening right now. Cops are arresting legal observers just because. They are lying when they say they don't know what a Legal Observer is, and arresting them regardless.

I can never trust an organization that has more authority than me, more of an ability to make light of the law however they see fit, and either I comply or I get brutalized. If that wasn't the case, I would not fear the police. But this distrust is their own doing. The masses are just seeing it more now.

But I do like your idea. Guns for non rookies who've shown they can handle it. And that has to be a two way street. Illegal firearms should be wiped off of the street and have stiffer penalities.

As a gun owner, I'm willing to have more restrictions placed on me and what I can own if it strips the police officers their speaking piece that they need to shoot first and ask questions later. I actually believe Black Lives Matter. And yes, All Lives at that. And if I think that, I'm willing to give something up as simple as a firearm if that means more people can make it home to their families.

 

[Hawki]

The Fight to Abolish the Police Is the Fight to Abolish Capitalism - Left Voice

With the current uprisings against police terror, it is imperative that we understand how to rid ourselves of state repression and achieve real abolition. The struggle requires an understanding of police violence as well as of capitalism.

www.leftvoice.org

Yeah, because, y'know, socialist states were free of police and didn't have borders either. 0_0

Not at all. The core function of police- the reason why the ruling class allows money to be spent on them existing at all- is to prevent the property of the rich from being destroyed or taken. Destroying the property of the rich, or taking it, especially if it can be done with impunity, and despite the existence of the police, attacks their reason for existence directly. If there is no amount of police that can protect the property of the rich; if their conduct provokes more destruction of wealth than would occur in their absence, then the rationale for maintaining them in their current form is strained. Destruction and looting also spreads out the attention of police departments and gives them less resources to use cracking down on protestors or murdering random homeless by impromptu firing squad.

If police were abolished, the rich would simply hire private security and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

Doesn't sound like fun.

 

[Houseman]

if their conduct provokes more destruction of wealth than would occur in their absence, then the rationale for maintaining them in their current form is strained

Or it backfires and people pump more money into the police so that they can overpower the looters. Also, it can backfire by cementing and entrenching racism, and gives a reason for people to say "See? They're animals! They need to be put down!"

If this is a campaign tactic, I don't think it's a good way to get votes. "Mafia coercion tactics" are the first thing that springs to mind.

edit: Actually, it's kind of like stirring up a mob or a riot in order to run black people out of town. "Their presence provokes more destruction than would occur in their absence! It's their fault we're doing this! It won't stop until they're gone! Hate them, not us!"

But this distrust is their own doing.

Does that work the other way around? When cops distrust an 'unarmed black man', who's to blame?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The Fight to Abolish the Police Is the Fight to Abolish Capitalism - Left Voice

With the current uprisings against police terror, it is imperative that we understand how to rid ourselves of state repression and achieve real abolition. The struggle requires an understanding of police violence as well as of capitalism.

www.leftvoice.org

Not at all. The core function of police- the reason why the ruling class allows money to be spent on them existing at all- is to prevent the property of the rich from being destroyed or taken. Destroying the property of the rich, or taking it, especially if it can be done with impunity, and despite the existence of the police, attacks their reason for existence directly. If there is no amount of police that can protect the property of the rich; if their conduct provokes more destruction of wealth than would occur in their absence, then the rationale for maintaining them in their current form is strained. Destruction and looting also spreads out the attention of police departments and gives them less resources to use cracking down on protestors or murdering random homeless by impromptu firing squad.

Ah but people are being held accountable for the fires or they are being investigated.

Hell they've caught some of the looters of some of the more high end stuff when they tried to sell it on already.

Also all you'll get without the police is even less accountable private security.

Then if that's the case, then the officers acted in a prejudicial manner. Point blank, it doesn't matter for anyone else if you're acting out of your presumptions, no matter the past of the individual.

Except you have to act based on info even if that info is prior info.

It's why drugs squads bust into houses rather than politely calling in day time. It's why counter terrorism squad break down the door with guns drawn rather than politely knock in normal uniforms.

They can only act on the info they have and the info they had said multiple armed robberies on record.

Say there's an argument with a well known abuser. He was arrested for it, you've seen it, he's admitted it. He's in a bar that you go to. And he's having a heated conversation with a woman. If it gets too heated in your mind and you slam him into a wall because you feel in your gut that he's going to haul off and hit this woman... congratulations. You committed assault and he has every reason to sue you.

Even if you were defending, even if you were just being a good guy, and even if he was a known physical abuser, he didn't do anything. He got loud. That's allowed. You were more than welcome to get in between. Everyone would thank you for talking things out. But you got physical. And no matter his past, you had nothing at that point to warrant a physical response.

Except to prevent harm.

In your example if he went to hit her and you grabbed his wrist it would be a different matter a crime was in progress and you intervened.

The only reason you were there and ready was you knew about his priors.

You act with the situation at hand. That's supposed to be police procedure 101. What he did in the past was the past. We deal with the present. And we only use the past if this is a third strike situation, or to see a pattern of behavior. We do not use it to justify violence after the fact.

In this case he did technically resist and thus resisting escalated the situation where the officers could have felt he was a risk to them.

Again the acted badly / over-reacted.

And that's what is happening. If he paid his debt to society, then he paid it. It can't be held over his head every time he's stopped. It can't be used to justify treatment because he 'could' be like that. All that matters if he's like that now or not.

It can however inform how to approach and to approach with caution especially in the case of serial offenders.

But hey, that's the same for the other side of the coin. As we're seeing now. Because no matter how many dead bodies that the cops create, they wear the uniform of the good guys, so they are always faultless.

They're not faultless. They're human. There always will be issues based round them being human but you don't dismantle it all because of humans.

And that's the problem. Because while I admired cops to the point that I was going to be one just ten years ago, I realize that cops are just human beings. Civil Servants. We have to leave ideals at the door when you're dealing with life or death situations. Not every black person who was killed by cops was killed unjustly. I completely get that. Not every cop is a good guy. A good number of people have trouble with that. And that's where the disconnect comes into play.

This is where we can agree

Because if you're prone to believing one party over another, then that party can say anything. We've seen proof in this very thread about how cops call out other cops for BS and get punished for it. Their voices don't get heard, and we're told by the other cops that everything they did was above board and legal. And we're all supposed to dust our hands of the situation and just take their side of it? How am I supposed to trust the police if I've seen that all my life?

Which is why cameras and a complains commission or oversight board is a good idea that not only punishes officers who do wrong by breaking from procedure but also make procedural recommendations.

In George Floyd's case the officer didn't use proper procedure as (or so I'm told) procedure is to kneel on his head. I dunno the way round that maybe give cops traqs to knock people out instead or something bonkers like that who knows.

This is what is happening right now. Cops are arresting legal observers just because. They are lying when they say they don't know what a Legal Observer is, and arresting them regardless.

Part of that is issues over verifying identities it seems as there have been claims of agitators presenting fake press credentials too.

I can never trust an organization that has more authority than me, more of an ability to make light of the law however they see fit, and either I comply or I get brutalized. If that wasn't the case, I would not fear the police. But this distrust is their own doing. The masses are just seeing it more now.

It is mostly the cops screwing this up but there are some exacerbating the situation e.g. people claiming cops killed a dog or passing round the photo claiming the officer was aiming at a child.

Hell there were claims of people trying to stage stuff on other countries

But I do like your idea. Guns for non rookies who've shown they can handle it. And that has to be a two way street. Illegal firearms should be wiped off of the street and have stiffer penalities.

Agreed on the firearm issue.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Or it backfires and people pump more money into the police so that they can overpower the looters.

Against the wishes of the communities that are doing the looting? That is a treacherous path for a local government.

Does that work the other way around? When cops distrust an 'unarmed black man', who's to blame?

What caused that distrust? Is that 'distrust' rational? Whether it works both ways depends on what is actually causing it, not some arbitrary bothsiderism.

People are rational to fear and distrust the police. The police are not rational to fear and distrust unarmed black people and the various others they are able to murder with apparent impunity unless caught on video (and sometimes even then).

Ah but people are being held accountable for the fires or they are being investigated.

Being able to do it with impunity helps any strategic impact of looting, but it is not strictly necessary.