US riots

[Dolan]

@fightinfrenchman That's because it's part of a conspiracy.

[vardar]

@vardar No reason for them to be completely anonymous and not affiliated with any actual branch of law enforcement.

It’s probably a part of the secret service. It’s the president and the federal government. Maybe you have a point, but you need to think about who protects the president. 100’s of millions are spent protecting him and others in the executive branch. Members of the secret service could hate Trump, but their job is to protect him and they are experts in their field. They are the best in the world in protecting and threat assessment. Everything they do in protecting him is calculated, regardless of their political opinions of the man and his cabinet.

[vardar]

You really need to think about this particular situation. This isn’t about trump being a fascist and ordering “guards!” to “take them away!” like you see in the movies.

Edit: now, if this was elsewhere then that is totally acceptable because city and state police really need to have identifiable credentials, for sure. BUT, this is the federal government and the executive branch we are talking about here. These are not normal police forces and the rules are completely different.

[fightinfrenchman]

@vardar No reason for them to be completely anonymous and not affiliated with any actual branch of law enforcement.

It’s probably a part of the secret service. It’s the president and the federal government. Maybe you have a point, but you need to think about who protects the president. 100’s of millions are spent protecting him and others in the executive branch. Members of the secret service could hate Trump, but their job is to protect him and they are experts in their field. They are the best in the world in protecting and threat assessment. Everything they do in protecting him is calculated, regardless of their political opinions of the man and his cabinet.

Or they could just be random people with guns, body armor, and shields. If some random people like that told you you couldn't pass them, how would you feel?

[vardar]

@vardar No reason for them to be completely anonymous and not affiliated with any actual branch of law enforcement.

It’s probably a part of the secret service. It’s the president and the federal government. Maybe you have a point, but you need to think about who protects the president. 100’s of millions are spent protecting him and others in the executive branch. Members of the secret service could hate Trump, but their job is to protect him and they are experts in their field. They are the best in the world in protecting and threat assessment. Everything they do in protecting him is calculated, regardless of their political opinions of the man and his cabinet.

Or they could just be random people with guns, body armor, and shields. If some random people like that told you you couldn't pass them, how would you feel?

You’re protesting the White House and this happens. This isn’t a conspiracy theory where vigilantes try to steer people away. They don’t give a crap about whatever the protest is about, whatever it may be. They have one job and that’s all they do... And they have assessed that protestors that close to the White House pose a threat and they deter it by setting up a wider perimeter.

And in case you didn’t know, there are snipers and armed gunmen in, on, and around the White House constantly. Not a game for them.

[vardar]

Plus, you really think the White House is going to let a random unit of armed gunmen do this? The whole place is under constant surveillance.

[duckzilla]

A nice contribution in /askhistorians

[Vinyanyérë]

1) If acquiescing to demands stops protests surely it will stop riots. I don't deny that. But, what exactly are the demands? How do you even implement those changes (instantly). The issue at hand is an educational issue and the issue of mindset. It is process which will take long time to achieve. We can surely say that racism is lot less now compared to the past. At most government can more actively and aggressively push towards the desired change but it will still take years, and in the mean time these acts of racism will continue to occur albeit less frequently. Not to mention that agreeing to demands sets a very bad precedent.

Firstly, I asked for proof of three things (which were not intended to be an exhaustive list of alternatives) and you responded to one of them.

Next, it's not possible to provide an exact list of demands, since that will vary at a local and state level depending on the makeup of individual communities. Perhaps community officials could hold meetings with protest representatives to find out what their communities want. It's not necessarily the case, however, that governments (local, state, federal) need to implement all or the most radical proposals suggested or that they need to do so instantaneously.

2) Again what you mean by violence is subjective. Throwing a flash bang to disperse the visibly growing and riled up crowd to avoid potential confrontation and risk to public life and property isn't violence. It is the view you see with.

Violent : "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

Intent here isn't to hurt anyone, rather to avoid getting hurt.

So firstly here, this section of discussion initially used the context of throwing stones and using tear gas, and you switched to flash bang grenades. Do you consider the context behind an act as determining whether or not it is violent or not? Per the definition you provided, it doesn't matter if the broader goal behind throwing a flash bang is to disperse a crowd to avoid confrontation. The act itself has the intent of causing harm, the context you've provided is an attempt to justify that that intent of causing harm is ultimately moral. But whether it's moral or not is not relevant to the discussion. Under your provided definition, throwing a flash bang and even more so using tear gas or throwing a stone would qualify as violence.

3) Police manpower is spread too thin. These rioters smartly disguise themselves with large crowds of protesters. When they arrive at specific location they split up, loot, destroy and run off. Right now it is not practically possible for police to identify, separate, and arrest few specific individuals from the crowds of hundreds, thousands. Even if they do manage they are at the receiving end as they will be accused brutality and racism, even if the actions were justified. That leaves only one option of catching them red-handed, which they are trying but to difficult.

Honestly not sure what point you're making here that I haven't directly responded to.

HK:
We are talking about acts of violence from protesters not police brutality. Your examples are of police trying to suppress protests.

The source I provided shows organized instance of violence from protesters against police in Hong Kong. I will re-quote:

Hundreds of Hong Kong activists armed with firebombs and bows-and-arrows on Monday battled riot police who have laid a days-long siege to a university, the most violent confrontation yet in a half-year of protests.

Early Monday, the police tried storming the campus at the main entrance and made some arrests. But the occupiers fought back with dozens of firebombs and set barricades ablaze, forcing the police to retreat.

What claim are you attempting to make regarding Hong Kong, and what evidence would you need to see for it to be falsified?

[fightinfrenchman]

The New York Times is so awful

[princeofcarthage]

1) If acquiescing to demands stops protests surely it will stop riots. I don't deny that. But, what exactly are the demands? How do you even implement those changes (instantly). The issue at hand is an educational issue and the issue of mindset. It is process which will take long time to achieve. We can surely say that racism is lot less now compared to the past. At most government can more actively and aggressively push towards the desired change but it will still take years, and in the mean time these acts of racism will continue to occur albeit less frequently. Not to mention that agreeing to demands sets a very bad precedent.

Firstly, I asked for proof of three things (which were not intended to be an exhaustive list of alternatives) and you responded to one of them.

Next, it's not possible to provide an exact list of demands, since that will vary at a local and state level depending on the makeup of individual communities. Perhaps community officials could hold meetings with protest representatives to find out what their communities want. It's not necessarily the case, however, that governments (local, state, federal) need to implement all or the most radical proposals suggested or that they need to do so instantaneously.

If you read carefully I responded to all 3 of them. What you make is a good point and what I hope happens. That is a different thing though. So, you are just reiterating what I said, protesters have no clue exactly what they want, neither they have made any attempt to establish dialogue and/or kick start discussions.

2) Again what you mean by violence is subjective. Throwing a flash bang to disperse the visibly growing and riled up crowd to avoid potential confrontation and risk to public life and property isn't violence. It is the view you see with.

Violent : "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

Intent here isn't to hurt anyone, rather to avoid getting hurt.

So firstly here, this section of discussion initially used the context of throwing stones and using tear gas, and you switched to flash bang grenades. Do you consider the context behind an act as determining whether or not it is violent or not? Per the definition you provided, it doesn't matter if the broader goal behind throwing a flash bang is to disperse a crowd to avoid confrontation. The act itself has the intent of causing harm, the context you've provided is an attempt to justify that that intent of causing harm is ultimately moral. But whether it's moral or not is not relevant to the discussion. Under your provided definition, throwing a flash bang and even more so using tear gas or throwing a stone would qualify as violence.

It doesn't matter whether it is tear gas or flash bang, the point matters not the word or weapon used. Throwing a grenade/gas () at person to hurt him and throwing it in air to scare crowd into disbursing is different. The intent obviously matters. I don't remember under what exact conditions but people kill horses to avoid them pain. That doesn't mean violence or make you a violent person. It is an act of mercy.

3) Police manpower is spread too thin. These rioters smartly disguise themselves with large crowds of protesters. When they arrive at specific location they split up, loot, destroy and run off. Right now it is not practically possible for police to identify, separate, and arrest few specific individuals from the crowds of hundreds, thousands. Even if they do manage they are at the receiving end as they will be accused brutality and racism, even if the actions were justified. That leaves only one option of catching them red-handed, which they are trying but to difficult.

Honestly not sure what point you're making here that I haven't directly responded to.

The point is clearly stated. It is not possible for police to distinguish rioters from protesters. Law and order can not be maintained under current situation neither can loss of property and potentially lives be avoided. As such it is necessary to bring the situation to a swift end until such time that peaceful protests can continue.

HK:
We are talking about acts of violence from protesters not police brutality. Your examples are of police trying to suppress protests.

The source I provided shows organized instance of violence from protesters against police in Hong Kong. I will re-quote:

Hundreds of Hong Kong activists armed with firebombs and bows-and-arrows on Monday battled riot police who have laid a days-long siege to a university, the most violent confrontation yet in a half-year of protests.

Early Monday, the police tried storming the campus at the main entrance and made some arrests. But the occupiers fought back with dozens of firebombs and set barricades ablaze, forcing the police to retreat.

What claim are you attempting to make regarding Hong Kong, and what evidence would you need to see for it to be falsified?

You are conveniently missing the point that it was government/state who started the violence by trying to suppress the protesters.
This is what happened when HK passed emergency mask ban law.

"Police watched as protesters moved peacefully, chanting "Hong Kong resist" as they walked through the heart of the city, but after a few hours officers moved to end the disruption." "Tear gas canisters were fired on the crowd from police on walkway bridges above. Video shows small groups being targeted by charging officers on the ground."

Note: Officers moved in to end the disruption. Officers fired gas... "..."

It is important to note that the Pro-Beijing government passed an undemocratic law to suppress the protesters protesting against the state apparatus itself which were largely peaceful up to the point. I don't deny that protests had been completely violence free but violence was/is mainly happening between government forces and the protesters. This is something different than what is happening in US. I don't remember protesters threatening the safety of common public or damaging private property in HK.

Coming back to the example of university you gave :
"Protesters initially set-up a roadblock at the entrance of Cross-Harbor Tunnel, close to the university, and took the university as the base to defend it from attacks by the Hong Kong Police Force "
"The police shot tear gas and used water cannons to shower the protesters with blue-colored water mixed with chemical irritants. The protesters responded by throwing bricks and petrol bombs. Thereafter, the police blocked different campus exits and forbade protesters from leaving. Police tried to drive an armored vehicle into campus but the vehicle was hit by petrol bombs, forcing it to reverse. Police arrested people who claimed to be first-aides, medical service volunteers and reporters."
"The campus of a Hong Kong university transformed into an apocalyptic scene on Monday as riot police armed with tear gas and rubber bullets surrounded pro-democracy protesters."

It is pretty clear that police were trying to suppress the protests/demonstrations by any means necessary. People simply responded to police brutality and use of force, to defend themselves and potentially their lives. Tell me where were protesters actively trying to incite violence and turn the island into an war zone?

[Hawk_Girl]

Man can you beilive how fucking horrible that type of death must be. You feel you are choking and can't breathe and instead of trying to move or make a move physically (which he realizes is of no good and from that comes the true hopelessness in this situation) he uses his last bits of air to say he can't breathe. If any other person stood on this neck he would say "call the police" because you expect them to help you. If you can't trust the police to help you and protect you, and instead murder you, all types of reason goes out the window. I am not saying I agree with trashing the society, the opposite in fact, but I can understand the huge amount of anger and despair.

[Hawk_Girl]

@iNcog lol there is a thing called due process in this country

I think the faith for due process kinda dies when police officers act like that.

[Dolan]

The New York Times is so awful

This comment made me curious about the NYT, so I've just read an editorial from it in which this guy Friedman was making this impassionate argument for saving America by identifying the right kind of leaders, all the while making sure to include a plug to his wife's business in the article and praising the AT&T chairman, who funds her project. He ends by placing his hope in local business leaders and stakeholders.

An editorial with a marketing plug, pinning a country's salvation hopes on business leaders.

[Vinyanyérë]

If you read carefully I responded to all 3 of them. What you make is a good point and what I hope happens. That is a different thing though. So, you are just reiterating what I said, protesters have no clue exactly what they want, neither they have made any attempt to establish dialogue and/or kick start discussions.

What I said was that there was no universal list of demands made by protesters. There absolutely are protesters that know what they want and there have been attempts to establish dialogue. Can you point to the specific place where you attempted to show that violently suppressing both protests and riots would not have the reverse effect of emboldening both? I will accept for now you have attempted to show that it isn't possible to suppress protests without accompanied riots. As a counter, here's an example: In Redwood City, CA, a protest was conducted for several hours largely without incident (one arrest was made). Part of the reason that there were no major incidents at the protest likely stem from the police presence being mild (there were a few officers present, but their gear was their normal day-to-day gear and they did not form any line) and from city officials taking part in the protest directly. The protest began at 16:00 and ended at 20:30 when a county-wide curfew was put in place. In this way, a protest happened and rioting was violently suppressed (although from what I've seen, no rioting in Redwood City happened anyway).*

*This isn't to say that I'm in favor of the curfew; however, it is an instance of successful suppression of riots without an accompanied suppression of protests.

It doesn't matter whether it is tear gas or flash bang, the point matters not the word or weapon used. Throwing a grenade/gas () at person to hurt him and throwing it in air to scare crowd into disbursing is different. The intent obviously matters. I don't remember under what exact conditions but people kill horses to avoid them pain. That doesn't mean violence or make you a violent person. It is an act of mercy.

This ignores the throwing of rocks as an explicit example you gave which has the pretty unambiguous goal of harming someone or causing property damage. With flash bang grenades and tear gas, there's two things going on: first, not all of the grenades and gas are thrown into the air, there are numerous instances of them being thrown at people with the explicit intent of doing exactly what those devices are designed to do. Second, even if they were thrown into the air with the intent of dispersing the crowd by scaring them, the fact that the crowd is scared puts members of it in danger from, for example, trampling.

Finally, there's two levels of intent here. One level is very simplistic: is this act trying to cause harm on someone else? The other is more complex: what is this act trying to do? The latter helps us figure out whether an act is morally justified or not, but the definition you provided is not concerned with that level. It's solely concerned with whether or not there's an intent to cause harm or not, which throwing rocks, stun grenades, and tear gas all unequivocally do. Would you like to use a different definition of violence?

[various HK stuff]

So let's zoom out. You claimed that "there was no such thing [as rioting and looting] during HK protests". I responded by pointing out that there was and gave you an example, and you responded by claiming that there were a a small number of these. I gave multiple examples, and you responded by saying that these incidents were isolated in scope and shut down by police or protesters when they appeared. I gave an example of organized violence by protesters against police, and you responded by saying that it was an instance of violence by police against protesters. I pointed out that the example does indeed contain an instance of violence by protesters against police, and you're now saying that the police started it.

Of course the police started it!

I'm not making a claim that the activists in Hong Kong are morally unjustified in being violent towards their police, I'm arguing against the claim that there is no violence at all. That's your original claim.

Even with this, though, I can easily find instances of violent actions taken by HK activists against police and property that other protesters were clearly complicit in. Here's one example (warning: bad takes and Chinese govt. propaganda in the comments):



And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that anyone in this video is doing anything wrong. I'm just claiming that they're committing violence. The key is that violent acts are not necessarily immoral acts.

[fightinfrenchman]

This is heartbreaking

[Dolan]

Was just thinking that gangs and criminals are feeling pretty comfy right now, they know that after this incident the police will be pressured to be much more restrained. Which will embolden suspects, knowing that officers will be cautious with whatever methods of immobilisation they'll use.
It's not just about the neck restraint procedure, but about any kind of method of physical restraint.
The outcome will be that they will be more frustrated about new limitations on doing their job and many will quit. And the rate of recruitment will be even lower, considering the risks of being a cop after this.
It also depends on what outcome the trial will have.

[vardar]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... m.amp.html

Poor guy was a victim of police brutality and no one cared about him. Wanted to bring this up a while ago but never got around to it. None of the media gave a shit about him. Doesn’t fit their narrative. Ofc I’m linking a NYT article that got very little attention overall and was actually written years after the incident. The police brutality squad obviously forgot about him.

[vardar]

Here’s the video:

[fightinfrenchman]

Wanted to bring this up a while ago but never got around to it.

Sounds like you cared a lot man, and didn't just want to use this as a way to criticize black people

[vardar]

Wanted to bring this up a while ago but never got around to it.

Sounds like you cared a lot man, and didn't just want to use this as a way to criticize black people

I’m not the one picking and choosing when I protest police brutality.

[fightinfrenchman]

You actually are

[vardar]

You actually are

How am I picking and choosing? I’m pointing out a poor sucker y’all missed. This guy gets almost zero attention, why is that? Why did so little people hear about this situation?

[fightinfrenchman]

You actually are

How am I picking and choosing? I’m pointing out a poor sucker y’all missed. This guy gets almost zero attention, why is that? Why did so little people hear about this situation?

I guess one of the reasons is you didn't say anything about him until a few minutes ago, despite claiming you wanted to bring him up "a while ago"

[vardar]

You actually are

How am I picking and choosing? I’m pointing out a poor sucker y’all missed. This guy gets almost zero attention, why is that? Why did so little people hear about this situation?

I guess one of the reasons is you didn't say anything about him until a few minutes ago, despite claiming you wanted to bring him up "a while ago"

Dodging my questions. This isn’t about the exact timing of when I actually posted this. Answer my question as to why this man go so little attention?

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

You actually are

How am I picking and choosing? I’m pointing out a poor sucker y’all missed. This guy gets almost zero attention, why is that? Why did so little people hear about this situation?

I guess one of the reasons is you didn't say anything about him until a few minutes ago, despite claiming you wanted to bring him up "a while ago"

Dodging me questions. This isn’t about the exact timing of when I actually posted this. Answer my question as to why this man go so little attention?

Like I said, one of the reasons is that people like you who apparently care about and didn't just hear about it in the last few days didn't bring it up until now. Another reason is that most people killed by police don't get much attention