"Protester" Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Derec]

No, we assume cops act according to cop culture. There are exceptions, but they all "fit the description." They've dehumanized anyone who's not a cop, other than maybe rich people and conservative politicians. Sure, there are some cops who don't view citizens as vermin, but they are irrelevant to the problem.

You have an irrational hatred of police.

We demand that the people with the power and the weapons to brutalize almost anyone, and who do so on a regular basis, especially now and over the last four years as their authority figure has given them permission from the highest office in the land, be held to the strictest and highest standards possible.

Police are not "brutalizing" people on a "regular basis". And police should not be held to an unreasonable standard.

In this country, we hold poor and powerless people accountable at the level we should be holding police and politicians and corporations accountable.

Everybody should be held accountable. The thing is, you want police to be judged guilty even if they do nothing wrong.
At the same time, you do not think thugs running around with illegal guns is a big deal, when vast majority of people killed in this country are killed by the likes of Kenneth Jones and not by the likes of Dan Faulkner or Richard Martier.

Everyone makes assumptions with every case we hear about. The only difference is your assumptions fall on the wrong side of history.

I really don't think your anti-police BS is going to be the "right side of history".

 

[Derec]

Does it really need to be explained why police should be held to a higher standard than protesters?

I would be happy with so-called "protesters" being held to some standard at all. If you steal or destroy property you are not a "protester" but a common criminal and should be treated as such.

 

[Derec]

The usual suspects cannot comprehend why anyone would not automatically
accept the police version of events, and conclude the alleged civilian culprits or victims deserved their fate.

Do you have any reason to believe that the police version is wrong?

And it's not a matter of "deserving". Police shooting people is not a punishment. It's a reaction to a threat. When you have a weapon on you, and resist or otherwise refuse to comply, then that is a very dangerous situation for the cops, and you have a high likelihood of getting shot.
Jones could have easily avoided his death. He should not have had the gun in the first place. He should have complied, even if that meant he was going back to pokey on yet another "felon in possession of a deadly weapon" charge. But he did not. He made choices, and those choices have consequences.

 

[Angry Floof]

You have an irrational hatred of police.


Police are not "brutalizing" people on a "regular basis". And police should not be held to an unreasonable standard.

In this country, we hold poor and powerless people accountable at the level we should be holding police and politicians and corporations accountable.

Everybody should be held accountable. The thing is, you want police to be judged guilty even if they do nothing wrong.
At the same time, you do not think thugs running around with illegal guns is a big deal, when vast majority of people killed in this country are killed by the likes of Kenneth Jones and not by the likes of Dan Faulkner or Richard Martier.

Everyone makes assumptions with every case we hear about. The only difference is your assumptions fall on the wrong side of history.

I really don't think your anti-police BS is going to be the "right side of history".

Sucking up to police against protesters is ALWAYS the wrong side of history. Grow a conscience and hold power accountable.

 

[Derec]

Sucking up to police against protesters is ALWAYS the wrong side of history.

Because protesters are always in the right?


Besides, I am not talking about protesters here. Protesting is a right, even if their aims and positions are extremely wrong, like #BLMers and Trumpers alike. In this thread, I am taking aim at those who engage in looting, rioting, arson etc. for political purposes, for example anti-police extremism.

 

[Angry Floof]

No, because protesters are not the state. Why is this rocket science?

 

[laughing dog]

The usual suspects cannot comprehend why anyone would not automatically
accept the police version of events, and conclude the alleged civilian culprits or victims deserved their fate.

Do you have any reason to believe that the police version is wrong?

My point is that until any "version" is independently verified, there is reason for skepticism.

[
And it's not a matter of "deserving"....

And yet, the kneejerk defenders of police shooting routinely trot out the irrelevant records of the victims in order to characterize them as "thugs" or bad people. Your response is a perfect example. Whether or not someone "should have" is not an issue. The issues are whether the shooting
1) could have reasonably been avoided,
2) is justified in the eyes of the community, and
3) should be justified through the legal system.

Of course Mr, Jones could have avoided being killed by changing his choices and actions just like the police could have avoided killing Mr. Jones by changing their choices and actions. Funny how that second part never crops up from the kneejerk defenders of the police.

 

[Gospel]

Does it really need to be explained why police should be held to a higher standard than protesters?

I would be happy with so-called "protesters" being held to some standard at all. If you steal or destroy property you are not a "protester" but a common criminal and should be treated as such.

I would be happy if you held rioters and looters separate from protesters. Once you riot or loot you've broken the law and are no longer a peaceful protester. Saying that all protesters should be held to the account of the rioters and looters is the same as saying all cops are corrupt because of the few amongst them. The way you currently seem to view the protesters gives the illusion you understand why people would mix good cops up with the bad ones.

Edit: And yes you basically separated protesters from rioters here but that's not the case with you a majority of the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The usual suspects cannot comprehend why anyone would not automatically
accept the police version of events, and conclude the alleged civilian culprits or victims deserved their fate.

The problem is they don't wait to find out one way or the other, they just assume it's wrongful. The more they do it the less credibility they have.

No, we assume cops act according to cop culture. There are exceptions, but they all "fit the description." They've dehumanized anyone who's not a cop, other than maybe rich people and conservative politicians. Sure, there are some cops who don't view citizens as vermin, but they are irrelevant to the problem.

We demand that the people with the power and the weapons to brutalize almost anyone, and who do so on a regular basis, especially now and over the last four years as their authority figure has given them permission from the highest office in the land, be held to the strictest and highest standards possible. In this country, we hold poor and powerless people accountable at the level we should be holding police and politicians and corporations accountable. We've got it backwards, and those of us who do not lick boots will continue to scrutinize every even mildly violent thing cops do until they are held accountable to a degree befitting the power they hold and the trust the public needs to have in them.

Everyone makes assumptions with every case we hear about. The only difference is your assumptions fall on the wrong side of history.

The reality is that most of the cases that people are protesting about are completely legitimate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The usual suspects cannot comprehend why anyone would not automatically
accept the police version of events, and conclude the alleged civilian culprits or victims deserved their fate.

The problem is they don't wait to find out one way or the other, they just assume it's wrongful.

True. But how is the substantially different from those who automatically take the police's version of events as gospel?

Have an open mind--wait for the facts! A black person dead at police hands isn't enough to prove misconduct. Same as His Flatulence screaming about voter fraud doesn't make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Police are not "brutalizing" people on a "regular basis". And police should not be held to an unreasonable standard.

Actually, it looks like they are--but BLM is so obsessed with shootings that they miss the real problem.

The real problem is the George Floyds. Most of the time it doesn't result in provable, lasting injury and gets ignored, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

 

[Trausti]

Police are not "brutalizing" people on a "regular basis". And police should not be held to an unreasonable standard.

Actually, it looks like they are--but BLM is so obsessed with shootings that they miss the real problem.

The real problem is the George Floyds. Most of the time it doesn't result in provable, lasting injury and gets ignored, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

Whatever it is, it’s not systemic. Given the millions of police interactions in a year, a few bad incidents is to be expected. No one is 100% all the time.

 

[laughing dog]

True. But how is the substantially different from those who automatically take the police's version of events as gospel?

Have an open mind--wait for the facts!

That is non-responsive to my observation. The kneejerk defenders of the police do not wait for the facts.

[
A black person dead at police hands isn't enough to prove misconduct.

It is an indication of possible misconduct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is non-responsive to my observation. The kneejerk defenders of the police do not wait for the facts.

[
A black person dead at police hands isn't enough to prove misconduct.

It is an indication of possible misconduct.

It's a reason for an investigation, not a reason for a protest. See what the investigation turns up.

 

[Angry Floof]

That is non-responsive to my observation. The kneejerk defenders of the police do not wait for the facts.

[
A black person dead at police hands isn't enough to prove misconduct.

It is an indication of possible misconduct.

It's a reason for an investigation, not a reason for a protest. See what the investigation turns up.

The old "ask politely and we might hold cops accountable."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Police are not "brutalizing" people on a "regular basis". And police should not be held to an unreasonable standard.

Actually, it looks like they are--but BLM is so obsessed with shootings that they miss the real problem.

The real problem is the George Floyds. Most of the time it doesn't result in provable, lasting injury and gets ignored, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

Whatever it is, it’s not systemic. Given the millions of police interactions in a year, a few bad incidents is to be expected. No one is 100% all the time.

Except you have no evidence for your claim. It's obviously widespread enough that police feel comfortable doing it in front of other police.

 

[laughing dog]

That is non-responsive to my observation. The kneejerk defenders of the police do not wait for the facts.

[
A black person dead at police hands isn't enough to prove misconduct.

It is an indication of possible misconduct.

It's a reason for an investigation, not a reason for a protest.

First, address the point that kneejerk defenders of the police do not wait for the facts. Second, are you under the delusion that independent investigations of police misconduct automatically occur?

 

[Trausti]

Whatever it is, it’s not systemic. Given the millions of police interactions in a year, a few bad incidents is to be expected. No one is 100% all the time.

Except you have no evidence for your claim. It's obviously widespread enough that police feel comfortable doing it in front of other police.

Wut? You're saying there's a police policy to purposefully harm people? In the Floyd case, the cops actually followed their training exactly. If you think it's systemic, show your evidence (not just hand waiving and conspiracy theories).

 

[Swammerdami]

I only skimmed the thread, which seems misnamed. Has  Charlottesville_car_attack been mentioned? With 1 civilian death and 19 injuries, it should top the list of '"Protestor" misconduct.' No?

... But I digress.

What I do, after accidentally writing irrelevancies, is to highlight the unwanted digression and press Backspace or just Space. Have you tried this on your device?

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever it is, it’s not systemic. Given the millions of police interactions in a year, a few bad incidents is to be expected. No one is 100% all the time.

Except you have no evidence for your claim. It's obviously widespread enough that police feel comfortable doing it in front of other police.

Wut? You're saying there's a police policy to purposefully harm people? In the Floyd case, the cops actually followed their training exactly.

First they did not. Second, if you actually thought about your response, you are claiming that the police are trained to purposely harm people because it should be obvious that kneeling on a person's neck is harmful.