Federal troops helping suppress protests in Portland OR

[Politesse]

Is there any evidence behind the assertion that the protestors have themselves have shot anyone? I gather there has been a small explosion of violent crime in Seattle, but that's not the same thing as accusing the protestors of being behind every murder. By that logic, the sainted Martin Luther King Jr, sweet beloved darling of the moderate left, murdered dozens if not hundreds of people thoughout his career. So did John Lewis. Hell, CHOP isn't even that culpable, as they didn't originally set out to occupy the neighborhood; the police chose it, by muscling in on the neighborhood and teargassing people in their homes. CHOP was always a defensive protest, and it has now been violently dismantled by the police, leaving... what? The CHOP zone was first cleared out on the first of July; they've had 18 days now to brutalize the population into line as they pleased. Almost as long as CHOP/CHAZ itself existed.

So, is it a crime-free paradise in Capitol Hill now that the metaphorical "peace officers" are back in charge?

 

[skepticalbip]

Ted wheeler is absolutely doing his job, which isn't easy in a time when basically the entire community is saying that either things change regarding police accountability or the system isn't worth saving.

That is a great example of what I said... you are misdirecting and not actually responding to my post.

As I clearly said, I strongly support peaceful demonstrations. There are some peaceful demonstrators in Portland and I support them.

Your misdirection is to imply that all that is going on is only peaceful demonstrations... IT IS NOT. Some in those "demonstrations" are destroying property, looting, assaulting others, killing a couple and sending some to the hospital. It is this smaller percentage that are criminals and Wheeler should be calling for the police to arrest this smaller percentage as he swore to do in his oath of office.

If these "demonstrators" were "demonstrating" on the street in front of your house and some of them were breaking your windows and spraying graffiti on your house, maybe one of them sucker punches you, then you would probably want the small percentage doing the damage arrested too... but then maybe not since they are only demonstrating for change in policing.

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

Again with the misdirection. Would you really want the police to "stand down and passively watch" if the demonstration were on the street in front of your house and a few (a very small percentage) of the demonstrators were breaking your windows, spray painting your house, and a couple beating the shit out of you?

 

[Derec]

Is there any evidence behind the assertion that the protestors have themselves have shot anyone?

Don't know about Portlandia, but in Atlanta "protesters" occupying streets around the infamous Wendy's with armed force murdered an 8 year old girl and shot a few other people during that occupation.

 

[Derec]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand.

Bullshit. It is the so-called "protesters" that are burning buildigs!

Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

Like what? They will commit even more crimes once released? Then they need to be arrested again and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Many of the Weather Underground/Black Liberation Army extremist thugs were arrested and sentenced to long prison sentences and these terrorist movements had been defeated. It is certainly possible to do so again with this new cadre of violent leftist extremists.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored

It is very dangerous to acquiesce to the demands of an angry extremist mob.

only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX,

If most people in Portland support the rioters and arsonists, then the city might be lost. If so, it is time for regular people to start moving out and declare Portlandia a failed city.
In any case, it is clear that Ted Wheeler, just like Mayor Jenny in Seatte and KLB in Atlanta are very weak leaders unwilling to stand up to the extremists.

the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army.

The "concessions" these extremists demand is defunding police and giving a free reign to criminals. Not an acceptable proposition.
A temporary period of what you call an "occupying army" may be necessary to restore order. Mistakes were made in late May and through June when this nonsense first started. The rioters were given way too much leeway and they have grown more and more emboldened.

The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

Local officials are sacrificing their legitimacy if they appease the extremist mob and order police to stand down while the mob loots stores, burns down buildings, occupies highways etc.


By the way, this is one of the things these idiots in Portland are "protesting" for:
Mother of Patrick Kimmons leads march outside Portland City Hall

They hate police and love thugs who shoot people in gang disputes. They even wanted to create an autonomous zone dubbed "Patrick Kimmons Autonomous Zone". You can't make this shit up!

 

[Politesse]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

Again with the misdirection. Would you really want the police to "stand down and passively watch" if the demonstration were on the street in front of your house and a few (a very small percentage) of the demonstrators were breaking your windows, spray painting your house, and a couple beating the shit out of you?

You mean if "a few bad apples" were committing atrocities, would I still welcome the good apples? What if the good apples invariably voice support for the bad apples, and arrest anyone who disagrees with them?

 

[crazyfingers]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

Again with the misdirection. Would you really want the police to "stand down and passively watch" if the demonstration were on the street in front of your house and a few (a very small percentage) of the demonstrators were breaking your windows, spray painting your house, and a couple beating the shit out of you?

You mean if "a few bad apples" were committing atrocities, would I still welcome the good apples? What if the good apples invariably voice support for the bad apples, and arrest anyone who disagrees with them?

The code of silence appears to be all-pervasive. And the police unions appear to be designed to protect the "bad applies". Until cops are willing to accept radical changes to the police unions such that they no longer act to protect bad applies and the code of silence is eliminated, I think it's perfectly justified to paint a very broad brush on all cops.

While it's not the same example, it used to be that in Massachusetts any roadwork required an overtime cop there to, as the police said "fight crime". It was clearly a farce. Even if there was some utility work to do at the end of dead end street, the cop was there looking at his cell phone even though using a personal cell phone while on the job is against the rules. After great effort the law was changed to only require a cop at roadwork on roads that are busy and a 40 mph speed limit. But there was no reduction in the use of overtime police details either guarding the hole in the road or looking at the cell phones. But no one dares to cross the cops on this so the overtime details are still universal. Massive corruption.

 

[skepticalbip]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

Again with the misdirection. Would you really want the police to "stand down and passively watch" if the demonstration were on the street in front of your house and a few (a very small percentage) of the demonstrators were breaking your windows, spray painting your house, and a couple beating the shit out of you?

You mean if "a few bad apples" were committing atrocities, would I still welcome the good apples? What if the good apples invariably voice support for the bad apples, and arrest anyone who disagrees with them?

I must need another cup of coffee since I can't decipher this.

What I was saying is that there are some (a small percentage) of the demonstrators who are basically radicals hiding in the crowd who's goal is to create chaos and they don't give a shit who they hurt doing it.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Yes, they are using semantics and misdirection to justify violence.

I certainly agree with their assertion that anyone has the right to demonstrate and scream their grievances. I strongly support this right even if it wasn't guaranteed in the Constitution. They, however, ignore the limitations placed on this in that Constitution. Specifically, it is peaceful demonstrations that are guaranteed, Property destruction and assaults are crimes, not peaceful demonstrations.



Your mayor, by defending those destroying property, is violating his oath of office. As mayor, Wheeler's duty is to see that laws are enforced and (as far as I know) Portland has laws against destroying the property of others and assaulting others.

Ted wheeler is absolutely doing his job, which isn't easy in a time when basically the entire community is saying that either things change regarding police accountability or the system isn't worth saving.

That is a great example of what I said... you are misdirecting and not actually responding to my post.

As I clearly said, I strongly support peaceful demonstrations. There are some peaceful demonstrators in Portland and I support them.

Your misdirection is to imply that all that is going on is only peaceful demonstrations... IT IS NOT. Some in those "demonstrations" are destroying property, looting, assaulting others, killing a couple and sending some to the hospital. It is this smaller percentage that are criminals and Wheeler should be calling for the police to arrest this smaller percentage as he swore to do in his oath of office.

If these "demonstrators" were "demonstrating" on the street in front of your house and some of them were breaking your windows and spraying graffiti on your house, maybe one of them sucker punches you, then you would probably want the small percentage doing the damage arrested too... but then maybe not since they are only "demonstrating" for change in policing.

I should give this a little bit more of a response. Please correct me where I am misunderstanding. You seem to be assuming that this is a simple matter of law enforcement - that the police are able to catch and charge the protestors who have broken laws, and that if they simply did that the problem would be solved. You also seem to assume that Wheeler is actively protecting the law breaking individuals involved in these protests. And finally, you seem to be assuming that the demands of the protestors are secondary in importance to the maintenance of what you are calling law and order.

If I am mischaracterizing your position in any of those, please correct me.

First, law enforcement is an agreement between and among citizens to grant the state the sole legitimate use of force. Basic Hobbes there. It avoids the nasty brutish and short bit about the state of nature. If that agreement is not shared, law enforcement stops being the activity of police. At that point, suppression becomes its function. The agreement has broken down. Many of us do not grant the police legitimacy under the current conditions and therefore arresting the few people who refuse to grant that legitimacy is no longer possible because it is not a 'few'. It is a wide majority in PDX. I , and most of the people I know, do indeed understand that police are necessary but the legitimacy of the specific structures of that policing as it exists is gone and so we effectively have an occupying army who, by the definition of the social compact, are not protecting and serving 'the people' but rather enforcing the dominance of a select group. Who do you call when the people that answer the phone are the ones attacking you? We do need police. We do need to protect individuals from violence. But when that violence is part of the citizen response to those who pretend to protect us, the structure has broken down and there is no good recourse but to join whichever side seems to offer the most security. The entire premise of law enforcement is erased and all that is left is us against them. I definitely know which group I see as them. And, as it turns out, I am not alone in that view.

Second, Wheeler is actually being a decent politician. Many people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the word but it is an important function. The police have effectively insulated themselves from mayoral (or really any) oversight through a series of administrative actions and contracts. He is dealing with the police as an entity with their own power structures and the various citizen groups as their own entities with their own power structures and trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution. That is his job and he's got an immensely difficult task. If he were to side with the police and enforce a crackdown in the name of 'law and order', he would immediately face pushback from other groups who also have expressed willingness to exert power. The law isn't a magical edict that automatically grants legitimacy to one group. It is an agreement among the groups that the law is legitimate. At the moment, that agreement does not exist.

That pretty much also covers the third point.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ted wheeler is absolutely doing his job, which isn't easy in a time when basically the entire community is saying that either things change regarding police accountability or the system isn't worth saving.

That is a great example of what I said... you are misdirecting and not actually responding to my post.

As I clearly said, I strongly support peaceful demonstrations. There are some peaceful demonstrators in Portland and I support them.

Your misdirection is to imply that all that is going on is only peaceful demonstrations... IT IS NOT. Some in those "demonstrations" are destroying property, looting, assaulting others, killing a couple and sending some to the hospital. It is this smaller percentage that are criminals and Wheeler should be calling for the police to arrest this smaller percentage as he swore to do in his oath of office.

If these "demonstrators" were "demonstrating" on the street in front of your house and some of them were breaking your windows and spraying graffiti on your house, maybe one of them sucker punches you, then you would probably want the small percentage doing the damage arrested too... but then maybe not since they are only demonstrating for change in policing.

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

In New York, the opposite is happening. The police was cut back to meet the demands of the extreme left and crime rates (shootings, looting, etc) soared. The result is that the small business owners, black communities, etc. are asking for more policing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

In New York, the opposite is happening. The police was cut back to meet the demands of the extreme left and crime rates (shootings, looting, etc) soared. The result is that the small business owners, black communities, etc. are asking for more policing.

Agreed. I wonder if we're misunderstanding BWE. The reason for most police blunders occur when the officer is poorly trained (get's to close to potential threat for example) and misjudges the situation and shoots a person thinking that they are a threat. Reduce the amount of officers, then the officers are even more isolated and without backup, subject to misjudging a potential situation.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is a great example of what I said... you are misdirecting and not actually responding to my post.

As I clearly said, I strongly support peaceful demonstrations. There are some peaceful demonstrators in Portland and I support them.

Your misdirection is to imply that all that is going on is only peaceful demonstrations... IT IS NOT. Some in those "demonstrations" are destroying property, looting, assaulting others, killing a couple and sending some to the hospital. It is this smaller percentage that are criminals and Wheeler should be calling for the police to arrest this smaller percentage as he swore to do in his oath of office.

If these "demonstrators" were "demonstrating" on the street in front of your house and some of them were breaking your windows and spraying graffiti on your house, maybe one of them sucker punches you, then you would probably want the small percentage doing the damage arrested too... but then maybe not since they are only "demonstrating" for change in policing.

I should give this a little bit more of a response. Please correct me where I am misunderstanding. You seem to be assuming that this is a simple matter of law enforcement - that the police are able to catch and charge the protestors who have broken laws, and that if they simply did that the problem would be solved. You also seem to assume that Wheeler is actively protecting the law breaking individuals involved in these protests. And finally, you seem to be assuming that the demands of the protestors are secondary in importance to the maintenance of what you are calling law and order.

If I am mischaracterizing your position in any of those, please correct me.

Of course it isn't just a matter of law enforcement. There are many problems. The peaceful demonstrators are keyed into addressing only one as of now - some of the police (certainly not all) are out of control. But, on the other side, policing is necessary to protect the majority of citizens from the few lawless ones that make life uncertain and insecure for that majority. The police definitely need to weed out the abusive cops in their midsts and the protestors should either weed out the abusive criminals in their midst or applaud the police for doing it for them. In the ideal, the average citizen should not be abused by either cops or "demonstrators". But as it is, if abused they do have some recourse against the cops but no recourse if abused by the "demonstrators". If a cop beats them, burns or loots their shop, the city is legally liable but if a "demonstrator" beats themn, burns or loots their shop then tough shit.

First, law enforcement is an agreement between and among citizens to grant the state the sole legitimate use of force. Basic Hobbes there. It avoids the nasty brutish and short bit about the state of nature. If that agreement is not shared, law enforcement stops being the activity of police. At that point, suppression becomes its function. The agreement has broken down. Many of us do not grant the police legitimacy under the current conditions and therefore arresting the few people who refuse to grant that legitimacy is no longer possible because it is not a 'few'. It is a wide majority in PDX. I , and most of the people I know, do indeed understand that police are necessary but the legitimacy of the specific structures of that policing as it exists is gone and so we effectively have an occupying army who, by the definition of the social compact, are not protecting and serving 'the people' but rather enforcing the dominance of a select group. Who do you call when the people that answer the phone are the ones attacking you? We do need police. We do need to protect individuals from violence. But when that violence is part of the citizen response to those who pretend to protect us, the structure has broken down and there is no good recourse but to join whichever side seems to offer the most security. The entire premise of law enforcement is erased and all that is left is us against them. I definitely know which group I see as them. And, as it turns out, I am not alone in that view.

Second, Wheeler is actually being a decent politician. Many people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the word but it is an important function. The police have effectively insulated themselves from mayoral (or really any) oversight through a series of administrative actions and contracts. He is dealing with the police as an entity with their own power structures and the various citizen groups as their own entities with their own power structures and trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution. That is his job and he's got an immensely difficult task. If he were to side with the police and enforce a crackdown in the name of 'law and order', he would immediately face pushback from other groups who also have expressed willingness to exert power. The law isn't a magical edict that automatically grants legitimacy to one group. It is an agreement among the groups that the law is legitimate. At the moment, that agreement does not exist.

That pretty much also covers the third point.

Nobody said that, in difficult civil situations, the job as mayor wasn't a difficult one. But one primary job of a mayor is to protect the citizenry. If he decides to allow "demonstrators" to burn down and loot the shops of other citizens so he can get the votes of the "demonstrators" then he is not doing his job.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

In New York, the opposite is happening. The police was cut back to meet the demands of the extreme left and crime rates (shootings, looting, etc) soared. The result is that the small business owners, black communities, etc. are asking for more policing.

See my previous post. In the long run, if policing can't be reformed and violence gets overwhelming, enough people will accept the legitimate use of force by a police state because security is ultimately the most important issue. But that will be an explicit declaration of an us and a them and whoever can apply the strongest or most coordinated use of force will become the ones who decide which groups are marginalized. In a world where power is dominance rather than cooperation, there are always marginalized groups. And that marginalization is always justified by the power structure because justification is a necessary element of legitimacy. But that justification does not extend to marginalized groups. Their experience justifies violence toward the regime which in turn justifies more violence by the regime.

It is a question of whether the democratic experiment survives. If it does, there will be concessions in the accountability of police. If it doesn't, well, we know what that looks like.

It's

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Of course it isn't just a matter of law enforcement. There are many problems. The peaceful demonstrators are keyed into addressing only one as of now - some of the police (certainly not all) are out of control. But, on the other side, policing is necessary to protect the majority of citizens from the few lawless ones that make life uncertain and insecure for that majority. The police definitely need to weed out the abusive cops in their midsts and the protestors should either weed out the abusive criminals in their midst or applaud the police for doing it for them. In the ideal, the average citizen should not be abused by either cops or "demonstrators". But as it is, if abused they do have some recourse against the cops but no recourse if abused by the "demonstrators". If a cop beats them, burns or loots their shop, the city is legally liable but if a "demonstrator" beats themn, burns or loots their shop then tough shit.

First, law enforcement is an agreement between and among citizens to grant the state the sole legitimate use of force. Basic Hobbes there. It avoids the nasty brutish and short bit about the state of nature. If that agreement is not shared, law enforcement stops being the activity of police. At that point, suppression becomes its function. The agreement has broken down. Many of us do not grant the police legitimacy under the current conditions and therefore arresting the few people who refuse to grant that legitimacy is no longer possible because it is not a 'few'. It is a wide majority in PDX. I , and most of the people I know, do indeed understand that police are necessary but the legitimacy of the specific structures of that policing as it exists is gone and so we effectively have an occupying army who, by the definition of the social compact, are not protecting and serving 'the people' but rather enforcing the dominance of a select group. Who do you call when the people that answer the phone are the ones attacking you? We do need police. We do need to protect individuals from violence. But when that violence is part of the citizen response to those who pretend to protect us, the structure has broken down and there is no good recourse but to join whichever side seems to offer the most security. The entire premise of law enforcement is erased and all that is left is us against them. I definitely know which group I see as them. And, as it turns out, I am not alone in that view.

Second, Wheeler is actually being a decent politician. Many people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the word but it is an important function. The police have effectively insulated themselves from mayoral (or really any) oversight through a series of administrative actions and contracts. He is dealing with the police as an entity with their own power structures and the various citizen groups as their own entities with their own power structures and trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution. That is his job and he's got an immensely difficult task. If he were to side with the police and enforce a crackdown in the name of 'law and order', he would immediately face pushback from other groups who also have expressed willingness to exert power. The law isn't a magical edict that automatically grants legitimacy to one group. It is an agreement among the groups that the law is legitimate. At the moment, that agreement does not exist.

That pretty much also covers the third point.

Nobody said that, in difficult civil situations, the job as mayor wasn't a difficult one. But the primary job of a mayor is to protect the citizenry. If he decides to allow "demonstrators" to burn down and loot the shops of other citizens so he can get the votes of the "demonstrators" then he is not doing his job.

He is not allowing anything like what you seem to think. He is negotiating between groups who are in conflict. One of those groups is demanding pice accountability. And the consequences of ignoring that group is violence. The other group is demanding the right to indiscriminate use of violence and the consequences of ignoring that groul is violence.

And apparently I was not clear enough in the post you are responding to. Law and order is an agreement among and between citizens. It is not legitimate if that agreement breaks down. Basically, I agree to not burn and loot if the government agrees to offer me protection against the abuse of authority by their police structures. The police structure does not have intrinsic legitimacy, what they have is established firepower.

The mayor absolutely agrees and authorizes the use of police power to apprehend and arrest people who commit crimes. But in so doing, he is also taking the chance, actually that should be past tense, took the chance that the police would abuse their authority again and thus legitimize those crimes. That is, actually, what happened. If the police continue to do what they are doing, and the mayor were to satisfy you, the entire system would collapse because burning the city down would be legitimate to hundreds of thousands of residents. You seem to not understand the implications of what you are prescribing.

There are ar least two sides in this conflict. All you are doing is picking one and justifying that choice by appealing to the existing power structure as legitimate. I do not grant that legitimacy to a police force which is indistinguishable in behavior from organized crime. Many others don't grant that legitimacy also. It is not a question of whether security matters, it is a question of whether that security comes at too high a price. If enough people feel that it does, the mayor has a choice. Negotiate or oppress. You unequivocally are arguing for the latter.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

The danger in downtown is from the cops, not the protesters as things stand. Eventually, the number of really angry people will grow and the protesters will probably become more dangerous but that is the way blowback works. Arresting large numbers of people who are already pissed off will only create even higher costs later.

The idea that violence will intimidate the angry mob enough that their demands can be ignored only works while the authorities have tbe support of the large majority. Once they lose that support, and they pretty much have lost it in PDX, the only way out is negotiation with meaningful concessions or a police state as an occupying army. The police are sacrificing their legitimacy for their vision of power. That's a downward spiral in a country where everyone is armed.

In New York, the opposite is happening. The police was cut back to meet the demands of the extreme left and crime rates (shootings, looting, etc) soared. The result is that the small business owners, black communities, etc. are asking for more policing.

Agreed. I wonder if we're misunderstanding BWE. The reason for most police blunders occur when the officer is poorly trained (get's to close to potential threat for example) and misjudges the situation and shoots a person thinking that they are a threat. Reduce the amount of officers, then the officers are even more isolated and without backup, subject to misjudging a potential situation.

No matter how much training they have, if their culture is to dominate and there is no accountability for them, they have no incentive to change and in fact have systemic incentives not to.

The number of police is irrelevant to the issue of the behavior of police. And, without making actual laws that address that accountability through a system of independent prosecutors and maybe even courts, with extreme penalties for blatant infractions and the same penalties for not reporting blatant infractions to the independent agency, the thin blue line guarantees that they will not change.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Of course it isn't just a matter of law enforcement. There are many problems. The peaceful demonstrators are keyed into addressing only one as of now - some of the police (certainly not all) are out of control. But, on the other side, policing is necessary to protect the majority of citizens from the few lawless ones that make life uncertain and insecure for that majority. The police definitely need to weed out the abusive cops in their midsts and the protestors should either weed out the abusive criminals in their midst or applaud the police for doing it for them. In the ideal, the average citizen should not be abused by either cops or "demonstrators". But as it is, if abused they do have some recourse against the cops but no recourse if abused by the "demonstrators". If a cop beats them, burns or loots their shop, the city is legally liable but if a "demonstrator" beats themn, burns or loots their shop then tough shit.

First, law enforcement is an agreement between and among citizens to grant the state the sole legitimate use of force. Basic Hobbes there. It avoids the nasty brutish and short bit about the state of nature. If that agreement is not shared, law enforcement stops being the activity of police. At that point, suppression becomes its function. The agreement has broken down. Many of us do not grant the police legitimacy under the current conditions and therefore arresting the few people who refuse to grant that legitimacy is no longer possible because it is not a 'few'. It is a wide majority in PDX. I , and most of the people I know, do indeed understand that police are necessary but the legitimacy of the specific structures of that policing as it exists is gone and so we effectively have an occupying army who, by the definition of the social compact, are not protecting and serving 'the people' but rather enforcing the dominance of a select group. Who do you call when the people that answer the phone are the ones attacking you? We do need police. We do need to protect individuals from violence. But when that violence is part of the citizen response to those who pretend to protect us, the structure has broken down and there is no good recourse but to join whichever side seems to offer the most security. The entire premise of law enforcement is erased and all that is left is us against them. I definitely know which group I see as them. And, as it turns out, I am not alone in that view.

Second, Wheeler is actually being a decent politician. Many people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the word but it is an important function. The police have effectively insulated themselves from mayoral (or really any) oversight through a series of administrative actions and contracts. He is dealing with the police as an entity with their own power structures and the various citizen groups as their own entities with their own power structures and trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution. That is his job and he's got an immensely difficult task. If he were to side with the police and enforce a crackdown in the name of 'law and order', he would immediately face pushback from other groups who also have expressed willingness to exert power. The law isn't a magical edict that automatically grants legitimacy to one group. It is an agreement among the groups that the law is legitimate. At the moment, that agreement does not exist.

That pretty much also covers the third point.

Nobody said that, in difficult civil situations, the job as mayor wasn't a difficult one. But one primary job of a mayor is to protect the citizenry. If he decides to allow "demonstrators" to burn down and loot the shops of other citizens so he can get the votes of the "demonstrators" then he is not doing his job.

which citizens should he preferentially protect when there is a mutual exclusion?

 

[skepticalbip]

Nobody said that, in difficult civil situations, the job as mayor wasn't a difficult one. But one primary job of a mayor is to protect the citizenry. If he decides to allow "demonstrators" to burn down and loot the shops of other citizens so he can get the votes of the "demonstrators" then he is not doing his job.

which citizens should he preferentially protect when there is a mutual exclusion?

I have no idea what this means.

The mayor's job is to try to protect ALL the citizens of the community. You seem to be painting all police as abusing the general public rather than the few that should be sitting in a jail cell (the mayor's failure). OTOH you seem to be painting ALL protestors as angels and justifying the few that are beating the shit out of innocent citizens, burning and looting their shops as just fine since there are bad cops (again the mayor's failure for allowing it).

 

[Testy Calibrate]

What changes would you like to see to get an "equitable justice system"? Again, I'm seeing the Portland protests starting to lose steam. If the marchers don't organize better and come up with a viable strategy, they'll go the way of occupy wallstreet.

A RICO law applied to police. Lying to cover for another cop, planting evidence, falsifying reports, brutality, and a few related issues having a steep prison consequence with an independent state level prosecutor appointed by public defenders, and a "reasonable person" standard for conviction would be a good start.

For federal officers required to identify themselves and their agencies when detaining someone, and inform detainees why they are being detained.

Yep. There is going to be a list that needs made. Making federal behavior a state crime though has some extra hurdles. A federal law would be better but also is unlikely to move forward under this senate.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

which citizens should he preferentially protect when there is a mutual exclusion?

I have no idea what this means.

The mayor's job is to try to protect ALL the citizens of the community. You seem to be painting all police as abusing the general public rather than the few that should be sitting in a jail cell. OTOH you seem to be painting ALL protestors as angels and justifying the few that are beating the shit out of innocent citizens, burning and looting their shops as just fine since there are bad cops.

I'm not sure how you get that at all from what I wrote. But the police response to the peaceful protestors has been decidedly the exact behavior those protestors are protesting. So you are saying that the mayor needs to accept the behavior of the entirety of the police force in the carrying out of the arrests you want, which means he is telling the people that they can suck it if they want to be safe from the police abuses which are clear, documented, and are identical in equivalence to the offenses you want to stop. If the mayor knows that the police are going to criminally assault peaceful protestors (which is the way ity already played out so it's not a ferinstance) then he is doing to the group that you have defined as other just the same as you see that group doing to you and not at all under the legitimate authority of policing. He cannot simply make some simple decision which will not violate the exact thing that you see as being only one sided. That is why there is no clear solution and it is political rather than procedural. He cannot do what you ask without doing exactly what the protestors are protesting. The police are unified in their abuse. There are no good cops right now. If there were, they would be stopping the bad cops and reporting the behavior which is documented in thousands of hours of video. T

Your argument hinges on the erroneous belief that there are only a few bad cops. That is not possible in the bad system which exists. That is what the protestors are protesting about. When I see a cop take out another cop with a fully lethal "less than lethal" tool that the department is using in a coordinated fashion on peaceful protestors, AND I see that cop celebrated by their department and departments around the country, I will believe in real change. As it is, I just see killers wearing badges and my own self interest suggests that they need to be stripped of their power until a system which holds them accountable is instituted.

Until then, cops have demonstrated that they are the enemy in a situation of us and them that they defined.

 

[lpetrich]

House Democrats demand investigation into use of force at Portland protests - Reuters

The letter was signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson and House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney.

“This is a matter of utmost urgency,” they wrote. “Citizens are concerned that the Administration has deployed a secret police force, not to investigate crimes, but to intimidate individuals it views as political adversaries.”

EdKtlWfX0AMlAYE (JPEG Image, 1125 × 1440 pixels)

The American people deserve to know who is giving orders for the disappearance-style arrests or detentions, as well as who has operational command and what the rules of engagement are for federal officers operating in Portland. We live in a democratic republic, not an authoritarian police state and we cannot allow our cities to become occupied zones. The President is working hard to portray himself as a "law and order" figure, but only seems interested in the "order" part of that phrase. You and your agencies work for the people of Oregon and other Americans and you are answerable to them.

These actions represent a complete abuse of power, and we demand that you remove any SOG, BORTAC, Homeland Security Investigations Special Response Team (HSI SRT) agents or other federal agents recently deployed to Oregon immediately. Some of us have already written to you requesting information about your training, tactics, and chain of command, and we reiterate our requests for you to provide that information immediately. We will not tolerate the use of Oregonians as props in President Trump's campaign-motivated abuse of power.

Signed by Sen. Jeff Merkley, Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer

 

[steve_bank]

Another riot and looting today in downtown Seattle. Reporters threatened and forced to leave. On camera one rioter shouting 'mother fucking cameras down'

What we do not see is the democrats doing is demanding that order be restored. Portland and Seattle have had months of riots, looting, and destruction.

I see no other way to describe it but as insurrection. It is leaderless mob violence. It is no longer about any justice.