My city, Minneapolis, On Fire: a story about white nationalism and it's consequences

[Jarhyn]

So the name means something except for when the name doesn't mean something, and if you notice that you are guilty of something undefined.

More "HoW To tElL ThE DiFfEerEnCe" bullshit. I told you how. This is just willful ignorance.

One people say "that name sounds like it describes me, I will use it to describe me", and the other is "I was recruited based on my beliefs to a formal organization that decided to call themselves XYZ".

One is "descriptive" and the other is merely "nominal".

 

[Politesse]

Police brutality against black Americans is a huge problem in every way
except statistically.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

Black Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police than White Americans, and they are 1.3 times likely to be unarmed at the time of their deaths. And that's an average; in some states, there isn't a huge problem, while in others the chance of death is as bad as 6x higher for Blacks than for Whites.

Disparate results does not prove discrimination!

Cities with more blacks have more police shootings, but blacks are not shot disproportionately in those cities.

He actually conceded discrimination, it's statistical reality he was denying. I provided the statistics in question.

 

[Politesse]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the name means something except for when the name doesn't mean something, and if you notice that you are guilty of something undefined.

More "HoW To tElL ThE DiFfEerEnCe" bullshit. I told you how. This is just willful ignorance.

One people say "that name sounds like it describes me, I will use it to describe me", and the other is "I was recruited based on my beliefs to a formal organization that decided to call themselves XYZ".

One is "descriptive" and the other is merely "nominal".

But which is which? Antifa is very authoritarian, and fascists believe in a centrally controlled economy. Antifa is composed of radical white people, fascists organizations are composed of radical white people. Jarhyn condemns one of them for their horrible evil whiteness, but doesn't condemn the other for their horrible evil whiteness. Jarhyn thinks whiteness is horrible and evil, but iSn'T rAcIsT fOr ReAsOnS.

 

[Jarhyn]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

Not to mention the initial video of the murder literally checked every single box on "murder in the third degree", undeniably. The investigation for third degree murder is literally just watching a 10 minute video. But it took a few days of rioting apparently to get that far, albeit it started with a peaceful protest.

Nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that it was a white likely-cop who was breaking windows.

People are accusing me of racism for merely noting the facts of how the people attacling my community and instigating the events that the police justified attacking a crowd with were white, and have known ties to white nationalist movements, and have themselves declared their racist intents. I didn't make the racists attacking my community do any of that, I didn't wave a magic wand to make a white person wearing a police mask break windows which cops then used as an excuse to shoot mostly black protestors with CS gas and 40mm "less lethal" projectiles.

It's not my fault that they make themselves look like racists trying to incite racial tensions. I'm merely calling a long handled digging tool with a leaf shaped profile and less curve than a stadard shovel "a spade".

 

[laughing dog]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

The video tape caught them in the act of violating police procedure. We don't know what evidence the DA had to charge them. Or are you under the impression that an investigation ends once an arrest is made?

 

[Jarhyn]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

The video tape caught them in the act of violating police procedure. We don't know what evidence the DA had to charge them. Or are you under the impression that an investigation ends once an arrest is made?

I'm personally under the impression. That this is merely a regurgitated right wing talking point, as I have seen it 5--10 times in the last week without any respect to the fact that for literally anyone who isn't a cop, they arrest you first, hold you for as long as they can get away with, charge you with SOMETHING that they have SOME confidence in, and then add on charges as they continue the investigation.

I had preliminary charges within 10 minutes of being picked up for some disorderly conduct back in the day as soon as they had any evidence at all. They could have charged him with third degree assault, and gotten him into a jail as soon as the video dropped.

I should add that this thread isn't about that, though. More relevant is the part from the OP: that this officer had a laundry list of use of force incidents and complaints, and more than just this one death under his belt knee, and I'll give you one guess as to what they all had in common.

 

[blastula]

Nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that it was a white likely-cop who was breaking windows.

People are accusing me of racism for merely noting the facts of how the people attacling my community and instigating the events that the police justified attacking a crowd with were white, and have known ties to white nationalist movements, and have themselves declared their racist intents.

What's your evidence?

 

[Derec]

I should add that this thread isn't about that, though. More relevant is the part from the OP: that this officer had a laundry list of use of force incidents and complaints, a

Police arrest suspects. They are usually too happy about getting caught. I am sure most cops have a "laundry list of complaints". In Chauvin's case, the complaints were investigated, and he was disciplined for one, while the others were dismissed as unfounded. If you were subject of a complaint, would you want it fairly investigated or would you want you to be disciplined no matter the truth content of the complaint?

and more than just this one death under his belt knee, and I'll give you one guess as to what they all had in common.

He had one death. The guy stabbed two people and then raised a shotgun at police. Perfectly justified except in Leftland, where any shooting of a black suspect is automatically deemed wrong.

He shot another perp, a guy who beat up his baby mama. Holed up in the bathroom, went for Chauvin's gun, got shot in the groin (ouch!). Deemed justified. That guy survived though, and later pled guilty to domestic assault. But again, all that matters to you is that he was black.

 

[Derec]

What's your evidence?

He doesn't need no stinkin' evidence. Also, he thinks that destroying a Target is righteous for some not elaborated on sins by Target that probably only he understands.

 

[Derec]

I don't believe you.

Everyone can see your words even if they don't comment on it every time. In fact - the only way anyone has any sense of another person's character is through their words.

The big problem with you is that you have so thoroughly internalized the Left Wing Orthodoxy on race that it has become a religion. "Blacks are oppressed, whites are the oppressors" has become an article of faith for you. So anybody who challenges that notion is automatically labeled a "racist" in your mind.

My posting history is clear. I think that people should be treated as individuals, not interchangeable members of racial groups. Which is also why I oppose racial preferences.
I also oppose the nonsense that there should be equality of outcomes rather than opportunities or that black people are somehow being hunted by police and/or white people when stats do not bear that out - police killings are a small fraction of all homicides and twice as many black people kill white people as vice versa. But if you point non-PC facts like that, people like you label you a "racist" just because you challenge their cherished faith-based belief system.

We can all see the endless stream of bullshit from the past to the present. You're a well known quantity, we've all observed you for years.

 

[Deepak]

The big problem with you is that you have so thoroughly internalized the Left Wing Orthodoxy on race that it has become a religion. "Blacks are oppressed, whites are the oppressors" has become an article of faith for you. So anybody who challenges that notion is automatically labeled a "racist" in your mind.

Who puts 5 MB of gifs into a post?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the name means something except for when the name doesn't mean something, and if you notice that you are guilty of something undefined.

More "HoW To tElL ThE DiFfEerEnCe" bullshit. I told you how. This is just willful ignorance.

One people say "that name sounds like it describes me, I will use it to describe me", and the other is "I was recruited based on my beliefs to a formal organization that decided to call themselves XYZ".

One is "descriptive" and the other is merely "nominal".

But which is which? Antifa is very authoritarian, and fascists believe in a centrally controlled economy. Antifa is composed of radical white people, fascists organizations are composed of radical white people. Jarhyn condemns one of them for their horrible evil whiteness, but doesn't condemn the other for their horrible evil whiteness. Jarhyn thinks whiteness is horrible and evil, but iSn'T rAcIsT fOr ReAsOnS.

I think it was really polite of Antifa and white nationalists to leave their cards at their sites of destruction.

 

[Jarhyn]

The big problem with you is that you have so thoroughly internalized the Left Wing Orthodoxy on race that it has become a religion. "Blacks are oppressed, whites are the oppressors" has become an article of faith for you. So anybody who challenges that notion is automatically labeled a "racist" in your mind.

What kind of moron puts 5 MB of gifs into a post?

Let's just say I don't hold out much hope for someone who doesn't understand that all I've done is point out facts and the self-stated affiliations of other people, with regards to race. They claim people are racist for pointing out the fact that other people have an open and tracked history of racially biased violence, and that people causing damage and recruiting terrorists are doing it with an openly racist agenda.

It would be like calling someone racist for saying "Repoman is a white nationalist" when it is echoing his own statements.

The white nationalists with white nationalist insignias on their truck rolling around north Minneapolis with rifles shooting at people put the white nationalist insignias on their own truck; I'm just saying what they did.

Chauvin had use of force complaints, and killed 8 people, all people of color, culminating with a clear third degree murder on camera. I didn't make him do that I'm just pointing out what he did.

I didn't make the white St Paul cop commit the vandalism that the cops somehow knew about within seconds of him doing it, despite not being visible to any of the other cops, which they then used as an excuse to open fire on PoC protestors. They don't seem to understand that the situation has a racial bias, and I'm not making any attempt to smear white people. I only give a shit about tearing down white racists. But they somehow extend that to all white people. They are making the bold leap of logic that hating white racists is hating all white people, or that wanting to see equity in wealth reach communities of color, which have been starved for such resources by a lack of economic momentum.

Edit: they also don't seem to understand, even after multiple posts about the racism of the Black Isrealites, that I can hate all racism while pointing out that this particular set of incidents is driven by anti-black white racists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

Got it. So police shouldn't attest ANYONE not immediately seen committing a crime until there has been a full investigation and charges are brought.

Or maybe we can acknowledge what the police already think makes sense: that you can arrest a suspect, and continue investigating for 24 hours, bring preliminary charges, and continue investigating, and update those charges.

At the very least, the DA could bring manslaughter charges, the investigation could continue, and then the DA could update those charges, the same way they do for every situation where the suspect isn't a cop.

The 24 hours isn't about continuing investigating, it's about the fact that parts of the system aren't manned 24/7.

I have no problem with arresting on a charge you're confident you can prove and then investigating about others. It's just all too often I feel police are using a ready, fire, aim approach.

 

[Jarhyn]

Got it. So police shouldn't attest ANYONE not immediately seen committing a crime until there has been a full investigation and charges are brought.

Or maybe we can acknowledge what the police already think makes sense: that you can arrest a suspect, and continue investigating for 24 hours, bring preliminary charges, and continue investigating, and update those charges.

At the very least, the DA could bring manslaughter charges, the investigation could continue, and then the DA could update those charges, the same way they do for every situation where the suspect isn't a cop.

The 24 hours isn't about continuing investigating, it's about the fact that parts of the system aren't manned 24/7.

I have no problem with arresting on a charge you're confident you can prove and then investigating about others. It's just all too often I feel police are using a ready, fire, aim approach.

And as I said, the video, day one, was sufficient for 3rd degree murder charges. As you say, not every part of the system is manned 24/7. But this whole incident was RIPE for immediate arrest. Instead, it took a fucking riot to get there. Instead, on the first night of riots, an entire police ARMY was protecting rather than booking him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My initial reaction was dismay at no immediate arrest. I supported protesting that. And then Antifa did not let a good crisis go to waste.

Actually, I do not think there should have been an immediate arrest. If you didn't catch them in the act investigate before arresting!

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

The other police there didn't attempt to arrest him. He was arrested because of the video--that's not immediate.

 

[Jarhyn]

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

The other police there didn't attempt to arrest him. He was arrested because of the video--that's not immediate.

Which is entirely the problem.

 

[Politesse]

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

The other police there didn't attempt to arrest him. He was arrested because of the video--that's not immediate.

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

 

[Deepak]

There were police right there while it happened. How is that not "caught in the act"??

The other police there didn't attempt to arrest him. He was arrested because of the video--that's not immediate.

You said it would be appropriate to arrest someone if they were caught in the act. He was, the police were right there watching him do it. So he should have been detained before the murder was even accomplished, let alone before leaving the scene.

Well the other way to resolve this is to smuggle in an assumption that the law should operate differently for police.