#10042

Ah! Probably good you’re not in Minneapolis by the sounds of things. I just finished reading a CBC article on the woes of the MPD and it was thoroughly depressing reading. I need to do something to cheer myself up right now.

2 Likes
#10043

Yeah, I think it’s real easy to get caught up in the violence and awfulness that’s happening. But I think that’s a mistake, mostly because 1) it won’t help, and 2) it puts the focus on the rioting and violence, and not the actual issue that sparked it all.

1 Like
#10044

In the case of MPD, some of those interviewed were saying the current situation there is basically the culmination of about 100 years of local history playing out. FWIW:

3 Likes
#10045

This is an older article, but it still has some good points:

The ‘every traffic stop could be a violent criminal out to shoot you’-training by itself leads to stuff like this:

Add the systemic racism on top of that and the current situation emerges.

Meanwhile the imbecile in the oval office hopes for more looting, so Bone-Spur Don the draft dodger can play at being a general. I guess the military is more attractive to him now that it isn’t his life on the line.

4 Likes
#10046

Yeah, I don’t deny that police training can lead some to be overly fearful. (Philando Castille springs to mind.) However, by way of anecdote, I have one current and one former police officer in my extended family. Both have been involved in shootings. One was shot and the other was shot at, and wrestled around on the ground with the guy, both the cop (my cousin) and the suspect’s guns malfunctioned.

The point is, that both of these things happened and are truly ■■■■■■■ crazy and neither cop had any inkling that some crazy ■■■■ was about to go down. (The cop who was shot at pulled up to be backup to another office conducting a traffic stop for speeding at 1am. My cousin pulled up and saw the baddie shoot the other cop right in the face - he lived, but the emotional trauma lasts a lifetime. But this is why they train as they do - reaction is always slower than action.

What’s not mentioned (or at least, I didn’t see it in my skimming) in the article is how the actions of the suspect play into a violent outcome. --Please note: obviously, I’m not talking police brutality here - I’m talking about situations where a phone is mistaken for a gun.–

If a cop tells someone to stop because he suspects that a crime has occurred and is trying to investigate, and the person runs while reaching into their pants - no matter if it’s for a cell phone, bag of candy, or what - that’s a movement that could lead to a very bad outcome. Why? Because, as stated in the article, it doesn’t take much for someone to reach back while running and fire a gun.

So while yes, I agree that training could be better and we could expect police officers - as it’s their job - to take on some risk in interacting with unknown members of the public every day, we should also understand that there are certainly times where the question needs to be asked: WTF else would you have that cop do? Wait until the baddie fired first?

As an aside, I’ve told you kids before that I have a concealed carry license and carry all the time. I’ve taken more instruction from certified police/NRA/gun trainers than I’d care to admit, and every single time, what they all had in common was that trying to react to a threat will get your ass killed. They’ve always said it’s much better to act as by the time you see and process the fact that yes, that person is pointing a gun at me, you’ll be dead.

And that’s all nice and neat on a firing range - but I’d argue that it’s definitely not so neat out in real life. I know in my heart that even if legally justified, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I mistakenly shot and killed someone who wasn’t intending to kill me. So, personally, yeah, I’d have to see the gun first. I mean, wtf else would I do? I’m not a cop, it’s not my job to enforce anything. I carry solely to protect myself and my family.

Long rambling nonsensical post. Sorry. I guess my point is that while it’s nice to say that yes, cops need more training or at least better training, in practice I’m not so sure that’s necessarily the answer.

2 Likes
#10047

On the one hand, that was an interesting post, on the other… It is an answer Mike, it absolutely is. There’s decades of data on what happens with escalation, and it’s not even particularly ambiguous data. Yes, violence can still occur, but escalation has been consistently shown to make it more likely and worse.

Admittedly it’s not a complete solution, but training the police to respond to the public like they’re the military facing enemies is definitely part of the problem.

4 Likes
#10048

I’d be interested to know what your extended family members make of things like tear-gassing peaceful protesters outside and inside a church. I have no idea what went through the minds of the officers who did that, whether any of them questioned it at all, or if they all thought it was a jolly good idea. But I really hope the number of those who would question such an order is greater than the number who would go along with it.

3 Likes
#10049

Well, if we’re talking about escalating vs. deescalating, yeah, I’d agree. But the author mentioned that in his view part of the problem is the training that encourages police to perceive a threat at every traffic stop, and that this training makes them fearful.

I suppose you could say that that’s part and parcel of the anti-escalation argument; however, my point was only that I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a cop to take precautions. Because a traffic stop can indeed lead to a bad outcome.

I think it’s entirely possible for a cop to be fearful, or at least a little wary when pulling someone over as wtf knows who’s in that car, AND at the same time, attempt to deescalate.

Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they’d likely be against tear gassing peaceful protesters. However, if those same peaceful people attempted to set that church ablaze, personally, I’d hope they’d spew some tear gas. Right?

1 Like
#10050

No. Tear gas shouldn’t be legal frankly. Also VH was likely referring to the church that had its protestors and priest driven out with tear gas for that photo op by Trump.

3 Likes
#10051

As per Temet - this was clearing the way for a Trump photo op that the WH press person is comparing to Churchill appearing amongst bombed out ruins during WW2. Except Churchill didn’t have homes demolished with high explosives just so he could go stand there (obviously).

So, you had a bunch of people including the clergy basically causing no problems, but they were in the way and someone ordered them cleared out by force.

4 Likes
Political Discussion Thread II
#10052

Seems kinda relevant.
#10053

I don’t know. I don’t feel too badly for someone who’s attempting to burn down a building getting tear-gassed.

  1. I’ve never been much of a Churchill fan.

  2. This is a dumb avenue for us to go down, as one would think that the big anti-gubmint guy on the board probably wouldn’t support the act of assaulting innocent people and the clergy. And just so we’re clear, I don’t.

  3. Are we even sure that this tear-gassing occurred? Granted, this is from the gubmint so it could very possibly be a pack of lies, but…

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.htm

The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP officers in the line of duty, the destruction of public property and the defacing of memorials and monuments. During four days of demonstrations, 51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.

Multiple agencies assisted the USPP in responding to and quelling the acts of destruction and violence over the course of the weekend in order to protect citizens and property.

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Also interesting to note, is that thus far the pictures I’ve seen of the tear-gassing pigs clearing the way for Orangeman Uberleader, none of them are wearing gas masks. Which is weird, because it’s my understanding that cops also dislike tear gas. So when they’re gonna use it, they tend to put on a gas mask. I mean, this is crazy and all so hear me out, perhaps - wait for it - the media got this one wrong? Is that possible? Or is this a case of - wait for it - the gubmint being lying ■■■■■■■ shitheads once again? Or is the answer here just… yes? Yes!

And what monuments and historic buildings were vandalized and burned down? Cause dude - if you tried to break off Abe Lincoln’s stovepipe hat on the Lincoln Memorial, I’m pretty sure I’d be in favor of having you put up against the Washington Monument (America’s phallus) and shot. But that’s… uh… probably just me on that one, amirite? :slight_smile:

image
image1600×1600 174 KB

#10054

That’s… way too far down the conspiracy theory hole Mike. Not only were reporters present, but there’s video from multiple sources contradicting everything from the claims of the protests not being peaceful, to the gas masks, to the use of tear gas. The last one is probably the least obvious lie though, they’re claiming now that OC gas isn’t tear gas, since a journalist actually picked up a canister.

As for the thing on tear gas - it doesn’t discriminate. It isn’t controllable. You don’t get to pick and choose who gets health problems from it. And frankly on a personal level I think if something is banned for use in war, we might want to consider it’s a bad idea for use domestically.

2 Likes
#10055

What’s the conspiracy? That the Park cops are lying, or the media are wrong? Maybe they are lying and teargas was used. But I’m reluctant to take at face value what a reporter on the scene says about guns or police tactics, as it’s been my experience they don’t know the difference between rubber bullets and ear protection, just as I am reluctant (AF) to take the government’s word on jack ■■■■.

Maybe the protests WERE peaceful, and no bricks were thrown, no church basements were set alight, no monuments were vandalized, and no cops were injured. But gee, wouldn’t that mean we’d have to review a ■■■■ LOAD of video to know one way or the other? I mean, the possibility exists that both sides here - the gubmint and the media - are completely full of dog poo.

I don’t think one has to be a conspiracy theorist to distrust the media and government in the US. :man_shrugging:t3:

#10056

No, just no. This is something we have actual evidence on Mike. There’s no need for assumptions here, and claiming that everything is equally likely to be true simply because you dislike both sides is as bad as trusting them mindlessly. Something either happened or didn’t.

Seriously Mike, if multiple video sources, statements from sources ranging across demographics, and actual physical evidence isn’t enough, what is? At that point we’re hitting philosophical claims that everything might be an illusion, that’s just a different topic than politics.

1 Like
#10057

Mike, I think you must have been hiding in a hole when this went down. The clergy in the church themselves have corroborated the reports. There’s plenty of video and eyewitness accounts. To be clear, in this case the ONLY violence was initiated by the police who had been instructed to clear the area so Trump could go stand and wave a bible around for the cameras. That’s it.

2 Likes
#10058

Especially when cops are aiming cannisters at peoples ■■■■■■■ heads.

“Cop Riot” and “Sacred Fence” are my new two favorite words in my lexicon.

1 Like
#10059

There’s two issues here: 1) did they use tear gas, and 2) was the crowd violent?

Well, the physical evidence I’ve seen, pics of the canisters fired at the crowd, have “OC” written on them. That’s pepper ■■■■. Tear gas is CS or CN - or is everything classified broadly as “tear gas” now? Are we just arguing over ■■■■■■■ semantics? If you have evidence of tear gas being used, please show me. I want to know the truth, but my google searches are full of claims and reports, but short on actual evidence.

If the crowd was violent, gotta say I haven’t seen much evidence of that while googling. A few reports say some people threw some ■■■■. The majority of reports say no, that’s not true, no one threw anything. Which of course only means that that reporter didn’t see anyone in the immediate vicinity throw anything, but when that’s backed up by a lot of reporters, maybe that’s the case.

And no, I haven’t watched every ■■■■■■■ video, or read every ■■■■■■■ report on it. Why? Because as I learned when it was happening here in 2014, all sides (cops, protestors and media) claimed ■■■■ happened that wasn’t actually true. So I’ve learned since to let a story play out for a bit before asserting that this or that happened.

It’s not as existential as “I believe no one.” It’s that I distrust them all based on recent experience. What kind of moron would I be to ignore the recent past, events which were EXTREMELY similar to current events?

Our post limit is almost here. Soon, this thread will be destroyed and all of you with it. That’s what’s gonna happen, right?

1 Like
#10060

I see you typing, Temet. MAKE IT A GOOD ONE AS THE END (of thread) TIMES ARE UPON US ALL.

1 Like
#10061

Yes Mike, we will all perish in the great purge. Orrrr, you could be stuck with us. I’m thinking it’s probably the second.

As for the tear gas thing, as far as I’m aware it’s lachrymator agents in general, but I have by no means tracked the use of the word that way. From recollection, CS is the oldest, and CN the most toxic, but that’s just top of my head.

I don’t know about good, particularly given I had trouble tracking which of these was oldest. Regardless, wouldn’t be surprised if we hit the new thread tonight.

1 Like