Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[CapelDodger]

Without a focused spokesperson, I do not see how anything can move along.

BLM is not the sort of thing which has leaders or spokespeople. What is actually needed for progress is a political party (which will have to be the Democrats) must present a credible program for drastically improving the situation, principally, I think, by addressing the apparent impunity of officers in so many police authorities. It will have to be followed through, of course, and if it's not, that's when protest comes in again.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is how civil upheaval works.

History likes to package these things in neat boxes with nice labels ...

It really doesn't. Popular history tends to do that, but historians eschew simplicity and revel in nuance.

... but in most cases those identified as leaders in the aftermath were desperately chasing to keep up with events ...

They are identified as leaders after the events because they were either drawn into leadership by said events or made better use of them than others in furthering their ambitions. That's why they're identified as leaders in popular history rather than ...

and those who fancied themselves leaders early on end up as footnotes.

... being forgotten (except by historians).


Cromwell. Napoleon. Lenin. Martin Luther King. All identified as leaders after the events. It defies generalisations.

 

[Mumbles]

When the 'mob' is specifically there to protest the federal [fill in an acceptable word], then yeah, they should leave.

It's not like Portland doesn't have their own police.

This was a political stunt by Trump who was having a slow headline day.

It's actually what he said he would do during the campaign.

Blah blah blah ancient African-American proverb, you know the deal.

 

[CapelDodger]

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.

So Portland becomes a yawn.

 

[Mumbles]

The objectives of the Black Lives Matter campaign are hardly mysterious. It wasn't created in response to the George Floyd murder it was simply re-energised by it. The object is to change the current situation, in which young black men are by any measure disproportionately killed by police officers, to one in which this is no longer the case.

Really, it it was created in response to the aquittal of murderer George Zimmerman. We know that any random cop can suddenly just show up in a rage and beat, choke, shoot us black people (men *and* women - the latter are often forgotten) for no reason and get away with it. We do *not* expect this from random black dudes freaking out because of a burglary the year before.

If a credible path towards changing the situation is proposed and initiated the protests will stop.

No. We're talking about a major change. In theory this was sorted out in 1865, then more so in 1965, and here we are still.

Yep. Cops need much better training, and to lose their military surplus - they can't use their toys responsibly, so they lose them. Bring back counselors and mental health professionals, and leave the cops out of those situations.

...Among many other reforms.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.

So Portland becomes a yawn.

This is the most tragic and depressing part of the Trump presidency for me: that we live in a post-fact world where you-know-who can just rewrite events at will.

Thus you have trumpkins convinced the Mueller investigation was a failure and that it lasted unnaturally long, and that Portland is now quiet because he sent in the Trumpwaffe stormtroopers.

Not to mention that the failures they can't rationalise are handwaved by pretending Biden/Obama/Clinton did, or would have done, just as badly.

This is why I'm such a big proponent for Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites offering people more balanced news feeds, rather than just giving them more of what they already like, essentially turning every user's feed into their own personal echo chamber. We've got enough of those already.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's more a case of what the local police wouldn't do. They are hypothetically capable of doing the job, but they (or their superiors, it gets hazy) chose not to do the job.

So to you it's a black-and-white binary choice between regular policemen and faceless, unaccountable, heavily armed thugs shoving peaceful protesters into black vans? How enlightening.

 

[Mumbles]

When things are being destroyed and lives and property are threatened, the police do not 'leave'.

They absolutely do leave. And then run to the media to talk about "all these looters". Ferguson got to the point where BLM and other protesters physically ejected looters and then stood outside them to protect them. The protesters themselves? Tear gas, guns, flashbangs, to preserve their white supremacist ripoff scheme.

And it's the same in far too many cities. Two black kids talking on a street corner? Thrown into a wall, screaming slurs and threats, beatings. Rape victims? Laughed at and called a whore. Robbed at gunpoint? No response. Shooting? Better keep your mouth shut, because the cops will offer you no protection.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It really doesn't. Popular history tends to do that, but historians eschew simplicity and revel in nuance.



They are identified as leaders after the events because they were either drawn into leadership by said events or made better use of them than others in furthering their ambitions. That's why they're identified as leaders in popular history rather than ...

... being forgotten (except by historians).


Cromwell. Napoleon. Lenin. Martin Luther King. All identified as leaders after the events. It defies generalisations.

Okay, but the civil upheaval we're currently experiencing hasn't risen to anywhere near the level that propelled any of those figures to their current stature. So looking for the leader now is futile.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It appears that Trump has declared victory in Portland and is drawing down the Republican Guard without them actually sweeping the streets of agitators as previously advertised. That has to be a bit demoralising for the Republican Guard itself, but saisfying for Trump and the likes of Emily's Cat.
So Portland becomes a yawn.

WTH is that supposed to mean?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So to you it's a black-and-white binary choice between regular policemen and faceless, unaccountable, heavily armed thugs shoving peaceful protesters into black vans? How enlightening.

Arguments from "so" are almost always wrong. This is one of those times. Also enlightening

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Arguments from "so" are almost always wrong. This is one of those times.

It was a rhetorical question. If the answer is no, your post makes very little sense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It was a rhetorical question. If the answer is no, your post makes very little sense.

You're right, it wasn't actually a question seeking an answer. It was an assumption of a point of view attributed to me, without supporting evidence, complete with an implied insult tossed in at the end.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Aurora (Denver) has been having its own fair share of racist-police events, last month was the guy carrying groceries home pinned down and injected with ketamine, dying in custody. Now a woman and her kids were handcuffed and laid out on the concrete, because the plate on her SUV matched that of a motorcycle in another state listed as stolen. It's good that they weren't killed, but that's a horrifyingly low bar to clear.

Those of us not black can't sigh in relief that it's only black people. Police get used to being able to get away with brutal actions because it's only black people, and they don't stop doing them when it's not.

 

[Mumbles]

Aurora (Denver) has been having its own fair share of racist-police events, last month was the guy carrying groceries home pinned down and injected with ketamine, dying in custody. Now a woman and her kids were handcuffed and laid out on the concrete, because the plate on her SUV matched that of a motorcycle in another state listed as stolen. It's good that they weren't killed, but that's a horrifyingly low bar to clear.

At least in the latter one I know the PD is trying to make right. Of course, when there's video of you handcuffing a shrieking child because you mistook an SUV for a motorcycle.

Those of us not black can't sigh in relief that it's only black people. Police get used to being able to get away with brutal actions because it's only black people, and they don't stop doing them when it's not.

As I always say, the people most likely to be killed by police are actually Native Americans.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You're right, it wasn't actually a question seeking an answer. It was an assumption of a point of view attributed to me, without supporting evidence, complete with an implied insult tossed in at the end.

The question IIRC was what these Trumpen SS were supposed to be able to do that regular police couldn't, as in, why do they need to be faceless, unaccountable, and 'kidnap' people in unmarked vans, like in some East European police state?

The obvious answer to that is nothing, if they really did feel Portland needed reinforcements they should have sent regular servicemen who followed rules and the Constitution, and were clearly identifiable and accountable.

"Butbut Portland police did nothing" is indeed a pretty telling answer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The question IIRC was what these Trumpen SS were supposed to be able to do that regular police couldn't, as in, why do they need to be faceless, unaccountable, and 'kidnap' people in unmarked vans, like in some East European police state?

The obvious answer to that is nothing, if they really did feel Portland needed reinforcements they should have sent regular servicemen who followed rules and the Constitution, and were clearly identifiable and accountable.

"Butbut Portland police did nothing" is indeed a pretty telling answer.

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

As far as sending in "regular servicemen" I'm going to assume you're referring to active duty military personnel? Well, they can't - that would be unconstitutional. I think that they're allowed to do so when martial law is declared, but I'm not entirely sure. National guard can be deployed... but they're generally supposed to be used to defend and to respond as assistance in emergency situation. So it's really down to the handful of agencies that are allowed to operate in that capacity on US soil. Which is who was there.

I don't think there's anything "telling" about my response here. You're assuming far more than is present in what I've said.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

As far as sending in "regular servicemen" I'm going to assume you're referring to active duty military personnel? Well, they can't - that would be unconstitutional. I think that they're allowed to do so when martial law is declared, but I'm not entirely sure. National guard can be deployed... but they're generally supposed to be used to defend and to respond as assistance in emergency situation. So it's really down to the handful of agencies that are allowed to operate in that capacity on US soil. Which is who was there.

I don't think there's anything "telling" about my response here. You're assuming far more than is present in what I've said.

The Portland police wasn't acting as aggressively because of several court injunctions prohibiting wanton use of violence after several weeks of unrestrained police brutality. There was enough evidence of the PPB needlessly gassing and injuring the crowds and targeting journalists for unlawful arrests and attacks that the courts ordered them to stop.

Luckily for all involved, the feds showed up and had no such restrictions

 

[Mumbles]

The reason the federal troops were there was because the police in Portland were not protecting federal property. The police in Portland are capable of protecting that property, but they were not doing so. A genuine answer to your question is that there is nothing that the feds were supposed to do that regular police couldn't - the regular police could, but weren't.

The idiot sending his goon squad there at all is why he's the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson.

There are already Federal Police that are allowed to work with local or state that are empowered to protect federal property. Standard service rifle, baton, tazer, and other such equipment, their own vehicles to take people down to whatever local place can hold them. And yes, ID and shield. If some buffoon runs up looking to attack them or property, they can use appropriate force. some guy setting fire to trash in the middle of the street does *not* mean it's time to assemble the Avengers. It doesn't mean you need an MRAP with a dude with a high powered rifle to threaten the crowd with.

You need a fire extinguisher (even in Portland, the protestors were putting out fires themselves), and *maybe* to arrest that one guy. In short, stop acting like you're in Fallujah fighting the Taliban - you aren't, and even if you *were*, the army knows better than to blast the girl with the flower on the news crew directly in the face with an explosive. Calm the hell down, if you leave the hot-dog seller and, the guy playing the drum, you'll probably get a hot dog, some water...and possibly a minor headache.

(And, as a hint, if some car comes speeding through shooting all of a sudden, it's probably a white supremacist, not BLM or the mythical ANTIFA. You know, the guys with the *actual* centuries-long history of murder? The guys that openly talk about how they want to show up at events and kill cops? More likely than BLM, with no known murders or attempted murders tied to it, or ANTIFA which, yet again, just means they fight against fascists?)

This goes for most interactions. If that cop that shot Levar Jones, or Philando Castile, had just been calm, everyone would likely be perfectly fine now. Yes, there are a *few* guys who may go all Quickdraw out of nowhere. But the cop is the professional, and the one that initiates the encounter. They don't need to lose their minds in fear if he does something they don't expect, or move too fast. Or move too slow.

 

[Mumbles]

Anyway, why do these police think that rioting, looting, vandalizing, etc. is right?

Like I said, every time, these are all cop riots, and that's exactly why people are protesting. If the cops would just calm down and stop turning violent at random, Beating people, firing explosives wildly, etc., folks wouldn't be marching in the first place. But they insist, so folks have gone from "reform" to "defund".