Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Puppycow]

I don't know if it matters if you call them Antifa, or violent protesters, or whatever you call the subsection of protesters who engage in violence, but the damage from them to businesses and people is still there. I definitely agree that Trump and Fox News have used the 'Antifa' term so broadly, that it has lost a lot of meaning, and people do not take them seriously anymore.

They will call a group of peaceful demonstrators just standing there with signs 'antifa terrorists.' It certainly does not make people believe them when there actually protesters engaging in violence.

Meanwhile, a roving band of 150 people walked around Seattle openly looting and starting fires last night, and according to the police "nothing could be done" to stop it.
Police: Roving band breaks into Seattle businesses, setting fires, looting

Seems like some kind of organized group, whether under the label of 'antifa' or no label. Does it even matter what they choose to call themselves? The point is what they are doing. And police are just letting them do it (presumably under orders from the city, which is controlled by Democrats).

No arrests were made. No officers were injured.

So they simply allowed a mob of people to go on a rampage of destruction.

I saw this article from Anne Applebaum, btw:

Trump Is Putting On a Show in Portland

That’s because the purpose of these troops is not to bring peace to Portland. The purpose is to transmit a message. Americans should find this tactic familiar, because we’ve seen it before. When the Trump administration cruelly separated children from their families at the southern border, that was, among other things, a performance designed to show the public just how much the president dislikes immigrants from Mexico and Honduras. The attack on demonstrators in Portland is like that: a performance designed to show just how much Trump dislikes “liberal” Americans, “urban” Americans, “Democrat” Americans. To put it differently (and to echo my colleague Adam Serwer): The chaos in Portland is not an accident. The chaos is the point.

The chaos is also a tactic, and now it will be put to use. Now that it has been deliberately escalated, the violence will provide pictures, footage, video clips, and other material for Trump’s media supporters, and eventually for his campaign advertisements. On Fox News, Sean Hannity has already denounced Portland as a “war zone.” Tucker Carlson has spoken of protesters as “mobs” who keep liberal Democrats in power. The next stage will implicate Joe Biden in this same story: The president’s aides have told journalists that Biden, if he wins, will “allow left-wing fascists to destroy America.” Protesters, mobs, chaos, fascists, the left, the “Dems”, Biden—they’re all one narrative. The Trump administration will show people pictures of its uniformed troops pushing back against them, restoring order with a strong hand. And it will use the kind of language that appeals to that part of the population that prizes safety over all else.
Students of modern dictatorship will find these tactics wearily familiar. Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump admires, has deployed performative authoritarianism, alongside other tools, in order to keep himself in power for many years now. In 2014, during a political crisis in Ukraine, he created an elaborate media narrative that equated Ukrainian democracy protesters with 1940s fascists. Russian state television showed scenes of violence over and over again—scenes that Putin himself had helped create, first by encouraging the former Ukrainian president to shoot at demonstrators, and then by invading the country. He sent troops in unmarked uniforms—the infamous “little green men”—into Crimea and eventually eastern Ukraine to “dominate” the situation, to use Trump’s own word for his tactics in Portland. Or at least that was the way it was meant to look on TV.

Basically, chaos like this could be politically useful for Trump. Most people probably don't want to see their cities destroyed by mobs and for local police to just stand aside and allow it to happen. Zero arrests. If the local police can't stop this or won't this, who will?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Seems like some kind of organized group, whether under the label of 'antifa' or no label. Does it even matter what they choose to call themselves? The point is what they are doing. And police are just letting them do it (presumably under orders from the city, which is controlled by Democrats).

You are correct on that. The Seattle Council member Lisa Herbold has even said that every single protester needs to be immediately released from custody no matter what they are charged with. So far, those protesters that have been arrested for violence or other crimes have often been released the same day and are back causing destruction in less than 24 hours.


Constant repeat offenders, and immunity for those caught has been a long problem in Seattle. A primary reason for this has been a prosecutors office in Seattle that refuses to charge most crimes that are referred to him. Some police have stopped arresting for many crimes as they know it will never get prosecuted. There is an extremely well known limit of $750 that thieves need to stay under to avoid prosecution. Shoplifters will even carefully limit the merchandise they gather in stores to just under $740 and casually walk out with impunity.

Not to mention the violent crimes that are allowed to occur without abatement. Seattle businesses released a list of 100 prolific offenders in Seattle. One of whom who set fire to a business, and was released the same day to accost the woman that identified him. As well as a man who repeatedly attacked people on the street, including throwing hot coffee on a baby.

Many Seattle parents have gotten used to teaching their kids how to look for spent drug needles on the ground. Including a daycare that I know that has to scour the playground every morning for the scatted drug needles that litter the ground every morning.

Many of those problems are detailed in the well known documentary Seattle is Dying.



That level of prosecution is far too strict for many, and the Seattle Council is moving to nearly or completely dismantle the police force, and remove the King County jails.

In the meantime so far, as long as someone declares their actions a part of the protest, they have complete immunity. As the popular saying goes "there is no bad protester, and no good cop."

 

[HoverBoarder]

Many people laugh at the Seattle Superhero Pheonex Jones who roams around Seattle with a full outfit and pepper Spray trying to prevent people from being assaulted or attacked, and who also has been arrested for selling drugs.

It is a pretty hilarious notion for many people, but there have been a few cases where he has actually saved a few peoples lives.

That somewhat amusing situation will be replaced with a lot of inexperienced new gun owners who will be anxiously ready to shoot potential criminals as the council moves forward to replace the admittedly flawed social safety they had from police, with social workers who will help them navigate the trauma of their new hyper violent reality.

 

[CapelDodger]

What do you mean when you say "not a thing"?

Do you believe that racism is a thing?

For example.

This is getting bizarre. Of course racism is a thing, and lies at the root of all this. Tasmania is a thing as well, and just as relevant.

"Antifa" is not a thing in much the same way that the Deep State is not a thing. I don't know where the rather silly name arose, but probably a hashtag or something similar. Some people like to associate themselves with the word, and who doesn't like being seen fighting the good fight against fascism? Others like to point to it as another Soros-financed scheme to bring down all that is good and pure in the world and that BLM is part of it. If it was a thing it would have been declared a terrorist organisation by now, but we've heard no more of that scheme, have we?

 

[CapelDodger]

Mayors across the United States have rejected Donald Trump’s election-season depiction of their cities as awash in violence, and media coverage of peaceful protests in Portland and elsewhere has belied the president’s claims of widespread “anarchy”.
But for Americans who mainly consume conservative media, Trump’s latest evocation of an “American carnage”, with “a shocking explosion of shootings, killings, murders and heinous crimes of violence” is as plain as the news flashing across the screen.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/24/donald-trump-conservative-media-protests-anarchy


I suspected this would be the case. The world is a terrifying place for Fox News watchers, with all the chaos and destruction and burning cities and murderous illegal immigrants looting all that is good and pure and easy to fence. Something must be done to crush this organised insurrection! Those guys in Selma knew how to get the job done, but these days the Democrats who want open borders and no police at all won't let them do their job. It's a damn shame.

 

[rdwight]

I was addressing what you posted.
Who's "they"? So the dog whistle means protests to some and revolution to others.

"They" are the literal people that were quoted in the article I was responding to here. Obviously there is no completely uniformed opinion, as is the case on basically any subject. Hopefully you aren't trying to dismiss the discussion because of that.

Yes, Trump has been calling protests with a couple hundred to a couple 1000 people on a couple streets taking over a city of 750,000+ (Seattle not counting all the connected suburbs) or Portland (665,000)

I get that you love to insert Trump into any conversation but it has zero to do with what I am talking about.

First off, the protests had been dying down here in Seattle, there was a small protest march invaded by an even smaller group of window smashers.

Portland's protests were also small and getting smaller until federal agents moved in to start violently opposing the protesters. People came out to protest for a new cause: oppose the secret police.

What you describe was not happening. Protests were not "escalating". They stopped blocking the freeways and attempts to block onramps/offramps were stopped by the police.

I guess you are focusing this discussion on Portland and Seattle because you are most familiar with them but my replies as well as the thread do not really revolve around them only. When I said escalation, I am talking about a protest escalating into a riot / peaceful protest -> violent protest. And how the people that were referenced in the article are in turn normalizing the violence and using comparisons of popular revolutions as if those are good examples.

Edited to add: The news is reporting they believe the bat wielding group were related to a Portland group. There has been a small group of declared "anarchists" showing up at past protests like the WTO protests. They like to break windows. Few if any people want them here and they certainly aren't a welcome part of the protesters.

People often latch onto protests with their own causes as if it makes the protest about their cause. It ruins protests, they aren't wanted and sometimes they get blocked sometimes they don't.

The only cause they serve is giving fuel to people opposing the protesters. It's possible the anarchists expect to start a revolution like T McVeigh though blowing up the Murrow building would start a revolution.

I agree with you about the anarchists. There is almost always a clear distinction when I watch live streaming from protests of the groups and tactics being used. But there is definitely more discussion normalizing the violent elements in protests. I remember seeing a poll from early June that had Democrats at somewhere near one in three approving of violent protests in response to a police killing (Republicans were closer to 1 in 9). That's far from fringe.

While the more seasoned protesters are able to keep their groups in line with their goals, the larger these events get the more the majority mindset of what is acceptable will make a difference.

 

[Mumbles]

These types of issues seem to swing from one side to the other like a pendulum. If the cops police too aggressively, citizen complaints (some legit) go up. If they don't police aggressively enough, crime goes up. It seems obvious to me that the cops are going to police a whole lot less aggressively in the major cities that have been hit by the demonstrations and riots, particularly in places like Seattle and Portland, where the elected leaders have undercut any effort by the police to restore order.

Haha, no, that's stupid. The actual complaint is that the neighborhoods are both overpoliced, with police driving around and beating people at random, and simultaneously underpoliced, in that 911 calls woulg get no responses at all. In other words, it's that the resource allocation is entirely broken, all the time.

What *actually* happens in these cases is that one of the cops outright murder some black dude for little to no reason, people protest, police immediately start blasting tear gas and beating the **** out of random people, and then everyone decides "well, I'm not calling these violent thugs for anything". They stop calling to the cops, for the same reason I did - and for the same reason I won't play with wild animals. They are known to be dangerous.

That whole "Ferguson Effect" where the black brutes scared the poor, heavily armed cops into hiding, that the notably racist Heather Mac Donald came up with? Here's something with actual evidence:

The study makes for a grim chronicle. On October 23, 2004, Jude and a black male friend arrived at a private party in a white middle-class neighborhood as guests of two white women college students. Shortly after arriving, the four headed to their vehicle, but it was soon surrounded by at least 10 men.

The men accused Jude and his friend of stealing Andrew Spengler’s police badge, and all four were pulled from their truck. Jude’s male friend had “his face slit with a knife” and escaped, according to the authors. Jude suffered blows to his face and torso; his arms were pinned behind his back; he was kicked in the head; an officer stomped on his face “until he heard bones breaking;” he was picked up and kicked in the groin so hard “his feet left the ground;” he had a pen inserted deep into his ear canals; his fingers were “bent back” until “they snapped;” before finally being left naked from the waist down on the sidewalk in a pool of his own blood.

A total of 22,200 fewer calls were made to 911 during the year following Jude’s beating, according to the researchers, with over half of that loss (56 percent) happening in black neighborhoods. The authors of the study see the significant decline as worrisome given how heavily police work depends on resident-initiated interactions, such as calling the emergency line. “Police work of every kind relies on citizen participation, especially reports of law breaking … If police misconduct lowers crime reporting throughout black communities, it directly threatens public safety within those communities, many of which already have high levels of crime,” the authors concluded in the article.

In the end, homicides shot up by 32 percent. Another note: the vast majorities of these murders occur because some dude feels "disrespected" by some other dude, so he shoots him. If you aren't in that narrow demographic, you'll likely live - and you also will if you simply don't get involved in that sort of thing (the enraging exception is black trans women). But teenagers and guys in their young 20s are hot-headed, so they're the most likely murderers and victims.

The one time two NYPD officers were killed by some lunatic from Maryland, and they completely withdrew, most of the men said that they felt *safer*, because they didn't have to worry that some guy would run up screaming, throw them into a wall, dig in their pockets, and then threaten that they'd better not be there in 10 minutes.

 

[Mumbles]

The really ironic thing, is that I don't think that many of the white protesters and politicians who support policies like these realize how incredibly racist they are being towards black people.


They can be incredibly 'woke,' and follow the tenets of the anti "whiteness" doctrines of White Fragility. They destroy stores (some of whom are black owned), destroy people's lives, and can feel incredibly vindicated when telling police officers that they should kill themselves. However, the reality is that all of those actions are completely self serving.

If their only legacy from those actions is that they have destroyed a lot of things, and create policies that kill hundreds or thousands of black people who did not have to die, than they are no better than the KKK members who outright state that as their goal. In fact, they likely will kill more black people than the whole KKK organization has done in its entire existence. The only real difference is that the KKK members are honest with themselves about their goals, and the results of their actions.

So far no amount of actions from Black leaders has been able to get them to stop. At CHOP in Seattle, the official BLM chapter members were shouted down and cursed at by largely white protesters for hijacking the Black Lives Matter movement message, and hindering their attempts to make real and lasting change for the black community.

The 'Defund the Police' movement has been one of the most racist efforts by largely white protesters and politicians who refuse to look at the selfish, and tragically deadly affects of their actions.

A bunch of pseudo-conservative drivel, complete with a ridiculous of slang taken from black twitter and nightmares of wild-eyed black brutes leveling cities and slaughtering thousands. Wanna discuss mass rapes of white women as well? Teach cops to behave themselves around black and indigenous people. Tell them to stop choking people out over "loitering" or "smell of marijuana", move more of them into detective units, test the rape kit backlog (and I mean *all* of them) and let people in summer spray each other with water guns without flipping out.

And if there's a protest, just move back, wear the normal uniform, and let everyone march and chant.

I mean, I grew up in one of these communities, and mentored kids in another. I've been saying the same thing for years, based on what every person has said. This Is Not Difficult. Oh, and they can't have their MRAPs and tear gas and the like. They keep hitting other people with their toys, so they lose them.

Damn, how racist was your post is what I want to know. What in the name of Beelzebub makes you think they want anything but to not worry about having their lives ruined or ended whenever the cops show up? We've been screaming it, in unison, for ******* decades!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"They" are the literal people that were quoted in the article I was responding to here. Obviously there is no completely uniformed opinion, as is the case on basically any subject. Hopefully you aren't trying to dismiss the discussion because of that.

I get that you love to insert Trump into any conversation but it has zero to do with what I am talking about.

I guess you are focusing this discussion on Portland and Seattle because you are most familiar with them but my replies as well as the thread do not really revolve around them only. When I said escalation, I am talking about a protest escalating into a riot / peaceful protest -> violent protest. And how the people that were referenced in the article are in turn normalizing the violence and using comparisons of popular revolutions as if those are good examples.

I agree with you about the anarchists. There is almost always a clear distinction when I watch live streaming from protests of the groups and tactics being used. But there is definitely more discussion normalizing the violent elements in protests. I remember seeing a poll from early June that had Democrats at somewhere near one in three approving of violent protests in response to a police killing (Republicans were closer to 1 in 9). That's far from fringe.

While the more seasoned protesters are able to keep their groups in line with their goals, the larger these events get the more the majority mindset of what is acceptable will make a difference.

There are no riots in this whole damn country.

There are a lot of peaceful protests. There are a few idiots smashing windows. There are a few idiots smashing storefronts and looting a few stores.

Have you ever seen a real riot in this country? There have been a few. Watts, Detroit, LA, to name a couple of the actual riots.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with you about the anarchists. There is almost always a clear distinction when I watch live streaming from protests of the groups and tactics being used. But there is definitely more discussion normalizing the violent elements in protests. I remember seeing a poll from early June that had Democrats at somewhere near one in three approving of violent protests in response to a police killing (Republicans were closer to 1 in 9). That's far from fringe.

I DON'T BUY YOUR ANONYMOUS POLL for a SECOND.

People that are treated like animals are likely at some point going to bite the hands of their abusers. Do they sit back and allow themselves to be abused forever? I don't agree or approve of violence in any fashion. That said, I understand how being treated as second class citizens for generations may lead to it.

The problem with Republicans is they won't even acknowledge there are issues. A GOP talking point is to deny the obvious and insist that systemic racist isn't a problem.

 

[rdwight]

There are no riots in this whole damn country.

There are a lot of peaceful protests. There are a few idiots smashing windows. There are a few idiots smashing storefronts and looting a few stores.

Have you ever seen a real riot in this country? There have been a few. Watts, Detroit, LA, to name a couple of the actual riots.

This is again why I feel like there is little benefit in having a conversation with you. You want to argue semantics instead of the point or the broader issue. And it is barely semantics, more just if the words you see match your personal definition of things.

Look at the cost of property damage in regards to these "protests" and let my know how they match up to any of your named "riots" in value. Feel free to ignore all points and nuance with others if you feel like it wins you some kind of internet points.

 

[Mumbles]

This is again why I feel like there is little benefit in having a conversation with you. You want to argue semantics instead of the point or the broader issue. And it is barely semantics, more just if the words you see match your personal definition of things.

Look at the cost of property damage in regards to these "protests" and let my know how they match up to any of your named "riots" in value. Feel free to ignore all points and nuance with others if you feel like it wins you some kind of internet points.

I mean, if you want to say the cops and Dolt 45's goon squad were rioting, I could agree to that one. I wouldn't be shocked if even the (rather small) fires were actually caused by the flaming cans of noxious fumes and the flashbangs that these knuckleheads have been firing around thoughtlessly.

ETA: Looks like at least a few of the ones in this video were.

 

[rdwight]

I DON'T BUY YOUR ANONYMOUS POLL for a SECOND.

This is the poll i am referring to. You can take it however you want really.

People that are treated like animals are likely at some point going to bite the hands of their abusers. Do they sit back and allow themselves to be abused forever? I don't agree or approve of violence in any fashion. That said, I understand how being treated as second class citizens for generations may lead to it.

The problem with Republicans is they won't even acknowledge there are issues. A GOP talking point is to deny the obvious and insist that systemic racist isn't a problem.

And if the ones being violent aren't actually a part of the 'abused, second class citizens'? Should we ignore and forgive when middle class white kids cause destruction in locations they don't actually live in, in the name of people they don't actually know or understand? There can't be the idea that anarchist are causing mayhem despite BLM protesters and that righteous rebellion is happening by an underclass population. Switching back and forth depending on which you see in any given footage does not incite confidence.

 

[rdwight]

I mean, if you want to say the cops and Dolt 45's goon squad were rioting, I could agree to that one. I wouldn't be shocked if even the (rather small) fires were actually caused by the flaming cans of noxious fumes and the flashbangs that these knuckleheads have been firing around thoughtlessly.

ETA: Looks like at least a few of the ones in this video were.

I am not on the ground, nor do I feel like it is a necessary component to draw an opinion. You link a 7 minute video from one location when I've watched hours and hours on live stream, on the ground, in the moment video of protesters in real time. No editing, no picking and choosing which stuff to see. Just how it is happening to the people there.

You can easily pick your footage if you want to just justify the view point you already have but the reality is dirty, nuanced and not as simple as some seem to want to paint it. If you just want cheerleaders that paint each side as all good/evil, there are plenty of better places than here to find them. But discussing the drawbacks and effectiveness of any given strategy shouldn't be some taboo discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is again why I feel like there is little benefit in having a conversation with you. You want to argue semantics instead of the point or the broader issue. And it is barely semantics, more just if the words you see match your personal definition of things.

Look at the cost of property damage in regards to these "protests" and let my know how they match up to any of your named "riots" in value. Feel free to ignore all points and nuance with others if you feel like it wins you some kind of internet points.

It's not semantics. There's a very clear difference between a small group of people vandalizing some stores and a riot!

Calling these incidents riots is falsely portraying what is going on.

So yeah, probably no point in having a discussion if you describe what is going on dishonestly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I mean, if you want to say the cops and Dolt 45's goon squad were rioting, I could agree to that one. I wouldn't be shocked if even the (rather small) fires were actually caused by the flaming cans of noxious fumes and the flashbangs that these knuckleheads have been firing around thoughtlessly.

ETA: Looks like at least a few of the ones in this video were.

Holy cow! That's the 60-70s all over again. The military guys are downright nasty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not on the ground, nor do I feel like it is a necessary component to draw an opinion. You link a 7 minute video from one location when I've watched hours and hours on live stream, on the ground, in the moment video of protesters in real time. No editing, no picking and choosing which stuff to see. Just how it is happening to the people there.

You can easily pick your footage if you want to just justify the view point you already have but the reality is dirty, nuanced and not as simple as some seem to want to paint it. If you just want cheerleaders that paint each side as all good/evil, there are plenty of better places than here to find them. But discussing the drawbacks and effectiveness of any given strategy shouldn't be some taboo discussion.

Do you know the difference between civilians and armed services? Know why armed services are supposed to deescalate the situation, not just attack people they are pissed at.

 

[Brainster]

It's not semantics. There's a very clear difference between a small group of people vandalizing some stores and a riot!

Under US Federal Law, a riot is defined as follows:

A public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

So unless your small group of people vandalizing some stores is actually just two people, calling it a riot is quite appropriate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Under US Federal Law, a riot is defined as follows:







So unless your small group of people vandalizing some stores is actually just two people, calling it a riot is quite appropriate.

Okay, but the strict reading you insist on could also accurately describe police behavior and I feel like they do it even more often, with far greater numbers and coordination than the troublemakers hiding amongst protestors. Then throw on the greater expectations of state agents, etc.

 

[CapelDodger]

So unless your small group of people vandalizing some stores is actually just two people, calling it a riot is quite appropriate.

And a brawl between two sports-fans in an assemblage of tens of thousands of sports-fans can appropriately be called a riot. That would, of course, paint a false image of the incident, but I'm not dismissing the possibility that that's your intent when you use the term, pearls appropriately clutched in trembling hand.