Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[dann]

Yes. You should focus your energies where they can do good. It's pointless speaking to a Trumpist. You will not reach the person, and in your conversation, you let the Trumpist spew all manner of lies to anyone listening. Remember, Trumpists cannot persuade people with facts and proper arguments, because they have none of those. They need a foil that they can point to in order to persuade anyone. Don't be that foil. Don't engage.

Trumpists should be shunned by polite society. They are welcomed back when they realize their error and make amends.

Is making amends so important?! When they find out what Trump actually represents, and some Trumpists do, they may devote some their time to persuading others who haven't yet left the cult.

Shunning Trumpists makes it too easy for them to avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think they're comparable at all. One makes fills me with rage, the other I'm quite indifferent to. We're alike in that way.

And which is which?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And which is which?

 

[MisAndreG]

I see it as pretty reasonable defensive maneuver to hostile actions. The intent isn't to harm, but merely to get them off the car.

The case just above mine where the driver ran over someone on the sidewalk is unjustified. But climbing on top of a cop car? No, that's asking for it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The play stupid games is a road to chaos. Ppl can be stupid without getting sent to the hospital by people who are ostensibly there to protect them

 

[caveman1917]

I see it as pretty reasonable defensive maneuver to hostile actions.

Remaining stationary is not a hostile action.

The intent isn't to harm, but merely to get them off the car.

Sure it is. It's easy enough to get the person in question off the car without unrestrained acceleration making them fly off.

But climbing on top of a cop car? No, that's asking for it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It doesn't look so much as climbing on top of a cop car as trying to remain stationary (with respect to the ground) while a cop car pushes itself between you and the ground.

 

[Ziggurat]

The play stupid games is a road to chaos. Ppl can be stupid without getting sent to the hospital by people who are ostensibly there to protect them

When you attack people who are ostensibly there to protect you, they aren't going to protect you. They are going to protect themselves, as well they should. And although I'm sure it hurt, I doubt that guy actually needed to go to the hospital.

 

[MisAndreG]

Okay, but being obnoxious and jumping on a car isn’t really an attack is it? Real question. I get what you’re saying, but I just think there are other ways the cops could handle that situation. Like maybe slowly reversing and driving away - deescalate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Remaining stationary is not a hostile action.

The guy climbing on the cop car was not remaining stationary. And you aren't allowed to obstruct cars, particularly emergency response vehicles, in the middle of the road. That's a big no-no.

Sure it is. It's easy enough to get the person in question off the car without unrestrained acceleration making them fly off.

"Unrestrained". You keep using that word. But you are pulling it out of your ass.

It doesn't look so much as climbing on top of a cop car as trying to remain stationary (with respect to the ground) while a cop car pushes itself between you and the ground.

Uh, no. He clearly jumps up onto the hood.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, but being obnoxious and jumping on a car isn’t really an attack is it? Real question.

It's not a deadly attack, but yes, it's an attack.

I get what you’re saying, but I just think there are other ways the cops could handle that situation. Like maybe slowly reversing and driving away - deescalate.

And what if the cop was responding to an emergency call? He may not have had time to "deescalate".

 

[MisAndreG]

It's not a deadly attack, but yes, it's an attack.



And what if the cop was responding to an emergency call? He may not have had time to "deescalate".

I didn’t consider that point. What do we know about it — were the cops repo ding to an emergency?

 

[caveman1917]

The guy climbing on the cop car was not remaining stationary. And you aren't allowed to obstruct cars, particularly emergency response vehicles, in the middle of the road. That's a big no-no.



"Unrestrained". You keep using that word. But you are pulling it out of your ass.



Uh, no. He clearly jumps up onto the hood.

What I said was that he was trying to remain stationary with respect to the road. Which, given the imposition of a vehicle-shaped object in his former location, necessitated increasing his height above the road ("jumps up onto the hood"). So we have a bunch of people trying to remain stationary, the cops order them to stop being stationary, some refuse and in response the cops make one of these people fly off their car for no valid reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I said was that he was trying to remain stationary with respect to the road.

And you're wrong. He jumps up onto the hood, because he wanted to be on the hood. That's not trying to be stationary. And that's not OK to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn’t consider that point. What do we know about it — were the cops repo ding to an emergency?

I don't know. But here's the thing: the protesters didn't know either. And they tried to stop him anyways.

 

[caveman1917]

And you're wrong. He jumps up onto the hood, because he wanted to be on the hood. That's not trying to be stationary. And that's not OK to do.

Of course he wanted to be on the hood, at that time the hood was directly above his former position. Like I said, he was trying to remain stationary with respect to the road, necessitating increasing his height as progressively a vehicle-shaped object was inserted between him and the ground. The fact that his action thereto at one point constituted "jumping" instead of "crawling" (as he had done for the first part of the vehicle, the hood, and afterwards over the top of the car) does not mean he wasn't trying to remain stationary with respect to the road, merely that the gradient of the vehicle-shaped object being inserted between himself and the ground at that point was such that the action constituted a "jump" rather than a "crawl."

 

[CaptainHowdy]

What I said was that he was trying to remain stationary with respect to the road. Which, given the imposition of a vehicle-shaped object in his former location, necessitated increasing his height above the road ("jumps up onto the hood"). So we have a bunch of people trying to remain stationary, the cops order them to stop being stationary, some refuse and in response the cops make one of these people fly off their car for no valid reason.

There's a person standing on my car without my permission who does not immediately jump off my car is a valid reason for me to remove that person by whatever means necessary--including accelerating in reverse quickly so they lose their footing and fall off and then accelerating quickly in the opposite direction in order to injure them seriously enough so they are unable to jump back on my car.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a person standing on my car without my permission who does not immediately jump off my car is a valid reason for me to remove that person by whatever means necessary--including accelerating in reverse quickly so they lose their footing and fall off and then accelerating quickly in the opposite direction in order to injure them seriously enough so they are unable to jump back on my car.

That's... not remotely what happened in the video I posted. Did you confuse my video with the video posted above it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cops "We're the last line of defense between society and the forces of darkness! Everyday we put our lives on the line to protect you!"

Also Cops "Oh there's a skinny hippie outside my car with a sign. I fear for more life!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

If that many police are being meritoriously accused of murder, that it disrupts their ability to function, and uninvolved officers coerce departments by not showing up, that is a dynamite justification to break the Union agreement and disband it. No more qualified immunity (with some exceptions), and no more paid leave if accused of murder; sit in a cell like any other criminal. The Union is the problem. Remove the enabler.

Without a bit of consideration given to implementation, ending qualified immunity would result in almost any police who fires his gun being charged and tried - same as it would for any other citizen. I'm all for reducing qualified immunity, and requiring investigation for all police shootings. I'm just not sure if it's reasonable to yank the rug out completely. It seems like there should be much stricter standards, and I would like to see significantly more charging of officer who shoot without good reason. I'm trying to figure out whether there's a baby in the bathwater before I dump the whole thing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Other solution: take the money for settling with victims of police violence out of the cops' pension fund.
Cops would kick out loose cannons as soon as they see themz.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Other solution: take the money for settling with victims of police violence out of the cops' pension fund.
Cops would kick out loose cannons as soon as they see themz.

I'm surprised neolib types haven't kicked the can of responsibility by requiring police get malpractice insurance from the free market.

There are huge numbers of cops that would be unemployable because no one would be willing to insure them given their record of brutality, and it wouldn't require a single DA having the courage to press charges. Insurance companies might make "Don't violate civil rights" training mandatory as a condition of carrying a policy.

Come on technocrats, do your thing!