I'm probably making a mistake getting out in front here, but . . .
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
No no no. This is a matter of first impression for rockfish. He’s heard reports of looting but nothing he’s been able to confirm. And we don’t really know what this guy was ACTUALLY thinking.
Look up the term "unconfirmed" then get back with us.
I understand your rage...simple man unable to think for himself.
This has really taken an important thread down a stupid rabbit hole. The three of you are so focused on why somebody else is wrong and why somebody else is an awful poster and why somebody else is bad, you can't even see the things you agree upon. That's too bad because the three of you seem like smart people who could offer a lot to the forum. More than this that's for sure.
Ah. So when Hoopsdoc suggested in Post 689 that black people were destroying "their own neighborhoods", COHoosier thinks he meant that they were destroying their own "central business districts."
Yeah, right. That's probably what everybody means when they refer to neighborhoods.
I thought of you today. My friends and I started a small (very small) manufacturing business. Among other stuff we make protective gear. As I was walking to work today this older gentleman was walking his dog and struck up a convo with me. We got to talking about what he had done and what I was doing and he asked how it was going and I said slower than we thought and he goes hmmmmm you need someone well known to support it and give it some traction. I go oh yeah any suggestions. And without a moment’s pause he goes: You should try Megan Rapinoe. People love her! I laughed and agreed and immediately thought of you. A got me moment from afar....
Do you have any idea how many black owned businesses in neighborhoods have been destroyed? Of course not, you couldn't care less.
Part of the poor black experience in the US is not having neighborhood services, like groceries and drug stores, easily available. These riots will make that worse.
I have posted a huge compendium of data on systemic racism that you ignore. That’s not cherry-picking, as you’d know if you’d taken even the most cursory look at the voluminous evidence. You, on the other hand, offer nothing but your own baseless opinions and can answer none of my obvious questions. You just “know” things, but the things you “know” are just your projections onto a blank page.
I observe that there has been an outrageous event. I observe that people are acting outraged about the outrageous event. I accept the evidence my eyes see, because it is a natural reaction I’m seeing. But you apparently don’t see outrage as a natural reaction to an outrageous event (at least among white people). So you baselessly speculate about what the “real” drivers are. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not speculating about anything.
I have seen reports of white people engaged in opportunistic criminal activity, and it would not be surprising if this has occurred. But I don’t know if that’s what happening. I can’t watch a video and determine what’s motivating white vandals who do nothing to suggest what’s motivating them. But I’ve seen no reports that suggest this is an important part of the bigger story. Overwhelmingly the people I see protesting are acting like people outraged by a genuinely outrageous event, and there’s voluminous evidence that this outrageous event is the tip of an iceberg. You refuse to see the iceberg, based on nothing.
Where is the evidence that you are right? What is the basis for your opinions? These are simple questions. Running away from them is it’s own sort of answer.
Okay, there’s that guy. What’s the basis for your opinion that you can extrapolate from that guy?
That made me cry in laughter. Well done. Hope that your manufacturing play makes it through all this and you're in a position to pass on Megan Rapinoe for somebody even better.
In many places, that's the case. It's not the case here in Los Angeles. Have the riots and looting been focused on poor neighborhoods in Denver?
I’m sorry you think this is a stupid rabbit hole, but I think you’re missing important disagreements. I’m disagreeing with people who are arguing that nationwide protests are much ado about very little. Who disagree that there is systemic racism. And who baselessly speculate about what the “real” motivations might be, because they seem not to understand that there is something to be outraged about.
I’m also disagreeing with the prevalence and the obstinate stubbornness of baseless opinions generally. I dislike it when people make no effort to know what they’re talking about. Or when they think it’s enough to “know” what they’re talking about, without having to do any of the hard work that would be necessary to even approach knowing.
I will happily tell you that I think you’re also a smart guy, so I’m puzzled you think all of that is trivial in the context of the “important” thread I started. I would think a smart guy like you would have something to say on the points I’ve described.
Or I’ve been around enough to recognize that there are certain people that are so blinded by their own bias they simply aren’t worth engaging. They ignore what’s right before their eyes: a man in a video telling everyone he’s being opportunistic. They say dishonest things like “I’ve heard reports,” which means you are either disingenuous or living under a rock. You’ve seen; you pretend otherwise. Again, you aren’t worth my time.
Ha! Believe me - we can’t afford her!That made me cry in laughter. Well done. Hope that your manufacturing play makes it through all this and you're in a position to pass on Megan Rapinoe for somebody even better.
As I said, I accept that a guy in a video said he was being opportunistic. I take him at his word on that. What an asshole he is. What’s the basis to extrapolate from that one guy to the entire movement? If that’s not what you’re doing, what are you doing?
I’ve seen videos of people looting, and obviously there are people looting. I hadn’t realized that there was any disagreement about that. I’d thought we were arguing about whether the protests were primarily driven by outrage over an outrageous event, or whether (at least among white people) the apparent outrage was just a pretext for something else.
This is why you’re not worth it. In addition to pretending not to see, pretending not to hear, you mischaracterize: at no point did anyone say that “one guy,” which itself is absurd, can be extrapolated to the entire movement. For the last time, you lack honesty, and are resultantly not worth engaging.
So, what are you going to do with that info that you've compiled? How does it guide our understanding of the totality of this situation and how to improve upon it?
My guess is that's where Rock is frustrated. He takes great effort to look for data that tells a larger story and some people offer anecdotal bits from news reports or social media and what their gut tells them as though that is an even counterweight. While I disagree with how he approaches stuff, I can understand the frustration.
Nah what he does is simple and predictable. He adopts a position, always the same position, finds “some” evidence for same, like the silly incomplete Minnesota force data (that didn’t specify the offense etc), then becomes completely entrenched in that position. When he gets presented with either info that calls the data into question, he begins to misrepresent what others say, or just becomes totally dishonest (looting; yes I’ve heard reports) then proceeds to engage in what inevitably becomes a circular argument. Accusing people of reading minds then ignoring the fact that he does precisely what he accuses others of doing. Total waste of time.
The thing is that I get your frustration and don't think the thread in any way is a stupid rabbit hole. I probably mostly agree with you on the big picture points. I just think the way you guys are bickering is counterproductive and reflective of why there's very little progress on this topic because in all the bickering you miss what each other is actually saying. For instance, I don't think that McMurtry is arguing that the nationwide protests are much ado about very little. Or denying that systemic racism exists.
I mostly still believe in the general decency of most people so I chock up a lot of problems to people not actually putting eyes on good information and considering it. That's what really ironic here. You bring amazing information to this forum, but people aren't inclined to put eyes on it or honestly consider it because of the way you often bring it or respond to people who question it. For sure there are people who deserve shittiness on this board because they have malevolent intentions and no interest in actually discussing issues. I am confident McMurtry is not one of them despite my disagreements with him. And IMHO this topic is far too important to get bogged down in the pettiness. I'll step down off the soapbox now.
Disagree, dude. It's only a total waste of time if you don't have the ability to back up what you say. And it's funny hearing you complain about someone adopting an entrenched position and then getting shitty with people who disagree.
I got no problem with people questioning data, but they need to bring some better data or be able to honestly and dispassionately discuss the data they see as flawed for the merits it does have. Thing is...I haven't seen many attempts to bring better actual data. I've seen a lot of hunches and anecdotal tidbits sprinkled with the occasional bit of data that never quite fills in the blanks. IMHO, this is just lashing out at the poster instead of combating the argument.
Disagree when you have to argue over something so rudimentary as to whether there’s looting: (I’ve heard reports). Or the mind reading nonsense about being opportunistic vs outraged when a guy is literally on video conveying to you his mindset. To engage in any meaningful discussion you have to have the foundation of honesty over basic self evident things: like what’s being reported on every station for hours right in front of your eyes. I’ve spent twenty years taking positions as a lawyer. Seen all kinds. The type that dig their heels in, ignore that which is self evident, misrepresent what you say to fit their narrative, and go down paths of circular arguments are not worth engaging. What’s great about this board is the many characters and personalities and that with the benefit of time passing you can elect who you enjoy interacting with and benefit from.
Now I’m going to bed so I can get up a little earlier and avoid that old guy walking his dog tomorrow. Last thing I need to start my day is to hear how loved Megan Rapinoe is again! lol
Last edited:
That seems like a fair assessment. Here is a report from Ryan Lizza who's been covering the protests in DC:
At least in Washington, these are big, confusing, spontaneous demonstrations drawing in an eclectic group of people who usually get labeled generically as protesters. They have been squaring off against a wide array of police forces from both the federal and local governments in Washington (Secret Service, Park Police, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department) who have in turn acted within shifting rules of engagement.
The core grievance that has sparked these events is morally unambiguous: American cops murdering black men. But on the ground things are messy.
The crowd outside the White House on Sunday night was divided. Park Police in riot gear and body-length plastic shields were arrayed in a long line bisecting Lafayette Square, a tree-lined park of winding paths and wooden benches that many Americans know from scenes of secret meetings in political thrillers. Facing the cops were hundreds of protesters squeezed against black metal barricades that, as the day had worn on, were pushed from the north edge of the park to its interior.
. . . Among the demonstrators, there was no clear unified position about tactics in Lafayette Square. The main division seemed to be over the use of violence (meaning throwing stuff at the cops) and property damage. Many people stuck to chants about the killing in Minneapolis: “Say His Name! George Floyd!” “I Can’t Breathe.” Others targeted the president and the cops in front of them: “F#ck Trump,” “F#ck the Police.”
But a sizable faction threw water bottles, rocks stashed in a pile behind a tree, and — reportedly — bricks pulled from the sidewalk. (I saw where bricks had been pulled out but never witnessed one being thrown.) The water bottles were the most common projectile and they would often land against a policeman’s plastic shield with a distinctive thud.
. . . But the shaming by the anti-violence majority was strong enough that I noticed the few people attacking the police became increasingly furtive when they launched anything.
Given the wide latitude that American cops have to respond with force to the slightest provocation — and the frequency with which they exercise it — it was surprising to see them get pelted and not react. I pushed up close against the barricade and watched them as they occasionally dodged projectiles and were taunted as pigs and racists and, if they were black, Uncle Toms.
But eventually they did react, and Monday night was then taken over by the violent faction of protesters. At least three fires were set — one in a historic building at the edge of the park, one in the middle of H Street, and one in the basement of St. John’s Church. And at around 11 p.m., the city-imposed curfew, in a few dramatic thrusts police used tear gas and fired rubber bullets and quickly cleared Lafayette Square. Tiny plumes of the gas lingered and traveled long after it was unleashed and when you walked around you could suddenly inhale a stray whiff.
The munitions used to spread the tear gas can also include rubber bullets, bright flashes of light or loud booms (the stinger CS Rubber Ball Grenade is a popular brand that delivers all four and was seen on the street in D.C. this week). The police used them to push the protesters further north. There was no discrimination between news personnel and protesters. If you were in the crowd you were targeted. I got hit with a rubber bullet in my hand and thigh as I was filming the scene with a phone. It hurt and my fingertips and leg were still bruised days later. That relatively minor interaction with the violence that the state can unleash was deeply instructive. It gave me a fleeting glimpse of the mindset of some demonstrators who are fervently anti-police.
After the park was emptied with the gas and rubber bullets, widespread theft and vandalism began. There was almost no police presence in downtown D.C. and I watched as people set cars on fire, cleared out a jewelry store, and ransacked a department store. Skirmishes among protesters continued. “You’re an asshole and I’m not sticking around for this bullshit,” one woman yelled at a teenager taking a 2-by-4 to an office window. One of the only physical fights I saw was between two people arguing about the property damage. But it only takes a very small number of people with hammers to break a lot of windows when there is no one around to stop them, and many parts of D.C. looked gutted the next morning.
Monday was a very different story. There were fewer protesters and more police. National Guard members had flooded into the city and a caravan of armored vehicles rolled out of the White House menacingly. Nearby, armored Humvees, which patrolled Washington after 9/11, blocked off streets to the White House. In Lafayette Square, the peaceful protesters now overwhelmingly dominated. (I heard of one report from a protester I interviewed who said he did see a water bottle thrown that day.)
What changed were the rules of engagement.
I happened to be turning the corner from I Street onto the small stretch of Connecticut Avenue that leads to the park. I was suddenly facing hundreds of panicked protesters running at me, a plume of smoke rising behind them accompanied by the bright flashes and loud booms of modern crowd control munitions. One older black man who had been at the front of the line when the police moved in was screaming as he looked skyward and had his eyes flushed out with water by a white woman.
For historical purposes, it is worth repeating what happened after 6 p.m. on Monday, June 1, in Lafayette Square: unarmed and peaceful demonstrators protesting police brutality were assaulted by cops using tear gas and pushed north so that Donald Trump could walk to St. John’s Church and hold a large bible in front of cameras.
. . . Overnight on Monday the police constructed an 8-foot black fence around the park, essentially adding Lafayette Square as a large buffer zone protecting the White House. Police in green fatigues, perhaps from the National Guard, now formed an even thicker line behind the fence. St. John’s Church, scrubbed and repainted, now served as a gathering spot for demonstrators. Protesters attached yellow sticky notes to the church doors with the names of victims of police violence. The protests on Tuesday were large and peaceful all day, with crowds that swelled by new supporters outraged by Monday's disturbing scenes.
Most protesters went home after the 7 p.m. curfew but a core group of largely young people remained late into the night. The groups were becoming more organized. Logistics for bringing in water and food and milk to wash out tear-gassed eyes were being coordinated. A few people seemed to be emerging from the chaotic early days of the movement as organizers and they strictly enforced a no-violence rule.
“Peaceful protests!” they yelled when things got rowdy or a water bottle was hurled.
But as the crowds dwindled after midnight, some protesters shook the new perimeter fence hard, perhaps trying to pull it down. The line of fatigued cops marched forward in unison and when the shaking didn’t stop they sprayed tear gas indiscriminately, including at at least one television crew. Dozens of people turned around and booked down the street between St. John’s Church and a boarded up luxury hotel, The Hay-Adams. People choked and vomited. One man with asthma was in severe distress and paramedics arrived to help him. I inhaled just a whiff and when I woke up on Wednesday the mucous membranes in my throat were still raw and irritated.
So, the protesters are driven by righteous outrage, and the protesters are an eclectic group, but most are peaceful -- sometimes the vast majority. The protests are mostly spontaneous and not organized, even though some within the protests try to create organization. There are people within the protests who are prepared to use violence (generally throwing things), and there are some who resort to vandalism and looting. The looters and the vandals look like a small minority, but even a small minority can do substantial damage. The motives of the looters and vandals are obviously easy to challenge, but the driving force is outrage over police brutality directed against black people generally and the murder of George Floyd specifically. And the nonviolent majority tries to self-police the violent minority.The core grievance that has sparked these events is morally unambiguous: American cops murdering black men. But on the ground things are messy.
The crowd outside the White House on Sunday night was divided. Park Police in riot gear and body-length plastic shields were arrayed in a long line bisecting Lafayette Square, a tree-lined park of winding paths and wooden benches that many Americans know from scenes of secret meetings in political thrillers. Facing the cops were hundreds of protesters squeezed against black metal barricades that, as the day had worn on, were pushed from the north edge of the park to its interior.
. . . Among the demonstrators, there was no clear unified position about tactics in Lafayette Square. The main division seemed to be over the use of violence (meaning throwing stuff at the cops) and property damage. Many people stuck to chants about the killing in Minneapolis: “Say His Name! George Floyd!” “I Can’t Breathe.” Others targeted the president and the cops in front of them: “F#ck Trump,” “F#ck the Police.”
But a sizable faction threw water bottles, rocks stashed in a pile behind a tree, and — reportedly — bricks pulled from the sidewalk. (I saw where bricks had been pulled out but never witnessed one being thrown.) The water bottles were the most common projectile and they would often land against a policeman’s plastic shield with a distinctive thud.
. . . But the shaming by the anti-violence majority was strong enough that I noticed the few people attacking the police became increasingly furtive when they launched anything.
Given the wide latitude that American cops have to respond with force to the slightest provocation — and the frequency with which they exercise it — it was surprising to see them get pelted and not react. I pushed up close against the barricade and watched them as they occasionally dodged projectiles and were taunted as pigs and racists and, if they were black, Uncle Toms.
But eventually they did react, and Monday night was then taken over by the violent faction of protesters. At least three fires were set — one in a historic building at the edge of the park, one in the middle of H Street, and one in the basement of St. John’s Church. And at around 11 p.m., the city-imposed curfew, in a few dramatic thrusts police used tear gas and fired rubber bullets and quickly cleared Lafayette Square. Tiny plumes of the gas lingered and traveled long after it was unleashed and when you walked around you could suddenly inhale a stray whiff.
The munitions used to spread the tear gas can also include rubber bullets, bright flashes of light or loud booms (the stinger CS Rubber Ball Grenade is a popular brand that delivers all four and was seen on the street in D.C. this week). The police used them to push the protesters further north. There was no discrimination between news personnel and protesters. If you were in the crowd you were targeted. I got hit with a rubber bullet in my hand and thigh as I was filming the scene with a phone. It hurt and my fingertips and leg were still bruised days later. That relatively minor interaction with the violence that the state can unleash was deeply instructive. It gave me a fleeting glimpse of the mindset of some demonstrators who are fervently anti-police.
After the park was emptied with the gas and rubber bullets, widespread theft and vandalism began. There was almost no police presence in downtown D.C. and I watched as people set cars on fire, cleared out a jewelry store, and ransacked a department store. Skirmishes among protesters continued. “You’re an asshole and I’m not sticking around for this bullshit,” one woman yelled at a teenager taking a 2-by-4 to an office window. One of the only physical fights I saw was between two people arguing about the property damage. But it only takes a very small number of people with hammers to break a lot of windows when there is no one around to stop them, and many parts of D.C. looked gutted the next morning.
Monday was a very different story. There were fewer protesters and more police. National Guard members had flooded into the city and a caravan of armored vehicles rolled out of the White House menacingly. Nearby, armored Humvees, which patrolled Washington after 9/11, blocked off streets to the White House. In Lafayette Square, the peaceful protesters now overwhelmingly dominated. (I heard of one report from a protester I interviewed who said he did see a water bottle thrown that day.)
What changed were the rules of engagement.
I happened to be turning the corner from I Street onto the small stretch of Connecticut Avenue that leads to the park. I was suddenly facing hundreds of panicked protesters running at me, a plume of smoke rising behind them accompanied by the bright flashes and loud booms of modern crowd control munitions. One older black man who had been at the front of the line when the police moved in was screaming as he looked skyward and had his eyes flushed out with water by a white woman.
For historical purposes, it is worth repeating what happened after 6 p.m. on Monday, June 1, in Lafayette Square: unarmed and peaceful demonstrators protesting police brutality were assaulted by cops using tear gas and pushed north so that Donald Trump could walk to St. John’s Church and hold a large bible in front of cameras.
. . . Overnight on Monday the police constructed an 8-foot black fence around the park, essentially adding Lafayette Square as a large buffer zone protecting the White House. Police in green fatigues, perhaps from the National Guard, now formed an even thicker line behind the fence. St. John’s Church, scrubbed and repainted, now served as a gathering spot for demonstrators. Protesters attached yellow sticky notes to the church doors with the names of victims of police violence. The protests on Tuesday were large and peaceful all day, with crowds that swelled by new supporters outraged by Monday's disturbing scenes.
Most protesters went home after the 7 p.m. curfew but a core group of largely young people remained late into the night. The groups were becoming more organized. Logistics for bringing in water and food and milk to wash out tear-gassed eyes were being coordinated. A few people seemed to be emerging from the chaotic early days of the movement as organizers and they strictly enforced a no-violence rule.
“Peaceful protests!” they yelled when things got rowdy or a water bottle was hurled.
But as the crowds dwindled after midnight, some protesters shook the new perimeter fence hard, perhaps trying to pull it down. The line of fatigued cops marched forward in unison and when the shaking didn’t stop they sprayed tear gas indiscriminately, including at at least one television crew. Dozens of people turned around and booked down the street between St. John’s Church and a boarded up luxury hotel, The Hay-Adams. People choked and vomited. One man with asthma was in severe distress and paramedics arrived to help him. I inhaled just a whiff and when I woke up on Wednesday the mucous membranes in my throat were still raw and irritated.
The police response varies. Sometimes the police stoically endure taunts and objects thrown at them. Sometimes they lash out at people doing no harm. Sometimes they employ organized brutality against entirely peaceful protesters.
The protests are specifically driven by outrage at the police; the protesters are protesting them. This cannot be an easy thing for the police, and they have generally not covered themselves in glory with their response. There is good reason to believe that the militarized police response is itself escalating the violence. (This has been the conclusion of prior studies.)
This is all very messy, and different people emphasize different aspects of it. I emphasize that the primary driver is police brutality against black people, both because this is true, and because there is voluminous evidence of systemic racism in the criminal justice system. While it is certainly appropriate to direct police action against vandals and looters, that does not appear to be what the police are mostly policing. Mostly they seem to be policing the protests themselves, with menace and sometimes with brutality. I think that is a bad way to respond to people protesting police brutality.
Fog of war.
"While it is certainly appropriate to direct police action against vandals and looters, that does not appear to be what the police are mostly policing." This boils it down in one fine sentence.
But it's not an easy and cut-and-dried job they're trying to perform. How simple it would be if the great majority of the people in the streets who are protesting legitimately would wear black and the looters and vandals would wear orange. We'd see more cops hugging, fist-bumping and kneeling with the protestors. Unfortunately, and obviously, a small, bad element are using the legitimate protestors as a shield in order to cover their violence and theft. This is not a good mix for weary, exhausted and scared cops.
It's a very difficult job they're doing right now, and there likely is weariness and fear. But I also see what looks like anger and reciprocal outrage. I've read inflammatory public statements by the head of the Minneapolis police union, and I fear that he's saying what many of his rank-and-file cops think.
Abuse and rocks, bricks, fire extinguishers, water bottles and God knows what else. Cops shot, stabbed and run over. I think it speaks highly about their restraint under extraordinarily difficult and tense times. I just wish the ROEs wrt to looting, arson, theft and personal violence were loosened and/or clarified.
Any time there will be thousands of people at one event, a police presence is necessary. That's just a good community standard of care that I believe is widely observed.
Yes, it’s a hard job, but it is their job, and at least in theory they’re trained to do it. And from my perspective the entire problem arises from their failure to do their job correctly. And unlike you and me, they’re armed to the teeth and possess the full authority of the state.
One thing that amazes me, on this board and in conversations with friends is people’s inability to recognize that we humans are capable of being concerned about multiple things at once. People in the black community can certainly be concerned about crime in their communities. They can be concerned about the number of single parent homes. But what can one person do? But when paid public servants, paid to serve and protect, are the ones committing the crime it is difficult to understand how that wouldn’t raise enormous concern. In any community.
In the Sandra Bland case she fired up a cigarette while sitting in her car. The policeman told her to put it out. She refused and shit hit the fan. Other policeman reviewed the case and couldn’t understand why he escalated the situation. Don’t mention the cigarette, or at most ask politely for her to put it out. If she refuses move on, it was just a traffic stop. The policeman was in a fairly small college community. It is doubtful he had received significant abuse. This is about training and enforcement within police departments.
This matches my experience from the protests here in Los Angeles. There appears to be a ton of chaos out there as both the protests and law enforcement response are decidedly mixed in their nobility and intent. Dare I say...there are really good people on both sides. The problem is that there are "sides" and whenever there are sides, there is opposition and conflict. It's chaotic, partially from the nature of the circumstances, but also by design from certain segments on both sides. It's disappointing that one of those sewing chaos is the President of the United States, but in fits and spurts it seems like Americans are coming to terms with the idea that this doesn't need to be a "sides" thing.
There are indeed good people on both sides. And bad people on both sides. One of these sides is literally paid to be the good guy, and the fact that time and again bad guys in their ranks are protected is how we ended up here.
I don't know if "they have been restrained for the most part," but I am seeing way too much of this. To me, this looks like "you will respect mah authoritah" behavior from cops who are clearly not policing violence, vandals, or looters.
To emphasize: this brutality occurred while they knew they were being filmed and in front of media. In the company of numerous fellow officers. With obvious disregard for any possibility of accountability. That does not look like "a few bad apples" problem to me. Instead, that looks like bad police culture.
And since I'm talking to myself, white people who deny the existence of systemic racism ought to be concerned with bad police culture, because cops don't only act brutally against nonwhite people. They just mostly act brutally against nonwhite people.
All of which causes me to think Jamelle Bouie is asking a good question:
What Happens When It Is the Police Who Riot in the Streets?
If we’re going to speak of rioting protesters, then we need to speak of rioting police as well. No, they aren’t destroying property. But it is clear from news coverage, as well as countless videos taken by protesters and bystanders, that many police are using often indiscriminate violence against people — against anyone, including the peaceful majority of demonstrators, who happens to be in the streets.
Rioting police have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground. Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot “nonlethal” rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries. In Austin, Texas, a 20-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a “less-lethal” round. Across the country, rioting police are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.
None of this quells disorder. Everything, from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves, does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets. In effect, rioting police have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars. But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting police have the imprimatur of the state.
What we’ve seen from rioting police, in other words, is an assertion of power and impunity. In the face of mass anger over police brutality, they’ve effectively said So what? In the face of demands for change and reform — in short, in the face of accountability to the public they’re supposed to serve — they’ve bucked their more conciliatory colleagues with a firm No. In which case, if we want to understand the behavior of the past two weeks, we can’t just treat it as an explosion of wanton violence, we have to treat it as an attack on civil society and democratic accountability, one rooted in a dispute over who has the right to hold the police to account.
If we’re going to speak of rioting protesters, then we need to speak of rioting police as well. No, they aren’t destroying property. But it is clear from news coverage, as well as countless videos taken by protesters and bystanders, that many police are using often indiscriminate violence against people — against anyone, including the peaceful majority of demonstrators, who happens to be in the streets.
Rioting police have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground. Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot “nonlethal” rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries. In Austin, Texas, a 20-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a “less-lethal” round. Across the country, rioting police are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.
None of this quells disorder. Everything, from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves, does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets. In effect, rioting police have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars. But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting police have the imprimatur of the state.
What we’ve seen from rioting police, in other words, is an assertion of power and impunity. In the face of mass anger over police brutality, they’ve effectively said So what? In the face of demands for change and reform — in short, in the face of accountability to the public they’re supposed to serve — they’ve bucked their more conciliatory colleagues with a firm No. In which case, if we want to understand the behavior of the past two weeks, we can’t just treat it as an explosion of wanton violence, we have to treat it as an attack on civil society and democratic accountability, one rooted in a dispute over who has the right to hold the police to account.
Similar threads
