LMAODid the people you saw acting opportunistically act like they were outraged, or did you just observe white people committing crimes?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LMAODid the people you saw acting opportunistically act like they were outraged, or did you just observe white people committing crimes?
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.
Translation: I'm really important and you should listen to me on an anonymous board even though I might be lying.
Yes, Trump's lack of self-awareness (or of any otherckind either) is simply stunning.
So ..... "openly confirmed story" according to Courtsensetwo is truth, not rumor. We note that Courtsensetwo did not offer a link to a later account that confirmed his originally-endorsed "story" as being true with citations to detailed supporting facts.
That is not how real journalism works. But Courtsensetwo is, well, whatever he is.
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.
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."Since when are business districts not part of a neighborhood?
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....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.
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.
This might be your best and truest post!Translation: I'm really important and you should listen to me on an anonymous board even though I might be lying.
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.Again. You have zero awareness of what you write. You do exactly what you accuse of others of doing then deny same. You cherry pick stats with incomplete data and act like it’s dispositive; then have the temerity to feign ignorance of conflicting information. Why on Earth would anyone want to talk with you. As I said. I’m out.
Okay, there’s that guy. What’s the basis for your opinion that you can extrapolate from that guy?This is one guy, but let's be real, there were plenty more like him out there. And this may not have been a majority of the people, but it is at least a group of them. I honestly think most of the people rioting probably fall in this category though. They were opportunists.
FOX 11's Bill Melugin talked to him, and he was very candid about his motive. He said point-blank he was "out to get some money". When asked if his actions were related to the protests and events that took place in Minnesota, he said it had a little bit to do with it, but it was mostly for "the dough."
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’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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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 provided a guy (the one guy from his group that got caught) that flat out told you he was in it for the dough. Do I think he represents the majority? No. But I think he would represent an at least significant percentage of the bad actors (read: looters, rioters, and vandals). I think his type of thinking leads to people who are joining people saying Black Lives Matter to shoot David Dodd over a TV.
That would be where I would extrapolate my data. As far as I know, they are not doing a survey of why people are there.
That being said, I think he represents a minority of the people who are out on the streets, but I do not believe he is the only guy in America that is thinking that way. Not after all the chaos we have seen the past week.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
That seems like a fair assessment. Here is a report from Ryan Lizza who's been covering the protests in DC:I provided a guy (the one guy from his group that got caught) that flat out told you he was in it for the dough. Do I think he represents the majority? No. But I think he would represent an at least significant percentage of the bad actors (read: looters, rioters, and vandals). I think his type of thinking leads to people who are joining people saying Black Lives Matter to shoot David Dodd over a TV.
That would be where I would extrapolate my data. As far as I know, they are not doing a survey of why people are there.
That being said, I think he represents a minority of the people who are out on the streets, but I do not believe he is the only guy in America that is thinking that way. Not after all the chaos we have seen the past week.
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.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.
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.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.
Yeah, but to be fair, after awhile most humans are going to react negatively to abuse being hurled at them. I mean, that is kind of the rationale we are using for the protesters. The police are just you and me with some training and a badge.
Everyone has a breaking point.
"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.
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.Yeah, but to be fair, after awhile most humans are going to react negatively to abuse being hurled at them. I mean, that is kind of the rationale we are using for the protesters. The police are just you and me with some training and a badge.
Everyone has a breaking point.
I didn't quite actually quote him, but I was recalling what Martin Luther King famously said:
As the city of Baltimore is shaken by riots in the wake of peaceful protests over the death of Freddie Gray, observers have had cause to reflect on the relationship between nonviolent and violent demonstration. In particular, one quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. has become a touchstone for those who seek to understand why those individuals have taken to the streets: “A riot,” King said, “is the language of the unheard.”But I'm sure your take on the black experience is much more valid than King's.
The quote is often traced to 1968, but it was actually a frequent rhetorical turn for King, appearing years earlier than that. In 1966, for example, in a Sept. 27 interview, King was questioned by CBS’ Mike Wallace about the “increasingly vocal minority” who disagreed with his devotion to non-violence as a tactic. In that interview, King admitted there was such a minority, though he said that surveys had shown most black Americans were on his side. “And I contend that the cry of ‘black power’ is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro,” King said. “I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard."
Yeah, but to be fair, after awhile most humans are going to react negatively to abuse being hurled at them. I mean, that is kind of the rationale we are using for the protesters. The police are just you and me with some training and a badge.
Everyone has a breaking point.
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.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.
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.
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.And they have been restrained for the most part.
They are also tasked to ensure order. I am not going to criticize too much on the crowd control tactics. Particularly in the instances where the crowd got out of control.
This is going to be super small scale and in no way am I comparing the reasons behind the two "protests", put that out there. I was a student when Knight got fired and there was a commotion on campus so my girlfriend at the time and I went to go check it out. If you are not there to make trouble, you generally have an idea in those mob type of situations when trouble might be coming your way. There were several times that night where she and I kept on moving because the people around us were acting up in a way that was more likely to bring the police down on them.
What is the point in that? Sometimes as a peaceful protester you have to cede ground to the bad actors and the police and let them deal with each other. (That is the only real point, believe me, I know as an adult how trivial that whole Knight matter was. It is just my only experience with anything that comes close to the mob mentality taking over. My conservatism isn't just a politics thing, I am not much of one to seek out trouble.)
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.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.
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.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.