Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Here is content I posted on another thread yesterday.



Given what I found after only a few minutes searching, and what Overheal found, it is surprising that you failed to find any evidence of such.

Seeing you provided quotes and not links I searched for the sources of what you posted and have shared below.

The first link is to a blog, the second and third were quotes from the only story I actually did find online supporting what you're saying and in total provides the names of 5 people arrested for agitating at protests and a further 1 person with links to boogaloo groups who was arrested for conspiracy to sell steroids. The fourth describes a group of 3 men in Nevada who were included in the the 5 I mentioned above in relation to the previous article.


Exhibit A link; https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/right-wing-provocateurs-likely-inflaming-protest-violence-bcf1c48e1d40

Exhibit B & C link; https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html

Exhibit D link; https://apnews.com/article/6223153093f08fa910c4ab445771b773

So in total we can prove from two reasonably reliable sources (although one cites "experts" and fails to name them or give any further context for the use of the term "experts") that a total of 5 people have been arrested in the United States for instigating violence at BLM protests.

Does this suggest to you (or Overheal) that the majority of the 10,000 plus arrests for violent conduct and all other criminal behaviour at BLM protests can be attributed to far right agents looking to discredit BLM?

I don't see how your argument holds up to any type of scrutiny and to take the moral high ground and grandstand about what you and Overheal are able to produce as evidence to support this notion when it is something you have failed to support is laughable.
Have a small number of these type of situations occured? Yes.

Does that equate to a substantial amount of all violence at BLM protests being caused by some grand over arching conspiracy by low level far right activists who seem to be incapable of not getting themselves caught and prosecuted by the very law enforcement BLM is protesting against? Nobody in their right mind would believe that narrative.

Overheal

nullzero wrote: »

Does this suggest to you (or Overheal) that the majority of the 10,000 plus arrests for violent conduct and all other criminal behaviour at BLM protests can be attributed to far right agents looking to discredit BLM?

I don't see how your argument holds up to any type of scrutiny and to take the moral high ground and grandstand about what you and Overheal are able to produce as evidence to support this notion when it is something you have failed to support is laughable.
Have a small number of these type of situations occured? Yes.

Does that equate to a substantial amount of all violence at BLM protests being caused by some grand over arching conspiracy by low level far right activists who seem to be incapable of not getting themselves caught and prosecuted by the very law enforcement BLM is protesting against? Nobody in their right mind would believe that narrative.

I don't think I've ever argued it would be a majority of cases no. I'm of the opinion that, until we revisit the subject at a future date where each of 10,000 criminal dockets is resolved, there is no way to infer the guilt or innocence of someone based purely on the fact of their arrest. If I had to guess, most of those arrests are frivolous or violations of curfew. Many of those arrested have had charges dismissed. For some, like the abductees in Portland, charges were never produced. Several law enforcement officers have been brought up for misconduct, abuse of power, and violation of civil liberties as well.



https://gothamist.com/news/nypds-historic-mass-arrest-campaign-during-george-floyd-protests-was-mostly-low-level-offenses

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think I've ever argued it would be a majority of cases no. I'm of the opinion that, until we revisit the subject at a future date where each of 10,000 criminal dockets is resolved, there is no way to infer the guilt or innocence of someone based purely on the fact of their arrest. If I had to guess, most of those arrests are frivolous or violations of curfew. Many of those arrested have had charges dismissed. For some, like the abductees in Portland, charges were never produced. Several law enforcement officers have been brought up for misconduct, abuse of power, and violation of civil liberties as well.



https://gothamist.com/news/nypds-historic-mass-arrest-campaign-during-george-floyd-protests-was-mostly-low-level-offenses

It was Tell Me How that was making such assertions.

I think you're bang on when you say we have to wait for all of the 10,000 cases to be resolved before we can make judgements on this.

It isn't accurate for Tell Me How to be making statements that suggest that far right agents are to blame for a substantial amount of violence at BLM rallies as if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Seeing you provided quotes and not links I searched for the sources of what you posted and have shared below.

The first link is to a blog, the second and third were quotes from the only story I actually did find online supporting what you're saying and in total provides the names of 5 people arrested for agitating at protests and a further 1 person with links to boogaloo groups who was arrested for conspiracy to sell steroids. The fourth describes a group of 3 men in Nevada who were included in the the 5 I mentioned above in relation to the previous article.


Exhibit A link; https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/right-wing-provocateurs-likely-inflaming-protest-violence-bcf1c48e1d40

Exhibit B & C link; https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html

Exhibit D link; https://apnews.com/article/6223153093f08fa910c4ab445771b773

So in total we can prove from two reasonably reliable sources (although one cites "experts" and fails to name them or give any further context for the use of the term "experts") that a total of 5 people have been arrested in the United States for instigating violence at BLM protests.

Does this suggest to you (or Overheal) that the majority of the 10,000 plus arrests for violent conduct and all other criminal behaviour at BLM protests can be attributed to far right agents looking to discredit BLM?

I don't see how your argument holds up to any type of scrutiny and to take the moral high ground and grandstand about what you and Overheal are able to produce as evidence to support this notion when it is something you have failed to support is laughable.
Have a small number of these type of situations occured? Yes.

Does that equate to a substantial amount of all violence at BLM protests being caused by some grand over arching conspiracy by low level far right activists who seem to be incapable of not getting themselves caught and prosecuted by the very law enforcement BLM is protesting against? Nobody in their right mind would believe that narrative.

The links are contained within each 'Exhibit' phrase nullzero. Standard Boards practice.

The blog contains several examples all of which are linked to news articles detailing them.

Given you failed on your own any evidence, and have trouble navigating our evidence, it doesn't surprise me you think our argument doesn't hold scrutiny. It's hard to see something when you are making such an effort to not see it.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

It was Tell Me How that was making such assertions.

I think you're bang on when you say we have to wait for all of the 10,000 cases to be resolved before we can make judgements on this.

It isn't accurate for Tell Me How to be making statements that suggest that far right agents are to blame for a substantial amount of violence at BLM rallies as if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Again you are wrong that I claimed right wingers were responsible for the majority of activities at protests. I merely gave examples of the several articles highlighting their involvement.

Stop with the strawman activities.

Tell me how

Aside from the quantity of right wing activists arrested, I'm glad to see you alluded to the total number arrested within BLM protests throughout the summer was at 10K. Given the total number who protested was over 20M, that equates to 0.05% of all protesters. Certainly hard to argue that the protests were motivated by an opportunity for violence and looting when you look at those figures.

The BLM protests this summer have been largely peaceful events outside of some protests in some areas, at least some of which were fueled by right wing activists.

Foxtrol

Tell me how wrote: »

Aside from the quantity of right wing activists arrested, I'm glad to see you alluded to the total number arrested within BLM protests throughout the summer was at 10K. Given the total number who protested was over 20M, that equates to 0.05% of all protesters. Certainly hard to argue that the protests were motivated by an opportunity for violence and looting when you look at those figures.

The BLM protests this summer have been largely peaceful events outside of some protests in some areas, at least some of which were fueled by right wing activists.

The funny thing that so many of those arrested on the BLM side were for what that Trump group were doing and not a person were arrested.

Those numbers also include people committing crimes to take advantage of BLM protests in the area, see the NYC looting that had no connection to the protests

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

The links are contained within each 'Exhibit' phrase nullzero. Standard Boards practice.

The blog contains several examples all of which are linked to news articles detailing them.

Given you failed on your own any evidence, and have trouble navigating our evidence, it doesn't surprise me you think our argument doesn't hold scrutiny. It's hard to see something when you are making such an effort to not see it.

My apologies about the links, the standard practice you speak of isn't something I'm aware of. Could you show me where this standard is outlined?

The facts here are that you provided links to 2 articles which listed 5 people arrested for what you're describing as and I quote "A fact which right wingers are acutely aware of given the steps they took in instigating violence and property damage at many of the protests throughout the summer". The inclusion of the word "many" suggests that this issue is a large scale one when in point of fact (facts pointed out in the links you provided as it happens) isn't the case. So what point were you making exactly?

I'm not trying hard to not see things, I'm trying hard to see how what you're saying is accurate.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Aside from the quantity of right wing activists arrested, I'm glad to see you alluded to the total number arrested within BLM protests throughout the summer was at 10K. Given the total number who protested was over 20M, that equates to 0.05% of all protesters. Certainly hard to argue that the protests were motivated by an opportunity for violence and looting when you look at those figures.

The BLM protests this summer have been largely peaceful events outside of some protests in some areas, at least some of which were fueled by right wing activists.

This argument has been torn apart on other threads by myself and other posters. You know this statement is complete and utter waffle but you insist on posting it again and again.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

This argument has been torn apart on other threads by myself and other posters. You know this statement is complete and utter waffle but you insist on posting it again and again.

You referred to the 10,000.
The figure of 20M is probably on the low side by up to 50%.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Yours, or anyone elses desperate to make the protests in to something they weren't.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Again you are wrong that I claimed right wingers were responsible for the majority of activities at protests. I merely gave examples of the several articles highlighting their involvement.

Stop with the strawman activities.

What strawman?

Again, here's what you said "A fact which right wingers are acutely aware of given the steps they took in instigating violence and property damage at many of the protests throughout the summer".

What should I take from what your saying here when to then state that is in fact a large scale issue?

Manic Moran

In related news, Rittenhouse had his hearing last week, he's getting extradited to Wisconsin, no surprise there. The chap who fired the first shot has also been (somehow) identified and charged. His gun was stolen last month, which is a bit unfortunately late.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

You referred to the 10,000.
The figure of 20M is probably on the low side by up to 50%.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Yours, or anyone elses desperate to make the protests in to something they weren't.

You're bashing me over the head with notions of facts whilst ignoring that 10, 000 (ten thousand) arrests were made. It may be a small percentage of the total of people involved in the protests but it is by itself an immensely large number, but we've already been over this on other threads.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

You're bashing me over the head with notions of facts whilst ignoring that 10, 000 (ten thousand) arrests were made. It may be a small percentage of the total of people involved in the protests but it is by itself an immensely large number, but we've already been over this on other threads.

Yes, and as in the other threads, you should consider the role percentages play in our lives.

Given the day that's in it, if one guy has 20M people vote for him today, he will likely be annihilated in the election.

0.05% means that for everyone 1 person arrested, there were 2000 who protested and who weren't. There is no way you can say that protests with that ratio were inherently violent in their nature. And that's before you add to the mix the right wing activists already discussed.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, and as in the other threads, you should consider the role percentages play in our lives.

Given the day that's in it, if one guy has 20M people vote for him today, he will likely be annihilated in the election.

0.05% means that for everyone 1 person arrested, there were 2000 who protested and who weren't. There is no way you can say that protests with that ratio were inherently violent in their nature. And that's before you add to the mix the right wing activists already discussed.

Yes you can say that when there has been enough violence to warrant the huge amount of media attention on that violence, even if some media outlets use terms like "mostly peaceful" to downplay it.

The fact of the matter is that there has been widespread violence at BLM events and regardless of the numbers arrested (many more would not have been arrested but still participated in the violence) and how they fit into a percentage of all people participating in BLM events.

Let's say for arguments sake that 5000 English football fans descend on a European championship game and head to a town square in Belgium or any other part of Europe and 25 of them start throwing furniture around the town square and smashing up businesses. Does it matter that 0.5% of the crowd were involved or do we look at the situation for what it is, an endemic problem of hooliganism with English football supporters?

Your argument about percentages is inherently flawed, you are the one not considering the role of percentages in our lives. You are massaging the figures to suit your argument and you should really step back and look at what you're proposing and how idiotic a proposition it actually is.

And as for adding in the right wing activists responsible for causing unrest at BLM events, you have been able to prove that 5 people fit that description. So in the interest of fairness we'll say conclusively that 9995 others do not fit that description, proof no doubt in your opinion of the noble intentions of BLM supporters.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Let's say for arguments sake that 5000 English football fans descend on a European championship game and head to a town square in Belgium or any other part of Europe and 25 of them start throwing furniture around the town square and smashing up businesses. Does it matter that 0.5% of the crowd were involved or do we look at the situation for what it is, an endemic problem of hooliganism with English football supporters?

The percentage figure is 0.05%. 0.5% is ten times greater.

So, to take your football analogy, if 2.5 people (let's round it up to 3 people) out of 5,000 took part in hooligan behaviour, no, no one would suggest from that figure that it was another example of an endemic problem.

In fact, they would use it as evidence that the problem was no longer an issue given the tiny minority who engaged in such activity when in a position where they could do so.

Your argument, proves my point.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Let's say for arguments sake that 5000 English football fans descend on a European championship game and head to a town square in Belgium or any other part of Europe and 25 of them start throwing furniture around the town square and smashing up businesses. Does it matter that 0.5% of the crowd were involved or do we look at the situation for what it is, an endemic problem of hooliganism with English football supporters?

What the situation in more like is there is a big soccer game on that diverts police attention and thieves rob and damage some shops.

For the most part, what you're doing is blaming soccer fans on the thieves.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

The percentage figure is 0.05%. 0.5% is ten times greater.

So, to take your football analogy, if 2.5 people (let's round it up to 3 people) out of 5,000 took part in hooligan behaviour, no, no one would suggest from that figure that it was another example of an endemic problem.

In fact, they would use it as evidence that the problem was no longer an issue given the tiny minority who engaged in such activity when in a position where they could do so.

Your argument, proves my point.

No you're wrong, yet again.

Once the problem still exists it is an issue that affects the perception of the group as a whole.
Look at the Lansdowne Road riot in 1995, there were 4500 English fans in the stadium and 40 of them were arrested in total. The fact that it was a small percentage involved didn't take away from the fact that the damage done was incredibly bad.

You can't accept the reality that 10,000 arrests (and they're only the ones who were able to be caught) is a huge number of people.

Nothing I have said proves your point in any way. In fact it shows the fundamental flaws in your argument. Now we're seeing an inability to accept you could be wrong, this is supposedly a hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder but I'm not a psychologist.

Put simply, your argument is flawed and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, this has been hammered out ad nauseum on other threads (that you and others on your side of the argument were subsequently banned from for abuse) but you still persist with putting it forward.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

What the situation in more like is there is a big soccer game on that diverts police attention and thieves rob and damage some shops.

For the most part, what you're doing is blaming soccer fans on the thieves.

I have no idea how that relates to what I'm saying.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

I have no idea how that relates to what I'm saying.

Most of the looting had nothing to do with the protests, they just took advantage of the police being distracted.

Take NYC for example, the areas that were looted weren't near where the BLM protests were.

The only connection was the timing and the police being distracted by the protests.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Most of the looting had nothing to do with the protests, they just took advantage of the police being distracted.

Take NYC for example, the areas that were looted weren't near where the BLM protests were.

The only connection was the timing and the police being distracted by the protests.

But what you're saying is that the looting was a result of the protests, albeit as an unintentional consequence.

With that said there were plenty of acts of violence and arson etc in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd killing which was directly part of protests supported by BLM for instance.

With the numbers of protests there has been, almost all variations of the above have most likely happened at some point in the last few months so one description of how violence and looting etc intersects with BLM protests wouldn't be sufficient.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

But what you're saying is that the looting was a result of the protests, albeit as an unintentional consequence.

Back to my original comparison, you're blaming a soccer game for the fact that police weren't around to stop the thieves who took advantage of the distraction.

It is a big leap and one that you'll happily make because it suits your agenda.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Back to my original comparison, you're blaming a soccer game for the fact that police weren't around to stop the thieves who took advantage of the distraction.

It is a big leap and one that you'll happily make because it suits your agenda.

Talk about suiting your own agenda.

You're completely side stepping the fact that violence has occurred at BLM events. Sure some violence has occurred away from BLM events using them as a distraction but that isn't the way it is in every case.

You're cherry picking things I say that you feel you can exploit, that's a dishonest method of debate.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Talk about suiting your own agenda.

You're completely side stepping the fact that violence has occurred at BLM events. Sure some violence has occurred away from BLM events using them as a distraction but that isn't the way it is in every case.

You're cherry picking things I say that you feel you can exploit, that's a dishonest method of debate.

How do you think debates work?

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

How do you think debates work?

You address everything someone says particularly when only addressing one thing in isolation decontextualises the entire argument a person is making.

If you think that is debating in good faith it explains a lot.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

You address everything someone says particularly when only addressing one thing in isolation decontextualises the entire argument a person is making.

If you think that is debating in good faith it explains a lot.

You're the guy who expects us to believe failed to find any evidence of right wing activists being involved at BLM protests this summer.

Either one of two things is going on, you can't use google, or only want to focus on your own argument.
Either explains a lot.

Anyway, that's enough for me for now, I'm off out for a bit.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

You're the guy who expects us to believe failed to find any evidence of right wing activists being involved at BLM protests this summer.

Either one of two things is going on, you can't use google, or only want to focus on your own argument.
Either explains a lot.

Anyway, that's enough for me for now, I'm off out for a bit.

I'm expecting that you would be able to give evidence of more than 5 people being guilty of what you are saying is a wide spread problem in the whole of the United States.

As you pointed out there has been 10,000 arrests for violence etc at BLM events, you are putting forward the argument that a reasonable amount of this activity is caused by far right activists trying to discredit the BLM movement. The problem with this being that you have only been able to show that this was the case in 5 of the 10,000 cases of people being arrested for criminal behaviour at BLM events.

If you make a statement you should be able to back it up with FACTS. You have demonstrated an inability to do that in this instance so therefore your argument is flawed and you should accept you were wrong to make that statement.

I accepted I was wrong in saying you didn't provide links earlier in the thread and apologised to you for saying you hadn't provided links, We all have to be humble at some point, nobody is infallible, something you'd do well to remember, along with your manners which seem to elude you with alarming regularity.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Talk about suiting your own agenda.

You're completely side stepping the fact that violence has occurred at BLM events. Sure some violence has occurred away from BLM events using them as a distraction but that isn't the way it is in every case.

You're cherry picking things I say that you feel you can exploit, that's a dishonest method of debate.

You're once again building the strawman that we're claiming that no violence has ever occurred.

It can be true that there was violence but it was at much smaller degree than right wing media and politicians claim.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

You're once again building the strawman that we're claiming that no violence has ever occurred.

It can be true that there was violence but it was at much smaller degree than right wing media and politicians claim.

I never argued that you said that no violence ever occurred. Can you please point out where I said this?

What is it with the obsession with Strawmen?

Anything that points out the holes in your arguments must somehow be unreasonable, this is really juvenile stuff.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

I never argued that you said that no violence ever occurred. Can you please point out where I said this?

What is it with the obsession with Strawmen?

Anything that points out the holes in your arguments must somehow be unreasonable, this is really juvenile stuff.

You said I sidestepped that violence occurred, implying that I didn't agree that it occurred.

Am I supposed to go line by line saying yes or no to each line in your post? I picked out the elements that I disagreed with and gave my perspective on them.

My original perspective still stands, violence occurred at BLM events at a much smaller scale than you and both right wing media and politicians claim.