Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

You side stepped the majority of my post which is a valid statement to make. The post wasn't exhaustive, it wouldn't have been taxing to address the whole thing as I am doing with your posts.

The fact is that 10,000 people have been arrested for violence at BLM events.
According to Tell Me How, that is a small number when taken in the context of its percentage representation of BLM events as a whole. At the same time Tell Me How is arguing that the 5 people arrested as far right activists inciting violence at BLM events is a big number.

This is clear cognitive dissonance, but at least Tell Me How is accepting the facts of the situation and the numbers involved. You are citing your "perspective" which has even less validity.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

You side stepped the majority of my post which is a valid statement to make. The post wasn't exhaustive, it wouldn't have been taxing to address the whole thing as I am doing with your posts.

The fact is that 10,000 people have been arrested for violence at BLM events.
According to Tell Me How, that is a small number when taken in the context of its percentage representation of BLM events as a whole. At the same time Tell Me How is arguing that the 5 people arrested as far right activists inciting violence at BLM events is a big number.

This is clear cognitive dissonance, but at least Tell Me How is accepting the facts of the situation and the numbers involved. You are citing your "perspective" which has even less validity.

Evidence of this.

I fully accept there was that many arrests but most of those were non-violent for example breaking curfew, refusing to disperse, or blocking the street, doing exactly what that MAGA group did where no cops were to be seen.

Trying to conflate violent and non-violent arrest is just wrong

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Evidence of this.

I fully accept there was that many arrests but most of those were non-violent for example breaking curfew, refusing to disperse, or blocking the street, doing exactly what that MAGA group did where no cops were to be seen.

Trying to conflate violent and non-violent arrest is just wrong

We don't have a breakdown of each individual offence.

Those arrested knew going into the protests that there were strict rules in place like curfews etc, and the chance of being involved in violent and anti social behaviour was elevated. These people are big enough and bold enough to understand the risk involved and still chose to engage in these protests.

There has been widespread violence looting and arson associated with BLM protests and this is an uncomfortable truth for that movement and evidently some people here.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

We don't have a breakdown of each individual offence.

Those arrested knew going into the protests that there were strict rules in place like curfews etc, and the chance of being involved in violent and anti social behaviour was elevated. These people are big enough and bold enough to understand the risk involved and still chose to engage in these protests.

There has been widespread violence looting and arson associated with BLM protests and this is an uncomfortable truth for that movement and evidently some people here.

Same argument was used all over the world against peaceful protestors, including against MLK and civil rights protestors.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Same argument was used all over the world against peaceful protestors, including against MLK and civil rights protestors.

That's not a reasonable comparison.

These people are choosing to involve themselves in protests that are turning into riots where shops are being looted and buildings burned down at a time of a global pandemic where people are supposed to be restricting their movements, nevermind gathering in large groups and not distancing from each other.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

That's not a reasonable comparison.

These people are choosing to involve themselves in protests that are turning into riots where shops are being looted and buildings burned down at a time of a global pandemic where people are supposed to be restricting their movements, nevermind gathering in large groups and not distancing from each other.

Now you've moved to the pandemic as being the issue with the protests?

I was at several protests and the percentage of protesters wearing masks was much higher than the cops looking on (dressed everywhere else like they were going to war).

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Now you've moved to the pandemic as being the issue with the protests?

I was at several protests and the percentage of protesters wearing masks was much higher than the cops looking on (dressed everywhere else like they were going to war).

I'm not moving to anything.

You do understand that mass gatherings have been an issue since the beginning of this year?

What protests did you attend as a matter of interest?

Also police at events such as protests are now and have been for decades expected to wear protective equipment to ensure they aren't injured whilst they carry out their low paid essential jobs that we all rely upon. Do you not feel that police should be allowed to use protective equipment?

AbusesToilets

You're wasting your time engaging with someone who has lied repeatedly in these threads NullZero. Tell Me How is not an honest agent.

Overheal

Really do need to address the police sympathizing and coordinating with unregulated militias

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1323743300562669573?s=20

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not moving to anything.

You do understand that mass gatherings have been an issue since the beginning of this year?

What protests did you attend as a matter of interest?

Also police at events such as protests are now and have been for decades expected to wear protective equipment to ensure they aren't injured whilst they carry out their low paid essential jobs that we all rely upon. Do you not feel that police should be allowed to use protective equipment?

There is reasonable protective equipment and unnecessarily escalating a situation (the latter is what they do for most BLM protests).

None of the bold is true.

Below are cops wearing no additional equipment at an armed MAGA protest yesterday (I can provide plenty more but dont want to link dump). Cops have plenty of freedom to chose what equipment they use.

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1324321485520052226?s=20

Below I've also included the pay rate of NYPD cops, they are far from low paid, especially with the extremely low level of qualification they need.

https://twitter.com/sam_lavigne/status/1270716267876343808?s=20

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

There is reasonable protective equipment and unnecessarily escalating a situation (the latter is what they do for most BLM protests).

None of the bold is true.

Below are cops wearing no additional equipment at an armed MAGA protest yesterday (I can provide plenty more but dont want to link dump). Cops have plenty of freedom to chose what equipment they use.

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1324321485520052226?s=20

Below I've also included the pay rate of NYPD cops, they are far from low paid, especially with the extremely low level of qualification they need.

https://twitter.com/sam_lavigne/status/1270716267876343808?s=20

How does protective equipment escalate a situation. By definition it protects the person wearing it only?

Perhaps they don't wear it at MAGA protests because the people protesting respect them and don't attack them. I never stated that they aren't free to equip themselves for an event based on a basic level of risk assessment.

As for the pay issue, I admit I'm not up to speed with US police force pay scales.

Overheal

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/police-chief-resigns-after-social-media-posts-calling-for-death-to-all-marxist-democrats/

The police chief of Marshall, Arkansas is out of a job after social media posts under his name called for violence against “Marxist Democrats.”

“When this is over and Trump is president for 4 more years,” said an account in the name of chief Lang Holland, “Do not go to sleep. Do not forget what these Marxist Democrat bastards have tried to do. When you see one in public get in their face do not give them any peace. Throw water on them at restaurants. Push them off sidewalks. Never let them forget they are traitors and have no rights to live in this Republic after what they have done.”

“Death to all Marxist Democrats. Take no prisoners,” the account author wrote in response to another post, “Leave no survivors!!”

The posts reportedly appeared on Parler, a social media platform that positioned itself as a conservative alternative to Twitter. Another account under Holland’s name denied that he was behind the violent posts.

“I am NOT an ignorant, violent, racist Trump disciple like I have been depicted,” this new account stated. “I actually lean hard left on most issues BUT I am professional so my political beliefs would never affect my duty to protect ALL citizens in my jurisdiction.”


The Marshall police page on Facebook is down as of Sunday morning.


Law&Crime could not reach Holland for a request for comment. The phone simply kept ringing when we made a call to a listed number for the police department.

“Upon my meeting with Mr. Holland he resigned as Police Chief for the City of Marshall effective immediately,” Mayor Kevin Elliott (D) said in a statement posted to Facebook. “Mr. Holland is no longer employed with the city.”

Holland previously caught some national attention as one of the law enforcement official who refused to enforce mask mandates amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“All I’m saying is if you want to wear a mask, you have the freedom to choose that,” Holland, a Trump supporter, said, according to Fox News in July. “It should not be dictated by the nanny state.”

https://twitter.com/KATVViktoria/status/1325189361323790336?s=20

https://twitter.com/KATVViktoria/status/1325189376134049792?s=20

https://twitter.com/KATVViktoria/status/1325189429301014528?s=20

https://twitter.com/KATVViktoria/status/1325189439333740544?s=20






It seems that if there is a Deep State in America it is in Law Enforcement across the country.

AbusesToilets

I take it you're now accepting Twitter posts et al as a valid representation of a group then?

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I take it you're now accepting Twitter posts et al as a valid representation of a group then?

The fact that the police department fired him, instead of giving him the trademark "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" treatment, sells the story, wouldn't you agree?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I take it you're now accepting Twitter posts et al as a valid representation of a group then?

A mountain of evidence has been presented to you. You fundamentally agree there are problems. Yet somehow you reject the obvious conclusion that systemic racism is the problem. I don't get it. You're not stupid.

nullzero

Marshall Arkansas has a population of 1355 people. Does this represent the entirety of the United States of America?

The man in question has made, as outlined above a number of ridiculous remarks and has rightly lost his job.

He did not however propose that people target other based upon the colour of their skin, rather on the grounds of their political allegiances.

We don't have evidence that he has instructed his subordinates to carry out the actions he outlined above, or if he did, that they actually did so.

I don't see this as evidence of institutional racism (the topic of this thread) within the police force, particularly seeing as he was fired from his job. What we've seen here is one idiot making idiotic statements and being rightly removed from his position. Which in effect disproves the point that there is an institutional level issue at play.

I really don't get it, I'm guessing the people proposing this aren't stupid.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

A mountain of evidence has been presented to you. You fundamentally agree there are problems. Yet somehow you reject the obvious conclusion that systemic racism is the problem. I don't get it. You're not stupid.

I respectfully disagree. As you hold that violence in black communities aren't representative of whole, I also hold that incidents of police misconduct are not representative of the whole.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. As you hold that violence in black communities aren't representative of whole, I also hold that incidents of police misconduct are not representative of the whole.

No one is arguing that they are representative of the whole. They show a trend that reaches an unacceptable threshold though.

Overheal

How much do you need to see before realizing this is more widespread?

https://twitter.com/ejdickson/status/1325564602747383810?s=20

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

How does protective equipment escalate a situation. By definition it protects the person wearing it only?

Perhaps they don't wear it at MAGA protests because the people protesting respect them and don't attack them. I never stated that they aren't free to equip themselves for an event based on a basic level of risk assessment.

As for the pay issue, I admit I'm not up to speed with US police force pay scales.

So you're stepping back from your claim that police have been required to wear that 'for decades'?

It is basic level policing that if you dress and arm police officers like soldiers it escalates tensions.

Is this respect??? The right have had nothing to protest about for the last 4 years and we still saw scenes like the below because they were asked to wear masks. We'll see how much 'respect' will be shown once they get to their next stage of grief of Trump losing power.

https://twitter.com/FriendEden100/status/1314512837197393920?s=20

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you're stepping back from your claim that police have been required to wear that 'for decades'?

It is basic level policing that if you dress and arm police officers like soldiers it escalates tensions.

Is this respect??? The right have had nothing to protest about for the last 4 years and we still saw scenes like the below because they were asked to wear masks. We'll see how much 'respect' will be shown once they get to their next stage of grief of Trump losing power.

https://twitter.com/FriendEden100/status/1314512837197393920?s=20

Police have had protective equipment available for decades and wearing it in situations where its use is deemed necessary is a requirement and not optional.

I'm not really interested in which side of the American political divide is acting up at any given time as they both have the capacity to act like idiots in the right conditions so I'm not going down that particular rabbit hole.

As for your notion of what defines "basic level policing" in relation to wearing protective gear that to your eye appears to be militaristic in nature when in reality the same technology used to stop bullets and other things from injuring military personnel is just being repurposed to protect police officers in a country where the right to bear arms is written into the constitution an issue which puts any police officer in that country at a greater risk of being shot than in other jurisdictions. But surely this is all self evident? The type of thing that anyone would be able to work out for themselves? Evidently not.
Body armour is so evil it should be done away with as to not hurt the feelings of those appalled by its use.

I have literally never heard such a ridiculous argument, or anything as devoid of reason not to mention poorly articulated and as influenced by misguided personal opinion in my life, well that may be an exaggeration but you're pushing close to it.

Biafranlivemat

In Boston until the late 80's/early 90's , Police officers were expected to PAY for their own body armor.
As for the militaristic nature of US police, it has been going on for a while.
In the picture below from 1935 Boston, there is a top row of M1903 Springfield rifles , bottom left are 1921 Thompson sub-machine guns.
I don't want any police force to turn into the RUC of 1969.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Police have had protective equipment available for decades and wearing it in situations where its use is deemed necessary is a requirement and not optional.

Which is what my original point was. They 'deem' it necessary for one group but not for others, just like they 'deem' more aggressive policing measures are required for one group rather than another.

I'm not really interested in which side of the American political divide is acting up at any given time as they both have the capacity to act like idiots in the right conditions so I'm not going down that particular rabbit hole.

I know you're not interested because it doesn't suit your agenda.

What you said there is actually exactly my point, both sides have the capacity to act like idiots yet the police choose to treat them differently from what they wear to how they act.

As for your notion of what defines "basic level policing" in relation to wearing protective gear that to your eye appears to be militaristic in nature when in reality the same technology used to stop bullets and other things from injuring military personnel is just being repurposed to protect police officers in a country where the right to bear arms is written into the constitution an issue which puts any police officer in that country at a greater risk of being shot than in other jurisdictions. But surely this is all self evident? The type of thing that anyone would be able to work out for themselves? Evidently not.
Body armour is so evil it should be done away with as to not hurt the feelings of those appalled by its use.

I have literally never heard such a ridiculous argument, or anything as devoid of reason not to mention poorly articulated and as influenced by misguided personal opinion in my life, well that may be an exaggeration but you're pushing close to it.

This is complete nonsense. You talk about about police needing to protect themselves from bullets yet the police are choosing to wear less armour when policing protestors that are open carrying military style weapons and groups that are assessed by the FBI to be far more dangerous to national security.

You've twisted yourself in knots so much that you're now only strengthening the arguments I made earlier.

Potatoeman

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

In Boston until the late 80's/early 90's , Police officers were expected to PAY for their own body armor.
As for the militaristic nature of US police, it has been going on for a while.
In the picture below from 1935 Boston, there is a top row of M1903 Springfield rifles , bottom left are 1921 Thompson sub-machine guns.
I don't want any police force to turn into the RUC of 1969.

Being in Germany and Spain before lockdown and the police travel in threes with full body armour, one with a large bulletproof shield and two with assault rifles. This is only in the last ten years. I wonder why...
If the police expect trouble they will be out in force and fully geared up, even here during the May Day protests.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

Which is what my original point was. They 'deem' it necessary for one group but not for others, just like they 'deem' more aggressive policing measures are required for one group rather than another.



I know you're not interested because it doesn't suit your agenda.

What you said there is actually exactly my point, both sides have the capacity to act like idiots yet the police choose to treat them differently from what they wear to how they act.



This is complete nonsense. You talk about about police needing to protect themselves from bullets yet the police are choosing to wear less armour when policing protestors that are open carrying military style weapons and groups that are assessed by the FBI to be far more dangerous to national security.

You've twisted yourself in knots so much that you're now only strengthening the arguments I made earlier.

Firstly, what exactly is my agenda Foxtrol?

Police will determine the requirement to use protective equipment based on risk assessments. I cannot comment on why they choose to forego PPE at some events and not others. My preference would be to wear PPE at all such events, ie armour can't stop bullets whilst sitting on a hanger.

I haven't twisted myself into knots over anything.

You seem offended by police wearing PPE. Well boo hoo, too bad for you, I suggest you get over it. How any of what I have said strengthens your pathetic excuse for an argument is beyond me.

And yet again, just what is my agenda exactly?

nullzero

Potatoeman wrote: »

Being in Germany and Spain before lockdown and the police travel in threes with full body armour, one with a large bulletproof shield and two with assault rifles. This is only in the last ten years. I wonder why...
If the police expect trouble they will be out in force and fully geared up, even here during the May Day protests.

Possibly more to do with the increase in Islamic terror attacks in Europe.

Potatoeman

nullzero wrote: »

Possibly more to do with the increase in Islamic terror attacks in Europe.

That was a rhetorical question.

It’s cause and effect. The whole Islamaphobia idea is quickly being thrown out the window. It’s clearly no longer an unfounded bias.

Brian?

Potatoeman wrote: »

Being in Germany and Spain before lockdown and the police travel in threes with full body armour, one with a large bulletproof shield and two with assault rifles. This is only in the last ten years. I wonder why...
If the police expect trouble they will be out in force and fully geared up, even here during the May Day protests.

Because of Islamic terrorism. What has this got to do with the subject at hand?

Potatoeman

Brian? wrote: »

Because of Islamic terrorism. What has this got to do with the subject at hand?

Read the last line of the person I quoted. Europeans can’t complain about how armed the police in America are when the police in Europe are armed like they are entering a siege when just walking down the street.

Foxtrol

nullzero wrote: »

Firstly, what exactly is my agenda Foxtrol?

Police will determine the requirement to use protective equipment based on risk assessments. I cannot comment on why they choose to forego PPE at some events and not others. My preference would be to wear PPE at all such events, ie armour can't stop bullets whilst sitting on a hanger.

I haven't twisted myself into knots over anything.

You seem offended by police wearing PPE. Well boo hoo, too bad for you, I suggest you get over it. How any of what I have said strengthens your pathetic excuse for an argument is beyond me.

And yet again, just what is my agenda exactly?

I'm not offended by police wearing PPE, I actually wish US police wore their masks consistently. My issue is with their numbers, their outfitting, and their actions being incredibly passive for right wing protests and arriving with an army of officers, dressed for war, and acting incredibly aggressively when it comes to BLM protests.

As for your agenda, from your posts it appears that it is to excuse police actions at every opportunity while then denigrating protestors demanding racial equality every chance you can.