America

[Digby]

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?

Whether the majority are racist might depend on the benchmark for racism. But it's clearly a massive issue, and far too large to ignore.

I suspect they have a similar problem to us in that many officers just aren't that bright, but it's a tough dangerous job for often quite bad pay so there will be some low quality applying. And Iike many I'm hesitant to condemn those who take an oath to protect knowing they could face significant danger, and the pressures can be extreme, but they need so many reforms it's shocking, an

[Puja]

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.

I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.

Puja

[morepork]

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.

Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.

They are not all racist, in fact I suspect that the number who act unprofessionally is a significant minority.

I didn't say they were all racist PC Plod, I said they work for a racist organisation.

[Sandydragon]

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?

Whether the majority are racist might depend on the benchmark for racism. But it's clearly a massive issue, and far too large to ignore.

I suspect they have a similar problem to us in that many officers just aren't that bright, but it's a tough dangerous job for often quite bad pay so there will be some low quality applying. And Iike many I'm hesitant to condemn those who take an oath to protect knowing they could face significant danger, and the pressures can be extreme, but they need so many reforms it's shocking, an

I suggest there is a wider problem over how the police actually police high crime areas (which tend to be largely inhabited by minorities).It is a dangerous job at times and I can understand (if not condone) why many have itchy trigger fingers (read my previous comment on training and being gung ho).

The problem often seems ot be that any investigation post incident is perceived to take too long and not be transparent. There are occasions when a white police officer will use deadly force on a black suspect and that use of force will be completely legitimate. But because the investigations process looks like a cover up, every case is seen as another flashpoint.

[Sandydragon]

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.

I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.

Puja

Thats a wide definition. Some neighbourhoods are high crime high risk areas to patrol. Police officers will make a show of strength in those areas because of the risks. Many of those areas happen to have minority communities. Is it racism to try and do your job and keep you and your colleagues in one piece? There is more to this than a racist mindset, more one of trying to police a battlefield. The solution here is wider than just the police.

If the areas in question were white would you still call it racism? Of course not. Its unreasonable to expect a police officer to act in a high risk area as if they were walking down millionaires row.

Other points I would take as evidence of racism

[morepork]

I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

No, not at all. I’m saying if it only takes an instance of perceived violence from protestors to sway the majority of public opinion then they’ve lost the battle already whether they act peacefully or not. We already know there are instances of setups, frauds, police instigating violence etc. Whatever you want to call it.

I totally understand the frustration with the way the protests are turning violent, I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I’m finding it really weird how easily the issues at the root of all this are seemingly being matched, in the eyes of many, by the violent acts in the protests. Despite a) we’re not really sure who is doing most of it b) we’ve seen countless more incidences of police brutality since this started c) this is generations of horrific treatment vs a few days of protesting and “riots”.

I get the urge for some to play devil’s advocate, but it’s pretty notable the issues that certain people choose to focus on out of all the things that are happening.

[Stom]

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

But, again, that is kinda the point... the more the media focus on limited violence, the more you get up in arms about violence... when in reality it’s a tiny, tiny minority. And some of them may even be setups.

Repeating the violence lines just plays into the hands of the racists.

[Digby]

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

I think it's the phrase "outright racists" that's causing our disagreement. I will agree that there's probably a minority of cops who are white power, racewar, purity of our country racists. However racism isn't a binary - there's no off and on switch. There's cops who will believe that black men are genetically more likely to commit crimes, there's cops who'll believe that you've gotta show strength cause it's the only thing "those people" will understand, there's cops who'll believe that it's just statistics and it's right to target black people because it's more likely you'll be right, there's cops who just regard certain areas as dodgy and likely to have crime, there are cops who'll just laugh along at racist jokes in locker room banter, and there's cops who say they're not racist but have little internal biases that make a black guy in a hoodie in an affluent area register as suspicious.

I'll agree that the top end of the scale is probably the minority. I'd probably say 80-90% of the force is on the scale though.

Puja

Thats a wide definition. Some neighbourhoods are high crime high risk areas to patrol. Police officers will make a show of strength in those areas because of the risks. Many of those areas happen to have minority communities. Is it racism to try and do your job and keep you and your colleagues in one piece? There is more to this than a racist mindset, more one of trying to police a battlefield. The solution here is wider than just the police.

If the areas in question were white would you still call it racism? Of course not. Its unreasonable to expect a police officer to act in a high risk area as if they were walking down millionaires row.

Other points I would take as evidence of racism

The police are badly let down in this by social housing policies, by access to quality food and education, by access to community services, sports and arts. And the police are badly let down by the justice system, such as it is.

Although it's not just the US who refuse to spend less money in advance to avoid having a problem than a fortune on having and failing to deal with a problem

[Digby]

Fuck off.

Here you are, expressing mirth at the death of, at the time, 49 people because they happened to be Muslim.

It's a disgusting act, though I confess a small part of my reaction was 'hah' and whilst that isn't helpful and perhaps doesn't speak well to my character I doubt I'd be the only one.

What, responding in part to horrible situations with gallows humour or simply unacceptable humour? I'd reiterate again it was a disgusting act, but it's just not going to be the case that 100% of the response from 100% of the people is entirely informed by compassion and virtue.

And then now you turn around and act outraged when people aren't exactly tearing up at a building owned by an organisation that has historically supported white supremacist groups?

Fuck you and your fucking both sides decorum bullshit, you racist cunt.

I hadn't actually noticed this charming little homily over the last couple of days.

But I will note a few things, you say I'm expressing mirth in a post where I comment that it's a disgusting act and whilst I did have a moment of 'hah' I noted that wasn't helpful and speaks badly to my character, albeit with the caveat I doubted I'd be the only one with some character issues. Yes you could make something of my use of the word 'perhaps' to which I'll merely note on occasion sarcasm influences my writing, I suspect like the bad character traits I mayn't be the only one. Basically in my view to contend in isolation I'm expressing mirth is to not give a fair context, but I have on occasion taken views expressed by others out of context, wilfully even at times I fear, so have at it.

Further I didn't commence commentary in all this with outrage at the destruction of the property belonging to the Children of the KKK or whatever they're called, I drew a comparison between a view expressing enjoyment of the destruction of property and a view expressing the condemnation of destruction of property, and then when pushed on it confirmed I considered illegal destruction of property pretty much a bad idea across the board, even when those doing the destruction assume in they're in the moral right.

I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

[Sandydragon]

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

But, again, that is kinda the point... the more the media focus on limited violence, the more you get up in arms about violence... when in reality it’s a tiny, tiny minority. And some of them may even be setups.

Repeating the violence lines just plays into the hands of the racists.

its a minority of police officers who shoot or otherwise kill black men without just cause, yet here we are. Perception matters. Violence happened and its given Trump an excuse. Its that simple.

[Sandydragon]

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

No, not at all. I’m saying if it only takes an instance of perceived violence from protestors to sway the majority of public opinion then they’ve lost the battle already whether they act peacefully or not. We already know there are instances of setups, frauds, police instigating violence etc. Whatever you want to call it.

I totally understand the frustration with the way the protests are turning violent, I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I’m finding it really weird how easily the issues at the root of all this are seemingly being matched, in the eyes of many, by the violent acts in the protests. Despite a) we’re not really sure who is doing most of it b) we’ve seen countless more incidences of police brutality since this started c) this is generations of horrific treatment vs a few days of protesting and “riots”.

I get the urge for some to play devil’s advocate, but it’s pretty notable the issues that certain people choose to focus on out of all the things that are happening.

I've argued all along that the violence gives Trump an excuse to ignore the protests and use force himself. I've not suggested that the incident that sparked all of this is anything but a disgrace. I do have a lot of sympathy for those who have lost businesses or been injured in the riots that followed who were totally innocent. Its quite possible to hold those views consecutively.

[Sandydragon]

I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

[Digby]

I'm not going to agree with your description of me as a racist, I don't like your use of the word cunt owing to a long held view of mine that the construct of our language is itself misogynistic, but it's a free country (sort of) even if I'd prefer a different derogatory label were used, and I don't understand why you think decorum or considering more than one side a bad thing.

Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

[Digby]

Oh, you mean when you showed your hand and made it clear you care more about a Starbucks getting smashed up than systemic murder?

You're moving there from taking my comments out of context to just inventing stuff. I mean maybe if they sold decent coffee, but at best it's average

Because you've shown just as much concern about systemic racial inequality and police violence against minority communities as you have the destruction of property.
Tell me, did you get upset about the Warsaw Jews taking up arms in 1943?

I didn't think I'd set out a position that ranks racial inequality against the destruction of property, rather I've suggested I'd reject the premise of choosing between the two because I don't consider it an either or, I don't see destruction and violence as advancing the cause of equality.

And no, I didn't get upset about the uprising of the Warsaw in Jews in 1943, tbh I didn't support it either but in my defence I wasn't born. If you're asking do I get upset about it then not really, but I don't think we've got a like for like, the system has huge problems in America but it's not genocide, the violence we already have is too much and I would hope it doesn't escalate further never mind see the senseless slaughter of millions

[Mikey Brown]

Anyway...

[Puja]

Anyway...

I'm getting a lot of these - it seems to be turning into police doctrine to take out medical and aid stations, usually in as violent a fashion as they can, presumably to try and deter the medics from coming back. Yet another thing where something that's considered a war crime by the USA is a-okay because it's being done to their own citizens.

Puja

[Puja]

Puja

[Digby]

It's like those weird moments when Ari Melber starts using lyrics to make a poetic point

[Which Tyler]

I'm getting a lot of these - it seems to be turning into police doctrine to take out medical and aid stations, usually in as violent a fashion as they can, presumably to try and deter the medics from coming back. Yet another thing where something that's considered a war crime by the USA is a-okay because it's being done to their own citizens.

or "terrorised" as it's otherwise known.

But I heard Trump - the peaceful protestors are terrorists; the violent cops are our staunch defenders who deserve all of our support

[Sandydragon]

Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

Women's rights around the world including in the US still rank abysmally, they I assume are allowed to do violence to men because of the ongoing violence toward and subjugation of women? Which means both of us are fair game in the USA for the womenfolk, and if I ever return to NZ I assume I'd be fair game there too given the huge problems of racism in Kiwiland? This covid thing and having to stay home is starting to look more and more like it's saving my life.

I will though agree I am saying there's an equivalence to looking at rights, I think this because in my estimation to have equality we should be treating people equally. I don't agree I'm disgusting though I would stipulate to a number of flaws.

If the societal institutions themselves are an active tool of oppression, with systemic and institutionalised violence against minorities or what have you, then sooner or later, it's inevitable that there will be active and violent resistance those very institutions.

Pretty telling that you're apparently bothered by the idea of non-whites demanding equal rights, or that it's black v. white, when it's racists vs. everyone else.

And hey, look at all the whypeepo getting assaulted and beaten down at this protest.



Edit: it's amazing how this drunk guy gets it, but you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending it.

Why do you assume that those who oppose violent protest are being silent?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Puja

It's a police state.

[morepork]

I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

My dude...come on...

[Stones of granite]

You know, with a Presidential election in 6 months, I'm having to try really hard not to see spooks under the bed with this one.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm kind of at a loss as to how and reinforce that the Police is a racist institution over here. I don't care how many individuals are not racist, the culture as a whole supports racism.

Also explain to me how lobbing tear gas into residential areas from a tank is a reasonable response to an assumed threat.

Perhaps some academic studies into the issue. There appear to be very few, and some of the ones I have found don't paint the picture you would like them to.

Example, one Police Department found that a black man was more likely to be shot by a black officer than a white officer. The reason are various and often make no sense at all, but one chief element is that in over 84% of shootings where the victim was black, the victim had possession of a firearm.

The issue seemed to be that Black men, particularly those under 30, were more likely to come into contact with the police and as a result the outcome was poor. It would be useful to have some case studies to understand how that has worked in practice.

What another study demonstrates is that Police in the US kill more people than in other wealthy and democratic countries. I believe that is a reflection of the culture at large.

My dude...come on...

Did you not read the part about the firearms, which (cmiiw) are illegal in the US? And possession of which is punishable by death.

I just read someone’s account of being repeatedly chased and beaten by police last night that closed with “I’ve feared for my life many times, but I’ve never felt that I was being toyed with before.” I’m getting very used to reading really harrowing stuff like that.