George Floyd Protests and Related Riots, Looting, and other Unrest

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
An ongoing series of significant events. And a lot of misinformation and finger-pointing. Both "far-left" and "far-right" groups have been implicated in the violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Alleged_extremist_involvement
Personally I find this all very worrying. In one sense it's an explosion of an aspect of a "culture war" that has been strongly encouraged, especially by Trump, but others are not helping. It partially centers around the Black Lives Matter vs. Blue Lives Matter movements.

Who you blame might depend on which news bubble you consume, and where your political sympathies lie.

Who else is stoking the flames? Russia is an obvious candidate, and are already running interference:
https://www.rt.com/news/490309-russia-meddling-us-riots-media/
The general sense I'm getting from RT is roughly one of support for the protests and denying reports of outside agitators.
Metabunk 2020-05-31 08-20-28.jpg
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
image.jpeg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States has NYC, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix,Philadelphia democrat governed; San Antonio independent, San Diego republican; Dallas, San Jose, Austin democrat; Jacksonville republican; San Franciso, Columbus democrat; Fort Worth republican; Inadianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Washington, Boston democrat ; El Paso republican; Detroit, Nashville, Memphis, Portland democrat, Oklahome City republican, Las Vegas independent, Louisville, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Albuquerque, Tucson democrat; Fresno, Mesa republican; Sacramento, Kansas City, Atlanta, Long Beach, Raleigh democrat; Omaha, Colorado Spings, Miami, Virginia Beach republican; Oakland, Minneapolis democrat; Tulsa, Arlington republican; New Orleans, Wichita democrat.

35 of the 50 largest cities are governed by democrats.

I'm not near my computer right now, else I'd cross-reference that with protests and the sizes of black constituencies, but the argument that it's the democrats' fault because protesting cities have mostly democratic mayors falls short since the big cities always have mostly democratic mayors, protests or not.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Global propaganda is definitely having a field day with this. Here's the Chinese take:
Article:
US should stand with Minnesota violent protesters as it did with HK rioters
US political elites seem to be fierce in all directions. They directly applauded Hong Kong's riots, calling them a "beautiful sight" of democracy. The chaos in Hong Kong has lasted for over a year and military forces have not been dispatched. Yet after only three days of chaos in Minnesota, Trump publicly threatened the use of firepower and implied military forces could be utilized.
 

Agent K

Active Member
The county medical examiner said Floyd did not die of mechanical asphyxiation but of cardiopulmonary arrest from neck compression in addition to heart disease and use of fentanyl and methamphetamine.
But Floyd's family hired the same pathologist who was hired by Epstein's brother and concluded that Epstein didn't hang himself but was strangled to death and that Floyd didn't have heart disease but was asphyxiated to death.

Article:
The Hennepin County medical examiner said an autopsy listed Floyd's cause of death as a "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

Article:
The medical examiner's preliminary report said Floyd had "other significant conditions," including "arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, a fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use."

Article:
Pathologists hired by Floyd's family said Monday that they had concluded that he died after blood and air flow was cut off to his brain, causing him to die by mechanical asphyxia.
That autopsy, conducted by Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner of New York City, found that Floyd had no underlying medical problems that caused or contributed to his death.

"Famed pathologist Michael Baden says Jeffrey Epstein’s death was homicide"
Article:
Baden said there were signs of “unusual” activity “from day one” of the autopsy, saying the wounds were “more consistent with ligature homicidal strangulation.”
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Some intriguing footage of Police seemingly deliberately damaging their own vehicles and smashing shop windows and apparently protecting the daughter of building owner whilst she grafitis her parents' building.






 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some intriguing footage of Police seemingly deliberately damaging their own vehicles
I just see them smashing an already smashed windscreen. Perhaps they were trying to remove it so they could drive the car away?
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I just see them smashing an already smashed windscreen. Perhaps they were trying to remove it so they could drive the car away?

Yes that's a possibility. The smashing of building windows and painting of graffiti could be explained by trying to make the buildings look already damaged as I sometimes open my glovebox and spill its contents to look as if I've already been burgled in thief magnet locations like big mall carparks with a bad reputation. There are series of photos being circulated of police escort of forklifts and pallets of Bricks. Depending on what order you view them can have opposite connotations.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Article:
Officers are taught to get a suspect up from the ground as soon as possible, either sitting or standing, since lying on one's stomach can cause breathing problems, especially for larger people.

That was a little surprising after reading about the benefits of proning.

Article:
Proning requires little or no equipment, and the technique may prove to help patients who are critically ill avoid being put on ventilators for breathing assistance.

I guess lying on the stomach is better than lying on the back but worse than sitting or standing.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
That was a little surprising after reading about the benefits of proning.
Article:
Prone positioning causes a more homogeneous distribution of transpulmonary pressure compared to the supine position 17. The authors have observed a movement of lung densities from dorsal to ventral regions when patients were turned from supine to prone, and a more homogeneous distribution of alveolar inflation in the prone position (fig. 1⇓).

The benefits arise in a situation where the patient has ARDS (fluid in the lungs) and is intubated (lung externally pressurized) and sedated (no muscle tone).
In this situation, it is important to recruit as much lung area as possible for breathing, and to do so equally; having a fairly homogenous pressure distribution means you can "pump up" the lung areas at the back without overpressuring the lung areas at the front, and that leads to better oxygenation and less damage in many cases.
Article:
image.jpeg

All of this does not apply to healthy individuals.

And I expect getting your neck knelt on is a severe health risk in either position.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I just see them smashing an already smashed windscreen. Perhaps they were trying to remove it so they could drive the car away?
Yes. Evidently the case. earlier footage of same car and intersection.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
A programme I was watching compared Trump's response to Nixon after Kent state when he went out and spoke to protesters at the Lincoln memorial. I looked that up, and saw this:
Article:
Nixon had been dismayed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, could not find any evidence that “outside agitators” provoked the National Guard to open fire or that foreign groups were funding antiwar protests.

“The Republican Party’s messaging was it was ‘outside agitators,’ and that is what Hoover could not deliver to Nixon,” Means says. “If you look at the FBI interviews, they have their marching orders to look for ‘outside agitators,’ and they just weren’t there."

It reminded me of a facet of probable bunk in the current situation:
Article:
Government authorities, including President Trump, suggested Saturday that out-of-state agitators brought violence to this week’s tense protests over George Floyd’s death. However, a few officials have backed off of those early assertions and some of the arrest data suggest that might not be the case.
[..]
Additionally, local arrest data indicates that most of those arrested since Thursday have actually identified themselves as Minnesotans, as first reported by local station KARE 11’s Brandon Stahl and confirmed by TIME.

Jail records from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, whose jurisdiction includes Minneapolis, show that of a total of 142 people were arrested for a variety of offenses from Friday through Sunday. As of Sunday morning, only about 21 of those 142 were noted as being from out-of-state. The jail log included individuals whose addresses were identified in neighboring states like Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota and Iowa, among others.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
In one sense it's an explosion of an aspect of a "culture war" that has been strongly encouraged, especially by Trump,
what "culture war" has Trump encouraged? this is not a combative question, i'm honestly wondering what you mean by this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
what "culture war" has Trump encouraged? this is not a combative question, i'm honestly wondering what you mean by this.
Broadly speaking it's the disagreements between conservatives and progressives (or just liberals), often framed as an existential crisis (i.e. the end of a way of life) for conservatives, and similarly as a potential loss of progress by the progressives. Trump, I think, does not really care, but has placed himself firmly in the conservative camp, and riles up support by continuing to frame things as a war.

This has somewhat spilled over into coronavirus times, where even things like wearing a mask become politically polarized and tools in the "war".

There's lots of discussion:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+culture+war
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Broadly speaking it's the disagreements between conservatives and progressives (or just liberals), often framed as an existential crisis (i.e. the end of a way of life) for conservatives, and similarly as a potential loss of progress by the progressives. Trump, I think, does not really care, but has placed himself firmly in the conservative camp, and riles up support by continuing to frame things as a war.
I see. thanks for explaining. I agree with all that of course. Trump is certainly not a "let's find common ground" type person when it comes to conservative issues that threaten "our way of life". That's why he was elected.
But black people don't threaten our way of life, so still a bit confused what that has to do with a cop killing a black man. I appreciate you explaining your meaning though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But black people don't threaten our way of life, so still a bit confused what that has to do with a cop killing a black man.
I think here the mainstream "culture war" division is being framed as "law and order" vs "social justice" Some on the conservative side are "blue lives matter" and like to "support our cops" against what they see as exaggerated charges against cops who were "just doing their jobs." Some on the liberal side feel there's massive institutional racism in law enforcement that leads to outcomes like deaths in custody disproportionally often for black people. This reaches extreme polarization in "all cops are scum" on the fringes of one side and "black people are animals" on the fringes of the other.

Trump knows what side his bread is buttered on, so he's going full-bore for "law and order".
Source: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1267227396341669889
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Trump knows what side his bread is buttered on, so he's going full-bore for "law and order".
its not law and order vs. social justice.
it's law and order vs. looting innocent minority store owners, burning churches for no reason, beating store owners, ..listen to this poor woman (about 20 secs autotimestamp) ... she broke my heart . (ignore I saw her on Tucker clip.. he does bash on Trump and Kushner if it makes anyone feel better. but this is about HER not about Tucker)
Source: https://youtu.be/3n5_D59lSjc?t=506
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I would have put the divide at traditional Christian rural white uneducated vs. urban socially progressive multi-cultural educated at the extremes and other folks sorting in-between someplace.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
it's law and order vs. looting innocent minority store owners
that is a false dichotomy
NOBODY advocates looting (except false flag operations)

the disagreement is whether "dominating" peaceful protesters is an acceptable way to prevent it
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Another way I think of the divide is that some people are ok with this and some people are not.
I think the divide is that some people understand that what you just posted is 2 completely different things, and other people..you?.. think those 2 posts indicate the same thing.

to me peaceful protesting (ie. non criminal) is ok.
Criminal protesting (fires, beating people, throwing things at people, looting, vandalism) is not ok.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
to me peaceful protesting (ie. non criminal) is ok.
Criminal protesting (fires, beating people, throwing things at people, looting, vandalism) is not ok.
Everyone agrees with that (and I already told you that). You can't explain the divide that way because that is not the dividing line.

Here is another expression of the difference from the viewpoint of the side that Senator Tom Cotton isn't on (anonymous as far as I know):
image.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Former Secretary of Defense to Donald Trump (2017-2018) General James N. Mattis released this statement, which has been published on many news sites:
Article:
IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH

I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.


The quoted words "battlespace" and "dominate" refer to words used by the present secretary of defense on Monday:
Article:
President Donald Trump criticized governors for being weak amid continued nationwide unrest on a phone call Monday. During that call, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper urged state leaders to "dominate the battlespace," a reference to US cities.

"The sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal," the secretary said, according to a recording leaked to The Washington Post.

"We need to dominate the battlespace," Esper explained. "You have deep resources in the Guard. I stand ready. The chairman stands ready. The head of the National Guard stands ready to fully support you in helping mobilize the Guard."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Doctor Mike Hansen posted a 19 minute video that gives viewers a crash course in the medical background of asphyxia death, and applies that to the death of George Floyd, concurring with the Michael Baden and commenting critically on the Hennepin County coroner's report. He also explains why the video evidence was crucial in making this medical determination.
Source: https://youtu.be/0oqEp63duIc

image.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpegimage.jpeg
 

Agent K

Active Member
Baden bizarrely added, "I am talking and talking and talking and not breathing in front of you."
I'm pretty sure he was breathing.

Baden had previously performed independent autopsies on Michael Brown and Eric Garner, agreeing with the city medical examiner's finding that Garner died from "[compression] of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," with no mention of asphyxiation.
In both cases, grand juries decided not to indict the police officers.

P.S. I just learned that Baden's assistant in the Michael Brown case was a scammer.
Article:
The 37-year-old, who posed as an expert in the investigation of the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August, 2014, has drawn renewed attention after allegedly setting up businesses and websites selling his services to victims of the novel coronavirus, offering to check tissue samples from loved ones who may have died of covid-19 but were not tested.

Speaking of COVID-19
Article:
Floyd had tested positive for the novel coronavirus on April 3. A post-mortem nasal swab confirmed that diagnosis. The report notes that because a positive result for coronavirus can persist for weeks after the disease has resolved, "the result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent ... positivity from previous infection."
In addition to fentanyl and methamphetamine, the toxicology report from the autopsy showed that Floyd also had cannabinoids in his system when he died.
Floyd also had heart disease, hypertension and sickle cell trait — a mostly asymptomatic form of the more serious sickle cell disease, an inherited blood disorder that primarily affects African Americans.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm pretty sure he was breathing
Doctor Hansen says that technically, exhalation is required for talking, and that is part of breathing, but also that "just because someone can talk doesn't mean they're not on the brink of complete cessation of breathing".

The pressure on the chest means the muscles have to work that much harder to allow air into the lungs and they will tire out; the compression of the arteries in the neck means the brain is not sufficiently oxygenated:
We don't know how much pressure was exerted, but my second screenshot shows that it takes less pressure to obstruct a neck artery than it takes to compress the trachea airway, so your brain may not get enough oxygen and you may feel that you're suffocating while the trachea is still usable to some extent.

(It's really best to understand the whole medical background, but I can't just copy the complete subtitles of video here.)

The coroner's report doesn't say anything about how much of these drugs they found, and where they found it. Likewise, it doesn't say anything about Covid-19 symptoms that would have been visible in the lung or perhaps the heart. The subtext here is "he took drugs, he deserved to die" because the idea that he wouldn't have died from someone sitting on him for 2 minutes and 53 seconds after he became unconscious and went limp and no CPR until he was inside the ambulance, that he wouldn't have died from that if he had had no medical issues, seems quite far-fetched.

The difficulty is that you can't prove that from the autopsy alone. The pressure on the neck leaves no marks.
And that's how in some of these cases, the criminals go free.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The subtext here is "he took drugs, he deserved to die"
no it isn't. did he deserve to die because he had sicklecell? that must be the subtest right if the medical examiner added that in the report.



It doesnt matter what he died of specifically. He told the cop clearly that he would get in the car peacefully. He said it twice and killer cop still did not get off him to let him get in the car.

multiple officers also demonstrated they knew he had to be turned on his side. it's on tape. but they still didnt push killer cop off of him.

they used to do a chest compression hold for autistic children, until a couple of kids died. so you dont even need to be squeezing their necks.

Granted they might have to reduce the charge to negligent homicide in order to get a conviction in court. But no matter how you slice it, it was homicide. and there will be other charges tacked on.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
just fyi. this number even surprised me
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...otests-polls-find/ar-BB152z6T?ocid=spartanntp
Full quote from the article:
Article:
The CBS News poll found 46% approve of the protests, 38% disapprove and 16% are neutral. About 1 in 6 (17%) approve of the looting that has taken place and 76% disapprove. More than 1 in 5 say the burning of a Minneapolis police precinct was a justified form of protest, and 65% say it wasn't.

When dealing with surprising poll results, it's often instructive to find out which question the respondents were actually asked. So I looked up the CBS poll that they linked, and it's not in there. It's not in any of the three most recent polls listed at https://www.cbsnews.com/feature/cbs-news-polls/

But the Emerson poll has it, and it has found fringe views on both sides:
Article:
As protesters in all 50 states have come out against the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin, an overwhelming 87% of American voters feel that the officer should face criminal charges, with only 4% saying he should not face charges, and 9% being unsure. (N=1,431, +/-2.5%, MM, registered voters, June 2-3, 2020).

Voters are more split in their approval of the protests and instances of looting happening across the country. Regarding the protests, 46% approve and 38% disapprove of the protests, with 16% being neutral. When it comes to looting and other acts of destroying property as a means of protest, 17% approve, 76% disapprove, and 8% are neutral. In the instance of a Minneapolis police precinct being burned down, 65% believe this was not a justified form of protest, 22% believe it was, 9% were unsure, and 4% had not heard of the incident.

A majority (64%) of voters believe that the police in the country treat white individuals better than minority individuals, with 28% believing both groups face equal treatment, and 8% believing that white individuals are treated worse by the police.

Emerson publishes the actual survey questions. They lead in with questions about what Derek Chavin should be charged with, and then go to this:
Article:
17. Do you approve or disapprove of President Trump’s response to the death of George Floyd?
18. Do you approve or disapprove of the growing protests regarding the death of George Floyd?
19. Do you approve or disapprove of looting and acts of destroying property as a means of protest of the death of George Floyd?
20. Do you have faith that police brutality will be reduced in response to the recent protests?
21. Do you feel the burning down of the Minneapolis police station was a justified form of protest?

They also state that half of their sample was supplied by Amazon Turk, which I believe means the respondents were paid (poorly) to participate in the survey. It skews the sample towards the poor and unemployed.

Note that the question is phrased to include "acts of destroying property as a means of protest", which would include setting barricades on fire and smashing police vehicles. This means that "17% approve of looting" is a poor summary; a better summary would be "17% approve of violent forms of protest, while 76% think protests should be peaceful." That is what the poll actually showed.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But the Emerson poll has it, and it has found fringe views on both sides:
I never suggested only the left approved of 'looting and acts of destroying property'. There are people on the right who approve of such methods of protesting also.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I never suggested only the left approved of 'looting and acts of destroying property'. There are people on the right who approve of such methods of protesting also.
I wasn't referring to left and right at all.

The "sides" are the extremes of the spectrum on whether the protests are justified or not, with people approving of violent protest at one end, and people who say the officers shouldn't be charged, and that police treat white people worse than African-Americans, on the other end.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I think here the mainstream "culture war" division is being framed as "law and order" vs "social justice" Some on the conservative side are "blue lives matter" and like to "support our cops" against what they see as exaggerated charges against cops who were "just doing their jobs." Some on the liberal side feel there's massive institutional racism in law enforcement that leads to outcomes like deaths in custody disproportionally often for black people. This reaches extreme polarization in "all cops are scum" on the fringes of one side and "black people are animals" on the fringes of the other.

Trump knows what side his bread is buttered on, so he's going full-bore for "law and order".
Source: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1267227396341669889
I totally get what you're saying, Mick, and I agree. Trump is trying to claim "law and order".

I just feel compelled to add that--while some in the the media may lazily grant him that--
he's actually, probably the very least "law and order" president the United States has ever had.

Yes, when talking about black "thugs" and other people of color, Trump is clear that they
should be punished harshly for any transgression, whether they did it or not (Central Park Five, etc.)

But when it comes to his many crimes, or those of his friends and protectors
(Flynn & Stone in today's headlines...but so many more) Trump doesn't even pretend to give a
damn about "law and order."

Like most things Trump, there's one standard for him, and an astonishingly brazen,
jaw-droppingly different standard for others...esp. others with a lot of melanin.
Trump tweeted vicious attacks on Obama in '14 because Obama had the nerve to golf
when we had 2 (!) cases of ebola in the U.S.
But Trump says his own golfing, as the U.S. was on the eve of 100,000 deaths in this pandemic,
is entirely justified. :rolleyes: (most people struggle to treat others as they do themselves, but this is off the charts)
 

Dingo

Member
As far as what's going on during rhese protests, a fantastic resource is live streams from reporters on the ground such as Robert Evans in Portland and Unicorn Riot in Minneapolis. These are of course in the thick of things and therefore limited to what they see directly - but it also gives a greater understanding of context than seeing carefully clipped videos of rioting or police violence.

I've personally watched Robert's streams and seen repeated violent escalation by Portland PD against protesters - eg. Protesters sitting in the street with hands up. Police move in ostensibly to clear the intersection and proceed to shove them to the ground and strike them with batons. Police then occupied said intersection that they were ostensibly trying to clear and continued blocking traffic.

This is just one instance but it seems to be a microcosm of the situation in large parts of the US - or at least it was, police seem to be showing more restraint now - where police are unable to deal with situations -without- resorting to brutal violence and mass tear gassing. The incident I just talked about was immediately followed by a huge deployment of tear gas affecting not just protestors but traffic moving through the area.

We have also seen repeated violent attacks on the media, from shooting a reporter with pepperballs to smashing an australian news crew with shields and batons. An independant photojournalist had her eyeball popped by being shot in the head with a police marking round (paint grenade) and is now permanently blinded. There are many more examples of this.

For my personal stance of the matter, it's entirely unsurprising that these situations turn into riots. If you're going to be gassed, beaten, or shot with rubber rounds regardless of what you do, what reason do you have to not vent your anger at the situation? It's all well and good to condemn rioting and looting from a moral standpoint on my moral high horse - when I'm the world away, white, and comfortably middle class. I feel it's a little different for someone who's angry, poor, and repeatedly tear gassed.

That being said, I do -not- think that the repeated brutality of police is due solely or even majorly due to these police being evil, malice-ridden thugs. The core of the issue to me seems to be that there are -no- contingencies or training to address civil unrest any other way. The playbook is restricted to 'shout at them to leave' and then if they do not comply 'get vicious'.

This is a common thread in US police training, much of which is done by David Grossman - who runs seminars for police on 'killology'. The training that he presents shows them footage of police being killed, tells them that the world is out to get them, and essentially primes officers for constantly being on edge and jumping to extreme force to resolve situations. The above-mentioned Robert Evans released an episode of his podcast covering this training and the background of Grossman here:
Source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0xt9iFLH9vx5GimA8y9FPl?si=eqJgrnoIRp-V1HMaRUejfg


(Apologies for not hyperlinking, on mobile and the button stopped working)

So, IMO, the way forward with preventing police deaths is not just the important task of rooting out racial prejudice - it is also with providing police with proper training in de-escalation and reasonable use of force, as well as integration of police with the community - rather than teaching them that they are a class apart from other people and that they are constantly under siege from all angles.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's all well and good to condemn rioting and looting from a moral standpoint on my moral high horse - when I'm the world away, white, and comfortably middle class.
There are plenty of poor black people in the thick of it, condemning the riots also. and not-poor white people are rioting and looting also.
George Floyd's family condemns the riots and destruction.
We don't have to make everything about race or white privilege.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
:) not that I want to look up. so I will bow to your pressure and say that only poor people steal bongs, alcohol, computers, tvs. . happy?
I don't think you have evidence for that, either?

I have looked it up.
My first hit was Google books with "Law and Order: Street Crime, Civil Unrest, and the Crisis of Liberalism in the 1960s" by Michael Flamm; unfortunately, Google limits the amount of pages I could read. Chapter 1 makes the case that early early 1960s democrats linked the "war on crime" with a "war on poverty" as a natural consequence of the civil rights movement; for the Republicans, at the RNC 1964 Goldwater put "Law and Order" on the political map (start of chapter 2):
image.jpeg
So that's another line that demarkates the divide.

A second source is more to the point (and into some debunking):
Article:
Aug. 11, 2011— -- ABC News consultant Dr. Michael Welner, one of America's top forensic psychiatrists, looks at the psychology and myths of mob violence/looting, why it spreads and how to prevent it.
[..]

Poverty is likewise not the cause of looting. Poverty is widespread in China and Russia. Mob violence and looting are nowhere to be found. Poverty is widespread in Africa and Asia, but mob violence and looting correlate only with gangs who amass arms and have the resources to rob those poorer than those gangs. Poverty did not cause anarchy during Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster overwhelming a city's resources did, along with criminal elements taking advantage of such disaster-inspired chaos.

Likewise, it is a myth that hopelessness instigates mob violence. Hopelessness engenders passivity, the opposite of violence.

When looting and mob violence events are reported as "people vs. government," such a message only feeds a public sense of identification with looters and their own willingness to participate. At the same time, this message engenders insecurity and a sense that government is losing control among the law abiding and further traumatizes a community.
[..]

Fundamental to eliminating mob violence is to first identify it as criminality, rather than a social phenomenon. That responsibility rests upon elected leaders, community leaders, teachers, parents, mass media and police.

A brutal police force is not the solution. Nor is mere arrest. For perpetrators recognize that legal consequences of looting and destruction of property are limited, especially amid chaos. But there are other societal tools available to eliminate this behavior.

The media should emphasize the vulnerability and pathos of those victimized by random mob violence and looting. [..]

Amid this focus from the mass media, local communities have to reject looting as a shame to the community and repulsive behavior that embarrasses them. If this rejection occurs loudly in houses of worship, in schools, and among neighbors, then police and public officials can leverage such societal morals by exposing looters upon arrest and shaming them before their neighbors.

Yes, name names; of looters, their parents, their communities, name even the gang to which they might belong.
[..]


Interestingly enough, I think these concepts can also applied to police violence if it is understood as being similar to mob violence; and there is research that "bad apples" in the force tend to find each other and work together.

Article:
image.gif
The illustration above visualizes a social network. Dots represent officers, linked by lines of complaints. Most officers register few complaints and sit on the outside of the network. But a small portion of officers at the center of network behave differently than those on the outside. And the bad officers get worse and tend to work together.

Invisible Institute/The Intercept
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/chicago-police-misconduct-social-network/
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Top