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

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't think you have evidence for that, either?
you're the one who said it. i'm just sarcastically agreeing with you because I was too lazy to look the examples i saw up. jeez.

Do you have evidence of middle-class or wealthy white people looting?
as soon as you google the question an article from yesterdays NYTimes will pop up. Granted these guys may technically be poor themselves, but I consider if you were raised middle class or wealthy then you're not poor. I grant that my definition of poor is subjective.
 

Dingo

Member
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.

Oh yeah absolutely!
I was making a generalization. Again, if I were in the shoes of someone whose business was ruined I'd likely be pissed, too. There's also cases like a restaurant owner in Minneapolis who basically went 'I can rebuild my restaurant, I bear no ill will and I don't want this to overshadow the point of these protests'. I can't easily look up the source atm since I'm on mobile.

you're the one who said it. i'm just sarcastically agreeing with you because I was too lazy to look the examples i saw up. jeez.


as soon as you google the question an article from yesterdays NYTimes will pop up. Granted these guys may technically be poor themselves, but I consider if you were raised middle class or wealthy then you're not poor. I grant that my definition of poor is subjective.

Jake Paul Charged With Misdemeanor Trespassing After Mall Looting

Jake Paul is what I would charitably describe as 'a total dickhead'. This is the brother of the guy who went and filmed bodies in the Japanese suicide forest, and who decides to solve his youtube squabbles via boxing matches. He wasn't looting for fun or because he wanted stuff - at keast not directly anyways - he'd be doing it out of yet another grab for influencer fame and fortune. Sure he's been arrested but those charges will go away one way or another, and the money he spends on legal fees and fines will be made up for by another hundred thousand followers and those sweet advertiser bucks.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
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.

This kind of answers itself - if you've been told to move on, that the area is closed to protesters and fail to heed that warning, then you probably will find that trouble with police will follow. It's not about targeting any particular demographic.


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'.

There is plenty of training. By 'Civil unrest' are you referring to widescale property damage and violence? If so then I'm not sure what alternative measures there are. The protesters have been warned well before this to leave. If you're going to stand around and start 'venting' by destroying the city around you, there is an expectation you will be met with force. Can you describe an alternative to putting down a riot, or other tactics which don't involve simply watching the spiral of stimulation continue?
- 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
What makes you think this training doesn't exist? Its not that Police attend to every call with this reaction, and most police calls are dealt with by methods of de-escalation, communication as well as reasonable force. you're neglecting this normal, everyday interaction with what is an extraordinary event. By the time a situation devolves to riot stage you are dealing with a "mob", at which point standard tactics with individuals, or small groups of people, have failed.

rather than teaching them that they are a class apart from other people and that they are constantly under siege from all angles.

I can't speak for all cops, but I certainly don't consider us a "class apart" from the rest of the community, nor are we ever told to feel that way. I don't know that many who do, TBH. As far as feeling under siege from all angles, all I can say is you're welcome to try it for a while and see how you feel. The majority of the calls we deal with are unpleasant, the majority of the people we deal with aren't, but you won't always know that immediately, hence the need for caution. I imagine upscaling that feeling to a riot might be somewhat daunting for those involved.
 

Graham2001

Active Member
I found a good article on Snopes.com (From the AP) covering the 'Defund the Police' movement.

Protesters are pushing to “defund the police” over the death of George Floyd and other black Americans killed by law enforcement. Their chant has become rallying cry — and a stick for President Donald Trump to use on Democrats as he portrays them as soft on crime.

But what does “defund the police” mean? It’s not necessarily about gutting police department budgets.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/07/when-protesters-cry-defund-the-police-what-does-it-mean/

Sadly I've seen a lot of people on the other side of politics like Coast-to-Coasts AM 'Science Person' (Bob Zimmerman) claiming that the left wants to get rid of all police and replace it with nothing at all. Here is is one of his rants, where he makes that claim. His source is Fox News of course.

Boy would I be hiring moving vans: The Minneapolis city council today announced at a George Floyd protests that it now has a veto-proof majority determined to disband that city’s police force.

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-t...polis-city-council-will-disband-police-force/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and replace it with nothing at all. Here is is one of his rants, where he makes that claim. His source is Fox News of course.
your source doesn't say that.
and I never saw Fox News say that. can you link where someone on Fox News said that?
 

Graham2001

Active Member
your source doesn't say that.
and I never saw Fox News say that. can you link where someone on Fox News said that?

Here is the article Bob Zimmerman linked to (You have been warned):

Minneapolis’ left-leaning City Council members on Sunday announced a veto-proof push to disband the Minneapolis police department, ramping up a major conflict inside the city following the death of George Floyd while in police custody.

Many activists have been pushing at least for their cities to defund local police departments, a move many other analysts considered unrealistic. The measure has been the main focus for many people protesting against police brutality.

...

“This council is going to dismantle the police department,” Ellison reportedly said. “If you don’t stay in this fight I fear that this council or another will just glue it back together.”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/minneapolis-city-council-disband-police-george-floyd
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
(You have been warned):
Ellison is one of the Minnesota council members who support it and spoke in the 'rally'.
That story is the same every paper is reporting. you said Fox News said they would replace the police department with nothing.

so the only bit that supports your statement and the bit you should actually quote is:
"Police-free" does indeed sound like replacing it with nothing, but lots of papers are using that quote too, ex the Minnesota paper:

https://www.startribune.com/mpls-council-majority-backs-dismantling-police-department/571088302/
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Claim: When a community disbands a police department, police protection ceases.
Article:
The Democrats in Minnesota are demanding that citizens be disarmed, while simultaneously working to eliminate any police protection.


Reality: Camden, NJ, disbanded their police department, created a different, new police, and turned crime (as well as use of force) in their community around.

Article:
In January of 2011, the city department laid off 168 of the department's 370 officers when contract negotiations stalled and the city was facing a budget shortfall. Camden experienced a spike in homicides in 2012, and the city police department wanted to hire more patrol officers but couldn't afford to "partly because of generous union contracts." On August 2, 2011, the City of Camden and Camden County announced that the city police department would be disbanded in favor of a new county police force. Well-known law enforcement executive John Timoney was retained to develop an organizational and functional plan for the department.

[..]

In 2012 the entire city police department was laid off and required to apply for a position with the new county police department. Many employees were angry. Then-chief Scott Thomson saw it as a way to hit the reset button and completely change how policing worked in Camden; he characterized the city force at the time as "apathetic, lethargic and corrupt".

The new department took over primary responsibility for policing the City of Camden on May 1, 2013. 155 officers reapplied and were hired for the new department, while 65 officers refused to reapply. The new department reached its full complement of 401 sworn officers on June 7, 2013, when 92 recruits were commissioned. The new force doubled the size of the previous city force.

Thomson announced that officers would no longer be judged on how many tickets they wrote or arrests they made but on relationships they developed in the community and whether citizens felt safe enough to sit on their front steps or allow their children to ride their bikes in the street. Thomson told the New York Times in 2017 that "aggressive ticket writing" was a sign that officers weren't understanding the new department, saying "handing a $250 ticket to someone who is making $13,000 a year can be life altering."

“Handing a $250 ticket to someone who is making $13,000 a year” — around the per capita income in the city — “can be life alteringThe initial strategy was to have as many officers walking and biking the streets as possible to discourage drug traffickers; as citizens felt safer and began occupying public spaces again, a critical mass of well-intentioned citizens was sufficient to keep the drug traffickers away and police pulled back on their presence. Thomson also adopted new policies on use-of-force and "scoop and go", which instructs officers to load injured people into their cruisers to take them to the hospital if calling for an ambulance would cause a delay. The use-of-force policy, which the department had drafted with help from New York University Law School’s Policing Project and which was supported by the New Jersey ACLU and the Fraternal Order of Police, was called by experts the "most progressive" such policy to date, according to the Washington Post in 2019.

As part of the overall strategy for the city, abandoned buildings being used as drug houses were torn down.

On October 1, 2013, the results of a vote by County Police officers to unionize were announced. By a margin of two votes, the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police (NJFOP) was selected to represent the officers. The previous month, superior officers voted to be represented by the NJFOP.

After the implementations both complaints of excessive force and violent crimes decreased. In 2019 Bloomberg reported that excessive force complaints had dropped by 95%.
 

Graham2001

Active Member
"Police-free" does indeed sound like replacing it with nothing, but lots of papers are using that quote too, ex the Minnesota paper:

https://www.startribune.com/mpls-council-majority-backs-dismantling-police-department/571088302/

And it's that 'Police-free' language that is being seized on scaremongers on the Right to advance claims that activists want to dismantle police forces and replace them with nothing, I've seen plenty of cases of right-wing scaremongers twisting statements even more innocuous than this into threat's to life and limb.

Mendel, thanks for that information on Camden, NJ, that's how it should work, but I'm not sure that's what's going to happen in Minneapolis.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I've seen plenty of cases of right-wing scaremongers twisting statements even more innocuous than this into threat's to life and limb.

you mean the 'Defund Police' mantra? Yea, even CNN is writing articles about how that wording will scare voters.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/democrats-congress-defund-police-movement/

it's an unfortunate slogan.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I looked into the Orlando nightclub shooter because of another discussion where someone said police use of deadly force was inevitable, and should not therefore not count. He had obvious problems in school, and IF his community had funded effective social services that help troubled youth find their path, maybe then that police killing would in fact not have been necessary, and the 49 people he killed would still be alive today, too. There are many ways you can put money towards making a community safer, and putting it towards police is a last resort that doctors the symptoms. ( And that's with a PD that doesn't manufacture "crime" to justify its existence.)
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
He had obvious problems in school, and IF his community had funded effective social services that help troubled youth find their path, maybe then that police killing would in fact not have been necessary, and the 49 people he killed would still be alive today, too. There are many ways you can put money towards making a community safer, and putting it towards police is a last resort that doctors the symptoms.

That's a bit of a stretch, there are plenty of factors to consider with that situation and not really related to the George Floyd case in any way. I don't quite get the reference to "manufactured" crime?

I certainly agree that there are additional complimentary ways to make a community safer, but there are always people that will fall through the cracks, people that can't , or won't, be saved.
 

Dingo

Member
Hi ORS, thanks for your response.

This kind of answers itself - if you've been told to move on, that the area is closed to protesters and fail to heed that warning, then you probably will find that trouble with police will follow. It's not about targeting any particular demographic.

There is plenty of training. By 'Civil unrest' are you referring to widescale property damage and violence? If so then I'm not sure what alternative measures there are. The protesters have been warned well before this to leave. If you're going to stand around and start 'venting' by destroying the city around you, there is an expectation you will be met with force. Can you describe an alternative to putting down a riot, or other tactics which don't involve simply watching the spiral of stimulation continue?

Both of these are kind if the same point, hence my lumping it together.

It's that very 'telling people to move on' and designating areas as being off-limits that I'm referring to. I am -not- by any means saying that rioting should not be fought - once things get to the point of outright riots, fine, break out the tear gas.

However my point is that without the initial confrontation -from police- in 'clearing the area', I have not personally witnessed anything proceeding to violence. I've mainly been watching livestreams from Portland and seen this as a recurring theme. When protestors are allowed to march freely they march up and down the city chanting slogans for hours then disperse. No violence, no looting. Same when they're allowed to occupy an area. Standing around chanting, eventually disperse on their own.

Obviously this is just my observations and are by no means universal or even representative of the majority situation! It's entirely possible that Portland is an outlier and that every other city where things turned violent the escalation came from protestors.

That said in my opinion escalation from 'peaceful protest' to 'riot' seems to be -as a response to- police tactics of trying to force crowds to disperse.

That brutality being used then acts to sustain and reinvigorate anger at the police, as clips of protestors being tear gassed and shot circulate social media and keep stoking the flames.

Compare and contrast to the recent BLM marches that have occurred here in Australia. Despite being unlawful assemblies due to violating covid restrictions, police did -not- meet these protest marches with force, nor try to force crowds to disperse. There was no widespread violence or looting, and the only damage was some graffiti on monuments which is easily repaired.
When protestors refused to leave a Sydney train station at 2am after the march there the police response was extremely measured and restrained. No use of tear gas, officers with empty hands and no armour slowly pushed the crowd of protesters back and out of the train station without coming to blows. One use of pepper spray during an arrest, and that was it.

What makes you think this training doesn't exist? Its not that Police attend to every call with this reaction, and most police calls are dealt with by methods of de-escalation, communication as well as reasonable force. you're neglecting this normal, everyday interaction with what is an extraordinary event. By the time a situation devolves to riot stage you are dealing with a "mob", at which point standard tactics with individuals, or small groups of people, have failed.

Again referring to the above, I'm talking aboyt preventing things from becoming a riot in the first place. This is by viewing marches and pickets not as a prelude to a riot that must be stopped and smashed, but an -alternative- to a riot. Deploy, track, and respond only if there's harm to individuals -or- if property damage reaches a pre-determined level, rather than treating a single smashed window as a reason for massive retaliation.

I can't speak for all cops, but I certainly don't consider us a "class apart" from the rest of the community, nor are we ever told to feel that way. I don't know that many who do, TBH. As far as feeling under siege from all angles, all I can say is you're welcome to try it for a while and see how you feel. The majority of the calls we deal with are unpleasant, the majority of the people we deal with aren't, but you won't always know that immediately, hence the need for caution. I imagine upscaling that feeling to a riot might be somewhat daunting for those involved.


Is it safe to assume then that you yourself were never given Grossman's 'Killology' training? Do you know if anyone in your department has?

It's certainly a very rough job and one I don't envy. Most people you interact with will be having one of the worst days of their life.

To ask a personal question regarding your own training - due to an interview with a police officer that I heard recently - when you were being given field training, were you assigned a single field training officer, or multiple? And if single, was your training officer a long-time veteran?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's entirely possible that Portland is an outlier and that every other city where things turned violent the escalation came from protestors.

That said in my opinion escalation from 'peaceful protest' to 'riot' seems to be -as a response to- police tactics of trying to force crowds to disperse.
it might be a case of 'what came first, the chicken or the egg'. I haven't been following Portland, but a quick google .. it seems as if the riots started first. of course there might be a case of police force before they rioted that I haven't found yet, we'd have to investigate it specifically to find out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portla...lare-protest-over-george-floyds-death-a-riot/

I do agree police force gives more men reason to join in, but we have protests in America often enough and protesters aren't treated forcefully by police.

My bet is a Lord of the FLies (the book) situation, where one kid (like my nephew-in-law) decides to deface a building, then my nephew trying to out do him in coolness breaks the window, (they really aren't bad guys normally) and then the five guys watching decide to outcool them by stealing some stuff and the 6th guy who's mad at his girlfriend decides to set a fire because the mob has taken over and what the hell. and then it escalates.

I could be wrong of course, maybe they honestly think for some reason that hurting, destroying and scaring their own community will somehow 'show the police' or be some kind of 'pay back'?? men often do things I don't understand at all.
 

Dingo

Member
it might be a case of 'what came first, the chicken or the egg'. I haven't been following Portland, but a quick google .. it seems as if the riots started first. of course there might be a case of police force before they rioted that I haven't found yet, we'd have to investigate it specifically to find out.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portla...lare-protest-over-george-floyds-death-a-riot/

I do agree police force gives more men reason to join in, but we have protests in America often enough and protesters aren't treated forcefully by police.

It's that 'unlawful assembly' that comes right back to what I've been saying. What makes an assembly unlawful? What determines the response?

As I've said previously I've only been watching live feeds - frequently fragmented due to network interference - which is far from an adequate view of the situation. I'd need to go back through the archive to get an idea of whether it was chicken or egg on the first night of protests.

Portland Police, however, have shown themselces to be overwhelmingly willing to deliberately target the press. The reporter that I've been viewing was openly threatened with arrest despite providing a clear identification of himself as press - it took repeated direct questioning on video if the officers involved were contradicting the mayor's orders that press were exempt from curfew.

(The curfew itself is an entire debate worth.)

PPB have declared people sitting in an intersection with their hands up to be unlawful - that lead to several officers striking a woman as she lay on the ground, followed by deploying tear gas over roughly three blocks.
People milling about in a park were also declared unlawful and attacked with tear gas and flashbangs.
As for vandalism - PPB has declared 'shaking a chain link fence' to be vandalism worthy of, again, tear gas and flashbangs.

Then take the incident with Martin Gugino being discussed in the other thread. There's a lot of justification online on twitter and the like about 'well what do you expect when you walk up to riot cops clearing the area?'. Which is completely missing the point that I'm making, which is Why was deploying riot cops to clear the area justified in the first place? If you watch the video of that incident and say that they were responding to a riot, then you have an extremely different definition of 'riot' than me.

There seems to be no delineation, no attempt at restraint or avoiding raising the temperature further. Just a blanket policy of 'anyone in a group is a riot'.

My bet is a Lord of the FLies (the book) situation, where one kid (like my nephew-in-law) decides to deface a building, then my nephew trying to out do him in coolness breaks the window, (they really aren't bad guys normally) and then the five guys watching decide to outcool them by stealing some stuff and the 6th guy who's mad at his girlfriend decides to set a fire because the mob has taken over and what the hell. and then it escalates.

I could be wrong of course, maybe they honestly think for some reason that hurting, destroying and scaring their own community will somehow 'show the police' or be some kind of 'pay back'?? men often do things I don't understand at all.

There's a lot of that too. It's impossible to make blanket statements because every person attending a protest will have their own reason for doing so. The only common thread is that everyone involved - from protestors and police - thinks that they're in the right and justified no matter what they do, because that's human nature. Its an 'our protestors are your rioters' sort of situation if you will.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Claim: When a community disbands a police department, police protection ceases.
Reality: Camden, NJ, disbanded their police department, created a different, new police, and turned crime (as well as use of force) in their community around.

The Camden city police department was disbanded in favor of the county police department, akin to the Compton Police Department being disbanded in favor of the Los Angeles Country Sheriff's Department. But shifting law enforcement from city to county is the opposite of "community-based models of safety" that the BLM activists want.
Article:
Along with the switch to community policing came a reliance on high-tech, city-wide surveillance, more patrols, and younger, cheaper, less diverse officers who often aren’t from Camden. Their average age today is 26.
“That is a very different vision of what a new police force looks like than we’re hearing from protesters, who want less policing,” said Stephen Danley, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden.
___
Ashly Estevez-Perez, 21, has spent most of her life in Camden, which is now about half Hispanic and 40% black. She remembers when children were rarely allowed to leave their front stoops given the threat of gunfire.
“The new police force came in, and you saw cars everywhere. ... Everyone was kind of taken aback,” she said of what some would call “over-policing.”
“Growing up in the city, I don’t see what other alternative works,” said Estevez-Perez, a recent Rutgers-Camden graduate.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
Obviously this is just my observations and are by no means universal or even representative of the majority situation! It's entirely possible that Portland is an outlier and that every other city where things turned violent the escalation came from protestors.

That's right, compare with the pogroms in Los Angeles, home of the 1992 riots, except this time the rioters targeted upscale and Jewish neighborhoods like Beverly Hills and the Fairfax District instead of Koreatown.
Article:
Looters who hit L.A. stores explain what they did

The young man flanked the shattered entry of a ransacked CVS in Santa Monica, where people had swept the shelves clean of everything from diapers to detergent. The man, who did not cover his face, admitted he was a looter. He did not apologize. “We’ve got no other way of showing people how angry we are,” he said.
Out of the store ran another young man, this one holding a carton of eggs. He grabbed a friend and started scanning the street for targets: police cars. “We’re doing it because we can,” he said.
...
The stealing was largely limited to a few business districts including Fairfax, Santa Monica’s shopping district, parts of Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles, Van Nuys and Hollywood. Merchants — already reeling from coronavirus closures — were left with battered stores and even more losses. They and others expressed alarm at how the stealing was able to go on so long before police arrived.
...
For 30 uninterrupted minutes Monday night, the looters roamed along the strip of stores just below Sunset on Highland Avenue in Hollywood, breaking into numerous businesses. Many had work gloves, face masks or bandanas wrapped around their heads. Some carried backpacks or trash bags. One woman had blue medical scrubs. Some toted bats.
This account is based on video reviewed by The Times, which showed a chaotic scene at the fringes of the demonstrations nearby. Despite the heavy police presence in the neighborhood, only one police car was seen in the video, apparently responding to another call. Over a half hour, the looters went unchecked.
...
Eddie Perez, 22, whose father owns a smoke shop in Hollywood, felt so strongly after Floyd’s killing that he joined protesters at a march on Monday. But soon after looters ripped apart wooden boards and broke through the glass at the store, destroying it within 45 minutes. The family of activists had put a “Justice For George Floyd” sign in the window of the store before it was ransacked.
...
One of the looters was questioned on the spot by a friend of one of the merchants: Why was everyone out looting? ... “Protesting peacefully? We did that in the ‘60s. That didn’t get us nowhere.”

Consider the Mott Haven protest.
Article:
(Editorial) When you advertise with a burning police car, you don’t plan a ‘peaceful rally’

It’s all too telling that much of the local media and many politicians are faulting the NYPD for its handling of Thursday night’s Mott Haven protest: They still refuse to recognize even obvious risks of violence.
The event was organized by a group styling itself FTP — which doesn’t mean Friend The Police, as the chants made obvious. FTP is another face for Decolonize This Place, which intentionally did major damage to subway OMNY readers in January.
Both FTP and DTP promoted the event on social media with invites featuring a burning NYPD squad car and a promise to do battle with cops.
Based on such information revealing clear violent intent, Mayor Bill de Blasio agreed with (and later stood behind) Police Commissioner Dermot Shea’s decision to take a firm and forceful stand against another night of havoc in a Bronx commercial district.
Frankly, staging a rally after the 8 p.m. curfew is, by itself, a telling sign: Outside agitators and looters have both proven eager to exploit such protests. Why enable them?
FTP organizers telling marchers, “If police put hands on us, we’ll put them back on them,” isn’t the language of nonviolent protest or civil disobedience.
Advertise on social media your intention to wreak havoc in a South Bronx commercial district and attack the police, and you’ve guaranteed a strong NYPD presence. That’s plainly what the hooligans behind FTP desired.
They can’t wait to clash with police, break the law and violate the curfew — and then demand kid-glove treatment.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
Article:
CBS source takes back story George Floyd and Derek Chauvin 'bumped heads'

A couple nights ago, CBS News confirmed the widely circulated rumor George Floyd and Derek Chauvin knew each other.
Not only that, CBS said, the two had "beef." Depending on which version of the story you saw or read, the conflict between Chauvin and Floyd either started over Chauvin being "extremely aggressive" toward customers at El Nuevo Rodeo, where the two worked security -- or over a paycheck, which Chauvin thought was short, and blamed on Floyd.
Those stories came from David Pinney, who worked with the two men, and said he'd clashed with Chauvin himself.
...
Today, Pinney and CBS are trying to take it back.
In an email to the network, Pinney said he was mistaken, explaining (in one of the most extraordinary uses of passive voice ever committed): "There has been a mix up between George and another fellow co-worker."
...
The tale of a money mix-up was apparently verified by "another person," though CBS didn't give a hint who that was. It doesn't seem to have been former owner Maya Santamaria, who was interviewed by the network, but had previously said she didn't believe the two men knew each other.
...
During the course of the interview, Pinney went from saying he knew Floyd "pretty well" and "on a work basis" to stating: "It's different when you work side by side with someone. Like, I see him like a brother."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
“The new police force came in, and you saw cars everywhere. ... Everyone was kind of taken aback,” she said of what some would call “over-policing.”
That's only half the story, from my wikipedia quote:
The quote suggests that establishing a "community police" from the start might have accomplished the same result.

The disbandment of the police did the following things:
a) it dissolves the union contract
b) it allowed to "fire" the "bad apples"
c) it enabled a quick changeover to a different policing model that the previous department had been unable to transform to

I didn't say that every community will follow Camden's model, or that this is the only model being discussed. That differs from location to location. But Camden supports the idea that disbanding a police department can be a valid step towards more safety.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I didn't say that every community will follow Camden's model, or that this is the only model being discussed
is there another model being discussed in Minneapolis? because your claim was specifically about Minneapolis.

Claim: When a community disbands a police department, police protection ceases.
Source: https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/minneapolis-city-council-will-disband-police-force/

which was a reaction to :
"In their boldest statement since George Floyd’s killing, nine Minneapolis City Council members told a crowd Sunday that they will “begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department.”

“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,” they said, reading off a prepared statement. “We’re committed to engaging with every willing community member in the City of Minneapolis over the next year to identify what safety looks like for you.”
Content from external source
https://www.startribune.com/mpls-council-majority-backs-dismantling-police-department/571088302/

The quote suggests that establishing a "community police" from the start might have accomplished the same result.

No it doesn't. it specifically says "as citizens felt safer". so first they need to feel safer, which means more cops and surveillance, and then maybe they can "pull back on their presence" .

2018 was the most current i found, so maybe Minneapolis has no crime now in 2020. ?? either way "pull back on their presence" doesnt mean "police free".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The quote suggests that establishing a "community police" from the start might have accomplished the same result.
To clarify: at present, this segment of safety ("order") is allegedly provided by a "critical mass of well-intentioned citizens" in public spaces. Camden chose "overpolicing" as the means to bring this state about, but since the present state of things no longer relies on police presence, but rather on community presence, any other way to establish this community presence should have also worked.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but since the present state of things no longer relies on police presence
um. excessive police presence, i'd say. I've never visited Germany, but our cities can't be protected without some police presence.

Certainly social and addiction programs, tearing down abandoned buildings (like camden did), police outreach programs, pushing education, big improvements to the local economy etc etc would do it, but that would take a long long time to do without removing the bulk of the criminals first. and so far American cities haven't managed to manage all these programs effectively or efficiently. basically your talking BIG money in cities that don't have any money.

It will be interesting to follow what they decide do in Minneapolis. But you are never gonna be "police-free" even rural, 'posh' communities have police coverage. Even a fender bender, you need a police report to file an insurance claim.. social workers need police escorts...if you want to pick up your belongings from an ex that kicked you out you need a police escort...so they will still need a large police force in Minneapolis no matter what.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Even a fender bender, you need a police report to file an insurance claim.. social workers need police escorts...if you want to pick up your belongings from an ex that kicked you out you need a police escort...
Do you have evidence for that?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Do you have evidence for that?
You're laughing, deirdre, but I'm serious.
In my experience:

a) I don't need to call the police for a fender bender, I have a simple accident report form in the glove compartment that I can fill out and that we both sign (it includes a carbon copy). If we can't agree on a report, I can call the police, who can take statements. That job doesn't need to be done by people with guns. In fact, parking violations are fined by city employees that are not police and are not allowed to carry guns.

b) I tried to google instances of a German social worker escorted by police and couldn't. What I did find was that what a social worker gets told by a client is as confidential as if they told it to a lawyer, which suggests bringing police along is not a good idea.

c) police can't enter the flat of the ex without a warrant, which means you have to have won a judgment in your favor in civil proceedings first. I don't expect many separations get to that stage.

But that is the situation in my country.
That is why I am asking for evidence why the police is *needed* in all of these situations in the USA when they're not needed in many or most of these situations over here.
 

Dingo

Member
Certainly social and addiction programs, tearing down abandoned buildings (like camden did), police outreach programs, pushing education, big improvements to the local economy etc etc would do it, but that would take a long long time to do without removing the bulk of the criminals first. and so far American cities haven't managed to manage all these programs effectively or efficiently. basically your talking BIG money in cities that don't have any money.

It will be interesting to follow what they decide do in Minneapolis. But you are never gonna be "police-free" even rural, 'posh' communities have police coverage. Even a fender bender, you need a police report to file an insurance claim.. social workers need police escorts...if you want to pick up your belongings from an ex that kicked you out you need a police escort...so they will still need a large police force in Minneapolis no matter what.


This is again a chicken-vs.-egg scenario. Social programs to reduce crime but before implementing social programs we gotta reduce crime first.

I'm not saying that you're wrong of course, just pointing it out.

Realistically, the way to do it would be a gradual change from the old system to the new rather than suddenly yanking the rug out.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If we can't agree on a report, I can call the police, who can take statements. That job doesn't need to be done by people with guns. In fact, parking violations are fined by city employees that are not police and are not allowed to carry guns.

"i can call the police". but you cant if there are no police. i sort of agree with not making police do trivial jobs, but what if the other driver is drunk? and/or belligerent. There isn't alot of "road rage" where i live, but you hear about it in California. i guess the traffic makes people irritated.
The problem in America is it's size. even if Minnesota says a civil report is ok for an accident, my Connecticut insurance company would not accept that.
I've had fender benders where we didn't call the police. mostly because they were small dents and even if you're not at fault your insurance usually goes up for years afterwards. But for example there are situations where the law says you have to call the police, like if you crash into or by a commercial vehicle etc. I would absolutely call the police if a motorcycle drove into me.. mostly because i would call an ambulance too and he might want to sue me for the expense if he felt he was ok, so i'd want a police report to say i did the right thing.

b) I tried to google instances of a German social worker escorted by police and couldn't. What I did find was that what a social worker gets told by a client is as confidential as if they told it to a lawyer, which suggests bringing police along is not a good idea.

My personal experience (2nd hand) is with the Department of Children and Families. The first visit is always accompanied by a cop. You never know how parents will react.
I worked in a similar field, we werent worried about parents as we werent there to take the kids away or judge the parents, but sometimes the location was "unsafe" so we could call in a police escort..mostly they just watched you get into the home safely and they would come when you left too if you wanted.

c) police can't enter the flat of the ex without a warrant, which means you have to have won a judgment in your favor in civil proceedings first. I don't expect many separations get to that stage.

you need permission from the home owner. but smart people will ask for a police escort because either the homeowner might be volatile or you could be accused of stealing items. I'm not saying it is mandatory, but it's a service you can ask for to protect yourself. The home owner granting permission can also request it.

you can google it. im not linking all that stuff, (since you didnt provide evidence either). seems a trivial thing not to believe me on.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Deirdre, you have related how it is currently done.
You have not reasoned that "need a police report" or "need a police escort" are immutable requirements, and you have conceded in your post that even with the present system, the police are sometimes/often not needed in the situations you listed. In fact, in two types of situations what you mainly seem to want is a "professional witness" (car accident, ex's apartment), and only occasionally someone with a weapon.
 

Agent K

Active Member
I do agree police force gives more men reason to join in, but we have protests in America often enough and protesters aren't treated forcefully by police.

Right, like the anti-lockdown protests.
Here's a comparison in Huntington Beach
Article:
In Huntington Beach, California, on Sunday, hundreds demonstrated over the death of George Floyd... Police deemed the gathering an unlawful assembly, and asked the hundreds of protesters to disperse, police officials said in a statement.
One month ago, a different protest in the same Orange County community, which has a large Republican community, was left mostly alone.
Thousands turned up in early May, packed shoulder-to-shoulder, to demonstrate against California Gov. Gavin Newsom's order to close all beaches to prevent the spread of the coronavirus... It was not considered unlawful.
So what was different?
CNN reached out to Huntington Police Department regarding the differences between the protests... In a statement, police officials said Sunday's protest became an "unlawful assembly after protesters became violent with numerous assaults."
...
The protest was declared an unlawful assembly after protesters became violent with numerous assaults, and officers observed protesters with weapons such as pepper spray and various impact weapons, the department said.
"Multiple weapons including cinder blocks, weights and rocks were located hidden in several of our alleys in the downtown area, indicating a precursor to planned violence," police said in a statement.
Huntington Beach Police said protesters were also blocking traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and refused to leave the area after being asked to do so by officers.
...
The Huntington Beach City Council voted 5-2 in favor of directing the City Attorney to pursue any and all legal actions to challenge the beach closure, a news release from the city stated. Turns out, many residents felt the same way as the county's officials. On May 1, between 2,500 and 3,000 people attended protests over Newsom's order, according to Huntington Beach Police Chief Robert Handy. While the beach was technically closed, officers did not appear to be enforcing the governor's new closure order, CNN reported.
Out of sight from protesters, riot patrol officers on horseback staged under the Huntington Beach Pier, with one officer telling CNN they were there "just in case."
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
When protestors are allowed to march freely they march up and down the city chanting slogans for hours then disperse. No violence, no looting. Same when they're allowed to occupy an area. Standing around chanting, eventually disperse on their own.
Yes, this is a protest, and should be allowed to be carried out, so long as it's lawful. People should have the right to protest like this.

That said in my opinion escalation from 'peaceful protest' to 'riot' seems to be -as a response to- police tactics of trying to force crowds to disperse
Forcing a crowd to disperse is what is required to prevent escalation. You don't prevent escalation by allowing small, violent elements within the protest to remain.

The same logic can be used in reverse - protesters behaviour causes further police escalation. And in that instance, the law backs police. Otherwise you get police being manipulated by a mob who are controlled by the spiral of stimulation.

It's that 'unlawful assembly' that comes right back to what I've been saying. What makes an assembly unlawful? What determines the response?

In my state it's legislated.



Compare and contrast to the recent BLM marches that have occurred here in Australia. Despite being unlawful assemblies due to violating covid restrictions, police did -not- meet these protest marches with force, nor try to force crowds to disperse. There was no widespread violence or looting, and the only damage was some graffiti on monuments which is easily repaired.
When protestors refused to leave a Sydney train station at 2am after the march there the police response was extremely measured and restrained. No use of tear gas, officers with empty hands and no armour slowly pushed the crowd of protesters back and out of the train station without coming to blows. One use of pepper spray during an arrest, and that was it.

Because there was no need to. The protests were entirely different and planned AND largely peaceful.


. This is by viewing marches and pickets not as a prelude to a riot that must be stopped and smashed, but an -alternative- to a riot. Deploy, track, and respond only if there's harm to individuals -or- if property damage reaches a pre-determined level, rather than treating a single smashed window as a reason for massive retaliation.

Without wanting to be condescending, this is what happens in 99% of protests, which is why you don't hear much about them. You seem to be of the opinion that Police don't do the things you've suggested - that's a pretty simplistic view. Public order has entire units dedicated to it. You're looking at an extraordinary situation.


Is it safe to assume then that you yourself were never given Grossman's 'Killology' training? Do you know if anyone in your department has?
I've read his stuff, and he's been to town as a guest lecturer. I don't know why you've raised his material specifically, or why you think he has anything to do with this though?
when you were being given field training, were you assigned a single field training officer, or multiple? And if single, was your training officer a long-time veteran?
I had several, all had been in service for varying lengths, but the one with least service was about 5 years in.


The only common thread is that everyone involved - from protestors and police - thinks that they're in the right and justified no matter what they do, because that's human nature.
As I said, police are backed by the law and a mandate that they're required to protect public safety. Protestors rights are protected up to the point they don't conduct themselves with respect to those around them.

From another view point, if a large scale protest was occurring over chemtrails or 5g, and it turned violent( and NO, I'm not saying Floyd's death is anyway comparable to CTs, nor is it insignificant), you would have the expectation that Police would quell that.
Similar methods would be employed, but I'd bet the public reaction would be likely a lot lower due to the subject being viewed as "fringe".
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You have not reasoned that "need a police report" or "need a police escort" are immutable requirements, and you have conceded in your post that even with the present system, the police are sometimes/often not needed in the situations you listed. In fact, in two types of situations what you mainly seem to want is a "professional witness" (car accident, ex's apartment), and only occasionally someone with a weapon.

i dont want a professional witness in any of the situations. i want a police officer who can protect me from physical harm.

the claim you paraphrased incorrectly in order to 'debunk' it with the "reality: Camden", was the minneapolis official saying "police-free".

"occasionally" needing police is not police-free. I know you said "someone with a weapon" and not specifically "police, but i dont see the difference. A rose by any other name....

and then you said talking about Camden:

but since the present state of things no longer relies on police presence,

and i said you will always need police presence. i gave mundane examples and left out the big stuff like needing police to respond to armed robberies, assault, etc:

But you are never gonna be "police-free" even rural, 'posh' communities have police coverage. Even a fender bender, you need a police report to file an insurance claim.. social workers need police escorts...if you want to pick up your belongings from an ex that kicked you out you need a police escort...so they will still need a large police force in Minneapolis no matter what.



i realize i may be misunderstanding this conversation, as often two people will process convos differently as they are focused on different things. But i feel you keep changing the conversation topic and your stance. First you 'debunk' the guy that said Minnesota wants to cease police protection, by mentioning Camden and saying they still have police. But then you say Camden no longer relies on police presence.

You're confusing me.

the conversation about whether police need to be doing all the activities it currently does, has been discussed even by the police who feel they are given too many mediation tasks now. local communities can figure out how they want to reform or change their police duties. i think it will be interesting to see other communities experiment with different models and see how that goes.
For ex (you can google it) in some areas Animal Control Officers are "police officers", but ours dont carry guns. I have no idea why an animal control person would have to be a police officer.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
i dont want a professional witness in any of the situations. i want a police officer who can protect me from physical harm.
I know that that's what you want, and there are reasons for that (many of which are related to the media landscape in the US, and it has been like this for a long time).

The fact is, you said you *need* the police report on the car accident so your police insurance will pay out. I'm fairly sure there are very few instances of violence at car accidents, and those that occur often end by the perp getting into their car and driving off before the police arrive. (Which is also what happens with most armed assaults and robberies.)

The only time you actually need somebody who is armed is when violence is anticipated, which probably includes a large number of arrest situations.
The police will most likely not be there in time to protect you from physical harm. Your own behaviour protects you from that.

Current discussion focuses on substituting other services in situations where an armed response is unnecessary, we agree on that.

In a fender-bender situation, an armed response is necessary if you or the other driver is waving a gun around and won't leave. You need a police-type agency (could be the Sheriff?) in that situation. But the trigger here is "person threatening gun violence", not "car accident". You don't need an armed response for car accidents.

the claim you paraphrased incorrectly in order to 'debunk' it with the "reality: Camden", was the minneapolis official saying "police-free".
Let's look at the facts.
Claim: When a community disbands a police department, police protection ceases.
Article:
The Democrats in Minnesota are demanding that citizens be disarmed, while simultaneously working to eliminate any police protection.
You are saying that I don't address the claim by showing a police department that has been disbanded. If you click through to the article I cited, you see that the actual quote used in it says:
The claim assumes that "disband the police department" means that there will be no police protection. Camden disbanded their police department, but police protection did not cease. I debunked that claim.

It is harmful to take a single sentence from a quote (or even a single word, like "police-free") and then surmise the intent of the people who said it. Its effect is that what you think they intend is actually a result of what you already thought they intended. It's the opposite of communication.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I know that that's what you want, and there are reasons for that (many of which are related to the media landscape in the US, and it has been like this for a long time).

i dont want to be beat or raped by an irate man because of the media landscape? hhmmmm...

The only time you actually need somebody who is armed is when violence is anticipated
if they can figure out a way to reduce police duties so they can focus on 'bigger' law breakers, i'm all for that. but how do you know if violence is anticipated?

I'm fairly sure there are very few instances of violence at car accidents,
i'm fairly sure there are very few instances of police violence at car accidents.

it's an incredibly complicated discussion. Local communities will have to figure it out for themselves.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The claim assumes that "disband the police department" means that there will be no police protection
that's because he is talking about the context of the link he gave and is quoting.
you have to click on "today announced" to get the full context of what his comments are commenting on.

his quote in the article are from that source. and he leaves out the paragraph between those sentences stating police-free. not sure why he left it out.

It is harmful to take a single sentence from a quote (or even a single word, like "police-free") and then surmise the intent of the people who said it.
i will agree with that.
he is understandably assuming "police-free" means police-free. even though 'sugar-free' does not necessarily mean sugar free.
and you are understandably assuming he thinks "disband" automatically means no police protection. and you stated that as his claim. you paraphrased him.
 

Dingo

Member
I've read his stuff, and he's been to town as a guest lecturer. I don't know why you've raised his material specifically, or why you think he has anything to do with this though?

The reason that I asked is that his training seems to be VERY widespread in american policing, and he explicitly emphasizes the divide between police and the populace - talking about sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. His training explicitly emphasizes that police are a class apart as I mentioned earlier - which is why I asked.

I had several, all had been in service for varying lengths, but the one with least service was about 5 years in.

Okay that's interesting. The reason I asked is that I recently heard an interview with a police officer (I would need to look it up) talking about his own department. Basocally he was saying that in his department all the training had been done by 20 year veterans, and they were frankly all just burned out and jaded by the job. In his case he felt that it co tributed to certain negative attitudes and practices persisting in his department even amongst new officers. Basically they were beimg told 'forget everything you just learned, here's how thongs REALLY work'.

So he reformed his department by havimg more officers do training, younger ones not burned out.

Not to imply that's the case with you, I asked solely out of curiousity!


As for your other points I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.

(Edited to remove a stray bit of quote from ORS)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
and he explicitly emphasizes the divide between police and the populace - talking about sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. His training explicitly emphasizes that police are a class apart as I mentioned earlier - which is why I asked.

First responders are a class apart. They risk their lives potentially every time they walk out their doors to protect and save people's lives
https://www.mensjournal.com/feature...d-killologist-training-americas-cops-w463304/

I'm not defending his psychological theories. ( I can't find what his education, if any, in psychology even is.. and dont get me started on inept psychologists! if he even is one ). But sheepdogs and wolves [ie. rioters] are both canines aren't they? I'm confused what you mean by "class apart" , i went back through the whole thread and dont see you mentioning it earlier.

Are you equating that to instances where police clear peaceful protesters (sheep) before curfew?

(i would like to note that if you are given a curfew, it doesnt mean you leave the arcade at 11pm. it means you are home by 11pm. That isnt my argument for them clearing with pepper gas the DC peaceful protest 20 mins before curfew, the police said wolves were seen in the area.) (and also note: i've never personally heard of any local government calling a curfew on peaceful protests, they call curfews because rioting has happened on the prior nights. so as far as my thinking, the chicken came before the egg.)

edit add: i'm adding this after ORS agreed with my post. I'd also like to note that if a pitbull attacks and kills a small child, noone blames the pitbull. they blame his owners. Local officials own the sheepdogs. I personally feel they are to blame if they don't give their sheepdogs enough training, or take bad sheepdogs out of service. If you hold the owners accountable, instead of vilifying the good sheepdogs, maybe something will finally be done that would keep the sheep safe from sheepdogs.
 
Last edited:

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
The reason that I asked is that his training seems to be VERY widespread in american policing, and he explicitly emphasizes the divide between police and the populace - talking about sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves.

Ah ok. If it helps, I'm not in the US, I'm Australian, but as I said familiar with Grossman.
I'm not sure what you've read/heard, perhaps my interpretation of his work is a bit different. I've certainly heard his sheepdog metaphor - to me, it's just his way of encouraging an honourable mindset and acting as a "protector". I've not considered what he's said about police vs populace as a separate "class" so much as a calling to protect those around you who can't protect themselves. YMMV


Basocally he was saying that in his department all the training had been done by 20 year veterans, and they were frankly all just burned out and jaded by the job

Yep. There's plenty of that. Happens in most jobs, but obviously not what you want in a police force.
It needs a mix of old/new to make it relevant.

As for your other points I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that

No probs at all.
 

BombDr

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

View attachment 41054View attachment 41055View attachment 41056View attachment 41057View attachment 41058
Do we need a doctor to explain to people that kneeling on someone's neck is potentially lethal?
 

Related Articles

Top