News Events around the George Floyd protests and riots, US and beyond

[TruthSeeker]

and racism is also unacceptable for anyone, no matter the color of their skin or how different they may be. Right? It can't be an either-or proposition...saying, lets not deal with racism because it's too controversial, won't unite enough people...that's really depressing. If that's what it takes to get more people in the cause - those people need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and understand what exactly their problem is.
So, lets not tackle racism?

Because I'm pretty sure that if you count all the bad cops, and then count all the racists in America...there would be more racists, probably by a large factor. Police brutality is bad and wrong, emphatic yes. But not all police are bad. Racism is also bad and wrong...and there's really no such thing as a "good" racist. ALL racism is bad.

So, I'd hate to have to pick one of these two evils to fight against. But if I had to..I'd pick the greater evil, racism.
If that's all that people remember, it will be because it's all they choose to remember.

And by doing so, they are endorsing racism.

I guess all I'm saying is, I don't think racism is a topic that people can choose to opt out of, anymore.

I think that's the whole point.

@joeylittle I agree racism is wrong......that's not contested. All whites aren't racist as not all blacks are racist.... but those who are racist teach racism....and racism is taught on many sides and in many cultures. Changing people who are racist....and their feelings or misperceptions......isn't going to happen when you raise signs that say Black Lives Matter .......and create a type of segregation because of color/race. Change happens when you integrate and unify......and join the masses in a cause. True lasting change in peoples value systems (and believing that another is equal regardless of skin color or other differences is a value). Values are learned. Inclusive values come from believing that inclusion is the best way for everyone to get along.

The laws over time, that made the playing field uneven, have been changed........we have Civil Rights.....that's been done.........and that law covers all people no matter what color their skin. We can't change people's biases......and bigotry by saying "stop that with a sign"....that's just reinforces it....this is basic behavior modification....
......UNLESS we can come together under one meaningful cause.....as a united front.... and in that way, people will be focused on the cause in which unites them, and in the process, they will learn about each other. Working together to the same goal.......and see that their previously held opinions might be wrong through that learning-while doing something special together............that's how hatred is stopped and perceptions are changed....through new learning........when people can learn about each other and find a common cause about which to agree...........and then the divide begins to narrow, feelings begin to soften, and maybe ......hatred slowly becomes respect. Bull in the china shop method or violence..... will likely be ineffectual in creating the lasting personal change in being seen as "equal" and more likely will just fuel existing biases.

.....nonviolent inclusive methods of change are more likely to produce long term effects and be safer for the masses, and reinforce new perceptions.

I do believes equality is possible........ but not if the method to gain attention is segregatory.

 

[Rainman8772]

First, to be clear, I wasn't calling for "demilitarization". I was questioning an attitude that I've observed personally. Seems like "demilitarization" means different things to different people and it's hard to even discuss unless everyone agrees on the definition of terms.

I totally get that traffic stops are dangerous for police officers. If I get stopped, I make sure I have my license and proof of insurance on the seat before the officer ever gets to the car and have both hands on the steering wheel when they get there. Why? Because I know there's a chance the officer might let their fear get the better of them and things could go sideways. I take personal responsibility for encouraging the officer to feel safe, so we both get through the stop with no drama. I probably do that because of the PTSD, to be honest. I've talked to enough law enforcement folks that I have a good idea what they might be thinking and I'm aware enough of how things can go wrong that it's important to be proactive. MOST people though, might not have a background that leads them to think of this stuff. So, maybe we should teach everyone the "right" way to respond to a traffic stop, or anything else. So people's natural reactions don't get them in trouble.

Right now, I don't think I've got enough information to be sure of that. I don't know how good the ID was of the person who allegedly passed a bad bill, for a start. I don't know how they knew they had the right person and I guess I'm still a little surprised that you'd actually haul a person in to jail for spending a $20 bill that turned out to be bad. If they thought he was part of a counterfeiting ring, seems like the arrest would have been part of a bigger investigation. JMO, but arresting him seems like overkill. Unless they KNEW he knew the bill was fake, etc, and I haven't heard anything about that yet. So, I guess I don't have an opinion yet on how valid the arrest was.

As of last night, the media is reporting that 2 of the 4 officers involved in Mr. Floyd's killing were very new to the force. One, they say was working his third shift and the other his fourth day. (I'm trying to figure out what it means that they worded it like that.) These guys were in the same car and were first on the scene. Apparently the more experienced officers arrived after Mr. Floyd had been cuffed. (I'd just like to add that I'm not at all sure how accurate the media reporting is at this time. Pretty sure they are right about who was partnered with who and who got there first.) How common is it to send 2 green officers out together? Seems like something you'd rather not do, if you could avoid it? Apparently it had little to do with how things played out, other than that attorneys for the two inexperienced officers are suggesting that their inexperience is a mitigating factor. (I'm sure open to that possibility. Seems like a rather nightmarish way to begin, and potentially end, your career.)

I don't have a job where I'm going to get shot at. I DO have a job where I could get hurt. Some of the animals I work with actually do want to hurt me. A lot of their owners are so utterly clueless that they are more a liability than anything else and I also have to worry about keeping THEM out of harm's way. Something I've learned over the years is that my attitude has a huge impact on what happens. I REALLY want to keep everyone functioning from those higher brain centers if I can. (With a horse, that can be tough because those centers are relatively small.) So, ESPECIALLY when things are dicey, I want to project calmness. Especially if I don't feel it. If I go in acting like I'm a bully, things nearly always devolve from there. I can ALWAYS escalate. Hard to back off once you've started out acting tough. Did I mention this is an act? Because a lot of the time it is. I might be fearful, I might be angry, I might be a lot of things but I ACT like things are under control, we're all friend here, there is no threat. Of course I know there's a threat, it's just that I've learned it's generally not useful to go there.

I'm not saying that my job is anywhere near are dangerous as law enforcement, it's not. Just saying I see similarities. And, (I've thought about this), even though I'm well aware that I could get hurt, if the day ever dawns that that fear takes control of how I go about my job, I'll quit because I'll know I can no longer safely do my job. "Fear", is the enemy, as far as I'm concerned, it's not my friend. Both my own fear and everyone else's. It's a pretty unstable thing to use to control a situation. Sometimes it can work for awhile, absolutely, but I see it as a problem more than a solution nearly all of the time. To be honest, I get kind of a rush from trying to walk that fine line and make things work. I don't get much satisfaction from putting a horse in fear for his life (but I've done it). I get a ton of satisfaction from having one of those situations come up and keeping it from going there. I'm not always sure that rush is a "good" thing, or a healthy thing, but it's there. I would guess there's an equivalent for a lot of people in law enforcement. (Had one really memorable conversation with a guy on the local equivalent to a SWAT team. He got it, totally. I think everyone else there thought we were nuts. LOL Actually, that conversation got started because he told me he thought my job was dangerous. I laughed and pointed out no one shot at ME. He laughed and the note comparing began. Fascinating guy to talk with.)

So, for example @Rainman8772 , if I encounter someone who begins by being loud and belligerent, my first response is going to be to get my hackles up a bit. That person lays hands on me? Things escalate. And I frankly don't much care what uniform they're wearing or who they think they are. What makes anyone thing people don't react that way? (Serious question.) I get that there's a school of thought that thinks police officers are well within their rights to be aggressive. I'm suggesting that that doesn't work real well, most of the time. Granted, when you set out to control people with intimidation it often works, but is that really necessary or best? I totally get that once in awhile you make a traffic stop and the person being stopped charges out of their car and tries to kill you. But a small percentage of the time, right? Yes, you have to be prepared for it, absolutely. And, obviously (I hope) that's not how someone should handle being stopped by the police. But MOST of the time, people's responses are in accord with how they are treated. Even from an unsavory individual, in the short run I think finesse works better. But it's also often harder.

I looked for data on how many people of what categories got killed by the police last year and couldn't find anything very straight forward. I did find a couple of interesting articles that point out the problems with gathering and interpreting this kind of date. links for those interested in going into the weeds 2nd link The FBI has some interesting statistics on law enforcement officers killed and injured. (The FBI has interesting statistics on LOTS of stuff.) FBI

Washington Post has the data as does CDC or FBI data center that anyone can access. Also Harvard did a great review on what happens with fewer police in neighborhoods. As @Freida said cops deal with the worst 20% of the population 80% of the time. Then you have the suicide by cop that is more prevalent than most know.

 

[Freida]

Then you have the suicide by cop that is more prevalent than most know.

This is one of the nightmares as a dispatcher because we usually catch some of the blame when the person gets their wish (gets shot by cop) because either we didn't get enough info in the 911 call to determine that was what they wanted. Or - the caller told us their person wanted suicide by cop and then, when they pull a gun on the cop and get shot in return, WE get told it was our fault because "we told you he was suicidal - why didn't you tell the officer?"

Ya hun, we told them exactly what you told us.....

The subject you are approaching is saying he is armed and wants SBC.

So be the cop and ask yourself:
If a person who said they were suicidal and wanted you to kill them pointed a gun at you - how long are you going to stand there and try to work those deescalation techniques you learned in your last training?

Because if you think they won't shoot you first --- your an idiot

Talk about a no win -- for any of us. Including the suicidal person.

We (911 and LE) bust our asses trying to deescalate situations. We use every trick of negotiation we have, make shit up as we go, do what ever we can to make sure everyone gets to go home that night.
But sometimes you just.cant.win.

I've succeeded in talking people out of pulling the trigger and I've failed and listened to them blow their heads off. I've talked to kids to keep them hidden while the cops try to take mom and dad into custody because they are going after each other with knives, guns, and whatnot. I've talked people into putting down their guns so they won't get shot by the cops and I've worked with the hostage negotiations guys while they spend HOURS trying to deescalate situations (I'm also the one who gets to call the spouse and tell them their cop is not coming home any time soon because, sorry it's little timmy's birthday but daddy is gonna have to stay at work and talk to the guy with the hostage - again).

My rant is to try to help people put it into context.
We do this Every.Day.
Thousands of times a year, over and over.
With every race, language, social group.

You never hear about it, you never care, because it's not important.
Its how you expect it to work
It doesn't matter until it goes wrong. Then suddenly it's all about racism and police brutality.

Do those things exist? Sadly yes
Does it need to be addressed? Yes.
Because it is beyond wrong.

But there are way more cops busting their asses every day for ALL Americans, regardless of race, than there are racist assholes who should have never been given a badge.

It's what makes me so nuts. People start bashing cops in general and completely forget that when you need them, they are there.
Ready to risk their lives for you.
And you won't even notice.

did I mention the young cop who went to help a woman escape from her abusive husband and got shot? The neighbors videotaped her bleeding out and laughed --telling her she deserved to die.
She did.
It made them happy

THIS is what they are ALL up against.
Every single day.

So how about a pause before you color them all with the same brush.

 

[rightkindofme]

I'm not speaking for any movement. When *I* say I want demilitarization I want that along with sweeping gun reform. I want less money spent on weapons. I want less or almost no military weapons in the hands of police. The kind and quantity of deescalation training taught to US police is quite minimal compared to police in the UK, where they aren't allowed to have guns. They still have what is basically a SWAT force, but it's a very small number of exceptionally well trained people who are rarely deployed. They are not the normal police force.

When I say that people are angry I mean that it is not merely the death of George Floyd motivating these protests. These protests (from my view of someone who was heavily involved in Occupy and was there when riot cops came down like a hornets nest) are motivated by a lot of different factors. BLM is part of the story and not the whole story. There are lots of motivations. There is sadness and despair and whole freaking lot of anger about how things work in the US. Police brutality is not limited to black people. Given the timings of these protests part of the anger is about people being hungry and scared because of the pandemic. The US is not interested in broad social support: as a country they pick funding a militarized police force over social services. We pick tax cuts for Amazon over helping people in poverty.

I did a lot of stealing food as a child because otherwise I would not eat. You never forget what it means to be so hungry that theft is the only way to survive. You never forget what it means to not have a home and then you get to listen to sanctimonious housed/safe people lecture on how poverty is because people are lazy and not trying hard enough.

These protests are wide ranging in motivation and level of anger. That is why I say that one person or one group cannot define how the end results should be reached. There are too many groups, too many motivations, and too many feelings.

I am not saying I am all for looting. I am not saying I advocate riots. I am not saying I think people should be violent. I am saying I understand why some people feel helpless and out of control and people in such a state lash out in unpredictable and often unself-interested ways. I am grateful for as many peaceful protests as I read about on the news. It makes the riot-quelching behaviors of the police look that much more egregious and out of place.

And yes I've read the constitution. The constitution that does not grant rights to black people or white women or indigenous people. I'm not as impressed as some people would like me to be. It doesn't seem as worthy of blind adoration to me.

 

[user27357]

There was a massive ideology shift in the party platforms happening gradually between the end of the Civil War and the election of FDR in 1938. Comparing modern party ideology is just nonsensical.

Amen. there has been a huge shift in my lifetime, The republicans have become the party of "make America great again" invoking the voters to reminisce about happy race relations and safer neighborhoods with violence and lawlessness a distant danger that no one had to concern themselves about. It's a panacea, at best it is a poorly worded plea for a return to what was probably (depending on what the individual voter remembers as American greatness) a time when the Democrats ruled the day. Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt- I wasn't alive but isn't that the greatness Republicans are trying to regain? It's a hollow argument. They might as well have red baseball hats that say "watch Ozzy and Harriet, right after leave it to Beaver".

Equality and justice would be greatness. 100% nonracist policing, supportive, and reliable shepherds for the masses of people getting left behind by the tipped scales of justice, that would be greatness.

Rioting is just violence and violence leads to more violence and more dead bodies. Dead bodies has worked, in our past, but so has peaceful negotiation and I would prefer the latter for our future. That would be greatness.

I don't think this is truly rioting, not yet. these are trials, these are "test cuts", these are people seeing how much they can get away with and how many they can get to come along with them. Rioting starts when the police are overpowered and the people pushing them realize it as a group, in an instant, and then the rioting becomes a real thing. Rioting starts after all the peaceful people get tired of being tear gassed because someone broke a window or set a car on fire and go home, to try again tomorrow hopefully, and not get caught up in unwanted violence. Rioting starts when the small group of people that want a riot get critical mass and the confidence to make a try at overpowering the cops. Damn I hope it doesn't happen.

I doubt that any racist has not admitted to themselves at some point that they feel lucky to have been born the color that they were born and some pity for the race that they are glad they are not a member of. It seems awful, but I want to think that personal admission is a sign of hope for them, that the truth they admit to themselves can't be hidden, that it can be seen and accepted and even maybe nurtured into a realization that racism is an unwinnable argument with their own better self. It will take a lot of peaceful protests, and a lot of higher-level debate, and a lot of time but I think there is hope in that awful self-admission of feeling lucky to be born the race they are and not the one they hate. That COULD make America great.

or we can bust windows and throw bricks until someone gets tired of it and does something that gets the party really going. Oh yeah, and the beat goes on.

 

[rightkindofme]

Important to note that the UK still has a ways to go on racial justice and police brutality even with fewer guns: The Restraint Technique That killed George Floyd Is Used By Police In The UK Too

 

[Ronin]

@rightkindofme But still - the UK has a veery different culture - whole society wise, the distances & terrain & weather needed to overcome obstacles when pursuing anyone are incomparable to the US, the way criminals on the run respond may be less fast jumpy & deadly than in the States, etc...

Different countries.
Different populations, practically.

And I'd really not want to see the States become other Mexico, Honduras, other alike countries, in crime control - where practically, you really have a lot of the Bad Cops, joined in line with cartels & maras, where being the Good Cop is as deadly as being an innocent citizen who just went to buy milk, wrong hour of the day.

It's not the weapons that are a problem.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

You are liberal - you believe there is racism. You also believe black people are different. When you speak with a black person you may use words like I know white people have privileged (the undertone is You do not) and I want to keep the privilege and assist you in any way I can but definitely I do not want to give up the privilege. I know you are different. I am different. It is like dissociation. There is a wall between the belief and the feeling.

If you are conservative - you believe we are all the same. What is the difference here? If a black person works as hard as my cousin viny, he should be able to buy the truck, the gun, the bible and be just fine like me. I know racism but com'n, there is no racism. We even changed the constitution for this shit like what gazzilion times. We are all the same. Just work as hard as me, do not have eye contact with the police ...I do not even notice them....why are you noticing them? just ignore. Even better do not go out at night...We are the same. it is like engulfment - total over take of black experience to the point of erasure. Black do not exist. Just experiences exist and we all have same experience

This is not true at all! One's polical beliefs and how they lean has nothing to do with their racist beliefs.

My dad is conservative and he's an all out is racist. He does not believe that a black man should have his truck if he worked for it. Because he's black and to him, black are less then. To him, blacks are criminals. To him, blacks should all be in prision. He told me growing up that if I ever marry a black man, he'd disown me and wouldn't want to see our children because they'd be half black. All out hell happened in my family when my neice married a black man. My entire family are conservatives.

 

[LuckiLee]

There will be a BLM protest today in my town. One mile away. Stores and businesses have been boarding up doors and windows all week. The road they will be traveling is ALL malls and stores and restaurants.

I haven't told J about it. I made plans to head in the opposite direction and go for a hike and kayak ride. He is stressed out enough, no need to add to it. (With my luck his family will call and tell him all about it ?)

Praying it is peaceful and uniting.

 

[blackemerald1]

where they aren't allowed to have guns.

^Not true at all. To be more specific, Northern Ireland - all police officers on operational duties carry fire-arms. In the remainder of the UK, some squads carry varying levels of firearms. Depending on the training and requirement.

but it's a very small number of exceptionally well trained people who are rarely deployed. They are not the normal police force.

^No, sorry but you are misinformed. Authorised Firearms Officers attend all situations where the operational orders and risk assessments require them to do so. That's not random - it's expected and required. So that's a lot of scenarios. From your drug busts, high risk searches and fleeing villains of all varieties. They are routinely called out and often if not always are dispersed across the country in the larger police districts.

The Specialist Firearms Officers are much more highly trained and use much higher calibre weapons. Military grade too.

^They're used for your run of the mill terrorists and you know that sort of thing. :oops:

as a country they pick funding a militarized police force over social services. We pick tax cuts for Amazon over helping people in poverty.

^There you go with that word again rightkindofme... militarised... :oops: Get it straight. All Police forces the world over & that means the UK too are paramilitary organisations. They have to be - it's the way they operate. Hierarchical in nature, with rules, regulations and a chain of Command. It's ok too ya know. It's ok to know whose in charge & whose pissing in the wind. lol..

you get to listen to sanctimonious housed/safe people lecture on how poverty is because people are lazy and not trying hard enough.

^Whose saying that? Source please?

And I don't mean the regular ignoramus up the road who knows jack sh*t about nothing at all. Show me a source who has some real control over the population.

These protests are wide ranging in motivation and level of anger. That is why I say that one person or one group cannot define how the end results should be reached. There are too many groups, too many motivations, and too many feelings.

^Absolutely agree with this. The message is getting lost in the mess. I hope people slow down, think carefully & find a better way.

I am not saying I am all for looting.

^Well geeze lol... are you a little bit for it? Looting is plain & outright criminal. So I guess I'm pleased you're not completely sold on the idea. :hilarious:

I am not saying I advocate riots.

^Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Well I'm glad for that too. lol

I'd not like to see you waste your life advocating for riots. Apart from the fact that it is illegal?? You do know there is a difference between protests and riots I hope? Acquaint yourself with the difference. In short one is peaceful and one is violent.

I am not saying I think people should be violent. I

^Well that'd go along with you not advocating for riots I hope? :cautious:

I am grateful for as many peaceful protests as I read about on the news. It makes the riot-quelching behaviors of the police look that much more egregious and out of place.

^What?

Riot - quelching - you mean squelching in the informal use? Meaning to suppress?

But that's the cops job! What do you pay them to do then? Stand around and look casual while things slip into chaos & people are hurt... more? To stop violence, protect & preserve life and property - isn't that the idea behind a police force. Or are you all for not having any police at all? Just caring and sharing souls that will reason and negotiate their way out of every problem? Cos there's a lot of people who will admit publicly they are not interested in being peaceful. Not interested in being rational or preserving life and property. Not at all. And there's a lot of people who'd proudly admit to want to injure police too. What do we do about them because once they've finished with the police - guess whose next?

And if a protest (note the word protest = peaceful gathering etc) is illegal - well who is supposed to handle the situation? Who gets to decide when the public interest (meaning the health and well being of the general public) is not being served?

Politicians who get voted in or out of office on the basis of democratically run processes...maybe? Worth thinking on isn't it?

Rioting starts when the police are overpowered and the people pushing them realize it as a group, i

^No. Riots are not started like that. Riots are violent civilian groups who perpetuate violence/harm/damage on whatever any individual contained in that group wants. It's got nothing to do with police being over-run or over-powered. For sure a lot of riots begin as protests and then something goes wrong, the group gets angry & violence and damage begins. But, lots of times the police get called to riots and in the first instance have no idea what they're coming up against.

 

[user27357]

No. Riots are not started like that. Riots are violent civilian groups who perpetuate violence/harm/damage on whatever any individual contained in that group wants. It's got nothing to do with police being over-run or over-powered. For sure a lot of riots begin as protests and then something goes wrong, the group gets angry & violence and damage begins. But, lots of times the police get called to riots and in the first instance have no idea what they're coming up against.

This is semantics.
I saw a comic, he was a riot. Kristallnacht was an organized collection and relocation of Jews, not a riot.
Yes, as soon as someone throws a brick, the calls that come after involve the word riot and riot gear is worn, sure. But so far, the level of violence is somewhere between a really big bar fight and an English soccer match. Saying that there was a riot with seventeen arrested and windows broken and some highly televised looting is like saying there was a fire and it was contained, there was some damage. I guess I am worried that what starts as a riot turns into a conflagration, 1960's style, burned blocks of cities and bodies on both sides and a point at which no one really knows just how far this goes. Thats what I mean when I say: Riots start when the crowd suddenly realises that they have more power than the cops and can no longer be controlled. Mayhem. A little of the old ultra violence. No end in sight, now we got us a RIOT.
We need a word to describe whats happening and riot is used. Uprising? Protest with a capitol P?
I hope no one is forced to decide that dogs and fire hoses and square mile perimeters are the last chance for restoring order. We may need another word for that.

 

[LuckiLee]

15 people killed. I would consider those riots. Businesses destroyed. Arson. Violence. Looting. MURDER.

Riot- a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

Although these aren't peaceful times it is still a riot.

Apparently there are 6 or 7 different protests scheduled for today and tomorrow in my area.