Renzatic on 4/6/2020 at 04:37
Were you not expecting anyone to read your link, Tony? There's not a damn thing about white militias forming in that article. Just predominately white neighborhoods getting antsy due to the surrounding chaos.
People forming armed neighborhood watches in dangerous times is a far cry from white militias.
Starker on 4/6/2020 at 07:46
Lord Dampnut's former defence secretary publicly disagrees with the administration's course of action:
Quote:
(
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/)
James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trump’s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trump’s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.
“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “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.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
[...]
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “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.”
He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “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.
[...]
And The Lincoln Project can't make ads fast enough:
[video=youtube;M5FvBtu3gB4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5FvBtu3gB4[/video]
henke on 4/6/2020 at 10:52
Quote Posted by SubJeff
This makes me think protesting right now is... well, let's change the slogan shall we? Perhaps it should be:
Black Lives Matter*
*unless they result from Covid contracted at a protest.A few posts ago you were making excuses for the cops and now you expect us to believe you're against protests out of concern for the health of the protesters? SubJeff, stop posting.
SubJeff on 4/6/2020 at 13:01
I wasn't making excuses for the cops. Get out of town. You seem to suggesting I have some ulterior motive.
I'm not "concerned" about the health of the protestors, I think it's ill advised to gather in such large numbers during a pandemic and that's especially true for black people who have a higher risk of death from Covid.
If only one person dies or has a permanent health problem as a result of Covid contracted at a protest, I think the protest was not worth it. There are other ways to protest than what we saw in London yesterday.
catbarf on 4/6/2020 at 13:49
Quote Posted by Starker
Then it's probably also the police academies that are at fault here. After years of training and psychological exams and whatnot it should be pretty clear who the barrel spoiling apples are.
Police unions seem to be a bigger part of this, or at least closer to a root cause. From (
https://www.checkthepolice.org/#project) checkthepolice.org:
Quote:
HOW POLICE UNION CONTRACTS BLOCK ACCOUNTABILITY
1. Disqualifying misconduct complaints that are submitted too many days after an incident occurs or if an investigation takes too long to complete
2. Preventing police officers from being interrogated immediately after being involved in an incident or otherwise restricting how, when, or where they can be interrogated
3. Giving officers access to information that civilians do not get prior to being interrogated
4. Requiring cities to pay costs related to police misconduct including by giving officers paid leave while under investigation, paying legal fees, and/or the cost of settlements
5. Preventing information on past misconduct investigations from being recorded or retained in an officer's personnel file
6. Limiting disciplinary consequences for officers or limiting the capacity of civilian oversight structures and/or the media to hold police accountable.
Example: Many police union contracts, when renegotiated, include clauses to re-hire officers who were previously fired with cause. This means that even if a police officer is identified as problematic and terminated (difficult to do, thanks to the protections provided by the union), they can just come right back. If they can't, they can just get a job with a different precinct.
You've got police officers covering each other, protected by union rules negotiated with the city and/or state, and lacking any external oversight. Not surprising to me that 'bad apples' are identified and then not only kept on the force, but actively defended.
SubJeff on 4/6/2020 at 14:27
Quote Posted by heywood
We have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble peacefully.
Does that include blocking whatever roads you like as long as it's peaceful? Are you allowed to peacefully gather in front of an emergency ambulance entrance to hospitals, blocking them from getting in so people die?
Quote:
The President has no greater right to be there than any other citizen.
Really? So when he's travelling it's okay to just drive next to him, behind him, in amongst the security detail, whatever? No special rules for the president. At all?
Quote:
There are two different videos of this incident, one from the camera's POV and another from the side. In both videos, it's clear that the news crew was on the sidelines when the cameraman was targeted and slugged, and the reporter gets a baton to the back as she's running away.
Yeah, I've never seen this other angle. When I do, maybe it'll change my mind. Until then it's very unclear what really happened. You have a link?
Nicker on 4/6/2020 at 16:07
Meanwhile, Lindsay Graham is leading a GOP majority inquiry into the Russia thingy. This is Glen Kirschner's Top 10 take on Rod Rosenstein's testimony. As they promise in YouTube countdown videos, you won't believe #1!
[video=youtube;WG39N361dKY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG39N361dKY[/video]
Quote:
Does that include blocking whatever roads you like as long as it's peaceful?
Yes. Protest marches have traditionally used main roads with high visibility. Disruption of normal traffic is a time honored tactic of protests all over the world and throughout history. Protests don't work well when held out of sight.
Quote:
Are you allowed to peacefully gather in front of an emergency ambulance entrance to hospitals, blocking them from getting in so people die?
Are you allowed to conflate peaceful protest with property crime and murder without establishing a necessary connection between the two?
The answer to both of these questions is, no.
SubJeff on 4/6/2020 at 16:35
In most places you can't just decide to block main roads with your protests. There are rules.
Now I dislike Trump as much as the next liberal, but this "we're all equal" bs is getting out of hand.
Yes, the president has privileges you don't. Deal with it.
heywood on 4/6/2020 at 16:37
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Does that include blocking whatever roads you like as long as it's peaceful?
The road was closed.
Quote:
Are you allowed to peacefully gather in front of an emergency ambulance entrance to hospitals, blocking them from getting in so people die?
Unrelated hypothetical.
Quote:
Really? So when he's travelling it's okay to just drive next to him, behind him, in amongst the security detail, whatever? No special rules for the president. At all?
What I'm saying is that nobody in this country has any more right to access a public space than anyone else, and that includes the President. It's reasonable and necessary to accommodate the needs of the President when conducting official business. But this wasn't official business. The President wanted to stage a photo op to show his supporters that he wasn't hiding out under the White House. Surely you're not going to tell me that a stupid photo op is worth putting on the jack boots?
Quote:
Yeah, I've never seen this other angle. When I do, maybe it'll change my mind. Until then it's very unclear what really happened. You have a link?
It's right there in the link. It was the top reply at the time Starker posted. Now you have to expand the thread to see it. I don't know why you need it. If you didn't see the punch to the cameraman in the first video, then you're letting your anti-protester bias override your eyes.
Starker on 4/6/2020 at 16:43
The entire orchard seems to be rotten to the core and it's becoming more and more clear that punishing a few bad apples who were too bold or got too careless to be caught on camera will do absolutely nothing to help the larger issue.
Where is the outrage in the police when they see defenceless civilians being beaten up by roving groups of what essentially amount to thugs in uniforms. Where is the outrage when fellow members of their profession completely unprovoked repeatedly shoot people in the head with rubber bullets -- bullets that are meant to be used as the last resort, because they have enough force to fracture bone and cause concussions. It makes it look like the vast majority of them tacitly support such tactics.
Also, what the hell is up with those cops who are not wearing any identification and who are refusing to answer what unit they belong to? If history is any indication, things like these never end up well.
Quote Posted by heywood
It's right there in the link. It was the top reply at the time Starker posted. Now you have to expand the thread to see it. I don't know why you need it. If you didn't see the punch to the cameraman in the first video, then you're letting your anti-protester bias override your eyes.
Yeah, it's not very obvious in the first video, because the cameraman is first hit in the stomach with the edge of a shield and he lowers the camera.
Here it is in slow motion: (
https://twitter.com/TheoShantonas/status/1267864858122469378)
