RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:
It's not about more combative responses, but about making certain parts of the narrative more prominent.

By spreading a "violence is wrong, whoever does it" narrative, it detracts from the point in much the same way Trump's "there's good people on both sides" did.

It's irrelevant. It serves one purpose: distraction. It's not about being nuanced. You and I can be nuanced. But Joe average is not going to see things like that. They're going to read the headlines about looting and take a dim view of the black protestors. Even if the looting is actually being done by white police officers trying to make the protestors look bad.

I did note somewhere above 'there is room to stress more the sheer numbers who are peacefully protesting and not engaging in social disorder.'

But this story isn't getting reported without covering the violence. It's one of the reasons I'd prefer there was no violence, so that the story can't be so easily deflected

Digby wrote:The publicity around the autopsy isn't exactly deafening. The official autopsy noted the homicide was caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." whereas the independent report requested by the family shifted the narrative a little in concluding Floyd's death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

If the official report does stand I don't know how much harder that will make trying to pursue a murder charge against the police officer, the family are already cross it's Murder 3 not Murder 1, and if it drops to manslaughter you'd have to assume that will go over very badly as things stand, not with the family and certainly not with a lot of people willing to go out and protest the police actions. (Just to be clear I'm not saying the charge should drop, only I don't understand how the law works, though the accused deserves to be treated equally before the law no matter the irony)

It's a scary moment, and this could easily get much worse.

It’s possible to kill someone with a pair of handcuffs. Positional asphyxiation is something you get taught very early on in defensive tactics training. I’m not aware of the knee in the back is a legitimate restraint technique or not, it’s not something I’m aware of in use in the UK.

The key point for me is that the victim becomes unresponsive and is the held in a restraint for a further 3 minutes or so. I’d question why he was in a restraint position with handcuffs applied, normally they are used to get the victim compliant so you can apply handcuffs, but again guidelines can vary. But when you arrest someone you are responsible for their safety. If I had handcuffed someone and became aware that they had become unresponsive then I am duty bound to check on their condition and provide medical assistance if necessary. From the video it appears like the police officer didn’t do that and instead maintained the restraint. That for me is the key element in proving that it wasn’t just an accident and the officer had some malicious intent there.

As an aside, I was surprised that all 4 were sacked. Surely suspended pending an independent investigation is the way to go with these things?

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:The publicity around the autopsy isn't exactly deafening. The official autopsy noted the homicide was caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." whereas the independent report requested by the family shifted the narrative a little in concluding Floyd's death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

If the official report does stand I don't know how much harder that will make trying to pursue a murder charge against the police officer, the family are already cross it's Murder 3 not Murder 1, and if it drops to manslaughter you'd have to assume that will go over very badly as things stand, not with the family and certainly not with a lot of people willing to go out and protest the police actions. (Just to be clear I'm not saying the charge should drop, only I don't understand how the law works, though the accused deserves to be treated equally before the law no matter the irony)

It's a scary moment, and this could easily get much worse.

It’s possible to kill someone with a pair of handcuffs. Positional asphyxiation is something you get taught very early on in defensive tactics training. I’m not aware of the knee in the back is a legitimate restraint technique or not, it’s not something I’m aware of in use in the UK.

The key point for me is that the victim becomes unresponsive and is the held in a restraint for a further 3 minutes or so. I’d question why he was in a restraint position with handcuffs applied, normally they are used to get the victim compliant so you can apply handcuffs, but again guidelines can vary. But when you arrest someone you are responsible for their safety. If I had handcuffed someone and became aware that they had become unresponsive then I am duty bound to check on their condition and provide medical assistance if necessary. From the video it appears like the police officer didn’t do that and instead maintained the restraint. That for me is the key element in proving that it wasn’t just an accident and the officer had some malicious intent there.

As an aside, I was surprised that all 4 were sacked. Surely suspended pending an independent investigation is the way to go with these things?

I do start with some sympathy in that police must so often face people being extremely unhelpful whilst being arrested, facing physical and verbal abuse themselves, and it's all too easily a moment big on adrenaline. But he's fucked this up and then some, acceptable isn't even a dot on the horizon. There must be serious charges, but still if those charges drop the stories around the official autopsy and any lessening of charges could easily pour fuel on the fire. And that before even one small act is even considered on addressing the myriad of underlying problems

This is a festering wound that is being made worse by the inability of those in charge to acknowledge the root causes of all of this. Thanks to President photo op and his right wing infotainment propaganda machine the narrative is slowly shifting towards protests being labeled as outright riots. I can tell that here on the ground in Philly, the cops may be restrained in the affluent areas, but in North and West Philly, they are without a shadow of a doubt provoking protestors with violence. In West Philly yesterday there was an armoured personel/fucking tank thing firing tear gas canisters over buildings to land indiscriminately in residential neighbourhoods. Also yesterday, there was a kneel-in on one of the major throughfares for vehicular traffic going in and out of the city, before the curfew, non-violent, to which the police responded to by firing an absurd amount of tear gas and rushing the protestors into a high wall on the side of the freeway. They then started cracking heads and hauling as many as possible into armoured paddy wagons. The fucking cherry on the top is the mayors planned budget for the next fiscal year which cuts practically all funding for grassroots community arts and cultural programs (which are vital cogs in black community youth programs) and axes entirely funding for the African American Museum here (which is a must-see for anyone visiting Philly). Police also will get a 2.5% pay rise for which they did not have to negotiate. I'm sure you all witnessed the nonsense in DC last night, with an unannounced tear gas attack on protestors and the assault of journalists in order that the vile racist buffoon in charge could have a macho man reality TV photo op. The fucking cops are PUBLIC SERVANTS and should be protecting the first amendment rights of protestors, not assaulting them. I am beyond pissed off and this movement now has one more white boy that does not give a fuck how many windows are broken and shops looted if that is what it takes to compel State and Federal government to acknowledge that this is about decades of unfair distribution of public wealth and institutionalised violence and oppression against minorities. I'll happily torch a police cruiser for that. They must not be allowed to get away with this.

Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change. Saying I'm happy to torch police property feels like Trump saying I want people to be safe from Covid so drink bleach to make yourself better, and what do you have to lose?

You are not seeing what I'm seeing. Sorry.

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

In a big struggle, with a lot of people involved, it's quite likely that someone is going to overstep the mark. To get the big picture, you have to stand back and take a broad view. Yes, some property has been damaged, and that is wrong. But the "overstepping of the mark" from the other side is so extreme, blatant, endemic and chronic that there is no comparison. (And that's before you even consider the serious possibility of faked vandalism, by the police.)

In an ideal world, protests would all be peaceful. And when carefully planned (eg Extinction Rebellion) they can be peaceful, while being (fairly) effective, and all the more so for being peaceful. In the face of extreme repression (eg Nazi occupation, the Chinese reaction to Tiananmen Square), such protests are useless (and potentially fatal), protesters have insufficient (or no) protection via legal processes. From the perspective of non-whites, the USA falls somewhere between the UK and China in its level of repression. Whether that effectively justifies violent protest in the US is not clear. I still hope that well-organised groups can maintain discipline, remain non-violent AND be effective, but I don't think the answer is certain.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

I'm not surprised people are acting as they are, people are morons, mobs especially so. I'm worried that people will get hurt by the violence and I fear it'll not prove effective, and it allows for a different story to take the agenda. The only option is to go again and again and again in peaceful protest.

Though I do take note of the two responses from Trump, namely you can't impeach me because the whites will riot and to avoid that we must respect the people/rioters Vs if the blacks riot we must shut them down. It's not an easy situation to remain calm in.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why is burning a police car going to work out better than writing letters to representatives and working to engage those who're frustrated to do the same whilst aiming for much higher percentages of voter registration and actual voting?

Neither approach can be ignored, but one of the approaches places less risk on life and property and has a much clearer path to achieving much sought after change.

While I can't speak for morepork (and don't endorse burning police cars), working within the system got them a black President and a black A-G, who did make some change. Then 2012 happened and the Republic senate made it their goal to block anything and everything. Then 2016 happened and within a year, everything had been reversed, in some cases further back than where it was before.

I am not surprised that a lot of people have looked at your two options and made a different conclusion to you as to which one is most likely to effect change.

Puja

I'm not surprised people are acting as they are, people are morons, mobs especially so. I'm worried that people will get hurt by the violence and I fear it'll not prove effective, and it allows for a different story to take the agenda. The only option is to go again and again and again in peaceful protest.

Though I do take note of the two responses from Trump, namely you can't impeach me because the whites will riot and to avoid that we must respect the people/rioters Vs if the blacks riot we must shut them down. It's not an easy situation to remain calm in.

The Civil Rights Act came out of the riots after the assassination of MLK. The powers Obama used to begin reform of police departments (which Trump reversed) came out of the 1992 LA Riots. Gay rights came out of Stonewall. The Gilets Jaune got what they wanted out of Macron (and then some). The Arab Spring achieved regime change (until the Americans decided the change wasn't to a regime they liked). These things historically have achieved results.

Mind, no-one historically has been up against such a reality-shielded person as Trump. Other leaders have eventually bowed to demands because it's reached a stage where it's more sensible to do that than keep on fighting. Trump doesn't appear aware that conceding is an option.

Puja

Trump couldn't tell the time on an analogue watch without a tutor. He isn't aware of anything. This reeks of that ghoul Stephen Miller, with Jawed offering sage management speak type advice to keep rich honkies from getting spooked.


Fear not Rebellers, I have not reached for mine long sword just yet.

The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 Martin Luther King Jr. noted the following, which I mention apropos of nothing, beautifully illustrated mind:

"I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle, and to a movement which has not yet won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize," King said. "After contemplation, I conclude that this award, which I receive on behalf of that movement, is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression."

Meanwhile, in "What the fucking hell America"



I've had this story from several unrelated people, including one I know and trust personally. What the actual fuck America.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

cashead wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The problem with violent demonstration is that it scares off moderate supporters and pushes the state towards a predictable outcome. Then there is only one way to go and it’s not pretty.

Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

Whilst having Trump in office is a real problem, the key activity is local. Get organised and vote for candidates who represent your interests. Obama has put it more succinctly than I can and he is absolutely right. If you disengage from politics then you box yourself into a corner and only have one very bad option.

Beautifully illustrated.

MLK wrote:I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

We all have different views. I happen to think those methods are doomed to fail and will set back their cause by decades.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Anyone who suggests that non violent campaigns don’t work should refer to Gandhi and Mandela.

While I agree that peaceful protest is still the best approach for black americans, we should note that:

1) both Gandhi and Mandela were fighting for the freedom of an oppressed majority - a much easier task,

and

2) whilst Gandhi was certainly dedicated to peace, the same cannot be said of Mandela or the ANC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

Completely agree about the ANC, Mandela did change his approach after early dalliances with direct action.

Mandela and Gandhi did fight for the rights of a majority, but equally they had sod all actual power, particularly in South Africa.

But that makes my argument stronger. The black minority can’t overthrow a majority. What they can do is appeal to those of the white majority who aren’t racist and will support their cause, but would get turned off by violence.

But that's the problem.

The violence is not a majority, or even a large minority, yet it is the centrepiece of the coverage.

That's wrong.

The media are shifting the conversation toward violence and away from the issue at hand. That's what I mean about enabling.

If you keep talking about the violence, it's going to stop support.

If you keep talking about the atrocities, support will grow. AND there will be less violence.

I don't know if this is just me, but it does seem like it's possible to simultaneously have utmost sympathy with black people in America, to the point where one can understand and even empathize with the desire to riot... and think that violence is ultimately self defeating.

As an addendum, in a large percentage of reports that I've seen, with all the usual caveats about what you see on the internet, it doesn't seem like the people protesting are the ones rioting. It perhaps is not, ehem, a black and white situation.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

cashead wrote:
Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

Because where does it end? If you justify one group then poor white trash have some legitimate complaints, non Christians have some reasonable complaints, released felons have some reasonable complaints...

I think perhaps what you're saying is you're far more comfortable with the idea of burning down the exiting establishment and rebuilding anew. And whilst I concede it has some inspirational tones to it I would worry that the process will be detrimental to many and the new utopia will look an awful lot like the old regime, albeit that rather than a dystopia, but the dystopia is a possibility if the US when rebuilding became more like Russia or China. And I just don't think you get the change you want in a day, in a year, perhaps not even in a lifetime, life is much crueler than that

There are some appalling acts going on currently, from the police killings, to court sentencing, to access to decent housing and food, to a failing education system with a state secretary who doesn't even believe in education for the masses, to jobs, to drugs, and even around the protests to police brutality and the inappropriate operations of a too militarised police force. And oftentimes it's still more annoying because the US spends some vast sums of money on after the fact punishment, so they have the means to start to bring about change and then intentionally don't do it anyway , but as noted elsewhere it's also frustrating because many of those being denied even a fair chance aren't exercising their rights to the fullest to make the change they want, by voting, by participating in their democracy

"We're covering up our badge numbers and/or body cams.......to commemorate people who lost their lives to CovId.....no other reason....honest"

They are too close to a military force, their training and equipment not fit for purpose, their chains of command often ludicrous, their accountability too often lacking, and on this there would be some more sensible ways to remember those lost to Covid. But they will be hurting, and they will have their own stories of being betrayed by the communities they're giving their lives to serve. And they will cite cases like retired police chief David Dorn, who died after being shot it is being reported trying to stop looters at his friends shop.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:
Why should those protesting play by rules set by a side that has no intention of honoring those same rules when it pertains to them?

Because where does it end? If you justify one group then poor white trash have some legitimate complaints, non Christians have some reasonable complaints, released felons have some reasonable complaints...

I think perhaps what you're saying is you're far more comfortable with the idea of burning down the exiting establishment and rebuilding anew. And whilst I concede it has some inspirational tones to it I would worry that the process will be detrimental to many and the new utopia will look an awful lot like the old regime, albeit that rather than a dystopia, but the dystopia is a possibility if the US when rebuilding became more like Russia or China. And I just don't think you get the change you want in a day, in a year, perhaps not even in a lifetime, life is much crueler than that

There are some appalling acts going on currently, from the police killings, to court sentencing, to access to decent housing and food, to a failing education system with a state secretary who doesn't even believe in education for the masses, to jobs, to drugs, and even around the protests to police brutality and the inappropriate operations of a too militarised police force. And oftentimes it's still more annoying because the US spends some vast sums of money on after the fact punishment, so they have the means to start to bring about change and then intentionally don't do it anyway , but as noted elsewhere it's also frustrating because many of those being denied even a fair chance aren't exercising their rights to the fullest to make the change they want, by voting, by participating in their democracy

God fucking damn, this is one of the stupidest fucking things I've seen posted today, I don't even know where to start.

There is no fucking slippery slope because this isn't about insitutionalised racism and violence against religion, and the prison-industrial complex is absolutely part of the fucking problem anyway, considering the fact that a black person is likelier to be incarcerated than a white one.

It's easy to be miles away, tutting and shaking your head while these people take to the streets in outrage. The George Floyd murder, as tragic and unnecessary as it was, was merely a catalyst that set off an explosion of rage, after generations of inequality and injustice. You tell them to behave themselves and stop being so fucking angry, when it's not your community getting choked and shot by pigs, who have, by and large, been allowed to get away with it. I doubt, if you end up getting the cops called on you, that it would be a lottery for you whether you'll survive that encounter alive. They tried peaceful protests, and that got nowhere. For every Amber Guyger, how many cops have been allowed to walk away, having unnecessarily taken the lives of black people? How about the fact that 3 of the pigs that killed George Floyd are still walking free?

I'm not taking issue with people taking to the streets in outrage, people should be outraged whether they're taking to streets or staying home because they're unable to leave home or taking note of a global pandemic, because it is outrageous. I'm not even saying they need to behave themselves, more that when it escalates to violence I don't see that as helpful, and I'm going to come down more on the side of wanting some progress than wanting some venting, and whilst these protests stem from racism it's not the only hot topic, and the logic that violence is okay sounds eerily similar to me to that which one hears from groups saying it's okay to kill doctors who perform abortions, because they make us angry and there's no other path to follow when nothing ever changes and these people just carry on behaving in the same way.

So an abortion doctor is fair game if they undertake the murder of a child and that makes you angry enough that nothing is being done! It's a point of view, just not one I share.

Or are you saying that's an absurd comparison, and it's only the right kind of anger and violence that's okay? Although that then seems to share some thinking with the idea that only the right sort of people are okay, and down and down the rabbit hole we go.