America

[Sandydragon]

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.

Of course the media are changing focus. Theres little to report on an ongoing investigation and the rioters are giving them plenty of material. Peaceful demonstrations would get positive attention. Rioting will always be condemned. The only people that are being hurt by the rioters are the owners of the premises being burnt out and those caught in the rioting themselves. Plus their cause is taking a kicking.

[Stom]

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.

Of course the media are changing focus. Theres little to report on an ongoing investigation and the rioters are giving them plenty of material. Peaceful demonstrations would get positive attention. Rioting will always be condemned. The only people that are being hurt by the rioters are the owners of the premises being burnt out and those caught in the rioting themselves. Plus their cause is taking a kicking.

But that’s the problem, it’s almost exclusively peaceful, yet here we are spending pages and pages talking about riots, when the majority have only got violent when they’ve been attacked.

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

[Digby]

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.

Of course it's an absurd comparison, because the issues at play are completely different - one involves women having agency over their own reproductive organs and rights, the other is about systemic, institutionalised racism, and denying a racial and ethnic minority equal rights and protection under the law. You're trying to compare apples and oranges and then demanding to know why they're different. Honestly, the fact that you're trying to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between one group demanding equal, civil rights, and another acting to deny others their reproductive rights is both disgusting and disingenuous as fuck.

And for the record, women's rights activists historically were fucking hardcore.

Women's rights around the world including in the US still rank abysmally, they I assume are allowed to do violence to men because of the ongoing violence toward and subjugation of women? Which means both of us are fair game in the USA for the womenfolk, and if I ever return to NZ I assume I'd be fair game there too given the huge problems of racism in Kiwiland? This covid thing and having to stay home is starting to look more and more like it's saving my life.

I will though agree I am saying there's an equivalence to looking at rights, I think this because in my estimation to have equality we should be treating people equally. I don't agree I'm disgusting though I would stipulate to a number of flaws.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

We have the impression that Mandela was a saint, largely because of 1) his charisma and 2) the fact that we was locked up for 27 years, and so not so closely linked to his organisation and its campaign (which included violent acts). Freedom was not won peacefully in South Africa.

I don't understand your assertion that "it makes your argument stronger". You've picked two examples of successful and supposedly peaceful campaigns. Only one of them was peaceful. And both were successful largely because of the number of the oppressed, particularly India where the number of colonials was dwarfed by the number of natives. I don't think your single example of a successful, peaceful campaign proves anything.

As I said, I agree that the protesters in the USA should maintain discipline and be peaceful, and that it's probably the most effective way to protest right now. But I have to be honest, I don't see much evidence to back up this position (ie evidence that a minority can win concessions from an oppressive majority most effectively through peaceful means).

[Digby]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

[Stom]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

[Sandydragon]

It’s shifting the narrative to suit the racists. I’m simply saying, as MLK seemed to have said, too, that repeating those lines about violence and putting so much focus on the rioters is just as bad as the racists themselves.

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

[Stom]

No small amount of the violence is being done towards the protesters, it's not a one way street when violence takes the lead story. But violence will take the lead story 'cause the urgent crowds out the important, and that just seems more how it is than any support, intended or otherwise, for racism.

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

[Digby]

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

If they're reporting the violent acts of the police, reporting the less than constructive language of the fat orange one and others, that's not all bad coverage for the underlying cause. Just noting violence is bad doesn't play only against one side, indeed blending it into your protest and communication should be part of how you present your case for change.

And in the coverage I've seen, hardly extensive, we have seen condemnation for the mixing of the military with a civil police force, for the low flying of helicopters, for the absurd use of tear gas, concussion grenades and rubber projectiles, for the President's photo op at a church (condemned by the Church), for the use of batons on protesters, for closing off bridges/streets and effectively arresting peaceful protesters, for the violence of the pro-white groups seeking to stir trouble, for...

It seems like you're hearing the coverage of the violence and assuming that's all an intentional or convenient attempt to support those conservative/racist persons who don't want change, and I just don't draw the same inference. Though the protests will need to own they are linked to some violence and some looting, I didn't for instance see David Dorn (the former police chief shot by looters) bleed out on the floor and think anyone was entitled to do that just because they are angry

[morepork]

Well, that's kinda the point...

Everyone needs to look at how they react to these situations. I know I have had to do the same.

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

[paddy no 11]

Rioting and violence makes for much better TV than peaceful protests - the camera will always have a preference

Meedja, and moving on stories will always be a factor

[Sandydragon]

Precisely why non-violence is so effective. Take away the argument of the racist element and show peaceful protest by people of all ethnic backgrounds sat down in front of heavily armed policy.Make the story about the scale of the protest and watch Trump descend into further acts of stupidity.

If and when the US gets a President who is an actual fully functional human being who demonstrates believable sympathy for the bereaved and those who are concerned by ethnicity of deaths caused by the police, then the debate can shift into those local areas where there are real hangups. Not all policing agencies operate the same in the US and the problem organisations deserve the most focus.

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

[morepork]

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.

[Sandydragon]

Incidentally, I've just read that a number of police officers where shot during protests. Whilst the violence is being toned down, events such as these shootings does nothing to advance the cause of addressing racism in policing.

If you want change you need to get the majority nodding in agreement. Shooting police officers does not help you get there.

[Mikey Brown]

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

[Sandydragon]

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.

Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.

They are not all racist, in fact I suspect that the number who act unprofessionally is a significant minority.

[Sandydragon]

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

[Puja]

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.

Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.

Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.

Puja

[Puja]

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

I think a lot of the violence was provoked. A peaceful protest tear-gassed and baton-charged will lead people to strike out and, once the mob violence fuse has been lit, it will spill over everywhere. I haven't found any evidence that people were going out at the beginning to burn shit down, but lots of evidence of police overreacting and escalating on peaceful protestors.

I'm not saying everyone is innocent and no-one on the protester's side had any bad intentions, but the riots have very rarely come from nothing.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I take issue with the bolded line. American police are a racist organisation. There are literally decades of evidence to support that. I think you have it the wrong way around. I reiterate, I've seen them live and in the flesh antagonise protestors with violence. That's not a few bad apples, that is a militarized boys club for psychos.

Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.

Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.

Puja

Do we know that they haven't been? Google 'Racist US Cops Sacked', plenty of example of where they have been sacked for racist behaviour.

You can't just sack someone for the hell of it, there needs ot be evidence so its also possible that in some cases there hasnt been the evidence to sack them.

Of course in some cases maybe the line management is racist. In which case those who appoint the line management need to be examined and a greater interest in local politics might help, as per Obama's article.

[Digby]

But that's the thing. Reports that peaceful protests have been escalated by police have been repeated often enough by varied enough sources - including video - to make it more than just likely.

It's the narrative the majority of the press want you to believe.

I know I'm unusual among RR regulars in that my paper of choice is the Granuaid, but I also like to take info from NYT and Der Spiegel. These papers form the backbone of actual reporting. And the Guardian led with a report about the peaceful protests. Of which there were many.

Just by continuously repeating that line about violence, you're causing damage to a campaign that is not particularly violent.

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

It's also given us the police clearly pointing guns at entirely peaceful protesters to move them along in Washington curtailing the 1st amendment rights of those people so Trump could have a photo op with a bible. Trump was followed on his walk to the church by the Secretary of Defence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military who was in fatigues - which by any measure is the vast over reaction of an autocrat in seemingly seeking a military intervention to a breakdown of public trust because the police keep killing unarmed people, even people they've taken into custody and are responsible for.

If there's nothing to be built on Trump eviscerating the constitutional rights of American citizens, black and white, then it's certainly much harder to seek progress, though I still don't see an enticing alternative to peaceful protest. I would be happy to agree there are many fine police officers, and I certainly don't go with the Michael Moore line that if there are any bad cops it's failed system and they're all bad cops, but the balance of bad cops seems uncomfortably high. Not all bad police officers are as responsible as some others, many shouldn't have ever been judged qualified to begin with , and the training regimes, culture and accountability are borderline insane, and probably the wrong side of the border. For sure trying to hold to the line it's just a few bad apples looks barking.

[Sandydragon]

So taking this zero tolerance logic, the acts of fraud/sabotage by those attempting to discredit the protestors will have been enough to do the job on their own, regardless of whether any violence came from earnest protestors.

I guess that’s good to know.

On a slightly lighter note is anyone here good at identifying a photoshopped image?

So all (or even most) of the violent incidents were set ups? Are you suggesting that? Were those initial riots set up by the police, who burned out those buildings themselves and ransacked their own police station? If not then this does little to change the overall picture.

I know you don't like hearing it but the painful truth is that violence by protestors is setting the back. There were riots initially and that has done the argument a huge disservice and given Trump an easy way out.

I think a lot of the violence was provoked. A peaceful protest tear-gassed and baton-charged will lead people to strike out and, once the mob violence fuse has been lit, it will spill over everywhere. I haven't found any evidence that people were going out at the beginning to burn shit down, but lots of evidence of police overreacting and escalating on peaceful protestors.

I'm not saying everyone is innocent and no-one on the protester's side had any bad intentions, but the riots have very rarely come from nothing.

Puja

And there is absolutely evidence of US police overreacting to peaceful protest. But in those first few nights it certainly didn't appear that way, the heavy handed tactics have come later. The police couldn't even defend their own station which suggests they were struggling to contain the violence.

And yes they are often provided when there is significant anger. Not everyone on a protest march heads out to make a peaceful protest - sorry that's another fact. It could be one or 2 people throwing a brick out of frustration that escalates or someone could look to take advantage of the anger. Either is possible.

[Digby]

There have been some nice moments in this. The protesters who closed ranks around a police officer who'd been separated from his unit to ensure no harm came to him was a touching moment, humanity isn't necessarily doomed even if it looks like we're not going to trouble the dinosaurs for the longest stay on earth

[Sandydragon]

This is true. They are protests, not riots.

I'm sure most are or start off that way. But the evidence of burnt out shops etc tells a different story. Some protestors have used violence and its given the Trump administration and anyone else who doesn't want change the excuse to ignore them.

Keep trying to convince yourselves otherwise all you want; that is a fact. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the perception if the vast majority of protestors have been law abiding - if violence has been carried out in their name then it will stick.

In the same way the vast majority of police officers are no doubt professional, but the focus is on the idiots to abuse their power.

It's also given us the police clearly pointing guns at entirely peaceful protesters to move them along in Washington curtailing the 1st amendment rights of those people so Trump could have a photo op with a bible. Trump was followed on his walk to the church by the Secretary of Defence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military who was in fatigues - which by any measure is the vast over reaction of an autocrat in seemingly seeking a military intervention to a breakdown of public trust because the police keep killing unarmed people, even people they've taken into custody and are responsible for.

If there's nothing to be built on Trump eviscerating the constitutional rights of American citizens, black and white, then it's certainly much harder to seek progress, though I still don't see an enticing alternative to peaceful protest. I would be happy to agree there are many fine police officers, and I certainly don't go with the Michael Moore line that if there are any bad cops it's failed system and they're all bad cops, but the balance of bad cops seems uncomfortably high. Not all bad police officers are as responsible as some others, many shouldn't have ever been judged qualified to begin with , and the training regimes, culture and accountability are borderline insane, and probably the wrong side of the border. For sure trying to hold to the line it's just a few bad apples looks barking.

Outright racists will be a minority, at least across the entire country. I'm sure there are individual smaller departments where there a re real problems with an outright racist in charge.

You are however right in the training approach that is given to US police which is more aggressive and firearms oriented than in many other countries. The gunging ho hand em high attitude is prevalent and in a country where so many firearms are owned, legally or otherwise, is it surprising that there are so many police incidents involving shootings?

[Puja]

Then we disagree. There are hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people across the US, whilst the number f examples we could easily find of obvious racist behaviour will be numerous, it has to be placed against the overall number.

Then why are the racist cops never called out? If there's a wide majority of anti-racism cops out there, then surely the few bad apples would have been stopped, retrained, reassigned, or let go? At minimum, that suggests that there's a large number of "obvious racists" and a majority who aren't really that bothered by their colleague's racism and overt racist behaviour, certainly not enough to do anything about it.

Puja

Do we know that they haven't been? Google 'Racist US Cops Sacked', plenty of example of where they have been sacked for racist behaviour.

You can't just sack someone for the hell of it, there needs ot be evidence so its also possible that in some cases there hasnt been the evidence to sack them.

Of course in some cases maybe the line management is racist. In which case those who appoint the line management need to be examined and a greater interest in local politics might help, as per Obama's article.

I have just googled that and 90% of the examples have come from them saying something on social media. There doesn't appear to be examples for cops who routinely stop black youths, who pull over black men for driving nice cars, who handcuff black men for walking round their own neighbourhood. There's not a widespread "Dude, not cool" culture in the US police and people appear to be allowed to be racist as long as they're not publically so where the "PC-brigade" can see them.

Even if not a majority of officers are overtly racist, a majority are happy to go along. It's an organisation that routinely behaves in racist ways - black arrest rates, black prevalance in stop-and-search, the countless stories of black men doing something innocent and getting Jonny Law down his neck because he looked suspicious. These things would not happen, certainly not with such prevalance, in an organisation dedicated not to being racist.

Puja