Bad Boys II

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2020, 11:55 AM)jason Wrote: I'm hearing whispers this morning that this Officer Chauvin knew George Floyd.

It was confirmed a few days ago that they worked security at the same club, but the owner doesn't think they knew each other. Chauvin was one of their off duty cop working outside the club while Floyd was one of dozens of guys who worked security inside the club. 

[6andcounting]

Some of the damage left behind on Wood Street bear Oliver Avenue. @KDKA pic.twitter.com/TxVo6kn9Vh

— Chris Hoffman (@NewsmanChris) May 31, 2020

This is the only Key Bank opened up in downtown Pittsburgh due to covid. Tomorrow and Wednesday (1st and 3rd) the line for people to withdraw their only source of income for the month would have began 90 minutes before the bank opened. The line would have been out the door until the doors were locked at 4:00. Many of the clients are severely crippled - including at least 2 quadriplegic individuals - who rely on public transportation and literally can't go elsewhere. This has hurt literally thousands of poverty stricken individuals (mostly minority) who rely on access to cash to survive month-to-month.  

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Based upon the offered examples, you seem to be saying that memes foregrounding the inefficacy of peaceful protest and the tone deafness of a white majority Right to this problem "excuse" the violence. Have I understood you correctly?

Yeah, pretty much. All those memes rubbed me the wrong way. I don't mean it as an attack on Dino and right now realize it's indeed all his memes. But yep, I find those messages misplaced and they are not on one person, but rather wide-spread.

Just so one can see what I mean, it's like all these...




so 1) compares it to tax legislation, which I find misplaced. 2) Seems to justify violence as a very human and understandable response to an attack. 3) Compares the violent acts to the freedom fight of 17hundredsomething (which I think it is clearly not), and 4) Takes an imho perfectly fine Pence response and shames him for something quite unrelated (for though I think it's dumb, Pence has as much right to protest Kaep as anyone, he did not call for his arrest). Finally, 5) implies America finds the murder of Floyd "ok", which literally no one does.

I consider it somewhat (not fully) similar to those Trump defenses/non-defenses. Focusing on the motives of those that are opposed, that is.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2020, 12:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, pretty much. All those memes rubbed me the wrong way. I don't mean it as an attack on Dino and right now realize it's indeed all his memes. But yep, I find those messages misplaced and they are not on one person, but rather wide-spread.

Just so one can see what I mean, it's like all these...




so 1) compares it to tax legislation, which I find misplaced. 2) Seems to justify violence as a very human and understandable response to an attack. 3) Compares the violent acts to the freedom fight of 17hundredsomething (which I think it is clearly not), and 4) Takes an imho perfectly fine Pence response and shames him for something quite unrelated (for though I think it's dumb, Pence has as much right to protest Kaep as anyone, he did not call for his arrest). Finally, 5) implies America finds the murder of Floyd "ok", which literally no one does.

I consider it somewhat (not fully) similar to those Trump defenses/non-defenses. Focusing on the motives of those that are opposed, that is.

I just want to comment on number 4, in bold. The important thing to keep in mind about this one is that Kaepernick was protesting this. He was protesting police brutality in a peaceful manner, yet those in power decided to ignore that and change the narrative. There is a MLK quote floating around about rioting being the language of the unheard. This isn't intended to justify rioting, but to point out why it is happening. Peaceful protests, like what Kaepernick engaged in, have been ignored, mocked, derided, etc. Pence's actions were an example of that. This is why rioting happens from these protests (not counting the agitators that make it worse). They tell the black community to peacefully protest, and then mock them or, at the very least, blatantly disregard their concerns when they do.

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 11:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: I still think the black-owned store comment was totally unnecessary. The message could have well done without that addendum. And "we shall not destroy each other" quite reads as an affirmation to rather destroy some non-black stores. I know, I know, he probably did not mean it that way. But it was a thoughtless comment and you did not quite change my mind on that. It was not wise to bring that up, imho.

I think we can be 100% sure he did not mean it that way if his statement was preceded by this:

"people will exploit that and change the focus into demonizing those that conduct themselves in a violent way rather than those saying, as the Floyd family is saying, we want justice."

Saying that riot violence in the name of "justice for blacks" ends up perpetrating injustice against blacks seems rather a useful--and forceful--point to make alongside warnings that such violence also diverts a public demand for accountability for police to accountability for protestors.

Sharpton likely (and rightly) assumed that among his addressees were people who would consider the burning of white-owned businesses just righteous blowback, but might pause to reconsider if reminded that black owned businesses were destroyed too. So I'm seeing precision address where you see thoughtless and unnecessary "tribalism."

To get to an "affirmation to rather destroy some non-black stores," I would need to see something altogether different preceding Sharpton's statement, like "white-owned stores have more valuable goods" or "Think about whom you are REALLY angry at when you want to burn a store." But Sharpton says nothing like that. All pretense of 'payback' or blowback or interest in justice is gone if burning white-owned stores leads to the burning of black-owned as well--that's the point added by the "totally unnecessary" comment on black-owned stores, not "aim better."

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to comment on number 4, in bold. The important thing to keep in mind about this one is that Kaepernick was protesting this. He was protesting police brutality in a peaceful manner, yet those in power decided to ignore that and change the narrative. There is a MLK quote floating around about rioting being the language of the unheard. This isn't intended to justify rioting, but to point out why it is happening. Peaceful protests, like what Kaepernick engaged in, have been ignored, mocked, derided, etc. Pence's actions were an example of that. This is why rioting happens from these protests (not counting the agitators that make it worse). They tell the black community to peacefully protest, and then mock them or, at the very least, blatantly disregard their concerns when they do.

I get that. I do not contradict that conclusion either.

My issue would rather be that when those folks, Pence et al., condemn violence, the reaction is "look who's talking", and I feel it shouldn't be. Maybe I'm on an island here, but am I really completely off when this rings like saying "well, peaceful protest didn't help, look how all the Pences reacted to that, so we really have no other choice than to turn it violent"? Because that is I tone I do see in those, and I still say this is the wrong conclusion. Even if I might get the desperation behind it.

Needless to say, burning buildings etc. does not hit society or the system, but innocent folks, most likely ones that are just as appalled by the Floyd murder as anyone. In a sense I get the explanation, but I don't like the explanation turned into an excuse.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 01:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Sharpton likely (and rightly) assumed that among his addressees were people who would consider the burning of white-owned businesses just righteous blowback, but might pause to reconsider if reminded that black owned businesses were destroyed too. So I'm seeing precision address where you see thoughtless and unnecessary "tribalism."  

Hm. Needless to say, but sure I think the right reason to not burn down a building is that it harms innocent folk, not so much that it harms your own folk. This being said, your explanation makes some sense. I still feel he should have left that part out, for it rings like categorizing violence into "bad" and "even worse" violence. Whoever cringes on that has my understanding. Why I found it so misplaced to say is not because I think Sharpton had nefarious motives, but that he should have found a different way to express himself.

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 12:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, pretty much. All those memes rubbed me the wrong way. I don't mean it as an attack on Dino and right now realize it's indeed all his memes. But yep, I find those messages misplaced and they are not on one person, but rather wide-spread.




2) Seems to justify violence as a very human and understandable response to an attack. 3) Compares the violent acts to the freedom fight of 17hundredsomething (which I think it is clearly not), . . .
I consider it somewhat (not fully) similar to those Trump defenses/non-defenses. Focusing on the motives of those that are opposed, that is.

YOW! now comparing these to Trump non-defenses.  We'll I just want to limit my response to 2 and 3 for the moment.

To follow up Bels point about the "language of the unheard"--violence is a "very human and understandable response" to perceived injustice, most especially when other avenues have been exhausted.  And the way to fix this problem, as in King's day, is to address the injustice first and foremost. 

A "Clearly not" dismissal of the Boston Tea Party analogy sends quite the wrong message to all civil rights activists, including the non-violent ones.  Colonists "looted and destroyed" the private property of people not themselves in government and responsible for the tea tax, and gained rather than lost "moral credibility" in the eyes of half their countrymen. And they did so because other "legal" forms of protest had failed. The Revolution which began two years later was also a violent response, and I've not met any right-wing American who doesn't "excuse" this violence as justified.

In your "clear" dismissal of the analogy, some would certainly hear that you don't think legal forms of protest have failed. Those who have not been following your posts and know that you are Trump's most devastating critic might think they hear the voice of MAGA America and Charlie Kirk in that dismissal.

Rather than viewing the memes in question as "excuses" for violence, imagine for a moment that millions of people are tremendously frustrated first by the police violence and second by the cavalier dismissal of their complaints and protests. Then try viewing the memes rather as attacking the tone-deafness of MAGA America regarding this police violence in black communities. Their focus is not on "motives" so much as blindness to the double standard flying under the banner of MAGA post-raciality. That is what the memes creators are trying to foreground with their references to tax looting and the tea party and Kaepernick. 

[6andcounting]

Rioting will be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barrs-statement-riots-and-domestic-terrorism

Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism

Attorney General William P. Barr has issued the following statement:

“With the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful and legitimate protests have been hijacked by violent radical elements.  Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda.

It is time to stop watching the violence and to confront and stop it.  The continued violence and destruction of property endangers the lives and livelihoods of others, and interferes with the rights of peaceful protestors, as well as all other citizens. 

It also undercuts the urgent work that needs to be done – through constructive engagement between affected communities and law enforcement leaders – to address legitimate grievances.  Preventing reconciliation and driving us apart is the goal of these radical groups, and we cannot let them succeed. 

It is the responsibility of state and local leaders to ensure that adequate law enforcement resources, including the National Guard where necessary, are deployed on the streets to reestablish law and order.  We saw this finally happen in Minneapolis last night, and it worked. 

Federal law enforcement actions will be directed at apprehending and charging the violent radical agitators who have hijacked peaceful protest and are engaged in violations of federal law.

To identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources with our state and local partners, federal law enforcement is using our existing network of 56 regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF). 

The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: YOW! now comparing these to Trump non-defenses.  We'll I just want to limit my response to 2 and 3 for the moment.

To follow up Bels point about the "language of the unheard"--violence is a "very human and understandable response" to perceived injustice, most especially when other avenues have been exhausted.  And the way to fix this problem, as in King's day, is to address the injustice first and foremost. 

I don't like to focus on how understandable it is though. Violence is still not the way to choose. And my analogy to Trump defenses is to be understood in this sense: There are people who say just that - and they get attacked for saying just that. Just like bfine attacks Dino or his motives to deflect from the point. And just like that, sure somewhere there is some "violence is wrong" hidden, but the bigger issue is Pence's hypocrisy and whatnot, and for me it really isn't.
I did say it is clearly not fully the same thing, it just applies a similar kind of argueing and I similarly am opposed to that.

(05-31-2020, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: A "Clearly not" dismissal of the Boston Tea Party analogy sends quite the wrong message to all civil rights activists, including the non-violent ones.  Colonists "looted and destroyed" the private property of people not themselves in government and responsible for the tea tax, and gained rather than lost "moral credibility" in the eyes of half their countrymen. And they did so because other "legal" forms of protest had failed. The Revolution which began two years later was also a violent response, and I've not met any right-wing American who doesn't "excuse" this violence as justified.

Sure thing. And now you used the word "justified" yourself, the Boston tey party was justified, the revolution was justified and... hence... so is the violence happening right now? Your train of thought seems to head just there.
I see those as very different instances.

(05-31-2020, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: In your "clear" dismissal of the analogy, some would certainly hear that you don't think legal forms of protest have failed. Those who have not been following your posts and know that you are Trump's most devastating critic might think they hear the voice of MAGA America and Charlie Kirk in that dismissal.

Yeah if you hear that voice, that's not on me. I just have a different take maybe, that does not mean I have the MAGA take or that there are always only two takes on everything. Nothing I said expressed any sympathy for Trump or MAGAism.

- Whether legal forms of protest have failed, I do not know that. I know these non-peaceful ways will fail though.

(05-31-2020, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Rather than viewing the memes in question as "excuses" for violence, imagine for a moment that millions of people are tremendously frustrated first by the police violence and second by the cavalier dismissal of their complaints and protests. Then try viewing the memes rather as attacking the tone-deafness of MAGA America regarding this police violence in black communities. Their focus is not on "motives" so much as blindness to the double standard flying under the banner of MAGA post-raciality. That is what the memes creators are trying to foreground with their references to tax looting and the tea party and Kaepernick. 

I'm sympathetic to all that. It does not go that far as to be sympathetic to violent outbursts. No matter how much frustration is going on in anyone's life, and no matter how tone-deaf many folks reacted to former expressions of said frustration, it does not give that person any moral right to burn his neighbour's house.

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 12:58 PM)hollodero Wrote:

Finally, 5) implies America finds the murder of Floyd "ok", which literally no one does.

I consider it somewhat (not fully) similar to those Trump defenses/non-defenses. Focusing on the motives of those that are opposed, that is.

Let's think about the meaning of "ok" for a moment.

Some would give the police officers a thumbs up on their treatment of Floyd. Granted most Americans would not. 

But many Americans, including famously the president, found Kaepernick's kneeling NOT ok, and many many more found it inappropriate on a football field. That suggests that the phenomenon of police violence--the object of K's protest--was either invisible or unconcerning to them, less important than decorum at an entertainment venue.

Pence is a special target here. His memes are thus "pre-framed" by his response to Kaepernick long before the Minneapolis riots.

And even if they emphatically do not approve, a lot of Americans still don't see anything systemic about the callous knee on the guy's neck while bystanders are yelling at the police to let him breath. And if they don't see that, they are not going to support, much less demand, that this systemic problem be addressed.  In that sense, the police violence arguably IS ok, in the sense of ok enough not to motivate political action, even the minimal act of voting for candidates who might address the problem. 

And we are heading into territory worked over back in the 50s and 60s, where people were forced to decide which was worse--segregation or the protests/riots it generated.  The current police violence issue does not at all equal the violation of segregation, but the terms in which civil rights protests are advanced or resisted seem to retain the same form--side A granting that segregation was "of course" bad but accusing side B of precipitating "unnecessary" violence and side B accusing side A of not listening and valuing order above justice.  It's the latter point, especially, that the memes in question are making.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's think about the meaning of "ok" for a moment.

Some would give the police officers a thumbs up on their treatment of Floyd. Granted most Americans would not.

I know there is a reprehensible Breitbart section. But everyone, including Trump, including all police, all politicians called it atrocious (or something like that) and murder. I saw no high-level defense of what happened there.

(05-31-2020, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: But many Americans, including famously the president, found Kaepernick's kneeling NOT ok, and many many more found it inappropriate on a football field. That suggests that the phenomenon of police violence--the object of K's protest--was either invisible or unconcerning to them, less important than decorum at an entertainment venue.

The latter part I agree with, but I don't hink it means the issue was "unconcerning" to them. That, to me, is a bridge too far. There might be many concerning issues one does not want to be confronted with while getting away from it and watching sports ggames. TZhis is not meant as a defense of said stances, but I just refute the conclusion that whoever disliked what Kaepernick is doing is in favor of police brutality and/or has no issue with murdered black people.

(05-31-2020, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Pence is a special target here. His memes are thus "pre-framed" by his response to Kaepernick long before the Minneapolis riots.

No question, this is true and he did something spectacularly dumb back then.

(05-31-2020, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: And even if they emphatically do not approve, a lot of Americans still don't see anything systemic about the callous knee on the guy's neck while bystanders are yelling at the police to let him breath.

For one, I know that will not be received well, but there was really little time to see anything happen in response to this heineous deed. It only took place a few days ago. What could already have happened really.
But sure I do get that there were many similar instances before, nothing much has changed, although incremental things maybe have (like the idea of body cams gaining some traction). I do get that this is not satisfactory, and it wouldn't be satisfactory to me either.

-- as of your defnition of "ok", I doubt this was the "ok" the meme was going for. But I'm willing to drop that.

(05-31-2020, 03:06 PM)Dill Wrote: And we are heading into territory worked over back in the 50s and 60s, where people were forced to decide which was worse--segregation or the protests/riots it generated.  The current police violence issue does not at all equal the violation of segregation, but the terms in which civil rights protests are advanced or resisted seem to retain the same form--side A granting that segregation was "of course" bad but accusing side B of precipitating "unnecessary" violence and side B accusing side A of not listening and valuing order above justice.  It's the latter point, especially, that the memes in question are making.

OK, so what's the answer to that then? Because that is somewhat my take on these memes as well, they ask that question, and somehow they seem to reach a verdict. What's your verdict?

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 03:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure thing. And now you used the word "justified" yourself, the Boston tey party was justified, the revolution was justified and... hence... so is the violence happening right now? Your train of thought seems to head just there.
I see those as very different instances.

Yeah if you hear that voice, that's not on me. I just have a different take maybe, that does not mean I have the MAGA take or that there are always only two takes on everything. Nothing I said expressed any sympathy for Trump or MAGAism.

Well I do think the American Revolution was justified.  Many British did not. Jeremy Bentham thought the Declaration of Independence a document to American immaturity, riddled with logical inconsistencies and outrageous self-importance.  Just to get it out there, I do think there are times when political violence is justified. (The final section of Locke's Second Treatise of Government lays out the conditions for that with persuasive clarity.) So I am certainly not ruling that out as a matter of principle, but I don't think that intentional rioting and the like is at present justified.

Our disagreement is about what should be the appropriate concern in the aftermath of the riots, what the political targets of memes really are, and the like. I think the focus should be on the political and ideological blocks to addressing the protestors' grievances. And I think you are construing recognition of what led to the violence as "excuse" for the violence itself.

I have laid out the structural similarities of the tea-party to the recent protests. You are not explaining why the Minneapolis protest is a "very different instance" so I'll let that go for now.

LOL no one who has read your previous posts will think you really MAGA sympathetic. I would defend you on this point in terms of "context" as I defended Sharpton.

(05-31-2020, 03:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: - Whether legal forms of protest have failed, I do not know that. I know these non-peaceful ways will fail though.

IF we are going by the history of the last 30 years, then it's clear that riots produce consent decrees, and consent decrees result in closer monitoring of police action and outreach to the community, all of which lowers incidence of illegal police violence.  Even if no one planned them, riots have "worked" in U.S cities. 

So it is not at all clear that non-peaceful ways will fail. I can think of no case in which "peaceful ways" have gotten such direct results. As I have mentioned in an earlier post, this is because of the billions in property damage, which the powers that be will do most anything to prevent. Just making an empirical observation, not an "excuse" or "justification" for violence.  Not recommending riots become a true and tried method of advocating for civil rights.

If we are serious about preventing violence, then we need to be more serious about preventing injustice.  And the memes address current forms and dodges of injustice. That is my point.

PS thanks for the thoughtful responses. They help me think through my own positions on these issues.

[HarleyDog]

(05-31-2020, 03:44 PM)Dill Wrote: If we are serious about preventing violence, then we need to be more serious about preventing injustice.  And the memes address that injustice. That is my point.

Maybe you can help me figure this out and add some clarity, or maybe you cant but I'm not sure myself how to process the signs being held, "No Justice, No Peace." Does that mean they plan to riot until a trial is over? Does that mean they don't want a trial and they want the officer killed without a fair trial? Believe me, I'm in no way trying to be argumentative or punchy. Just asking what that means to you and what your opinion is on the matter? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2020, 02:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's the government's official statement in Minnesota right now. They are saying there are white nationalists and other groups stirring things up and that everyone that have been arresting has been from out of state.

The Washington Post article by Shane Harris rather put that attempted cover up to bed.  I'd link but it's behind a paywall and I'm not searching for the archive.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The looting at Rodeo Drive last night was clearly excused by police brutality. I saw hundreds of people there simply to denounce such activity. Absolutely no one was there to loot expensive products or vandalize the area.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2020, 02:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Rioting will be investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barrs-statement-riots-and-domestic-terrorism

Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism

Attorney General William P. Barr has issued the following statement:

“With the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful and legitimate protests have been hijacked by violent radical elements.  Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda.

It is time to stop watching the violence and to confront and stop it.  The continued violence and destruction of property endangers the lives and livelihoods of others, and interferes with the rights of peaceful protestors, as well as all other citizens. 

It also undercuts the urgent work that needs to be done – through constructive engagement between affected communities and law enforcement leaders – to address legitimate grievances.  Preventing reconciliation and driving us apart is the goal of these radical groups, and we cannot let them succeed. 

It is the responsibility of state and local leaders to ensure that adequate law enforcement resources, including the National Guard where necessary, are deployed on the streets to reestablish law and order.  We saw this finally happen in Minneapolis last night, and it worked. 

Federal law enforcement actions will be directed at apprehending and charging the violent radical agitators who have hijacked peaceful protest and are engaged in violations of federal law.

To identify criminal organizers and instigators, and to coordinate federal resources with our state and local partners, federal law enforcement is using our existing network of 56 regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF). 

The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

Good.  Antifa should have been a declared a terrorist organization a long time ago.  They've behaved like one for years.  Granted they're not a monolith, but there's a price to be paid to linking yourself to an organization of that stripe.

[Dill]

(05-31-2020, 03:53 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Maybe you can help me figure this out and add some clarity, or maybe you cant but I'm not sure myself how to process the signs being held, "No Justice, No Peace." Does that mean they plan to riot until a trial is over? Does that mean they don't want a trial and they want the officer killed without a fair trial? Believe me, I'm in no way trying to be argumentative or punchy. Just asking what that means to you and what your opinion is on the matter? 

Good questions, Harley.

If you are referring to a sign held by a protestor, your guess is probably as good as mine.

And here's mine: the signs express the thoughts of angry young people, who think they need to ratchet up the level of civil disobedience/disorder to get authorities to act. Hard to get more specific than that. I'm sure a trial and punishment for the police officers involved would be part of the "justice," but I doubt that is all.  They likely want to see the problem of police violence addressed as a systemic problem.  That means some announced and monitored changes in policy, police training and the like.

They have already had some success, in that now the officers involved have been arrested.

[HarleyDog]

(05-31-2020, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Good questions, Harley.

If you are referring to a sign held by a protestor, your guess is probably as good as mine.

And here's mine: the signs express the thoughts of angry young people, who think they need to ratchet up the level of civil disobedience/disorder to get authorities to act. Hard to get more specific than that. I'm sure a trial and punishment for the police officers involved would be part of the "justice," but I doubt that is all.  They likely want to see the problem of police violence addressed as a systemic problem.  That means some announced and monitored changes in policy, police training and the like.

They have already had some success, in that now the officers involved have been arrested.

I had to turn it off tbh. It was pissing me off, depressing me, etc. Lot's of emotions, and I had to get some yard work done. I was pretty glued to the TV yesterday but to the best of my knowledge, I didn't know they arrested all the cops on the scene. I think there will be some leniency on the others tho, and I say that only because some may have been rookies and didn't know what to do? Who knows? Only speculation.

I appreciate your POV. I posted in another thread (can't recall which one at the moment) that I think the police need more attention. This thing shouldn't have happened. But I also realize these guys see some crazy stuff on a daily basis and a cop is usually the first on the scene for everything. Rather it be an accident, fire, etc. I don't think we give enough funds to properly make sure these guys are taken care of emotionally. I wouldn't doubt there are several walking around doing their jobs while suffering from PTSD. 

I am not excusing the actions of the office who killed Floyd by any means. I just think we really need to step back and figure out why we are facing what we are today? There is a much bigger discussion to be had than this incident ( I use that word incident uncomfortably because it's more serious than that). As a nation, we have a lot of work to do and IMO it's not going to happen because the violence is overshadowing the topic which should be dealt with first. That's probably not going to happen now because we will focus our attention on how better to prevent or minimize damage in future riots than we will spending on the actual problem at hand. Before we get there, something else will happen and shift focus. When this happens, George Floyd dies until the next time something horrible happens like this. Then it will be rinse and repeat. So sad.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2020, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: They have already had some success, in that now the officers involved have been arrested.

That would have happened if they had done nothing, so no.  The only thing they've managed to do is destroy property, inflict, in some cases serious, injury and alienate people who might otherwise supported them.