Bad Boys II

[GMDino]

(05-30-2020, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that's a NO. You don't advocate folks being detained while the departments figure out the charge? Seemed like you did in this instance. Must just be my inability to read English. 

Only took me saying it twice after the initial post so you're learning. Good for you.

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2020, 08:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: For the charge I can see it.  I personally still feel he should have been in custody, maybe even for his own safety.  I'm assuming it wouldn't be the first time someone was arrested and held without a charge for a day or so. 

(05-30-2020, 10:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Only took me saying it twice after the initial post so you're learning. Good for you.

You'll have to forgive my confusion on your stance.

[Millhouse]

I think the dumbest of all the protesters are the ones trying to make a go at the White House. Prior it was the ones rushing out on the highway stopping semis and cars going 65+ mph, & thankfully none of the drivers were injured.

But if they get remotely close to closing in on the WH itself, they will be shot, and rightfully so at that. Would they be that dumb in attempting this? Probably. But I am guessing and hoping they are just going toe to toe with secret service, and that will be it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2020, 10:33 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I think the dumbest of all the protesters are the ones trying to make a go at the White House. Prior it was the ones rushing out on the highway stopping semis and cars going 65+ mph, & thankfully none of the drivers were injured.

But if they get remotely close to closing in on the WH itself, they will be shot, and rightfully so at that. Would they be that dumb in attempting this? Probably. But I am guessing and hoping they are just going toe to toe with secret service, and that will be it.

From what I understand, the barriers the White House were breached last night. Got to give the SS credit for restraint, but I fear some may view it as an opportunity, 

[Millhouse]

Having issues here.

6andcounting 's post is messing up the forum for me; the video is huge in it and broke any posts below it on Chrome and Edge both. Havent tried Firefox yet, but I cant even quote it or scroll under it.

[GMDino]

I guess bfine was right...take an oath and do whatever the POTUS tell you to do.

The National Guard has been released in Minneapolis to do the job that the Democrat Mayor couldn’t do. Should have been used 2 days ago & there would not have been damage & Police Headquarters would not have been taken over & ruined. Great job by the National Guard. No games!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2020

 

Also in today's criminal justice news, National Guard and Minneapolis PD officers illegally demand taxpayers stop filming from their porch and go inside – you'll hear "Light 'em up!" as they then shoot at these people *WHO ARE ON THEIR OWN PORCH*

pic.twitter.com/151AkaMhSH

— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) May 31, 2020

 


Don't film them, don't be outside on your own property.


This is Trump's America.  Congratulations.

[GMDino]

Don't film the police for a safe distance and not near protesters either.

This is the moment Minneapolis Police fired on our CBS News crew with rubber bullets. As you can see, no protesters anywhere near us- we all were wearing credentials and had cameras out. Our sound engineer was hit in the arm. #cbsnews pic.twitter.com/UAy7HYhGnL

— Michael George (@MikeGeorgeCBS) May 31, 2020

 

[GMDino]

https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/nypd-officer-plows-into-crowd-of-george-floyd-protesters-in-brooklyn/

Oh my god. What is the @NYPDnews doing? pic.twitter.com/rZayr421pJ

— Rob Bennett @ ? (@rob_bennett) May 31, 2020

 

[GMDino]

There's also a low-res Periscope showing him, but I don't think that gives you much more other than an estimate at his height and maybe a small voice sample.https://t.co/sejCkX3RbI

— Aric Toler (@AricToler) May 29, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Minnesota State Patrol just fired tear gas at reporters and photographers at point blank range. pic.twitter.com/r7X6J7LKo8

— Molly Hennessy-Fiske (@mollyhf) May 31, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Uncovered: Last October, the head of the Minneapolis police union — which days ago warned against a “rush to judgment” of the officers involved in George Floyd’s death — spoke at a Trump rally and praised him for ending the “handcuffing and oppression” of police under Obama. pic.twitter.com/oW1olwWZh5

— The Recount (@therecount) May 30, 2020

[GMDino]

In this one, at the end, you see at least one doesn't need anger management.

In today's criminal justice news, a SWAT unit in Salt Lake City UT deploys

And decides one of their top priorities is knocking a gray-haired old man with a cane down to the ground

pic.twitter.com/9Q1PiEJ8LA

— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) May 31, 2020

[GMDino]

This MPD cop did a drive-by pepper-spraying of peaceful protesters and media. https://t.co/s8U8HmcJ86

— Anthony L. Fisher (@anthonyLfisher) May 29, 2020

 

[Dill]

(05-30-2020, 08:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: It is besides the point, that's what I mean. For it does not matter if the owner is black or white or asian or anything. I see no reason to make that distinction, I feel it is misplaced and tribal. I consider those words to be thoughtless.
(And sure one reason for that is that his words can easily be construed as saying it is a bit more ok to burn down stores from non-black people. I did not necessarily hear it that way, bit it is not that far-fetched really.)

I assumed that Sharpton was addressing the black community in currently rioting cities and in those where riots were a possibility. Let's take a look at the fuller context. Condemning the destruction in Minneapolis, and addressing the question of how to productively channel outrage, Sharpton says:

"You don't do it by appearing criminal yourself, . . . .We are not the ones that inflict the pain. We are the ones that have been pained, and our reaction must show that and highlight that. Otherwise, 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.". . .

"Some of the stores that are being damaged are black-owned stores!" Sharpton exclaimed. "So we cannot become so reckless that we are destroying each other in our rage."

So as any competent rhetorician should, he addresses his audience on their own ethical ground, in a manner which recognizes their interests and goals. If you want to fight the subjection of the black community by the dominant white, then how does it make sense to burn black businesses, thereby hurting the people in whose interest you claim to act?  "All lives matter" would be completely tone deaf here, for that audience, since post-racial ideology has been a major obstacle to reform.  Sharpton is more voice saying "Violence changes the subject and just helps 'the man,' so stop it!"

Unless one construes Sharpton to be saying that people won't demonize the violent if they choose to burn only white and Asian business instead of black, it would be hard to get "ok to burn non-black business" from his comments.

[Dill]

(05-30-2020, 08:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: Also, I don't understand why it would be "weird" to blame white agitators. Local authorities in Minneapolis are doing that, alongside community and civil rights leaders based upon testimony of ground-level eyewitnesses and photographs. One of the problems with recent (since Ferguson) civil rights protests centered on police overreach has been their draw for various groups with broader or other agendas than addressing police violence.

I believe there are agitators, I can very well imagine that they escalate things here and there. I do not believe they are the sole culprits and think that shifting all responsibility away from protesters to agitators is not the honest approach.

Well, there is an empirical question here--to what degree ARE the protestors "responsible" for the violence, especially burning and looting of stores?  Is the person who made a sign protesting police violence and marched to a gathering spot with others chanting "I can't breathe" the same person we later see using a hammer to open a cash register in a looted store or throwing molotov cocktails on police cars?

Hard to answer that without looking at all actors over the time of the rioting.  And recognizing other actors than those legitimately protesting is not automatically "shifting all responsibility away from protestors."

I haven't heard any talk of making agitators the "sole culprits."  Black and Native American leaders in Minnesota addressed the protestors after the first night of rioting, urging THEM not to resort to violence, outside agitators or no. The assumption there was not that outside agitators were "sole culprits." https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-activists-call-for-calm-end-to-violence-during-george-floyd-protests

In my post above, Sharpton is not addressing "outside agitators" when he empathizes with the "real" protestors and urges them to stop the violence. Older civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young have similarly weighed in. Looks to me like civil rights leaders in many communities are on message about how the violence diminishes chances of reform. I don't think they are addressing looters.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 10:48 AM)Dill Wrote: I assumed that Sharpton was addressing the black community in currently rioting cities and in those where riots were a possibility. Let's take a look at the fuller context. Condemning the destruction in Minneapolis, and addressing the question of how to productively channel outrage, Sharpton says:

"You don't do it by appearing criminal yourself, . . . .We are not the ones that inflict the pain. We are the ones that have been pained, and our reaction must show that and highlight that. Otherwise, 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.". . .

"Some of the stores that are being damaged are black-owned stores!" Sharpton exclaimed. "So we cannot become so reckless that we are destroying each other in our rage."

So as any competent rhetorician should, he addresses his audience on their own ethical ground, in a manner which recognizes their interests and goals. If you want to fight the subjection of the black community by the dominant white, then how does it make sense to burn black businesses, thereby hurting the people in whose interest you claim to act?  "All lives matter" would be completely tone deaf here, for that audience, since post-racial ideology has been a major obstacle to reform.  Sharpton is more voice saying "Violence changes the subject and just helps 'the man,' so stop it!"

Unless one construes Sharpton to be saying that people won't demonize the violent if they choose to burn only white and Asian business instead of black, it would be hard to get "ok to burn non-black business" from his comments.

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.

[hollodero]

(05-31-2020, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, there is an empirical question here--to what degree ARE the protestors "responsible" for the violence, especially burning and looting of stores?  Is the person who made a sign protesting police violence and marched to a gathering spot with others chanting "I can't breathe" the same person we later see using a hammer to open a cash register in a looted store or throwing molotov cocktails on police cars?

Hard to answer that without looking at all actors over the time of the rioting.  And recognizing other actors than those legitimately protesting is not automatically "shifting all responsibility away from protestors."

It is not. It is used that way though. I have to admit, this is something I sometimes observe in Germany, when right-wing protesters start destroying stuff and quickly point to left-wing agitators that ignited the violence to hurt the right-wing cause. I don't buy it for them and I don't buy it here. That does not mean it should not be addressed if it occurs, it just means this point should not be overemphasised and I think this is happening at some places, and I can't shalkke the feeling it is often happening in an attempt to excuse the violent protesters.

And I do not blame the peaceful protester for his non-peaceful co-protester. Of course I don't. But I really take issue with, again, the ideas that are promoted here in the memes thread and on many places else. Like painting it as a logical consequence of ignoring Kaepernick, or like comparing it to the Boston tea party - or similar comments that you can see at said place and many others. This is the main point I can not quite fathom, how the violence gets romanticized as some kind of freedom fight and as if the ends justify the means. These messages and interpretations I consider wrong.

You claimed we all agree the violent acts are wrong and don't help the cause - but is that really so if folks bring up Kaep as an example of how pointless non-violent protests are? As if burning down buildings was the logical next step from conservatives having issue with a kneeling QB. I don't want to focus on Kaep alone, this logic is seen in many instances, I just use that as an example for illustrationg what I take issue with.

[*jason*]

I'm hearing whispers this morning that this Officer Chauvin knew George Floyd.

[Dill]

(05-30-2020, 08:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: Finally, I am puzzled that anyone would say "it seems a real hard task" to say that burning stuff down and looting is wrong and not helpful to the cause.  People have been doing that on the Sunday talk shows all day today. AM Joy had six people doing that all at once, including Joy.

I don't know. I saw some half-hearted approaches to that. I have to admit though that I have no real idea about the general media reaction. My glimpses showed me some diminishment. (Just as an example I heard some person refusing to call it "riot" and wanting to call it "civil unrest", for sure that sounds more noble. I don't like that message.)

Also, I saw on these boards a meme with Kaepernick saying something like "what do you mean, my peaceful approach didn't fit you either". Another compared looting to republican tax cuts or to the Boston tea party. Another read "Burning down a city won't bring back Floyd" and the answer " bombing middle east won't undo 9/11". I see a lot of that logic, and I see that as a defense of events and deeds that should not get that kind of defense. Similar to comments like "these things have to be put in context, it might be a necessity to desperately fight the system..." or that the media sensationalizes the violence - things I can not get behind as a reaction and that I do see as excusing.

1. Dino posted (#15,256) a "This . . .  Is Why" Kaepernick meme which connects the outrage and inaction following his taking a knee to the image of the officer's knee on Floyd's neck.  That seems to foreground the point that K was protesting a real problem. D's post # 15,272 takes a similar tack, showing a meme leading with a picture of a riot with the heading "Why can't you protest peacefully?" followed by six different pictures of public public peaceful protests for which protestors were criticized--e.g. Kobe Bryant wearing an "I can't breathe" t-shirt at a basketball game.

2. Don't recall the meme on tax cuts, but the response to the tweet from Charlie Kirk (again, Dino is the culprit, #15,285) was not an "excuse" from any angle I look at it. One can't logically get from "Bombing the Middle East won't undo 9/11" to "so it's ok to riot." That would be saying "violence didn't work, so let's try it again." This seems rather a point about the Right's selectivity regarding the efficacy of rage-directed violence. Kirk again is the target of the Boston Tea party analogy (posted by Dino--who else!--#15,271), which I think brings out nicely the point that many on the American right DO celebrate violent protest when it is for the "right cause" and when all other avenues have been blocked. But not for black people's civil rights ever, since that is never the "right cause."

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? Or would dispute that this is what the memes are really doing, or intended to do? 

[*bfine32*]

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

It's been reported they worked security at the same club during the same time period. But the owner didn't think they ever worked together.