The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[grumbler]

The problem with violent rioting is four-fold.

First, there is not much evidence it is effective in actually making positive change. There have been numerous violent protests over police violence, as far as I'm aware not much evidence this has changed the problem.

Second, allied to the first, while violent rioting definitely gets public attention, people tend to see what they want to see in it. Those already convinced police violence is a problem see this as the inevitable result: no justice equals no peace, something that may (or may not) be regrettable, but which is in either case inevitable. Others will have their stereotypes of the affected communities confirmed: what is necessary, in their view, is harsher measures to repress the violent rioters. What you tend to get is more division, when what is needed is unity of political purpose to clean up the corruption in policing. This is why people like Trump love this situation ...

Third, the victims of the rioting tend to be third parties, not the police. In the current case, a number of businesses and, oddly, an affordable housing unit.

Fourth, the ultimate victims of violent rioting tend to be the same population as is impacted by corrupt policing. Businesses burnt out by rioting may not come back.

I agree, but would also argue that there is a clear difference between busting up police cars (as symbols of the forces these communities see as oppressive) and destroying the homes or businesses of third parties, insured or not.  I agree with Oex that the police response to attacks on police cars is better when it contributes to de-escalation rather than escalation, but don't think that the police have the same ability to accept some damage when it is being suffered by the innocent.

[grumbler]

I think that the fact that black cops are as likely to commit violence against black suspects as white cops are tells us that the problem is policing (selection, attitudes, training, policies), not racism per se.

[Valmy]

I think that the fact that black cops are as likely to commit violence against black suspects as white cops are tells us that the problem is policing (selection, attitudes, training, policies), not racism per se.

Does it though? I mean if the problems with policing are falling more on black suspects then...

Anyway it is obviously not an either/or situation. Solve the policing problems as that is more concrete and easier to change.

And I think we can all agree that rioting and civil unrest are bad things, regardless of how justified you think they are, that we should take steps to prevent.

[Oexmelin]

First, there is not much evidence it is effective in actually making positive change. There have been numerous violent protests over police violence, as far as I'm aware not much evidence this has changed the problem.

Violence in protests take a lot of different forms. It may be more useful to distinguish between these various forms. And it may be also useful to remember that violence in protest is also done by police forces.

It is very rare that the violence that is committed during protest is aimed at changing things. It's not. It can be "claims-making", i.e., asserting one's power or rage or anger at a situation. It can be defending one's perceived turf, i.e., police charging, or protesters kicking out plainclothes officers. It can be defending a comrade (either police or fellow protester). It can be asserting control. And it can also be "red mist", i.e., once interpersonal violence is unleashed, it takes a while to calm down. It can also be explicitly political: i.e., people throwing rocks at windows of banks, or multinational corporations, or flipping a police car. But these are actually rare.

Second, allied to the first, while violent rioting definitely gets public attention, people tend to see what they want to see in it.

This may indeed be true... as far as seeing it through the media. There was, if I remember correctly, a good academic article a few years back, "The smoke gets in our eyes", which documents how journalists usually share the concern of police over "loss of control", which influences the way these stories are reported.

That being said, my own opinion evolved dramatically - not because I continuously saw what I wanted to see, but because I saw first hand what I did not want to see. I come from a family that has had a lot of people involved in law enforcement and the military, and, like most white people, had a generally pretty positive opinion of police. Witnessing first hand the unjust application of police violence and brutality - and the sheer disproportion of means, between the sort of violence protesters could conceivably use, and that which the police indeed unleashed, has profoundly transformed my perspective on this.

[Malthus]

First, there is not much evidence it is effective in actually making positive change. There have been numerous violent protests over police violence, as far as I'm aware not much evidence this has changed the problem.

Violence in protests take a lot of different forms. It may be more useful to distinguish between these various forms. And it may be also useful to remember that violence in protest is also done by police forces.

It is very rare that the violence that is committed during protest is aimed at changing things. It's not. It can be "claims-making", i.e., asserting one's power or rage or anger at a situation. It can be defending one's perceived turf, i.e., police charging, or protesters kicking out plainclothes officers. It can be defending a comrade (either police or fellow protester). It can be asserting control. And it can also be "red mist", i.e., once interpersonal violence is unleashed, it takes a while to calm down. It can also be explicitly political: i.e., people throwing rocks at windows of banks, or multinational corporations, or flipping a police car. But these are actually rare.

This may well all be true, but none of it addresses the point - which is whether violent rioting leads to constructive change.

Violent rioting could lead to constructive change even though the violence comes in whole or in part from the police, and whether or not making constructive change was the intention of the rioters ... or it could not.

The point here is to evaluate the costs and benefits of violent rioting. The costs are easier to quantify, but an argument could be made those costs are worthwhile because they lead to a good outcome (as in, 'sure those riots are destructive and some innocent people suffered, but the riots in Boston helped lead to the birth of the United States, so violent rioting isn't always bad').

Second, allied to the first, while violent rioting definitely gets public attention, people tend to see what they want to see in it.

This may indeed be true... as far as seeing it through the media. There was, if I remember correctly, a good academic article a few years back, "The smoke gets in our eyes", which documents how journalists usually share the concern of police over "loss of control", which influences the way these stories are reported.

That being said, my own opinion evolved dramatically - not because I continuously saw what I wanted to see, but because I saw first hand what I did not want to see. I come from a family that has had a lot of people involved in law enforcement and the military, and, like most white people, had a generally pretty positive opinion of police. Witnessing first hand the unjust application of police violence and brutality - and the sheer disproportion of means, between the sort of violence protesters could conceivably use, and that which the police indeed unleashed, has profoundly transformed my perspective on this.

Certainly some people will have their views changed, I would not deny that. I would have hoped that the numerous examples of police excess in the US would lead to a groundswell of political will to create change, but so far it has not, and I'm not convinced yet another riot will tip any balance in that respect - I mean, we have similar examples in the past, and things did not change for the better.

[Oexmelin]

This may well all be true, but none of it addresses the point - which is whether violent rioting leads to constructive change.

I think it does.

If violence is understood as a byproduct of a situation, rather than a clearly established policy by either the police or demonstrators, it dispenses us from ritualized hand wringing. If, for protestors, it's not *about* constructive change, then the matter is much more about how to deal with it. It seems to me much more productive than gravely pronouncing that rioting is bad and counterproductive. 

[The Brain]

I remain unconvinced that violence against innocents is the way to a good society.

[Malthus]

This may well all be true, but none of it addresses the point - which is whether violent rioting leads to constructive change.

I think it does.

If violence is understood as a byproduct of a situation, rather than a clearly established policy by either the police or demonstrators, it dispenses us from ritualized hand wringing. If, for protestors, it's not *about* constructive change, then the matter is much more about how to deal with it. It seems to me much more productive than gravely pronouncing that rioting is bad and counterproductive.

That depends on the context.

Certainly, in the context of public statements by public officials, what you say has merit.

I am not, however, a public official. Your point of view  lacks merit in the particular context of arguments made here on Languish, where some people are in fact arguing that violent rioting may be justified, and so whether it is or not  is a live topic of discussion.

Though as always, I appreciate the "gravely pronouncing" and "ritualized  handwringing". Classic Languish damning descriptions.  😄

[Syt]

[Razgovory]

What does "Potential intoxicants" mean in this situation?  Are they saying he was under the influence or is this just a hypothetical?

[grumbler]

Does it though? I mean if the problems with policing are falling more on black suspects then...

Well, I suppose you could argue that black cops are just self-loathing racists, but I don't see any evidence of that. 

Anyway it is obviously not an either/or situation. Solve the policing problems as that is more concrete and easier to change.

And I think we can all agree that rioting and civil unrest are bad things, regardless of how justified you think they are, that we should take steps to prevent.

You are correct that it isn't an either-or situation.  Racism clearly is, and historically has been, the cause of a lot of police violence towards minorities.  But the increasing militarization of police, both physically and mentally, is, I think, responsible for even more of the violence.  Seedy talks about this all the time.

[PDH]

Potential drugs are often administered through hypothetical needles

[Tamas]

What does "Potential intoxicants" mean in this situation?  Are they saying he was under the influence or is this just a hypothetical?

I think what they mean is that if he was healthier he would had endured strangulation longer and might have survived as a result, ergo its his fault.

[garbon]

He also said this: "If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history."

Which while I agree he wouldn't agree with the violence, surely he'd understand that many feel as though they don't have ways to express those emotions in nonviolent ways.

I'd argue that MLK believed that hos approach WAS providing the means of expression through nonviolent ways.  His observation was that the alternative to his methods was violence.

Sure but his approach isn't exactly viable now as in their aren't really great opportunities for effective non-violent means.

[grumbler]

Sure but his approach isn't exactly viable now as in their aren't really great opportunities for effective non-violent means.

I have no idea why you believe it is impossible to effectively use non-violent means.  Care to expand on that?  I use non-violent means all the time, and they seem effective.