The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Oexmelin]

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

I was not targeting you there. I am sorry if that was unclear.

[Tamas]

If rioting is a viable way to end racism and discrimination, how would that goal be achieved by it? Keep burning down cities controlled by racist cops/administrations until they change their ways?

[Oexmelin]

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.

Again, I disagree. Our stance re: violence, as citizens, has an impact insofar as we react to it, and as it structures our political identity. What I am suggesting is that we ought to change our own stance towards violent rioting, precisely because we should not expect it to be narrowly instrumental in magically enacting the sort of structural change we claim we want.

In short, I am asking why we assume some violence is justified (i.e., cops firing rubber bullets) and some isn't (i.e., rioters burning a police car). Or why some scale of violence is justified (i.e., tear gas is okay, rubber bullet isn't / burning a police car is okay, burning a convenience store isn't). I suggest that the way to get at the issue here is not the unhelpful distinction violence/non-violence that always gets conveniently abstracted. It's to envision political demonstration as its own thing, with its own dynamic. This makes the eruption of violence "readable", beyond political objective or police malfeasance.

[Oexmelin]

If rioting is a viable way to end racism and discrimination,

As I said, I don't think anyone is claiming that.

[Zoupa]

If rioting is a viable way to end racism and discrimination, how would that goal be achieved by it? Keep burning down cities controlled by racist cops/administrations until they change their ways?

Might as well try it at this point.

[Malthus]

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.

I would tend to agree - I see the problem as generally a variety of corruption, as in the police in some places tend to look out for their own interests and, with increased militarization, to see themselves as an occupying power and not as public servants.

Corruption not necessarily in terms of being on the take (although as oversight loosens there is more of that as well) but a more pervasive corruption of purpose.

The us-or-them mentality enables racists of course, as the police will shrug off any attempt to discipline one of their own even if they are violent racists; plus of course given a long history of racism, police violence and resistance to same will have a racial emphasis - but some cops are black and there are white members of the public who are affected by police violence and the cover-up or non-punishment of police abuses.

Seems to me what is necessary is strong, effective and incorruptible oversight of the police. I assume a big part of the problem is that there are so many different police jurisdictions which makes that difficult to achieve.

[Tamas]

If rioting is a viable way to end racism and discrimination, how would that goal be achieved by it? Keep burning down cities controlled by racist cops/administrations until they change their ways?

Might as well try it at this point.

Why though? It has been tried a gazillion times during history, it causes suffering, is a perfect excuse for the racists to escalate, and so on.

Unless they are fighting to establish an independent government of their own I see no end game with it. I understand the frustration but just because they are rioting against awful people should not make us support the rioting.

[Malthus]

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.

Again, I disagree. Our stance re: violence, as citizens, has an impact insofar as we react to it, and as it structures our political identity. What I am suggesting is that we ought to change our own stance towards violent rioting, precisely because we should not expect it to be narrowly instrumental in magically enacting the sort of structural change we claim we want.

In short, I am asking why we assume some violence is justified (i.e., cops firing rubber bullets) and some isn't (i.e., rioters burning a police car). Or why some scale of violence is justified (i.e., tear gas is okay, rubber bullet isn't / burning a police car is okay, burning a convenience store isn't). I suggest that the way to get at the issue here is not the unhelpful distinction violence/non-violence that always gets conveniently abstracted. It's to envision political demonstration as its own thing, with its own dynamic. This makes the eruption of violence "readable", beyond political objective or police malfeasance.

"Readable" to what end? There doesn't seem to be any particular mystery as to why people are rioting here.

[Oexmelin]

"Readable" to what end? There doesn't seem to be any particular mystery as to why people are rioting here.

To the end of going past the sort of response we all seem to be trapped in.

This discussion seems to be a good example. Indeed, there may not be any mystery as to why people are *angry*. But why is that anger taking the form of a riot? Why are police answering the way they are?

[Malthus]

"Readable" to what end? There doesn't seem to be any particular mystery as to why people are rioting here.

To the end of going past the sort of response we all seem to be trapped in.

This discussion seems to be a good example. Indeed, there may not be any mystery as to why people are *angry*. But why is that anger taking the form of a riot? Why are police answering the way they are?

Well, I would assume the people who are rioting are expressing their anger with dumb violence because the political process appears to have failed to change the corruption in policing that has resulted in a man being killed for no justifiable reason by the cops, so they feel ordinary responses will be ignored; while crooks among the population take the opportunity to loot at will.

The police are responding in the way they are because the corrupt militarization of the police leads them to act more like an occupying force than public servants.

I don't see this as a huge breakthrough in understanding. As I pointed out in the post above yours, the only real answer is effective and incorruptible oversight of the police. If that existed, public frustration would not build to the point of explosion because there would be more faith in the system.

It is how to get to that point that is the hard part. Unfortunately, violent rioting plays into the hands of those who like the system as it is.

[garbon]

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.

Oh you have used nonviolent means to effectively drive change on police brutality directed at people of color?

[Barrister]

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.

Oh you have used nonviolent means to effectively drive change on police brutality directed at people of color?

I have. 

No wait - it was only regular police brutality, not against POC.

[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.

Oh you have used nonviolent means to effectively drive change on police brutality directed at people of color?

Ah, so your cryptic comment was referring just to trying to effectively drive change on police brutality directed at people of color.  Well, I'd say that violent methods have failed, and there are far more nonviolent methods that haven't even been attempted than violent ones.  You may believe that the principles of non-violence advocated by MLK are no longer viable, but I am unconvinced by a mere assertion.

Where, exactly, do you expect the violent methods you espouse to lead?  tactical defeat of the police?  Inflicting so many injustices on innocent people that the public cries "uncle' and surrenders to.... whatever you think the alternative to modern society is?

The practitioners of nonviolence had an endgame.  What's the endgame for you supporters of violence?

[Admiral Yi]

How many protests end up in looting and destruction of property?  As a percentage of all protests?

Very low as a percentage of all protests, quite a bit higher when race is involved.

My question was in response to Ucks, who seemed to be suggesting protesters just want to shout and will dissipate after a day.  In many cases that is not true.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

There have been many nonviolent protests in the US over the last twenty years, some of them massive and they haven't gone anywhere.

MLK's protests succeeded because the elites feared that violent social unrest would follow if it did not.

The socioeconomic elites in America clearly don't fear anything these days. They robbed the nation blind after the 2008 collapse and suffered no consequences and are in the midst of doing the same again right now.