The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Sheilbh]

Charleston today - the last 30-40 seconds are what I mean by these protests being incredible examples of classic passive resistance:
https://twitter.com/bentaub91/status/1267840280214069248?s=20

[merithyn]

I don't know why everyone is attacking Meri.

Because someone somewhere read what I wrote as "Good for those blacks! Burn the city down!" instead of what I said, which was, "I totally understand why they're doing what they're doing and I'm amazed that it took this long."

But what the fuck ever.

wow

you should walk that back.

Yes, you're right.  I embellished.  Takes backs.

It was a reference to Meri's posts about being perfectly fine with businesses with insurance burning down or black people expressing their rage in any way they see fit.

Not what I said, but thanks for playing.

[Admiral Yi]

Not directly, no. But most beliefs come with a lot of baggage folded into them, that often can be unfolded through stark contrasts. No one here seems to be balking at asking me to justify my beliefs, often with the ulterior motive of "showing me" something they have already considered. They shouldn't balk at the reverse being directed at them. I don't think people assume explicitly that a pair of jeans is worth more than a black life. But I think that taking so much time and energy discussing looting reflects some argumentative preferences that, I suggest, should be examined.

The amount of time and energy spent discussing looting is a direct function of the amount of push back generated when the issue was first raised.

[PDH]

I think luting is good, if done properly.

[garbon]

Who here has said that looting and rioting is good?

Anyone?

This is just so infuriating.

[Sheilbh]

The amount of time and energy spent discussing looting is a direct function of the amount of push back generated when the issue was first raised.

And a function of the people saying that as there's now looting the protesters probably need to step back and/or do more.

[merithyn]

Who here has said that looting and rioting is good?

Anyone?

This is just so infuriating.

g, I'm sorry if I'm contributing to your frustration. Definitely not my intent.

[garbon]

The amount of time and energy spent discussing looting is a direct function of the amount of push back generated when the issue was first raised.

And a function of the people saying that as there's now looting the protesters probably need to step back and/or do more.

Yeah I recall someone here suggested the protestors should give up now that looting has occurred.

[garbon]

Who here has said that looting and rioting is good?

Anyone?

This is just so infuriating.

g, I'm sorry if I'm contributing to your frustration. Definitely not my intent.

No, not you. BB's crap.

[crazy canuck]

But I think that taking so much time and energy discussing looting reflects some argumentative preferences that, I suggest, should be examined.

So much time is spent discussing looting because lots of voices online bizarrely want to defend looting as some kind of valid form of protest.

I mean even most black leaders, the BLM movement, and others have condemned looting and rioting even as they continue to passionately denounce police violence.  Joe Biden, for example met with a number of black leaders today and gave a rare public speech.  He said (amongst much else) that looting and rioting must stop.

I would have thought "looting and rioting is bad" would have been one thing we could all agree on, and then move on to other topics.  But here we are.

Bizarrely people on the right want to focus on the looting.  Go figure.

[Razgovory]

The thing is the looting and property destruction isn't completely unrelated to the issue of police brutality.  In Fergusson, the riots resulted in the closure of the Walmart, the increase in insurance rates for businesses, and decrease of property values.  People ended up losing their jobs, their homes and access to affordable groceries.  The grinding poverty of government housing makes people desperate and they turn to crime which in turn attracts more police scrutiny and more conflict between the police and the community.

Now this doesn't apply everywhere there has been looting.  The looting I've seen looked like it took place in high-end shops.  Still, it's important to remember that property crimes can harm people beyond the folks owning the business and violent protests can do more harm than good for the people the protests are suppose to be for.

[crazy canuck]

The thing is the looting and property destruction isn't completely unrelated to the issue of police brutality.  In Fergusson, the riots resulted in the closure of the Walmart, the increase in insurance rates for businesses, and decrease of property values.  People ended up losing their jobs, their homes and access to affordable groceries.  The grinding poverty of government housing makes people desperate and they turn to crime which in turn attracts more police scrutiny and more conflict between the police and the community.

Now this doesn't apply everywhere there has been looting.  The looting I've seen looked like it took place in high-end shops.  Still, it's important to remember that property crimes can harm people beyond the folks owning the business and violent protests can do more harm than good for the people the protests are suppose to be for.

Yes, but the lesson to take from all of that is to address the grinding poverty rather than investing more in the police.

[Tamas]

Charleston today - the last 30-40 seconds are what I mean by these protests being incredible examples of classic passive resistance:
https://twitter.com/bentaub91/status/1267840280214069248?s=20

Wow.

[Zoupa]

But I think that taking so much time and energy discussing looting reflects some argumentative preferences that, I suggest, should be examined.

So much time is spent discussing looting because lots of voices online bizarrely want to defend looting as some kind of valid form of protest.

I mean even most black leaders, the BLM movement, and others have condemned looting and rioting even as they continue to passionately denounce police violence.  Joe Biden, for example met with a number of black leaders today and gave a rare public speech.  He said (amongst much else) that looting and rioting must stop.

I would have thought "looting and rioting is bad" would have been one thing we could all agree on, and then move on to other topics.  But here we are.

Jesus FUCKING Christ.

[Sheilbh]

I Cannot Remain Silent
Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.
5:17 PM ET
Mike Mullen
Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president's visit outside St. John's Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump's leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

There was little good in the stunt.

While no one should ever condone the violence, vandalism, and looting that has exploded across our city streets, neither should anyone lose sight of the larger and deeper concerns about institutional racism that have ignited this rage.

As a white man, I cannot claim perfect understanding of the fear and anger that African Americans feel today. But as someone who has been around for a while, I know enough—and I've seen enough—to understand that those feelings are real and that they are all too painfully founded.

We must, as citizens, address head-on the issue of police brutality and sustained injustices against the African American community. We must, as citizens, support and defend the right—indeed, the solemn obligation—to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.

And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard. The United States has a long and, to be fair, sometimes troubled history of using the armed forces to enforce domestic laws. The issue for us today is not whether this authority exists, but whether it will be wisely administered.

I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion. They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.

Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.

Even in the midst of the carnage we are witnessing, we must endeavor to see American cities and towns as our homes and our neighborhoods. They are not "battle spaces" to be dominated, and must never become so.

We must ensure that African Americans—indeed, all Americans—are given the same rights under the Constitution, the same justice under the law, and the same consideration we give to members of our own family. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.

Too many foreign and domestic policy choices have become militarized; too many military missions have become politicized.

This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected].
Mike Mullen is a retired admiral from the U.S. Navy and was the 17th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The bit in bold seemed particularly striking. The whole piece is interesting.

It does raise for me the question - especially about "lawful orders" - of how far away we are from the President giving an order and the military having to choose whether they think it's lawful and whether they should follow the order or not.

Possibly relevant for the failed/failing state thread or the coup thread.