Buffalo PD assault older gentleman, leave him to bleed

[Johnny Hammersticks]

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

 

Mike DeGeorge is the head of communications for the BPD and after reading his explanation in today’s BN, I accept his explanation regarding the initial reports about this incident. It seems like an honest mistake and I choose to take him at his word. 
 

There was also an article citing several experts on police tactics, etc., and I side with the one who is of the opinion that it was “lawful, but awful.” 
 

These officers and their commander needed to exercise better judgement in the moment, but I disagree with the decision to charge them with assault. A period of suspension without pay would suffice, imo. 

 

Good post, man.  I especially agree with the bolded.  Cheers ? 

[RaoulDuke79]

On 6/4/2020 at 10:45 PM, Augie said:

I find it hard to watch the news in these times. It saddens me, and I know we can be so much better than this. 

I've cut off all my news feeds on my phone, haven't watched the morning news before work for the last week (I mainly just want the weather forecast which I can get on my phone), and have pretty much limited my time on here. Inweep for humanity and pray for my kids.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Just now, RaoulDuke79 said:

I've cut off all my news feeds on my phone, haven't watched the morning news before work for the last week (I mainly just want the weather forecast which I can get on my phone), and have pretty much limited my time on here. Inweep for humanity and pray for my kids.

 

Uggghhhhh....I wish.  I can’t look away!!  It’s like driving past a thousand car accidents and you can’t help but gawk.  It’s taking it’s toll on me mentally.  I was telling my wife last night.  

[RaoulDuke79]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Uggghhhhh....I wish.  I can’t look away!!  It’s like driving past a thousand car accidents and you can’t help but gawk.  It’s taking it’s toll on me mentally.  I was telling my wife last night.  

Yeah. First the Corona and now the Floyd. It is/was definitely affecting my mental state. I'm just trying to tune it all out. I was joking the other day with the bride about becoming a monk or possibly a hermit at least.....i dint live though WWII or Vietnam,  but I can say without a single doubt 2020 has been the shittiest year of my life.

Edited June 6, 2020 by RaoulDuke79

[Bangarang]

21 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The one wherein you feel justified in asserting a 'reasonable expectation' should be the standard for police violence against peaceful protestors.

Except that’s not what I said. My justification for police use of force was clearly in reference to the rioters and looters and not the peaceful protesters. 

I see you’re going to continue to try and tip toe around your assertion that “my privilege has privilege”. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Bangarang

[Johnny Hammersticks]

4 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Yeah. First the Corona and now the Floyd. It is/was definitely affecting my mental state. I'm just trying to tune it all out. I was joking the other day with the bride about becoming a monk or possibly a hermit at least.....i dint live though WWII or Vietnam,  but I can say without a single doubt 2020 has been the shittiest year of my life.

 

Truth.  The past 3.5 months feels like a really good episode of Black Mirror...if you get the reference.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Except that’s not what I said. My justification for police use of force was clearly in reference to the rioters and looters and not the peaceful protesters. 

I see you’re going to continue to try and tip toe around your assertion that “my privilege has privilege”. 

Tip toe is hilarious. I explained my point perfectly in the last comment you quoted. 

 

I can further explain, if you like, the concept of privilege. Yours is such a position. It's ok to acknowledge that without trying to divert the conversation along some racial tangent.

[Bangarang]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Tip toe is hilarious. I explained my point perfectly in the last comment you quoted. 

No, you didn’t. 
 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I can further explain, if you like, the concept of privilege. Yours is such a position. It's ok to acknowledge that without trying to divert the conversation along some racial tangent.

 

Still tip toeing. I’d like you to specifically explain what you mean by “my privilege has privilege”. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, Bangarang said:

No, you didn’t. 
 

 

Still tip toeing. I’d like you to specifically explain what you mean by “my privilege has privilege”. 

OK- your assumption that the police apply the same standard to different people is one such privileged view. Your definition of what constitutes reasonable expectation wrt violence against protestors is another. 

[mead107]

Still amazing nobody gets upset with all the inner cities with  all the violence and so many little kids to adults that are killed every day or shot.  
 

10 year old in his house got shot in Albany the other day and nobody is protesting. 
then number of people killed and shot is staggering.  

 

[Just Jack]

Here's the old man's Twitter if you want to check it out...

 

https://twitter.com/martingugino?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

 

Here's one highlight....

 

 

 

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

OK- your assumption that the police apply the same standard to different people is one such privileged view.

Where did I make this assumption?

 

Quote

Your definition of what constitutes reasonable expectation wrt violence against protestors is another. 

 

How is it a privilege to suggest having police ready and equipped to deal with rioters and looters?

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

 

Mike DeGeorge is the head of communications for the BPD and after reading his explanation in today’s BN, I accept his explanation regarding the initial reports about this incident. It seems like an honest mistake and I choose to take him at his word. 
 

There was also an article citing several experts on police tactics, etc., and I side with the one who is of the opinion that it was “lawful, but awful.” 
 

These officers and their commander needed to exercise better judgement in the moment, but I disagree with the decision to charge them with assault. A period of suspension without pay would suffice, imo. 

Excellent post. 

 

I don't see where there was an intent to injure. As you noted it was a case of exercising poor judgment more than a criminal act. The questionable conduct by the police could have been handled within the structure of the police disciplinary system. And although the initial report was inaccurate there was a quick organizational response by the department. The department can't be accused of not quickly taking action to address this situation. 

 

In my opinion placing this incident within the criminal system is the worst of both worlds from a police and civilian standpoint. It  antagonizes the police membership who believe that the behavior in question is wrongly considered a criminal act. Even the police who don't agree with the response don't necessarily believe that it rises to a criminal act because it puts them in greater peril if they should happen to make a bad decision in carrying out their responsibilities.  And to make things worse the criminalization of this situation doesn't more quickly resolve the situation but extends the lifespan of this issue. In addition, what happens if the police are acquitted of the charges? And there is a good chance that will be the outcome. Then a large segment of the population is made to be even more angry with the outcome. How does that help the police/community relationship?  

 

Most people would agree at the minimum the police didn't respond in a proper and professional manner. But in my view another egregious misjudgment is made by the prosecuting office for not putting this incident in a more proper setting of the police disciplinary system. A manageable issue became a bigger and more inflammatory issue because there was a rush to judgment due to the political imperative to do something. 

[GoBills808]

50 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Where did I make this assumption?

 

When you said this: 

 

3 hours ago, Bangarang said:

Only if you reasonably believe these people are going to loot the local Target or try and set fire to city hall.

 

Unless I am misreading you, your premise is that the difference in police response to the two groups is understandable due to a 'reasonable belief' that one group may be looting the local target or try(ing) to set fire to city hall. I object to the flippant suggestion that your version, and by proxy the police's, of 'reasonable belief' should be applied unilaterally, as illustrated recently by law enforcement's interactions with the segment of society for whom these protests represent.

 

[Bill from NYC]

7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I know you're being sarcastic here as you are well aware I do not reside anywhere near Buffalo NY.  But frankly, I'm disappointed in this as a rejoinder from you.

 

First off, I'm not entertaining anyone to dinner right now, including relatives and close friends.  Second off, most of us have a large acquaintance we do not perceive as mentally ill, but lack interest in entertaining - the standard "whether Hapless wants to invite the guy to dinner" is useless to pressure- test my perception of his mental health (I'm assuming that's your point, and it's not just snark).

 

I hope he recovers completely.  It took me a year to recover as far as I have from a TBI and I have persistent issues I must manage.

 

Historically, categorizing people with whom the police have violent interactions has been used as a way to diminish questioning the scope or necessity of the police interactions.  If a guy has previous convictions, or may have just committed a strongarm robbery, or is crazy, then automatically he doesn't belong to the group of Total Innocents who deserve public sympathy for what appears to be unnecessary or excessive force on the part of the police, AmIRite?

 

I'm tired of hearing that brought up to justify police actions.  Police get  wide legal latitude and too often that's being abused while other officers keep silent or justify.  Police are supposed to uphold the law and due process, not issue summary judgement and sentence a guy to death or disability by violent treatment.

 

If he were mentally ill, how would that justify two police officers shoving him, one with a baton one with a straight arm he stepped into, with enough force that he staggered back and fell, striking his head?  Someone else said it, if he's breaking the law arrest him, but arrests (or clearances) should utilize minimum necessary force.  Three officers in the vicinity need to shove an old guy around to neutralize him?  Baloney.

Luther Hall.  St Louis.  Google.

First of all, I am very sorry about your injury and wish you nothing less than a full and speedy recovery.

Next, my post was at least a bit more sarcastic than intended. I am also sorry for this.

That out of the way, where do I start?

 

1) I was the one who pointed out that he could have been arrested for Disorderly Conduct. 

2) I do not think that someone who is psychotic or a criminal has no rights and never said that this was/is the case.

3) You seem (perhaps I am misinterpreting) to feel as if the police should automatically enforce every law.  Would this include loud music, Jaywalking, and other petty offenses?

4) I saw what you said about not having friends and relatives over for dinner, and I respect that. How do you think the officers felt about being approached and touched by this old creep? I don't get the impression that you would be happy to have him this close to you, and this time I am NOT being snide.

5) Here is the rough part to explain. These officers were ordered to go out into the night and clear the area. They would rather be home and did not know what they were about to face. This begs the question, have you ever had to rely on someone to protect you? Also, did you ever have to physically protect a partner or close friend? If I was one of the police officers accosted and touched by this old schmuck, yes; I could arrest him HBF!  But, I would also be leaving my partner and fellow officers to sit with and process this nitwit for hours on end and the charge would eventually be dismissed, guilty or not. That would amount to one less officer to protect the community and other officers from dangerous scum that might show up such as Antifa, looters, or other armed criminals. Maybe I would have decided to just get him away from me and go about doing my job.

6) I am not glad this person was injured because he is a human being. I hope that he recovers. However now,  he is a political show piece. [  ]

7) Last but not least, this and countless other sad, horrible incidents were caused by the scumbag in Minnesota. He had his knee on the throat of every police officer and every law abiding citizen in this country. This f^$#&^g piece of s*^t  killed a man needlessly, and gave scumbags like Antifa the opportunity to set up pallets of bricks to throw at police, loot stores, etc. The incident in Buffalo was a byproduct. So are the murders of police around the country. 

 

The entire situation just sucks.

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Hapless Bills Fan
avoid gratuitous politics

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

Let’s all point the finger and vilify the police because it’s the easy thing to do right now. You’re right, we can discuss it and part of discussing it is acknowledging the current sentiment towards police and how there is an obvious hypocrisy in that mindset. 

 

I understand that's your viewpoint but I don't understand what you see as hypocrisy.  Is it hypocritical to think that when a citizen who may have broken a law but does not appear to be a violent threat, winds up in serious condition in hospital it's a problems?  Is it hypocritical to think that in trying to defuse protests over the death of a man in custody, lying on the ground after a police officer knelt on his knee for 8 minutes, perhaps using a strategy that results in police tactics of baton-wielding officers whacking protestors over and over in various cities is not the best choice to diffuse tension?  Where's the obvious hypocrisy?  I'm not trying to be a dick here, but it isn't obvious to me.

 

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

Is this that whataboutism thing you were talking about?

 

Pre-cisely.  You got it.  Someone is upset about Event A, and someone else implies they need to be also upset about Event B or they're somehow wrong - hypocritical, inconsistent, whatevs.  Not the case.  People can be upset about the Buffalo protester and discuss it without expressing equal outrage about any or all other events at the same time.  You can be upset about two brother officers injured by some homicidal ass driving into them without being upset about the two state troopers injured by a brother officer driving into them.  It's not that the other events might not deserve some outrage or upset, it just shouldn't be required.

[Augie]

2 hours ago, mead107 said:

Still amazing nobody gets upset with all the inner cities with  all the violence and so many little kids to adults that are killed every day or shot.  
 

10 year old in his house got shot in Albany the other day and nobody is protesting. 
then number of people killed and shot is staggering.  

 

 

Here in Atlanta, a guy was arguing with his stepson about going out during the quarantine. Kid wanted to go, stepdad didn’t want him out......and ended up shooting him to death. I wish I was kidding. Things just spiraled out of control, I guess. That is insane! 

[mead107]

23 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Here in Atlanta, a guy was arguing with his stepson about going out during the quarantine. Kid wanted to go, stepdad didn’t want him out......and ended up shooting him to death. I wish I was kidding. Things just spiraled out of control, I guess. That is insane! 

Crazy times getting more crazy. 
not all the problems are ever going to be solved. 
idiots will always be idiots. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

First of all, I am very sorry about your injury and wish you nothing less than a full and speedy recovery.

Next, my post was at least a bit more sarcastic than intended. I am also sorry for this.

That out of the way, where do I start?

 

1) I was the one who pointed out that he could have been arrested for Disorderly Conduct. 

 

Agree.  And given the choice between arresting and shoving him around (I'm assuming all lesser strategies to stop him and hold him off such as verbal warning/baton blocks etc were tried, which is a benefit of the doubt but let's go with it), I'm saying they did him no favors to shove him around.

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

2) I do not think that someone who is psychotic or a criminal has no rights and never said that this was/is the case.

 

Thanks for clarifying

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

3) You seem (perhaps I am misinterpreting) to feel as if the police should automatically enforce every law.  Would this include loud music, Jaywalking, and other petty offenses?

 

You are misinterpreting.  I'm saying that if there's a choice between arresting people and using physical force on people who are breaking a law in the situation we're discussing, I think people should be arrested using the minimal necessary physical force. 

It's a digression, but in some of the municipalities around here, enforcement of a lot of laws on the book against jaywalking, sagging, loud music etc is a significant part of the adversarial community perception of Police.  The municipalities, including the police, get significant income from tickets for minor traffic offenses and the aforementioned.  The Police officers are under explicit or unstated but understood pressure to keep those tickets rolling in.  The result is a community that suffers continual loss of income and loss of savings and feels endlessly hassled if not worse.  That of course makes it far more difficult for the officers to do their job when investigating more serious crimes.

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

4) I saw what you said about not having friends and relatives over for dinner, and I respect that. How do you think the officers felt about being approached and touched by this old creep? I don't get the impression that you would be happy to have him this close to you, and this time I am NOT being snide.

 

Bill, I see your point here, but the officers were about to clear the square - an undertaking that was highly probable to put them in very close contact to citizens of varied hygiene habits and states of infection and infestation.  They should be prepared with PPE sufficient to the job including gloves, face shields, and masks if desired, and should be equipped to remove and decontam their clothing and equipment and shower after work.   If they aren't, that's a legit union grievance.

So reluctantly and with respect, in this context I think they have to "Get Over It" if they were so seriously bothered at the prospect of physical contact by one elderly human -I  mean, "old creep" - that they both just had to shove him off.  (Can you help me understand why we have to dehumanize him by calling him an "old creep"?  Even if he's in the wrong, can't he be a man or a citizen or a person?  But I digress).  As you know, I am a former EMT who once worked in a major city hospital ER.  On my personal "eeeewww gross!" scale, were I professionally kitted out, being touched by an elderly guy who looks like he probably bathes regularly would be about 0.2 out of 100.  (I'll spare the board my descriptions of what 100 out of 100 entailed)

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

5) Here is the rough part to explain. These officers were ordered to go out into the night and clear the area. They would rather be home and did not know what they were about to face. This begs the question, have you ever had to rely on someone to protect you? Also, did you ever have to physically protect a partner or close friend? If I was one of the police officers accosted and touched by this old schmuck, yes; I could arrest him HBF!  But, I would also be leaving my partner and fellow officers to sit with and process this nitwit for hours on end and the charge would eventually be dismissed, guilty or not. That would amount to one less officer to protect the community and other officers from dangerous scum that might show up such as Antifa, looters, or other armed criminals. Maybe I would have decided to just get him away from me and go about doing my job.

 

Here I'm on shaky ground because I know bupkis about NYS police procedures.

 

But I know a little about how things were handled in 2014 and 2016 during the riots in St Louis and it did not at all entail what you describe.  People who were detained or arrested were cuffed (usually with zip ties) and taken to a holding area, usually a truck or van where different officers were assigned to process them.  There was no 1:1 arresting officer:party being arrested hours on end sit with and process.  There was a procedure to immediately capture some information about the circumstances - location, time, arresting officer, reason for arrest - I'm hazier on this because the details internal procedures were nonamybizness, but I believe it linked a number on the cuffs to a number the officer dictated into a voice transmission or recorder along with those details.

 

If something similar was not organized and set up in Buffalo and elsewhere, that's a procedural gap, seems to me.  A police officer should not have to make a "business decision" between supporting his brother officers on the line or arresting/detaining

 

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

6) I am not glad this person was injured because he is a human being. I hope that he recovers. However now,  he is a political show piece.

7) Last but not least, this and countless other sad, horrible incidents were caused by the scumbag in Minnesota. He had his knee on the throat of every police officer and every law abiding citizen in this country. This f^$#&^g piece of s*^t  killed a man needlessly, and gave scumbags like Antifa the opportunity to set up pallets of bricks to throw at police, loot stores, etc. The incident in Buffalo was a byproduct. So are the murders of police around the country. 

 

The entire situation just sucks.

 

On these, we agree.

[mead107]

I know I would never want to be a cop.  Especially now

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Bangarang said:

I have no problem with police accountability. Suspend the cops pending a review/investigation. But to charge them with Assault is a joke and was only done to cater to the mob of people outraged.

 

TBT, that latter is pretty much where I am - not the "joke" part but that the charges are being influenced by politics and public outrage.  The charges came flying out so quickly that I don't understand how there was time for a proper investigation, and I don't feel it's appropriate for Cuomo to weighing in from afar.

[mead107]

How do they Know what person turns and hurts them or kills them.  Tough job. 

cops that did George in very bad cops.  
 

People want cops to do the right ting perhaps people should also do the right thing. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by mead107

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Watch the video.  Assuming it's an accurate translation: Ouch.

 

 

 

[Warcodered]

Man I miss Jon Stewart

 

This whole thing has me going through a bunch of the videos from when he covered the protests from the last time we went this ceaseless cycle.

[Bad Things]

6 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Will there be a police presence?  Bull horns?  Tear gas?

I'm kinda surprised to see there weren't any of those open-carry idiots walking around with assault rifles, like a month ago.

[Bad Things]

Can someone up there tell me if the Buffalo Police have actually tried to de-escalate the situation?

I mean, have they tried to come together with the community to show they're "all one", or are they staying hardline?

 

No matter how you feel about the situation, this has given the City of Buffalo a very bad look, internationally, especially with all of those cops resigning.

[Lurker]

In memory of Jon Stewart in the post above...this was SIX F'n years ago.     And here we are again, with virtually the same cast of jamokes mouthing off about things.    This is what so many protesters are angery about...

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Lurker

[Just Joshin']

1 hour ago, Bad Things said:

I'm kinda surprised to see there weren't any of those open-carry idiots walking around with assault rifles, like a month ago.

How many buildings looted/burned or cops assaulted by these "idiots"?  Did they fire a shot?

[wagon127]

10 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

 

And what does it mean to be exempt from bail reform? That doesn’t make any sense.

Currently in new york, people dont need to post bail after getting arrested. The individuals who ran over the officers, had bail set over $100,000. I hadnt hear of anybody in new york needing to post bail in long time. I can assume the charges against them, do not apply to the bail reform set up a couple years ago. 

[Bangarang]

4 minutes ago, wagon127 said:

Currently in new york, people dont need to post bail after getting arrested. The individuals who ran over the officers, had bail set over $100,000. I hadnt hear of anybody in new york needing to post bail in long time. I can assume the charges against them, do not apply to the bail reform set up a couple years ago. 

The bail reform took effect the beginning of this year and it’s somewhat false to say that people don’t need to post bail after being arrested. It’s entirely dependent on the crime in which a person is charged with. 

4 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

 

When you said this: 

 

 

Unless I am misreading you, your premise is that the difference in police response to the two groups is understandable due to a 'reasonable belief' that one group may be looting the local target or try(ing) to set fire to city hall. I object to the flippant suggestion that your version, and by proxy the police's, of 'reasonable belief' should be applied unilaterally, as illustrated recently by law enforcement's interactions with the segment of society for whom these protests represent.

 

So you think there should have been more of a uniformed police presence similar to what we’ve seen during the protests that included riots and looting? Do I have that right? 

[mead107]

Maybe they should play for the Bills. 
not a very hard push and knocked him down, just think what they could do using all their mussels. ??

 

[Bangarang]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I understand that's your viewpoint but I don't understand what you see as hypocrisy.  Is it hypocritical to think that when a citizen who may have broken a law but does not appear to be a violent threat, winds up in serious condition in hospital it's a problems?  Is it hypocritical to think that in trying to defuse protests over the death of a man in custody, lying on the ground after a police officer knelt on his knee for 8 minutes, perhaps using a strategy that results in police tactics of baton-wielding officers whacking protestors over and over in various cities is not the best choice to diffuse tension?  Where's the obvious hypocrisy?  I'm not trying to be a dick here, but it isn't obvious to me.

 

 

Pre-cisely.  You got it.  Someone is upset about Event A, and someone else implies they need to be also upset about Event B or they're somehow wrong - hypocritical, inconsistent, whatevs.  Not the case.  People can be upset about the Buffalo protester and discuss it without expressing equal outrage about any or all other events at the same time.  You can be upset about two brother officers injured by some homicidal ass driving into them without being upset about the two state troopers injured by a brother officer driving into them.  It's not that the other events might not deserve some outrage or upset, it just shouldn't be required.

 

Here’s my beef, people seem to care much more about black lives when they are taken by white cops. 
 

Everyone knows who George Floyd is, do these same people know who someone like David Dorn is? 

 

People get outraged when a white cop kills a black man but stay silent and don’t shed a tear at all the black on black death and violence happening around them on a daily basis.
 

Does anyone want to be outraged at the 90 shootings and 30 deaths that occurred in Chicago last weekend? Do those black lives not matter as much? 
 

You want people to believe your message and invoke real change? Be consistent about it and don’t cherry pick who matters. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Bangarang

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

 

Here’s my beef, people seem to care much more about black lives when they are taken by white cops. 
 

Everyone knows who George Floyd is, do these same people know who someone like David Dorn is? 

 

People get outraged when a white cop kills a black man but stay silent and don’t shed a tear at all the black on black death and violence happening around them on a daily basis.
 

Does anyone want to be outraged at the 90 shootings and 30 deaths that occurred in Chicago last weekend? Do those black lives not matter as much? 
 

You want people to believe your message and invoke real change? Be consistent about it and don’t cherry pick who matters. 

 

[Lurker]

47 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

People get outraged when a white cop kills a black man but stay silent and don’t shed a tear at all the black on black death and violence happening around them on a daily basis.

 

Whataboutism at its finest.   

 

The protest is not about crime or violence.  Its about the near universality of instances where public servants sworn to protect and serve--who, when they break that faith and do clearly illegal things--invariably are protected by the same justice system that would, under similar circumstances, send a "civilian" away for life.    Especially if the perpetrator is poor, non-white and "not like us."    

 

Crime is always going to be a part of the human condition.   It's a false equivalence to say there is no difference between those who commit crimes--when clearly the one whose oath is to "protect" is a world away in responsibility and duty from the common thug who shot David Dorn.   Or to not acknowledge that the way justice for those crimes is administered is different if you wear a uniform.   

 

This is the sad, frustrating and ultimately intractable reality that America is confronting...

[Bangarang]

46 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Whataboutism at its finest.   

 

The protest is not about crime or violence.  Its about the near universality of instances where public servants sworn to protect and serve--who, when they break that faith and do clearly illegal things--invariably are protected by the same justice system that would, under similar circumstances, send a "civilian" away for life.    Especially if the perpetrator is poor, non-white and "not like us."    

 

Crime is always going to be a part of the human condition.   It's a false equivalence to say there is no difference between those who commit crimes--when clearly the one whose oath is to "protect" is a world away in responsibility and duty from the common thug who shot David Dorn.   Or to not acknowledge that the way justice for those crimes is administered is different if you wear a uniform.   

 

This is the sad, frustrating and ultimately intractable reality that America is confronting...

You’re being extremely naive if you think this is just about police brutality and not about race.

[Bad Things]

4 hours ago, Just Joshin' said:

How many buildings looted/burned or cops assaulted by these "idiots"?  Did they fire a shot?

 

Where did I imply that they were violent "idiots"?

I only pointed out that they were idiots. 

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:

You’re being extremely naive if you think this is just about police brutality and not about race.

 

It is about race.  That was the "...Especially if the perpetrator is poor, non-white and "not like us" line was about.

 

But it's also is about unequal justice, justice for some and abuse of public trust / responsibility.  Which is why the marches have taken on such a widespread and international tone.

 

In any event, nobody's changing any hearts and minds in this thread.   That's both the problem and the reason why it will never be solved.    OAO...

[wagon127]

18 hours ago, Bangarang said:

The bail reform took effect the beginning of this year and it’s somewhat false to say that people don’t need to post bail after being arrested. It’s entirely dependent on the crime in which a person is charged with. 

 

You are right. The last 6 months, feel much longer.... lol

Edited June 7, 2020 by wagon127

[Buffalo716]

21 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Watch the video.  Assuming it's an accurate translation: Ouch.

 

 

 

Yeah that's one good cop for sure hap

 

But he talks about not hurting protesters , while they're still stoning Christians in the middle East, stoning gays, circumcising women

 

Maybe he should take a firm stance on that

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Yeah that's one good cop for sure hap

But he talks about not hurting protesters , while they're still stoning Christians in the middle East, stoning gays, circumcising women

Maybe he should take a firm stance on that

 

I don't even take the video at face value since I can't translate what he says for myself but I thought it was interesting with the points about "you're wearing a helmet, you have your riot gear, a rock won't hurt you"

 

I think we each are responsible for how we behave in our own sphere of influence. 

 

To me the analogous to what you say would be to say "what about black on black violence in the inner city, gangs and drugs? Maybe they should clean that up before they criticize police."  I don't think anyone believes those aren't problems, but I don't see why one can't criticize (or praise) police while those problems still exist either.