US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Life in prison for throwing paint. Totally proportional and not at all authoritarian.

They're almost certainly not getting life. The issue is that criminal mischief over 5,000 is a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. When you commit a second degree felony was part of a gang it becomes a first degree felony for which the maximum sentence is life.
If they're smart they'll try to make the case that their group was not a gang.

Under Utah law this would make them a gang.

(1) "Criminal street gang" means an organization, association in fact, or group of three or more persons, whether operated formally or informally:
(a) that is currently in operation; (I'm assuming this is at the time the crime was committed)
(b) that has as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more predicate gang crimes; (Criminal Mischief satisfies)
(c) that has, as a group, an identifying name or identifying sign or symbol, or both; and
(d) whose members, acting individually or in concert with other members, engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.

C and D going to come down to facts. If you kill this part they're still facing 15 years if the judge imposes the maximum sentence but I don't view it as especially likely and I would be totally shocked if a judge imposed life here.

Actually (b) looks rather tenuous too. Really not happy if Utah law allows such vagueness as "one of it's primary activities".

3 people commit a crime in concert. And suppose (d) is not yet satisfied (previous crimes by the same group), (b) can be established just as you did: one of their "primary" activities clearly is committing a crime, leaving (d) wide open to the prosecutor. The group don't need to be proven to "have engaged in a pattern" because it's sufficient that they "engage in" the pattern.

One of them on one occasion throws some paint. Another of them on the same occasion, throws some paint. (d) is satisfied (there's a pattern in their collective behavior, even if each of them only committed one crime). And that sucks. Utah law ... sucks.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

annoying the prosecutor is a real good way to get the book thrown at you.

If you push for someone to go to prison for life cause you don't like them, that's some pretty crooked shit for a prosecutor.

The prosecutor is trying to scare the living crap out of them. Not thinking much about how other prospective criminals will see it when there's a small (or no) punishment coming from it. "We're not afraid of that blowhard" is how anyone who wasn't personally intimidated by the move, will see it.

Like the prosecutor is thinking they're the only potential rioters in town. Scare them enough, problem solved. It's ... a bit backwoods isn't it?

[Des-Bal]

Actually (b) looks rather tenuous too. Really not happy if Utah law allows such vagueness as "one of it's primary activities".

3 people commit a crime in concert. And suppose (d) is not yet satisfied (previous crimes by the same group), (b) can be established just as you did: one of their "primary" activities clearly is committing a crime, leaving (d) wide open to the prosecutor. The group don't need to be proven to "have engaged in a pattern" because it's sufficient that they "engage in" the pattern.

One of them on one occasion throws some paint. Another of them on the same occasion, throws some paint. (d) is satisfied (there's a pattern in their collective behavior, even if each of them only committed one crime). And that sucks. Utah law ... sucks.

If throwing paint and breaking windows was part of their protest and it was what they were organized for I think it's going to be a brief knife fight that goes in favor of the state.
Gang laws tend to suck. People don't like sticking up for gangs and being "soft on crime" is what keeps legislators up at night.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Actually (b) looks rather tenuous too. Really not happy if Utah law allows such vagueness as "one of it's primary activities".

3 people commit a crime in concert. And suppose (d) is not yet satisfied (previous crimes by the same group), (b) can be established just as you did: one of their "primary" activities clearly is committing a crime, leaving (d) wide open to the prosecutor. The group don't need to be proven to "have engaged in a pattern" because it's sufficient that they "engage in" the pattern.

One of them on one occasion throws some paint. Another of them on the same occasion, throws some paint. (d) is satisfied (there's a pattern in their collective behavior, even if each of them only committed one crime). And that sucks. Utah law ... sucks.

If throwing paint and breaking windows was part of their protest and it was what they were organized for I think it's going to be a brief knife fight that goes in favor of the state.

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant them trying to prosecute just the criminals as being their own little gang.
All the protesters are a gang (because felonies are one of the main activities) so all the prosecutor needs is to prove the criminals are part of that gang. "BLM Utah" or some such.

Gang laws tend to suck. People don't like sticking up for gangs and being "soft on crime" is what keeps legislators up at night.

Yeah, but there might be a bigger agenda there. If the prosecutor doesn't seek heavy charges but does manage to establish that "BLM Utah" are a gang, that might give the state powers against protesters who haven't committed any crime but are nonetheless considered part of a gang.

That's quite a bit worse than the "scare the shit out of some criminals" strategy I thought it was.

Gang laws DO suck. In Australia they apply almost exclusively to "outlaw motorcycle gangs" aka bikies. Admittedly the worst bikie gangs were among the worst gangs, but it was pretty unjust to use special powers against all bikies (eg banning regalia, powers of search, court bans on association between members not committed of any crime) considering some other gangs were worse than the least offensive bikie gangs. Also not that effective: bikies who wanted to continue the bikie lifestyle of standover tactics, drug dealing and crime generally committed against people too afraid to call the cops, could just stop dressing like bikies or riding the big bikes. Classic case of what happens when government attacks the symptoms not the cause.

[Des-Bal]

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant them trying to prosecute just the criminals as being their own little gang.
All the protesters are a gang (because felonies are one of the main activities) so all the prosecutor needs is to prove the criminals are part of that gang. "BLM Utah" or some such.


Yeah, but there might be a bigger agenda there. If the prosecutor doesn't seek heavy charges but does manage to establish that "BLM Utah" are a gang, that might give the state powers against protesters who haven't committed any crime but are nonetheless considered part of a gang.

That's quite a bit worse than the "scare the shit out of some criminals" strategy I thought it was.

Gang laws DO suck. In Australia they apply almost exclusively to "outlaw motorcycle gangs" aka bikies. Admittedly the worst bikie gangs were among the worst gangs, but it was pretty unjust to use special powers against all bikies (eg banning regalia, powers of search, court bans on association between members not committed of any crime) considering some other gangs were worse than the least offensive bikie gangs. Also not that effective: bikies who wanted to continue the bikie lifestyle of standover tactics, drug dealing and crime generally committed against people too afraid to call the cops, could just stop dressing like bikies or riding the big bikes. Classic case of what happens when government attacks the symptoms not the cause.

I'm talking about their specific group. Supposing they didn't just bump into each other that day and that they acquired the paint and operated in concert with carrying out the vandalism as an act of protest being their goal they may satisfy the standards of a gang. I'd be shocked if they tried to call all BLM a gang, I don't think they've got those kind of stones.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant them trying to prosecute just the criminals as being their own little gang.
All the protesters are a gang (because felonies are one of the main activities) so all the prosecutor needs is to prove the criminals are part of that gang. "BLM Utah" or some such.


Yeah, but there might be a bigger agenda there. If the prosecutor doesn't seek heavy charges but does manage to establish that "BLM Utah" are a gang, that might give the state powers against protesters who haven't committed any crime but are nonetheless considered part of a gang.

That's quite a bit worse than the "scare the shit out of some criminals" strategy I thought it was.

Gang laws DO suck. In Australia they apply almost exclusively to "outlaw motorcycle gangs" aka bikies. Admittedly the worst bikie gangs were among the worst gangs, but it was pretty unjust to use special powers against all bikies (eg banning regalia, powers of search, court bans on association between members not committed of any crime) considering some other gangs were worse than the least offensive bikie gangs. Also not that effective: bikies who wanted to continue the bikie lifestyle of standover tactics, drug dealing and crime generally committed against people too afraid to call the cops, could just stop dressing like bikies or riding the big bikes. Classic case of what happens when government attacks the symptoms not the cause.

I'm talking about their specific group. Supposing they didn't just bump into each other that day and that they acquired the paint and operated in concert with carrying out the vandalism as an act of protest being their goal they may satisfy the standards of a gang.

Three armed robbers who just met a few days ago could be called a gang for the same reason. One of them bought a stolen gun, another one issued threats with the gun, and the third one drove the car. Leaving only ambiguous matters like them having a gang name.

All is not lost. The jury might not buy this shit. In fact the prosecutor might chicken out before court.

I'd be shocked if they tried to call all BLM a gang, I don't think they've got those kind of stones.

Well I'd be surprised too. The number of BLM in Utah is no doubt tiny compared to the national movement. The prosecutor may be able to define just those BLM in Utah as a gang (BLM Utah) and finding some witnesses to there being an organization of that name wouldn't even involve any lying: "Tell me good ma'am, have you heard of an organization called BLM Utah? Oh good. Would you considering signing this affidavit to help me put them in jail?"

[Ifreann]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

No shit. This is most definitely a scare tactic at best, protest demoralisation at worst. If anything, this will bolster efforts to protest the city’s police and their responses even more.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I'm talking about their specific group. Supposing they didn't just bump into each other that day and that they acquired the paint and operated in concert with carrying out the vandalism as an act of protest being their goal they may satisfy the standards of a gang.

Three armed robbers who just met a few days ago could be called a gang for the same reason. One of them bought a stolen gun, another one issued threats with the gun, and the third one drove the car. Leaving only ambiguous matters like them having a gang name.

All is not lost. The jury might not buy this shit. In fact the prosecutor might chicken out before court.

I'd be shocked if they tried to call all BLM a gang, I don't think they've got those kind of stones.

Well I'd be surprised too. The number of BLM in Utah is no doubt tiny compared to the national movement. The prosecutor may be able to define just those BLM in Utah as a gang (BLM Utah) and finding some witnesses to there being an organization of that name wouldn't even involve any lying: "Tell me good ma'am, have you heard of an organization called BLM Utah? Oh good. Would you considering signing this affidavit to help me put them in jail?"

But if the prosecutor is successful in establishing the Utah participants in BLM protests as a gang, this could make for potentially dangerous precedent against BLM across the whole of the US. While I highly doubt such a categorisation would be properly established, it’s still a remote possibility that threatens the movement.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Three armed robbers who just met a few days ago could be called a gang for the same reason. One of them bought a stolen gun, another one issued threats with the gun, and the third one drove the car. Leaving only ambiguous matters like them having a gang name.

All is not lost. The jury might not buy this shit. In fact the prosecutor might chicken out before court.



Well I'd be surprised too. The number of BLM in Utah is no doubt tiny compared to the national movement. The prosecutor may be able to define just those BLM in Utah as a gang (BLM Utah) and finding some witnesses to there being an organization of that name wouldn't even involve any lying: "Tell me good ma'am, have you heard of an organization called BLM Utah? Oh good. Would you considering signing this affidavit to help me put them in jail?"

But if the prosecutor is successful in establishing the Utah participants in BLM protests as a gang, this could make for potentially dangerous precedent against BLM across the whole of the US. While I highly doubt such a categorisation would be properly established, it’s still a remote possibility that threatens the movement.

You have the right to free speech in America till you hurt corporate interests. That's how it feels.

[Zapato]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

Seems like the NYPD has more money, resources and manpower than they know what to do with. Great advertisement for defunding the police here.

[Genivaria]

Police in Phoenix, Arizona murder a man in his own home because he had a gun in his hand, in his home.
https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-gon ... BbrmP9El0w

The report says that the man seemed to be in the process of setting the gun down when police shot him in the back multiple times.

[Des-Bal]

Police in Phoenix, Arizona murder a man in his own home because he had a gun in his hand, in his home.
https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-gon ... BbrmP9El0w

The report says that the man seemed to be in the process of setting the gun down when police shot him in the back multiple times.

I posted a link to the body cam footage a page or two back but this one's actually from the shooter. He's standing behind the guy so he can't see whats happening as clearly but basic inference should have made it clear he was setting the gun down and raising his hands. That is unadulterated "I should not be armed" panic.

[Cordel One]

Police in Phoenix, Arizona murder a man in his own home because he had a gun in his hand, in his home.
https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-gon ... BbrmP9El0w

The report says that the man seemed to be in the process of setting the gun down when police shot him in the back multiple times.

I'm not sure if the cop is evil or just incompetent in this case.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Police in Phoenix, Arizona murder a man in his own home because he had a gun in his hand, in his home.
https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-gon ... BbrmP9El0w

The report says that the man seemed to be in the process of setting the gun down when police shot him in the back multiple times.

I'm not sure if the cop is evil or just incompetent in this case.

When every bullet is lodged in a man's back, it shouldn't really be a debate that a crime was committed and it wasn't self defense. The only debate should be whether it was second or first degree murder.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

They always say we need to fund the police to stop crime but i wonder how many 911 calls took forever to be answered because basically all of the NYPD was at this one guy's house.

[Ifreann]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

Seems like the NYPD has more money, resources and manpower than they know what to do with. Great advertisement for defunding the police here.

Indeed, the same result could probably have been arrived at by sending two officers to politely ask Ingram to come to the precinct, or even just making a phone call. All the other cops, their dogs, and their fucking helicopters are clearly surplus to requirements.

[Cordel One]

On the 14th of June Derrick Ingram, a prominent BLM activist, allegedly used a megaphone to yell directly into an NYPD officer's ear, causing obviously considerable pain and temporary hearing loss.

On the 7th of August at 7am the NYPD carried out a massive operation to arrest Ingram. Dozens of officers surrounded his apartment, including k9 units, there were officers perched on the building's fire escape, and they commandeered neighbouring apartments. Two helicopters circled overheard. They demanded that Ingram surrender, but at no point did they produce a warrant and thus Ingram never did. Ingram live-streamed the whole thing on the social medias and a crowd of protesters formed outside to support him. After five hours NYPD just left. Ingram has since voluntary presented himself to face charges rather than risk the NYPD laying siege to his home again, and has been arraigned, with the DA requesting and the judge agreeing to lower the charges against him to misdemeanour assault in the third degree.

One struggles to see how this can have been anything but an attempt at a show of force by the NYPD, an operation not aimed at arresting one man who might have been armed with a megaphone, but aimed at intimidating protesters by showing what a militarised police force could bring to bear against them. The NYPD wants people too afraid to protest against them.

Seems like the NYPD has more money, resources and manpower than they know what to do with. Great advertisement for defunding the police here.

I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing, they're trying to intimidate protesters into submission.

[Greed and Death]

Seems like the NYPD has more money, resources and manpower than they know what to do with. Great advertisement for defunding the police here.

I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing, they're trying to intimidate protesters into submission.

Well hurry up and submit then.

[Cordel One]

I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing, they're trying to intimidate protesters into submission.

Well hurry up and submit then.

In your dreams, capitalist.

[Loben III]

Well hurry up and submit then.

In your dreams, capitalist.

are you actually protesting or are you just cheering on the sidelines like so many armchair activists?

[Northern Davincia]

Well hurry up and submit then.

In your dreams, capitalist.

We've already won that particular battle.

[Cordel One]

In your dreams, capitalist.

are you actually protesting or are you just cheering on the sidelines like so many armchair activists?

Really protesting.

In your dreams, capitalist.

We've already won that particular battle.

Victories aren't permanent.

[Neuer Deutsches Reich]

The ones who it is all about in the US, the black people have told their opinion. They clearly don’t want any defunding:

81% of black people want the same amount or more policing in their neighborhoods, which breaks down to 61% wanting the police presence to stay the same and 20% saying they would like an increased police presence.

If whites now start defunding, they do it for some stupid unknown reason and not for the black people.

[Asardia]

The ones who it is all about in the US, the black people have told their opinion. They clearly don’t want any defunding:

81% of black people want the same amount or more policing in their neighborhoods, which breaks down to 61% wanting the police presence to stay the same and 20% saying they would like an increased police presence.

If whites now start defunding, they do it for some stupid unknown reason and not for the black people.

This is what we call "identify politics". This video sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg&t

Notice how they push for defunding the police but won't push for the end of actual harmful practices, such as ending the horrific War on Drugs. How about the ridiculous sentencing laws for drug crimes? How about how difficult it is for released convicts to actually re-enter society? THESE are the problems neither side addresses, yet both sides claim they aim "to help".

It sickens me