US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[Page]

As I have seen things go down. Left leaning people block police from the area the local HOAs and Business Associations in need of police support then contract proud boys to provide security. The proud boys then use the money to hire and arm disaffected unemployed white people.

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

"Hey, is this the Proud Boys hotline? I saw an antifa in my neighborhood, I know it was an antifa because it was wearing a Biden/Harris 2020 shirt. Can you come and remove it? They say you're not supposed to try to remove them yourself because they throw soup cans."

[Greed and Death]

As I have seen things go down. Left leaning people block police from the area the local HOAs and Business Associations in need of police support then contract proud boys to provide security. The proud boys then use the money to hire and arm disaffected unemployed white people.

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

HOAs ran by Karens, local Chambers of commerce, and sometimes city councils in the more conservative suburbs.

[Fahran]

A perfect recipe for trouble.

And a good reason for local authorities to address the problem before the Proud Boys or right-wing militias do.

In the case of people having their home foreclosed on, I'm definitely sympathetic to people who want to throw up barricades though - even if I'm no less sympathetic to their neighbors who understandably don't want armed people with little regard for property rights roaming around and getting into fights with locals. Both have actual material interests on the line and valid concerns and reasons for viewing certain forces as political enemies.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

A perfect recipe for trouble.

And a good reason for local authorities to address the problem before the Proud Boys or right-wing militias do.

In the case of people having their home foreclosed on, I'm definitely sympathetic to people who want to throw up barricades though - even if I'm no less sympathetic to their neighbors who understandably don't want armed people with little regard for property rights roaming around and getting into fights with locals. Both have actual material interests on the line and valid concerns and reasons for viewing certain forces as political enemies.

The antifas need to meet with the homeowners.

[Fahran]

The antifas need to meet with the homeowners.

What even...?

[Kowani]

The antifas need to meet with the homeowners.

What even...?

You don’t want to know.
It’s more stupid than anything else.

[Greed and Death]

A perfect recipe for trouble.

And a good reason for local authorities to address the problem before the Proud Boys or right-wing militias do.

In the case of people having their home foreclosed on, I'm definitely sympathetic to people who want to throw up barricades though - even if I'm no less sympathetic to their neighbors who understandably don't want armed people with little regard for property rights roaming around and getting into fights with locals. Both have actual material interests on the line and valid concerns and reasons for viewing certain forces as political enemies.

It is holding up development on property I am developing.

[Freiheit Reich]

Tired of police arresting innocent black people (and innocent people from other races)? Tired of police brutality and them acting like the Gestapo? Tired of people thrown in harsh prisons for minor crimes? Yes, we are tired of this injustice! How can we fix it? Vote for republicans--NO WAY! Vote for democrats because in democrat run cities and states this is not a problem? NO WAY, THAT IS A LAUGH! I am confused, there are only two parties in the USA that hate each other and yet both parties have not fixed these issues, what can we do???? VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!! What? Do you mean we can actually break away from the awful 2-party chokehold on the USA? Can we actually vote for a party that cares about civil liberties? YES WE CAN!!! Make a difference, in upcoming elections, choose the party of equality and freedom, VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!

'Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?' Right Where We've Always Been.

https://reason.com/2020/06/08/where-are ... ways-been/

"Of the three political alternatives, a free economy, a mixed economy, a totalitarian state, only one provides the economic, political, and cultural context in which systematic police brutality cannot be a problem: a free society,"

'Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?' Right Where We've Always Been.
Real changes will require fewer laws and less violent enforcement.
J.D. TUCCILLE | 6.8.2020 12:45 PM

sipaphotosten826554
(Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/Newscom)
After the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, America is finally embracing police reform. As is so often the case in matters of personal freedom, libertarians were here long before mainstream political counterparts and fought a frequently lonely battle against abusive government power. Now, just as they did with same-sex relationships, drug reform, and the ongoing battle against the surveillance state, people across the political spectrum seem ready to concede that a little more freedom could be a good thing. If the effort succeeds, we may not get the credit—newly converted reformers are already trying to separate the cause from its long-time promoters —but at least we'll live in a better world.

"Where are the libertarians?" is such a knee-jerk cry after incidents of police brutality that it's safe to assume that it's a matter of bad faith rather than of ignorance. Having left the issue on the back burner for so long, some people don't want to admit that we were there ahead of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to police misconduct, we've been way ahead of them.

"Of the three political alternatives, a free economy, a mixed economy, a totalitarian state, only one provides the economic, political, and cultural context in which systematic police brutality cannot be a problem: a free society," wrote Reason founder Lanny Friedlander in a very '60s-ish 1969 essay. "The police of a free society, engaging in retaliatory force only, enforcing laws of a defensive nature only, would be bound by the same laws they enforced, and would stand fully accountable for their actions."

Going beyond window-dressing, libertarians favor minimizing opportunities for police to act against the public and making any interactions as non-confrontational as possible.

In 1971, the fledgling Libertarian Party (L.P.) called for "the repeal of all 'crimes without victims' now incorporated in federal and state laws," such as the prohibitions on drug use that have driven so much of the escalation in aggressive police tactics. The same platform declared itself opposed to "so-called 'no-knock laws'" of the sort that got Breonna Taylor killed by cops this year when they crashed through her door at night, unannounced, looking for illegal drugs.

In cases of police misconduct, libertarians favor holding government agencies and their employees accountable for their actions.

"We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction," the L.P. proposed in 1976. "Law enforcement agencies should be liable for this restitution unless malfeasance of the officials involved is proven, in which case they should be personally liable."

That police agencies too often foster abusive conduct was no secret to libertarians long before the Minneapolis Police Department failed to implement reforms that might have saved George Floyd's life.

"When a rookie Houston patrolman named Alan Nichols did the unthinkable and reported three fellow officers for the vicious beating of a black prisoner, police internal-affairs investigators tried to have him fired, the chief publicly reprimanded him, and other police ostracized him," Glenn Garvin wrote in Inquiry, a Cato Institute publication, in 1979 coverage of violent and racially charged policing in Texas.

"Civil libertarians need to recognize that federal prosecution of law-enforcement officers who use excessive force often provides the only check on such unrestrained state power," Dirk G. Roggeveen urged in the pages of Reason as Americans reacted to the 1991 police beating of Rodney King.

Through these years, police not only misbehaved but also came to act like an occupying army lording it over a hostile populace.

Seattle's "police force has spied on local political activists for more than 20 years," Roxanne Park warned in Inquiry in 1978. "The intelligence abuses discovered in Seattle are 'typical examples' of the practices of urban police departments."

"Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work," Radley Balko cautioned for the Cato Institute in 2006. He expanded his argument in his 2013 book, Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians. "Americans by a 2-to-1 margin are more troubled by the actions of police in the killing of George Floyd than by violence at some protests," the Wall Street Journal reports from survey results. That just may result in policy changes.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, the only Libertarian in Congress, literally wrote the bill that would eliminate qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it so difficult to hold police accountable for their bad behavior unless courts in the same jurisdiction have already ruled that such conduct is wrong.

If Congress doesn't rise to the occasion, the Supreme Court could. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor both look eager to revisit the mess the court created when it invented qualified immunity.

No-knock raids, which so often end in tragedy when police kick-in the wrong door, or when suddenly awakened residents try to defend against intruders, are also getting a second look. Louisville, Kentucky is considering banning such warrants, a half-century after the Libertarian Party proposed exactly that.

City council members in Minneapolis are even talking about disbanding the police department amidst a national, though ill-defined, movement to "defund police." Whether or not that's an improvement depends on what comes next. Retaining harsh enforcement by another name will continue the abuses, the intrusiveness, and the disproportionate use of state violence against disfavored communities under nothing more than different branding.

Maybe that's why it's taken so long for people to seriously consider police reform, and why they're so resistant to giving libertarians credit on the issue. Real change requires not just dropping the word "police" but reducing the opportunity for government agents to use violence against the public. That means fewer laws to be enforced and less intrusive enforcement of those laws. That's a hard pill to swallow for ideologues who are committed to forcing people to do what they don't want to do, or to forcibly stopping them from exercising their own preferences.

Libertarians should be happy that Americans are ready to discuss police reform. But we'll have to see if the country is actually prepared for less policing.

[Kowani]

Tired of police arresting innocent black people (and innocent people from other races)? Tired of police brutality and them acting like the Gestapo? Tired of people thrown in harsh prisons for minor crimes? Yes, we are tired of this injustice! How can we fix it? Vote for republicans--NO WAY! Vote for democrats because in democrat run cities and states this is not a problem? NO WAY, THAT IS A LAUGH! I am confused, there are only two parties in the USA that hate each other and yet both parties have not fixed these issues, what can we do???? VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!! What? Do you mean we can actually break away from the awful 2-party chokehold on the USA? Can we actually vote for a party that cares about civil liberties? YES WE CAN!!! Make a difference, in upcoming elections, choose the party of equality and freedom, VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!

'Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?' Right Where We've Always Been.

https://reason.com/2020/06/08/where-are ... ways-been/

"Of the three political alternatives, a free economy, a mixed economy, a totalitarian state, only one provides the economic, political, and cultural context in which systematic police brutality cannot be a problem: a free society,"

'Where Are Libertarians on Police Reform?' Right Where We've Always Been.
Real changes will require fewer laws and less violent enforcement.
J.D. TUCCILLE | 6.8.2020 12:45 PM

sipaphotosten826554
(Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/Newscom)
After the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, America is finally embracing police reform. As is so often the case in matters of personal freedom, libertarians were here long before mainstream political counterparts and fought a frequently lonely battle against abusive government power. Now, just as they did with same-sex relationships, drug reform, and the ongoing battle against the surveillance state, people across the political spectrum seem ready to concede that a little more freedom could be a good thing. If the effort succeeds, we may not get the credit—newly converted reformers are already trying to separate the cause from its long-time promoters —but at least we'll live in a better world.

"Where are the libertarians?" is such a knee-jerk cry after incidents of police brutality that it's safe to assume that it's a matter of bad faith rather than of ignorance. Having left the issue on the back burner for so long, some people don't want to admit that we were there ahead of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to police misconduct, we've been way ahead of them.

"Of the three political alternatives, a free economy, a mixed economy, a totalitarian state, only one provides the economic, political, and cultural context in which systematic police brutality cannot be a problem: a free society," wrote Reason founder Lanny Friedlander in a very '60s-ish 1969 essay. "The police of a free society, engaging in retaliatory force only, enforcing laws of a defensive nature only, would be bound by the same laws they enforced, and would stand fully accountable for their actions."

Going beyond window-dressing, libertarians favor minimizing opportunities for police to act against the public and making any interactions as non-confrontational as possible.

In 1971, the fledgling Libertarian Party (L.P.) called for "the repeal of all 'crimes without victims' now incorporated in federal and state laws," such as the prohibitions on drug use that have driven so much of the escalation in aggressive police tactics. The same platform declared itself opposed to "so-called 'no-knock laws'" of the sort that got Breonna Taylor killed by cops this year when they crashed through her door at night, unannounced, looking for illegal drugs.

In cases of police misconduct, libertarians favor holding government agencies and their employees accountable for their actions.

"We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction," the L.P. proposed in 1976. "Law enforcement agencies should be liable for this restitution unless malfeasance of the officials involved is proven, in which case they should be personally liable."

That police agencies too often foster abusive conduct was no secret to libertarians long before the Minneapolis Police Department failed to implement reforms that might have saved George Floyd's life.

"When a rookie Houston patrolman named Alan Nichols did the unthinkable and reported three fellow officers for the vicious beating of a black prisoner, police internal-affairs investigators tried to have him fired, the chief publicly reprimanded him, and other police ostracized him," Glenn Garvin wrote in Inquiry, a Cato Institute publication, in 1979 coverage of violent and racially charged policing in Texas.

"Civil libertarians need to recognize that federal prosecution of law-enforcement officers who use excessive force often provides the only check on such unrestrained state power," Dirk G. Roggeveen urged in the pages of Reason as Americans reacted to the 1991 police beating of Rodney King.

Through these years, police not only misbehaved but also came to act like an occupying army lording it over a hostile populace.

Seattle's "police force has spied on local political activists for more than 20 years," Roxanne Park warned in Inquiry in 1978. "The intelligence abuses discovered in Seattle are 'typical examples' of the practices of urban police departments."

"Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work," Radley Balko cautioned for the Cato Institute in 2006. He expanded his argument in his 2013 book, Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Now, after decades of manifestos, journalism, research, and advocacy, America seems to agree with libertarians. "Americans by a 2-to-1 margin are more troubled by the actions of police in the killing of George Floyd than by violence at some protests," the Wall Street Journal reports from survey results. That just may result in policy changes.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, the only Libertarian in Congress, literally wrote the bill that would eliminate qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it so difficult to hold police accountable for their bad behavior unless courts in the same jurisdiction have already ruled that such conduct is wrong.

If Congress doesn't rise to the occasion, the Supreme Court could. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor both look eager to revisit the mess the court created when it invented qualified immunity.

No-knock raids, which so often end in tragedy when police kick-in the wrong door, or when suddenly awakened residents try to defend against intruders, are also getting a second look. Louisville, Kentucky is considering banning such warrants, a half-century after the Libertarian Party proposed exactly that.

City council members in Minneapolis are even talking about disbanding the police department amidst a national, though ill-defined, movement to "defund police." Whether or not that's an improvement depends on what comes next. Retaining harsh enforcement by another name will continue the abuses, the intrusiveness, and the disproportionate use of state violence against disfavored communities under nothing more than different branding.

Maybe that's why it's taken so long for people to seriously consider police reform, and why they're so resistant to giving libertarians credit on the issue. Real change requires not just dropping the word "police" but reducing the opportunity for government agents to use violence against the public. That means fewer laws to be enforced and less intrusive enforcement of those laws. That's a hard pill to swallow for ideologues who are committed to forcing people to do what they don't want to do, or to forcibly stopping them from exercising their own preferences.

Libertarians should be happy that Americans are ready to discuss police reform. But we'll have to see if the country is actually prepared for less policing.

ah yes
I'm sure a party that wants to privatize social services and get rid of anti-discrimination laws will do well in an urban environment

[The Three Palins]

"Of the three political alternatives, a free economy, a mixed economy, a totalitarian state, only one provides the economic, political, and cultural context in which systematic police brutality cannot be a problem: a free society,"

Larry uses "economy" and "society" interchangeably. That's quite foolish.

"We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of criminal proceedings against them which do not result in their conviction," the L.P. proposed in 1976. "Law enforcement agencies should be liable for this restitution unless malfeasance of the officials involved is proven, in which case they should be personally liable."

This is not particularly rational. Police can't know to a court standard of proof whether the suspect they find on the scene of a crime will eventually be convicted. Therefore they will err too far towards under-arresting, which to be consistent they could also be sued for.

How about an appeals process to award restitution to people whose arrest was clearly unjustified, or had speculative charges laid against them (prosecutor knowingly went to trial with insufficient evidence), OR were completely acquitted on appeal. This would put a limit on the legal harassment of innocent people, while leaving some grey area for suspects who aren't so obviously guilty that the outcome of trial is certain in advance.

[FutureAmerica]

There's racism from all groups in the US. No one is innocent. I'm all for the idea of a police force that actually represent the racial population of the community. This way racism is not always cried out everytime a minority suspect is killed. By the way, crime in black and latino communities in the US is very high, with almost third world levels of violence. Southside of Chicago is simply a third world war zone with hundreds of violent deaths every week.

Black and Latino people have historically legally and in practice been held back and kept poor. This continues today. Poor people are more likely to result to violence.
Additionally, it’s not just them killing a minority suspect, it’s shooting the black dude running away because the police “felt threatened” or shooting them because “it looked like that phone was a gun” or “we just thought they had a gun” or shooting a black woman for sleeping and more that we say, “Yeah... this is racism.” It’s not just because a white dude killed a black dude.

Is there racism in the US, yes, not much different than most other countries around the world. I've seen racism in todays Europe and Latin America firsthand. I am a minority in the US. The only thing that holds back any minority in the US is ignorance. Can ignorance be cured in the US, never.

[Fahran]

It is holding up development on property I am developing.

Well, this is in keeping with your villainous MO admittedly.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

What even...?

You don’t want to know.
It’s more stupid than anything else.

What you mean? All I said was these left wing activists need to talk with the homeowners instead of acting like an occupying force.

[Nakena]

I would be surprised if in the end those blockades are being removes by the Oregon National Guard once Biden is President.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I would be surprised if in the end those blockades are being removes by the Oregon National Guard once Biden is President.

Removed as in the protesters go home voluntarily, or removed as in Biden gets in office and says "let's go full Tiananman, the media won't be as hard on me as they would be on Trump"?

[Greed and Death]

It is holding up development on property I am developing.

Well, this is in keeping with your villainous MO admittedly.

They are only making it worse for themselves when the property is sold I get to deduct the cost of kicking them out from it. So what equity they had is going away.

[Nakena]

I would be surprised if in the end those blockades are being removes by the Oregon National Guard once Biden is President.

Removed as in the protesters go home voluntarily, or removed as in Biden gets in office and says "let's go full Tiananman, the media won't be as hard on me as they would be on Trump"?

Removed if not gone by that time, because by then they have outlived their usefulness as part of the anti-trump resistance, and are no longer needed. A democratic administration will have no interest in further street protests, that are beyond their control and influence.

Liberal, pro-biden MSM (CNN etc) will likely smile-face-downplay or not report about the matters as they are doing now with Trump.

[Greed and Death]

I would be surprised if in the end those blockades are being removes by the Oregon National Guard once Biden is President.

Removed as in the protesters go home voluntarily, or removed as in Biden gets in office and says "let's go full Tiananman, the media won't be as hard on me as they would be on Trump"?

At the end of the day the protesters and now sqautters are in the wrong. This is rule law. The family is also not particularly sympathetic. They went and spouted sovereign citizen nonsense during their foreclosure hearing. If they had been white they would have been placed in jail for contempt. Never in a million years spout sovereign citizenship nonsense in court.

The house sold for 260,000 in a foreclosure auction if they had sold it themselves they would have gotten 400,000 to 500,000 for it. More than enough to buy a home in the suburbs. When they realized they weren't going to pay the loan they should have put the house up for sale.

There is no reason the family should be made homeless but its the family's stupidity that is causing that. What equity they now have about 170,000 will likely disappear in the eviction process because they are being rightwing nutjob idiots.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Removed as in the protesters go home voluntarily, or removed as in Biden gets in office and says "let's go full Tiananman, the media won't be as hard on me as they would be on Trump"?

Removed if not gone by that time, because by then they have outlived their usefulness as part of the anti-trump resistance, and are no longer needed. A democratic administration will have no interest in further street protests, that are beyond their control and influence.

Liberal, pro-biden MSM (CNN etc) will likely smile-face-downplay or not report about the matters as they are doing now with Trump.

Not surprised. The media's "resistance" to Trump was in bad faith from day one and not done out of a place of anti authoritarian love for freedom, but out of a selfish desire to spite the guy who hurt their egos by insulting and degrading them in front of thousands of people. It's why Kamala's history as the CEO of mass incarceration and judicial system corruption wasn't reported on by the media until Tulsi Gabbard called out the elephant in the room at the Democratic debate. It's also why the media was portraying trump's troop pullout from Syria (the one that never even happened) in a negative light, while criticizing foreign intervention under Bush a mere ten years prior. You don't have to like or respect Trump (I hate his guts) to know that the opposition can be awful in their own respects. I believe in the freedom of the press but the mainstream media in this country is made up of some of the worst of the worst people in our society. I think it takes a similar mindset to make it in media as it takes to make it in government.

[Phoenicaea]

^_Rojava, i do not know. i do not agree. bear in mind ‘insincere’ critic toward mild criticism is possibly worse than ‘insincerity’ of furnished mild opposition, if futile.

if you sincerely believe pull out of troops from syria (some hundreds of people, perhaps?) was something meaningful, apart lightly growing death tool of left soldiers, discussion is unworthy.

if you watch syrian genocide with complacency, it is appropriate that you get that ‘president’.

[Ifreann]

As I have seen things go down. Left leaning people block police from the area the local HOAs and Business Associations in need of police support then contract proud boys to provide security. The proud boys then use the money to hire and arm disaffected unemployed white people.

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

Odds are Greed's just making this up.

[Bassoe]

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

Someone who already tried contacting actual law enforcement and was met with an 'you're on your own', doesn't have the money to employ mercenaries and knows that if they personally used force to defend themselves and their property, they'd never get anything approaching a fair trial. This leaves contacting ideological maniacs who'll do it for free, no matter their other antisocial eccentricities.

[Greed and Death]

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

Someone who already tried contacting actual law enforcement and was met with an 'you're on your own', doesn't have the money to employ mercenaries and knows that if they personally used force to defend themselves and their property, they'd never get anything approaching a fair trial. This leaves contacting ideological maniacs who'll do it for free, no matter their other antisocial eccentricities.

Ding. Though they often get paid now just less than an insured security team as they dont care about insurance and disclaim any group responsibility if someone "takes it too far".

[Vassenor]

I keep thinking I’m reading this wrong, who contacts the Proud Boys?

Someone who already tried contacting actual law enforcement and was met with an 'you're on your own', doesn't have the money to employ mercenaries and knows that if they personally used force to defend themselves and their property, they'd never get anything approaching a fair trial. This leaves contacting ideological maniacs who'll do it for free, no matter their other antisocial eccentricities.

And all this because some people don't like the idea of commodifying basic necessities like shelter during a pandemic.

[Greed and Death]

Someone who already tried contacting actual law enforcement and was met with an 'you're on your own', doesn't have the money to employ mercenaries and knows that if they personally used force to defend themselves and their property, they'd never get anything approaching a fair trial. This leaves contacting ideological maniacs who'll do it for free, no matter their other antisocial eccentricities.

And all this because some people don't like the idea of commodifying basic necessities like shelter during a pandemic.

They were 90,000 in debt on a home that sold for 260,000 at a mortgage auction. That 170,000 would be theirs. Worse case scenario they could get an apartment and pay 5 years of rent in cash.
So they were never at risk of being homeless.