US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[The Republic of Fore]

The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you. If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

[Ifreann]

Did you know that tear gas affects everyone it comes into contact with, regardless of whether they have been violent? It's true. Chemical weapons are totally indiscriminate. The police will harm people who just happen to be in the vicinity of a crowd they want to control.

Unless you're dead.

Sounds like people should stop rioting then. Being assaulted by a violent thug who wanted an excuse to steal nike shoes tends to harm people too.

If the police would stop attacking demonstrations against the police there wouldn't be riots.

---

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Most adults have realised that the world is more complicated than the "goodies v baddies" understanding they had as toddlers.

[Page]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Give the bear you picnic basket and it won't maul you. Give the mugger your wallet and they won't stab you. Even if these are sound observations, these observations do not serve to defend the currently existing power dynamics as rightful.

What is "obey the police and you won't die" but another flavor of might makes right?

[Esalia]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Because nobody has ever been bothered by the police when they haven't broken a law. Nope, never.

Perhaps this concept is so difficult for adults to understand because it is out of step with reality.

[Vassenor]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

[Ayytaly]

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

"But the law only favors those like us."

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Funny how the police will mess with you even if you don't break the law. Really sucks the life out of your argument Fore.

[Ayytaly]

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Funny how the police will mess with you even if you don't break the law. Really sucks the life out of your argument Fore.

Fore probably doesn't fit the profile.

Ah, privilege.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Sounds like people should stop rioting then. Being assaulted by a violent thug who wanted an excuse to steal nike shoes tends to harm people too.

If the police would stop attacking demonstrations against the police there wouldn't be riots.

Case in point: yesterday afternoon hundreds of people demonstrated in Brooklyn Center for justice for Daunte Wright. No cops, no troopers, no guards, no problem.

[Galloism]

The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you. If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

Don't wear a short skirt then you won't get raped.

Still shitty logic.

You saying this is hilarious for so many reasons.

[Genivaria]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

It's not a difficult concept, it is however a naive, childish, and flat out wrong statement.

[Fahran]

If the police would stop attacking demonstrations against the police there wouldn't be riots.

There's literally no good basis outside of left-wing narratives for this argument, especially given that riots and violence often precede police intervention, that agitators and saboteurs have been responsible for deliberately inciting violence in the past, and that any police presence at all is often sufficient to spark a riot according to the academic sources I shared a bit earlier. Riots are not simply the result of peaceful people rising up against the big, bad cops who are attacking them whilst they're minding their own business, at least not from the perspective of people who study riots in the context of crowd control. Police can be a trigger, but it's a lot more complex than you're making out.

[Fahran]

Case in point: yesterday afternoon hundreds of people demonstrated in Brooklyn Center for justice for Daunte Wright. No cops, no troopers, no guards, no problem.

So... as I mentioned before this is complex. Police with riot gear being present at a demonstration is often a sufficient trigger for violence, even in instances where police cannot be said to instigate the violence. It puts demonstrators on guard and, when there's a lot of bad blood between demonstrators and the police, the situation can get bad fairly quickly if mismanaged. One way to avoid riots is to remove the police from the situation altogether and let demonstrations proceed unhindered. This, however, can also backfire and has in the past. Municipal authorities and police officials have to judge situations on a case by case basis to determine the best course of action.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Don't be X and X won't harm you. Fascinating logic.

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Considering how often cops shoot innocent, even unarmed people including children this is a very inaccurate statement to make.

[North Washington Republic]

Case in point: yesterday afternoon hundreds of people demonstrated in Brooklyn Center for justice for Daunte Wright. No cops, no troopers, no guards, no problem.

So... as I mentioned before this is complex. Police with riot gear being present at a demonstration is often a sufficient trigger for violence, even in instances where police cannot be said to instigate the violence. It puts demonstrators on guard and, when there's a lot of bad blood between demonstrators and the police, the situation can get bad fairly quickly if mismanaged. One way to avoid riots is to remove the police from the situation altogether and let demonstrations proceed unhindered. This, however, can also backfire and has in the past. Municipal authorities and police officials have to judge situations on a case by case basis to determine the best course of action.

I disagree. First, police need to be protected from large and hostile crowds, some who are throwing projectiles at them. Secondly, the police have to be there so the protest doesn’t turn into a riot, and if it does, they can respond quickly. See, there are residences that live by there. and they’re are suffering from the unrest that happened weeks ago.

[Fahran]

I disagree. First, police need to be protected from large and hostile crowds, some who are throwing projectiles at them. Secondly, the police have to be there so the protest doesn’t turn into a riot, and if it does, they can respond quickly. See, there are residences that live by there. and they’re are suffering from the unrest that happened weeks ago.

You don't seem to disagree with me. You're simply tossing kindling on another point I raised.

This, however, can also backfire and has in the past. Municipal authorities and police officials have to judge situations on a case by case basis to determine the best course of action.

[North Washington Republic]

I disagree. First, police need to be protected from large and hostile crowds, some who are throwing projectiles at them. Secondly, the police have to be there so the protest doesn’t turn into a riot, and if it does, they can respond quickly. See, there are residences that live by there. and they’re are suffering from the unrest that happened weeks ago.

You don't seem to disagree with me. You're simply tossing kindling on another point I raised.

This, however, can also backfire and has in the past. Municipal authorities and police officials have to judge situations on a case by case basis to determine the best course of action.

I stand corrected.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Case in point: yesterday afternoon hundreds of people demonstrated in Brooklyn Center for justice for Daunte Wright. No cops, no troopers, no guards, no problem.

So... as I mentioned before this is complex. Police with riot gear being present at a demonstration is often a sufficient trigger for violence, even in instances where police cannot be said to instigate the violence. It puts demonstrators on guard and, when there's a lot of bad blood between demonstrators and the police, the situation can get bad fairly quickly if mismanaged. One way to avoid riots is to remove the police from the situation altogether and let demonstrations proceed unhindered. This, however, can also backfire and has in the past. Municipal authorities and police officials have to judge situations on a case by case basis to determine the best course of action.

More municipal authorities and police officials should try dialing down the militarized shows of overwhelming force, they might could get better results. As happened in Brooklyn Center yesterday.

[The Republic of Fore]

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Because nobody has ever been bothered by the police when they haven't broken a law. Nope, never.

Perhaps this concept is so difficult for adults to understand because it is out of step with reality.

Yep, rare exceptions means something is "out of step with reality". Guess It's out of step with reality to say parasitic amoebas that attack the brain are fatal because of those two people who got lucky and lived. It's not like most people who get killed by police are armed with a gun or knife. Oh wait, they are.

[The Republic of Fore]

Sounds like people should stop rioting then. Being assaulted by a violent thug who wanted an excuse to steal nike shoes tends to harm people too.

If the police would stop attacking demonstrations against the police there wouldn't be riots.

---

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Most adults have realised that the world is more complicated than the "goodies v baddies" understanding they had as toddlers.

Or people could just not riot. It won't achieve anything other than getting more people arrested. Anybody who riots for any reason should be in prison.

[The Republic of Fore]

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Give the bear you picnic basket and it won't maul you. Give the mugger your wallet and they won't stab you. Even if these are sound observations, these observations do not serve to defend the currently existing power dynamics as rightful.

What is "obey the police and you won't die" but another flavor of might makes right?

I don't feel sorry for people who can't handle simple tasks. And I especially don't feel sorry for criminals.

[Atheris]

If the police would stop attacking demonstrations against the police there wouldn't be riots.

---

Most adults have realised that the world is more complicated than the "goodies v baddies" understanding they had as toddlers.

Or people could just not riot. It won't achieve anything other than getting more people arrested. Anybody who riots for any reason should be in prison.

Listen, dude. I'm all against riots myself, but saying people could "just not riot" is a naïve fallacy. That's not how mass hysteria works. If someone is wrapped up in an event of mass hysteria be it a riot, a mosh pit, or the 14th-century dancing plague in the western Holy Roman Empire, then they have basically no real sense of being there. It's kind of like dissociation. They don't really have control of their bodies, only that they must "do".

[The Republic of Fore]

Didn't know "don't break the law and the police won't bother you" was such a difficult concept for adults to understand when most 5 year olds are capable of it.

Considering how often cops shoot innocent, even unarmed people including children this is a very inaccurate statement to make.

Cops rarely shoot unarmed people, and just because someone isn't armed doesn't mean they're not dangerous. The night Osama Bin Laden was killed one of the SEALS ended up shooting his wife in the leg. She turned out to be unarmed, but the navy still considered his act justified. Why you might ask? Because It's easy to preach about "what you should have done" when you never have, and never will be faced with a scenario where your life could be in danger. I believe some people on this forum like to label that as privilege.

[The Republic of Fore]

Or people could just not riot. It won't achieve anything other than getting more people arrested. Anybody who riots for any reason should be in prison.

Listen, dude. I'm all against riots myself, but saying people could "just not riot" is a naïve fallacy. That's not how mass hysteria works. If someone is wrapped up in an event of mass hysteria be it a riot, a mosh pit, or the 14th-century dancing plague in the western Holy Roman Empire, then they have basically no real sense of being there. It's kind of like dissociation. They don't really have control of their bodies, only that they must "do".

Great, then toss them in prison and call it a day. Don't go to protests if they could turn violent, it isn't hard.

[The Republic of Fore]

Funny how the police will mess with you even if you don't break the law. Really sucks the life out of your argument Fore.

Fore probably doesn't fit the profile.

Ah, privilege.

I've had negative interactions with cops. But I have the "privilege" of being intelligent enough to not charge someone with a knife in front of them. Rare exceptions don't disprove the rule. You can die of lung cancer as a non smoker. Doesn't change that your risk will be far lower.