LA Black Man Arrested While Taking Out the Trash

[Insaanistan]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ZgqUx97mBS
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... eqh3M3U9Mz

Neither of those sources document a single use of lethal force by police-in fact, the only deaths mentioned were the six people killed by the protesters/rioters (most estimates place that at twenty-five). There is not even a single documented example of a firearm being used, just complainants over the use of pepper spray, tear gas, etc., that is, deliberately nonlethal force.

If, as you say "It's the police who start the riots when they use lethal force and chemical weapons against protesters" then the only riot that meets that description across all of 2020-2021 is the riot at the Capitol, because it is the only one, out of hundreds, in which the police used lethal force.

The one that was the most lethal was the Capital attack.

You know, because it was a literal violent insurrection attempt?

[Lewanda]

Taking out the trash isn’t a euphemism here, folks.
Police in LA were responding to a domestic violence call when three blocks away from the destination they spotted a man outside.

One officer inquired if that was the suspect, as they had no real clue what the suspect looked like.
The other officer’s answer?
“Probably.”

Was it a man running who looked like he had run three blocks? No.
But the man was black, and for those officers, that meant he “probably” was their suspect.
They handcuffed him as he called for his girlfriend and maintained he was not the man they were looking for.

Oh, and guess what? Their real suspect? He’s white.

Add taking out the trash to the list of things black people can’t do without being arrested or shot by police in America, below waiting at Starbucks and above literally sleeping.

Source:
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ?_amp=true

Just another day in the US of A. Nothing shocking about a cop arresting or killing a black person for absolutely nothing. Its the norm for them!

[The Reformed American Republic]

It looks like a mistake; not something worthy of a thread.

The police should be a little better about not making mistakes. It's like the wrong addresses with no-knock raids. Somehow Amazon and Ebay manage to do a lot better than the police in getting addresses right.

They should, sure, but there will always be mistakes like this. I don't see this as a racist incident when it could just be idiocy and this isn't on par with something like what happened with Floyd. There will always be police mistakes where the wrong guy gets arrested.

[Cannot think of a name]

Except he wasn't at address X. He was several blocks away from address X when the police arrested him.

No. From the article: https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ?_amp=true

The officers see Austin as he was taking out the trash in front of his Fountain Avenue apartment;

"The officers were responding to a 911 call made by Austin’s neighbor about her ex-boyfriend, who was white; no description of the suspect is given in the call."

“You’re looking for the people upstairs,” Austin protests as the officers attempt to handcuff him behind his back.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that he was several blocks away, there is nothing at all to indicate that: he is right at the location called about.

This really doesn't make it better. If they're approaching an apartment complex just grabbing the first person they see without any other context is kind of ridiculous.

[Insaanistan]

The police should be a little better about not making mistakes. It's like the wrong addresses with no-knock raids. Somehow Amazon and Ebay manage to do a lot better than the police in getting addresses right.

They should, sure, but there will always be mistakes like this. I don't see this as a racist incident when it could just be idiocy and this isn't on par with something like what happened with Floyd. There will always be police mistakes where the wrong guy gets arrested.

Is this on par with Floyd’s case? No, because they thankfully didn’t kill him and instead arrested HIM and HIS GIRLFRIEND despite the woman who made the call repeatedly telling them they were arresting the wrong person.

Do I think there was racist intent? Most definitely.

[Xelsis]

Neither of those sources document a single use of lethal force by police-in fact, the only deaths mentioned were the six people killed by the protesters/rioters (most estimates place that at twenty-five). There is not even a single documented example of a firearm being used, just complainants over the use of pepper spray, tear gas, etc., that is, deliberately nonlethal force.

If, as you say "It's the police who start the riots when they use lethal force and chemical weapons against protesters" then the only riot that meets that description across all of 2020-2021 is the riot at the Capitol, because it is the only one, out of hundreds, in which the police used lethal force.

The one that was the most lethal was the Capital attack.

You know, because it was a literal violent insurrection attempt?

Except that is plainly false, as at least six people have been killed by BLM protesters/rioters (and most estimates are higher) per your own source while the Capitol riot did not kill a single officer. (It was falsely reported that one officer was killed, Brian Sicknick, he actually died of a stroke on Jan. 7). Zero BLM rioters were shot and killed by police, across hundreds of riots, hundreds of casualties, and billions of dollars of property damage.

Police arresting a man who matched the only description they were given at the scene of an alleged crime is not such a crime against humanity as to justify further riots. Bad police work? I'd tend to agree with that, I tend to fall on the side of minimizing police power, but there's not even evidence that it was racially motivated, let alone your exaggerations.

[Insaanistan]

The one that was the most lethal was the Capital attack.

You know, because it was a literal violent insurrection attempt?

Except that is plainly false, as at least six people have been killed by BLM protesters/rioters (and most estimates are higher) per your own source while the Capitol riot did not kill a single officer. (It was falsely reported that one officer was killed, Brian Sicknick, he actually died of a stroke on Jan. 7). Zero BLM rioters were shot and killed by police, across hundreds of riots, hundreds of casualties, and billions of dollars of property damage.

Police arresting a man who matched the only description they were given at the scene of an alleged crime is not such a crime against humanity as to justify further riots. Bad police work? I'd tend to agree with that, I tend to fall on the side of minimizing police power, but there's not even evidence that it was racially motivated, let alone your exaggerations.

Several were shot with rubber bullets and tear gas, sparking violence that plagued the nation. Additionally, several sources state much of the actual rioting was conducted by rioters who swept in after peaceful protests. Notice how the police used tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters protesting discrimination against black people, armed as if they were fighting against ISIS in Fallujah, and you’re comparing that to a literal attempt at a violent coup because some racists didn’t like who won.

The man arrested here did not “fit the description” as they were given no description. They just saw a black guy and literally said “This dude? Probably,” and arrested him.

[Xelsis]

No. From the article: https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ?_amp=true







I have no idea where you are getting the idea that he was several blocks away, there is nothing at all to indicate that: he is right at the location called about.

This really doesn't make it better. If they're approaching an apartment complex just grabbing the first person they see without any other context is kind of ridiculous.

I generally agree, I think it was overzealous and not good policing, but there's no evidence that it was racially motivated, and it is not some extraordinary crime against humanity. There's nothing to suggest that the cops would not have done the exact same thing if it was a white guy taking out the trash in front of the same apartment that they were called to. I'll not sound the racism alarm until some actual evidence of racism can be provided, if there is any, by all means.

The insistence on declaring that every instance of police doing something wrong or bad must be a case of racism and not just bad policing is actively harmful to efforts to actually curb such bad behavior.

Except that is plainly false, as at least six people have been killed by BLM protesters/rioters (and most estimates are higher) per your own source while the Capitol riot did not kill a single officer. (It was falsely reported that one officer was killed, Brian Sicknick, he actually died of a stroke on Jan. 7). Zero BLM rioters were shot and killed by police, across hundreds of riots, hundreds of casualties, and billions of dollars of property damage.

Police arresting a man who matched the only description they were given at the scene of an alleged crime is not such a crime against humanity as to justify further riots. Bad police work? I'd tend to agree with that, I tend to fall on the side of minimizing police power, but there's not even evidence that it was racially motivated, let alone your exaggerations.

Several were shot with rubber bullets and tear gas, sparking violence that plagued the nation. Additionally, several sources state much of the actual rioting was conducted by rioters who swept in after peaceful protests. Notice how the police used tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters protesting discrimination against black people, armed as if they were fighting against ISIS in Fallujah, and you’re comparing that to a literal attempt at a violent coup because some racists didn’t like who won.

Yes, I'm sure that the U.S. military makes extensive use of rubber bullets to fight ISIS. Throughout all of the BLM riots, which, again, killed at least six people, injured at least hundreds and likely thousands, and destroyed the property of countless innocent people, you cannot find even a single example of an officer using even a handgun to shoot at kill a rioter, up to and including those who were throwing molotov cocktails and explosives at them.

Ashli Babbitt did not throw any molotov cocktails or explosives. She was, in fact, unarmed. She was shot and killed regardless, while those who actually violently assaulted officers in the BLM riots (which caused hundreds of officer casualties) were not.

The man arrested here did not “fit the description” as they were given no description. They just saw a black guy and literally said “This dude? Probably,” and arrested him.

The description was a male. He was a male. He fit the description given. Again, I consider it overzealous, but there's no evidence they would not have done the same with a white, Asian, or polka-dotted guy.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Do I think there was racist intent? Most definitely.

There's no proof of that. If this was the Jim Crow era, then I'd agree with you, but here, there's nothing to suggest anything but shoddy police work involving confused and uninformed officers.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

They should, sure, but there will always be mistakes like this. I don't see this as a racist incident when it could just be idiocy and this isn't on par with something like what happened with Floyd. There will always be police mistakes where the wrong guy gets arrested.

There can be a perfectly plausible explanation for any individual incident. This could have been just an innocent mistake that could've happened to anyone. Heck, even Floyd's death that's being hotly debated in another thread can be waved away as the actions of a handful of bad apples that slipped through the sieve.

But when you put all of these incidents together into statistical treads, it's difficult to deny that there is something systematically flawed with United States law enforcement in general.

To recycle an analogy I used in a different argument, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate, innocent reasons for a person to shave all their hair off, but if your neighbourhood is seeing a rise in neo-nazis then you might want to take a second look at any vaguely-threatening skinheads. And if your country is suffering from a plague of racially biased law enforcement, you might want to take a close look at any incidents of officers harassing ethnic minorities, too.

[Insaanistan]

Do I think there was racist intent? Most definitely.

There's no proof of that. If this was the Jim Crow era, then I'd agree with you, but here, there's nothing to suggest anything but shoddy police work involving confused and uninformed officers.

I’m sorry, but racism didn’t just suddenly disappear when Jim Crow.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes, I'm sure that the U.S. military makes extensive use of rubber bullets to fight ISIS. Throughout all of the BLM riots, which, again, killed at least six people, injured at least hundreds and likely thousands, and destroyed the property of countless innocent people, you cannot find even a single example of an officer using even a handgun to shoot at kill a rioter, up to and including those who were throwing molotov cocktails and explosives at them.

Ashli Babbitt did not throw any molotov cocktails or explosives. She was, in fact, unarmed. She was shot and killed regardless, while those who actually violently assaulted officers in the BLM riots (which caused hundreds of officer casualties) were not.

Dang it's almost like there's a difference between being a jackass and rioting and literally trying to overthrow the republic for orange daddy. Traitors get no sympathy.

[Cannot think of a name]

This really doesn't make it better. If they're approaching an apartment complex just grabbing the first person they see without any other context is kind of ridiculous.

I generally agree, I think it was overzealous and not good policing, but there's no evidence that it was racially motivated, and it is not some extraordinary crime against humanity. There's nothing to suggest that the cops would not have done the exact same thing if it was a white guy taking out the trash in front of the same apartment that they were called to. I'll not sound the racism alarm until some actual evidence of racism can be provided, if there is any, by all means.

The insistence on declaring that every instance of police doing something wrong or bad must be a case of racism and not just bad policing is actively harmful to efforts to actually curb such bad behavior.

In isolation, sure. As part of a wide and disturbing pattern, not so much.

[Xelsis]

Yes, I'm sure that the U.S. military makes extensive use of rubber bullets to fight ISIS. Throughout all of the BLM riots, which, again, killed at least six people, injured at least hundreds and likely thousands, and destroyed the property of countless innocent people, you cannot find even a single example of an officer using even a handgun to shoot at kill a rioter, up to and including those who were throwing molotov cocktails and explosives at them.

Ashli Babbitt did not throw any molotov cocktails or explosives. She was, in fact, unarmed. She was shot and killed regardless, while those who actually violently assaulted officers in the BLM riots (which caused hundreds of officer casualties) were not.

Dang it's almost like there's a difference between being a jackass and rioting and literally trying to overthrow the republic for orange daddy. Traitors get no sympathy.

The idea that the Capitol riot was some kind of planned coup or anything more than a protest gone mad has always been ridiculous enough to be downright silly. I'm very sure that a group that apparently planned to violently overthrow the government would voluntarily decide to just leave every single firearm they owned at home and only bring flags, clearly the more effective weapon.

I generally agree, I think it was overzealous and not good policing, but there's no evidence that it was racially motivated, and it is not some extraordinary crime against humanity. There's nothing to suggest that the cops would not have done the exact same thing if it was a white guy taking out the trash in front of the same apartment that they were called to. I'll not sound the racism alarm until some actual evidence of racism can be provided, if there is any, by all means.

The insistence on declaring that every instance of police doing something wrong or bad must be a case of racism and not just bad policing is actively harmful to efforts to actually curb such bad behavior.

In isolation, sure. As part of a wide and disturbing pattern, not so much.

There is a wide and disturbing pattern of police misconduct writ large in the U.S., far less so for specifically race-motivated misconduct. The primary difference is not in the behavior, but in the coverage: everyone knows George Floyd's name, very few people know Daniel Shaver's.

[Kowani]

Dang it's almost like there's a difference between being a jackass and rioting and literally trying to overthrow the republic for orange daddy. Traitors get no sympathy.

The idea that the Capitol riot was some kind of planned coup or anything more than a protest gone mad has always been ridiculous enough to be downright silly.

the two things are not mutually exclusive
there were groups present-mostly the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters, who planned parts of it out ahead of time, and other groups who were part of a protest that went (purposely IMO) violent

I'm very sure that a group that apparently planned to violently overthrow the government would voluntarily decide to just leave every single firearm they owned at home and only bring flags, clearly the more effective weapon.

Not at all what happened, they were just incompetent

In February, federal prosecutors arrested several members of the Oath Keepers – an anti-government militia group – on charges related to participating in the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keeper members had planned part of their attack. They wore tactical gear, held training sessions in the weeks before, and looked at then-President Donald Trump’s direction for their assault on Congress, prosecutors laid out in court documents.

One part of the Oath Keepers’ plan, prosecutors said, citing text messages, was having a “QRF,” or “quick reaction force,” nearby that could supply firearms to militia members “if something goes to hell.”

But that “quick reaction force” was actually just one guy who “is in his late 60s, obese, and has cardiopulmonary issues, a bad back, a bum knee, and is [in] need of a hip replacement,” according to a new court filing.[...] In the filing, Fischer said the “quick reaction force” was not all that it was cracked up to be.

“The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was neither ‘quick,’ ‘reactive,’ nor a ‘force.’ The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was one person,” Fischer said.

“The whole discussion about a ‘Quick Reaction Force’ boils down to a bunch of ex-military guys trying to out-plan one another,” he added.

and then you had the guys who brought "homemade napalm"

In fact, multiple of them were armed with firearms, as well as other sorts of assorted or exotic weapons
Seriously, Kunai and Shuriken??

In isolation, sure. As part of a wide and disturbing pattern, not so much.

There is a wide and disturbing pattern of police misconduct writ large in the U.S., far less so for specifically race-motivated misconduct.

Is this a joke

The primary difference is not in the behavior, but in the coverage: everyone knows George Floyd's name, very few people know Daniel Shaver's.

BLM literally protested for Daniel Shaver

[The Reformed American Republic]

There's no proof of that. If this was the Jim Crow era, then I'd agree with you, but here, there's nothing to suggest anything but shoddy police work involving confused and uninformed officers.

I’m sorry, but racism didn’t just suddenly disappear when Jim Crow.

Excuse me, but I never claimed that it did; we have come a long way though, and therefore am in need of more evidence in this particular case. I'm convinced with the black jogger case and the Floyd case, but not this one. All I see is incompetence.

The idea that the Capitol riot was some kind of planned coup or anything more than a protest gone mad has always been ridiculous enough to be downright silly. I'm very sure that a group that apparently planned to violently overthrow the government would voluntarily decide to just leave every single firearm they owned at home and only bring flags, clearly the more effective weapon.

And this is nonsense. There is evidence that the storming was planned in advance. It was a soft-coup attempt.

[Xelsis]

The idea that the Capitol riot was some kind of planned coup or anything more than a protest gone mad has always been ridiculous enough to be downright silly.

the two things are not mutually exclusive
there were groups present-mostly the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters, who planned parts of it out ahead of time, and other groups who were part of a protest that went (purposely IMO) violent

I'm very sure that a group that apparently planned to violently overthrow the government would voluntarily decide to just leave every single firearm they owned at home and only bring flags, clearly the more effective weapon.

Not at all what happened, they were just incompetent

In February, federal prosecutors arrested several members of the Oath Keepers – an anti-government militia group – on charges related to participating in the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keeper members had planned part of their attack. They wore tactical gear, held training sessions in the weeks before, and looked at then-President Donald Trump’s direction for their assault on Congress, prosecutors laid out in court documents.

One part of the Oath Keepers’ plan, prosecutors said, citing text messages, was having a “QRF,” or “quick reaction force,” nearby that could supply firearms to militia members “if something goes to hell.”

But that “quick reaction force” was actually just one guy who “is in his late 60s, obese, and has cardiopulmonary issues, a bad back, a bum knee, and is [in] need of a hip replacement,” according to a new court filing.[...] In the filing, Fischer said the “quick reaction force” was not all that it was cracked up to be.

“The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was neither ‘quick,’ ‘reactive,’ nor a ‘force.’ The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was one person,” Fischer said.

“The whole discussion about a ‘Quick Reaction Force’ boils down to a bunch of ex-military guys trying to out-plan one another,” he added.

Outdated information. The feds have been attempting to prove that things were pre-planned, but lack any actual evidence for it, as even the Associated Press has had to admit. See: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-sieg ... fdc3d2dc1e

Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.....

But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case....

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed in February to keep Thomas Caldwell, who authorities have portrayed as a leader of the conspiracy, locked up while he awaits trial, saying the evidence showed he “engaged in planning and communications with others ... to plan a potential military-like incursion on the Capitol on January the 6th.”

But after Caldwell’s lawyer challenged that assessment, the judge reversed his decision and released Caldwell to home confinement. Mehta said there’s no evidence he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 or had been plotting to do so.

“Last time we were here 30 days ago, I was convinced that it was a plan to execute an incursion on the Capitol building,” the judge told Caldwell’s attorney. “You’ve raised some evidence that, I think, rebuts that notion.”

The judge has since released other defendants, noting there’s no evidence they assaulted anyone at the Capitol or, in some cases, don’t appear to be as involved in the planning before Jan. 6.

Heck, the existence of the "quick reaction force" is proof that it was not a planned attack, as your source says, it's something in case "if something goes to hell.” If they were planning on actually attacking the Capitol, they wouldn't be talking about how to get a gun if something goes wrong, they would just be carrying those guns, and using them.

In a crowd of hundreds, possibly thousands, many ex-military, and a massive number owning firearms, the protestors/rioters fired exactly zero shots. That's not a coup.

and then you had the guys who brought "homemade napalm"

In fact, multiple of them were armed with firearms, as well as other sorts of assorted or exotic weapons
Seriously, Kunai and Shuriken??

Literally was in his truck and never entered the Capitol building. The fact that they weren't brought is again only reinforcing the point that this was not some kind of pre-planned assault. Seriously, you're digging yourself under with your own sources, if you're desperately trying to find one guy with shuriken instead of pointing out hundreds of firearms, you've disproven your own point.

To quote your source:

Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.

If this was a coup, that list would be AR-15s, shotguns, and a whole host of other firearms. Seriously, 'a captured riot shield' makes the list?

It's not like these people don't own guns. Thousands of armed people bearing everything from AR-15s to Barrett .50s marched on the Virginia capitol, completely peacefully, to protest gun control.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZJ15B

But somehow the same kind of heavily-armed people rely on fire extinguishers and flagpoles when they want to overthrow the government?

There is a wide and disturbing pattern of police misconduct writ large in the U.S., far less so for specifically race-motivated misconduct.

Is this a joke

No.

The primary difference is not in the behavior, but in the coverage: everyone knows George Floyd's name, very few people know Daniel Shaver's.

BLM literally protested for Daniel Shaver

Good for them. Not even sarcastic-legitimately good for them. I'm glad they sent a few tweets for Shaver. Tweets are more than nothing-they are also substantially less than the tens of millions that marched for Floyd. It is not even all about BLM, as noted, much of this rests on the media, but the end result, regardless of the inputs, is blatantly clear: a tiny fraction of the public has ever heard of Daniel Shaver, virtually everyone knows George Floyd.

[Xelsis]

Not at all what happened, they were just incompetent

In February, federal prosecutors arrested several members of the Oath Keepers – an anti-government militia group – on charges related to participating in the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keeper members had planned part of their attack. They wore tactical gear, held training sessions in the weeks before, and looked at then-President Donald Trump’s direction for their assault on Congress, prosecutors laid out in court documents.

One part of the Oath Keepers’ plan, prosecutors said, citing text messages, was having a “QRF,” or “quick reaction force,” nearby that could supply firearms to militia members “if something goes to hell.”

But that “quick reaction force” was actually just one guy who “is in his late 60s, obese, and has cardiopulmonary issues, a bad back, a bum knee, and is [in] need of a hip replacement,” according to a new court filing.[...] In the filing, Fischer said the “quick reaction force” was not all that it was cracked up to be.

“The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was neither ‘quick,’ ‘reactive,’ nor a ‘force.’ The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was one person,” Fischer said.

“The whole discussion about a ‘Quick Reaction Force’ boils down to a bunch of ex-military guys trying to out-plan one another,” he added.

Outdated information. The feds have been attempting to prove that things were pre-planned, but lack any actual evidence for it, as even the Associated Press has had to admit. See: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-sieg ... fdc3d2dc1e

Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.....

But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case....

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed in February to keep Thomas Caldwell, who authorities have portrayed as a leader of the conspiracy, locked up while he awaits trial, saying the evidence showed he “engaged in planning and communications with others ... to plan a potential military-like incursion on the Capitol on January the 6th.”

But after Caldwell’s lawyer challenged that assessment, the judge reversed his decision and released Caldwell to home confinement. Mehta said there’s no evidence he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 or had been plotting to do so.

“Last time we were here 30 days ago, I was convinced that it was a plan to execute an incursion on the Capitol building,” the judge told Caldwell’s attorney. “You’ve raised some evidence that, I think, rebuts that notion.”

The judge has since released other defendants, noting there’s no evidence they assaulted anyone at the Capitol or, in some cases, don’t appear to be as involved in the planning before Jan. 6.

Heck, the existence of the "quick reaction force" is proof that it was not a planned attack, as your source says, it's something in case "if something goes to hell.” If they were planning on actually attacking the Capitol, they wouldn't be talking about how to get a gun if something goes wrong, they would just be carrying those guns, and using them.

In a crowd of hundreds, possibly thousands, many ex-military, and a massive number owning firearms, the protestors/rioters fired exactly zero shots. That's not a coup.

and then you had the guys who brought "homemade napalm"

In fact, multiple of them were armed with firearms, as well as other sorts of assorted or exotic weapons
Seriously, Kunai and Shuriken??

Stuff was literally was in his truck and never entered the Capitol building (not to mention that bringing up molotovs does not do well when comparing with the BLM riots). The fact that they weren't brought is again only reinforcing the point that this was not some kind of pre-planned assault. Seriously, you're digging yourself under with your own sources, if you're desperately trying to find one guy with shuriken instead of pointing out hundreds of firearms, you've disproven your own point.

To quote your source:

Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.

If this was a coup, that list would be AR-15s, shotguns, and a whole host of other firearms. Seriously, 'a captured riot shield' makes the list?

It's not like these people don't own guns. Thousands of armed people bearing everything from AR-15s to Barrett .50s marched on the Virginia capitol, completely peacefully, to protest gun control.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZJ15B

But somehow the same kind of heavily-armed people rely on fire extinguishers and flagpoles when they want to overthrow the government?

Is this a joke

No.

BLM literally protested for Daniel Shaver

Good for them. Not even sarcastic-legitimately good for them. I'm glad they sent a few tweets for Shaver. Tweets are more than nothing-they are also substantially less than the tens of millions that marched for Floyd. It is not even all about BLM, as noted, much of this rests on the media, but the end result, regardless of the inputs, is blatantly clear: a tiny fraction of the public has ever heard of Daniel Shaver, virtually everyone knows George Floyd.

The idea that the Capitol riot was some kind of planned coup or anything more than a protest gone mad has always been ridiculous enough to be downright silly. I'm very sure that a group that apparently planned to violently overthrow the government would voluntarily decide to just leave every single firearm they owned at home and only bring flags, clearly the more effective weapon.

And this is nonsense. There is evidence that the storming was planned in advance. It was a soft-coup attempt.

Heavily armed people planning to overthrow the government do not decide to leave their firearms at home when doing the deed.

Hundreds of people who owned firearms of various kinds participated in the Capitol riot. The only gunshots fired were by Capitol Police into an unarmed woman.

A random seventeen-year-old in Kenosha was more heavily armed, fired more shots, and did more damage than the entire group at the Capitol. If the riot was a coup attempt, there would have been hundreds of people armed as he was. They were not, because it was not.

[Vassenor]

Remember, storming a government building saying you're going to kill the people inside (and actually kill someone inside) and overthrow the results of a free and fair election is only an attempted coup if you shoot bullets in the process.

[Xelsis]

Remember, storming a government building saying you're going to kill the people inside and overthrow the results of a free and fair election is only an attempted coup if you shoot bullets in the process.

If you're planning to violently attack something, and you own a lot of guns, you don't decide to leave them at home and rely on a captured fire extinguisher instead. The Capitol riot was very plainly a protest gone mad, not a strategically planned coup.

But this is starting to get off-topic. The fundamental point in relation to this thread is that assigning the 'racist' label to police misconduct with no evidence of racism is both unjustified and actively harmful to attempts at police reform, when there is no evidence that the man in this case was arrested because of the color of his skin, and when there are plenty of other examples of police violence or misconduct with victims of a different race, Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed white woman, being shot and killed when zero black protesters or rioters were shot and killed across hundreds of instances including violence being a prime example, and the one that set off this rabbit trail.

[Kowani]

the two things are not mutually exclusive
there were groups present-mostly the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters, who planned parts of it out ahead of time, and other groups who were part of a protest that went (purposely IMO) violent

Not at all what happened, they were just incompetent

In February, federal prosecutors arrested several members of the Oath Keepers – an anti-government militia group – on charges related to participating in the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keeper members had planned part of their attack. They wore tactical gear, held training sessions in the weeks before, and looked at then-President Donald Trump’s direction for their assault on Congress, prosecutors laid out in court documents.

One part of the Oath Keepers’ plan, prosecutors said, citing text messages, was having a “QRF,” or “quick reaction force,” nearby that could supply firearms to militia members “if something goes to hell.”

But that “quick reaction force” was actually just one guy who “is in his late 60s, obese, and has cardiopulmonary issues, a bad back, a bum knee, and is [in] need of a hip replacement,” according to a new court filing.[...] In the filing, Fischer said the “quick reaction force” was not all that it was cracked up to be.

“The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was neither ‘quick,’ ‘reactive,’ nor a ‘force.’ The ‘Quick Reaction Force’ was one person,” Fischer said.

“The whole discussion about a ‘Quick Reaction Force’ boils down to a bunch of ex-military guys trying to out-plan one another,” he added.

Outdated information. The feds have been attempting to prove that things were pre-planned, but lack any actual evidence for it, as even the Associated Press has had to admit. See: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-sieg ... fdc3d2dc1e

Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.....

But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case....

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta agreed in February to keep Thomas Caldwell, who authorities have portrayed as a leader of the conspiracy, locked up while he awaits trial, saying the evidence showed he “engaged in planning and communications with others ... to plan a potential military-like incursion on the Capitol on January the 6th.”

But after Caldwell’s lawyer challenged that assessment, the judge reversed his decision and released Caldwell to home confinement. Mehta said there’s no evidence he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 or had been plotting to do so.

“Last time we were here 30 days ago, I was convinced that it was a plan to execute an incursion on the Capitol building,” the judge told Caldwell’s attorney. “You’ve raised some evidence that, I think, rebuts that notion.”

The judge has since released other defendants, noting there’s no evidence they assaulted anyone at the Capitol or, in some cases, don’t appear to be as involved in the planning before Jan. 6.

so, what the AP is doing here is an interesting game of two truths and a lie
see, they're not quite telling the full story about why Caldwell was released-but they're using that to rebut the idea that it was all planned well in advance

On Friday, Federal District Court Judge Amit Mehta allowed Caldwell to be released to home confinement. While he participated in preparing for potential acts of violence, "There is an absence of direct evidence, at least, of planning by Mr. Caldwell to enter the Capitol building," Mehta said. "And ultimately he did not enter the building."

but regardless, i would note that the sheer scale of the investigation will require that we all wait for a more complete picture to come out, since this is quite possibly the largest endeavor ever undertaken by the DOJ. I would also note that the legal definition of "conspiracy" doesn't actually require the participants to have been planning it out all months ahead.

Heck, the existence of the "quick reaction force" is proof that it was not a planned attack, as your source says, it's something in case "if something goes to hell.” If they were planning on actually attacking the Capitol, they wouldn't be talking about how to get a gun if something goes wrong, they would just be carrying those guns, and using them.

...no. You misunderstand the thought processes of many of these people. They did not go in expecting much resistance, because they expected the police to be on their side.

This is not America,” "They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.”

In a crowd of hundreds, possibly thousands, many ex-military, and a massive number owning firearms, the protestors/rioters fired exactly zero shots. That's not a coup.

firstly, whether something is or isn't a coup isn't dependent on how many shots get fired, that's entirely irrelevant. Secondly, did you just forget about the pipe bombs or-

and then you had the guys who brought "homemade napalm"

In fact, multiple of them were armed with firearms, as well as other sorts of assorted or exotic weapons
Seriously, Kunai and Shuriken??

Literally was in his truck and never entered the Capitol building. The fact that they weren't brought is again only reinforcing the point that this was not some kind of pre-planned assault.

The Napalm? Yes and no. See, while the napalm coffman brought never entered the capitol building, he himself did, carrying at least 2 of his 5 firearms.

Seriously, you're digging yourself under with your own sources, if you're desperately trying to find one guy with shuriken instead of pointing out hundreds of firearms, you've disproven your own point.

you have misunderstood the point of the shuriken, then

To quote your source:

Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.

If this was a coup, that list would be AR-15s, shotguns, and a whole host of other firearms. Seriously, 'a captured riot shield' makes the list?
It's not like these people don't own guns. Thousands of armed people bearing everything from AR-15s to Barrett .50s marched on the Virginia capitol, completely peacefully, to protest gun control.

literally just farther down the page

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZJ15B

But somehow the same kind of heavily-armed people rely on fire extinguishers and flagpoles when they want to overthrow the government?

yes, expecting to not see much resistance and having firearms confiscated would make for a less armed coup, i admit

Is this a joke

No.

ah, well now you're just factually wrong

BLM literally protested for Daniel Shaver

Good for them. Not even sarcastic-legitimately good for them. I'm glad they sent a few tweets for Shaver. Tweets are more than nothing-they are also substantially less than the tens of millions that marched for Floyd. It is not even all about BLM, as noted, much of this rests on the media, but the end result, regardless of the inputs, is blatantly clear: a tiny fraction of the public has ever heard of Daniel Shaver, virtually everyone knows George Floyd.

there is a substantial difference here, and blaming it all on the media is wildly dishonest
see, the media isn't actually involved in hyping up the deaths of black people until after there's an outcry
one of the more "recent" cases is that of Anton Black, killed while experiencing a mental health episode,, who received practically no coverage outside local reporting until 4 months after his death.

When the video of Floyd under Chauvin’s knee surfaced on social media, the world came to a reckoning. Protests erupted in Minneapolis and spread worldwide.

There was no such reckoning for Anton Black.

Freelance reporter Glynis Kazanjian first saw Black’s name in a Washington Post op-ed in January 2019, more than four months after he died.

The existing local coverage of him, she said, faded in the months between his death and January, when the autopsy was released. Her anger at the lack of attention launched reporting that sparked an internal police investigation into Black’s death. No charges were pursued for the officers involved.

the difference between the coverage of floyd's death and shaver's rests on several things, and one of them is that many white people...generally don't care (until they have to counter charges of systemic racism)
a quick overlay of the google search trends for "Daniel Shaver" finds that outside of his initial killing, the only time he comes up is when the national conversation is about police killing black people (the trend also holds for "black lives matter", but adding that zoomed the picture out too much to see properly)

[The Cazistan]

Taking out the trash isn’t a euphemism here, folks.
Police in LA were responding to a domestic violence call when three blocks away from the destination they spotted a man outside.

One officer inquired if that was the suspect, as they had no real clue what the suspect looked like.
The other officer’s answer?
“Probably.”

Was it a man running who looked like he had run three blocks? No.
But the man was black, and for those officers, that meant he “probably” was their suspect.
They handcuffed him as he called for his girlfriend and maintained he was not the man they were looking for.

Oh, and guess what? Their real suspect? He’s white.

Add taking out the trash to the list of things black people can’t do without being arrested or shot by police in America, below waiting at Starbucks and above literally sleeping.

Source:
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ?_amp=true

Woah woah woah, be careful how you pace your story. Some people might look at the title and fist line and come away with a totally different reaction than intended.

[Xelsis]

I don't want to get too far into the Capitol to avoid fully derailing the thread, but I'll respond briefly to those points and try to focus them back onto this instance.

so, what the AP is doing here is an interesting game of two truths and a lie
see, they're not quite telling the full story about why Caldwell was released-but they're using that to rebut the idea that it was all planned well in advance

On Friday, Federal District Court Judge Amit Mehta allowed Caldwell to be released to home confinement. While he participated in preparing for potential acts of violence, "There is an absence of direct evidence, at least, of planning by Mr. Caldwell to enter the Capitol building," Mehta said. "And ultimately he did not enter the building."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but "There is an absence of direct evidence, at least, of planning by Mr. Caldwell to enter the Capitol building" seems to be pretty darn conclusive. "Participated in preparing for potential acts of violence" just means being ready for things to go bad, there's no hint of ill-intent in that sort of thing, anyone who provides security of any kind does that. No evidence that he prepared for attacking the Capitol (or even entering it) and them him not actually entering it is about as rock-solid as you can get.

but regardless, i would note that the sheer scale of the investigation will require that we all wait for a more complete picture to come out, since this is quite possibly the largest endeavor ever undertaken by the DOJ. I would also note that the legal definition of "conspiracy" doesn't actually require the participants to have been planning it out all months ahead.

My point is that even a few days' worth of planning for a violent overthrow would be enough to grab the guns out of their safes and bring them along.

...no. You misunderstand the thought processes of many of these people. They did not go in expecting much resistance, because they expected the police to be on their side.

This is not America,” "They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.”

I can't say that a quote from a single crying "hysterical" woman not even inside the Capitol is really not what I would call sufficient to establish broad motive.

firstly, whether something is or isn't a coup isn't dependent on how many shots get fired, that's entirely irrelevant. Secondly, did you just forget about the pipe bombs or-

The pipe bombs not placed at the Capitol, for which we still do not know who placed them and for what reason?

The level of violence is absolutely relevant to a claimed attempt at a violent overthrow. If the claim is that this was an attempt to overturn democracy by force, then the claimed perpetrators deliberately avoiding available instruments of deadly force is a central point.

The Napalm? Yes and no. See, while the napalm coffman brought never entered the capitol building, he himself did, carrying at least 2 of his 5 firearms.

Come on man, read your own source.

"Coffman was not charged with illegally entering a federal building or civil disorder, as others participating directly in the riot inside the Capitol have been."

He was wandering around the general area of the Capitol, he never stormed the building.

literally just farther down the page

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.

yes, expecting to not see much resistance and having firearms confiscated would make for a less armed coup, i admit

Yet again, not in the Capitol-you literally just posted the source with a picture showing that "Assault rifle" was in the guy's car packed several blocks away.

That's the sort of thing you saw everywhere at the Virginia rally, and nowhere at the "violent coup".

The simple fact of the matter is that the Capitol rioters who broke in were pretty much universally unarmed and did far less damage than the BLM riots and rioters, and they lost an unarmed woman to a police officer who shot her, while none of the BLM rioters, including those openly carrying firearms, and actually throwing molotov cocktails rather than having them parked in a car several blocks away, were shot by police.

Frankly, that actually surprises me. I would have expected multiple instances of lethal force during the riots, some justified, some unjustified, but they did not happen. That police, across literally hundreds of instances involving tens of millions of people, never once opened lethal fire on BLM rioters is an immense strike against the claim that police are deeply systemically racist and out to get black people.

There is no evidence in this case that the police targeted the man because of the color of his skin, and after a summer of riots, there is pretty substantial evidence that police writ large are not out to get black people, after going through riots that cost them hundreds of casualties to which they never responded by killing even an armed and violent black rioter.

No.

ah, well now you're just factually wrong

I'm very willing to see the evidence if it can be presented, even willing to change my mind if it's solid.

there is a substantial difference here, and blaming it all on the media is wildly dishonest
see, the media isn't actually involved in hyping up the deaths of black people until after there's an outcry
one of the more "recent" cases is that of Anton Black, killed while experiencing a mental health episode,, who received practically no coverage outside local reporting until 4 months after his death.

When the video of Floyd under Chauvin’s knee surfaced on social media, the world came to a reckoning. Protests erupted in Minneapolis and spread worldwide.

There was no such reckoning for Anton Black.

Freelance reporter Glynis Kazanjian first saw Black’s name in a Washington Post op-ed in January 2019, more than four months after he died.

The existing local coverage of him, she said, faded in the months between his death and January, when the autopsy was released. Her anger at the lack of attention launched reporting that sparked an internal police investigation into Black’s death. No charges were pursued for the officers involved.

the difference between the coverage of floyd's death and shaver's rests on several things, and one of them is that many white people...generally don't care (until they have to counter charges of systemic racism)
a quick overlay of the google search trends for "Daniel Shaver" finds that outside of his initial killing, the only time he comes up is when the national conversation is about police killing black people (the trend also holds for "black lives matter", but adding that zoomed the picture out too much to see properly)

(Image)

The idea that the gap is because "White people don't care" is ridiculous when you just go head-to-head and look at the search interest, and see the absolutely tremendous gulf.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... l%20Shaver

You're actually making my point for me here: the fact that the only time Daniel Shaver comes up is when everyone is talking about Floyd shows exactly where the media focus is, the closest thing he gets to a media moment is possibly getting mentioned in a hundredth of the articles about Floyd as a side note, because all the focus is directed somewhere else, when I'd make the argument that the incident with Shaver was far worse than that with Floyd.

That applicability to this is clear, there's an untold number of other people who have had something happen like what happened here, arrested by overzealous police with a minimal description, but they don't get any coverage, the media never runs those stories, and wildly disproportionate media coverage leads to wildly skewed perception on police racism.

Example: somewhere between 13 and 27 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. Per a national survey, over half of those who identified as "very liberal" believed that over 1,000 were. The percentage of people shot by police who were Black was 23.4-26.7%, liberals believed that the percentage was more than double that, over 50%.

Media coverage is skewed heavily to overrepresent instances of police misconduct with black victims, such as Floyd, or this gentleman, and to underrepresent the same with white victims, such as Shaver, and as a result the public ends up wildly misinformed on the topic.

EDIT: Forgot to link the survey: https://www.skeptic.com/research-center ... ES-007.pdf

[Des-Bal]

Without reading a single thing about this I'm going to wager it's a wild misstatement of facts and shameless attempt to invent a racial controversy.

Edit: Having read only two articles about the subject I'm calling it a W for me.

The police responding to a domestic dispute with a vague area the suspect might be in and no description of the suspect saw one guy on the street nearby. It looks like they tried to frisk him, likely to ensure he wasn't armed before they engaged with him, and when he resisted they started arresting him.

Then in a horrific display of sexism they didn't stop arresting him when his girlfriend jumped in or even pick put a wardrobe for her that would preserve her modesty as she struggled with the police.

The caller couldn't call them off after they'd arrived because that's not a power callers get and even if it was the guy was resisting so it's a separate issue.

He was arrested for taking out the trash in the same sense Epstein was arrested for having an island.

[The Alma Mater]

Without reading a single thing about this I'm going to wager it's a wild misstatement of facts and shameless attempt to invent a racial controversy.

Partially true. The OP tried to paint it as the police randomly arresting a black person in another part of town; instead of a black man outside the actual adress they were called to.

Of course, arresting a black man when the suspect is white is questionable.