Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Overheal

I believe but am certainly open to correction, that this was the first time in this Presidency that a right-wing group attempted to unlawfully mob a government building.

That is my recollection as well. I think the Wildlife Refuge occupation was the last event where right wing extremists occupied a federal building. Unless you count the GOP invading the Congressional SCIF during closed door impeachment proceedings, which was a pretty serious breach of security in itself, though predictably resulted in no consequences. But they certainly were at the time "a right-wing group attempted to unlawfully mob a government building"

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't help but wonder just how many people didn't so much vote 'for him' as much as they did 'anti-Democrat' or 'pro-party'. It's worth noting that even though military do lean conservative, more of them were leaning Biden than Trump. A full 49% of the active duty personnel polled in August viewed Trump "very unfavourably". https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/

This just, inadvertently makes me think - and I swear to God, that Congress is waiting around for POLL NUMBERS to decide if removing the president is a good idea.

I'm just making myself angrier, though, aren't I. I just can't understand why they need to hmm and hum for a whole week about it. Polls would make sense, and its infuriating.

Foxtrol

Potatoeman wrote: »

When you open with that how can anyone take what you say next seriously? Almost half of the country voted for him. He has a lot of support from the military and police but they lean conservative anyway.

Nonsense. Trump has repeatedly attacked law enforcement and the military - including the family of dead service members, while Biden has shown much more respect and had sons that served in the military.

Like the flag, Trump's supporters love to shout about and wrap themselves in law enforcement and the military and pretend to support them more than their opposition but time and again we've seen they only really support them when they fall in line with them.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

This just, inadvertently makes me think - and I swear to God, that Congress is waiting around for POLL NUMBERS to decide if removing the president is a good idea.

I'm just making myself angrier, though, aren't I. I just can't understand why they need to hmm and hum for a whole week about it. Polls would make sense, and its infuriating.

While undoubtedly the "right" thing to do morally etc, in a broader context, minimising disruption is more important. There's no shortage of countries that would look to take advantage of a weakened US.

Water John

AbusesToilets wrote: »

While undoubtedly the "right" thing to do morally etc, in a broader context, minimising disruption is more important. There's no shortage of countries that would look to take advantage of a weakened US.

Slight problem for the US ATM, there's no one in charge for the next 2 weeks.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, the siege of the Federal Courthouse in Portland indicates that they are not always respecters of federal property either.

Bit of a false equivalence here when it comes to damage and police/military response.

With respect to the police selfies, the experience of German police when a right-wing group there attempted to storm the Bundestag in August may be relevant. They, too, were initially posing for selfies, at the time considered to be an attempt to maintain a positive, non-hostile attitude. There was, however, no correlation between that, and their performance when the atmosphere did become hostile regardless, and the attempt to breach the building failed.

Again seems like a bad comparison. The Capitol police were doing it after the breached the building, even more dangerously officers were caught giving members of the mob directions to where specific democrat offices were.

https://twitter.com/DanielNewman/status/1346943091136196610?s=20

I believe but am certainly open to correction, that this was the first time in this Presidency that a right-wing group attempted to unlawfully mob a government building. Previous times such mobbing has occurred (eg Michigan, Virginia Statehouses, and both times well armed) they had generally respected police lines and followed the law. That probably was reflected both in the Capitol Police's actions, and the decision by the DC leadership to not mobilise any more forces on their side than they did. Doubtless a leaning towards overcorrecting the perception from the BLM protest also had an effect.

Again, nonsense. Protest after protest right wing groups have broken laws and haven't respected police lines. The last Trump support march in DC involved right wing groups attacking vandalizing black churches. Even just the day before they attacked the Capitol building the same right wing mob didn't respect police lines on the DC streets and attacked police when they were stopped from getting to BLM plaza.

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1346661056836468736?s=20

Gbear

A depressing likely outcome of this will be that we'll see no wholesale improvement in the treatment of peaceful protestors.

The difference in how each - various "undesirables" versus the in-group of white conservatives - have been treated has been stark, but the lessons learned will not be that proportionate response needs to be used, but rather that maximum violence needs to be used all the time.

It will be peaceful protestors with legitimate greivances that will face the greatest consequences of this disaster.

The next time you have a bunch of people turning up at the capitol protesting another murder of an unarmed civilian, or people being starved during a pandemic, you'll have the moderates in the Democratic party nodding sagely and agreeing with their Republican colleagues that "we can't give in to mob rule" and "look what happened last time", as a bunch of mams and people with funny haircuts get teargassed and baton charged because they say something rude.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

Bit of a false equivalence here when it comes to damage and police/military response.

Maybe I'm missing the thrust of this argument. Does it not rely upon the benefit of hindsight? I mean, with hindsight, we know that USCP or Secret Service (I'm not sure who fired) were willing to defend a perimeter with lethal force, which do my knowledge was never done in Portland. Most cases, shootings involve a threat to life. It is not the only justification for lethal force, though, and it certainly seems that the police had a line which they were not willing to see crossed, even if it took killing people to do it. Can you imagine the outrage if Federal marshals had opened fire in Portland and killed someone? I don't see too many folks complaining about the use of lethal force in the Capitol building.

Again seems like a bad comparison. The Capitol police were doing it after the breached the building, even more dangerously officers were caught giving members of the mob directions to where specific democrat offices were.

Doesn't seem like that particular instance was a hostile environment or that protestors were attempting to get past the cop and his mates, though. If it might help de-escalation, and if it's not against policy, seems fair.

Giving directions to the mob is definitely questionable absent context. I'm doing some Googling, but not finding anything on the matter yet.

Again, nonsense. Protest after protest right wing groups have broken laws and haven't respected police lines. The last Trump support march in DC involved right wing groups attacking vandalizing black churches. Even just the day before they attacked the Capitol building the same right wing mob didn't respect police lines on the DC streets and attacked police when they were stopped from getting to BLM plaza.

I never said they always followed the laws, I said that their track record with regards to government buildings apparently was pretty good. Obviously DC wasn't expecting no trouble at all anywhere, otherwise they wouldn't have requested Guardsmen to be mobilised in advance. Why neither DC nor USCP requested more support in advance is obviously going to be subject to a bunch of further investigation, and has already cost some senior leadership their jobs.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing the thrust of this argument. Does it not rely upon the benefit of hindsight? I mean, with hindsight, we know that USCP or Secret Service (I'm not sure who fired) were willing to defend a perimeter with lethal force, which do my knowledge was never done in Portland. Most cases, shootings involve a threat to life. It is not the only justification for lethal force, though, and it certainly seems that the police had a line which they were not willing to see crossed, even if it took killing people to do it. Can you imagine the outrage if Federal marshals had opened fire in Portland and killed someone? I don't see too many folks complaining about the use of lethal force in the Capitol building.

This is why your attempt at equivalence is so bad. The perimeter they used lethal force was the area where they were holding the politicians. In Portland they were declaring riots and sending out tactical teams when the fence outside an empty courthouse was breached.

They simply aren't comparable. The only area that would be similar is the Whitehouse and no one would have a problem with BLM protestors being shot if they gained entry to the Whitehouse and were smashing down a door were the President was.

Doesn't seem like that particular instance was a hostile environment or that protestors were attempting to get past the cop and his mates, though. If it might help de-escalation, and if it's not against policy, seems fair.

Giving directions to the mob is definitely questionable absent context. I'm doing some Googling, but not finding anything on the matter yet.

I don't generally see calls for cops to let rioters who smashed their way into buildings to do what they want so there wouldn't be hostility.

Did you advocate cops just letting George Floyd protesters do what they wanted?

I never said they always followed the laws, I said that their track record with regards to government buildings apparently was pretty good. Obviously DC wasn't expecting no trouble at all anywhere, otherwise they wouldn't have requested Guardsmen to be mobilised in advance. Why neither DC nor USCP requested more support in advance is obviously going to be subject to a bunch of further investigation, and has already cost some senior leadership their jobs.

It is nonsense to take a few isolated incidents related to government buildings and ignore the countless other examples where the same right wing groups groups didn't respect police lines, damaged property, and were violent. If that was the type of blinkered idiocy that drove the police forces to underprepare then they'll deserve everything that is coming to during these investigations. I however see your point as an excuse to ignore the race elements that were a far bigger driver.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

BLM protesters were treated with kid gloves, not the other way around :-)
and apparently , antifa infiltrated the riots last night

Nope. False.

Washington Times, who was responsible for putting that lie out, has deleted the entire article wholesale.

https://www.thewrap.com/washington-times-false-antifa-story-capitol-matt-gaetz/

Mic 1972

Overheal wrote: »

Nope. False.

Washington Times, who was responsible for putting that lie out, has deleted the entire article wholesale.

https://www.thewrap.com/washington-times-false-antifa-story-capitol-matt-gaetz/

There were antifa people at the riots, that doesn't mean that trump Supporters didn't play a big role in it.
But i see you conveniently avoided my other and more important argument about BLM riots being treated with kid gloves compared to Trump supporters riots.

Overheal

Mic 1972 wrote: »

There were antifa people at the riots, that doesn't mean that trump Supporters didn't play a big role in it.
But i see you conveniently avoided my other and more important argument about BLM riots being treated with kid gloves compared to Trump supporters riots.

Well, the FBI field office in Washington DC has already stated, as of a few hours ago, that “We have no indication of that at this time,” with regard to Antifa involvement at the siege.

If otherwise you think you know something special, or have some insight into more recent developments that the FBI field office is not privy to, by all means, please let me know; as a United States citizen, I would not hesitate to file the formal tip on your behalf.

Brian?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

There were antifa people at the riots, that doesn't mean that trump Supporters didn't play a big role in it.
But i see you conveniently avoided my other and more important argument about BLM riots being treated with kid gloves compared to Trump supporters riots.

The BLM protestors weren't "treated with kid gloves", they were pepper sprayed and beaten away from the White House and Capitol.

What evidence is there that Antifa were involved in the attack on the Capitol?

Mic 1972

Brian? wrote: »

The BLM protestors weren't "treated with kid gloves", they were pepper sprayed and beaten away from the White House and Capitol.

What evidence is there that Antifa were involved in the attack on the Capitol?

Antifa were involved in all the BLM violent riots of the last few months. Including Kenosha, were they set on fire buildings with people inside.
Let's not pretend 2020 didn't happen.
For a year people put up with riots and crime that went unpunished. in fact BLM protests were supported and celebrated.

Trump Supports tried the same in Capitol, but the media wouldn't have it. Double standards as usual

Brian?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Antifa were involved in all the BLM violent riots of the last few months. Including Kenosha, were they set on fire buildings with people inside.
Let's not pretend 2020 didn't happen.
For a year people put up with riots and crime that went unpunished. in fact BLM protests were supported and celebrated.

Trump Supports tried the same in Capitol, but the media wouldn't have it. Double standards as usual

BLM weren't treated with "kid gloves", have you got any evidence they were? Anitfa were not involved in the take over of the Capitol buildings, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

No one is pretending there wasn't violence at the BLM protests during the summer. That's a strawman.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Antifa were involved in all the BLM violent riots of the last few months. Including Kenosha, were they set on fire buildings with people inside.
Let's not pretend 2020 didn't happen.
For a year people put up with riots and crime that went unpunished. in fact BLM protests were supported and celebrated.

Trump Supports tried the same in Capitol, but the media wouldn't have it. Double standards as usual

They tried an insurrection of a government building to overcome an election result. Many of them were literally Nazis. I would accept the FBI report over you who have said antifa had nothing to do with it.

Also worth noting that those supporters were the same that said Blue Lives Matter. Now they're bashing police officers to death with fire extinguishers.

Weirdly you bring up Kenosha again where a nut job teen went out of his way to shoot people with an assault rifle. He's the type of person who stormed the Capitol.

Foxtrol

BLM being treated with kids gloves is again in utter delusion or bad faith.

There is never ending examples of the cops treating these white terrorists better than peaceful protesters demanding equal treatment. Below is just a few examples

https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/1347593336262156289?s=20

AbusesToilets

I thought we were told protests and riots were the language of change? Seems rather hypocritical to climb up on a horse, rightly condemning this riot, after excusing them all summer

nullzero

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I thought we were told protests and riots were the language of change? Seems rather hypocritical to climb up on a horse, rightly condemning this riot, after excusing them all summer

As usual, only one flavour or protest/rioting is acceptable whilst the other is not palatable.

Hypocrisy is de rigueur in these discussions.

AbusesToilets

nullzero wrote: »

As usual, only one flavour or protest/rioting is acceptable whilst the other is not palatable.

Hypocrisy is de rigueur in these discussions.

The various media heads wringing their hands are laughable. No shortage of material exposing their nonsense.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I thought we were told protests and riots were the language of change? Seems rather hypocritical to climb up on a horse, rightly condemning this riot, after excusing them all summer

The problem of you and your ilk is that no one excused them all summer. Riots were condemned time and time again and no one complained about the MAGA protest this week until they tried to stage a coup.

The hypocrisy comes where posters like you clutched their pearls at BLM protesters blocking streets, spraying graffiti on buildings, or shouting at people eating out while now have deafening silence when right wing terrorists attack the government of the US bringing bombs, Molotov cocktails, guns, tasers, mace and in the process put 60 cops in hospital and beat one to death.

It was pretty obvious what your agenda was before and your silence now has just proved it.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

The problem of you and your ilk is that no one excused them all summer. Riots were condemned time and time again and no one complained about the MAGA protest this week until they tried to stage a coup.

The hypocrisy comes where posters like you clutched their pearls at BLM protesters blocking streets, spraying graffiti on buildings, or shouting at people eating out while now have deafening silence when right wing terrorists attack the government of the US bringing bombs, Molotov cocktails, guns, tasers, mace and in the process put 60 cops in hospital and beat one to death.

It was pretty obvious what your agenda was before and your silence now has just proved it.

That's patently untie. There are teams of tweets, clips, posts etc of public figures excusing the violence and rioting that went hand in hand with the protests. You know it, I know it. The fact you try and portray events that causes billions of dollars worth of damage, along with numerous instances of assault, rape and murder on top of the property destruction has pearl clutching is pathetic.

What is my silence? A consistent position condemning rioting and violence? Your dishonesty and bias are clear to anyone who has read your posts here and elsewhere, and emblematic of the attitudes of those who push such an agenda.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's patently untie. There are teams of tweets, clips, posts etc of public figures excusing the violence and rioting that went hand in hand with the protests. You know it, I know it. The fact you try and portray events that causes billions of dollars worth of damage, along with numerous instances of assault, rape and murder on top of the property destruction has pearl clutching is pathetic.

What is my silence? A consistent position condemning rioting and violence? Your dishonesty and bias are clear to anyone who has read your posts here and elsewhere, and emblematic of the attitudes of those who push such an agenda.

The fact you have dozens (hundreds??) of posts complaining and condemning every possible thing about BLM protests in multiple threads and not a single post condemning the violent coup this week??

Are you just more angered by black people protesting?

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

The fact you have dozens (hundreds??) of posts complaining and condemning every possible thing about BLM protests in multiple threads and not a single post condemning the violent coup this week??

Are you just more angered by black people protesting?

I literally said the words condemned 3 posts ago, so...

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I literally said the words condemned 3 posts ago, so...

Where? Are you talking about your generic claim of consistently being against violence? I don't see one specific post in any thread that you've posted about the mob attacking the Capitol, compared to the dozens that you've posted attacking everything about those protesting racism and police brutality.

Posters who have barely held their masks on by a thread before have now really shown their true colours by their clear lack of any care about what these white thugs did this week. The had more concern about black protesters walking through a gated community than the Capitol building being overrun, vandelised, and looted and 60 police officers being injured and one murdered.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's patently untie. There are teams of tweets, clips, posts etc of public figures excusing the violence and rioting that went hand in hand with the protests. You know it, I know it. The fact you try and portray events that causes billions of dollars worth of damage, along with numerous instances of assault, rape and murder on top of the property destruction has pearl clutching is pathetic.

What is my silence? A consistent position condemning rioting and violence? Your dishonesty and bias are clear to anyone who has read your posts here and elsewhere, and emblematic of the attitudes of those who push such an agenda.

Why don't you go and take it up with the people who were excusing the violence during the BLM protests? No one here was. You have jammed 2 tired tropes into one post: a straw man and false equivalency.

1. The straw man

I'm sure you see this as a great point scoring opportunity, but you missed the target here. No one was excusing the violence here. We were merely pointing out that the majority of protests were peaceful and the protests were justified.

2. The false equivalency

The MAGA protesters weren't justified in their protest. They were hoodwinked by conspiracy theories spewed from their glorious leader. They marched to the seat of democracy and attempted to stop the certification of an election. That's an attempted coup. I'm normally pro revolution, but i can't get behind this one because their aim was to disenfranchise the majority.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Posts removed. Serious posts only please.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Why don't you go and take it up with the people who were excusing the violence during the BLM protests? No one here was. You have jammed 2 tired tropes into one post: a straw man and false equivalency.

1. The straw man

I'm sure you see this as a great point scoring opportunity, but you missed the target here. No one was excusing the violence here. We were merely pointing out that the majority of protests were peaceful and the protests were justified.

2. The false equivalency

The MAGA protesters weren't justified in their protest. They were hoodwinked by conspiracy theories spewed from their glorious leader. They marched to the seat of democracy and attempted to stop the certification of an election. That's an attempted coup. I'm normally pro revolution, but i can't get behind this one because their aim was to disenfranchise the majority.

As usual, your argument is wildly disingenuous. The tired claim that the majority of protests were peaceful, after Billions of dollars in damage occurred, along with the attendant violence. The attack on Congress was disgraceful, and those guilty will hopefully be punished appropriately. So were the riots that occurred under the banner of BLM this past year, yet there's far less energy in the media and here for a similar response. Instead you have celebrities bailing out criminals, and politicians telling us that violence is justified when you're fighting for civil liberties.

Were these protestors any less hoodwinked and mislead than those who participated in the BLM marches? My opinion of the BLM is fairly well established, I think it's a scam. Does **** all to help black communities, rather exists to monetise white guilt. Trump supporters are similarly exploited.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As usual, your argument is wildly disingenuous. The tired claim that the majority of protests were peaceful, after Billions of dollars in damage occurred, along with the attendant violence.

You can bold Billions all you want but by the end of everything the terrorist attack on the Capitol will likely also cost Billions.

The attack on Congress was disgraceful, and those guilty will hopefully be punished appropriately.

Again, if so disgraceful then why haven't you been as outspoken about this as you do when black people protest about their rights?

So were the riots that occurred under the banner of BLM this past year, yet there's far less energy in the media and here for a similar response. Instead you have celebrities bailing out criminals, and politicians telling us that violence is justified when you're fighting for civil liberties.

Because they aren't equivalent at all. Looting a Target store while protests were ongoing elsewhere isn't the same as a mob with guns and bombs planning and carrying out an attack on one of the branches of government and in the process murdering a police officer.

Were these protestors any less hoodwinked and mislead than those who participated in the BLM marches? My opinion of the BLM is fairly well established, I think it's a scam. Does **** all to help black communities, rather exists to monetise white guilt. Trump supporters are similarly exploited.

Even if you were right about both groups being 'hoodwinked', you are much more aggravated by those 'hoodwinked' to protest for the rights of black people than those 'hoodwinked' to overturn the results of an election and overthrow a government. It is very strange.

AbusesToilets

Foxtrol wrote: »

You can bold Billions all you want but by the end of everything the terrorist attack on the Capitol will likely also cost Billions.



Again, if so disgraceful then why haven't you been as outspoken about this as you do when black people protest about their rights?



Because they aren't equivalent at all. Looting a Target store while protests were ongoing elsewhere isn't the same as a mob with guns and bombs planning and carrying out an attack on one of the branches of government and in the process murdering a police officer.



Even if you were right about both groups being 'hoodwinked', you are much more aggravated by those 'hoodwinked' to protest for the rights of black people than those 'hoodwinked' to overturn the results of an election and overthrow a government. It is very strange.

You think a riot in the Capital Building did billions of dollars? Right..

What's an acceptable level of speech to allow one to comment or make critical statements? Those riots by BLM "protestors" had SFA to do with equality or civil rights. It was opportunistic destruction and looting, coupled with rampant anti-white racism. In good company with the carry-on in DC.

My aggravation, as you say, is to do with the carry on of folks who suddenly found there voice to condemn this riot, after excusing and supporting them all summer. Rank hypocrisy