US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2603

On September 05 2020 00:46 Sent. wrote:
Yeah, my first thought was Trump could have said something like that, but it might as well be as true as the gorilla channel story.

On September 05 2020 01:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I believe people told the reporters this (and Trump would say something like this or worse) but WaPo and Atlantic shouldn't have even published it. Definitely not without a minimum of why the sources demanded anonymity.

A real journalist would want to make sure they are reporting something factual and newsworthy (as much as those words have meaning anymore) too.

Trump has pushed bloated military budgets, we're still bombing several countries, and institutionally it's fubar, so there's plenty to report on regarding the military. Trump talking shit is something for a National Examiner or Inquisitr to run, not a purportedly responsible news operation. In part precisely because it lends the credibility you've given it with the appeal to authority.

It's less the particular gossip but the general abandoning of rudimentary journalistic ethics when it comes to getting "scoops" on the latest Trump rumors.

Reporters on the ground, thankfully many not just named Andy Ngo as this thing wore on, showed two distinct phases of the protest. The one occurring during the day and early evening, which was large, jovial, and mainly consisted of loud chants and tagging (not that grafitting federal buildings is a right of protest, but we're talking about more serious things here). Then there was the one when most of the thousands had left, maybe in the low hundreds, that was much more dangerous and made certain responses necessary. You can hear from Nancy Rommelman from Reason, and Mike Balsamo from the AP reporting on this. Federal officers inside would wait for hours while barricades were torn down, and fencing damaged, etc etc. After 2-3 hours, the tear gas would come out, and they'd clear the square and make arrests. This also happened when the front doors were breached and/or plywood to allow protesters to fire fireworks inside. Molotovs were shown being used as well.

“Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials"

I want to be very clear that the existence of this handful numbering in the dozens to low hundreds makes law enforcement intervention desirable to declare a riot and disperse all gathered. Not some percentage. The danger to LEOs inside and people just doing their jobs inside that may be burned alive from the acts of a minority of individuals compel that.

I wish the federal officers and (later) state and local law enforcement were better at doing their job and not at all likely to exacerbate anything. It's still their job to do it. Go prosecute and fire the bad apples among them. (I don't think Ted Wheeler is at all likely to do a good job of it). That's my line about the tear gas, rubber bullets, and other nonlethal means. It's sad that the peaceful protesters are caught up in it. It's necessary because of the literally blinded officers, officers injured by mortar-style fireworks exploding near them, and the danger of uncontrollable fires burning occupants while the fire exits are blocked by protesters making their own barricades. It's not the best outcome that rogue individuals pursuing violence attend these rallies, but I don't see any way to prepare a different response should they exist in any numbers.

Ideally, take back good leadership of your police force and maybe form it anew if it sucks so bad. Cops need to be able to conduct arrests of the worst in the protest in order to make people think twice about the next brick through the window or molotov through the glass. I don't think this point should be controversial.

You can see other cities, like Detroit and sometimes Chicago, where protesters do a better job working with police to arrest antifascists or anarchists in their midst. That's a far better outcome, and I'm sure we could go down the line of how police have better relationships over there.

Portland is also an outlier because of decades of bad leadership. Ted Wheeler literally ordered his officers to not cooperate with the feds to organize a response. It was lacking. Maybe the violence was on the wane at the moment Trump sent additional federal LEO, but at the same time, the violence went right back up to various police stations once they departed. That's a problem. There's no other way to summarize a consistent group of anarchic or crazy far left individuals that show up and really make injuries towards officers (charged with defending a courthouse or police building) likely. You've got too many of them, and they aren't being arrested and charged. At least, not until quite recently. Catch and release is a bad part of this.

Regarding Police beating up protesters instead of chasing down and handcuffing and putting under arrest: There is never an excuse for pummeling someone you've taken to the ground. Do good protester stuff and take down his name/badge number, and demand something be done from your elected leadership. Not engage in retaliatory violence. How the hell is that going to help anything?

It is not ethical to arrest and release members of the same group of people night after night. It just keeps the people willing to bring violence to a protest in that group. I'm with you that there may well be legitimate bad individuals in the police force and policies that prevent their removal. I think that's a fine thing to protest over. Adopt a relationship to the violent demonstrators that will let them be jailed awaiting trial to thin out their numbers and discourage their activities. Good news: you can have that protest with dwindling numbers of ruffians in the midst. Go get some badge numbers and publicize the crimes and videos. I'm with you.

Just don't set some theoretical %peaceful notch that much be reached before breaking up the group to end the threat from riotous individuals among it. It doesn't take a large number to present a real danger to people just doing their jobs. Percentages are not an effective summary of threat. 20 with molotovs and fireworks and 40 just throwing cans, bricks, and using tools to take down barricades don't really care if there's 1,000 that don't desire violence to bring reform. The peaceful protesters are not guilty of the acts of a few, but their "right to protest" is being ruined by those among them seeking the right to burn down buildings and injure cops ("pigs" if you can believe the graffiti). If you look at violence of this kind throughout history, it's common for it to happen in a minority of places from a minority of individuals in a group.

The next block over might be peaceful as hell. It's the places where violent individuals use the protest as cover to seek harm to officers and destruction of police stations that make dispersing a riot absolutely necessary. Tear gas and pepper balls and rubber bullets. No police chasing down whoever they thought had the last molotov for a beatdown. And however many desire that to occur does not excuse counter-violence. You're walking into a cycle of violence that is too predictable.

I feel like you likely have a fundamental reverence for buildings. Can you please elaborate on why you see protection of these buildings as so critically important?

On September 05 2020 02:21 IgnE wrote:


You also have a reverence for at least certain buildings. This framing is bad faith. If a mob came to your house and 1% of the mob started to light your house on fire I am sure you would feel justified in tear gassing the whole lot. Shelter, in general, is viewed as a "human right" by almost the entirety of the left. So you should be more specific: "Why do you think you should protect a police building by gassing an entire mob when only 1% of that mob is actually trying to burn it down?"

On September 05 2020 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:


I am assuming this was still clear to you, but you are right that I could stand to be more specific. I'll edit. Thank you!

On September 05 2020 02:28 IgnE wrote:


If a protest assembled outside the Washington Monument in DC and 5 people in the mob attempted to blow it up with a detonated charge at the base would the police be justified in teargassing and dispersing the whole crowd?

On September 05 2020 02:28 IgnE wrote:


If a protest assembled outside the Washington Monument in DC and 5 people in the mob attempted to blow it up with a detonated charge at the base would the police be justified in teargassing and dispersing the whole crowd?

On September 05 2020 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't think this comparison is helpful because its way too different and way too theoretical and would depend on a million things like, how long until it blows up, how many people in the way, what is available at their disposal, maybe the tear gas doesn't even work because they are wearing masks or something. This is a bit too "but what if" to be used in this context. We already have a situation right in front of us, being discussed, which could easily be analyzed, since it actually exists. I'd say we are better served talking about something that actually exists and going into detail about the specifics of what makes the ethics of the situation what they are.

On September 05 2020 03:47 Fleetfeet wrote:


Who/what organisation organized the protest? What are they protesting? Were the police allowed to set up to contain and protect certain areas? If so, how were people able to get to the base of the monument and plant charges? If not, why were the police not allowed to set up to protect certain areas?

The hypothetical where 5 people are using a conveniently-placed protest to perform an act of intentional domestic terrorism is quite removed from what we're seeing reported, imo. In that light, I don't see the point of the hypothetical, and my response to it would be "Don't teargas, arrest the people you're apparently watching put charges on an historic monument."

On September 05 2020 03:48 IgnE wrote:


I disagree. We can assume that it will blow up immediately, that the tear gas will work, and that none of the protesters will be harmed and the question still pertains. The point of the question is to draw out the fact that you too, on the side of the protesters, actually think some buildings should be protected. The difference between you and Danglars is in where to draw the line. But facetiously asking him why he values buildings more than human life (or, less dramatically, the right not to be tear gassed) is just a bad faith question that really refuses to grapple with the value of buildings as both community funded infrastructure and as symbols of community. To talk about the "situation as it exists" would require that we avoid abstractions like "why do you value buildings or property over people?"

On September 05 2020 02:21 IgnE wrote:


You also have a reverence for at least certain buildings. This framing is bad faith. If a mob came to your house and 1% of the mob started to light your house on fire I am sure you would feel justified in tear gassing the whole lot. Shelter, in general, is viewed as a "human right" by almost the entirety of the left. So you should be more specific: "Why do you think you should protect a police building / commodity retail space / civic building by gassing an entire mob when only 1% of that mob is actually trying to burn it down?"

On September 05 2020 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:


I am assuming this was still clear to you, but you are right that I could stand to be more specific. I'll edit. Thank you!

On September 05 2020 03:51 IgnE wrote:


Well we might as well ask why the police don't just arrest the "bad apples" who are causing destruction in an otherwise peaceful protest. I of course agree with your deflationary reduction of the hypothetical in situations where it is practicable, but so does Danglars.