Appropriate response to rioting

[marshwiggle]

Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

[mahagonny]

Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

So what the law enforcement people should do is enforce the law not equally, but anti-racistly. We may be seeing such things in the near future. Keep an eye on the cabinet appointments.

[writingprof]

Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

[Kron3007]

Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building. 

[Kron3007]

Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

[marshwiggle]

Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

[dismalist]

Following Einstein that explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler :-), attributing an inappropriate response to Capitol rioting as racism is not the simplest possible explanation. A much simpler one is incompetence. From a WSJ article:

As rioters stormed the Capitol, the numerous federal and local agencies that police the nation's capital produced a flood of urgent communications, but they struggled to sort through lines of command and coordinate a forceful response to the assault spiraling beyond their control.

Not different form the CDC and the FDA. It's pervasive. Constructed and willed by Congress.

The article is here https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-between-agencies-hampered-forceful-response-11610242709

[Langue_doc]

Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.

[Kron3007]

Why were they not there in gear, and why was the crowd allowed to rush the building without gas and flash-bangs being deployed? Why were other forces (such as the Virginia State Police) not there earlier?

Would you say the  same thing about some of the serious rioting in the summer, such as in Portland (if I recall correctly), where rioters attacked the federal couthouse? Would the same level of response have been justified?

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

[mahagonny]

Here's a strategic question for you Marxists.  When Comma-Luh implies in a tweet that the Capitol rioters were not tear-gassed*, is she aware that there are numerous videos of Capitol rioters being tear-gassed?  Is she stupid, or does she think we're stupid?  Also, if there's really so much racism out there, why are people constantly having to make up instances of racism?

*"We have witnessed two systems of justice: one that let extremists storm the U.S. Capitol yesterday, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protestors last summer."

Darn good questions. I have a friend on FB who appears to be unable to discuss this week's events without insisting everything we've been through is about racism. This is mania, and it has become common. This is professional health care worker with expensive college education. (!) The idea is, the bogeyman of unacknowledged, as yet unrecognized racism is lurking everywhere and threatens to outpace our efforts to spot him. Very similar to the communism phobia of McCarthyism.

Kind of like you two: Unable to discuss this week's events without irrelevant references to BLM or the left. This thread as one of several examples.

Another response for this:

Are you by any chance watching CNN? They just had Sheila Jackson on. She gave a several minute interview where she agreed with the republican congressman who said 'Presidential Trump has committed an impeachable offense. I don't know what kind of impeachment document the democrats will hand us, but as long as it's not politicized it can easily be supported.' (I thought; why did he have to make that stipulation? It's a fairly staightforward situation. the megalomaniac is pissed that he lost, and he's trying to get the more emotional thinking among his following to overthrow by feeding them lies. Everyone's looking at the same thing. Who's gonna politicize this? I soon found out.)
Jackson gave him credit for putting principle over party, gave a brief sober account of what DJT has done recently that threatens the nation, and almost made it to the end before gratuitously making a dig at white people. 'We cannot tolerate white aggression...blah blah...' Then seemed to catch herself and reel it back in. Forgetting, perhaps, that most of the targets of the violent assault are white people who risked their lives that day to do the work they're hired for.

I am just an adjunct professor commenting on a forum. I am not directing public discussion in the media. These race hustler politicians are the people you vote in. If you're tired of having us point out when they seem unable to process discernible life events without playing the race card, you could stop sending them to Washington.

She's probably on a reparations kick. Well played, congresswomxn.

Incidentally, if Kimberly Klacik sides with Trump this time, I'm all done with her.

[marshwiggle]

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

[spork]

Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.

Thank you. On my small campus, the only significant ethnic and religious diversity comes from people who were not born in the USA, including my wife. Pronouncing people's names correctly, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is a very low bar for civility and professionalism.

[mahagonny]

Comma-Luh

What are you trying to do here? Do you actually want to engage in discussion, or are you just trolling?

Why can't both be true?

Sure, but most of us grew out of making fun of people's names as a form of argument around grade 2 or so.

I found this needless ridiculing of someone's name because of either their ethnicity or their ancestors coming from another part of the world to be rather distressing not only because those of us who work in large metropolitan areas have students and colleagues--faculty and non-faculty whose names are far more difficult to pronounce than the name "Kamala", but also because this would be disrespectful to fellow forumites some of whose real names might also be difficult to pronounce. Disagreeing with a politician's position or policies is part of the democratic process, but ridiculing anyone's name just because they are from another part of the world suggests that such ridicule extends to others of the same ethnicity as well as to people from other countries with non-English names.

On the first day of class I make sure that I have the correct pronunciation for all the students' names and write down the pronunciation alongside the names on the roster. I can think of numerous students, colleagues, some administrative assistants, and IT support technicians (the people who rush to your classroom when you call in despair in the middle of class to fix the internet problems on the computer) whose names could easily be ridiculed. It behooves us as professionals, academics, and above all human beings to treat people whose names and ethnicities are different from ours with respect, especially on this forum.

Thank you. On my small campus, the only significant ethnic and religious diversity comes from people who were not born in the USA, including my wife. Pronouncing people's names correctly, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is a very low bar for civility and professionalism.

How about refraining from stigmatizing and ridiculing names racially and gender-ly as with 'Karen?' We've got some serious work ahead, friends.

[hungry_ghost]

All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

As someone who has witnessed such a situation and the ensuing carnage in a country other than the USA, I will simply say that you have no idea what you're asking for.

I value human life. Do you?

[Kron3007]

A federal courthouse  in Portland and the capital building are two very different things, especially when the VP, VP elect, and a large part of the government are all present.  There is no way these people should have been able to breach the building.

If you're going to have training and protocols for law enforcement for dealing with situations like "rioting", to be any use it has to be universal. Even if that involves categorizing different threat levels, it still can't be subject to some sort of political manipulation in the moment. (Obviously, since if the President may actually be inciting the riot, having any politician make the call is a bad idea. Their rules HAVE TO BE non-political.)

Come on.  Obviously security rules and requirements are, and should be, different based on the building/location.  The capital building of all places, should have security on stand-by that have gone through training drills many times.  If not, that's pretty messed up.  There was also lost of internet babble about this event, and they should have predicted there was a good chance this would happen.

I wouldn't expect a courthouse in Portland to have these same resources since half of your government dosn't meet there that often.  So, the response would likely need to be different based on resources and training.

Different resources for security don't necessarily affect what kind of response is prescribed. Should smashing windows and breaking down doors to enter a public building ever be, by default, something to just allow unopposed? And if there are situations where measures like tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. are appropriate, surely it shouldn't be allowed to vary by city, neighborhood, or the composition of the crowd. Those are the definition or discrimination.

If you tried to storm the Pentagon, would you not expect a different response than forming a public library?  One has sensitive military intelligence, the other has books.  What you would be willing to do to prevent one from being breached does not need to be the same.

Likewise, the capital building at this specific point in time, had the VP, VP elect, and many senators.  To say they should be provided with the exact same response as a public library or courthouse is silly.

I agree that some broad rules of engagement need to be set across the board, but that does not mean the response needs to be identical.  Again, I would expect to get tear gasses (or worse) if I tried to infiltrate the Pentagon, or breach the White House, but not necessarily for occupying a regional Library.