Appropriate response to rioting

[lightning]

I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

Equivalency may not have been your point, but, again I agree with you here, because "equivalency" was not my point, either. My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

We know how the two scenarios have two separate endings, in actual practice, despite the stated rule. (And no, I'm not wanting to discuss the Tamir Rice murder. It's just a case study example that has played itself out too many times in our history.) #BLM started, in part, because on the most basic level, a simple interaction between cops and child, has a different rule of engagement, in practice, and those different rules depend on the color of the skin of the child. So one singular rule or singular sets of rules for engagement, for addressing large groups of people consistently, isn't possible until the most simple human interactions of 2 cops to one child, is made equitable. That is why the #BLM protests happened. Two sets of rules of engagement, depending on the color of your skin.

Just so this is not a discussion about BLM vs. Jan. 6, I want to bring this discussion back to my objection on the intent & premise of this thread.

#BLM exists because they want to protest the multiple Tamir Rice type incidents of recent history, which is rooted in the racist history of the USA, going all the way back to slavery.

Jan. 6 was terrorism. Insurrection. Treason. Invasion. A coordinated attempt to overthrow an elected government, with Republican enablers and silent cheerleaders and a right-wing media mis-representing it to its loyal followers, with lies, and through the lens of white supremacy and hate. There's a reason that the Confederate flag was waved and carried proudly by the insurrectionists on the Capitol grounds.

Jan. 6 was not merely a riot. It was much more sinister than that.

But I get it. In 2020, Republicans and MAGA saw riots, and not the #BLM message. And after Jan. 6 in 2021, Republicans and MAGA want to keep the focus on a discussion about 2020 riots, not just for the distraction but also, it frames the Jan. 6 MAGA/Trump/Republican insurrection as a mere riot rather than what it is, violent insurrection and treason and terrorism. It would save Republicans and MAGA and Trump from having to confront the more important issues surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion, most importantly, their role in it, whether direct or indirect. It's the only argument, really, that MAGA has. Because if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

[spork]

One appropriate response to rioting is for sworn police officers not to participate:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/956896923/police-officers-across-nation-face-federal-charges-for-involvement-in-capitol-ri.

Funny, I've never heard of any police officers being arrested for participating in rioting related to BLM protests.

^And what lightning wrote. The January 6 events were an attempt by a sitting President and some members of Congress, among others, to overturn the results of a free and fair election that their side lost.

[marshwiggle]

My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic.

You can think what you like about why I started this thread. I'm a centrist, and have voted for the Green party for several elections, FWIW. Since this year has seen protests resulting in violence from both ends of the political spectrum, it would be good if the incoming government could prevent any more from either side in the future.

But you can ascribe whatever motives you like.

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

I've thought about that since you brought it up. If my 7 year old grandson, or even his 4 year old brother pointed a toy gun at a stranger, let alone a person in authority, I'm sure his parents would have a serious talk with him. That is extremely disrespectful.

A 12 year old should know way better than to do such a thing. It's not just a "kids will be kids" thing; that shows terrible parenting, no matter what colour skin the kid has.

And if it's a neighborhood where kids that age are actually recruited by gangs, then it's no surprise if a cop takes it as a real threat, and a kid in that kind of neighborhood should REALLY know not to do it.
(Or, if the kid is from a rural area with lots of hunting, pointing a "toy" rifle at a cop would be equally idiotic.)

if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

You can start a thread for that if you like. I'm interested in how to prevent riots in the first place. That's better than having to assign blame after the fact with all of the damage including deaths that can't be undone.

For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

In an academic forum, it's pretty normal to use individual events to discuss broader issues. Who is responsible for the Jan. 6 events is one broader issue, but how to prevent riots is another. I'm more interested in the latter, even if you're more interested in the former.

[pgher]

This column seems relevant to the current discussion. The bullet point distinctions between BLM protests and January 6:

• The intent of the Jan. 6 protest was far more nefarious. Disrupting democracy vs. drawing attention to systemic injustice.
• The Capitol riots stemmed from a lie. Widespread election fraud is a lie vs. George Floyd was actually killed.
• The encouragement of political leaders was not the same. President Trump encouraged the riot vs. Democratic leaders spoke mostly after the fact and always drew a bright line between protesters and rioters.
• Hundreds of peaceful protests happened last summer. One violent protest happened last week.
• Whataboutism isn't an excuse. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg tweeted, "If my kid shoplifts, she'll be punished. If she complains her friend's parents don't care about shoplifting so it's unfair for me to punish her, I'll say "I don't care what they do" (even though I do care and I'll make a stink later). None of that changes what's right."

[marshwiggle]

This column seems relevant to the current discussion. The bullet point distinctions between BLM protests and January 6:

• The intent of the Jan. 6 protest was far more nefarious. Disrupting democracy vs. drawing attention to systemic injustice.
• The Capitol riots stemmed from a lie. Widespread election fraud is a lie vs. George Floyd was actually killed.
• The encouragement of political leaders was not the same. President Trump encouraged the riot vs. Democratic leaders spoke mostly after the fact and always drew a bright line between protesters and rioters.
• Hundreds of peaceful protests happened last summer. One violent protest happened last week.
• Whataboutism isn't an excuse. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg tweeted, "If my kid shoplifts, she'll be punished. If she complains her friend's parents don't care about shoplifting so it's unfair for me to punish her, I'll say "I don't care what they do" (even though I do care and I'll make a stink later). None of that changes what's right."

Everything is about perceived motivation. Nothing is about action. Is this to suggest that there are no rules about any actions being simply wrong, regardless of the reason? Since every individual in society has their own thoughts and viewpoints, it's hard to see how any universal moral code can be agreed upon.

[mahagonny]

Man, you really like to conflate issues.  The BLM were not based on how police handle protests or riots, as you know.

They are also not just about George Floyd, as you know.

You can attack his character all you want, but there are many more examples.

When an autopsy or a police report contains the information that people for some reason absolutely loathe hearing, namely that Floyd was high and likely overdosing on street drugs, not very compliant are they attacking his character? Seriously, are you an academic? I thought folks like you were interested in facts.
These things don't matter because they might matter to me. i wasn't considering demonstrating, or not, depending on the details. However, just for a little perspective...
A few years ago I had a black friend, an urban dweller, now deceased, probably born around 1915. He lived alone in the building his family owned. He always dressed like a bum, so no one would think he had any possessions, kept a big ugly dog, and said hi to all the neighborhood junkies and drug dealers every time he passed them. He would have been happy to see Floyd rot in prison. He would have no tears for the man. He was conservative. Do you ever hang out with black people?
BLM is largely based on hysteria that's been reacted to with near total buy-in from many who ought to be smarter than that. There are other stories than Floyd and often just as misunderstood. Example, 'Hands up, don't shoot was a lie" --https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/
Last summer the protests were mostly based on the assumption that George Floyd was murdered, by many of various races who were also misinformed about Ferguson. The Floyd case probably won't bring a conviction. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'
I guarantee you there are many blacks who are tired of BLM madness, and not all of them are writers for Prager U or Epoch Times.
Academics are hoping BLM hysteria will help them keep republicans out of office. These are the same people who lament that people are not better informed.

[Kron3007]

Man, you really like to conflate issues.  The BLM were not based on how police handle protests or riots, as you know.

They are also not just about George Floyd, as you know.

You can attack his character all you want, but there are many more examples.

When an autopsy or a police report contains the information that people for some reason absolutely loathe hearing, namely that Floyd was high and likely overdosing on street drugs, not very compliant are they attacking his character? Seriously, are you an academic? I thought folks like you were interested in facts.
These things don't matter because they might matter to me. i wasn't considering demonstrating, or not, depending on the details. However, just for a little perspective...
A few years ago I had a black friend, an urban dweller, now deceased, probably born around 1915. He lived alone in the building his family owned. He always dressed like a bum, so no one would think he had any possessions, kept a big ugly dog, and said hi to all the neighborhood junkies and drug dealers every time he passed them. He would have been happy to see Floyd rot in prison. He would have no tears for the man. He was conservative. Do you ever hang out with black people?
BLM is largely based on hysteria that's been reacted to with near total buy-in from many who ought to be smarter than that. There are other stories than Floyd and often just as misunderstood. Example, 'Hands up, don't shoot was a lie" --https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/
Last summer the protests were mostly based on the assumption that George Floyd was murdered, by many of various races who were also misinformed about Ferguson. The Floyd case probably won't bring a conviction. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'
I guarantee you there are many blacks who are tired of BLM madness, and not all of them are writers for Prager U or Epoch Times.

No matter if he was high, a junkie, or worse, the police were in the wrong.  Did we watch different videos? 

I don't care if you "knew a black guy that would agree with you". 

[mahagonny]

The police were in the wrong and that is agreed upon. That's why they don't have jobs any more. The higher murder charge against Chauvin happened several days later because of public outcry which happened in the atmosphere of very incomplete information, intentionally controlled. You don't take fentanyl and amphetamine recreationally unless you are into taking big chances with your life. This is of interest to some. When Derek is acquitted let's talk about this again.
I see you didn't care to comment on the inspiration for BLM, the Ferguson incident.

[Descartes]

I frankly don't give a s**t about arguing equivalencies. It's not important right now. There are armed militias that are planning another similar attack on inauguration day, and you want to discuss equivalencies. Jeezus . . . .

"Equivalency" is not the point. For many people, the police response in one case, (such as sumer riots), was too strong while in another, (capital riots), it was too weak. Given that we don't yet have mind-reading technology, and given that people are not all ideological clones, then we need to have rules that can be applied in any situation, including rules about how to handle escalation, if necessary.

What consistent rules do you propose which would cover any situation where there are large groups of people and where some may engage in lawless behaviour so that law enforcement can establish, in advance, that you will not criticize their response as being either too strong or too weak if they follow your rules?

Equivalency may not have been your point, but, again I agree with you here, because "equivalency" was not my point, either. My point is that this thread that you started, by trying to start a general discussion about appropriate responses to protests/riots in general, is a distraction to take attention away from the real issues. It's a typical right-wing apologist distraction tactic. Get people talking about riots and arguing about #BLM, instead of focusing on the heinous attempt to overturn the US government and the culpability of those that were aligned with it, in thought, word, and/or deed, and discussing the path forward for justice and ultimately unity.

To answer your boldface question. I've already mentioned this once, already, but here it is again.
Let's start with the simplest of scenarios and the rule governing the scenario.

If a 12-year-old African American boy, at an urban playground, points his toy gun at a cop, the cop will apply the same rule of engagement as if it were a white 12-year-old boy, at a suburban playground, pointing his toy gun at the cop. Easy peasy right? Should be an obvious application of one rule.

We know how the two scenarios have two separate endings, in actual practice, despite the stated rule. (And no, I'm not wanting to discuss the Tamir Rice murder. It's just a case study example that has played itself out too many times in our history.) #BLM started, in part, because on the most basic level, a simple interaction between cops and child, has a different rule of engagement, in practice, and those different rules depend on the color of the skin of the child. So one singular rule or singular sets of rules for engagement, for addressing large groups of people consistently, isn't possible until the most simple human interactions of 2 cops to one child, is made equitable. That is why the #BLM protests happened. Two sets of rules of engagement, depending on the color of your skin.

Just so this is not a discussion about BLM vs. Jan. 6, I want to bring this discussion back to my objection on the intent & premise of this thread.

#BLM exists because they want to protest the multiple Tamir Rice type incidents of recent history, which is rooted in the racist history of the USA, going all the way back to slavery.

Jan. 6 was terrorism. Insurrection. Treason. Invasion. A coordinated attempt to overthrow an elected government, with Republican enablers and silent cheerleaders and a right-wing media mis-representing it to its loyal followers, with lies, and through the lens of white supremacy and hate. There's a reason that the Confederate flag was waved and carried proudly by the insurrectionists on the Capitol grounds.

Jan. 6 was not merely a riot. It was much more sinister than that.

But I get it. In 2020, Republicans and MAGA saw riots, and not the #BLM message. And after Jan. 6 in 2021, Republicans and MAGA want to keep the focus on a discussion about 2020 riots, not just for the distraction but also, it frames the Jan. 6 MAGA/Trump/Republican insurrection as a mere riot rather than what it is, violent insurrection and treason and terrorism. It would save Republicans and MAGA and Trump from having to confront the more important issues surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion, most importantly, their role in it, whether direct or indirect. It's the only argument, really, that MAGA has. Because if we actually discussed the Jan. 6 event without making comparisons to 2020 riots, you would have to keep your discussion on why Republicans and MAGA and Trump are or are not culpable and should or should not be prosecuted for treason/terrorism/insurrection, for their role in Jan. 6.

For Republicans, Trump, MAGA, and those that don't profess to like Trump or MAGA (but who still vote with him, vote for him, and support  him anyway), there's some serious cognitive dissonance happening, I'm sure. Talking about #BLM 2020 riots, means that cognitive dissonance does not have to be confronted. So I get why this thread needs to exist for you.

I'm done with this thread because we just seem to be repeating ourselves and it serves only to perpetuate the distraction, which is what you intended.

But I had to join this train wreck because, I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

You can "not want to talk about it" all you want but you brought it up.

Why was the 12 year old on a playground in Cleveland treated differently than a 12 year old in the suburbs?  For starters because the suburbs fire guys who handle incidents like this before they get a chance to handle an incident like this! (Research it. This exact officer worked for a suburban dept. and didn't do well. I don't think he was actually fired but it was made clear to him that resigning would be the best thing he could do. He then lied to Cleveland, who didn't seem to do a thorough enough background investigation  - because their hiring is and has been a shit show for years!)

So, yet again,  I see factors that don't have anything to do with race at play.  I rarely see clear indications that race was a controlling factor in ANY police use of force incident,  including ones that are clearly unlawful or used poor judgment.

[mahagonny]

I've thought about that since you brought it up. If my 7 year old grandson, or even his 4 year old brother pointed a toy gun at a stranger, let alone a person in authority, I'm sure his parents would have a serious talk with him. That is extremely disrespectful.

A 12 year old should know way better than to do such a thing. It's not just a "kids will be kids" thing; that shows terrible parenting, no matter what colour skin the kid has.

Or it could be the result of successful elite education. Parents are with their kids, what, three or four hours a per day, compared with six or seven at school. Here's a school where black kids are taught that the white man is their enemy.

https://nypost.com/2016/07/17/elite-schools-exceptionally-racist-diversity-head-will-not-return/

""Ever since Ferguson, the school has been increasing anti-white propaganda in its curriculum," said a parent who requested anonymity because he has children currently enrolled in the school.'

https://nypost.com/2016/07/01/elite-k-8-school-teaches-white-students-theyre-born-racist/

[Kron3007]

The police were in the wrong and that is agreed upon. That's why they don't have jobs any more. The higher murder charge against Chauvin happened several days later because of public outcry which happened in the atmosphere of very incomplete information, intentionally controlled. You don't take fentanyl and amphetamine recreationally unless you are into taking big chances with your life. This is of interest to some. When Derek is acquitted let's talk about this again.
I see you didn't care to comment on the inspiration for BLM, the Ferguson incident.

These are only the straws the broke the camel's back.  For every George Floyd or Ferguson, there are hundreds more, including several that happened during the movement.  There is no point is discussing the particulars of every single one.

[Kron3007]

You can attack the character of George, and explain away some of these incidents, but the fact remains that you are more likely to die from police if you are black to Han if you are white.  This is a problem no?

I think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries. 

[mahagonny]

You can attack the character of George, and explain away some of these incidents, but the fact remains that you are more likely to die from police if you are black to Han if you are white.  This is a problem no?

I think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries. 

Well, how was Floyd's failing of character not a problem to him, and illustrative of one or two of the issues?

It's a minor problem, but can you encourage people how to stay out of the criminal justice system by (1) living smart and (2) managing their encounters with police intelligently, or do you want to talk about statistics and hold demonstrations? How about working on problems?
It's not a problem to white liberals who wield influence. It's a way to get votes for their candidate without earning them. By selling them a message of defeat and dependence on the safety net. The bigger problems facing black urban communities are street crime, fatherless homes, poor educational settings, higher cost of housing, poor diet/obesity. Working on these is a lot harder than saying 'I know --- let's hire a big time racial studies author to come to our campus and lecture us about decolonizing our world, and all pledge allegiance to this world view, which presents an obstentibly serious agenda that, when you look closer, has no clear measurable outcomes and no timetable for meeting goals, and actually, not even any goals. Does nothing for any real problem facing the poor but absolves the white man of guilt related to America's past.' But the good news: some of this work doesn't involve that much money. It involves thinking better.
the hard work:
Give the white man/woman their moral confidence back. They are now done creeping around, apologizing for having a savings account and male relatives they know; they're free to speak and interact in nurturing ways with young people of all races, including a pinch of tough love and criticism where it's needed.
Control immigration so the demand for rented housing and unskilled labor doesn't skyrocket.
Give authority and class control opportunities back to the K-12 teachers.
Stop glamorizing trash popular culture that provides examples to kids of street thugs, gangsters elevated to the stature of artists and philosophers.
Let the black devout Christians in academia come out of the closet so they won't be nervous about fitting into the culture so they can compete for the real jobs.
Put more conservatives in academia so when higher education advertises diversity it will actually be true.
End the corporate 'anti-racism' chanting and grandstanding. Corporate America, focus back on making stuff, jobs, gouging us for prescription drugs. What works. We don't need you for moral guidance.
Get rid of the academic workforce caste system.

[dismalist]

I think it is also a part of a bigger problem in the US, as police caused deaths are dramatically higher there than in most countries.

This is true, and it is true for whites, too. We need to make some experiments:

Have white US police enforce the law in Sweden, and see what happens. I'd wager on a dramatic reduction in  deaths cause by US police compared to those caused in the United States

The capital of  Angola, Luanda, has approximately the same police deaths per 10 million as the United States. Undertake the same experiment. I would wager on a reduction in deaths caused by white US police compared to those caused by local police in that city.

Here's the Wikipedia page with the data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_country

Racism seems to be the default for all differences in outcomes. That is the same as attributing a measure of our ignorance to racism.

[mahagonny]

What's really different about January 6 and this past summer is January 6 was a true rebellion against the establishment. That doesn't automatically make it constructive or justified or intelligent. To me it wasn't much of any of those things. Whereas Black Lives Matter is not much of a rebellion. It's more a piece of the establishment itself, the victimist culture of the democratic party fortifying itself over years to the point of boiling over. As Shelby Steele explains it's an emulation of the 60's civil rights movement that falls short in substance. But being a big piece of the establishment, and also somewhat militant, it could become its own problem. Now it will be President Biden's job to either stop the property destruction and violence of demonstrations gone wild, or enable them, should they happen. Fault lines might appear. If Derek Chauvin is acquitted I expect riots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dw8JRYkpI