Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Muzjhath]

No, I just despise the rioters. Would prefer to have seen them dealt with using far greater force and every last one of them charged with felonies.

So, during the unrest and riots prior to the American Rebellion you'd have preferred it if the British quickly shipped over 20-40 thousand soldiers and a fleet to blockade.
Good to know.

If you do not, think about what you just said.

I do not believe that rioting is liberty.

Most people arrested and changed were probably only outside and the police were angry and out of sorts. Not rioting.

[Egomaniac]

More like a great social experiment.

They violated Oregon law by failing to disperse as lawfully directed by police after a riot was declared.

So, these dangerous criminals all committed misdemeanors...and because of that the officers were justified in using excessive force?

[TEHPALLYTANK]

I would love to see a massive decrease in people being injured by the police. The number one way to do that is to obey their commands, not resist arrest, etc.

So basically you want the police in the USA to function as Gestapo, that is literally the only conclusion I can draw when taking your other posts into consideration. You want the police to operate without oversight or consequences, and all orders made by them to be followed regardless of whether or not their demands have merit. Anyone who resists or fails to comply quickly enough deserves to be injured/maimed/killed, that is the position you've established thus far.

Personally I don't think devolving into a fascist police-state is good for the country, but apparently you think it is just dandy. I'm sorry we don't have a time machine to send you to 1933, because I think you'd be a huge fan of Germany at that time and would have loved to live there.

[Egomaniac]

The current public image is of a DA soft on crime.

I don't see how a DA that is charging violent criminals, regardless of their positions in the police force, is "soft on crime". When cops break the law.. they become criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

I would love to see a massive decrease in people being injured by the police. The number one way to do that is to obey their commands, not resist arrest, etc.

Just let the police violate your rights...because if you don't they'll just beat on you and violate your rights anyway.

It's like telling someone "Hey, those guys are going to rape you anyway...you might as well just go along with it and maybe they won't rough you up as much"

Maybe I'm crazy here...but maybe that isn't the best way to deal with the problem. Maybe more DA's should charge more cops when they use excessive force. Maybe if that happens enough, eventually the cops will get the message that they don't get to do that anymore

[postman1782]

More of a last straw thing rather than casus belli.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I just despise the rioters. Would prefer to have seen them dealt with using far greater force and every last one of them charged with felonies.

So, we shouldn't arrest cops that assault people? How are you ever going to have people ever fucking trust the cops, if they can just assault people without consequences?

[Kellhound]

The fact that you think that throwing the book at non-violent protestors would make the DA seem to be "tough" on crime is... frankly, sad.

That's like the bully thinking that he's tough because he picks on wimpy kids.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, the staggering disconnect of the whole thing.

This is not just any other protest. They're literally protesting the ultimate abuse of power by the police, "officers of the law", and you think that the same system of law and order throwing the book at non-violent protesters, putting them in jail, will do anything productive towards the end of stopping the protests is... mind-boggling.

I said the public image, not my image.

Its Portland, the only thing that will ever make the "professional" protesters happy is anarchy.

- - - Updated - - -

So, during the unrest and riots prior to the American Rebellion you'd have preferred it if the British quickly shipped over 20-40 thousand soldiers and a fleet to blockade.
Good to know.

If you do not, think about what you just said.


Most people arrested and changed were probably only outside and the police were angry and out of sorts. Not rioting.

As there is a high likelihood I would have been a Loyalist had I been here then, yes I would have likely supported the Crown maintaining order. If, on the other hand, I was interested in violently overthrowing the legitimate government because I felt it was needed, then no.

- - - Updated - - -

So, these dangerous criminals all committed misdemeanors...and because of that the officers were justified in using excessive force?

The officers were justified in using sufficient force to compel criminals to obey the law.

[Egomaniac]

The officers were justified in using sufficient force to compel criminals to obey the law.

"sufficient" and "excessive" are very different words bubby.

[Kellhound]

So basically you want the police in the USA to function as Gestapo, that is literally the only conclusion I can draw when taking your other posts into consideration. You want the police to operate without oversight or consequences, and all orders made by them to be followed regardless of whether or not their demands have merit. Anyone who resists or fails to comply quickly enough deserves to be injured/maimed/killed, that is the position you've established thus far.

Personally I don't think devolving into a fascist police-state is good for the country, but apparently you think it is just dandy. I'm sorry we don't have a time machine to send you to 1933, because I think you'd be a huge fan of Germany at that time and would have loved to live there.

I have never said the police should not operate without oversight or consequences, and I have been clear about the concept of lawful orders. Can a criminal deserve being injured or killed while resisting? Yes. Is it always the case? No. Do criminals bear some responsibility for what happens to them if they resist? Yes.

Personally, I don't think devolving into anarchy is any better or worse than devolving into a police state.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how a DA that is charging violent criminals, regardless of their positions in the police force, is "soft on crime". When cops break the law.. they become criminals.

- - - Updated - - -



Just let the police violate your rights...because if you don't they'll just beat on you and violate your rights anyway.

It's like telling someone "Hey, those guys are going to rape you anyway...you might as well just go along with it and maybe they won't rough you up as much"

Maybe I'm crazy here...but maybe that isn't the best way to deal with the problem. Maybe more DA's should charge more cops when they use excessive force. Maybe if that happens enough, eventually the cops will get the message that they don't get to do that anymore

Many people in the area are tired of the rioters and how the DA and city have generally handled the situation.

On does not spit into the wind and then wonder why you have spit on your face. There is no logical reason to physically resist the police, you will always make the matter worse.

[Muzjhath]

As there is a high likelihood I would have been a Loyalist had I been here then, yes I would have likely supported the Crown maintaining order. If, on the other hand, I was interested in violently overthrowing the legitimate government because I felt it was needed, then no.

Good to know that you support jack-booted authoritarianism when you think you benefit from it.

[Kellhound]

So, we shouldn't arrest cops that assault people? How are you ever going to have people ever fucking trust the cops, if they can just assault people without consequences?

Never said that. What is in question is when force becomes excessive. Why on earth would you trust the police?

- - - Updated - - -

"sufficient" and "excessive" are very different words bubby.

And they mean different things to different people.

- - - Updated - - -

Good to know that you support jack-booted authoritarianism when you think you benefit from it.

Most people support violence when they think they will benefit from it. It is all a matter of perspective.

[Muzjhath]

Never said that. What is in question is when force becomes excessive. Why on earth would you trust the police?
-
Most people support violence when they think they will benefit from it. It is all a matter of perspective.

If you can't trust the police, why would you ever do what they say? You just killed your entire reasoning about doing what police tells you too.

-

The difference is using violence against authoritarian thugs who supports an oppressive order of one kind or another, or the state repressing the population to keep a clique in power.

[Twdft]

Kellhound would have fit perfectly in East Germany. He seems to actually want to live in a police state. I was only a child back then but I didn't fucking like it at all. It's all fine and dandy as long as you fit in and do everything the state wants you to, but the moment you have a thought of your own you're fucked. Kellhound isn't at the stage of having a thought yet.

[Egomaniac]

No sense even talking to Kellhound. He said earlier in the thread he just wants to watch Portland burn.



- - - Updated - - -

Most people support violence when they think they will benefit from it. It is all a matter of perspective.

Most people view violence as a last resort.

Cops start with violence and work up from there.

[Mayhem]

Most people support violence when they think they will benefit from it. It is all a matter of perspective.

No, they don't. In what kind of neighborhood are you living where you'd come to that conclusion?

[Themius]

Kellhound would have fit perfectly in East Germany. He seems to actually want to live in a police state. I was only a child back then but I didn't fucking like it at all. It's all fine and dandy as long as you fit in and do everything the state wants you to, but the moment you have a thought of your own you're fucked. Kellhound isn't at the stage of having a thought yet.

Meanwhile though... west Germany had hitlers nazis elevated by the USA literally making them ambassadors....

[Easo]

I have this feeling that half of this thread considers every order from a cop an abuse of authority. Why do you people keep going into extremes as if that is the default?

[Endus]

I have this feeling that half of this thread considers every order from a cop an abuse of authority. Why do you people keep going into extremes as if that is the default?

It's not giving the order that's an abuse of authority.

It's the use of violence to enforce those orders.

[Easo]

It's not giving the order that's an abuse of authority.

It's the use of violence to enforce those orders.

Would you feel better if I rephrased this as "I have this feeling that half of this thread believes that cops enforce every order with violence"? Literally nothing changes from what I said.

[Endus]

Would you feel better if I rephrased this as "I have this feeling that half of this thread believes that cops enforce every order with violence"? Literally nothing changes from what I said.

If police officers were shouting that there was a curfew and waving protestors away and protestors were not complying and it got shouty and the cops eventually pushed forward enough that the protestors dispersed, literally no one would be complaining.

The complaints come about when the cops declare there's a curfew and then wade into the protestors with batons and tear gas and whatnot.

Police violence, even use of non-lethals and less-than-lethals, should be reserved as a response to violence.

[Easo]

If police officers were shouting that there was a curfew and waving protestors away and protestors were not complying and it got shouty and the cops eventually pushed forward enough that the protestors dispersed, literally no one would be complaining.

The complaints come about when the cops declare there's a curfew and then wade into the protestors with batons and tear gas and whatnot.

Police violence, even use of non-lethals and less-than-lethals, should be reserved as a response to violence.

I still said something really different from what you are going on about.