If you feel that police are subjected to systemic violence and death based on their color or class, feel free to build one and share that compelling content with the world.
I would assume that police has motivation and resources to investigate brutality against police, and those who do it have less legal protection. In other words, it's taken care of.
Things going the other way seems to be where the current system does not work.
Police already publish arrest records, mug shots, and they're covered by the media as well. Criminal charges are public records and covered by FOIA requests.
"Tū quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)." - Wikipedia
I think the police already have pretty good systems for that. If there is actual violence against them, then they can file charges against the known assailants, and have a pretty good chance those charges would stick.
Whereas with violence done by police, even if you have the best video in the world proving that they murdered someone on live TV, those charges probably wouldn’t stick. Or even be brought to court.
There needs to be a counterbalance to their overwhelming power in such matters.
I'd be happy to send you the code if you want to setup that site. This is where my moral compass lies. If you have any advice on how I could make sure this site doesn't enflame the situation and is rather used as a reminder about the lows we have stopped to as a species I'd be happy to integrate them
Good luck. I say that sincerely, not sarcastically.
I think a core problem with the situation is that the masses on one side think of these events as one-offs. They're not convinced its a systemic problem because they don't see the "everyday" brutality. The masses on the other side don't see it as a systemic problem either, not exactly anyway; they see it as all cops being racist murderers at heart. Whether one side is closer to the truth than the other side is largely irrelevant, because neither view helps resolve the issue. Neither side can hear the other side because their own personal experience is completely at odds with the other side's point of view.
I can't access the site, so I have no idea what you've actually got set up; but I'd suggest excluding any kind of comments section would be the number one thing to keep from inflaming the situation. People can talk about it elsewhere by linking to your site if they must. The smaller those discussion groups are, the more likely they are to maintain reasonable discourse, change minds, and consider solutions.
Thank you. Hopefully sites like this will quickly dry up and die due to the issues faced being stamped out of society.
I agree with what you say. When it comes to things that are as violent as these videos I think you make a subconscious decision. You link the uniform to your views on the matter and unfortunately everybody is painted with the same brush. This is not about an organisation, it is about individuals.
There are definitely not any comments allowed on the site because it wouldn't be constructive. Any discussion around what's in these videos should be kept to the places where change can happen.
I think traffic might of killed it. I will upgrade the server it's running on tonight. In answer to your question, all videos on there will stay there for the rest of time. We cannot let this happen now but we certainly can't let it be forgotten either.
Ha. I have a similar type of domain name in my shopping cart...
I have another angle for this, which is we have to clearly identify a path where legitimate policing can occur, but aims to end police misconduct systematically.
* Require police to be self-insured, backed by their pension plan
* Refactor qualified immunity for police work (no more carte blanche)
* Legalize all drugs (tax and regulate, treat abuse as a medical issue)
* Legalize and (and regulate the hell out of it) sex work
* National LEO database to prevent bad cops from moving one county over
* National guidelines and certification of police behavior
(a Geneva convention of sorts). No excuses of ignorance of the law
That's a quick brain dump on it. Just doing the pension thing would be a game changer and is not an insurmountable goal.
Personally I agree with all of those points however I know there is a lot of passion on both sides of the argument for most of those points. Hopefully one day soon we will start to see meaningful change
Both legitimate and excessively violent policing happens right now. And unfortunately, excessively violent policing isn't being punished appropriately.
The officer charged with murdering George Floyd has been charged with police brutality 12 times, and let off with "no discipline" every time [0].
If officers who used excessive force aren't punished, they are taught that their actions were acceptable. I'd like to see calls for punishment in the case of Derek Chauvin, as well as for any use of excessive violence. I think convicting Derek Chauvin for murder would set a new standard for police conduct that could prevent similar acts of excessive violence from happening in the future.
You know what needs to stop? School shootings. I’m not defending police brutality, but this nation loses its shit for one grown man but shrugs when dozens of innocent children are slaughtered.
This isn't about one person. In the words of Mos Def - "Why did one straw break the camel's back? Here's the secret: the million other straws underneath it."
You know what needs to stop? Both of them. You know what’s in our capacity as human beings to address? Both of them.
Talking about one does not remove the necissities to address the other, and addressing the other takes nothing away from individuals championing reforms of the former.
I completely agree with you. I'm not saying this is the only thing that needs to stop but it's the only thing I can have a slight impact on. If any politician wants to advocate gun control I'd be supporting it 100%
There's only so much we can do to prevent atrocities committed by isolated psychopaths. The only possible cure -- strict universal gun control -- is not part of the conversation right now.
Can our police be trusted with all the rights, all the privileges, and all the guns? That may be a tough sell at the moment.
I'm just a guy sat in his bedroom. The real heros are the ones that are demanding for equality, keeping their emotions in check regardless of the unjust that they have suffered.
The police were accused of pushing a girl Regis Korchinski-Paquet off a balcony to her death. It didn't end up being true, but this hasn't defused the protests.
Among a plethora of other tricks. To be able to evade state-level actors would be the ultimate goal. That may likely be impossible but it would be nice to explore if it could be done.
I have no intention of becoming an "enemy of the state", but I also never imagined I'd be living in this dystopian timeline.
From random pizza-gate types, then up through the power hierarchy to the very top of a handful of world superpowers.
An effort perhaps quixotic at best, it's worth thinking about. We are at a tipping point in civilization and I don't want to complicit that going the wrong way.
If you can rely on audience being quite technical, IPFS is a pretty good, very censorship-resistant approach. There are some IPFS bridges that make viewing content easier.
If IPFS is out of the question, I'd look for hosting services that talk openly about being censorship-resistant. Won't give any links, but there are a couple, even if slightly shady looking.
> This is assuming that you are not doing anything illegal
I have only good intentions. Doing something illegal could be shifting rapidly. Trump intends to make antifa a terrorist organization (of which I have zero affiliation and conflicted feelings about). I believe that action is but a taste of what is to come.
I have only good things to say about their service and pricing. They are very privacy and free speech focused. They will cooperate with law enforcement agencies when served warrants/subpoenas, but otherwise will protect you and your privacy very doggedly.
> This is assuming that you are not doing anything illegal.
Unfortunately, you are rarely the one who decides what is legal and what is not. I remember Edward Snowden mentioning this in some AMA on Reddit as one of the reasons why for a society it's a bad idea to strive for zero crime rates: After all, this most likely means that it's impossible to commit a crime and, thus, rebel against or, if need be, even overthrow the system.
"In 2018, 55 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed and 51 were killed accidentally, for a total of 106 killed [in the line of duty] for the year." [1]
In the same year, at least 992 people were killed by police [2]. I believe this only counts people shot to death. Cases were death was as a result of something other than shooting, e.g. strangling death of George Floyd, is not counted in this statistics. The real number would thus be higher.
Also note that there's an official office keeping accurate records of how many police officers were killed, and yet it's up to a newspaper to even attempt to track how many people the police killed.
> My understanding is cops kill way more often than they are killed.
Well, of course. That's expected isn't it? In an imaginary scenario where police act legitimately 100% of the time there are going to be situations where they have to use lethal force. In the same imagined scenario, there would be 0 legitimate police deaths.
If you're just going for some morbid score keeping, you would need to know illegitimate civilian deaths at the hands of the police vs illegitimate police deaths, as there are certainly scenarios where it could be justified to kill either. Directly comparing raw numbers doesn't say much.
I don’t understand. Surely in the ideal world nobody would kill anyone else. I’m not sure that’s very realistic, or even relevant to what we should expect from police in the real world.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need police at all and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
In my example, I was pointing out that if we remove police corruption from the equation, police would still kill some number of civilians. Because of that fact, the parent's post doesn't make much sense.
But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police? I genuinely don’t understand. By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people.
In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
> But why would you hypothetically remove bad actions from just the police?
Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt.
I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption.
> By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people.
Not clear what your point is here.
> In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.
I guess it’s not clear what you mean by “police corruption.” If “removing police corruption” just means “removing the possibility of any bad action by any police officer,” then you get right back to my previous comment.
To me, “removing police corruption” would mean having a mechanism of legal accountability for police officers. It wouldn’t mean police officers wouldn’t still abuse and murder people, it would just mean that they would usually be investigated and punished for doing it.
I suspect the police already spend a large amount of resources tracking down instances of abuse and violence against police. Do you think there is a shortage of records of these events, or that there is a concerted effort to coverup these events?
When I hear things like this it sounds the same to me as "We're focusing on teachers who sexually harass students. Can we make sure to also focus on the students that sexually harass teachers?" In both scenarios there is a power imbalance, even more so for police. Those who have power over others must be held to a higher standard during their work in that capacity.
I did some digging around for this info, and I think this is important. In 2018, 55 police officers were murdered in the line of duty [1]. In the same year, police officers shot 995 people to death [2].
If that's an issue you care about, why don't you put in the effort to surface those numbers yourself? Having a dangerous job doesn't justify murder, so I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.
Yeah that's the Problem, what is a clear overstep? Maybe the 'victim' was totally out of His mind before, maybe he was calmed down before an raged again, maybe he was loaded up with drugs and imposed a danger to himself/Others/the Police.
It's not that you could judge what is a 'clear overstep' by the immeriate context you see in the video
I completely agree. I would like to set out some defined lines but I have no idea how to go about it. Maybe you can help?
What I can say is that a video was submitted last night of a man who was crawling to a police officer, following his orders, before being shot multiple times and killed. His name was Daniel Shaver. Please look it up and watch the video if you do not believe it is possible to make a judgement as to whether somebody has crossed a line.
I dont know why this gets downvoted so much. Let me elaborate:
i have witnessed Police brutality first hand. Even here where we dont go through much of the authoritarian training americans are used to, i.e christian churches with heavy influence - here religion is merely a nostalgic thing.
I know also that even here victims of Police brutality basically have No Chance of retaliation.
That beeing said, a video that looks ugly does not necessarily mean the Police acted wrong.
Ok i bite, Link a Video and i will come up with a story that atleast explains the police behaviour, If not justifies it.
Here you go. Video of cop shooting a guy in the back as he ran away, then planting a gun on him. The officer didn't know the event was filmed, and filed a wholly false police report on the subject.
My apologies, the USA seem to be more rotten than i thought they would be...my original statement was also to broad, i cannoz defend that video similarilly to how i cannot defend every Police Action in russia or china.
Does it mean anything to you, anything at all, that you are willing to defend every single video accusation of police misconduct? What a blanket statement to make.
My apologies, the USA seem to be more rotten than i thought they would be...my original statement was also to broad, i cannoz defend that video similarilly to how i cannot defend every Police Action in russia or china.
For sure. If there's any other kind of help you need, though, you should mention it. I'm sure there are a lot that would be happy to help. I think a lot of us are looking for an outlet for our (highly overlapping but not super widely available) skillset to contribute how we can.
I think the issue is that the video files are being hosted on the server so that greatly increases the load that's being consumed for each pageview.
If you host the videos on something like youtube or dailymotion and then embed them it will take the load off your server. Just keep the originals in case they get taken down so you can switch to a different service. Hope this helps! Feel free to PM me if you need assistance.
1) brutality. Definition?
2) are the videos edited, how to prevent manipulation
3) the law should judge, not a pass-by filmer
4) what comes around goes around
What if I told you that changing the world is hard, and you can't realistically make a difference by looking at a monitor, safe in your gentrified neighborhood?
Websites are literally the most efficient way to spread information. I know it's fun to rag on web-based Uber for X startups here, but this is actually useful. A deeper criticism would be warranted though, because this looks something that could also ripe for abuse.
Police brutality is a Bad Thing. There is also much lower hanging fruit in terms of saving lives and improving the world. About 1,000 people die in the US each year through encounters with the police. Over 400,000 people die in Africa each year from Malaria and we have very effective tools for combating it[1]. Police brutality is a big issue but the current media attention doesn't make "boring" causes less important or deadly.
Why not both? I donate to plenty of non-US causes. I was born in India and love to support Indian causes. But there's something nice about helping an issue happening in your community. It feels good to be able to see it firsthand.
> About 1,000 people die in the US each year through encounters with the police.
The number of people that die is only a subset of the total number of victims of police brutality. Besides that, the topic is broader than just the number of deaths. The police represent the state and thus represent the escalating willingness of the state to abuse it's citizens.
Well, if you want to focus on police abuse, journalists and opposition leaders are routinely tortured and killed by security forces in Africa.
No one gives a shit.
You might say, well, that particular case happened in <whatever city where that particular case happened>, so people there are concerned. Of course, and that's fine. I'm sure there are things they can reform in that police department. But how does that explain the support protests around the world?
I don't really care. I sat down with protesters myself in Oakland, and while we were sitting, cops fired into the crowd.
I don't think you can blame Soros or Murdoch for that. That crime is in someone in the cop's chain of command - as well as each officer that decided not to call in sick yesterday.
I didn't check all of them, but the ones about "Police slashing tires", are just someone saying "It was police".
They should not be included in your list. You know as well as I do that people are going to lie about it. It does no one any good to include things like that.
I clicked this. It contains a apparently completely baseless claim that a masked looter is an "undercover cop". The claim also has been denied by the St. Paul police department.
Is it your intention to discredit claims of police brutality by repeating apparently false ones?
At first I said to myself "he didn't do it, he isn't a cop..." and then I started to think about the source of the information.
I'm not taking sides here. I don't know if he did it or not. I just like to question all sources at this point. Just because they say they didn't do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it.
My opinion was based on the claim being apparently baseless. Someone saying "are you a cop?" to a masked person does not make them likely to be a cop-- in fact, it demonstrates that the cop-ness of this person wasn't readily apparent to the people who were actually there.
That they denied it is just additional (weak, sure) evidence.
> I clicked this. It contains a apparently completely baseless claim that a masked looter is an "undercover cop". The claim also has been denied by the St. Paul police department.
It seems entirely possible for the department to verify the whereabouts of one of their officers in 2.5 hours, especially if malicious lies which will put him in danger are spreading.
> And it's not baseless, here is the evidence for it
Thanks-- I didn't find that from the original link. But I don't really think it supports your argument.
It's pretty hard to identify a person from just the eyes, but to the extent that shows anything it seems to contradict the claim to me: the face on the left appears to me to have a much more prominent brow ridge compared to the face on the right-- like a shelf above his eyes on the left, while the right dips in near the nose.
As far as the officer's ex-wife saying 'that's my mask' -- the thread shows a bunch of other pictures of protesters with the same mask.
This also explains how they could investigate the claim quickly-- they only needed to identify the location of a single officer.
Is the issue with police brutality a lack of evidence?
Not trolling, legitimately asking this. It feels like every year some viral video comes out where police do something horrible, it feels like little progress has been made on the issue. Is it simply a visibility problem?
I think these kind of things do help. For people who consume the right kinds of media, there’s lots of coverage of police brutality and I’m sure some of that coverage uses resources like this. If you’re seeing plenty of viral videos then your media consumption is helping you connect with the issue.
Other people rarely or never see coverage though, and aren’t even close to having widespread understanding of the issue of police brutality and it’s relationship with systemic racism, so much more reporting and media production needs to be done.
The way I see it, a viral video pops up and there's outrage then two weeks later we're onto the next outrage. I am guilty of this myself and this is why I think it is important to collect this so it isn't forgotten.
Maybe, I never said that I was the right person and this is certainly something I don't see myself doing for the rest of my life. I would however like to give the tools to those who are the right people.
I think also compiling a list of video and photos of the good police who are joining, supporting police - or protestors who are keeping police safe in certain circumstances - to counterbalance the abuse by reminding people of the humanity.
> think also compiling a list of video and photos of the good police who are joining, supporting police
I think this is really important in any scenario like this where it feels like "us vs them".
Outrage shines a light, but that is merely step one. If people really want change they need to imagine what it feels like to be someone in the other "group", and remember it's not comprised 100% assholes. Those other non-assholes need to know they are supported and appreciated - knowing that makes a huge difference to how likely they are to police themselves and lead by example.
This is great evidence for sending along to your local police chiefs and mayors. I've been harassing the shit out of my local leaders - look at this evidence. Those cities and towns had almost no rioting, no looting, no violence. All because the cops didn't turn up with spartan armor and kick the shit out of peaceful protesters.
Why don't you go see for yourself, if you're so skeptical that hundreds of videos from yesterday don't convince you? Some celebrity in new york's twitter is literally a minute to minute play by play of protests in NY - even there, all was peaceful, then the cops show up.
People were gathering, peacefully, until the cops show up. The evidence is linked all around you. But like I said - go see for yourself, head to your city hall's protests today.
The sad thing is, there are good jurisdictions (they may have their issues, but generally fair) around, yet local activists will use issue X in city Y as an excuse to blame their own local PD for some unrelated issue.
This is happening in Santa Cruz right now where local homeless “advocates” (more about themselves) are attempting to co-opt a protest to blaming SCPD on perceived slights regarding homeless issues. This is a normal tactic for this group.
It would be useful to put together a taxonomy of error modes that a social issue can have when it becomes famous. For example, accusing the victim of faking it ("crisis actors"), accusing protestors of overreacting ("thugs"), claiming that protestors have foreign elements making things worse ("auslander thugs"), and of course claiming that nothing happened to begin with, or the evidence for the claim was faked. No doubt this is a very long list, limited only by human rhetorical ingenuity.
Oh I didn't say anything about truth value of the error mode! That's a different matter. I just think its remarkable how creative humans are when it comes to being sneaky.
Here is a photo. Food Not Bombs is a broader organization, but Keith McHenry, a founder of FNB, will do everything to promote his agenda atop of what is popular -
This is similar to when a large company has lots of divisios,where in one only nice people work,while in other they are all assholes. But the problem is that despite these differences, they all sit under the same hat.In this case, it's the police and one bad action resonates and makes it even more difficult for the good people to do the job.In recent events,it should have been other policemen going out and screaming "this is not normal,we don't work like that".
412 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 293 ms ] threadWhat this does is rub our noses in the fact that the system is broken. Enough is enough.
Things going the other way seems to be where the current system does not work.
Police already publish arrest records, mug shots, and they're covered by the media as well. Criminal charges are public records and covered by FOIA requests.
TIL. Thanks!
edit: Hmmm, the gesture was sincere. I was aware of the principle but not the name. It's going to come in handy in these times.
"Tū quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)." - Wikipedia
Whereas with violence done by police, even if you have the best video in the world proving that they murdered someone on live TV, those charges probably wouldn’t stick. Or even be brought to court.
There needs to be a counterbalance to their overwhelming power in such matters.
I think a core problem with the situation is that the masses on one side think of these events as one-offs. They're not convinced its a systemic problem because they don't see the "everyday" brutality. The masses on the other side don't see it as a systemic problem either, not exactly anyway; they see it as all cops being racist murderers at heart. Whether one side is closer to the truth than the other side is largely irrelevant, because neither view helps resolve the issue. Neither side can hear the other side because their own personal experience is completely at odds with the other side's point of view.
I can't access the site, so I have no idea what you've actually got set up; but I'd suggest excluding any kind of comments section would be the number one thing to keep from inflaming the situation. People can talk about it elsewhere by linking to your site if they must. The smaller those discussion groups are, the more likely they are to maintain reasonable discourse, change minds, and consider solutions.
I agree with what you say. When it comes to things that are as violent as these videos I think you make a subconscious decision. You link the uniform to your views on the matter and unfortunately everybody is painted with the same brush. This is not about an organisation, it is about individuals.
There are definitely not any comments allowed on the site because it wouldn't be constructive. Any discussion around what's in these videos should be kept to the places where change can happen.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu3s6j/comm...
I have another angle for this, which is we have to clearly identify a path where legitimate policing can occur, but aims to end police misconduct systematically.
The goal would be to properly frame it and promote it.
The officer charged with murdering George Floyd has been charged with police brutality 12 times, and let off with "no discipline" every time [0].
If officers who used excessive force aren't punished, they are taught that their actions were acceptable. I'd like to see calls for punishment in the case of Derek Chauvin, as well as for any use of excessive violence. I think convicting Derek Chauvin for murder would set a new standard for police conduct that could prevent similar acts of excessive violence from happening in the future.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/LPOTL/comments/gsespz/derek_chauvin...
Talking about one does not remove the necissities to address the other, and addressing the other takes nothing away from individuals championing reforms of the former.
Can our police be trusted with all the rights, all the privileges, and all the guns? That may be a tough sell at the moment.
I have no intention of becoming an "enemy of the state", but I also never imagined I'd be living in this dystopian timeline.
An effort perhaps quixotic at best, it's worth thinking about. We are at a tipping point in civilization and I don't want to complicit that going the wrong way.
Anonymous-site-as-a-service must be a thing.
If IPFS is out of the question, I'd look for hosting services that talk openly about being censorship-resistant. Won't give any links, but there are a couple, even if slightly shady looking.
Maybe you don't create a site, but resurface the content on different social media.
The other angle is memes. I think that bumper sticker politics is more relevant today than when it was on actual bumpers.
Make it static.
Be able to deploy quickly to a new host if need be.
I have only good intentions. Doing something illegal could be shifting rapidly. Trump intends to make antifa a terrorist organization (of which I have zero affiliation and conflicted feelings about). I believe that action is but a taste of what is to come.
Unfortunately, you are rarely the one who decides what is legal and what is not. I remember Edward Snowden mentioning this in some AMA on Reddit as one of the reasons why for a society it's a bad idea to strive for zero crime rates: After all, this most likely means that it's impossible to commit a crime and, thus, rebel against or, if need be, even overthrow the system.
Edit: Why was this down-voted? And why was the post itself flagged?
My understanding is cops kill way more often than they are killed. But I'd love to stand corrected.
My understanding is the thin blue line is a myth. The real terrors are the cops. But again I'd love to be wrong.
[0]: https://www.ishn.com/articles/110496-most-dangerous-jobs-in-...
In the same year, at least 992 people were killed by police [2]. I believe this only counts people shot to death. Cases were death was as a result of something other than shooting, e.g. strangling death of George Floyd, is not counted in this statistics. The real number would thus be higher.
[1] https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2018-leoka-report-released-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police...
Well, of course. That's expected isn't it? In an imaginary scenario where police act legitimately 100% of the time there are going to be situations where they have to use lethal force. In the same imagined scenario, there would be 0 legitimate police deaths.
If you're just going for some morbid score keeping, you would need to know illegitimate civilian deaths at the hands of the police vs illegitimate police deaths, as there are certainly scenarios where it could be justified to kill either. Directly comparing raw numbers doesn't say much.
In my example, I was pointing out that if we remove police corruption from the equation, police would still kill some number of civilians. Because of that fact, the parent's post doesn't make much sense.
In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
Because the person I'm responding to is claiming that police kill more civilians than civilians kill police, with the implication that it's because police are corrupt.
I used a hypothetical scenario to point out that this doesn't follow, because the same would be true even if there were no police corruption.
> By the exact same argument, if you removed all bad actions from everyone who isn’t a police officer, then of course you’d expect police to kill more people.
Not clear what your point is here.
> In the original comment, before all the ridiculous hypothesizing, the actual world is what was being discussed.
Yes, some times people use thought experiments to highlight facts about the real world.
To me, “removing police corruption” would mean having a mechanism of legal accountability for police officers. It wouldn’t mean police officers wouldn’t still abuse and murder people, it would just mean that they would usually be investigated and punished for doing it.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/05/08/the-nu... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
16,000+ in 2018. Now run the numbers on how many murders there would be with no police.
What I can say is that a video was submitted last night of a man who was crawling to a police officer, following his orders, before being shot multiple times and killed. His name was Daniel Shaver. Please look it up and watch the video if you do not believe it is possible to make a judgement as to whether somebody has crossed a line.
i have witnessed Police brutality first hand. Even here where we dont go through much of the authoritarian training americans are used to, i.e christian churches with heavy influence - here religion is merely a nostalgic thing.
I know also that even here victims of Police brutality basically have No Chance of retaliation.
That beeing said, a video that looks ugly does not necessarily mean the Police acted wrong.
Ok i bite, Link a Video and i will come up with a story that atleast explains the police behaviour, If not justifies it.
https://youtu.be/XKQqgVlk0NQ
Maybe you should check your biases.
And here you go,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/judge-releases...
Tell me why this guy deserved to die for losing at a game of Simon Says.
If you host the videos on something like youtube or dailymotion and then embed them it will take the load off your server. Just keep the originals in case they get taken down so you can switch to a different service. Hope this helps! Feel free to PM me if you need assistance.
Some options here: https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/
1) brutality. Definition? 2) are the videos edited, how to prevent manipulation 3) the law should judge, not a pass-by filmer 4) what comes around goes around
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grm4sMZChz8
[0]https://www.google.com/search?q=rag+on
haha the police have already brutality attacked your website..
[1]: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
The number of people that die is only a subset of the total number of victims of police brutality. Besides that, the topic is broader than just the number of deaths. The police represent the state and thus represent the escalating willingness of the state to abuse it's citizens.
2. There is so much more to it than just the number of people who have died. Entire populations live in fear of contacts with the police.
Society doesn’t actually have to solve one problem at a time. And that would lead to some pretty bizarre outcomes.
You might say, well, that particular case happened in <whatever city where that particular case happened>, so people there are concerned. Of course, and that's fine. I'm sure there are things they can reform in that police department. But how does that explain the support protests around the world?
It's a big political manipulation.
Lemme guess, Soros?
I'm particularly interested in who funded and organized the media operations in countries like Germany or the UK.
We do know that Soros does that, but he's not the only one, so we can't possibly blame him for every single occurrence.
I don't think you can blame Soros or Murdoch for that. That crime is in someone in the cop's chain of command - as well as each officer that decided not to call in sick yesterday.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1266917228752056320
https://twitter.com/mollypshe/status/1266934680273727491
https://twitter.com/chalametvol6/status/1267059474591879171
https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/126694270336910540...
https://twitter.com/zellieimani/status/1267057207172050944
https://twitter.com/stephenjadler/status/1267153715674349568
https://twitter.com/rsdaza/status/1267200011659554824
Violence against citizens:
https://twitter.com/stribrooks/status/1266186985041022976
https://twitter.com/chieffymac11/status/1266884475268616197
https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225
https://twitter.com/KCJ_Swish/status/1266913464234237954
https://twitter.com/Booker4KY/status/1266895243913367553
Violence against reporters:
https://twitter.com/chieffymac11/status/1266884475268616197
https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1266921035800199170
https://twitter.com/MikeGeorgeCBS/status/1266919447970942986
https://twitter.com/MichaelAdams317/status/12669452685676789...
https://twitter.com/TinaDesireeBerg/status/12669224135911055...
https://twitter.com/PLBarghouty/status/1266922618122354690
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1266910910137995264
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1266315061209030658
Police slashing tires of cars left parked in parking lots:
https://twitter.com/andrewkimmel/status/1266987126467461120
https://twitter.com/brandiiimariiie/status/12669756143781519...
https://twitter.com/val_ebertz/status/1266975058230235137
Examples of good policing:
https://twitter.com/midmichigannow/status/126690773673595699...
https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1266895422397779968
Just one for a little bit of laughter in this depressing time:
https://twitter.com/alayahco/status/1266574791307399173
They should not be included in your list. You know as well as I do that people are going to lie about it. It does no one any good to include things like that.
I clicked this. It contains a apparently completely baseless claim that a masked looter is an "undercover cop". The claim also has been denied by the St. Paul police department.
Is it your intention to discredit claims of police brutality by repeating apparently false ones?
At first I said to myself "he didn't do it, he isn't a cop..." and then I started to think about the source of the information.
I'm not taking sides here. I don't know if he did it or not. I just like to question all sources at this point. Just because they say they didn't do it, doesn't mean they didn't do it.
I'm saying that cops telling you he didn't do it, seems like a questionable source to base your opinion on.
That they denied it is just additional (weak, sure) evidence.
That is only one of the reports in that lengthy tweet thread. And it's not baseless, here is the evidence for it: https://twitter.com/dyllyp/status/1266166402521522176
Here's the tweet where the St. Paul police department denied it: https://twitter.com/sppdmn/status/1266202225677910022
Posted 2.5 hours after the original claim - fast investigation for the police to clear themselves of all wrongdoing.
> Is it your intention to discredit claims of police brutality by repeating apparently false ones?
Lol.
Thanks-- I didn't find that from the original link. But I don't really think it supports your argument.
It's pretty hard to identify a person from just the eyes, but to the extent that shows anything it seems to contradict the claim to me: the face on the left appears to me to have a much more prominent brow ridge compared to the face on the right-- like a shelf above his eyes on the left, while the right dips in near the nose.
As far as the officer's ex-wife saying 'that's my mask' -- the thread shows a bunch of other pictures of protesters with the same mask.
This also explains how they could investigate the claim quickly-- they only needed to identify the location of a single officer.
Not trolling, legitimately asking this. It feels like every year some viral video comes out where police do something horrible, it feels like little progress has been made on the issue. Is it simply a visibility problem?
Other people rarely or never see coverage though, and aren’t even close to having widespread understanding of the issue of police brutality and it’s relationship with systemic racism, so much more reporting and media production needs to be done.
Several generations of recorded American history tell us: no.
Decent ethical sense tells us: absolutely, emphatically no.
Nothing about this is simple.
Aren't you the wrong person to catalogue this stuff then?
Edit to add for examples:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gu5pqj/a_veteran_prot...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtx9am/the_police_tak...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtzxn3/were_stronger_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtu8tp/a_protester_an...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gttacf/its_not_white_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtq55f/at_a_peaceful_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gu6rdi/police_support...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtr8un/a_conversation...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gu5lrf/its_not_black_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gu6dsz/police_kneelin...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gu4ptc/we_need_more_o...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtlla0/a_californian_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtynyd/genesee_county...
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/gtxiq5/found_this_pic...
I think this is really important in any scenario like this where it feels like "us vs them".
Outrage shines a light, but that is merely step one. If people really want change they need to imagine what it feels like to be someone in the other "group", and remember it's not comprised 100% assholes. Those other non-assholes need to know they are supported and appreciated - knowing that makes a huge difference to how likely they are to police themselves and lead by example.
It really is that easy.
People were gathering, peacefully, until the cops show up. The evidence is linked all around you. But like I said - go see for yourself, head to your city hall's protests today.
This is happening in Santa Cruz right now where local homeless “advocates” (more about themselves) are attempting to co-opt a protest to blaming SCPD on perceived slights regarding homeless issues. This is a normal tactic for this group.
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65...