> A video of five or 10 or 30 seconds does not tell the whole story, of course. It does not depict what happened before the camera started rolling. It is unclear from the videos, for instance, what the officers’ intentions were or why protesters were being arrested or told to move.
It's right there in the article, after you scroll past all the videos. Many of these videos are totally missing their context. Here in Chicago, I saw police force a woman to the concrete as she was screaming ... after she threw something into a police cruiser that set it on fire.
Why did we see so much more violence from these protests than we've ever seen before? Part of it is COVID and the anxiety from being bottle up and out of work, but part of it is also the normalization of the masks:
Your post is missing context as well. Was anyone injured when the cruiser was set on fire? Was the woman armed? Was she literally any sort of physical threat to the officer or officers who threw her to the ground?
Maybe I’m some sort of fascist, but I have zero problems with an officer using force to arrest someone who firebombed a police car, regardless of anyone was injured or she was an immediate threat after.
I know, I'm sure that old man in Buffalo was a real menace or the kid w/ the face mask who had it pulled down and was pepper sprayed.... and then there's the crowd control at the capital for Trump's photo shoot....that itself should be a war crime.
I'm not excusing excessive force, I'm saying fire bombing in general is a felony and police should be able to arrest a suspect and use force if they don't comply (obviously reasonable force).
You may be some sort of fascist if you believe police disproportionately escalating violence is acceptable, but maybe not. At the very least, you're confused, IMO.
Disproportionately escalating violence? I'm not saying the cop should get a few punches in, but detaining and arresting a suspect is not "escalating violence".
Since you seem to a stickler for "proportional violence", would you be ok if the cop just located the suspects car and firebombed it? I mean, that's proportional, no?
Oh, but I think it is. Imagine sum of the pain of people, that they endured to make some property by having to craft it compressed in a few seconds when the result of their efforts gets destroyed.
Things will never be worthy of more concern than lives. This is an absolutely warped viewpoint you have and trying to justify it after the fact by inventing workers who allegedly care a car spit off an assembly line was destroyed is delusional.
Violence does not necessary lead to a loss of life.
Not sure what you mean by my viewpoint being warped. As far as I am concerned, your viewpoint appears rather primitive to me. The workers, who built the car are real. The pain of doing any work is real, just not as dense a physical pain, but very long lasting - that's why you have to sum over it.
If you thought I meant pain of these workers - that just proves your understanding is primitive. That description is just a way to approximate the total amount of pain, that needs to be endured to build a car. The subset of population, who will actually end up feeling its equivalence as a consequence does not matter for the point.
If somebody incurs damage to government property without, as even you admit, any injury or immediate threat, and a government agent responds by using violence against that person, then yes, that is fascism. What perspective are you coming from that would define it any other way? You're practically admitting to using emotion to justify violence.
Edit: Not to mention this is perhaps moot to the broader argument, as this behavior from the police only requires very few repeating instances to be extremely destructive to society, and cherry-picking cases where the victim arguably "deserved" it has no effect on the impact of the other cases.
> If somebody incurs damage to government property
There has been so much argument on the lines of "It's just property."
I guess "They're just laws," as if they don't mean anything; as if laws were not the way we evolved socially to protect individuals from other individuals who wanted to cause harm.
She set a car on fire! That is literally violence. It's literally destruction. Saying "oh, it's a thing and not a person" doesn't hold a candle stick to the fact that it is still literally violence!
Words are literally not violence. Speech is literally not violence. Silence is literally not violence.
Setting things on fire, that you don't own, destructively, is violence. I can't believe 2020 is the year in which we have no idea what terms like "violence" and "non-violence" have literally meant for decades if not centuries.
Orwell had a term for this. It was called Double-Think.
Maybe you should wait until after work, rather than hiding behind a throwaway:
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
I'm unhinged, when you come in with a throwaway and accuse people of mental gymnastics for ignoring details that literally aren't available to them? And, using the word "fucking" for emphasis is not "cussing you out." 10.00!
You know nobody in this thread has any fucking idea what you're talking about, right? There is no video of the referenced incident that's been posted here or in the linked article. I give you a 10.00 for your mental gymnastics routine.
Thought we were talking about the much publicized incident in NYC. Looks like we weren't. MY BAD.
I agree that the police use excessive force way too much and are sadly allowed to get away with it. We definitely agree there.
But I do draw the line at arsonists in the act. That's the kind of "property damage" that can quickly turn into "mass murder" with a shift in the breeze.
It's not trolling, because that's EXACTLY what the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) did. They destroyed countless empty buildings. Is eco-terrorism justified if no one dies? What about all the people who loose their jobs? What about all the people that could have died?
>She set a car on fire! That is literally violence.
I'm referring to violence against people, not objects.
>Words are literally not violence. Speech is literally not violence. Silence is literally not violence.
I never said any of this, nor do I generally agree with any of it.
>Orwell had a term for this. It was called Double-Think.
I think these kinds of extreme us-vs-them strawmen are far more damaging, cruel, and thoughtless than the bad usages of the "it's just property" argument you're referring to are.
And to be clear, my entire post was in reference to the specific claim that destroying a police cruiser is automatically grounds for using violence against a person - for all I know about the example in question, her behavior on whole may have warranted the level of violence she received, but it's a ridiculous and anti-human opinion to default to.
> Was anyone injured when the cruiser was set on fire
I don't know, but if I was a police officer on the scene my first instinct wouldn't be a thorough inspection of the car to see if anyone was in there, it would be to make sure that woman doesn't do it again. I don't want to risk another firebomb.
> Was the woman armed
Was the firebomb not enough? Clearly she was armed with that. She may have more. Again, if I'm the police officer on the scene I don't know this and I don't want to take any risks. Secure the assailant first, sort things out later.
> Was she literally any sort of physical threat to the officer or officers who threw her to the ground?
Yes. The threat of serious bodily injury from burns. In that moment there is no way of telling what else may be up this person's sleeve. She has already shown that she indents to cause serious damage with little regard for potential collateral damage.
So I too may be a super facist, but I'm totally OK with urgently and immediately taking the woman down.
> I'm totally OK with urgently and immediately taking the woman down
I agree, though I would never make such subjective judgments as to the difference between necessary and unnecessary force without seeing a video.
>I too may be a super facist
This preemptive underdogging attack on people who disagree with you disguised as a self-defense is a huge red flag that you don't have personal conviction behind what you're saying.
I'm very glad you are not a police officer. I want people checking cars to see if anyone was hurt before they go slamming people to the ground. I don't want people unnecessarily attacking others who are no physical threat. There was no "assailant" here, because nobody was "assailed!"
Your way of thinking is what's given us roving, armed bands of state-sanctioned thugs who close ranks when confronted with wrongdoing, rather than public servants who are there to serve and protect.
The article you linked is littered with misinformation. I would not recommend that anyone read it.
It asserts "facts", like the false statement that wearing a mask lowers blood oxygen concentration by 20%, using citations of Facebook videos and conspiracy theory "news" websites as sources.
Some rebuttals on the current concerns I've seen are just some doctors on their own doing a self-test (under god knows what standards and not peer reviewed).
Are there video snippets out there that show a different story? Or is this just a general plea of "well we don't know the whole story so we should reserve judgement until later(when everyone has forgotten about it)"?
"Lies" implies there's an intent to deceive, but most of these cases the reason why the rest of the footage isn't available is because people only start recording when things go south, so everything leading up to the event inevitably gets left out. That's very different than "Selectively chosen video snippets", which imply that somewhere there's footage of the whole incident, but anti-police activists are editing the footage to generate maximum outrage. It also doesn't help that some police officers think that recording is an act of aggression, further making the footage harder to acquire.
Use Google, check for 'New York Cops attacked'. You should find several reputable news sites showing police officers being attacked and beaten.
Watch for yourself. Decide where you think the truth lies. I think I could videotape just about any street fight and selectively choose when and for how long to show a clip to fit an agenda....
> "Watch for yourself. Decide where you think the truth lies."
Capital "T" truth does not lie solely in a video clip. Just as with _literally everything_ online and everything digital, we need to be good _consumers_.
In the case of the George Floyd killing the is a witness video (over 10 minutes), security camera video (over 5 minutes), plus officer body camera. These of course have POV issues, audio issues which need to be considered. Despite these defects, there is the narrative of Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck for over 8 minutes, which is evidence of the cause of Mr Floyd's death.
I have yet to read any comments here which take seriously how this firehose of brutality videos should be consumed--let alone making _any_ decisions about "truth".
When I was a young adult, the biggest issue concerning the internet was the potential danger of anonymous people online. Post Facebook, the danger was putting something online now, that you'll regret later.
Today, impact of the videos from the George Floyd killing is enormous.
What about the next video? I would like to hear more about thoughts on consuming videos, and presumed truth of any video.
And watching just some of those videos was sickening. All of this violence is sickening.
What I see is most cops not wearing masks. So from the get go they are out to kill people. That says more about their mindset than anything could and proves that it's not just one bad apple but the entire profession that's out to harm and murder people. Fuck them and their supporters.
Case closed then, F policing as a profession and everyone who sees it as a vital component to a civilized society? NYPD are well aware that they are vulnerable to this virus and in turn to spreading it not just to you but to other cops, but in order to keep a lid on rioting, while growing increasingly shorthanded in number, in tools, maneuvers, plainclothes units, or effecting arrests (regardless of the disinterest in those being prosecuted), they need all the oxygen they can get. I'm not saying that $42,500 is not enough money in NYC, just that this is an exigent need for oxygen, not biological warfare.
They can get their fucking oxygen through their fucking masks like everyone else. When they start wearing masks, I'll consider seeing them as human beings again. Until then, they are just walking coronavirus factories who murder people in other ways too.
50 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadIt's right there in the article, after you scroll past all the videos. Many of these videos are totally missing their context. Here in Chicago, I saw police force a woman to the concrete as she was screaming ... after she threw something into a police cruiser that set it on fire.
Why did we see so much more violence from these protests than we've ever seen before? Part of it is COVID and the anxiety from being bottle up and out of work, but part of it is also the normalization of the masks:
https://battlepenguin.com/politics/secondary-effects/#masks-...
Since you seem to a stickler for "proportional violence", would you be ok if the cop just located the suspects car and firebombed it? I mean, that's proportional, no?
Not sure what you mean by my viewpoint being warped. As far as I am concerned, your viewpoint appears rather primitive to me. The workers, who built the car are real. The pain of doing any work is real, just not as dense a physical pain, but very long lasting - that's why you have to sum over it.
If you thought I meant pain of these workers - that just proves your understanding is primitive. That description is just a way to approximate the total amount of pain, that needs to be endured to build a car. The subset of population, who will actually end up feeling its equivalence as a consequence does not matter for the point.
Edit: Not to mention this is perhaps moot to the broader argument, as this behavior from the police only requires very few repeating instances to be extremely destructive to society, and cherry-picking cases where the victim arguably "deserved" it has no effect on the impact of the other cases.
There has been so much argument on the lines of "It's just property."
I guess "They're just laws," as if they don't mean anything; as if laws were not the way we evolved socially to protect individuals from other individuals who wanted to cause harm.
She set a car on fire! That is literally violence. It's literally destruction. Saying "oh, it's a thing and not a person" doesn't hold a candle stick to the fact that it is still literally violence!
Words are literally not violence. Speech is literally not violence. Silence is literally not violence.
Setting things on fire, that you don't own, destructively, is violence. I can't believe 2020 is the year in which we have no idea what terms like "violence" and "non-violence" have literally meant for decades if not centuries.
Orwell had a term for this. It was called Double-Think.
Not only that - there were four people inside the van and she aimed the explosive at the window in an obvious attempt to set fire to the passengers.
Lots of mental gymnastics required to believe this wasn't attempted murder.
Chill out.
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is the first time I've ever created a throwaway. This is a flagged article anyways so who cares at this point.
I wasn't hiding. But I'm definitely not revealing who I am now because you are hostile and unhinged.
I agree that the police use excessive force way too much and are sadly allowed to get away with it. We definitely agree there.
But I do draw the line at arsonists in the act. That's the kind of "property damage" that can quickly turn into "mass murder" with a shift in the breeze.
So if a group decided to plan explosives and demolish a empty government building, you'd be like "come on, buildings have no feelings, leave them be"?
I'm referring to violence against people, not objects.
>Words are literally not violence. Speech is literally not violence. Silence is literally not violence.
I never said any of this, nor do I generally agree with any of it.
>Orwell had a term for this. It was called Double-Think.
I think these kinds of extreme us-vs-them strawmen are far more damaging, cruel, and thoughtless than the bad usages of the "it's just property" argument you're referring to are.
And to be clear, my entire post was in reference to the specific claim that destroying a police cruiser is automatically grounds for using violence against a person - for all I know about the example in question, her behavior on whole may have warranted the level of violence she received, but it's a ridiculous and anti-human opinion to default to.
I don't know, but if I was a police officer on the scene my first instinct wouldn't be a thorough inspection of the car to see if anyone was in there, it would be to make sure that woman doesn't do it again. I don't want to risk another firebomb.
> Was the woman armed
Was the firebomb not enough? Clearly she was armed with that. She may have more. Again, if I'm the police officer on the scene I don't know this and I don't want to take any risks. Secure the assailant first, sort things out later.
> Was she literally any sort of physical threat to the officer or officers who threw her to the ground? Yes. The threat of serious bodily injury from burns. In that moment there is no way of telling what else may be up this person's sleeve. She has already shown that she indents to cause serious damage with little regard for potential collateral damage.
So I too may be a super facist, but I'm totally OK with urgently and immediately taking the woman down.
I agree, though I would never make such subjective judgments as to the difference between necessary and unnecessary force without seeing a video.
>I too may be a super facist
This preemptive underdogging attack on people who disagree with you disguised as a self-defense is a huge red flag that you don't have personal conviction behind what you're saying.
Your way of thinking is what's given us roving, armed bands of state-sanctioned thugs who close ranks when confronted with wrongdoing, rather than public servants who are there to serve and protect.
It asserts "facts", like the false statement that wearing a mask lowers blood oxygen concentration by 20%, using citations of Facebook videos and conspiracy theory "news" websites as sources.
http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf
Some rebuttals on the current concerns I've seen are just some doctors on their own doing a self-test (under god knows what standards and not peer reviewed).
This is "restrained" by their standards.
From the transition from British royal subjects to US citizens, some of the "subjects" part stuck...
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
Selectively chosen video snippets
"Lies" implies there's an intent to deceive, but most of these cases the reason why the rest of the footage isn't available is because people only start recording when things go south, so everything leading up to the event inevitably gets left out. That's very different than "Selectively chosen video snippets", which imply that somewhere there's footage of the whole incident, but anti-police activists are editing the footage to generate maximum outrage. It also doesn't help that some police officers think that recording is an act of aggression, further making the footage harder to acquire.
Watch for yourself. Decide where you think the truth lies. I think I could videotape just about any street fight and selectively choose when and for how long to show a clip to fit an agenda....
Capital "T" truth does not lie solely in a video clip. Just as with _literally everything_ online and everything digital, we need to be good _consumers_.
In the case of the George Floyd killing the is a witness video (over 10 minutes), security camera video (over 5 minutes), plus officer body camera. These of course have POV issues, audio issues which need to be considered. Despite these defects, there is the narrative of Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck for over 8 minutes, which is evidence of the cause of Mr Floyd's death.
I have yet to read any comments here which take seriously how this firehose of brutality videos should be consumed--let alone making _any_ decisions about "truth".
When I was a young adult, the biggest issue concerning the internet was the potential danger of anonymous people online. Post Facebook, the danger was putting something online now, that you'll regret later.
Today, impact of the videos from the George Floyd killing is enormous.
What about the next video? I would like to hear more about thoughts on consuming videos, and presumed truth of any video.
And watching just some of those videos was sickening. All of this violence is sickening.