Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 456 posts

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#391

Post by aksss »

DanBC wrote: post #95
king_magic wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the solution is to immediately reach for a Molotov cocktail and firebomb a Target. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't. Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.

"Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed…

Any picture of the rioters/looters will show you they are people of all races. Not just black people.

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#392

Post by Roboprog »

gopalv wrote: post #291
ortusdux wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philly, 1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing "There was an armed standoff with police,[5] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. The MOVE members fired at them and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms ensued.[32] Police went through over ten thousand rounds of ammunition before Commissioner Sambor ordered that the compound be bombed.[32] From a Pennsylvania State Police helic…

> The drone over Minneapolis is a MQ-9 reaper, aka "predator B", hunter-killer UAV. I'd guess this is a Gorgon Stare drone. https://longreads.com/2019/06/21/nothing-kept-me-up-at-night... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare#Development

Ok, so that’s a real thing, and not just a Charles Stross / Laundry Files reference.

I guess it’s not too surprising that you would want to keep an eye out for rioting.

Missiles would be a whole new level of messed up, though.

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#394

Post by Barrin92 »

rayiner wrote: post #387
Barrin92 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation? The ongoing militarization of state level police forces without the democratic consent of the governed for a start?

> The ongoing militarization of state level police forces without the democratic consent of the governed for a start? Are you living in the same country as me? The “governed” love this stuff, and keep voting for the people that do it. Civil liberties has always been something that has to be achieved through anti-democratic means.

Yeah don't get me wrong I'm well aware that there's a lot of public support for it. I meant the governed in the narrow sense here, the communities who are actually affected (and largely segregated).

Same goes for the policing. The amount of separation between the police and the policed, demographically, politically and so on is hard to defend.

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#395

Post by coffeecat »

Alupis wrote: post #349
_jal wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sadly typical. An utter refusal to engage, just an expressed preference for as much state violence as needed to protect their car.

> This is sadly typical. An utter refusal to engage Unfortunately I feel this is the direction most political conversations go as-of late. Talking right past each other. To claim the other side has an utter refusal to engage is not just unfair, it's a perfect description of exactly the behavior you have just engaged in yourself. It would be more apt to substitute "utter refusal to engage" with "utter refusal to accep…

To take this meta-discussion a step further, I think this is the inevitable course of an argument where one group cares about X but not Y, and the other group cares about Y but not X. The two debaters won't have much to say to each other except "Let's talk about X", "No, let's talk about Y", etc. You can't have a structured debate unless both people care about the same thing and hold explicitly contrary views on it. But this is rarely the case in today's fragmented information landscape where different information sources emphasize different things.

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#396

Post by _jal »

Alupis wrote: post #349
_jal wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sadly typical. An utter refusal to engage, just an expressed preference for as much state violence as needed to protect their car.

> This is sadly typical. An utter refusal to engage Unfortunately I feel this is the direction most political conversations go as-of late. Talking right past each other. To claim the other side has an utter refusal to engage is not just unfair, it's a perfect description of exactly the behavior you have just engaged in yourself. It would be more apt to substitute "utter refusal to engage" with "utter refusal to accep…

Thanks for explaining where you're coming from here. I'll offer my perspective.

I replied to your original comment, indicating my belief that the issue is substantially more complicated than your framing suggested, and briefly explained a couple reasons why. I have several more, if you honestly have any interest.

Your reply was to claim it is just about your property rights - the only relation to my comment was the response hierarchy. I honestly still don't see how that's not a refusal to engage.

One point:

> claims that I support state violence

Well, what do you call what's going on? (I do also consider intrusive surveillance a form of violence, but understand why some think that's dilutive to the term.)

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#397

Post by neckardt »

heelix wrote: post #358
littleweep wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question -- what is 'sand bagging'?

https://i.imgur.com/BlUJxIj.jpg Was my parent's home. We were south of Fargo, outside of the city dike. Fargo is very, very flat farmland. Our house was 40' above the river. The top of the city dike was around 43'. We melted down the ice, put down a sheet of plastic, and then built a wall of sandbags. Bonus, it was very cold, so you essentially had to bag and place the sandbag before the sand froze. We put around 10k…

How do you acquire 10k sacks of sand on such short notice? Also, how much does that cost?

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#398

Post by fiter »

wbronitsky wrote: post #378
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protesting and rioting are separate, and often done by separate people. One gives cover to the other. But it doesn’t need to lead to the other.

It’s is wildly racist that this comment, and many other comments on here, are far more focused on the rioters than the murder that occurred on a sidewalk in broad daylight.

The police misuse of force and deadly force and police brutality are unfortunately topics that all races can engage with[0].

It is not clear to me that insisting racism is creating a coalition that will change the system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_...

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#399

Post by bitcurious »

wbronitsky wrote: post #378
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protesting and rioting are separate, and often done by separate people. One gives cover to the other. But it doesn’t need to lead to the other.

It’s is wildly racist that this comment, and many other comments on here, are far more focused on the rioters than the murder that occurred on a sidewalk in broad daylight.

Also racist is the indifference to these riots, when their cost falls on the same minorities they ostensibly are in protection of. Look at Detroit. Look at Newark. Any wealth that might have been accumulating in the black communities of Minneapolis has just evaporated.

Re: US customs and border protection is flying a surveillance drone over Minneapolis

#400

Post by t-writescode »

chance_state wrote: post #307
lidHanteyk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters. People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocat…

>Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters. Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN. >White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella? Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?

There's a very short list of what that person can be:

Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.

Either the video is staged or not.

  * if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
  * if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
If this is a real person that did this, then:

  * they either did it of their own free will, or 
  * there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
If they did it of their own free will, then either:

  * they want to steal things
  * they want to break things
  * they want to get back at Autozone
  * they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
  * they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
If they did it as part of a group effort, then they were either coerced or not; but, in both cases, the intention of the group that caused it is what matters:

  * the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
  * the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
  * the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
Then you need to look at the probabilities of each of these situations, especially the person themselves and their attire.

I think it's reasonable to conclude either:

  * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
  * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
  * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
    out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
Did I miss any combination?

2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.

( edit: formatting )

edit: sorry, I did miss one:

  * he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozone
Post reply on HN