Live data from Hacker News

Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

niemanlab.org

561–570 of 835 posts

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#561
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Have you seen dozens or hundreds of videos of civilians acting inappropriately? Yes. I have also seen countless videos in which civilians were reprimanded by other citizens for acting inappropriately. They are trying to police themselves. Why can't the police police themselves? >If a “woman of color” was seen starting a fire, would you be comfortable saying things like “black women start fires”? I sure hope not. Eve…

I was not making any blanket statements about anyone beyond the general group of "police". Yes, that was the point. Blanket statements don’t work in either case.

Joining the police is a choice. Being a woman of color is not a choice. Making a blanket statement about those two groups is therefore entirely different.

My blanket statement about police was also framed as a question. I said I have seen very little evidence I was wrong. If you think I am wrong, you could try providing an answer to that question rather than attacking the question itself.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#562
post #133

Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations. I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the…

The following is a heartfelt text that one of my friends in my PhD program sent. She wishes this to be shared to raise awareness, so I'm sharing here for people who might not have a good understanding of the context. This is related to the relationship between the American police and the black populace, so imo relevant in this context.

"Sorry for this lengthy message but here goes: My ancestors are African and Native American. My African ancestors were taken from Africa, brought here to America, beat and killed, and forced to be slaves since the late 1600s. Of course as slaves you have no rights, so my great-great grandmother was raped, which is how my my branch of the family came about. So I actually have white and black ancestors. The Civil War occurred, which most people think the north fought to help free slaves, but actually the north just didn't want the south to have slaves anymore because it was giving the south an economic advantage - not because they wanted to free black people. And although the north won, no one told slaves in the south this for many years, so they had no idea because they were not allowed to read. But eventually the word was spread and black people learned that they were technically free, but they could not own land, so they had no where to go. A few more benevolent slave masters gave some land to the slaves because, like my ancestors they were raped by the slave master and therefore the kids were part-family. This is why you see different shades of black people in America. My grandfather (born 1920) was forced to flee Texas as a young boy in fear for his life. He could've been another Emit Till. If you don't know who Emit Till is, please, please just search the name. It will break your heart (Also sidenote: the woman who was the cause of the Emit Till murder announced on her deathbed that she lied about it all). Moving along...so my grandfather moved to Detroit where things were just a little better for black people. He was the only black person in his engineering program at Michigan State, and endured brutality and abuse for just trying to get an education. Then we had WW2 where he was not allowed to vote or have rights, but served as a Tuskegee Airman, a troup of all black pilots who literally saved America's ass from Germany. If it were not for the Tuskegee Airman, we would have lost WW2. But he comes back after the war, and still has no rights, no freedoms. Blacks and whites were segregated and when black people made our own financial district and economy it was burned to the ground because it threatened white capitalism (see 1921 burning of black wallstreet in Tulsa Oklahoma). And then Jim Crow laws were put into place. Basically this meant that white people could legally discriminate against black people, which also included violent acts without repercussions. POLICE were created during this time to literally "police" black people because the slave masters did not have control anymore. So police did the slave master's dirty work and it was still legal. This is why people are protesting against police brutality with a focus on black lives. Because the police were specifically created to take our lives, but not the lives of others. And you can see this today, for example George Floyd. So when people say "all lives matter" it is just another way of covering up the real reason police were created, and it hurts that 400 years later we are still trying to get justice, within a country that we literally built with our black hands. We are the economy, which is why when we created our own economy, it rocked the US economy so much that they burned it down. We have tried to march peacefully, we have tried to kneel peacefully, we have tried to protest peacefully, and it has gotten us nowhere. So that is why many people feel that the only option left to make our voices heard is to hurt the economy. And that's what the rioting and looting is about. I'm not saying I condone it, but believe me, I understand it. Also if you have been following any of it, the vast majority of people being violent and breaking things are not black people, but actually white supremacists who dress up as protesters. They are trying to make black people seem violent so that the police take violent action against the protestors. Things are never as simple as they seem, so you have to know the history to understand the full scope if the situation, and guess what....they took the real history out of the textbooks! So yes, this is a heavy time for black people and I hope you all can start to understand why this is happening. Thank you for reading and being open-minded."

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police seem to clearly be allowing looting on purpose. SoHo was looted two days in a row . Where were the NYPD? There are 10's of thousands of uniformed officers Maybe you can say the first day they somehow missed it, but two days in a row? Come on. I refuse to believe that they didn't see this coming - they brag about how they're "gathering intel" on terrorist groups, but they couldn't check twitter to see #soho…

On the topic of police refusing to do their job in order to punish backlash. https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904 > Politicians who cross the MPD find slowdowns in their wards. After the first time I cut money from the proposed police budget, I had an uptick in calls taking forever to get a response, and MPD officers telling business owners to call their councilman about why it took so long.

I have no context on this, but just reading that sentence, why wouldn't a budget cut raise response times? Is there context that suggests they're lying?

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it's curious that only the police are allowed to have these super-effective unions with literal stay-out-of-jail clauses in their contracts - while Amazon workers who want proper toilet breaks will simply be fired? Does that answer your question?

Police unions shouldn't exist. It would be like having a union of military soldiers. Imagine if the US military had a union that refused to defend the country unless every soldier got immunity from war crimes and high 6 figure salaries. That is effectively what the police unions have done to this country.

does this argument not apply to all or most public sector employees? what if a teachers' union demanded high salaries and protection against being fired for poor performance (or worse)?

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#565
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties This is probably the most disturbing thing I read about law enforcement. To me it translates into following: as an officer acting under "color of law" I am free to loose my temper and kill whoever the f..k I want for any reason as long as I am not doing it based on color/race/whatever.…

My understanding is that "color of law" merely refers to the state of being where a person is acting in an official capacity. It imparts no legality or illegality of actions per se, but statutes might criminalize or decriminalize activity based on whether or not a person is acting under color of law. What GP is referring to is a provision in the federal law that specifically criminalizes police activity undertaken un…

>*As far as I'm aware, states' statutes for murder or manslaughter do not protect people acting under color of law.

Phew. thank you. Hopefully maiming is not protected as well.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just love how everyone hates cops and talks about how every single one of them is worthless yet they expects them to save their store from being looted. You decided you were better off without me, fine, save your own store.

I love how certain types of people offer the false choice of unjust and unaccountable police or no police at all. I guess it's too much to ask that police obey the law they are supposed to be enforcing. This is why the country is in flames right now.

> I guess it's too much to ask that police obey the law they are supposed to be enforcing.

Historically, we see that any group given power eventually starts abusing it. For modern definitions of abusing power, anyways. Past societies would have seen it differently, perhaps the divine right of kings or some such nonsense.

A fascinating example would be the wealthy nobles of the late (western) Roman empire. They shielded citizens from military service, and in exchange expected work from them, generally on their vast estates. After the collapse of the empire, this relationship eventually evolved into the feudal lord/serf relationship. Also, Diocletian's reforms didn't help, but that's a topic I'll leave for another post.

I guess this is kind of a long-winded way of saying this, but what you're asking for does seem unreasonable in the long term. Human beings don't seem to work that way.

That all being said, the long term I'm referring to is the 250+ year timeline. We might be able to goose the current system along for another few generations if we do it right. If it's worth it or not depends a bit on your perspective.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don’t believe it. Rioting is natural human behavior. In Bangladesh we have violent riots after every election. The police aren’t instigating them, they are nowhere to be found. Why would I believe that Americans are any different?

It's different now. Early in the presidential campaign, anti-Trump demonstrators were blocking the road to the Reagan library to deny access to people heading to a Trump/GOP fund raiser I remember thinking, America is in for it now, the Rubicon has been crossed. Since then politically motivated violence has been embraced and celebrated by many luminaries. Welcome to the normal.

What do you make of Trump's many pleas to handle the opposition and journalists with violence while campaigning?

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#568

I have been trying to think of good, relatively simple policy decisions that can make a large impact. I have not heard too many proposed besides removing qualified immunity. I would be curious what ideas people have: Ideas include: -Banning police unions -Having a federal agency to discipline police (outside the purview of local politics) I haven't heard this idea elsewhere but I like the idea of us addressing from t…

Ending cash bail policies wouldn't directly address police violence, but it could reduce the incarceration rate. There are many people in jail waiting trial for crimes they did not commit, simply because they could not afford bail and would not take a plea deal.

Ending the use of private prisons and restricting police use of military equipment and weapons are also frequently suggested proposals.

In terms of police violence, I think the main thing lacking right now is accountability. There are a lot of ways to impose that. One avenue is to impose accountability from a higher level of government (for instance: the FBI getting involved if local government doesn't act), and the other traditional approach is accountability from voters.

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#569
post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Monopoly on violence" or "use of force" is the way I've seen it put by political scientists defining what it means for a state to be sovereign (that quality is really high up the list of things that go along with that). It doesn't mean only the state can legally engage in, say, violent self-defense, but it means the state is capable of dictating where and when "legitimate" violence may occur, and backing up those di…

Orwell, writing about the Spanish civil war, gives the release of arms stockpiles to trade union militias as a key factor in the early fighting against Franco. That war saw a combination of foreign intervention, plus soldiers and police choosing either side, but militias still played a crucial role. It's not clear whether arms stockpiles would have the same impact on a modern war, but they might.

Maybe a counterexample, but it's also a really weird situation. The arms in that case were seized from government arsenals (that's how I'm taking "public arsenals", evidently under the authority of the government pre-seizure, anyway), and the whole thing was a reaction to a very recent military coup, plus the elected government was still kinda trying to resist Franco and the army at that point. At any rate, the rebels here were the military faction under Franco. Plus the scrappy resistance using looted public arms lost :-(

Re: Police attacks against journalists across the U.S. since May 28

#570
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the "Open States Up" protests that occurred that had hospital personal begging the protestors to let the emergency vehicles through. But that's a different type of crowd.

I don't remember hearing anything about police dispersing those crowds with tear gas. I wonder why.

I thought the right to bear arms was useless for defending against tyranny when the government has nukes and apache attack helicopters.
Post reply on HN