N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#2> 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:
https://battlepenguin.com/politics/secondary-effects/#masks-...
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#3> 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 Ch…
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?
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#4They did.
This is "restrained" by their standards.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#5> 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 Ch…
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.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#6> 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 Ch…
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.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
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’ve seen so many examples of excessive and unwarranted force from the US police, by now hundreds of incidents.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Violence in retaliation is not an appropriate response to property damage.
Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.