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

N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#11

Post by dgrin91 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #3
djsumdog wrote: post #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 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?

> 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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#12

Post by gremlinsinc »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #7
refurb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#13

Post by happytoexplain »

dgrin91 wrote: post #11
pmiller2 wrote: post #3

Earlier 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?

> 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 th…

> 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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#15

Post by coldtea »

maxton wrote: post #6
djsumdog wrote: post #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 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.

I don't know about 20%, but here's an earlier non-partisan research on medical staff wearing masks:

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).

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#17

Post by djsumdog »

happytoexplain wrote: post #10
refurb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> 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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#18

Post by gruez »

RickJWagner wrote: post #16

There are 4 kinds of lies. Lies Damn lies Statistics Selectively chosen video snippets

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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#19

Post by pmiller2 »

dgrin91 wrote: post #11
pmiller2 wrote: post #3

Earlier 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?

> 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 th…

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.

Re: N.Y.P.D. Says It Used Restraint During Protests. Here’s What the Videos Show

#20

Post by throwaway-92831 »

djsumdog wrote: post #17
happytoexplain wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> 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 pers…

> She set a car on fire! That is literally violence.

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.

Post reply on HN