Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuzimoto | Hacker News Reader

> You say violence is violence, yet I bet you have no problem with criminals being put in jail, i.e. their freedoms being violently removed from them.

When you commit a crime and violate someone's freemdoms (the primary being right to life, liberty, property), you forfeit your own. When you kill someone and take their life, you steal or destroy property, you are now in debt to society. By living in a society you agree to its rules and when the rules are broken a price must be paid to deter others from breaking them.

Just because someone broke the rules, doesn't mean that everyone else gets to. The police officer was in the wrong. He was arrested, and charged. He will pay for what he did.

Be the change you want to see. Protest in a way that doesn't harm others. Many lost business and their livelihoods due to the destruction. What did they do to deserve that?

View on HN

Police brutality is a systemic issue. Peaceful protest over the years haven't changed the system. Charging that one officer doesn't solve it either.

The Police reaction to these protests clearly shows systemic reform is needed. Peaceful protesters and reporters have been tear gassed, shot, and arrested. They don't deserve to be tret like that just because others decided to vandalize and loot.

Peaceful protesters and reporters have been tear gassed, shot, and arrested. They don't deserve to be tret like that just because others decided to vandalize and loot.

This is exactly what extremist groups exploiting the protests want. The extremists want to foment violence between the protesters and the police. The situation plays into their hands, because the police have no way of distinguishing who is who.

The circumstances are not normal. Rule of Law has broken down. By continuing the protests, peaceful protesters are creating cover for looters and violent perpetrators. Those protesters who are willfully exploiting this situation to "pressure" the authorities are having evil done for their goals.

There needs to be another kind of lockdown to prevent the spread of the contagion of violence, the contagion of chaos, and the contagion of injustice.

> Police brutality is a systemic issue.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have any statistics to show police are by and large using disproportionate force?

> Peaceful protest over the years haven't changed the system. Charging that one officer doesn't solve it either.

There are bad people in society. That doesn't mean the whole system is bad. Of course there is room for improvement, and action should be taken to remove those who are not fit to serve.

> The Police reaction to these protests clearly shows systemic reform is needed. Peaceful protesters and reporters have been tear gassed, shot, and arrested. They don't deserve to be tret like that just because others decided to vandalize and loot.

I agree that peaceful protesters don't deserve that. But let's get this clear, it was violent rioting that was occurring. In that situation, how are you to quickly separate the two groups?

>But let's get this clear, it was violent rioting that was occurring. In that situation, how are you to quickly separate the two groups?

The crowd of people slowly marching while getting shot and teargassed or the protesters. Those in the liquor store are the looters. Pretty simple.

If firing indescriminantly into a crowd makes it hard to tell these groups apart it sounds like the police tactics need work.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense to brutalize looters. They did this shit during hurricane katrina too - people stuffed into a stadium desperate for aid, people trapped on roofs, and the national guard comes in guns ablaze against looters. It's madness to put "property rights" over human lives.

Oh well, the liquor store is getting looted. Sucks that you can't deal with that because there are protests because you are murdering black people. Fix the bigger problem before worrying about property.

> violent rioting

All of the videos from the last few days is still being sorted, but from what I've seen the violence from police against protesters far outstrips that of protesters against random people or cops. I'm in fact only aware of several incidents, and all of which were easily justifiable - a man firing a bow at protesters, an idiot screaming the n-word at protesters, and a man charging at protesters with a sword.

So whenever people say "but riots!" I can't help but question the priorities - can't that wait until after we figure out the police brutality thing? You're only hurting our efforts here, and helping the cops justify the unjustifiable.

> from what I've seen the violence from police against protesters far outstrips that of protesters against random people or cops.

How? As far as I can tell no one was killed at the hands of the police (after protests started). Just in Chicago at least 17 people were killed during the protests.

> Just in Chicago at least 17 people were killed during the protests.

And how many by the protestors?

> As far as I can tell no one was killed at the hands of the police (after protests started)

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867281529/louisville-police-c...

Note that shooting someone isn't the only form of violence possible. Escalating by firing rubber bullets or tear gassing or driving your car into peaceful protestors are all violence, and I've seen tens, maybe a hundred examples of that at this point.

>> Just in Chicago at least 17 people were killed during the protests.

> And how many by the protestors?

We don't know if they were all "protestors" but at least not the police: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/16-dead-at-least-30-pe...

From your article: "the police and National Guard were shot at first and that the shots that killed McAtee were fired in response", and that they weren't part of the protests.

It seems rioters exhibited a disproportionate amount of violence compared to police though.

Incorrect. Mcatee was part of a peaceful group. The police fired indiscriminately into that group after someone else fired on them.

> We don't know if they were all "protestors" but at least not the police

In fact, we don't know if any of them were protestors, so your insistence to relate the two groups is odd.

> In that situation, how are you to quickly separate the two groups?

You're not to quickly do anything. Most countries claim to have the right an assumption of innocence for a reason - they believe, very strongly, that committing violence towards an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty person get away with whatever they were doing. Property can be rebuilt, for the most part; people's lives, not so much.

To put it bluntly - if a group of people robs a bank in the middle of the business day, you don't tear gas and shoot at everyone inside it.

I could be completely wrong, but the number of potential rioters (actual rioters + protestors) likely outnumbered police. The scale is so much larger and potential for damage and destruction is huge (over 200 businesses looted/destroyed in Minneapolis) that it is I believe of the highest priority to disperse the crowds as quickly as they can.

That is not an answer to my argument - that the Government says one thing so we're compliant, and then does another when it suits it.

It is citizens job to be compliant. It is the government's job to enforce compliance.

I'm sure there was things the police could do better, but no one died at the hands of the police (after protesting started). The same can't be said for the protestors/rioters.

> It is citizens job to be compliant. It is the government's job to enforce compliance.

That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship, not democracy. In a democracy, it's the citizens' job to keep their Government accountable - when the population says that the right to a presumption of innocence is paramount, they create a Government to ensure that right.

What you are suggesting is that the population does not believe that the right to a presumption of innocence is paramount - that it is ok to risk life, liberty and limb of innocent people to go after a criminal. That's maybe fine (although I'd argue ethically wrong), but stop teaching the opposite to your children. If you taught your children that the police and courts were out to kill them or lock them up indefinitely for nothing they have any control over, maybe they'd correctly be a little more terrified from an early age - and maybe they'd campaign to change that. Funnily enough, one demographic does get taught that, and others the opposite - because that's how it works out in practice.

The police have literally blinded people, including journalists, permanently, by the way. And potentially have killed people - "In Louisville, David McAtee, 53, the owner of a well-known barbecue business, was shot and killed early Monday. The authorities said that officers from the Louisville Metro Police Department and National Guard soldiers opened fire in response to a gunshot as they tried to disperse a large crowd after a curfew had gone into effect. It was not immediately clear if Mr. McAtee had been killed by the police or someone in the crowd, the authorities said." Of course, as always when the police kill people, body cameras were not on.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote "Government says one thing so we're compliant, and then does another when it suits it". I never said people don't have the ability to change how the government enforces compliance, simply that they are the ones who do.

Many people have died at the hands of other rioters as a result of the protests.

I'm not saying that people needed to loose their eyes, but they were out after curfew which was enacted because they wanted people to go home due to the violence.

Who exactly are these "many people"? I haven't been able to find a source on this. When I checked yesterday, three protesters had been killed by people unrelated to the protest, and two people had been shot by some people driving around in a car (cannot work out how/whether that is related to the riots).

There's a lot of energy being put into making this sound like it's more violent than it is, again, so that you agree with it and stay compliant. When the Government does something violent that goes against the reasons it was created, you should not be compliant. I'd hope that you would agree that the Government cannot unilaterally execute people, and that just sitting there while it does so is... completely immoral.

According to this article [0], more than 20 were killed over the weekend in Chicago, when the previous max in one day was 10. Average people killed per day is about 2. I think it's safe to say the majority of those were due to the riots. That doesn't count numerous other cities where deaths occured.

> I'd hope that you would agree that the Government cannot unilaterally execute people, and that just sitting there while it does so is... completely immoral.

No of course I don't want the government executing people. But the death of George Floyd was the result of actions from one man, not of the entire government. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any member of the government that didn't see an issue with what happened.

[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-...

That's what the government says, but not what they actually do. Here in Hong Kong, police fires tear gas directly into people's (tiny) apartment just for opening the window to take a peek outside.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/02/police-violence-racia...

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/08/police-officer-shooti...

Just some starter insight to reading about police violence. Police in US use disproportionate force compared to any other country.

I read through both articles. I'm sorry, but I do not see any comparisons between US and other countries.

> between 90 percent and 95 percent—of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot”

Sounds like the vast majority used exactly the amount of force required.

Also, does not anywhere state the types of crimes being committed which would be relevant.

I said they were just the start, you can use them to seed more searches on google. You can for example see the graph here: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/rFBg-9fA0Ehnx8OSyE6UvrD0...

Showing an avg. 50% fatality rate on police shootings. You can compared this to other countries, which have the same statistic at something like 5-10% and it's not like these countries are overrun by mass shootings or terrorists. Some might actually says its the reverse :D

>> The police officer was in the wrong. He was arrested, and charged. He will pay for what he did.

"He will pay for what he did." You seem to have certain knowledge of the future. Dismissively saying everything will be OK does not actually make it happen.

I'm only going from past experience: If anything is learned from the many times this story has played out in the past, the cops wont wont pay. In fact, until an independent investigation: the cops were well on their way to freedom:

"The criminal complaint said that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Mr. Floyd, the complaint said, had underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-autopsy-michael...

These are things people are protesting:

0. That a video has to exist

1. That nationwide protests need to happen before an officer is charged

2. That when it happens, many non-PoC say "oh he probably did something wrong [thus i dont care if the alleged criminal was killed]"

3. That when it happens, non-PoC say "oh it will be OK" knowing full well their own children will never be subject to this type of treatment.

People are not angry about this incident only they are angry about it happening over and over and over w/o any real systemic change.

    Protest in a way that doesn't harm others.

It hasn't been working, bud.

Also the government might try to go after you legally or kill you even if you do things peacefully. See: COINTELPRO, Aaron Swartz, etc.

>primary being right to life, liberty, property),

How does the "pursuit of happiness" become "property?"

I think a better question is how did "property" become "the pursuit of happiness"?

I believe that property rights are a core principal of American freedoms. Otherwise there would not be 'just compensation' for it in the constitution.

The Fifth Amendment came around fifteen years after the Declaration of Independence.

> He was arrested, and charged. He will pay for what he did.

He was only arrested and charged because of the protests.

> He was only arrested and charged because of the protests.

I have a feeling that would have happened regardless. Do you have a source that shows there wasn't an intent to charge him before the protests?

Literally that just happened with the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, right before George Floyd's murder. Extreme conflicts of interest. These events back-to-back really set the bonfire alight. The immediate outrage over George Floyd's murder, ensuing demonstrations, and demands for charges to be filed probably helped motivate charges actually getting filed promptly. That's definitely not a guarantee however!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com