Why So Many Police Are Handling the Protests Wrong
themarshallproject.org
themarshallproject.org
I think it would really help both in terms of outcomes as well as the perception of police if they gave this kind of clear description of what's going to happen. As it stands now, the curfews aren't enforced with any kind of regularity, so they just cause confusion.
As someone who has participated in protests for 5 out of the last 6 days and was tear gassed, I can tell you that protestors are much more peaceful when the cops keep a distance. Once the armor shows up and the tear gassing starts protestors get angry.
I've watched videos of peaceful protestors getting shield bashed by police which causes them to get really angry and then they get a beat down for being angry about it. It's a pretty human response to get angry when someone gets physically aggressive towards you.
I think curfews do have a place when there's massive looting happening and the police need the streets clear so they can prevent it, but there hasn't been enough looting in several days to justify curfews.
An armed protest without riot-police presence is normally more quiet than a peaceful protest with their presence.
It was a wrong call to send them to a peaceful protest in the first place. They should have published a proper schedule and location for the protest and let people to share their voices.
Police shouldn't guard the protesters. That's a recipe for chaos. They should guard the city, businesses, and take care of safety of protesters.
And it gets worst when the government focus is pushing police harder and harder to end the protest instead of helping them by telling people that their voice has been heard. Police under pressure starts overreacting to protesters instead of taking care of looters which has nothing to do with protesters.
No matter how much they try to control. Often they just get tired, things get messy and overwhelming and they start to beat people.
Now sadly there are also a small number of police force that are just waiting for a day to have an opportunity to enjoy and exercise all the anti-riot trainings they had with their fancy equipment. And that's where you see stupid unnecessary violence from police and no sign that they regret doing that.
Say you have opposing factions protesting each other (let’s say people seeking independence versus those who want to remain a colony somewhere). Should police just allow them to beat each other or instill some order?
Some places have teen curfews and such and I’m not sure they have been struck down everywhere, so I think the lagality varies by jurisdiction.
It is an interesting question with intersectionality with remain in place orders as well. Can the gov keep you from going places? Seems most states have had some shelter in place orders.
I think you're getting wires severely crossed there. The National Guard is staying at hotels, but the government'll certainly be paying for that lodging.
https://dcist.com/story/20/06/03/federal-troop-lodging-at-ma...
There's a dispute over who pays (Feds vs DC):
Just baffling and terrible.
City leadership doesn't have control. Fired cops get reinstated. When criticized or acted against, they retaliate against civilian leadership.
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.
https://gizmodo.com/nypd-union-doxes-mayors-daughter-on-twit...
> A New York City Police Department union known for its controversial attacks against Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted out the personally identifying information of his daughter on Sunday night, including a residential address and her New York State ID number.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-ci...
> Lynch’s most infamous comment, the one that many believe set New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio running scared from the cause of police reform, came after a man shot two NYPD officers in Brooklyn in 2014. The slain officers’ “blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the Office of the Mayor,” Lynch said. The PBA president blamed de Blasio because the mayor acknowledged, in the wake of Garner’s death, that racially disparate policing exists in New York City. Cops subsequently turned their back on de Blasio at the slain officers’ funeral, and the mayor has sided with the cops ever since.
> But to understand why the mayor does what he does, one must understand what he’s up against. On Monday, The City reported that since 2015 the PBA has spent upwards of $1.4 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. In addition to conventional political advocacy for their interests, as City & State noted in a 2019 cover story, “the cops also have the power to undermine a mayor by refusing to do their job.” In December 2014, when Lynch blamed the two officers’ murders on de Blasio, NYPD officers made two-thirds fewer arrests and wrote 94% fewer tickets than they had during the same period the year before. The PBA has also moved to block new policies intended to increase transparency and accountability, for example by suing to prevent the release of body camera footage.
That is what they are doing. The theory is that once they put someone through being arrested, that person will not continue coming to protests the following days.
I’m am certainly not agreeing with the tactic, but that is why they are doing it.
They say to never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity, but I just really don't know which way to go on this one.
NYPD is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. They know all the tricks and are not afraid of the ethical implications of them.
Why do they need to set bail at all? There wasn't even property damage! Just take name and address and issue an appearance ticket for a court date, if one is needed at all.
Meanwhile the Minneapolis killers are out on bail. They committed a violent crime, they are a flight risk, there are concerns about witness intimidation, yet they are out on bail. It's clear that the system is broken.
Source? All I can find is that bail was set at $750k or more each. I haven't seen anything that said that someone paid it.
I don't think you'll find many others that find this to be just.
You even say "most" and not "all" so you are explicitly acknowledging that violence is occurring to people that are being prevented from complying with law.
Additionally, the essential workers who work overnight hours also tend to be disproportionately minorities—the same people police disproportionately arrest and brutalize.
Curfews are another really misguided attempt to quell otherwise peaceful protests, and only serve to escalate tensions.
https://www.pix11.com/news/local-news/manhattan/mayor-blasts...
> Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke out overnight after videos went viral on social media Thursday appearing to show a delivery worker being arrested by police in Manhattan while making a delivery past the city's 8 p.m. curfew.
another thing common language to communicate through the two sides. Police are abusive when clearing the streets, they push and club people, they spray them when they turn around and stop moving. A protester isn't going to know what is happening and it is human nature to turn around and ask, which police respond to by hitting them. It is a bit of insanity.
If only..
You realize that the heart of the issue has nothing to do with rules, conventions, or regulations, right?
You could create all those rules you listed, and then so many police would just ignore them, abuse or harm people (especially people of color), and their colleagues would not intervene.
All of those full face respirators the cops are wearing would also work great for healthcare workers, who are still dealing with COVID-19. Specifically anything with pink cartridges has a P100 particulate filter, the highest level of filtration (99.97% vs N95 95%). When you see a picture of cops wearing or holding respirators, you should think of the nurses, EMTs, and vulnerable people that have been deprived of that PPE, just so the cops don't have to think about which direction the wind is blowing before they open fire on peaceful protestors.
Imagine this scenario: Maybe 80% of the protesters are totally planning on going home at 8pm. You have 15% who are stubborn and don't like to be told what to do; they'll go home at 9pm if they're asked to insistently, just to show that you're not their boss. And 5% who are downright looking for a confrontation and won't go home until it's clear they won't get one.
What happens when you apply your rubric?
Well, when you apply your force at 8:30, those 15% move from the "stubborn" camp to the "confrontational" camp. In the 80%, there will be people who see the unnecessary violence, and move to the "stubborn" camp; in addition to people who tried to get home by 8:30 but couldn't for whatever reason.
Now you've got 30% of your protesters in the "confrontational" camp. The police get more defensive, and start doing stupid things like shooting people before 7:30. Congrats, now 40% of the people are in the confrontational camp.
Malcolm Gladwell recently posted a chapter from a book he wrote, concerning The Troubles in Northern Ireland, as a podcast recently; it addresses one of the core assumptions in your suggestion, that people are simple cost-benefit calculators, and so that with enough force, you can make impose your will on people. It never really turns out the way people think it will.
https://twitter.com/sunriseon7/status/1267587976986427393
Same incident, different camera angle: https://twitter.com/benyc/status/1267587033783992322 . We can see the first officer shield-bashing the crew unprovoked, and a 2nd officer come in to baton-smack the reporter.
As members of the press, they are morally obligated to be there, recording what is going on. And it is pretty clear that the Police charge and attack the cameracrew in this instance.
----------
This was the stupid decision of two officers. However, we can bet that this "stupid decision" will go unpunished. Which is the entire point of the protests. The Police do not seem to have any mechanism for feedback in these circumstances, and can do whatever they want.
The protesters now want this officer to be punished. But once again, we have no mechanism to punish police officers in the USA.
------
A few more aggravating factors:
* DC has a ton of different police departments due to the confusing structure of the city / not a state / seat of the federal government. Case in point: were these officers Secret Service? DC Park police? Metropolitan Police Department ? Unclear who to blame right now.
* Its unclear because these officers in this instance taped over their badges and identification. We don't know the names of the cops in riot gear, we don't know who they were working for. We don't know the chain of command.
* This happened roughly 45-minutes BEFORE curfew. The President (or really: Attorney General Barr) seemed to want the area cleared for a Press Briefing on Monday, but this fact was not clearly communicated to the protesters, nor to members of the press.
* Given all the advantages Police officers have in the justice system, it is unlikely that if we press charges (even if we managed to get the names of the officers in this incident) that the courts would ever be on our side. The courts overwhelmingly take the side of officers.
I will note: there's clearly one officer who is holding back his colleague in this instance, who provides room for the cameraman and the reporter to escape. There are "good guys" in the police department, but it is increasingly looking like a minority.
------
The "Go home before curfew" argument doesn't work in these circumstances. With protesters (and reporters) getting bashed long before the curfew, its only natural for the protesters to not respect the curfew anymore.
Who writes that notice? A coalition of the foot soldiers who are doing the actual arrests, or some high-minded politician sitting behind a desk? Because that politician can't actually make promises about the behavior of the police. De Blasio has been denying that well-documented cases of abuse have happened, and saying that if such a thing were to happen, it'd surely be punished. We've yet to see any accountability for NYPD.
Statements are nice. Actions matter.
Cops seem to enjoy beating up protesters, and I think that's the real problem.
- curfew: a curfew is an extreme tactic that deprives many people of their civil liberties without due process. There are legitimate reasons for curfews to exist at times, but dispersing peaceful protest is not one of them.
- use of tear gas: this is (quite literally) prohibited under the Geneva protocol even in times of war.
- "difficult for police to determine": this suggests that because the job is difficult, the police have leeway to indiscriminately punish whomever is nearby.
Again - I understand why you'd make the argument you made, but the fatal flaw is that it is founded on an utterly dystopian premise. The response from police across the country is unjustified, and a rank violation of everything that Americans supposedly hold dear.
But yeah, 100% same page, especially with regard to tear gas.
So seeking confrontation is the problem from both sides. Some people want to protest, some want to confront. And the police prepare for worst case ... which means confrontation which escalates...
Then you have opportunists who just want a fight .
Domestic abusers (not always people prone to violence) are sent to classes and often get in the same situation again, even after training and knowing the legal consequences.
Sure, it's hard to overcome instincts, but it's far from impossible, and most of the police that have been actively creating these problems haven't even started trying.
"2-54. Scalable effects concepts are a measured approach in response to a crowd gathering. By recognizing a use-of-force policy, soldiers must be taught and understand that they use the minimum force necessary. Without the appearance of a graduated response, the gathering crowd may consider actions as excessive, causing a possible escalation of hostilities or violence."
Then again, even within the LE world, the information is available, eg https://www.chirontraining.com
Miller has some thoughts on the sheepdog metaphor: http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2017/11/sheepdogs.html
(he has thoughts on lots of things, up to and including how to deescalate when one is amped on adrenaline. I sometimes think that in a more just world, he'd have been an academic intellectual, but am glad that in ours, he choose his parents poorly, and wound up working in law enforcement —due to a financial glass ceiling— otherwise we'd probably have no one who is both familiar with the problems LE practitioners face and has the inclination to theorise upon how the approaches might be improved)
'Couper, the creator of the Madison Method, said, “It’s this whole attitude of, ‘We keep order because we kick ass, and it’s us against them.’ (...) We've got to root those people out and say, ‘Look, this is the job that we expect. This is how a democracy is policed. If you can't buy into it. I'm sorry. You just have to find another job.’”'
I would like to RTFA soon, but just glancing at this, I'll agree with it. I thought to myself that if I were a peaceful protester that got a real taste of police brutality like I've seen online, I would make sure I was out every day, and I would be a lot more angry than I am as someone who "just" cares about civil rights.
Now add in the fact that governments have used the virus as a way to shutdown protests. Hong Kong? Gaza? Albania? Sudan? Yellow vests? BLM? Venezuela?
Unprecedented amounts of unemployment means people can get out and protest and they've been couped up for how long? They'll be getting out to protest.
We are in the spring, wait until the summer and fall. It's going to be huge; and then the US election happens between turd sandwich and giant douche.
1. The "broken windows" fallacy taken to its extreme:
> The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
Police see themselves as the "thin blue line" between chaos and social order, and believe that they must put down and resistence, immediately, decisively, and violently.
But, this is a fallacy. In NYC, for example, major crimes fell when the NYPD stopped is "proactive policing" policy.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti...
2. Militarization. The police are no longer trained to "protect and serve;" they're trained to occupy and battle. They see citizens as the enemy, and treat them as such. They are being told to "dominate the battlespace," which is what you say about an enemy you want to destroy, not a community you want to protect.
This extends to their equipment, as well. There are too many SWAT teams, too many tanks, too many tools of violence, and when you have those tools, they will be used. Part of this is because of government budgeting - if you don't use it, why should they give you more money - and part of this is because we have fetishised violent police action.
A lot of this started with COPS, but "police being action heroes" is an entire genre of reality TV now. You can find videos of the police officers gleefully destroying buildings because a suspect might be inside.
3. Personal immunity. Police face no repercussions for their actions. If a police office targets the wrong house, tosses a flashbang into a baby's crib, and shoots the mother ... nothing happens. There is no justice, there is no recourse. Police are violent because they can be violent, with impunity.
This is driven in large part by police unions, who make it essentially impossible to fire a police officer, even for the worst behavior.
4. Personality. The job of police officer attracts the kind of person who should not be a police officer. People who want power over others, people who want a license to use violence, simply cannot be trusted with that power.
This issue is greatly compounded by the above points; if you take someone with violent fantasies, give them military grade weaponry, teach them that their neighbors are an enemy who will murder them with the slightest provocation,and tell them that they will never face any consequences for their actions, what do you expect to happen?
I waited until he got out and I asked him "No mask?" to which he replied "Why?" and I said "The sign says No Mask, No Service" (and everybody else was wearing one) and this asshole replies "I wasn't buying anything." I laughed at him and drove off.
And you're so proud of that interaction that you are posting it in a comment on HN right now?
For all you know the officer was called into the store for an urgent matter.
Be kind to others, and you'll lead a much happier and fulfilling life.
Yep. It's not a personal choice though... it's well-known that wearing masks prevents the spread of disease.
How is it that you are ignorant of this fact?
> And you're so proud of that interaction that you are posting it in a comment on HN right now?
That's what you got out of that?? Okay...
You seem to be having trouble differentiating a plain description of a brief interaction with a cop who was clearly in the wrong with "pride".
> For all you know the officer was called into the store for an urgent matter.
Too urgent to take 2 seconds to put a mask on for everybody's safety???? When he wasn't running into the store? That's not urgent...
Sorry buddy, but you're clearly wrong. Perhaps you should re-think your position.
> Mind your own business, be kind to others, and you'll lead a much happier and fulfilling life.
I'm white, I live in a great neighborhood, I got a huge house, a pool, a boat, 3 cars, my job is very fulfilling, I make 6 figures working full-time from home doing something I love... my family is wonderful, I have hobbies, friends, I travel... thanks for your concern, but I'm not sure how much happier I can get, lol ;)
I'm honestly doing so well and my life is so easy that I feel guilty at times.
Sorry that you got triggered by this. Perhaps you should consider taking your own advice? Please do... thanks.
Obviously you know you were in the wrong, which is why you just wrote so much defending your position. So I'll leave it at that.
Enjoy your huge house and 3 cars. I am glad that they make you happy.
My state has also mandated that everybody wears masks in public places, so it's actually against the law right now...
Care to keep going? I'll be right here...
Enjoy your cars! :)
Mostly I enjoy having a nice conversation. Thanks so much for making this a pleasant one.
You listed primarily material things that make you happy which made me feel poorly for you.
Laughing at and judging total strangers then bragging about it on the internet though... my bad... you sound like a real nice wholesome human being!
Maybe you'll feel even better if you call 2 random strangers an asshole on the internet tomorrow, or 4?!
Good luck! You're gonna need it!
You're just focusing on the material things because you want to think bad things about me, since you're quite obviously a miserable person and you want everybody to feel that way.
Not gonna happen friend :) It's too nice of a day today!
> Laughing at and judging total strangers then bragging about it on the internet though...
Cops are public figures. Bragging did not happen, an interaction was plainly described. You can keep trying to twist it... enjoying your downvotes I guess?
You almost ended on a pretty good note, but I see that not having the last word is going to be a challenge for you...
Honestly, I have no problem continuing to respond to your delusional comments in an effort to help you adjust your ego and your incorrect views. I'll check back in a few hours.
(EDIT: I'm just wondering - as such a good wholesome, moral person as you are - is this what you call "minding your own business"?? Trying to ram your opinion down some random persons throat? For 2 days?? As I ponder this... yes, I laugh - that's a given when confronted with such a high level of neuroticism, but I'm also actually thankful for all the entertainment that you've provided to me.)
Who are the rioters? The cops.
The US is a plutocracy: it's a country governed largely by the rich, through lobbying, gerrymandering, and a constant information war to convert the least intelligent voters to their side. There's a reason why people who are bad at evaluating facts objectively and often believe in conspiracy theories, and also those who are rich, tend to vote for one particular side.
Most of us believe it's not how it should be.
And it's definitely not what the law says it is.
I'm in favour of direct digital democracy, rather than powerful politicians who refuse to act.
King (Martin, not Rodney) said[1] "[a]ll we say to America is to be true to what you said on paper".
Kennedy suggested[2] a world "where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved".
If he were alive today, I'm sure JFK would have half a mind to ask "how could you elect such a schoolyahd president?"
[1] https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/ive...
[2] https://nationalcenter.org/KennedyInaugural.html (incidentally, Earl Warren has an interesting history; he once became Governor of California by winning both the D and R primaries)
My point was that in many cases, the police are not even making it up to that standard. They are breaking the law and their own rules in order to punish the protesters for daring to challenge their (the police's) perceived right to be above the law.
But yes, safety gear as a backup.
Wear safety glasses, but if a police officer hits you and takes out your eye, it's still their fault.
I agree with you that wearing safety gear might be a great idea. That still says something terrible about the American police system, and it shouldn't be necessary.