We Reviewed Police Tactics Seen in Nearly 400 Protest Videos
projects.propublica.org
projects.propublica.org
In general we witness at least one incident of police brutality almost weekly for months now. The frequency has been increased to almost daily lately not to mention passing a law that essentially curtails demonstrations and gives even more authority to police on them. I'm in fact quite surprised that none of these have been covered to almost no extent in international news.
The irony is that all this is coming at a period when Greeks barely demonstrate at all. The vast majority just seems to have accepted their fate, i.e. economic misery ad infinitum, and it's been like that for years now. So, I'm guessing this has to do with a special agenda of the relatively new right-wing govt. Who knows. Fact of the matter is that policemen != protectors.
I believe it is a sign of deep rot of western democracies that police is the most dangerous thing you can happen upon in a number of western "democratic" countries.
People who care about this issue have been analyzing police use of force for decades. You can find people saying basically what I just said above going at least as far back as the 1990s. The problem is well known.
It might be well known to those who have experienced, witnessed, or study the subject. But there are still plenty of people who deny these claims or are unaware.
And regarding this quote:
> Law enforcement experts stressed that viral protest videos, while visceral, only show a moment in time and may miss what officers were facing outside of the frame.
Isn't that what body cameras are for? If we only have one source of video, then it's hard for police to justify saying, "That wasn't the whole story."
I have read that this was the case for the Rodney King incident, where the public watched a short clip on the news and got one impression, and the jury watched a longer video, which gave them a different view. The longer video was available, but not aired on TV.
There are dozens of similar incidents from the period since the protests started that don't matter if they were "taken out of context"—the actions themselves, no matter their context, are reprehensible from any institution that is supposed to be "serving and protecting" the people.
My points were about our current social-media situation, where we have vast amounts of information, and people are able to filter it through their lens of choice.
Anyways, I just assume by full context they mean something like "you gotta show those n______ and bums who is boss or they might get uppity".
Examples, please
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/max-benson-el-dorado-california...
There's another difference as well. Help was called for George Floyd before he died. It was established that the California Youth Protection Service did not call any help whatsoever for this child until 30 minutes after he died.
Note that this kid was not even suspected of committing a crime. Not then, not ever. To me, that this happens calls into question why institutions like this are allowed to exist at all.
But that means that we should also fix the problems with those institutions, not that we should just allow the police to continue to operate with impunity, no matter their abuses.
It may be a long, hard road, but ultimately I believe we can have a safer, kinder, more just society as a result.
And of course 0% of kids in youth protection facilities are convicted of a crime (they would be somewhere else if that were the case). Youth protection services don't "take up slack for the police" at all ...
Actually from what I've gathered right here on HN over the years, lack of footage is actually the problem.
Police simply refuse to release footage. Excuses typically used include:
* It's evidence
* Releasing the video could danger the lives of officers
* We're reviewing it as part of an internal investigation (which would take months)
Also read of an instance where a civilian was allowed to watch footage from police cam but was barred from recording or taking notes from the video.
On a side note, police officers are civilians; pretending they are military or paramilitary officers is dangerous.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bod...
Source?
The new policy comes after Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an executive order requiring the cameras to be used during demonstrations.
The Seattle Police Department has been outfitted with body-worn cameras since 2017 but a longstanding policy designed to protect the privacy of peaceful protestors prevented officers from using cameras during the demonstrations of the past two weeks.
That policy was written in consultation with civil rights groups, like the ACLU, that worry body cameras could make it easier for police to track and target protesters, particularly in communities of color that have a history of over-surveillance."
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/seattle-police-will-use-body-c...
https://www.cnet.com/news/police-body-cameras-at-protests-ra...
"Several major cities, including Seattle, Boston, New York and Minneapolis, have specific policies against police recording with body cameras at protests.
Protesters have long been worried about surveillance at demonstrations, the latest twist being police use of technology like facial recognition and social media monitoring to identify people in crowds. Using body cameras as surveillance tools at protests threaten people's privacy and could have a chilling effect on free speech."
https://www.cnet.com/news/police-body-cameras-at-protests-ra...
"“If you're standing there in that skirmish line, and somebody's throwing something at you, is it really up to you to be figuring out whether it's gasoline or whether it's metal, or whether it's water or whether it's acid?”"
His use of military terminology ("skirmish line") is telling.
The terrible (and currently true) idea that the police are exempt from assault and battery laws is so widespread that people don’t seem to notice how biased they are. The police need to be held to a higher standard, as public servants, but the first step is just holding them to the same laws as everyone else that say you don’t get to arbitrarily pepper spray or beat anyone you feel like.
Contempt of cop is not a crime, and cops retaliating violently should be tossed in the same hellish system they force others into for breaking the law. There is no equal protection in practice so long as one group can attack and harm anyone they wish under the guise of their job title.
They’re already entirely exempt from gun controls that apply to the rest of society; if they aren’t restrained from illegal activity by legal process, then the situation is indistinguishable on a practical level from military dictatorship.
'Skirmish line', to my knowledge, has no accepted non-military uses, but even if it did the interviewee is clearly referring to the military formation and therefore considering the protesters to be hostile enemies.
They are also taught that the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR) is the safest way to restraint someone. The truth is, that it is not. It is stupid to believe that cutting blood supply to someone's brain is safe. LVNR is a scam that nobody actually believes in but everyone is silent about it because it is a plausible excuse to kill people.
http://www.nletc.com/lateral-vascular-neck-restraint-lvnr
> Result: No death, injury or litigation for excessive use of force for 40 years against agencies using the certified Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR®) System!
No death, injury or litigation? Bullshit. It only resulted in 1 month of protests and billions of dollars lost.
> The LVNR® is the number one law enforcement system of neck restraint --standing, kneeling or on the ground. If your agency is now using or considering the use of neck restraints for officer safety and subject control, then the copyrighted and US Patent Office registered NLETC/KCMO PD LVNR® is the one method you need to assess. It has been extensively field and medically tested and has proven to be safer, more effective, and less controversial than any other known neck restraint method. That is why the NLETC/KCMO PD LVNR® is the predominant method of neck control, and is now being adopted nationwide by those law enforcement agencies that teach ground defense/control systems.
> Agencies and trainers should avoid the use of single-level, or time limit approved neck restraint methods since their use has resulted in all the claims of excessive force, death, and resultant litigation involving neck restraint use. Combined arm, neck and body controls are not as effective for most officers as the direct, rear, neck-specific compression which requires minimum physical effort for LVNR® vs. maximum physical exertion for other methods. Our statistics show that 50% of all subjects will cease resistance at Level One with low-level compression on the sides of the neck; 25% will comply at Level Two with medium compression on the neck; and the other 25% will comply at Level Three or be rendered unconscious in 4 to 7 seconds. Result: No death, injury or litigation for excessive use of force for 40 years against agencies using the certified Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR®) System!
> The NLETC is the sole-source provider for the LVNR® System. No other training provider is entitled to teach the LVNR® System to user agencies or to include the term LVNR® as their own when teaching other neck restraint systems. Contact the NLETC if you plan to adopt the LVNR® System.
> Two Fort Wayne police officers were seriously injured during a training session on the lateral vascular neck restraint, a doctor who evaluated the men said Thursday.
> Dr. Bill Smock, police surgeon at the Louisville Metro Police Department in Kentucky, said he traveled to Fort Wayne to examine the officers Tuesday after he was contacted by the Allen County prosecutor’s office.
> Smock said both officers suffered serious injuries and that one officer’s family is calling his injuries a stroke. The officers were injured Monday, Smock said.
The cops involved wanted him to pass out but killed him instead.
In law enforcement, the cop is both fighter and referee. And the decision to get paramedics and when to get them also belongs to the cop.
Imagine a Jiu-Jitsu competition where you were fighting one or multiple referees, where they were armed with both lethal and non-lethal weapons. Now, imagine all those referees belonged to a union that maintains a code of silence in case they break the rules. Imagine that once you lose the match, they can continue beating you down and never call paramedics. That would be a closer comparison.
Blood chokes can kill if sustained, and they are not safe to perform on random people. No other police force in the world requires such an agressive use of chokeholds.
Even if you solved the chokehold problem you would be still left with: excessive force, blatant inefficiency, racism, arrest quotas, rapists, stupid legislation, lack of accountability, inadequate training, plus a complete lack of proportionality and common sense... A complete shitshow. Plus a fucking passive aggresive portion of the citizenry that uses 911 to harass minorities.
And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee. They're just another fighter. And if they lose, there's no ref to stop the person from seriously hurting or killing them. Combine this with the fact that most cops are just average people with little to no hand to hand combat experience, aside from a few confidence booster sessions at the police academy.
I think cops deserve a lot of criticism. But let's make it constructive criticism. If we're going to take something out of their toolbox, let's at least clearly define realistic tools they can use.
This is a good point that goes over some of the misconceptions that people may have about the level of training and proficiency of police.
>I think cops deserve a lot of criticism. But let's make it constructive criticism.
Or at least logically consistent criticism
Maybe, but then the point is that the referee is their friend. If I go and punch a police officer, I'm going to the jail. If the police officer comes and punches me out of nothing, good luck having a fair investigation and trial. The police department will cover their actions, avoid releasing the information they have. Maybe the officer face cannot be seen on the available footage because they have a full helmet and the police department refuses to say their name, so the judge cannot (or does not want) judge them guilty on the ground we cannot be sure who they are. I don't have all these protections, but they do. This means that have effectively become the referee as well.
I'm totally in favour of giving the police the exclusive usage of force when this is required, but they should as well stand the responsibility of its misuse. Nowadays they get the former but not the latter, and this is terribly unfair.
I see lots of people saying cops shouldn't be allowed to use chokes, but they never provide a reasonable alternative. I'd rather see cops using chokeholds than shooting unarmed people.
What's wrong with these people?
And, I'm not much into video editing, but I've done a little graphic design practice. I think 'disorientation' is par for the course when you're not playing a video at constant speed. That's an unsettling thought--the webpage authors are taking advantage of the UX's disorientation effect to heighten the emotion of the video content.
I watched all of these videos and they certainly don't need any additional emotive effects. I had the feeling that I was sharing the privileged insight of the 'experts' observations with the narrative callouts and graphics to pace my consumption.
I looked at The NY Times mega page of videos posted earlier. Watching one video after the other was brutal. And it was my own doing. I just jumped from one video to the next. click. click. click. and feeling worse and worse and worse.
Unsurprisingly some of the techniques required are a little counter-intuitive which is interesting when weighed into public opinion or uninformed politicians etc. Naturally, the most effective techniques techniques don't involve violence.
Police have arresting power, so if non-police assault them they will simply arrest or kill them immediately, largely without the possibility of facing any consequences. Thousands have been arrested at protests in the last couple of months.
The non-police public have no such powers, and in fact even with video evidence will almost never see justice for police brutality. There is a huge violence problem here and it lies almost entirely on one side.
Antifa were shining lasers at the cops eyes.
Also, one loud rioter was calling out individual officers promising them that they would find out where they live and kill them and their families.
Good times.
21st Century Marxists focus on exacerbating all of the fault lines in society they can find. Old school techniques that relied on economic disparity didn't work in the West.
The West doesn't have serfs like Russia and China did so 20th Century Communism didn't take. Also, most Western countries were rich enough and democratic so they could implement reforms that answered many of the 20th century communist charges without requiring a Marxist revolution.
Today, Marxists focus on anything and everything that can divide, including economic issues.
As soon as Trump leaves office, the mass media will flip to supporting the President (assuming he or she is not GOP) and all this will die down.
The media already seems to recognize that antifa is not helping their cause so they do not report honestly on the violence in Portland. As soon as the US has a Democratic Party President, antifa will be re-branded as rioters or anarchists. In the mean time they are lionized as defenders of freedom.
Note, I don't think this latest Marxist action will change America, any more than the earlier attempts.
And then people are surprised at the news articles about officers covering up their badge numbers(which are public record)?
> 20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car.
Of the 400 videos, how many of them were this type of situation? I would guess 3 or fewer. This isn't a representative scenario.
> Can you tell me how you would respond?
People (police or otherwise) who aren't trained will respond in any number of inappropriate ways. Your argument is basically just justification for police to act inappropriately anytime they encounter a situation for which they haven't been explicitly trained. We don't pay police departments 40% of all municipal revenues to put untrained people on the street to act in completely unprofessional ways towards the same people who pay their paychecks, retirement, union dues, medical bills, and department lawsuits.
Actually check that. Apparently we do and those departments settle for billions of USD per year in legal settlements. The problem is that the officers largely aren't held accountable -- but the taxpayers frequently are. Moral hazard.
> Sit there and wait for them to assault you?
Professional police have a whole belt full of tools, a radio (to 40,000 other officers in NYC), a megaphone, a long gun, a short gun, and frequently a tazer.
Also, why is an officer in a car surrounded by angry citizens? Because someone in the same uniform mistreated their brother/father/son/husband/etc. Police have a lot of ability to de-escalate the problems before they happen, but they aren't doing it. Instead, police {departments, chiefs, unions, officers, wives} are pointing at violent protesters as if violent protesters have no incentive or excuse to be angry at police.
And while we're at it, shouldn't your logic be equally used against officers who assault civilians? Why shouldn't the entire country support civilians defending themselves against officers who use "extralegal" force? (rhetorical question)
Why do we all need to conform to every order from every police officer, even, and sometimes especially, when that order is unlawful?
When the police are using unlawful orders to escalate violence, and then justify that violence by asserting that one was not complying with their order, which was unlawful, or otherwise stated illegal, is that not wrong?
I do not believe that any law, or logic, supports a situation in which anyone must "do what [they are] told" in this context. This argument can be restated as "do what I say, no matter what, or die". This is pure terror enacted by the state against its population.
Lighthouses don’t.
The sum of the final argument is “I believe that you should do whatever the gunman says, so much so that I don’t care if they kill you”, directed at a commenter here.
In the story, the admiral is conceited about his position so much so that he believes that he has the right not to understand the situation. Which is exactly why the commenter is in the stated position about the "righteousness" of their argument.
Without it, how are people supposed to demonstrate about things they want the government to change? How can democracy function?