Minneapolis Social Injustice and Related

[e-RICHIE]

And of course a typical response to this will be what is essentially blackmail by the police:

They'll say "So, you don't want police to protect you? OK, we won't protect you, and we'll see how you like it."

As if a society's only choices are 1) Total mob rub by the rioters, or 2) Acquiesce to whatever heavy-handed tactics, including murder, the police chose to use.

If they view that as protecting me, fuck them.

[Sbti]

Probably a bunker weekend for Bunker Bitch. Big protests planned for D.C. Just keep the Twitler machine going and the hamberders coming.

[Mabouya]

Probably a bunker weekend for Bunker Bitch. Big protests planned for D.C.

After all, it's been several days since he last "inspected" it - need to verify that it's still in good condition and that the dehumidifier is working.

[Matthew Strongin]

After all, it's been several days since he last "inspected" it - need to verify that it's still in good condition and that the dehumidifier is working.

He’ll be in for a treat if he ventures outside.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...bbd_story.html

[vertical_doug]

As Trump Rekindles N.F.L. Fight, Goodell Sides With Players
The president tweeted to say it was disrespectful to kneel during the national anthem, as Colin Kaepernick and other players began doing in 2016 to protest racial injustice. N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell then said the league supported players peacefully protesting.

The protracted debate in the N.F.L. over players protesting racial injustice during the national anthem reignited with force on Friday as President Trump rekindled his war with the league over the issue and the league’s commissioner, Roger Goodell, issued his strongest support yet for the players seeking to fight racism and police brutality.

In an swift response to a video montage featuring star players asking the league to address systemic racism, Goodell said he apologized for not listening to the concerns of African-American players earlier and said he supports the players’ right to protest peacefully. During the 2016 season, Colin Kaepernick started the movement within the league when he knelt to call attention to racial injustice and violence by police, but no team has offered him a contract since then.

Goodell’s comments were diametrically opposed to those of the president, who defended New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, who said this week that it was disrespectful to kneel during the pregame playing of the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

After immediate rebuke from fellow N.F.L. players, including some of his teammates, Brees apologized on Thursday. But the president said on Twitter that Brees should not have bowed to pressure and everyone should stand when the national anthem is played.

“We should be standing up straight and tall, ideally with a salute, or a hand on heart,” the president wrote. “There are other things you can protest, but not our Great American Flag — NO KNEELING!”

Trump first attacked the N.F.L. over protests during the national anthem in September 2017. During a campaign rally, he called on owners to fire any players who knelt during the anthem, and used a vulgarity to describe quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started the movement when he knelt through the previous season to call attention to racial injustice and police brutality.

Kaepernick adopted the kneeling gesture on the advice of a former Green Beret he had met, who suggested it would be a respectful way to call attention to his cause.
A spokesman for the N.F.L. declined to comment on the president’s comments about Brees and the national anthem.

he president’s admonishment comes as the N.F.L., like the rest of the country, grapples with how to respond to the killings of black Americans at the hands of police, and to the protests that have engulfed the nation for nearly two weeks since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

More than any other major sports league, the N.F.L. has wrestled in recent years with the issue of race, the lack of African Americans and other people of color in positions of power in the league and the rights of players to protest social issues on the field. While three-quarters of the league’s players are African-American, nearly every owner is white and several of the most prominent owners are strong supporters of the president.

In this latest wave of civil unrest, many players, coaches and owners have spoken out against racism, and have pledged to become more involved in finding solutions.

Last Saturday, Roger Goodell was the first big league commissioner to issue a statement of concern in response to Floyd’s death, but his words were panned as hypocritical because of the league owners’ rejection of Kaepernick, who has not found another job in the league since the end of the 2016 season.

On Thursday, some of the league’s biggest stars, including Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, released a video calling on the league to condemn the oppression of black people and to apologize for not supporting players who protested peacefully.

Soon after, Goodell responded with his own video, in which he expressed his strongest and most specific support for the demands and goals of African-American players. In the one minute, 21-second video, the commissioner condemned the oppression of black people, apologized for not listening to the concerns of African-American players and encouraged the league’s athletes to protest peacefully.

After offering his condolences to “the families who have endured police brutality,” Goodell said that “We, the National Football League, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people.”

In an apparent allusion to Kaepernick, who settled a grievance with the league last year in which he accused it of blackballing him because of his political protests, Goodell added: “We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to N.F.L. players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest.”

“We, the National Football League, believe Black lives matter,” he added. “I personally protest with you and want to be a part of the much-needed change in this country. Without black players, there would be no National Football League.”

In earlier statements, Goodell has pointed to the league’s social activism campaign, Inspire Change, which has donated tens of millions of dollars to groups working in communities and pushing for the eradication of social injustice.

But given the political volatility of the issue of the national anthem, Goodell’s statement in support of peaceful protests could inflame the relationship between the league and the president, who has used the issue of protests during the national anthem to galvanize his supporters.

After the president first criticized the N.F.L. for not cracking down on protesters, owners voted to tighten the league’s policy to prohibit players from kneeling during the national anthem. After the N.F.L. Players Association filed a grievance to reverse the policy, the league backed off and has never penalized a player for protesting.

Now, Goodell has spoken in support of the players’ right to protest and many more players have publicly called for the need for action against racism and police brutality. Some players, including running back Adrian Peterson, have already said they intend to kneel during the national anthem this coming season, which does not begin until September.

While the commissioner has pledged to listen and “move forward together for a better and more united N.F.L. family,” he will have to convince owners, broadcasters, sponsors and fans who are uncomfortable with player protests, experts said.

“What he needs to articulate to people who buy commercials and own teams and anyone who might push back against the players is, are there things they are doing that are negative?” said Charles K. Ross, the author of “Outside the Lines: African Americans and the Integration of the N.F.L.” “You can also stand up to individuals who are going to push back and remind them we have the First Amendment.”

[monadnocky]

The story gets worse, and certainly helps expose one of the fundamental causes of police violence against unarmed civilians.
Normally I'm a big union supporter, but it's clear (and has been so for years) that police unions are nothing but enablers of totally inappropriate thuggish behavior.

Buffalo police riot squad quit to back officers who shoved man - BBC News

"These officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square" wrote the president of the police union.

I thought the "following orders" defense went out of fashion long ago. So completely freaking tone deaf.

Take some goddamn responsibility for once in your life. Just once.

[Mabouya]

"These officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square" wrote the president of the police union.

I thought the "following orders" defense went out of fashion long ago. So completely freaking tone deaf.

With apologies to Mike Godwin, it didn't work at Nuremberg, and I assume it won't work today.

[monadnocky]

^^^^ It occurred to me. Just .... again, so incredibly tone deaf.

[Sbti]

Nuremberg

If you've got nothing else to do, watch this. Great story of a guy who was there.

[theflashunc]

With apologies to Mike Godwin, it didn't work at Nuremberg, and I assume it won't work today.

These jabronis know those convicted at Nuremberg were hung right? Jesus Christ is every cop a mole person?

[Clean39T]

I came here to post this.

Here's the twitter thread, including a video of the assualt:

Twitter

Yes, it's assault - he physically grabbed the girl's arm.

If you follow the thread, you find that he was quickly identified via Strava.

Sure, passions are high - but this guy is trash.

He's been arrested. See, there is a role for cops to play in our society - arresting people who are guilty.. Novel thing that.

[guido]

Fuji suspends bike sales to US police after violence against protestors | Cyclingnews

BikeCo., the North American distributor for Fuji Bicycles, have issued a statement declaring that the sale of Fuji bikes to police forces has been suspended following numerous incidents in which bikes have been weaponised against protestors around the USA.

Protests have erupted in the country and in other cities around the world after George Floyd was killed by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota in late May. Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd's neck for over eight minutes, has since been charged with second-degree murder, and tbree other officers who were also kneeling on the 46-year-old, have been charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.

Around the United States, police have met the protests – against police brutality and systemic racism, and for justice for Floyd – with countless incidents of violence against largely unarmed civilian protestors. Coverage of the protests has caught on camera police firing rubber bullets and using tear gas and pepper spray against protestors, and in some cases even driving cars into crowds.

Additionally, there have been numerous incidents of police officers using their bicycles to beat back protestors. BikeCo. have stated that the tactics used by police forces has been "unacceptable" and far from their intended purpose.

[Corso]

And of course a typical response to this will be what is essentially blackmail by the police:

They'll say "So, you don't want police to protect you? OK, we won't protect you, and we'll see how you like it."

As if a society's only choices are 1) Total mob rub by the rioters, or 2) Acquiesce to whatever heavy-handed tactics, including murder, the police chose to use.

Or 3) start obeying the laws. Folks here seem more pissed off at the President's photo op in front of the church, than at the arsons who actually torched the historic place!

The elephant in the room is once again, people who CHOOSE to break the law. Break the law, you get cops. Riot, you get riot cops. Burn big plus violent acts towards cops, you get national guard.

Cut the violence, and you decrease police presence. But that's not what they really want. They want conflict and social media vids. Provoking to get cops behaving badly. Endless circle.

[mjbabcock]

Your unidirectional causal model is a gross oversimplification and your history of disinterest in alternate lines of thought means this doesn’t merit the time needed to paint a more accurate picture.

[Corso]

Your unidirectional causal model is a gross oversimplification and your history of disinterest in alternate lines of thought means this doesn’t merit the time needed to paint a more accurate picture.

"disinterest in alternate lines of thought" sounds like a self examination.

I still believe in laws. We have them for a reason. Some think the violence and property destruction is "ok" as long as it's not anything they own.

I'm not starting a debate here. Just getting down to basics. Oversimplification? Yes, I guess you are right. Sometimes it does come down to basics.

[monadnocky]

Or 3) start obeying the laws. Folks here seem more pissed off at the President's photo op in front of the church, than at the arsons who actually torched the historic place!

The elephant in the room is once again, people who CHOOSE to break the law. Break the law, you get cops. Riot, you get riot cops. Burn big plus violent acts towards cops, you get national guard.

Cut the violence, and you decrease police presence. But that's not what they really want. They want conflict and social media vids. Provoking to get cops behaving badly. Endless circle.

First, let's get away from the word "obey." It smacks of Kohlberg's pre-conventional morality. Hell, the whole post does. The law is not the end-all and be-all of moral decision making or moral authority. Throughout time, there have been individuals who - peacefully, or when necessarily, violently - have broken "laws" due to their inherently unjust or oppressive nature. I cannot imagine that anyone, besides those stuck in a Stage 1 obedience-and-punishment Kohlbergian orientation, would argue that those individuals we hold as models of morally righteous resistance (MLK, White Rose in Nazi Germany, Gandhi, even Jesus) should not have "broken the law."

Break the law, you get cops. Let's hope so. Let's hope you get good, capable, kind cops who are properly trained. I broke the law a few weeks ago when I was pulled over for going too fast on Route 89. The officer was friendly, I felt zero fear, and I was let off with a warning. I was acutely aware throughout the whole exchange that it would be a very, very different scenario if I was afraid, and as a psychologist I know how fear and post-traumatic response can look. And for police not sufficiently trained, such a response can look oppositional (god forbid!) or even threatening. And those who have darker skin color than I have very, very good reason to be afraid of the police. Just listen to their experience! They are not all making it up!

How about I, as a white guy, gather some of my friends with weapons of war and march to the local state house and purposely intimidate with lethal force? Do I get national guard? Or even the police? Nah, we get accolades from the top down as freedom fighters protecting law and order.

To say that "they want conflict and social media vids" ... well, perhaps some of that may be the proximate goal. But the ultimate goal is social justice and the opportunity to live in the world where you don't get the life stomped out of you because of an accusation that you passed a counterfeit $20 bill.

Look up Kohlberg's "Heinz dilemma." Lemme know how you think of "breaking the law" after this very simple scenario.

[caleb]

And of course a typical response to this will be what is essentially blackmail by the police:

They'll say "So, you don't want police to protect you? OK, we won't protect you, and we'll see how you like it."

As if a society's only choices are 1) Total mob rub by the rioters, or 2) Acquiesce to whatever heavy-handed tactics, including murder, the police chose to use.

Two paraphrases from the local Minneapolis Twittersphere in the last 48 hours. (Not my tweets.)

1) No, we don't want a world without police. We want a world where a nearly $200,000,000 public safety budget buys us responsive public servants who don't murder the citizenry.

2) I'm a Minneapolis nurse. I restrain large/drunk/high/violent people all the time with very little training. It's not fun, but I haven't killed anyone yet. Why can't the police - who are supposed to be pros at this - do the same?

[j44ke]

Corso is correct when he says that there are some people in the protests who feel that damaging property is an extension of their act of protest. And that if this is done in protest, then it is somehow excused. In fact, they may feel that anything they do during the act of protesting is legitimized by the authenticity of the wrong they are protesting against. The validity of their cause excuses the illegality of their act.

Similarly there are cops who believe that once someone has committed a crime, they deserve whatever comes to them in the process of apprehension and arrest. And they believe that any transgression should be met with comprehensively dominant action. And that the righteousness of the mission they have been sworn to pursue allows for the escalation of physical confrontation in order to complete their mission and the choice of whatever tactics are most expedient at the moment.

Neither one of those groups are right. There are limits on both groups that while perhaps inconvenient restraints in the moment, they are very important restraints in a democracy. Failure to abide by them should result in consequences that are fair and equitably applied.

[chasea]

Talking about property damage in response to murder is saying “all laws matter.”

[mjbabcock]

So...how many folks show up to protest in DC today?
I’ll set the over/under at 200k.