[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Timsup2nothin]

Watching LA 92 on Netflix.

Crazy.

LA 92...lacks context. You should read up on the Rampart scandal. Rampart was kind of the original "blue gang." They ran their own drug dealing operations, using their positions with LAPD as cover for necessary "enforcement of turf" that made their drug operations hugely profitable (since they were sourcing the dope by robbing other dealers) and tremendously bloody since whatever their excesses they never got investigated. They were terrorizing the city for years before the riots and continued for years after the riots. The riots were a flash over in a long era of lawless cops and futility, however, the reforms after the riots eventually created the pressure that broke Rampart.

It was rough though, no doubt about it. Unlike the current situation there was no questioning about the cops "holding back and allowing the looting to happen" because the looting was really just out of frustration because the rioters couldn't find the cops. There was a sense on the streets that the cops would get off the rounds they got off and people were gonna get shot, but those mobs wanted the cops. They'd take losses, but there were gonna be dead cops if they had anything to say about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is also a lie

Like you're surprised? Thanks for the chart though. I had just assumed based on source.

 

[Zardnaar]

LA 92...lacks context. You should read up on the Rampart scandal. Rampart was kind of the original "blue gang." They ran their own drug dealing operations, using their positions with LAPD as cover for necessary "enforcement of turf" that made their drug operations hugely profitable (since they were sourcing the dope by robbing other dealers) and tremendously bloody since whatever their excesses they never got investigated. They were terrorizing the city for years before the riots and continued for years after the riots. The riots were a flash over in a long era of lawless cops and futility, however, the reforms after the riots eventually created the pressure that broke Rampart.

It was rough though, no doubt about it. Unlike the current situation there was no questioning about the cops "holding back and allowing the looting to happen" because the looting was really just out of frustration because the rioters couldn't find the cops. There was a sense on the streets that the cops would get off the rounds they got off and people were gonna get shot, but those mobs wanted the cops. They'd take losses, but there were gonna be dead cops if they had anything to say about it.

I can't remember what they were called but I remember reading about LAPD death squads and crack cocaine epidemic in the 80s.

I vaguely remember the riots on TV. Was only 13.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't remember what they were called but I remember reading about LAPD death squads and crack cocaine epidemic in the 80s.

The CRASH unit. Anti gang task force run out of Rampart division. They were totally autonomous, really. Occasionally got into trouble when they killed other cops. Otherwise they just wrote up reports that were completely out of kilter with the facts and went on their way. When it all unraveled a bunch of them went to jail but the charges actually filed and tried were like a tip of an iceberg. No one knows how many "gang killings" they actually committed themselves. They did armed robberies on off hours of not only rival drug dealers; they hit banks, armored cars, you name it. They ran prostitution as well as the dealing, and extorted protection money from legal businesses right alongside the illegal businesses. Their home lives were totally savage, with domestic violence on the "hey we found your wife trying to get into a shelter so we brought her back to you" level being routine. One of them got in some minor scrape because in a road rage incident off duty he shot another off duty cop. He got off all charges and the city paid off the family.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If one looks at what's going in places like Columbus, even by the liberal logic, the police have quite evidently ignored the civil and elected authority:

Isn't it funny how the rhetoric of training is used against the liberals themselves? "See, we can't help it, we've just been trained to deploy tear gas in the academy!". No amount of training or reform can fix this - especially, considering the way that forces like the NYPD are a small army in themselves, and have resented even doing the counterinsurgency tactics of taking a knee, and hate Bill de Blasio, who is, in all respects, a spineless politician. Therefore, in fact, there's no time for that, anyway. You either restrain the cops, and you disperse with them, or you find yourself powerless, and eventually, replaced with someone who is willing to enable the police even further. This is how simple it is.

 

[Gorbles]

If police officers apparently cannot do their jobs without lobbing tear gas at people, that to me speaks to evidence of the systemic issues people have been pointing out about the police for pages now. Police, generally, existed prior to tear gas. To claim that crowd control is some kind of situation they weren't trained for (except by logging chemical agents at people) speaks volumes as to their training, as well as their own general self-improvement. Particularly if you consider the claim that "no officer wants to use tear gas". If no officer wants to use tear gas, and no officer was apparently trained in crowd control tactics aside from using said gas . . . but no officer raised this as an issue? Until the gas was taken away? This is problematic, yeah?

Self-defeating, almost. You can't claim you don't want to use tear gas, but be perfectly happy with that being the only way to enforce crowd control (until such a time that option is denied to you) . . . you are, in fact, perfectly fine with the use of tear gas. You evidently do not oppose it at all.

 

[Hrothbern]

If police officers apparently cannot do their jobs without lobbing tear gas at people, that to me speaks to evidence of the systemic issues people have been pointing out about the police for pages now. Police, generally, existed prior to tear gas. To claim that crowd control is some kind of situation they weren't trained for (except by logging chemical agents at people) speaks volumes as to their training, as well as their own general self-improvement. Particularly if you consider the claim that "no officer wants to use tear gas". If no officer wants to use tear gas, and no officer was apparently trained in crowd control tactics aside from using said gas . . . but no officer raised this as an issue? Until the gas was taken away? This is problematic, yeah?

Self-defeating, almost. You can't claim you don't want to use tear gas, but be perfectly happy with that being the only way to enforce crowd control (until such a time that option is denied to you) . . . you are, in fact, perfectly fine with the use of tear gas. You evidently do not oppose it at all.

Why are water cannons not used more in the US ?
Not nice at really close distance, but to disperse crowds at distance, it works fine. And yes that crowd will move all the time and concentrate again at other places. And so the skirmish goes on and on and on. But not as violent as tear gas and rubber bullets.

 

[Commodore]

If one looks at what's going in places like Columbus, even by the liberal logic, the police have quite evidently ignored the civil and elected authority:

View attachment 560409

Isn't it funny how the rhetoric of training is used against the liberals themselves? "See, we can't help it, we've just been trained to deploy tear gas in the academy!". No amount of training or reform can fix this - especially, considering the way that forces like the NYPD are a small army in themselves, and have resented even doing the counterinsurgency tactics of taking a knee, and hate Bill de Blasio, who is, in all respects, a spineless politician. Therefore, in fact, there's no time for that, anyway. You either restrain the cops, and you disperse with them, or you find yourself powerless, and eventually, replaced with someone who is willing to enable the police even further. This is how simple it is.

The arrogance and sense of entitlement that jackass has is almost cartoonish. What makes him think the police union, a group of unelected individuals, should be allowed to sit on a panel that has policy making authority?

In other news: The local government here in Cincinnati is having a meeting today to discuss "defunding the police" measures. The meeting was supposed to take place last week but was disrupted by protestors.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Why are water cannons not used more in the US ?
Not nice at really close distance, but to disperse crowds at distance, it works fine. And yes that crowd will move all the time and concentrate again at other places. And so the skirmish goes on and on and on. But not as violent as tear gas and rubber bullets.

Likely because they get free equipment from the military who obviously wouldn't have much need for crowd control water cannons. Un-ironically, I think it's as simple as that.

 

[Gorbles]

Why are water cannons not used more in the US ?
Not nice at really close distance, but to disperse crowds at distance, it works fine. And yes that crowd will move all the time and concentrate again at other places. And so the skirmish goes on and on and on. But not as violent as tear gas and rubber bullets.

No idea. We have them here in the UK, but there are also instances where they've been used inappropriately and people have suffered broken bones (among other injuries), so. Not specifically in the UK? It's hard to search for. Here's an article from the Guardian in 2014 where the Conservatives were looking into using them.

I dunno, I wouldn't recommend it in the US given the context!

EDIT - ninja'd. Bugfatty's logic makes a lot of sense

 

[Hrothbern]

No idea. We have them here in the UK, but there are also instances where they've been used inappropriately and people have suffered broken bones (among other injuries), so. Not specifically in the UK? It's hard to search for. Here's an article from the Guardian in 2014 where the Conservatives were looking into using them.

I dunno, I wouldn't recommend it in the US given the context!

EDIT - ninja'd. Bugfatty's logic makes a lot of sense

Short distance should be forbidden, but if you aim not downward at short distance, it should not happen by accident. Just restrict in mechanical way the elevation possible if police officers are of the "US context type".

Agree with your EDIT on Bugatti as lazy reason where politicians and mayors etc do avoid taking responsiblity and leave it all to the police force themselves

 

[Commodore]

Likely because they get free equipment from the military who obviously wouldn't have much need for crowd control water cannons. Un-ironically, I think it's as simple as that.

Can confirm. The main crowd control weapons we had were CS gas rounds and beanbag rounds. Both of which could be fired from an M203 grenade launcher attached to an M4/M16 rifle. MPs also have the standard riot shields and batons as well. And for larger crowds we have microwave weapons that don't cause any physical harm (that we know of) but make crowds they are pointed at feel like their skin is on fire.

 

[Bugfatty300]

No idea. We have them here in the UK, but there are also instances where they've been used inappropriately and people have suffered broken bones (among other injuries), so. Not specifically in the UK? It's hard to search for. Here's an article from the Guardian in 2014 where the Conservatives were looking into using them.

I dunno, I wouldn't recommend it in the US given the context!

EDIT - ninja'd. Bugfatty's logic makes a lot of sense

When I was a kid the fire department in my home town used to park a truck in a big field and turn a hose on for kids to play in. It seems a little reckless in retrospect but me and the dumber kids would have competitions to see who could get the closest to the nozzle. Even at low power and hundreds of feet away the water felt like needles. The closest I got was the point where it felt like your face was inches away from a raging fire.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This line of argument is a distraction from the real issue. The cops need to be completely reformed, disarmed, and re-trained, reduced in size/numbers. They are abusing the citizenry instead of protecting it, covering up for their abuses and avoiding all accountability, especially when it comes to their abuses of black people.

Trying to make the discussion about whether or not its "Trumps fault" and trying to shift blame to Obama, "The Democrats" etc., is a total red herring. The cops need to be called to account, period.

I agree with what you're saying, but you're being disingenuous about the red herring, or at least who you're blaming for the red herring. Berzerker was replying to comments (as I was earlier) that are putting the blame for all this at Trump's feet, or making claims that a vote for Trump is clearly a vote for continuing with this. You yourself just told the lie to this reasoning, which is also what Berzerker was doing.

I see we're defending the Klan again... QED

Oh... well if I'd stuck round a few more posts I would have seen the level of dishonesty you're stooping to, so never mind.

 

[aelf]

Oh boy. This will be good.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why are water cannons not used more in the US ?
Not nice at really close distance, but to disperse crowds at distance, it works fine. And yes that crowd will move all the time and concentrate again at other places. And so the skirmish goes on and on and on. But not as violent as tear gas and rubber bullets.

I wouldn't say that water cannons are more humane than tear gas. Both are terrible and will break the crowd, but the water cannon can also kill you if it sends you flying into a wall.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Berzerker was replying to comments (as I was earlier) that are putting the blame for all this at Trump's feet, or making claims that a vote for Trump is clearly a vote for continuing with this

Dude, a vote for Trump is definitely a vote to continue the status quo, only someone incredibly delusional or disengenuous could look at the GOP and think they're genuinely for any sort of meaningful police reform, again you're here in a topic that involves minorities and social justice posting in incredible bad faith.

Just come out and say what you really think rather than sniping away from the corner and departing as soon as someone challenges you.

Oh... well if I'd stuck round a few more posts I would have seen the level of dishonesty you're stooping to, so never mind.

The amount of leeway you give to conservatives leads me to believe that you are most likely, by your own posts, conservative leaning.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wait ... you're actually doubling down on this???

You really honestly think that KKK terrorists destroying a building that may or may not contain people in order to terrorize for the cause of white supremacy
is only a violent act because of the property destruction?

So what was the destruction of the World Trade Center? Illegal aircraft parking?

I mean damn...


Yeah I think this has to be a mental break down or some kind of weird confession to being a white supremacist.

God you people are disgusting. You're basically having to twist this into a pretzel to form it into something you can be OUTRAGED about.

Man posts that he regards the KKK burning down an empty to church to be an act of violence. And look at what you're replying with...

"Oh my god you're defending the KKK!"

"Mental breakdown"

"White supremacist!"

Utterly vile behaviour. You should be, but won't be, ashamed of yourselves. Worse is that you'll actually feel like you're being righteous somehow.

Moderator Action: Make your point without flaming, please. --LM

 

[Kyriakos]

God you people are disgusting. You're basically having to twist this into a pretzel to form it into something you can be OUTRAGED about.

Man posts that he regards the KKK burning down an empty to church to be an act of violence. And look at what you're replying with...

"Oh my god you're defending the KKK!"

"Mental breakdown"

"White supremacist!"

Utterly vile behaviour. You should be, but won't be, ashamed of yourselves. Worse is that you'll actually feel like you're being righteous somehow.

I think the main issue is that it will work as another diversion and - ultimately - the police will continue to be murderous thugs, cause the public will fall back to the usual white vs black/ statues/ etc and call it a day.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

God you people are disgusting. You're basically having to twist this into a pretzel to form it into something you can be OUTRAGED about.

Man posts that he regards the KKK burning down an empty to church to be an act of violence. And look at what you're replying with...

"Oh my god you're defending the KKK!"

"Mental breakdown"

"White supremacist!"

Utterly vile behaviour. You should be, but won't be, ashamed of yourselves. Worse is that you'll actually feel like you're being righteous somehow.

you ok

There's a difference between vandalizing a property and specifically targetting a black church to burn down.