I have not read the article yet, just a quick scan, but we already know it is slanted left and going to slam LEOs and LE in every way possible.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in...out&li=BBnb7Kz
In City After City, Police Completely Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests
I have not read the article yet, just a quick scan, but we already know it is slanted left and going to slam LEOs and LE in every way possible.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in...out&li=BBnb7Kz
Last edited by desertrunner; 03-20-2021 at 07:06 PM.
Brilliant.Originally Posted by desertrunner
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
lol you didn't read the article but yet you know all about it. Typical. It's not a huge fucking mystery what happened. The police responded to protests against police brutality by employing more police brutality. This is known as the "I will give you something to cry about" strategy.
hey JimmyG, calm your fat n-word loving tits boy
Probably should have read it before posting, but yes, your guess is correct. I just read it.
It's typical MSN/MSNBC leftist garbage. The "mishandling" alleged in the article was having TOO STRONG of a police response, and attacking "mostly peaceful" protests.
The actual mishandling was the standing down, and allowing violent mobs to take over and destroy cities.
Of course, they waited 9 months to publish this, hoping people will forget just how "peaceful" these protests really were.
lol tiltinghey JimmyG, calm your fat n-word loving tits boy
The lengthy article was published by the New York Times. It covers many issues as it should.
This is not op ed piece. It's journalism.
"The New York Times reviewed reports by outside investigators, watchdogs and consultants analyzing the police response to protests in nine major cities, including four of the nation’s largest. The Times also reviewed after-action examinations by police departments in five other major cities. Reports in some cities, such as Oakland and Seattle, are not yet completed. In Minneapolis, the city that sparked a national reckoning over policing, the City Council only agreed last month to hire a risk-management company to analyze the city’s response to the protests, despite months of pressure."
This small paragraph above (included in the article) explains how this information was gathered and by whom. That's how journalism works. You don't start with an opinion and then ask your neighbour if he agrees.
Ha ha, exactly what I would expect you to write, its not journalism, it’s opinion by non LE trained activist/writers.
The whole idea behind journalism is present to all sides of a story. People on either sides of a story often have completely opposite views of a subject. Enter the third party. Granted, this profession has been bastardized byHa ha, exactly what I would expect you to write, its not journalism, it’s opinion by non LE trained activist/writers.
influences like owners with an agenda. Nowhere worse than in the U.S. At least in the U.K. they take their tabloids as a bit of fun for the most part. This "outlets" pass off opinion as news. People don't want to be bothered reading a detailed report by several journalists when they can overhear it on the nightly news or see something on twitter.
And it's not an opinion it is a conclusion reached by several well educated people studying several individual sources who have no dog in the fight
lol you don't need to be LE trained to see that police response to the protests was completely fucking retarded. The article was well written and researched. Funny that some of you idiots think this was a hit piece on the police when they literally reviewed the after action reports that are written by the fucking police.
You're expecting desertrunner to read and comprehend articles and think about things logically? You're going to be disappointed.
SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798
PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
It was not "well researched" or "well written". The article was incredibly biased, and you needed to get just a few sentences in to realize it.
It put all of the blame for the violence on the shoulders of law enforcement. According to the article, protests were "mostly peaceful", and police either attacked peaceful crowds until they finally fought back, or were overly forceful and greatly escalated situations where only minor misbehavior was occurring.
It's complete bullshit and rewriting of history.
First, "mostly peaceful" has always been a lie. They counted huge, big city protests the same as tiny suburban protests. So if there are nine tiny protests in the suburbs which go off peacefully, and one horribly violent protest of 60,000 people downtown, the protests in that area are said to be "90% peaceful". See the problem?
The reality is that just about every major city had major violence, vandalism, arson, assault, and murder occur at these protests.
The police were far too permissive and passive, whereas the article asserts the opposite. This was not the police's fault, as for the most part, they were directed from above to stand down. City officials asserted that attempting to stop violent protest just agitates it further, and it just creates more violence. Therefore, they felt it was better to just stand down and let the violence burn itself out. Unfortunately, that's incorrect, and has been proven incorrect time and time again throughout modern US history to be incorrect. Standing down simply empowers the violent protesters, giving them the impression they can keep escalating without consequence. It also signals others to join in, who otherwise were going to peacefully protest because they feared arrest. Look at what happened in Portland and Seattle -- two cities which were obvious examples of police being told to stand down. Violence raged on there for months, and in Portland's case, is still occurring. Entire portions of the city were actually TAKEN OVER by violent protesters, and the protesters declared it their own territory. Notice that this sort of thing didn't happen in cities run by Republican governments.
A swift, strong response to violent protest by law enforcement quickly stops the problem. There's a simple reason for this. Political protesters in this country are not the same as religious terrorists. Protesters are not interested in giving their life for the cause, nor do they want to face major injury or serious jail time. If given the opportunity to create mayhem and do violence in the name of "protest", many will. However, if there's a consequence on the other end, they will refrain from violence -- or at least quit once confronted. This isn't true for 100% of violent US protesters, but it's true for a high percentage of them.
If there's one thing that CAN'T be said for the summer protests, it's that police were too harsh and too overbearing.
What about the videos released showing police brutalizing innocent protesters? These were outliers which made the rounds -- basically police who couldn't bring themselves to stand down anymore, and sometimes lashed out against protesters who didn't deserve it. But as I said, this was the exception. Most of the footage of the summer protests paints a clear picture of violent protesters destroying the city and beating people up, while police stand back.
Also, note that these city officials commanding police to stand down were often hypocrites. Mayors like Ted Wheeler and Lori Lightfoot were shown using police to strongly defend their own neighborhoods, while allowing the thugs to destroy everywhere else they wanted. In reality, these mayors didn't believe their own bullshit.
Sorry, but if you believe that the summer protests were "mostly peaceful", or that the violence was mostly agitated by cops, then you're a moron.
/thread
SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798
PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
John Oliver is a pretty good political comedian, but he sucks at producing serious educational political segments. I mentioned this the other day. I will admit I couldn't get anywhere near through that 25 minute piece.
I will actually concede that police raids need some reform, and are overused. Too often police raids are overkill for the situation, when the crime suspected is relatively minor (and the suspect is considered nonviolent). This has been the case for decades. For example, when I ran in 1980s hacker circles, these raids were common against low-level hackers -- which tended to be harmless white bread young computer nerds.
However, I don't believe this is rooted in racism. It's rooted in, "We want to get all evidence before the suspect can get rid of it, and we want a show of force so the suspect doesn't even THINK of fucking around during the raid."
Unfortunately, at best this creates a situation where the police response doesn't fit the crime, and at worst it can go wrong where someone gets hurt or killed, such as in the Breonna Taylor situation.
However, this isn't due to racism. It's due to police overreach, which happens to disproportionately affect black people, since they commit the most violent crime and drug crime per capita in the US.
This is where we once again run into the equality versus equity argument, which is coming to a head in the 2020s.
Equality means everyone has equal opportunity, and is treated fairly. This is a good thing, and we should strive for it.
Equity means everyone has equal outcomes. This is something you'd like to see, but is impossible to achieve, and attempting to achieve equity means giving unfair preference to certain people based upon an immutable characteristic -- such as skin color.
A good example involves incarceration rates. A system which incarcerates a disproportionate number of black people isn't necessarily a racist one. If more black people are actually committing crime than other races, then more black people should be in prison than other races. If you attempt to achieve equity by releasing black prisoners until the prison population is representative of the general population, you've just done a very bad thing to society.
This is why it's complete bullshit when "racism" is alleged, just because a white cop kills a black person, even if the white cop is at fault. Unless you can say that the same thing likely wouldn't have happened if the suspect were white, then it's not a racist killing. While Derek Chauvin indeed was a bad and brutal cop who committed a crime when he knelt on George Floyd's neck, there's no indication that he would have behaved differently with a large white male suspect. Indeed, we've seen some pretty awful cases of police murdering white people in recent years, such as Daniel Shaver and Kelly Thomas. Neither of these cases got much attention, because it was white-on-white. However, we would have seen cities burning if Shaver or Thomas were black. Wouldn't you say that's a problem?
When law enforcement does completely unnecessary and aggressive raids against people like Roger Stone and that Florida Covid researcher woman recently the leftist MSM seems ok with it, and the progressives all cheer the raids on. Like in many of these cases, in actuality it doesn't seem progressives are very principled against law enforcement overreach at all. At the end of the day it is all about whether they perceive law enforcement is working in their interests or not, and if they perceive it is they are ok with some pretty brutal, draconian, anti-civil liberty stuff.
Druff nailed it with every paragraph, good job!
It is actually very interesting to see how the MSM has decided to spin these Miami spring break riots.
A giant % of the rioters/anti-maskers are BIPOC, so it seems the leftist media had one of two choices:
1. Acknowledge this and frame a "police brutality against BIPOC community" narrative.
2. Don't acknowledge who is actually breaking the Covid/social-distancing rules and rioting, and take a pro law enforcement stance (or at least neutral).
--For now the leftist MSM has chosen option 2. If you go to CNN or NYTimes there is no videos or images of the out of control street parties and police response, whereas right wing media sources are showing plenty of videos/images.
Actually the Florida COVID researcher woman was a psycho and had a recent criminal history of unstable behavior. Additionally, when they attempted to search her house, she stalled for 25 minutes, eventually giving the police no choice but to forcefully enter. She wasn't a victim in any of this. The media still props her up as a hero, though, totally ignoring the facts and her past. But I'm getting off topic.
You are generally correct that unnecessary, heavily armed raids take place against white people all the time. So while that needs to be looked at and reformed, it's not connected at all to racism.
So it appears we agree. It's so tilting to watch the left turn everything into "racism" if something happens to have a negative outcome for a black person. They make no effort to look at the matter from a logical standpoint -- basically asking the question, "If the race of the alleged victim were white, would this have been any different?" In most of these cases, the answer would be no.
The Jacob Blake shooting is a good example. Suffice to say that if the police came to respond that I was violating a restraining order and harassing my ex-girlfriend, and I started to violently fight with them, and then despite being tased, got up and reached into my car for a knife, they'd put a bullet into me. That's what they do to violent suspects who attempt to use deadly weapons against them. If you attack the police, you can't bitch about the outcome.
That didn't stop the left from turning it into a racist execution, and the city of Kenosha burned.
DRUFF IS OWNING THIS THREAD
lol rewrite history? Dude the article literally goes through the after action reports written by the police departments. The only people trying to rewrite history right now are the right wingers regarding the failed insurrection.It was not "well researched" or "well written". The article was incredibly biased, and you needed to get just a few sentences in to realize it.
It put all of the blame for the violence on the shoulders of law enforcement. According to the article, protests were "mostly peaceful", and police either attacked peaceful crowds until they finally fought back, or were overly forceful and greatly escalated situations where only minor misbehavior was occurring.
It's complete bullshit and rewriting of history.
First, "mostly peaceful" has always been a lie. They counted huge, big city protests the same as tiny suburban protests. So if there are nine tiny protests in the suburbs which go off peacefully, and one horribly violent protest of 60,000 people downtown, the protests in that area are said to be "90% peaceful". See the problem?
The reality is that just about every major city had major violence, vandalism, arson, assault, and murder occur at these protests.
The police were far too permissive and passive, whereas the article asserts the opposite. This was not the police's fault, as for the most part, they were directed from above to stand down. City officials asserted that attempting to stop violent protest just agitates it further, and it just creates more violence. Therefore, they felt it was better to just stand down and let the violence burn itself out. Unfortunately, that's incorrect, and has been proven incorrect time and time again throughout modern US history to be incorrect. Standing down simply empowers the violent protesters, giving them the impression they can keep escalating without consequence. It also signals others to join in, who otherwise were going to peacefully protest because they feared arrest. Look at what happened in Portland and Seattle -- two cities which were obvious examples of police being told to stand down. Violence raged on there for months, and in Portland's case, is still occurring. Entire portions of the city were actually TAKEN OVER by violent protesters, and the protesters declared it their own territory. Notice that this sort of thing didn't happen in cities run by Republican governments.
A swift, strong response to violent protest by law enforcement quickly stops the problem. There's a simple reason for this. Political protesters in this country are not the same as religious terrorists. Protesters are not interested in giving their life for the cause, nor do they want to face major injury or serious jail time. If given the opportunity to create mayhem and do violence in the name of "protest", many will. However, if there's a consequence on the other end, they will refrain from violence -- or at least quit once confronted. This isn't true for 100% of violent US protesters, but it's true for a high percentage of them.
If there's one thing that CAN'T be said for the summer protests, it's that police were too harsh and too overbearing.
What about the videos released showing police brutalizing innocent protesters? These were outliers which made the rounds -- basically police who couldn't bring themselves to stand down anymore, and sometimes lashed out against protesters who didn't deserve it. But as I said, this was the exception. Most of the footage of the summer protests paints a clear picture of violent protesters destroying the city and beating people up, while police stand back.
Also, note that these city officials commanding police to stand down were often hypocrites. Mayors like Ted Wheeler and Lori Lightfoot were shown using police to strongly defend their own neighborhoods, while allowing the thugs to destroy everywhere else they wanted. In reality, these mayors didn't believe their own bullshit.
Sorry, but if you believe that the summer protests were "mostly peaceful", or that the violence was mostly agitated by cops, then you're a moron.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
