# Is the problem racism or police tactics or both?



## Lostngone

Not all but when I see a lot of these shootings of minorities I stop and ask myself would I feel differently or think that the shooting somehow wasn’t justified if the person was white and in a lot of cases I don’t.

I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?


----------



## Scepticalscribe

But the thing is, in the US, I don't think that someone would get shot in the back six or seven times if they were white.   

And they most certainly wouldn't be shot in the back six or seven times if they were white and middle class.

Rather, I suspect that they would be appropriately restrained, and not by kneeling on their neck for almost nine minutes until they suffocated, either.

My sense is that when such a confrontation occurs in the US, if the alleged perpetrator is black, the police, or law enforcement bodies, move immediately (and perhaps instinctively) to the stance of maximum permitted response, rather than using the minimum force necessary to achieve their aims.


----------



## SuperMatt

Lostngone said:


> Not all but when I see a lot of these shootings of minorities I stop and ask myself would I feel differently or think that the shooting somehow wasn’t justified if the person was white and in a lot of cases I don’t.
> 
> I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?




Black people are far more likely to be killed by cops. It’s racism. You don’t think white people high on drugs don’t do dumb stuff when the cops are around? Watch the show COPS and see. Just seems like the police usually find a way to NOT kill the white people.









						Black people are up to 6 times more likely to be killed by police, Harvard study says
					

A new study finds ‘wide geographic variation in the incidence of fatal police violence across the U.S.’




					www.marketwatch.com


----------



## Eric

Lostngone said:


> Not all but when I see a lot of these shootings of minorities I stop and ask myself would I feel differently or think that the shooting somehow wasn’t justified if the person was white and in a lot of cases I don’t.
> 
> I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?



I would ask what constitutes a death sentence. If you are unarmed and resist, if you run, if you keep walking as they harass you for the crime of walking down the street, does that justify their murder?

The first disadvantage minorities have is the color of their skin, it's what police see as probable cause. They approach you or pull you over as if you're guilty of something, now you have to give the officer a "please, thank you, sir" treatment or face their stern hand. This is not a system of protect and serve, it's authoritarian and oppressive.

When you have half a dozen cops at a scene and one unarmed black person, resisting or not, it should NOT be a crime worthy of death under any circumstance. If they are running away, you should not have a right to shoot them 7 times in the back. If you're walking down the street in a hoodie and suspicious cops aggressively question you, you have a right to push back and defend yourself.

As far what makes a person racist, not all are outwardly obvious but it exists on a much deeper level. If your first instinct when you see an unarmed black person killed by a cop is to question the victim and demand proof that he didn't deserve it, then IMO it's a sign of systemic racism. They don't see it, but it's there. It's Fox News, it's Republicans and it's the Blue Lives Matter ilk. Their fight isn't for the law, it's for racism.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Black people are far more likely to be killed by cops. It’s racism. You don’t think white people high on drugs don’t do dumb stuff when the cops are around? Watch the show COPS and see. Just seems like the police usually find a way to NOT kill the white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people are up to 6 times more likely to be killed by police, Harvard study says
> 
> 
> A new study finds ‘wide geographic variation in the incidence of fatal police violence across the U.S.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marketwatch.com



Studies like this are incredibly hard to conduct because:
1. Race of the victim (and perpetrator) is incompletely tracked (for better of worse).
2. Police reported data may be unreliable (like they will report that there was a gun or the victim attacking, and these statements also need to be evaluated and integrated into the data...hard)
3. As described in your link, the neighborhood effect can significantly skew things
4. What some right wing people love to state, that you need to adjust the data with the proportion of violent crime perpetrated by the population studied (this stat is very skewed, still you can rest your case if the disparities hold even after correction to this variable)

I also absolutely hate the concept of race reinvigorated by these movements. African-Americans, largely to our troubling history, have a lot of European ancestry and are incredibly diverse genetically. Many black people have closer genetic linkage to white people than to one another. This is why race is largely a societal construct.

Growing up black in Europe, most of the racism I experienced was explicit. It's disgusting, you deal with it, and learn how to let it go. In America, I may have had experienced explicit racism 1x or 2x total. On the other hand implicit bias (racism) is very common, and it can really get under your skin if you don't have the tools to cope with it. Now when the cops do it with you, those coping mechanisms stop working because of the uneven field. Cops know this and some enjoy their mind games.


----------



## Alli

Lostngone said:


> I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?




So should Brionna Taylor have woken up in order to obey the police?


----------



## User.45

Alli said:


> So should Brionna Taylor have woken up in order to obey the police?



She was awake, standing in the hallway when she was shot. What's fucked up is that we have to take people's words for what happened when the detectives should have worn body cams.


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?




But this is absolutely not good enough. Why is it OK for a cop to have the ultimate violence (gun) as his sole tool in his repertoire to solve difficult situations? We also need context as to what happened that led to the gun being drawn in the first place. My assessment is that the cop pulled the gun, expected immediate compliance, and he was absolutely shocked when things didn't happen that way. So instead of preventing Blake to get in his car, he shoots him in the back 7 times.


----------



## Alli

I'll throw this in here too. 









						Kenosha 'Vigilante' With Long Gun Arrested, Booked for Homicide
					

A vigilante shot and killed 2 protesters on the 3rd night of Jacob Blake protests.




					www.tmz.com


----------



## Lostngone

PearsonX said:


> But this is absolutely not good enough. Why is it OK for a cop to have the ultimate violence (gun) as his sole tool in his repertoire to solve difficult situations? We also need context as to what happened that led to the gun being drawn in the first place. My assessment is that the cop pulled the gun, expected immediate compliance, and he was absolutely shocked when things didn't happen that way. So instead of preventing Blake to get in his car, he shoots him in the back 7 times.




If I am running from the police and Breaking other laws or putting other people in danger and I am stopped and the police tell me to put my hands up/where they can be seen but instead quickly reach into my pocket I would expect to get shot. Maybe we need a law that says the police need to be shot at or violence used against them first before they are allowed to take any action?


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> If I am running from the police and Breaking other laws or putting other people in danger



But that's the thing. People are eager to make these assumptions if this happens to a black person.
What pisses me off is we are missing so much of the context. You're making assumptions based on preconceived notions.
What isn't preconceived, that this guy was not running. He was casually walking away.



Lostngone said:


> [if] I am stopped and the police tell me to put my hands up/where they can be seen but instead quickly reach into my pocket I would expect to get shot.



This is a comment made lightly only by people who had never been in a situation like this.
If you look up Laurence Crosby's story you'll know that this principle applies differently to black people. (His story resonates with me, because I'm a tall black guy too).
To restate: our gentleman here was not doing anything quickly.



Lostngone said:


> Maybe we need a law that says the police need to be shot at or violence used against them first before they are allowed to take any action?



Believe it or not, proportional use of force is a thing and can be expected from officers.


----------



## Eric

Lostngone said:


> If I am running from the police and Breaking other laws or putting other people in danger and I am stopped and the police tell me to put my hands up/where they can be seen but instead quickly reach into my pocket I would expect to get shot. Maybe we need a law that says the police need to be shot at or violence used against them first before they are allowed to take any action?



So running away justifies killing them? Just want to be sure I've read your position correctly here.


----------



## Lostngone

Eric said:


> So running away justifies killing them? Just want to be sure I've read your position correctly here.




Them? If I decide to run from the police and I am endangering other people by doing so weather it is speeding at a high  rate of speed or running around on foot with a firearm or other dangerous weapon and after I am stopped I ignore lawful police commands or do something threatening like reaching into my pockets or a car the answer to your question is yes I would expect deadly force to be used.

The reason for that is is I have already proven that I am a danger to other people and putting other people at risk so I think deadly force is appropriate in those cases.


----------



## Renzatic

Lostngone said:


> Them? If I decide to run from the police and I am endangering other people by doing so weather it is speeding at a high  rate of speed or running around on foot with a firearm or other dangerous weapon and after I am stopped I ignore lawful police commands or do something threatening like reaching into my pockets or a car the answer to your question is yes I would expect deadly force to be used.
> 
> The reason for that is is I have already proven that I am a danger to other people and putting other people at risk so I think deadly force is appropriate in those cases.




And in those situations, I'd agree with you. There are instances where it's justifiable for the police to shoot a suspect in the back.

Thing is, we can't allow these legitimate reasons to become blanket post hoc excuses used to explain away gross negligence. "I feared for my life" shouldn't become a magic statement allowing the police to do anything they want, regardless of actual threat.


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> Them? If I decide to run from the police and I am endangering other people by doing so weather it is speeding at a high  rate of speed or running around on foot with a firearm or other dangerous weapon and after I am stopped I ignore lawful police commands or do something threatening like reaching into my pockets or a car the answer to your question is yes I would expect deadly force to be used.
> 
> The reason for that is is I have already proven that I am a danger to other people and putting other people at risk so I think deadly force is appropriate in those cases.



Can you answer one question:
Should the USA be held to the same standards of other Western democracies? Is it OK to hold the USA to literally 3rd world standards?


----------



## Lostngone

I am looking for answers here maybe we need to change the law and say deadly force is never allowed by police. Or allow minorities to claim during a stop that they are in fear of their life and by law require the police to stop pursuit or leave.


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> I am looking for answers here maybe we need to change the law and say deadly force is never allowed by police. Or allow minorities to claim during a stop that they are in fear of their life and by law require the police to stop pursuit or leave.



This is stupid and you know it.


----------



## Lostngone

PearsonX said:


> Can you answer one question:
> Should the USA be held to the same standards of other Western democracies? Is it OK to hold the USA to literally 3rd world standards?




Whatever is fair and gets the job done I’m all for, third world or first world.


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> Whatever is fair and gets the job done I’m all for, third world or first world.



And what is the job? Killing the most people?


----------



## Lostngone

PearsonX said:


> This is stupid and you know it.




What’s your solution make racism illegal? Wait why didn’t anyone think of that before! Oh I know let’s make it even MORE illegal! That should stop it


----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> What’s your solution make racism illegal? Wait why didn’t anyone think of that before! Oh I know let’s make even MORE illegal! That should stop it



Apparently we have to repeat this BS every single time: 
No, nobody is saying that a cop cannot use force if indicated for the safety of self or others. Along the same lines, cops should also not use deadly force as the first measure if there are clear alternatives to use intermediate force. 

If you think that it's OK and justifiable to kill people for walking away from cops, trigger happy cops will just set up situations where people start walking away. If we were able to weed out cops that wouldn't make excuses to kill people, we wouldn't have to talk about shit like this.


----------



## SuperMatt

Lostngone said:


> Them? If I decide to run from the police and I am endangering other people by doing so weather it is speeding at a high  rate of speed or running around on foot with a firearm or other dangerous weapon and after I am stopped I ignore lawful police commands or do something threatening like reaching into my pockets or a car the answer to your question is yes I would expect deadly force to be used.
> 
> The reason for that is is I have already proven that I am a danger to other people and putting other people at risk so I think deadly force is appropriate in those cases.




Maybe there is a case where cops need to shoot a guy in the back. It would be extremely rare. So why do the cops seem to be making a habit of it? Neither the Wisconsin case nor the Louisiana case fit that criteria.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Maybe there is a case where cops need to shoot a guy in the back. It would be extremely rare. So why do the cops seem to be making a habit of it? Neither the Wisconsin case nor the Louisiana case fit that criteria.


----------



## Renzatic

Lostngone said:


> I am looking for answers here maybe we need to change the law and say deadly force is never allowed by police. Or allow minorities to claim during a stop that they are in fear of their life and by law require the police to stop pursuit or leave.




Comeon, you know that's bullshit. There are situations where deadly force is necessary, and minorities shouldn't be considered special exceptions to this, regardless of their actions, simply because they're a member of a minority.

The problem is one of accountability. Far too often, police misconduct is brushed under the rug of qualified immunity, and that needs to end.


----------



## SuperMatt

Lostngone said:


> I understand there is a history of unjustified violence against minorities here BUT if you play stupid games and ignore police commands and do something threatening or possibly dangerous why should feel sorry for that person black or white if they get shot?




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298376134715936770/


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1298376134715936770/



I've said it before, when it comes to police & the cheerleaders giving their examples, compliance is always based on one thing... Fear.

What is that?  Is that how policing is intended?  Is that the plan?  If enough fear is imposed, if it's made the norm that defiance means ( _well defiance from a certain group of people, with certain others all efforts will be made to bring them alive at all costs & buy them lunch_ ) death, is that plan?  That will enforce the law?

Because then you are in the area of comic books...






The problem is that norm is NOT always employed evenly, it's because of that, things start to look like racism.


----------



## JayMysteri0




----------



## User.45

Lostngone said:


> I am looking for answers here maybe we need to change the law and say deadly force is never allowed by police. Or allow minorities to claim during a stop that they are in fear of their life and by law require the police to stop pursuit or leave.




Maybe we (I) just got a little to passionate here. Let's put things in a different context. A statistical one first:
Annual average number cops killed on duty: ~50/660K cops.
Annual average civilian killed by police action/in custody: ~1500/330M.
If we add the averages (bad math) of the G7 nations, it still ends up being lower than the USA's average of civilians killed by cops.
Most of fatal shootings by police are documented to be justified use of force to counter a gun, or weaponized vehicle (not going to argue about the validity of the documentation here).
Out of ~15,000 killings by police in the past 15 years came with 98 charges, and about 22 indictments that held. Do you think that this indicated balance and oversight?

Two things differentiate the population of the USA from the other nations listed above:
1. Diversity (and segregation)
2. Number of guns circulating in the civilian population

Segregation comes with lots of in/out group biases. We know from studies (happy to dig them up if you're interested), that cops have a heavy anti-black bias. We also know that implicit bias is fluid, you'll have more of it, if someone pissed you off a day before, and it slowly returns to your baseline over time (there's cop and medical data as well). We also know that most people are able to override their implicit biases, but this corrective mechanism works a lot less when the person is tired. To me it is without question, but on forums it seems we need to emphasize this: cops are human, and deserved to be treated as such. But so are civilians, even criminals. Acknowledgement of the latter makes or breaks a developed society.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> View attachment 191
> View attachment 192




how about in relation to:
-Violent Crimes
-Illegal guns

Canada Homicides 2019: 658
USA Homicides 2019: 16,214.

Canada Robberies: 22K
USA Robberies: 105K


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> how about in relation to:
> -Violent Crimes
> -Illegal guns
> 
> Canada Homicides 2019: 658
> USA Homicides 2019: 16,214.
> 
> Canada Robberies: 22K
> USA Robberies: 105K



You need to adjust for population though (it's a 8.7x multiplier).
That takes Canada to:
Homicides 5725
Robberies 191K

I dug up the FBI stats on violent crimes but I found it not too useful so I didn't add it to my "stat stash". I honestly think that the issue is with guns. Not just illegal ones. I've watched a documentary on Chicago's gun violence (to my shock a pediatrician I used to work with in my home institution was featured). They made the case that 70% of shootings were committed using guns legally purchased in neighboring counties. Americans have a crazy access to tech. This includes cars, but also guns. @yaxomoxay, how's the legislation in Italy? In my European home country, practically nobody can get a gun permit for home.
These numbers are insane.


----------



## User.45

One of my favorite videos of all time:


----------



## Eric

PearsonX said:


> *You need to adjust for population though (it's a 8.7x multiplier).*
> That takes Canada to:
> Homicides 5725
> Robberies 191K
> 
> I dug up the FBI stats on violent crimes but I found it not too useful so I didn't add it to my "stat stash". I honestly think that the issue is with guns. Not just illegal ones. I've watched a documentary on Chicago's gun violence (to my shock a pediatrician I used to work with in my home institution was featured). They made the case that 70% of shootings were committed using guns legally purchased in neighboring counties. Americans have a crazy access to tech. This includes cars, but also guns. @yaxomoxay, how's the legislation in Italy? In my European home country, practically nobody can get a gun permit for home.
> These numbers are insane.
> 
> View attachment 210



Was my very first thought as well, seemed obvious but I figured you would reply with something like this.


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> Was my very first thought as well, seemed obvious but I figured you would reply with something like this.




In my defense, it’s late in the day and I am tired as fuck.


----------



## User.45

ericgtr12 said:


> Was my very first thought as well, seemed obvious but I figured you would reply with something like this.



I would have to double check this, but it seems that if you adjust for murder rate, Canada's police killings are proportionally similar to that of the USA.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> In my defense, it’s late in the day and I am tired as fuck.



no worries.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> I would have to double check this, but it seems that if you adjust for murder rate, Canada's police killings are proportionally similar to that of the USA.




I think that the murder rate in itself proves that Americans are more prone to killing, in general. It’s like 24x...


----------



## User.45




----------



## Renzatic

So what you're telling us is that Canadians are a shifty bunch not to be trusted?

...well, yeah. We already knew that. Fuckers will straight up shank a dude for some maple syrup.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> View attachment 212View attachment 213




1.7 vs 5.3 is a huge difference


----------



## User.45

Interesting to look at these. Though the ideal way to do it is overlapping trends covering at least a decade. Property crimes appear very similar between the two places: esp burglaries and motor vehicle theft. 

Comparable stuff like murders are ~3x higher in the USA, sexual assault (assuming similar definition as rape in canada) is ~1.5x higher in the USA. 

In 1995 they estimated to be 223M guns in the USA. Now that is about 400M.  WTF.





			https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF


----------



## JayMysteri0

PearsonX said:


> You need to adjust for population though (it's a 8.7x multiplier).
> That takes Canada to:
> Homicides 5725
> Robberies 191K
> 
> I dug up the FBI stats on violent crimes but I found it not too useful so I didn't add it to my "stat stash". I honestly think that the issue is with guns. Not just illegal ones. I've watched a documentary on Chicago's gun violence (to my shock a pediatrician I used to work with in my home institution was featured).* They made the case that 70% of shootings were committed using guns legally purchased in neighboring counties*. Americans have a crazy access to tech. This includes cars, but also guns. @yaxomoxay, how's the legislation in Italy? In my European home country, practically nobody can get a gun permit for home.



That's the factoid that is always intentionally ignored when the usual crew bring up Chicago, guns, and their having gun laws.  As if it's proof the laws don't work, but ignore that neighboring states gun businesses do pretty well for themselves thanks to Chicago.


----------



## User.45

The funny thing is I read it on gun sites that crime rates don't correlate with the number of guns. FFS, the USA has 1 unregistered gun for each citizen, ergo they cannot make such a statement in a regional scale. Also, 70% of murders involved a gun as a murder weapon.  Gun homicide is 6x higher in Canada than in the USA:











						List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## jkcerda

it's a pretty complex problem, we have far too many laws passed by retards in office to a degree forcing police to engage the population, for whatever reason the police appear to attract it;s fair share of alpha morons who have no business wearing a badge in the first place, cops are used for revenue generation for the city and while it is illegal to have quotas it seems that is how the city measures a cops performance, it's a beautiful cocktail of "I am going to fuck over the poor and make a buck while doing so" , who gives a shit of a few die? all these seemingly endless stupid laws are what cities need in order to operate.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's the factoid that is always intentionally ignored when the usual crew bring up Chicago, guns, and their having gun laws.  As if it's proof the laws don't work, but ignore that neighboring states gun businesses do pretty well for themselves thanks to Chicago.



gazillion drugs are available everywhere regardless of what the laws are all around other states, tons of shit here from Mexico, hell the guns that were sold to Mexican cartels ended up back here in the states.




disagree with the last one


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's the factoid that is always intentionally ignored when the usual crew bring up Chicago, guns, and their having gun laws.  As if it's proof the laws don't work, but ignore that neighboring states gun businesses do pretty well for themselves thanks to Chicago.



When I was having a private argument on MR, the guy told me that this is the Democrat illness. Blaming the republicans for everything He also told me that COVID will disappear on November 3. That's when we ended the discussion.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> it's a pretty complex problem, we have far too many laws passed by retards in office to a degree forcing police to engage the population, for whatever reason the police appear to attract it;s fair share of alpha morons who have no business wearing a badge in the first place, cops are used for revenue generation for the city and while it is illegal to have quotas it seems that is how the city measures a cops performance, it's a beautiful cocktail of "I am going to fuck over the poor and make a buck while doing so" , who gives a shit of a few die? all these seemingly endless stupid laws are what cities need in order to operate.



The interesting thing about all of that.  The main thing behind the idea of "defunding the police" is to alleviate some of the engagements that police are "forced to do".   Yet so many are adamant against such an idea, then back up the idea that we ask the police to do too much.  Defunding would ask them to do less.


----------



## User.45

jkcerda said:


> gazillion drugs are available everywhere regardless of what the laws are all around other states, tons of shit here from Mexico, hell the guns that were sold to Mexican cartels ended up back here in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> disagree with the last one



What is police choice?


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> gazillion drugs are available everywhere regardless of what the laws are all around other states, tons of shit here from Mexico, hell the guns that were sold to Mexican cartels ended up back here in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> disagree with the last one



I strongly agree with the last one.

Also all wonderful things, but it doesn't dismiss as pointed out that a large flow of the guns into Chicago come from neighboring states.  Not Mexico, Eric Holder, or Hydra.


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> The interesting thing about all of that.  The main thing behind the idea of "defunding the police" is to alleviate some of the engagements that police are "forced to do".   Yet so many are adamant against such an idea, then back up the idea that we ask the police to do too much.  Defunding would ask them to do less.



not sure about that, you need to move the money the right way for things to work out, if you just defund them to the point they can't really get shit done then we end up with vigilantes doing what cops don't.   simply saying "defund" them is NOT the answer. propose a solution that cops currently deal with that can be done more efficiently by unarmed people qualified to deal with the task at hand.


----------



## jkcerda

PearsonX said:


> What is police choice?



no clue so I did not mention it.


----------



## User.45

jkcerda said:


> not sure about that, you need to move the money the right way for things to work out, if you just defund them to the point they can't really get shit done then we end up with vigilantes doing what cops don't.   simply saying "defund" them is NOT the answer. propose a solution that cops currently deal with that can be done more efficiently by unarmed people qualified to deal with the task at hand.











						Cops Have Too Much Money. Give It To Kids.
					

How much do we spend on policing versus education in America? Here's a taste: U.S. education has a $1 trillion shortfall; police departments are getting billions in gifts from the military.




					www.fatherly.com
				



It's an interesting one above.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> I strongly agree with the last one.
> 
> Also all wonderful things, but it doesn't dismiss as pointed out that a large flow of the guns into Chicago come from neighboring states.  Not Mexico, Eric Holder, or Hydra.



Cops need licensing, just like nurses. If you fuckup you lose your license, just like nurses (nursing is the example as nursing is the most common profession in many states, so if it works on that scale, it works on police's scale). 
Not sure how I feel about liability insurance, but it makes sense from a libertarian perspective. If you get sued you'll need to cover shit. Your insurance premium will go up if you get sued all the time. It would be a very American way to control bad behavior. Not necessarily a bad idea.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> Cops need licensing, just like nurses. If you fuckup you lose your license, just like nurses (nursing is the example as nursing is the most common profession in many states, so if it works on that scale, it works on police's scale).
> Not sure how I feel about liability insurance, but it makes sense from a libertarian perspective. If you get sued you'll need to cover shit. Your insurance premium will go up if you get sued all the time. It would be a very American way to control bad behavior. Not necessarily a bad idea.




No insurer will ever cover a job in which you know that the worker will injure other individuals as part of the job, by default. The risk is way too high. That’s why there’s qualified immunity.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> not sure about that, you need to move the money the right way for things to work out, if you just defund them to the point they can't really get shit done then we end up with vigilantes doing what cops don't.   simply saying "defund" them is NOT the answer. propose a solution that cops currently deal with that can be done more efficiently by unarmed people qualified to deal with the task at hand.



Only NONE of that is what defunding is.

Current budgets of police departments which currently get the majority of monies in most city & states would NOT change.  It's the constant increases they get while other areas may see their budgets slashed that would get that money,  The basics of the idea are based that the one area where money is rarely if ever slashed but continually increased is in policing.  The idea would be to continue current budgets, and they would have to work with their current budget to make things work ( which they supposedly already did ) and the increase they would regularly get this year would instead be put into social services.  

So instead of police always responding to concerns about the homeless or mentally ill, they would only respond with social services if the situation is reported as volatile.  It's already being done in some places, and the idea is that you reduce the strain on police, and you prevent EVER situation as possibly becoming a police encounter.


----------



## User.45

That's a good point. That takes us back to licensing. If a cop gets fired, they just get a job in the neighboring county. Licensing would solve this issue.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> Only NONE of that is what defunding is.
> 
> Current budgets of police departments which currently get the majority of monies in most city & states would NOT change.  It's the constant increases they get while other areas may see their budgets slashed that would get that money,  The basics of the idea are based that the one area where money is rarely if ever slashed but continually increased is in policing.  The idea would be to continue current budgets, and they would have to work with their current budget to make things work ( which they supposedly already did ) and the increase they would regularly get this year would instead be put into social services.
> 
> So instead of police always responding to concerns about the homeless or mentally ill, they would only respond with social services if the situation is reported as volatile.  It's already being done in some places, and the idea is that you reduce the strain on police, and you prevent EVER situation as possibly becoming a police encounter.



I miss Vice News Tonight.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> No insurer will ever cover a job in which you know that the worker will injure other individuals as part of the job, by default. The risk is way too high. That’s why there’s qualified immunity.



If you don't think someone isn't going to join that as a possible new industry I strongly imagine you are mistaken.

What probably would happen is that there would be fewer people who would get coverage.  Which begs the question is that a bad thing?

Thinking of the cost that has hit cities & states who instead bear these costs, especially the cities that are most contentious where budgets are strained by civil payments involving the police.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> If you don't think someone isn't going to join that as a possible new industry I strongly imagine you are mistaken.
> 
> What probably would happen is that there would be fewer people who would get coverage.  Which begs the question is that a bad thing?
> 
> Thinking of the cost that has hit cities & states who instead bear these costs, especially the cities that are most contentious where budgets are strained by civil payments involving the police.




yes it would be a bad thing, you wouldn’t engage in a Violent situation knowing that you might lose your house because you don’t follow a policy or some shit to the letter. Insurers are not saint that would pay. First people that would pay for this are those in low income neighborhoods. Higher ups will just continue paying for extra security.

(and honestly, we should make insurers in the US less powerful).


----------



## jkcerda

JayMysteri0 said:


> Only NONE of that is what defunding is.
> 
> Current budgets of police departments which currently get the majority of monies in most city & states would NOT change.  It's the constant increases they get while other areas may see their budgets slashed that would get that money,  The basics of the idea are based that the one area where money is rarely if ever slashed but continually increased is in policing.  The idea would be to continue current budgets, and they would have to work with their current budget to make things work ( which they supposedly already did ) and the increase they would regularly get this year would instead be put into social services.
> 
> So instead of police always responding to concerns about the homeless or mentally ill, they would only respond with social services if the situation is reported as volatile.  It's already being done in some places, and the idea is that you reduce the strain on police, and you prevent EVER situation as possibly becoming a police encounter.



no one is doing a good job at pointing that out, the perception out there is that the left just wants to defund the police and let things be.


----------



## Renzatic

jkcerda said:


> no one is doing a good job at pointing that out, the perception out there is that the left just wants to defund the police and let things be.




It doesn't help that the slogan is "defund the police," even if it almost no one actually intends to literally "defund the police" entirely.

You know, for being a group of people we most commonly associate with college graduates holding degrees in various liberal arts and human studies, liberals really are something of a gormless, tone deaf bunch.


----------



## JayMysteri0

jkcerda said:


> no one is doing a good job at pointing that out, the perception out there is that the left just wants to defund the police and let things be.



I picked up on it.

The issue isn't always just in the delivery of the message, but it can just as well be in the reception of the message.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> yes it would be a bad thing, you wouldn’t engage in a Violent situation knowing that you might lose your house because you don’t follow a policy or some shit to the letter. Insurers are not saint that would pay. First people that would pay for this are those in low income neighborhoods. Higher ups will just continue paying for extra security.
> 
> (and honestly, we should make insurers in the US less powerful).



That's an assumption.

Do doctors worry as much about that?

I'm not saying this is something that happens overnight without it heavily favoring the officers still, if they police unions would even consider it.  Then again, police unions aren't on the hook like cities are.  Our current approach where accountability for officers is near non existent, and when they are, it falls on someone else to pay & not them for *their* actions.

Bear in mind, we have this discussion because of those actions, which seem to happen more & more regularly.



> You Can Count on One Hand the Number of Days the U.S. Has Gone Without a Police Killing Since George Floyd Died
> 
> 
> There are certain figures that, for one reason or another, get seared in your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theroot.com





> There are certain figures that, for one reason or another, get seared in your brain.
> 
> For instance: 53 percent, the number of white women who voted for Trump. Or 1619, the year that the first slave ships arrived in the United States. 8 minutes and 46 seconds: the length of time former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd’s neck.
> 
> Here’s a simple one to commit to memory: 3. The number of days that the U.S. has gone without a police killing since Floyd died.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's an assumption.
> 
> Do doctors worry as much about that?




1) it’s not part of a doctor’s job to injure people.
2) doctors and surgeon make a boatload of money in part because of insurance costs, I think $250K a year on average for MD’s, and sometimes up to $500K. If you’re willing to pay cops that much... (of course smaller cities and poorer areas will have no cops as they could never afford it)


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> 1) it’s not part of a doctor’s job to injure people.
> 2) doctors and surgeon make a boatload of money in part because of insurance costs, I think $250K a year on average for MD’s, and sometimes up to $500K. If you’re willing to pay cops that much... (of course smaller cities and poorer areas will have no cops as they could never afford it)




You know, about 5% of healthcare costs go to physician salaries (AFAIK).
People in academia actually make less than that $250K. Starting salary is around $170K. That's after about 8-10x more training that of a cop's.
Physician salaries may sound great on paper. In reality my colleagues work about 60H a week on average and either cover night calls periodically (every 3-4 weeks) or in my field, available 24/7 for pages. I know people who make $500K+. They also work 6-7 days a week in 2-3 places. Doctors' life expectancy is shorter than average for a reason.
Alan Strickland, the sheriff who shoved Uriji Masai actually made $266K in 2014. There were some recently fired Baltimore cops who made $300K in overtime.





						Alan F Strickland - Deputy Sheriff - Alameda County | CalSalaries
					

As Deputy Sheriff at Alameda County Alan F Strickland made $266,649 in total compensation.




					calsalaries.com


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> That's an assumption.
> 
> Do doctors worry as much about that?



I do worry about it.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> You know, about 5% of healthcare costs go to physician salaries (AFAIK).
> People in academia actually make less than that $250K. Starting salary is around $170K. That's after about 8-10x more training that of a cop's.
> Physician salaries may sound great on paper. In reality my colleagues work about 60H a week on average and either cover night calls periodically (every 3-4 weeks) or in my field, available 24/7 for pages. I know people who make $500K+. They also work 6-7 days a week in 2-3 places. Doctors' life expectancy is shorter than average for a reason.
> Alan Strickland, the sheriff who shoved Uriji Masai actually made $266K in 2014. There were some recently fired Baltimore cops who made $300K in overtime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan F Strickland - Deputy Sheriff - Alameda County | CalSalaries
> 
> 
> As Deputy Sheriff at Alameda County Alan F Strickland made $266,649 in total compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calsalaries.com




that’s my point. If you start adding Personal expenses Over personal expenses, plus liabilities (when doing things carrying their lawful duties) and much more, cops salaries will need to go up, big time. There is no way to escape it, it’s basic economics.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> that’s my point. If you start adding Personal expenses Over personal expenses, plus liabilities (when doing things carrying their lawful duties) and much more, cops salaries will need to go up, big time. There is no way to escape it, it’s basic economics.



Agree. Licensing it is


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> 1) it’s not part of a doctor’s job to injure people.
> 2) doctors and surgeon make a boatload of money in part because of insurance costs, I think $250K a year on average for MD’s, and sometimes up to $500K. If you’re willing to pay cops that much... (of course smaller cities and poorer areas will have no cops as they could never afford it)



No it isn't part of a doctor's job to injure people, and it's hoped by the officers ( some ) themselves they won't have to injure someone.  Then again, I have no idea how many doctors maybe inclined to want to injure their patients intentionally either.  We've seen in some cases where there's a frightening amount of indifference on the part some police when it comes to who they are dealing with.  In those cases the officer knows thanks to qualified immunity the legal aspect for responsibility is difficult, and a personal responsibility will be borne by the city.  Why wouldn't an asshole ( just to clarify that I am not lumping all police, just the assholes ) with a badge feel empowered?  They aren't facing any real responsibility unless there is video, it goes viral, there's intense public pressure, ...and that's still NOT a guarantee of responsibility.

How the hell does that make any sense?

Add a powerful police union, and it's recipe for abuse.

I also am still fascinated by the idea that in one part of New York, the best paid state employees at one time... these guys.


----------



## SuperMatt

Ok so Trump is gonna be the law-and-order president and punish the evil protesters... but he’s also going to be the criminal justice reform president? Hmmm... which is it?


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> Ok so Trump is gonna be the law-and-order president and punish the evil protesters... but he’s also going to be the criminal justice reform president? Hmmm... which is it?



He's on the wrong side of this, polls are showing support for the protest slipping a bit but the American people do not agree with the crack down and Trump's policies on this one.









						Two in Three Americans Support Racial Justice Protests
					

About two in three Americans (65%) support the nationwide protests about racial injustice that followed the death of George Floyd.




					news.gallup.com


----------



## yaxomoxay

ericgtr12 said:


> He's on the wrong side of this, polls are showing support for the protest slipping a bit but the American people do not agree with the crack down and Trump's policies on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two in Three Americans Support Racial Justice Protests
> 
> 
> About two in three Americans (65%) support the nationwide protests about racial injustice that followed the death of George Floyd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com




ask the same question with the addition of “even if parts of it turn violent? Even if they last for days?” And you’ll see a change.

I support protests - it’s a right and an amazing one - but the moment they turn violent, I am for law and order. And sorry, this thing that it’s only fringes that do it doesn’t hold anymore. It has been going on for too long and way too many places.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> ask the same question with the addition of “even if parts of it turn violent? Even if they last for days?” And you’ll see a change.
> 
> I support protests - it’s a right and an amazing one - but the moment they turn violent, I am for law and order. And sorry, this thing that it’s only fringes that do it doesn’t hold anymore. It has been going on for too long and way too many places.




Ask one question. What is the main goal of the protests? Police accountability. Has anything major been done on the matter? Nope. Is it realistic to expect anything major on the topic this year? Other than the elections, no.
So it will go on, but I think this is where protests through the NBA and other sports leagues can be an absolute game changer (literally). They offer a peaceful, powerful, and socially acceptable avenue. The opportunity is there, I hope they'll use it right.


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> Ask one question. What is the main goal of the protests? Police accountability. Has anything major been done on the matter? Nope. Is it realistic to expect anything major on the topic this year? Other than the elections, no.
> So it will go on, but I think this is where protests through the NBA and other sports leagues can be an absolute game changer (literally). They offer a peaceful, powerful, and socially acceptable avenue. The opportunity is there, I hope they'll use it right.




i don’t think so. We had two huge political conventions, protests for months, and no real proposal other than a few slogans. For something of this magnitude - and we all agree that accountability is needed - we need to go into the specifics. Not one politician, one governor, no one is doing it. The 8cantwait people are the closest thing to it.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> i don’t think so. We had two huge political conventions, protests for months, and no real proposal other than a few slogans. For something of this magnitude - and we all agree that accountability is needed - we need to go into the specifics. Not one politician, one governor, no one is doing it. The 8cantwait people are the closest thing to it.



Thanks! I like this 8cantwait thing. Nothing new, but cohesive, simple and based on data I'm mostly familiar with. If the NBA picked up something like that, reminded people to remain peaceful and adhere to curfews, it could garner some momentum. In a meaningful direction.








						8 Can't Wait
					

#8CantWait is a campaign to bring immediate change to police departments. Tell your city to adopt these 8 policies now.



					8cantwait.org


----------



## yaxomoxay

PearsonX said:


> Thanks! I like this 8cantwait thing. Nothing new, but cohesive, simple and based on data I'm mostly familiar with. If the NBA picked up something like that, reminded people to remain peaceful and adhere to curfews. It could get garner some momentum. In a meaningful direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 Can't Wait
> 
> 
> #8CantWait is a campaign to bring immediate change to police departments. Tell your city to adopt these 8 policies now.
> 
> 
> 
> 8cantwait.org




Yes, 8cantwait certainly has some good, practical ideas we can build upon. Obviously some are not easy to implement - or even impossible to - such as the “warn before shooting” but at the same time we can certainly use it for meaningful changes.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> ask the same question with the addition of “even if parts of it turn violent? Even if they last for days?” And you’ll see a change.
> 
> I support protests - it’s a right and an amazing one - but the moment they turn violent, I am for law and order. And sorry, this thing that it’s only fringes that do it doesn’t hold anymore. It has been going on for too long and way too many places.



I imagine if you keep adding qualifiers you will always eventually get the response one prefers.

While the protests have gone on, there is an important thing to remember.  It's people choosing ( of various types ) to continue to do so themselves, because it's their right to do so.

So while it's handy to point to polls liking or disliking, I don't think it matters to those who choose to continue to exercise their right.

I'm pretty sure if you ask many of those protesting, they don't care for the violence that happens either.

The disingenuousness is when things are framed so that the violence AND the protests are one in the same to get a response one prefers.  Even Kenosha after all the crap with outside militia entering & the violence, has had peaceful protests since.


----------



## Eric

PearsonX said:


> Ask one question. What is the main goal of the protests? Police accountability. Has anything major been done on the matter? Nope. Is it realistic to expect anything major on the topic this year? Other than the elections, no.
> So it will go on, but I think this is where protests through the NBA and other sports leagues can be an absolute game changer (literally). They offer a peaceful, powerful, and socially acceptable avenue. The opportunity is there, I hope they'll use it right.



What the NBA did was very powerful, yes they're taking heat from Republicans because even peaceful protests are unacceptable in their eyes but this was an excellent way to get their point across.


----------



## yaxomoxay

JayMysteri0 said:


> I imagine if you keep adding qualifiers you will always eventually get the response one prefers.




Uh? No, it is important to understand the sentiment and their gray areas. There is no right or wrong here.



> While the protests have gone on, there is an important thing to remember.  It's people choosing ( of various types ) to continue to do so themselves, because it's their right to do so.




100% right! And it's very important that they can keep doing it, safely for them and everybody else.



> So while it's handy to point to polls liking or disliking, I don't think it matters to those who choose to continue to exercise their right.
> I'm pretty sure if you ask many of those protesting, they don't care for the violence that happens either.




What do you mean? That they're ok with people looting and burning property? I am not sure I understand your point.



> The disingenuousness is when things are framed so that the violence AND the protests are one in the same to get a response one prefers.




I am not sure people are really framing it this way, but the question must be asked. At which point the protests are used by criminals to do what they do, and at which point knowing that legit protests will be hijacked by a-holes it might be time to a) call them out, big time b) protect your own protest from them c) find a different way to protest (clarification: I am not a fan of option c because, as I said, I am in favor of protests as a right and as a good tool to engage civil discourse; I mention option c mainly as a practical choice).



> Even Kenosha after all the crap with outside militia entering & the violence, has had peaceful protests since.




And I hope they keep stuff peaceful.


----------



## JayMysteri0

yaxomoxay said:


> Uh? No, it is important to understand the sentiment and their gray areas. There is no right or wrong here.




In that quest to drill for sentiments, it maybe to find specific sentiments, ones that one prefers.  Thus if you add enough qualifiers you will eventually get the answers you want.  The issue is how many qualifiers are required to get that sentiment.  Your no longer asking your original question, your asking additional questions, but very specific ones.  That's my point.  The specific ones you maybe asking could be used to get a sentiment you prefer, over questions asked by another to get a different sentiment.  It isn't a matter of right of wrong, it's to gauge a basic sentiment.  It's no longer basic when you keep adding things.



> 100% right! And it's very important that they can keep doing it, safely for them and everybody else.



There is only so much an organizer can do.  They can't be expected to control every independent thinking human shows, let alone outside forces who show in up in counter to their protest.




> What do you mean? That they're ok with people looting and burning property? I am not sure I understand your point.



I would think that's a no brainer.  The protestors themselves don't want any of this happening, because they know there are those who blame them for the actions of others.  The most vivid example of this is the two girls early in the protests in CA who were defacing a Starbucks 'in the name of BLM', but actual BLM protestors stopped them.  That isn't always a realistic option, and in the present climate could lead to something worse.  The point is the actual protestors I am sure will tell you they don't want the violence.  They are very aware of the consequence.




> I am not sure people are really framing it this way, but the question must be asked. At which point the protests are used by criminals to do what they do, and at which point knowing that legit protests will be hijacked by a-holes it might be time to a) call them out, big time b) protect your own protest from them c) find a different way to protest (clarification: I am not a fan of option c because, as I said, I am in favor of protests as a right and as a good tool to ngage civil discourse; I mention option c mainly as a practical choice).



If you aren't sure if it's being framed that way, after the literal endless pages of stuff posted in PRSI, the coverage by Faux, NYPost, Reason.com, and numerous conservative leaning sites, I don't know what to say.  Except I believe I've seen repeated efforts to lump violence with BLM protests, so they disingenuous plea can be "If only we could stop the protests, the violence would stop".  The problem of course as we've seen in Kenosha, there's constantly a reminder that the protests are needed as nothing has really changed, and imagining the pinheads are going to stop is probably wishful thinking.  The right to protest shouldn't be curbed because of a fear of assholes exploiting it.  That becomes a chilling thought that I imagine law enforcement & Barr are salivating over.



> And I hope they keep stuff peaceful.



I believe they are trying.

As I said, you can't control human beings with their own agendas.  The protests can be blamed for the actions of human beings with their own agendas though.


----------



## LIVEFRMNYC

IMO, it's racism. Cause 9 times out of 10, it's always the innocent ones.

I grew up watching black criminals having fist fights with police, threaten police, spit on police, and witnessed plenty of times police pull their weapon on them and tell them to drop their gun or whatever weapon they have.  But somehow the majority of the time they don't get shot, just arrested.  Only to come home and see on primetime local news that an innocent black person or black kid gets shot by police for just moving their hands.

This has been the pattern for decades.  The only difference is it's getting caught on video now.


----------



## hulugu

Lostngone said:


> I am looking for answers here maybe we need to change the law and say deadly force is never allowed by police. Or allow minorities to claim during a stop that they are in fear of their life and by law require the police to stop pursuit or leave.




I suspect that if deadly force including a massive investigation where an individual cop had to prove that fear or necessity required the use of a firearm, and cops were not only fired, but prosecuted for screwing up, we'd see a very different reaction from police departments.

Today, between protective police unions, no-foul investigations, and qualified immunity, the balance of violence is entirely on the cop's side. And, culturally, we need people who believe in individual liberty, but who belong to the right, to take this stuff seriously.

I still think that the death of Philando Castile should have been a wake-up call for gun-rights advocates, because he was shot simply because he was a legal gun owner. But, instead, the gun-rights advocates largely ignored the case, either because cops are more important than citizens, or for the NRA and the rest, a black life is not as valuable as a white one.

Furthermore, the right has also defended the Bundy clan—who amassed an army of men who literally pointed guns at federal agents—and men like LaVoy Fincum, who tried to drive through an FBI checkpoint, and then got out of the car and reached into his pocket where he had a pistol.

What we need are cops who take this job seriously, and fire the cowboys. We need a cultural change, and a political change, not a series of laws that won't be enforced. We need better cops.


----------



## User.45

hulugu said:


> I suspect that if deadly force including a massive investigation where an individual cop had to prove that fear or necessity required the use of a firearm, and cops were not only fired, but prosecuted for screwing up, we'd see a very different reaction from police departments.
> 
> Today, between protective police unions, no-foul investigations, and qualified immunity, the balance of violence is entirely on the cop's side. And, culturally, we need people who believe in individual liberty, but who belong to the right, to take this stuff seriously.
> 
> I still think that the death of Philando Castile should have been a wake-up call for gun-rights advocates, because he was shot simply because he was a legal gun owner. But, instead, the gun-rights advocates largely ignored the case, either because cops are more important than citizens, or for the NRA and the rest, a black life is not as valuable as a white one.
> 
> Furthermore, the right has also defended the Bundy clan—who amassed an army of men who literally pointed guns at federal agents—and men like LaVoy Fincum, who tried to drive through an FBI checkpoint, and then got out of the car and reached into his pocket where he had a pistol.
> 
> What we need are cops who take this job seriously, and fire the cowboys. We need a cultural change, and a political change, not a series of laws that won't be enforced. We need better cops.




Wanna give momentum to gun regulation? Just get a bunch of black dudes armed to the teeth legally. That will do it.








						The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons
					

Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group.




					www.history.com


----------



## lizkat

yaxomoxay said:


> ~snip~ ... At which point the protests are used by criminals to do what they do, and at which point knowing that legit protests will be hijacked by a-holes it might be time to a) call them out, big time b) protect your own protest from them c) find a different way to protest (clarification: I am not a fan of option c because, as I said, I am in favor of protests as a right and as a good tool to engage civil discourse; I mention option c mainly as a practical choice).




Well yep it can be a practical choice and imo should actually be employed sometimes by Black Lives Matter protest organizers, not least because it's clear to me at least that they have become the targets of racist counter-protestors if not outright provocateurs.  We are all human and can possibly be provoked to violence during a protest march if we are accosted in a violent manner or even by some over the top language.   BLM as an entity is important and needs to keep up the pressure.  But as a matter of preserving its options and possibly its reputation even among supporters or neutral observers,  there can be a time when a particular protest might be publicly called to end by its organizers for the sake of protecting itself and its members. 

Of course and unfortunately it could be argued then that all it will take to get a BLM protest to stand down is throw a few punches, set a few fires and shoot someone in the arm, then call up the organizers and say see just keep it up, there's more where this shit came from.  A few well publicized rounds of organizers whistling the protest to a halt and then what does that make BLM?  Smart cookies? Or laughingstocks.  Pussies?  

So  "option c) the temporary stand-down"  might be seen as surrender to racists and white supremacists and therefore not very practical after all.   It's an agonizing dilemma for anyone who has organized a group of protestors.   I saw it sometimes when even some small protests against the Vietnam War in uptown Manhattan became violent despite efforts to keep them peaceful-- including peace marshals having reached out in advance to coordinate with police on how to isolate a main march from groups where violence was starting to break out. 

It was very hard to tell sometimes when not just police but the organizers should step in and say "ok that's it everybody outta the pool now the party's over" or whatever.  There was always that sense of "but this is my RIGHT to be out here doing this..." and so a sense that stepping back meant giving that right up instead of just deciding that preventing violence had become too difficult. 

It was hard to let go of the hopes for an impressive and peaceful demo, when it was going south and so became just a time to exercise the right to stay alive and not get busted for more than disturbing the peace... and so remain free to protest against the war at a future time to be arranged.  Of course even if organizers did call a halt,   the adrenalin not to say just testosterone by then was fueling resistance to anyone's interference with fisticuffs or worse, and made it very difficult for organizers to try to break up the march and get people to go on home without further violence.  The cops meanwhile took it upon themselves to get all comers to go home or get stuffed into paddywagons, violence or no by that point.

I'd like to say it was a time of vibrant political disagreement,  but pretty often it just looked like some bartender had 86'd a whole pub's worth of patrons to finish out in the street some misunderstanding down the end of the bar about a sports team or someone's mother. I was usually grateful to see the cops show up if I had got caught near the middle of some melee and couldn't get out to a side street.  Back then they were more likely just to shove or shepherd people out of the way of violent altercations,  than to use gas or even batons.   I hasten to say that was before the National Guard got called out at Kent State University in May of 1970...


----------

