The Dark Side of the BLM Movement

[RiverDog]

Chauvin might get off too. Floyd was found to have dangerous levels Fentanyl in his blood.

It might cause the prosecution to reduce the charges to 3rd degree manslaughter and it could spare him from civil charges, but it's not going to allow him to walk. IMO there's no way the defense can justify keeping a man handcuffed behind the back and subdued face down in the prone position by putting his knee on the suspect's neck for 8 minutes. Chauvin is a first responder and should have known that the type of hold he had Floyd in had the potential to cut off blood circulation to the brain, especially for that amount of time. I've had scores of first aid classes, and one of the first things you're taught is how long the brain can survive w/o oxygen carrying blood. If Chauvin is allowed to walk, I'll be the first to declare it a miscarriage of justice.

Therein lies another issue that is hard to work out. If a person is engaged in heavy drug use and that afflicts his health, how do you account for that in this whole equation? Can you ask the police to be accountable while not asking citizens to be accountable for behavior that damages their health and puts them in a position to die if put in a physically strenuous situation?

I don't think it affects the issue at all. The issue is whether or not Chauvin used appropriate methods to protect himself and the others...including the suspect...during the arrest. It's clear to me that he did not, and that opinion has been supported by nearly every police department in the country, ie that the hold Chauvin had Floyd in was never taught nor approved by any of them.

[I-5]

I'm not saying a revolutionary war is the only thing that will stop it, but it is going to take some substantial evidence of racist police being taken to task rather than covered up for by all the decent cops out there as well as the system itself.

Well said, Bob. This is what I've been trying to say the whole time, but you said it better.

I made another point about large gatherings....look at when Trump has large gatherings like the travesty of using the South Lawn of the White House for a convention speech. People sitting side by side, no masks, while Trump simultaneously says 'we follows the facts and science'. Supreme irony in one moment. Then I look at some photos of march today in Washington, and I definitely see masks. Why does one group refuse to wear masks?

[RiverDog]

Why does one group refuse to wear masks?

I've seen the same thing locally. I've traveled to western Washington and western Oregon, where the political make-up is more liberal, and seen much better compliance than folks from the eastern side of the two states that are predominantly conservative. Some of it could be explained to the lower population density making it less of a threat on the east side, but I suspect it's a difference in politics. However, in the past 6 weeks since they've made it mandatory, I'm happy to report that both areas are much better at wearing face coverings.

The answer to your question is that conservatives are more likely not to trust the government than liberals, are more sensitive to constitutional rights being compromised, and are more individualistic than the "it takes a village" liberals that warm up to the communal concept. Although I harbor some of those same conservative ideals of individualism, I don't agree with extending that philosophy to include denying proven science, refusing to use their common sense, and respecting the dictates of legitimate authorities, but I do understand why they aren't as compliant as liberals.

[I-5]

I do understand why they aren't as compliant as liberals.

I agree, yet you're a conservative who uses your head and knows better than to extend that attitude to science. What's the difference with them? If Trump had come out earlier and more strongly in recommending masks, I would expect it would have made a difference (since they tend to believe what he says). This is where he's going to get nailed in the debates over and over. His one point about closing off travel from China doesn't really amount to much difference since he only banned Chinese citizens, and not ANY traveler from China.

[RiverDog]

I do understand why they aren't as compliant as liberals.

I agree, yet you're a conservative who uses your head and knows better than to extend that attitude to science. What's the difference with them? If Trump had come out earlier and more strongly in recommending masks, I would expect it would have made a difference (since they tend to believe what he says). This is where he's going to get nailed in the debates over and over. His one point about closing off travel from China doesn't really amount to much difference since he only banned Chinese citizens, and not ANY traveler from China.

Although I fit the age profile of a typical Trump supporter, I don't fit the educational profile, so perhaps that explains part of the difference. I also like to believe that I can judge each issue according to its own merits independent of other issues typically supported with those that share my conservatism. To me, wearing masks and limiting my contact with others is a no brainer. I also have a wife that has two auto immune diseases, MS and rheumatoid arthritis, and like me is 65 years old, so even if I didn't believe in the guidelines, I wouldn't have wanted to take a chance on being wrong about them.

There is a mindset in some, but certainly not all, people that did not go to college, particularly men that are blessed with that precious male ego of ours. I've seen a lot of otherwise qualified, mostly male co workers, especially older ones, that were passed over for promotion because they didn't have a degree that will rationalize their personal deficiencies by diminishing the importance of a higher education. Then there's others that didn't get a degree because they plain weren't smart enough, but when promotion time came, rather than be given the real reason, a weak manager would use a convenient excuse of no diploma as a reason for restricting their upward mobility. They have a tendency to look down on other degreed individuals as not being as smart as their accolades, and will tell stories about their f-ups and weaknesses with a lot of flair as if to say they're not as smart as what they're cracked up to be. When an issue like the coronavirus comes up, an invisible threat in which the only proof is what a bunch of doctors are telling them, it's difficult for them to put their faith in those folks running around in smocks with name tags on their breast pockets and using big words that they've made fun of for decades. I remember my dad, who was not degreed, coming home after his annual physical madder than hell saying that "Some little pencil dick (his young primary care physician) who couldn't fight his way out of a paper sack just told me I have to lose 25 pounds!"

Trump absolutely would have made a difference, and saved lives, had he come out early on and advocated face coverings and social distancing guidelines that most of the population now complies with rather than dismissing the virus as "a Democratic hoax to embarrass him", insisting that it was nothing more dangerous than the flu, and that it will just go away on its own, and it's all been proven to be wrong to any objective observer. It's his biggest weakness in his re-election bid.

But the Dems are doing their best to deliver to him a big campaign issue with their tepid response to the violence and rioting that has gripped many of our cities. They're playing right into his hand.

[Aseahawkfan]

It might cause the prosecution to reduce the charges to 3rd degree manslaughter and it could spare him from civil charges, but it's not going to allow him to walk. IMO there's no way the defense can justify keeping a man handcuffed behind the back and subdued face down in the prone position by putting his knee on the suspect's neck for 8 minutes. Chauvin is a first responder and should have known that the type of hold he had Floyd in had the potential to cut off blood circulation to the brain, especially for that amount of time. I've had scores of first aid classes, and one of the first things you're taught is how long the brain can survive w/o oxygen carrying blood. If Chauvin is allowed to walk, I'll be the first to declare it a miscarriage of justice.

Can they reduce the charges? That would be helpful.

I don't think you've looked at all the evidence that is now being released. A good defense will lawyer will show that on the police body cam Floyd could clearly speak and that may be a sign he was breathing. And dangerous levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl were found in his toxicology report.

The main prosecution evidence is a video tape of Chauvin in a dangerous position for an extended period of time. Which looks awful in the immediate aftermath of the event, but as more evidence is released can they get a charge to stick? Or can a defense lawyer reasonably prove that the fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd's system may have killed him?

If the defense lawyer is any good, I think he might get the case dropped on the basis of the toxicology report and the additional cam footage. Chauvin will never be a cop again for a major police force, but as far as possibly evading prison that may happen. From what I am told and you can let me know if I'm wrong, you need a near unanimous jury to convict someone of murder. And there is enough evidence to raise doubt as to whether Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death.

My feeling is Minnesota and the nation will burn again after that trial. We're a nation that uses juries and a jury will see far more evidence than the video we have all seen on TV. There is evidence to raise a reasonable doubt.

I don't think it affects the issue at all. The issue is whether or not Chauvin used appropriate methods to protect himself and the others...including the suspect...during the arrest. It's clear to me that he did not, and that opinion has been supported by nearly every police department in the country, ie that the hold Chauvin had Floyd in was never taught nor approved by any of them.

This issue applies not just to Chauvin, but period. Eric Garner and Floyd and a variety of other individuals who have died in custody high on drugs or due to poor physical health. The fact is excessive and habitual drug use erodes health and can cause issues that lead to death on top of erratic and problematic behavior during an arrest and being overweight and having other health issues can also cause death.

[RiverDog]

Can they reduce the charges? That would be helpful.

They can reduce the charges or drop them altogether even during a trial. There are times during a trial when new evidence is discovered, particularly in the testimony of a witness, that will convince a prosecutor that a certain charge is no longer appropriate. They can also plea bargain during a trial, agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge or plead guilty to avoid the death penalty.

I don't think you've looked at all the evidence that is now being released. A good defense will lawyer will show that on the police body cam Floyd could clearly speak and that may be a sign he was breathing. And dangerous levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl were found in his toxicology report.

The main prosecution evidence is a video tape of Chauvin in a dangerous position for an extended period of time. Which looks awful in the immediate aftermath of the event, but as more evidence is released can they get a charge to stick? Or can a defense lawyer reasonably prove that the fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd's system have killed him? If you were a defense lawyer

If the defense lawyer is any good, I think he might get the case dropped on the basis of the toxicology report and the additional cam footage. Chauvin will never be a cop again for a major police force, but as far as possibly evading prison that may happen. From what I am told and you can let me know if I'm wrong, you need a near unanimous jury to convict someone of murder. And there is enough evidence to raise doubt as to whether Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death.

I haven't seen all the evidence, and I doubt that you have, either. But the evidence that we have seen is compelling: A hold applied by Chauvin that no police department that I know of has recommended or taught. IMO the only way Chauvin is going to be able to rationalize that hold is to find a trainer that will testify that kneeling on the side of neck for 8 minutes, including several minutes that the suspect was completely motionless, is a recommended technique to subdue a suspect laying face down on the pavement and handcuffed behind his back.

My feeling is Minnesota and the nation will burn again after that trial. We're a nation that uses juries and a jury will see far more evidence than the video we have all seen on TV.

The way the nation is charged up, anything less than the death penalty for Chauvin will cause the nation to burn.

I don't think it affects the issue at all. The issue is whether or not Chauvin used appropriate methods to protect himself and the others...including the suspect...during the arrest. It's clear to me that he did not, and that opinion has been supported by nearly every police department in the country, ie that the hold Chauvin had Floyd in was never taught nor approved by any of them.

This issue applies not just to Chauvin, but period. Eric Garner and Floyd and a variety of other individuals who have died in custody high on drugs. The fact is excessive and habitual drug use erodes health and can cause issues that lead to death on top of erratic and problematic behavior during an arrest.

Those officers are going to have to show how they could believe that their lives or the lives of others were in immediate danger to the point that the only recourse was the use of deadly force.

Shooting an unarmed suspect 7 times in the back as what happened in Wisconsin is damn hard to justify no matter what the toxicology report says.

[Aseahawkfan]

I haven't seen all the evidence, and I doubt that you have, either. But the evidence that we have seen is compelling: A hold applied by Chauvin that no police department that I know of has recommended or taught. IMO the only way Chauvin is going to be able to rationalize that hold is to find a trainer that will testify that kneeling on the side of neck for 8 minutes, including several minutes that the suspect was completely motionless, is a recommended technique to subdue a suspect laying face down on the pavement and handcuffed behind his back.

Speaking from a purely legal perspective as I find what Chauvin did inhumane and unacceptable police behavior, but you haven't followed this much it seems. There is new video footage showing Floyd clearly breathing and active. There is a toxicology report indicating Floyd had dangerous levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. Do you know what those do? If you know what both of those drugs do, then you will know that raising reasonable doubt as to the cause of Floyd's death is a high possibility. It was Floyd whose toxicology report showed meth and fentanyl in his system. Not Jacob Blake.

This is not about the right or wrong actions of the police. This is about what can a defense lawyer use to show reasonable doubt in court. I hope you're not of the mind that the law will be ignored to put Chauvin in jail regardless of a trial.

Those officers are going to have to show how they could believe that their lives or the lives of others were in immediate danger to the point that the only recourse was the use of deadly force.
Shooting an unarmed suspect 7 times in the back as what happened in Wisconsin is damn hard to justify no matter what the toxicology report says.

The tox report was from Floyd, not Blake.

The cop in Wisconsin is unlikely to face any charges. He may be fired as a sacrificial lamb, but Jacob Blake brought that pain on himself. If they try to manufacture charges against the cop, a defense lawyer will have an easy time raising reasonable doubt.

That case is pretty clear:
1. Cop was called to a domestic dispute. Found a suspect who had a warrant for his arrest.

2. They attempted to arrest Blake using non-lethal means tasing him twice and attempted to physically subdue him.

3. Blake fought back physically attacking the cop is the current report.

4. Police officer pulled his weapon and told Blake to cease resisting arrest and not to move.

5. Jacob Blake turned his back on the police and went to his car for unknown reasons.

6. Police officer made a decision to fire because he did not know what Jacob Blake was doing.

A police officer does not need to see a weapon before they fire as long as they have a reason to believe the suspect is dangerous and may be going for a weapon. If you are uncooperative and resist arrest, you force a police officer to make this kind of decision. That is what Jacob Blake did.

We will see if any info comes out to contradict the current info. Given what we know, this leans pretty heavily as a justified, though tragic use of lethal force.

What would be your standard for a cop to use lethal force? Does the cop have to wait for the guy to get a weapon out of his car and try to use it on the cop? Where do you draw that line? Do citizens have standards of behavior they have to follow so police aren't forced into these types of decisions? Do you believe this should become a situation where police can't use deadly force unless they see the weapon? What are the standards for a cop or a citizen?

If you're telling me that as long as I don't have a weapon,I get to fight a cop off and tell him to go screw himself if he can't physically arrest me, then make it a law. Even at the ripe age of 50, I'm still a big dude who can fight off quite a few cops. If I can get off being bothered by cops by just not being armed and being able to beat them in a physical contest, then I'm all for it. Then the biggest ass kickers can avoid getting arrested by just kicking a cop's butt while unarmed and walk away because that's what it seems people in the Wisconsin situation seem to be supporting. I'm hoping you don't think that's ok, but maybe that's the point you're at.

[RiverDog]

What would be your standard for a cop to use lethal force? Does the cop have to wait for the guy to get a weapon out of his car and try to use it on the cop? Where do you draw that line? Do citizens have standards of behavior they have to follow so police aren't forced into these types of decisions? Do you believe this should become a situation where police can't use deadly force unless they see the weapon? What are the standards for a cop or a citizen?

My standard would be that the cop must have a reasonable fear for his life and/or the life of others before using lethal force. Does that mean that he has to see a gun before he fires? Not necessarily. It would depend on his and others' exposure to a deadly act. But I haven't heard or seen all the evidence, either. Did the cop yell "stop or I'll shoot!" or some other warning before he fired? Could he have dropped to a knee and trained his gun on the suspect and waited to see if he was going to come out with a gun? I do agree that there's a lot that we don't know, but 7 rounds into the back of a suspect without seeing a firearm is going to be really tough for the defense to get around.

[RiverDog]

They haven't confirmed if it was related to the BLM protest or not, but a man that was part of a large caravan of pro Trump supporters was shot dead last night in downtown Portland on a night of confrontation between pro and counter BLM protesters:

https://www.businessinsider.com/one-sho ... uxbndlbing

The longer this violence is allowed to continue, the more likely that we'll have another 4 years of Donald Trump. Polls indicate that the country's perception of the BLM protests are changing, that they are associating them more with violence than peaceful demonstrations. Trump has received a significant bump and has closed the gap between him and Biden.

[c_hawkbob]

The longer this violence is allowed to continue, the more likely that we'll have another 4 years of Donald Trump

Which is exactly why he and his cult followers are doing everything they can to keep it going.

[RiverDog]

The longer this violence is allowed to continue, the more likely that we'll have another 4 years of Donald Trump

Which is exactly why he and his cult followers are doing everything they can to keep it going.

Agreed. The BLM protests are a magnet to counter protesters. But what are we going to do to stop it?

[c_hawkbob]

I've already been down that rabbit hole with you but just asked "but what do we do now now". What we need to do long term is what we need to do now. We need to just start doing it!

[RiverDog]

I've already been down that rabbit hole with you but just asked "but what do we do now now". What we need to do long term is what we need to do now. We need to just start doing it!

Well, since any long term fix is going to take more than two months, I guess we'll just have to be content with another 4 years of Donald Trump.

[c_hawkbob]

When did that become a rule? We can make resolutions, launch investigations and stop allowing white nationalist militias free reign while continuing to crack down on protesters immediately. Even if only done in Blue states and municipalities it would be something.

[RiverDog]

When did that become a rule? We can make resolutions, launch investigations and stop allowing white nationalist militias free reign while continuing to crack down on protesters immediately. Even if only done in Blue states and municipalities it would be something.

All that is going to take time. The election is a little over two months away.

The trend is unmistakably clear. As of 8/29, Biden's cumulative lead in the battleground states (MI, WI, FL, PA, NC, and AZ) where the election will be won or lost is down to 2.7%. That less than half of what it was at the end of June. The major factor in this change is the continuing violence as more and more Americans are changing their view the BLM demonstrations. There is no reason to believe that if the demonstrations continue like they have over the past 3 months, that this trend won't continue.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elect ... nd-states/

The #1 goal in the next two months should be to do whatever it takes, with the only disclaimer being staying within the law, to rid ourselves of the single most divisive person in the country. That would be a good first step in enacting the long term goals that we both agree on.

[c_hawkbob]

Oh hogwash. Independent investigations can be launched today, like into the Police force in Wisconsin that failed to protect the public by allowing an out of state minor to walk the streets carrying an an AR and declined to even stop or apprehend him while he's carrying his gun and holding his hands in the air, and people are yelling at them that he just killed people. It might take months to bring things to court, but immediate steps can be taken. Mayors, governors and Police chiefs can announce resolutions promising increased training and awareness and ending protections for one group while targeting the other today.

Steps can and need to be taken immediately.

[RiverDog]

Oh hogwash. Independent investigations can be launched today, like into the Police force in Wisconsin that failed to protect the public by allowing an out of state minor to walk the streets carrying an an AR and declined to even stop or apprehend him while he's carrying his gun and holding his hands in the air, and people are yelling at them that he just killed people. It might take months to bring things to court, but immediate steps can be taken. Mayors, governors and Police chiefs can announce resolutions promising increased training and awareness and ending protections for one group while targeting the other today.

Steps can and need to be taken immediately.

I'm all for taking those immediate steps that you are suggesting, but investigations take many months to complete, and months after that to enact changes in policy, laws, etc that they may recommend. They are a long term fix.

The short term fix, and the one IMO that would have the most immediate impact on the goals expressed by the BLM movement, is getting rid of Donald Trump. No independent investigation is going to do anything towards achieving that goal.

[I-5]

I guess it’s only fair. If counter protestors who cause destruction aren’t all part of the peaceful protest movement yet stain it anyway, the same can be said for rogue cops who murder citizens. The police departments aren’t doing a lot to denounce them. If anything they’re still defending the one in the Kenosha shooting, and I don’t hear much condemnation of Chaivin by otter police.

If BLM has to ‘own’ (take responsibility for) bad protestors, who owns bad cops?

[RiverDog]

I guess it’s only fair. If counter protestors who cause destruction aren’t all part of the peaceful protest movement yet stain it anyway, the same can be said for rogue cops who murder citizens. .

If BLM has to ‘own’ (take responsibility for) bad protestors, who owns bad cops?

Unless someone was engaged in taking a human life, which in this case it doesn't seem apparent that he was, I'm never going to say it was 'fair' for a person to be murdered.

The police departments aren’t doing a lot to denounce them. If anything they’re still defending the one in the Kenosha shooting, and I don’t hear much condemnation of Chaivin by otter police

There's been plenty of police that have come out and condemned Chauvin's actions, including those within his own department:

“We wholeheartedly condemn Derek Chauvin. We Are With You in the denouncement of Derek Chauvin’s actions on Memorial Day, 2020. Like us, Derek Chauvin took an oath to hold the sanctity of life most precious. Derek Chauvin failed as a human and stripped George Floyd of his dignity and life. This is not who we are”

https://nypost.com/2020/06/12/minneapol ... k-chauvin/

And here's another, from the LA police department. In the quote, you'll note something that might explain why more police haven't come out and condemned the much more recent Kenosha shooting:

Police unions generally warn against quick judgments in cases of law enforcement violence, but in California, several representing rank-and-file police Thursday condemned the death of George Floyd and the actions of a Minnesota officer who knelt on his neck as he pleaded for air.

“What we saw on that video was inconsistent and contrary to everything we have been taught, not just as an academy recruit or a police officer, but as human beings. Reverence for life in every incident a police officer encounters must be the floor and not the ceiling,” the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents nearly 10,000 L.A. sworn personnel, said in a statement late Thursday.

Police unions in San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland, as well as the statewide law enforcement lobbying group, the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, put out similar statements, calling Chauvin’s actions outside of police training and castigating three other officers at the scene for failing to intervene.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... loyds-neck

Besides, you're missing my point. My point isn't whether or not the BLM movement has reasonable and justifiable complaints. IMO they do. My point is that their continued protests, regardless of whether they are being unfairly painted as leading to violence, have gotten to the point to where they are counterproductive. They are turning the American public against them, which may very well manifest itself in the re-election of Donald Trump. Voting Trump out of office is something that I think that we can both agree on that would be a good first step to resolving the problem that BLM so passionately and rightfully brought to our attention.

[Aseahawkfan]

My standard would be that the cop must have a reasonable fear for his life and/or the life of others before using lethal force. Does that mean that he has to see a gun before he fires? Not necessarily. It would depend on his and others' exposure to a deadly act. But I haven't heard or seen all the evidence, either. Did the cop yell "stop or I'll shoot!" or some other warning before he fired? Could he have dropped to a knee and trained his gun on the suspect and waited to see if he was going to come out with a gun? I do agree that there's a lot that we don't know, but 7 rounds into the back of a suspect without seeing a firearm is going to be really tough for the defense to get around.

I listed what they have stated happened so far. If new information comes out that changes things, I'll list it. At the moment Jacob Blake put that police officer in a terrible decision making situation and I do not see how a lawyer or reasonable people can say that police officer in those circumstances did not make a decision that was within the guidelines of his job given they ordered him to stand down, tried to use nonlethal means twice to take him down, and very much let him know they were going to fire with guns trained on him and the cop even trying to grab his shirt as he went into his car for unknown reasons.

If the BLM movement is movement to tar and feather cops regardless of what the suspect does, then that isn't going to fly with the majority of America in my opinion.

[Aseahawkfan]

You guys need to be honest. We're screwed. Neither of these sides is believing any independent investigation that doesn't side with their desired outcome. Both will claim conspiracy theory rubbish to undermine any independent investigation. This is a full scale culture war. No one will be satisfied unless their side wins. The only way out is some better leader showing up that can offer a solution that will move us in the right direction going forward and that person isn't likely on the ballot in 2020.

This is no longer a discussion in the realm of reason. This is a full scale, emotionally driven movement and counter-movement fueled by partisan media and politics that is going to continue until these fricking COVID19 restrictions are lifted and people start to have lives to live again that don't revolve around watching TV news and the constant diatribe of politics, race, and the like. When they can get back to work, school, the gym, and living normally, then this whole thing will calm down.

Until then, we're screwed. It looks like we're screwed worldwide because this whole movement isn't just in America. They pulled some statue down in Canada as well. It's full scale crazy worldwide right now due to these lockdowns. Until these lockdowns end, I don't see any of this changing because people got nothing but time to sit and be driven crazy by the media and politics right now.

[RiverDog]

My standard would be that the cop must have a reasonable fear for his life and/or the life of others before using lethal force. Does that mean that he has to see a gun before he fires? Not necessarily. It would depend on his and others' exposure to a deadly act. But I haven't heard or seen all the evidence, either. Did the cop yell "stop or I'll shoot!" or some other warning before he fired? Could he have dropped to a knee and trained his gun on the suspect and waited to see if he was going to come out with a gun? I do agree that there's a lot that we don't know, but 7 rounds into the back of a suspect without seeing a firearm is going to be really tough for the defense to get around.

I listed what they have stated happened so far. If new information comes out that changes things, I'll list it. At the moment Jacob Blake put that police officer in a terrible decision making situation and I do not see how a lawyer or reasonable people can say that police officer in those circumstances did not make a decision that was within the guidelines of his job given they ordered him to stand down, tried to use nonlethal means twice to take him down, and very much let him know they were going to fire with guns trained on him and the cop even trying to grab his shirt as he went into his car for unknown reasons.

Like I said, I haven't seen or heard all the evidence, but what I've seen suggests that the officer may have been justified in the use of lethal force. Blake was apparently given a command by officers that had their weapons drawn and trained on him, yet he still defied them and reached into his car for something. I can't say as I have a lot of sympathy for Blake. If someone, police or no police, has a lethal weapon drawn on me, I'm not going to tempt them.

But seven shots fired into a suspect's back from a semi automatic weapon, where the trigger has to be pulled with each shot, is very difficult for me to get around. On the face of it, it seems excessive.

If the BLM movement is movement to tar and feather cops regardless of what the suspect does, then that isn't going to fly with the majority of America in my opinion.

Agreed.

[RiverDog]

You guys need to be honest. We're screwed. Neither of these sides is believing any independent investigation that doesn't side with their desired outcome. Both will claim conspiracy theory rubbish to undermine any independent investigation. This is a full scale culture war. No one will be satisfied unless their side wins. The only way out is some better leader showing up that can offer a solution that will move us in the right direction going forward and that person isn't likely on the ballot in 2020.

This is no longer a discussion in the realm of reason. This is a full scale, emotionally driven movement and counter-movement fueled by partisan media and politics that is going to continue until these fricking COVID19 restrictions are lifted and people start to have lives to live again that don't revolve around watching TV news and the constant diatribe of politics, race, and the like. When they can get back to work, school, the gym, and living normally, then this whole thing will calm down.

Until then, we're screwed. It looks like we're screwed worldwide because this whole movement isn't just in America. They pulled some statue down in Canada as well. It's full scale crazy worldwide right now due to these lockdowns. Until these lockdowns end, I don't see any of this changing because people got nothing but time to sit and be driven crazy by the media and politics right now.

It certainly has a lot better chance of getting better under a President Biden than it does a President Trump.

And I agree that the root cause, at least of the veracity and duration of this unrest, is the pandemic.

[I-5]

My point is that their continued protests, regardless of whether they are being unfairly painted as leading to violence, have gotten to the point to where they are counterproductive

Just curious when you think the right time for protest is, and when is the right time to end it. Have they achieved their goals?

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Not directed at me, but here’s my $0.02.

Right time to protest is when those choosing to engage in it decide to start. As far as it when it should end, that all depends on 1). Did the protesters achieve their goals 2.) Did it fizzle out because they didn’t have the resolve to stay the course a la Occupy Wallstreet.

So far, no, they haven’t achieved their goal and it remains to seen if they get there or fizzle out.

Regardless, the more protests continue to be a source of violence and destruction, the public will likely become less and less sympathetic.

[Aseahawkfan]

Just curious when you think the right time for protest is, and when is the right time to end it. Have they achieved their goals?

When's the right time to stop protesting? It seems it was a good time to start as many people got behind the initial protests. I was behind the initial protests. What happened to Floyd was inhumane even if they prove the drugs were the cause of death. People shouldn't get treated like that and Chauvin showed a very inhumane streak. I don't want cops like that on the force.

Now it seems to have reached a point where people are protesting to get out of their house and there are a lot of people that don't have good intentions hopping onto the protests to wreak chaos and cause havoc on the left and right. There's a lot of opportunists using these protests to steal, burn, vent rage, wreak chaos, hurt law-abiding businesses, and generally cause problems.

Do you keep protesting once your protests have been taken over by opportunists using you as a shield for lots of stupid? Did you think the CHOP was ok? Do you think it is an acceptable way to protest to set up a zone where the mob decides the laws? Or Portland where someone tried to burn down a police station?

Where do you draw the line? When do you stop protesting and let the politicians get something worked out?

On a side note, you have no idea how pissed off people in Washington State are about that CHOP BS. The city is being sued right now for letting that area occur and not allowing police to respond to the shooting. Many of us are pissed beyond belief. You never let mobs take over a city and declare their own laws. That's not a protest. That's mob rule.

[RiverDog]

Just curious when you think the right time for protest is, and when is the right time to end it. Have they achieved their goals?

Not directed at me, but here’s my $0.02.

Right time to protest is when those choosing to engage in it decide to start. As far as it when it should end, that all depends on 1). Did the protesters achieve their goals 2.) Did it fizzle out because they didn’t have the resolve to stay the course a la Occupy Wallstreet.

So far, no, they haven’t achieved their goal and it remains to seen if they get there or fizzle out.

Regardless, the more protests continue to be a source of violence and destruction, the public will likely become less and less sympathetic.

The right time to protest is when an affected group feels it's the only way to bring their case to the public.

As far as when to end it, it's unreasonable to expect not to end it until they've achieved their goal, at least in this case, if I understand their goal being to stop the unwarranted use of deadly force by police officers directed at persons of color. At least as far as the ideas we've exchanged, the changes necessary to achieve that goal will take many, many months, if not years, to implement and even longer to appraise to see if those changes were effective. It's not reasonable to expect protests to last that long, at least not in the same numbers and veracity that we've witnessed this summer.

But clearly, the time to end them has past. Some in their movement are going beyond peaceful protesting. They are causing unintended consequences by attracting counter protesters that are unfairly painting their movement. The public is turning against them. Their protests are being used against them to great advantage as a political weapon by the man they despise most.

The movement needs to mature into something more than just marching down the streets and waving signs. It needs to progress into political action by advancing candidates and proposing initiatives they feel will address their concerns. We are a nation of laws. About the only policy changes BLM has proposed is to defund the police, which ain't gonna happen.

[RiverDog]

When's the right time to stop protesting? It seems it was a good time to start as many people got behind the initial protests. I was behind the initial protests. What happened to Floyd was inhumane even if they prove the drugs were the cause of death. People shouldn't get treated like that and Chauvin showed a very inhumane streak. I don't want cops like that on the force.

Now it seems to have reached a point where people are protesting to get out of their house and there are a lot of people that don't have good intentions hopping onto the protests to wreak chaos and cause havoc on the left and right. There's a lot of opportunists using these protests to steal, burn, vent rage, wreak chaos, hurt law-abiding businesses, and generally cause problems.

Do you keep protesting once your protests have been taken over by opportunists using you as a shield for lots of stupid? Did you think the CHOP was ok? Do you think it is an acceptable way to protest to set up a zone where the mob decides the laws? Or Portland where someone tried to burn down a police station?

Where do you draw the line? When do you stop protesting and let the politicians get something worked out?

On a side note, you have no idea how pissed off people in Washington State are about that CHOP BS. The city is being sued right now for letting that area occur and not allowing police to respond to the shooting. Many of us are pissed beyond belief. You never let mobs take over a city and declare their own laws. That's not a protest. That's mob rule.

I largely agree with this assessment.

To the underlined sentence. I've lived in WA my entire life of some 65 years. Downtown Seattle used to be a fun place to visit, especially in the summer. In the 80's and 90's, I used to meet up with some old college buddies of mine, stay at a hotel in downtown, catch a couple Mariners games, bar hop in the Pioneer Square district. The relatively mild summers were a welcome relief to the triple digit temperatures in eastern Washington. On weekends, I used to take my daughter down to the waterfront, to the aquarium and arcade, to the Pacific Science Center and the Space Needle.

Now it's become an open cesspool. The smell of urine is everywhere. You can't walk a city block without being approached by a panhandler, some of them aggressive. Used needles in the gutters. When we go to a Seahawks game, we'll stay out near Tukwila or Bellevue even though it's not nearly as convenient as staying downtown. The protests are just the latest in a series of reasons that have occurred over the past 10-15 years that has caused me to avoid downtown Seattle.

[RiverDog]

Here's an interesting article regarding the prime suspect in the killing of a pro Trump counter protester in downtown Portland last Saturday night. I've copied some of the more disturbing parts:

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/0 ... otest.html

On July 5 at one of the demonstrations, Reinoehl was cited at 2:10 a.m. in the 700 block of Southwest Main Street on allegations of possessing a loaded gun in a public place, resisting arrest and interfering with police.

Reinoehl is also wanted on a failure to appear warrant in a June 8 speed racing case in Baker County in eastern Oregon. He and his 17-year-old son were racing in two different cars at speeds of up to 111 mph heading east on Interstate 84 after midnight near North Powder, according to state police.

Michael Reinoehl faces allegations including driving under the influence of a controlled substance, recklessly endangering another, unlawful possession of a gun and driving while suspended and uninsured.

He was stopped driving a 2005 Cadillac STS with his 11-year-old daughter as a passenger, police said. Inside the car, police said they found marijuana, “unidentified prescription pills” and a loaded Glock pistol for which Reinoehl didn’t have a concealed handgun license.

Shortly after that, Reinoehl began posting about the protests in Portland.

On June 16, he wrote, “Every Revolution needs people that are willing and ready to fight. There are so many of us protesters that are just protesting without a clue of where that will lead. That’s just the beginning that’s that where the fight starts. If that’s as far as you can take it thank you for your participation but please stand aside and support the ones that are willing to fight. I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! ... We do not want violence but we will not run from it either! ... Today’s protesters and antifa are my brothers in arms.”

I'm not going so far as to say that the victim got what he deserved, but then again, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for him, either. He wasn't exactly an innocent bystander as he and the others made a choice to go into the city, late at night when most violent behavior occurs, and confront members on the opposite side of the spectrum from them.

[I-5]

Is this what the beginning of a new civil war looks like? I was a baby when the 1968 riots were happening, so I don't have any memory of that or a point of reference. It feels like anger is building up on both sides, and no matter what happens Nov 3, problems are not going to go away.

[c_hawkbob]

Is this what the beginning of a new civil war looks like? I was a baby when the 1968 riots were happening, so I don't have any memory of that or a point of reference. It feels like anger is building up on both sides, and no matter what happens Nov 3, problems are not going to go away.

I was 11, this is pretty much how it felt then to my memory. And no, I don't think a civil war is coming, I think more people are going to vote in this election than any recently and that'll bring a close to the worst of this.

[RiverDog]

Is this what the beginning of a new civil war looks like? I was a baby when the 1968 riots were happening, so I don't have any memory of that or a point of reference. It feels like anger is building up on both sides, and no matter what happens Nov 3, problems are not going to go away.

I was 11, this is pretty much how it felt then to my memory. And no, I don't think a civil war is coming, I think more people are going to vote in this election than any recently and that'll bring a close to the worst of this.

I was 13-14 and fully aware of them. But the race riots began much earlier, as far back as the end of WW2. And it wasn't just blacks rioting against the establishment. There were lots of demonstrations turned violent over de-segregation and forced bussing where whites were the 'demonstrators'. The riots in the Watts neighborhood in LA were in 1965. 34 deaths and $40 million in property damage. The riots in Detroit in the summer of 1967 were some of the worst in US history. They included 43 dead, hundreds injured, and over a thousand buildings burned. Civil rights workers, both white and black, were murdered in cold blood, execution style. Basically most of the 50's and 60's were marred by rioting, lynchings, assassinations, church bombings, cross burnings, etc. '68 was more memorable because the year included the assassination of two very prominent national figures, MLK and RFK. It was an awful time that I had hoped would never be repeated, at least not in this country.

Ironically, some of the worst race riots came after the passage of landmark legislation in the form of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and with one of the most socially progressive POTUS's in the White House in the form of LBJ that had bona fide southern credentials. That doesn't bode well for what could be in store for us in the near future.

Plus besides race riots, there were hundreds of violent demonstrations over the Vietnam War during the mid to late 60's. The country was coming apart at the seams.

I'm hoping that with the onset of colder temperatures that so, too, will the tempers of the general population cool off, that Biden wins the presidency, and that we'll have a successful vaccine distributed before next spring and that things can get more or less back to normal. If we don't get a successful vaccine or if Trump is re-elected, we could be in for another rough year.

[Aseahawkfan]

Is this what the beginning of a new civil war looks like? I was a baby when the 1968 riots were happening, so I don't have any memory of that or a point of reference. It feels like anger is building up on both sides, and no matter what happens Nov 3, problems are not going to go away.

The problems won't go away until the pandemic lifts. Life is on hold for millions of people. Once the pandemic lifts, you will see life change dramatically and probably suddenly. This pandemic is the worst thing I've experienced in my life. I'm mostly a homebody who doesn't out a great deal and even I'm going to go do something once this thing ends just to GTFO my house. Even I used to like to go to a restaurant with a friend usually once a week and go to my buddies house to game. I hit the gym 2 to 4 days a week. This pandemic has made me mostly a shut in. It's been terrible. Far worse than these protests or any of this other crap.

The day this lockdown garbage ends, I will sleep like a damn baby. I just want to go to the gym again and enjoy sports played with a full stadium and go to a restaurant or see a movie in a nice, quiet, cool theater with a big drink.

That's why these people are going nuts. Stuck in their houses, watching the news, and going crazy. Imagine how terrible this is for young people who can't go to school, can't go out like they used to, full of energy and wanting to live, but stuck inside their places like they're old men and women.

I'm nearly 50 and I'm going nuts at this point. If I were in my 20s again in this situation, I'd probably go out and protest something just to get out of my house.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was 13-14 and fully aware of them. But the race riots began much earlier, as far back as the end of WW2. And it wasn't just blacks rioting against the establishment. There were lots of demonstrations turned violent over de-segregation and forced bussing where whites were the 'demonstrators'. The riots in the Watts neighborhood in LA were in 1965. 34 deaths and $40 million in property damage. The riots in Detroit in the summer of 1967 were some of the worst in US history. They included 43 dead, hundreds injured, and over a thousand buildings burned. Civil rights workers, both white and black, were murdered in cold blood, execution style. Basically most of the 50's and 60's were marred by rioting, lynchings, assassinations, church bombings, cross burnings, etc. '68 was more memorable because the year included the assassination of two very prominent national figures, MLK and RFK. It was an awful time that I had hoped would never be repeated, at least not in this country.

Ironically, some of the worst race riots came after the passage of landmark legislation in the form of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and with one of the most socially progressive POTUS's in the White House in the form of LBJ that had bona fide southern credentials. That doesn't bode well for what could be in store for us in the near future.

Plus besides race riots, there were hundreds of violent demonstrations over the Vietnam War during the mid to late 60's. The country was coming apart at the seams.

I'm hoping that with the onset of colder temperatures that so, too, will the tempers of the general population cool off, that Biden wins the presidency, and that we'll have a successful vaccine distributed before next spring and that things can get more or less back to normal. If we don't get a successful vaccine or if Trump is re-elected, we could be in for another rough year.

Glad to see someone talking sense. My buddy's dad trying to tell him this is worse than he can remember and he lived through the 60s. His dad must have been blind-folded and deaf. This isn't even sniffing distance of the 60s. This is some minor rioting and annoyance. The 60s was full on cultural warfare with racism at a level that isn't even within spitting distance of the modern day and the Vietnam War drew more protesting than any war in history. You watch the historical footage of the 60s and people would think Donald Trump was a saint given how the police and military were used in those days to quell protests.

[I-5]

If I were in my 20s again in this situation, I'd probably go out and protest something just to get out of my house.

Well, that probably explains a huge percentage of peaceful (and some not-so-peaceful) protestors out there. So much pent up frustration that probably includes lockdown, not just racial issues.

Also, what feels scary about right now to me is actually not the police like it was in '68...it's the civilians killing other civilians we're starting to see between left and right. Let's hope it stops at Kenosha and Portland. I think most of us want to see Biden win, but I really have no idea how Trump's fanatics will take that. I just don't see them quietly going back to their lives. I hope I'm wrong.

[RiverDog]

Well, that (COVID crisis/lockdown) probably explains a huge percentage of peaceful (and some not-so-peaceful) protestors out there. So much pent up frustration that probably includes lockdown, not just racial issues.

Also, what feels scary about right now to me is actually not the police like it was in '68...it's the civilians killing other civilians we're starting to see between left and right. Let's hope it stops at Kenosha and Portland. I think most of us want to see Biden win, but I really have no idea how Trump's fanatics will take that. I just don't see them quietly going back to their lives. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't think that there's any doubt that the COVID crisis is one of the major factors in all of the civil unrest, at least as it applies to the veracity and duration. One of the "CHAZ" participants told an interviewer that he was there because he'd been laid off. A lot of the participants are there simply due to their availability.

There was plenty of citizen-on-citizen violence in 1968. The KKK made sure of that. And please, let's quit referring to just one year.

Although rare, there were counter protests during the era. Ever hear of the Hard Hat Riot? I can vividly remember seeing it on the news:

Days after the shooting at Kent State, on May 8, 1970, college students gathered to protest on Wall Street in the heart of New York City's financial district. The protest was attacked by a violent mob of constructions workers swinging clubs and other weapons in what became known as "The Hard Hat Riot."

According to a front-page New York Times article the next day, office workers watching the mayhem in the streets below their windows could see men in suits who seemed to be directing the construction workers. Hundreds of young people were beaten in the streets as a small force of police officers mostly stood by and watched.

After winning the battle for Federal Hall, the hard hats rampaged across Lower Manhattan. They marched to City Hall, where the flag was flying at half-mast to honor the dead at Kent State. A postal worker who had joined the fray managed to climb onto the roof and raise the stars and stripes to its proper, prideful position. When city officials returned it to half-mast, the workers rushed the building, leaping over police barricades and running over the hoods of cars.

Fearing a disaster, officials raised the flag back to full mast. Running battles continued at Pace College (now University), where workers broke into buildings and smashed windows. They punched and kicked antiwar students who curled up on the ground to protect themselves. Some 70 people were injured, and six were reportedly arrested.

In the days and weeks that followed, lunch time became patriotic protest hour, as marches continued. The ranks of the hard hats grew from hundreds to thousands, and sympathetic office workers joined their midday marches. They demanded more support for the war and less coddling of subversives, carrying signs that read “God Bless the Establishment” and “We Love Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, His Wife, and Reagan.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/nyre ... -riot.html

[I-5]

Thanks Riv, like I said I don't have any recollection of that era, so thanks for filling some of it in for me.

Different question, what do you think of Trump's intentions coming to Kenosha? It's a bit unbelievable that he is coming that far without planning to visit or speak with Jacob Blake, but bring law enforcement with him. Is this really the optics he wants? If so, then he is clearly showing no interest in bringing healing to the country. I have a hard time not thinking he wants to bring some form of violence to the country, if it preserves his power. Convince me otherwise.

[RiverDog]

Thanks Riv, like I said I don't have any recollection of that era, so thanks for filling some of it in for me.

Different question, what do you think of Trump's intentions coming to Kenosha? It's a bit unbelievable that he is coming that far without planning to visit or speak with Jacob Blake, but bring law enforcement with him. Is this really the optics he wants? If so, then he is clearly showing no interest in bringing healing to the country. I have a hard time not thinking he wants to bring some form of violence to the country, if it preserves his power. Convince me otherwise.

Trump's decision to go to Kenosha is like every other decisions he's made: It's selfish. He sees an opportunity in a battleground state to increase his chances of winning and he's going no matter who it might hurt. The only thing he cares about is motivating his base. It's why he called the man shot and killed in Portland, part of a group that went in armed and looking for a fight, a "great patriot" and vowed to fight "violent left wing civil unrest", intentionally overlooking the violence perpetuated by those on the far right. Trump is intentionally inciting a culture war as he thinks that's the ticket to his re-election. HIs trip to Kenosha is part of that culture war.

[I-5]

Exactly. Violence is not excluded from his plan, if that’s what it takes to motivate his base. It doesn’t even occur to him that he has an opportunity to show what a leader i s. He simply has no idea. Can you imagine what’s going on in his toddler mind?