If I remember correctly, the police had the SWAT teams in camo and automatic rifles pointed at protesters on day 1 of the protests, so they weren’t really responding to anything going on at that point. Also, where the protesters are (and the police presence is) is not the place where the looting has occurred (though I did read reports that heavily armed police stood by and watched some looting occur, so it’s not like the firepower is there to actually respond to that).
I suspect it’s simply an attempt at intimidation, honestly: “Start something with us, and we’ll cut you down.”
I realize you don’t think you’re attacking me, but now I’m forced to repeat myself.
I already tried to make clear and I now will repeat AGAIN I’m not defending IN ANY WAY the behavior or presence of the police. In fact I believe they don’t belong there in those numbers or that force. (Which I shouldn’t have to say three times.) I only posted the information about the looting and store destruction because no one else had bothered to do so - for three days.
Edit: I was going to can this post because it might come across as too flippant, however, all pithy British humour aside, I really think it’s nice to imagine some of the arseholes training rifles on the peaceful demonstration having this kind of epiphany. Unlikely to actually happen, but nice to imagine.
I don’t even know why I wrote that… It’s so stupidly obvious, isn’t it? It’s just, my understanding of what police are for, and the actual police’s understanding, seem to be so utterly at odds…
I’m just trying to process how they can be so bad at their jobs.
If those guys want a real public safety challenge, one more suited to their equipment and attitude, maybe they could be redeployed to protect the Yazidis.
Assuming the Yazidis would want protection like that.
Looting does have to do with an increased police presence or with giving police an excuse to further increase their presence - so don’t say it has nothing to do with the story. Also, I think the store owners whose places were looted (even though they had nothing to do with the shooting) wouldn’t be happy with your interpretation of the situation.
EDIT: Because I want to make this really clear for you. I provide information - and I do my best to be neutral about it. Here’s another thread where I stepped in because pertinent information hadn’t been included in the post. My comment begins:
People do realize that other police showed up on the scene because 9-1-1 was called on the officer, right?
In that instance, the other police were there because a woman was being beaten by a cop. I also explained that the incident took place in area where he had no valid reason to stop her, and it was a block away from the jail.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t have been giving me a hard time then.
I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that, while they can’t be absolved of responsibility, their training and socialisation is carefully designed to make them tools of the law enforcement institution.
So I’d argue that they aren’t bad at their jobs, their jobs are bad. The institution needs drastic reform and accountability, and most of them would probably go right along with that if they were ordered to and set strong examples from above.
yeah, no shit. of course people got wild. that’s the only reason anyone is paying attention anyway. this stupid fucking liberal hand wringing is disgusting.
what you talking about? are you mixing 3rd wave feminism in with your maoism?
regardless, that’s complete bullshit. i solidly reject the left, but i used to interact with them regularly. it seemed to mostly be old white people that were very insistent on strong central leadership, steering committees, that sort of thing. the (very straight, white, homophobic) RCP would hijack (heavily queer and poc) anarchist marches and events all the time. the trots were nowhere near as bad but still obnoxious.
i was out of organizing by the time occupy (itself unsettlingly colonialist in name), but i know that anarchos were very hesitant to get involved with some weird hippie dippie leftist thing that adbusters (?!) called for. basically, the opposite of what you said.
It’s like the situation in Israel/Palestine; the goal isn’t positioning for peace, it’s positioning to “win.” Reminds me of The Princess Bride; it’s not a fight “to the death” it’s “to the pain.”
The thing is, this is the kind of thing that Libertarians had been warning about for years. This kind of militarized presence. However, since it’s happening to people who aren’t white, they really don’t care. At least most of them.
This country is on a trigger’s edge already. Poverty, lack of opportunity, a decade and more of war, neoliberal “reforms”, inflation without wage increase. Violent police, getting away with murder, so long as it’s poor people who are the targets. Been going on for a long time.
Either we do something serious in this country to turn away from what’s coming, or we’ll see this continue. I don’t know if it’ll end in revolution or civil war - but it will NOT end peacefully.
I get you, catgrin, but I think the point is that this default police response of “show of overwhelming deadly force” doesn’t de-escalate the situation. It may be textbook response to looting and potential riot conditions, but it’s not aimed at solving the problem, it’s aimed at forcing the people to submit to “authority” even if the fundamental problem is that people are protesting that authority in the first place.
Let’s not forget that Ike desegregated Little Rock high school at the point of paratroopers bayonets. Apparently they work pretty well for crowd control - people have a real horror of getting stabbed
