Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

Rob wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Seriously.

To piggy back a Dave Chappelle joke, we should test this out by having black panther types do the same. Let’s see where his arguments end up then.

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Did he just go after a young child? If that were my daughter I would have lost my fucking shit on him and knocked him the fuck out however I could. wow.

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

Not being on board with 100% of the same fervor normally does not mean opposition. In this case the standard seems to be silence = violence.

Weakening or destroying police unions could be a bipartisan effort that would directly address the main point here, but so far its off the table.

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

Not being on board with 100% of the same fervor normally does not mean opposition. In this case the standard seems to be silence = violence.

Weakening or destroying police unions could be a bipartisan effort that would directly address the main point here, but so far its off the table.

I don't know that weakening is off the table, but the tactics of borderline extortion by some police unions (keep our budget and protections in place or, i don't know, some neighborhoods might not get their calls answered) certainly makes it hard for statehouses to vote against them.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

Not being on board with 100% of the same fervor normally does not mean opposition. In this case the standard seems to be silence = violence.

Weakening or destroying police unions could be a bipartisan effort that would directly address the main point here, but so far its off the table.

I don't know that weakening is off the table, but the tactics of borderline extortion by some police unions (keep our budget and protections in place or, i don't know, some neighborhoods might not get their calls answered) certainly makes it hard for statehouses to vote against them.

Related to extortion, their current behavior - we wont try to protect your property if your city residents are mean to us.

One thing some cities are just announcing are civilian revoew boards/ oversight comittees. These entities usually get kneecapped in that language regarding the finality of their findings/ decisions dont get included in the union contract. Some cities have seemingly useful versions of these, but I'm not sure how they implement in a way that over rules the unions.

durdencommatyler wrote:Fuck that vile piece of shit. Jesus fucking Christ!

VinylGuy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Fuck that vile piece of shit. Jesus fucking Christ!

i think i would fucking kick his ass. Like seriously try to hurt him.

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?

yeah it’s a real benefit of the doubt situation here.

We have more than enough evidence and information available to say that the majority of them care far more about haircuts than they do about what cops do to black people.

Not being on board with 100% of the same fervor normally does not mean opposition. In this case the standard seems to be silence = violence.

Weakening or destroying police unions could be a bipartisan effort that would directly address the main point here, but so far its off the table.

I don't know that weakening is off the table, but the tactics of borderline extortion by some police unions (keep our budget and protections in place or, i don't know, some neighborhoods might not get their calls answered) certainly makes it hard for statehouses to vote against them.

Related to extortion, their current behavior - we wont try to protect your property if your city residents are mean to us.

One thing some cities are just announcing are civilian revoew boards/ oversight comittees. These entities usually get kneecapped in that language regarding the finality of their findings/ decisions dont get included in the union contract. Some cities have seemingly useful versions of these, but I'm not sure how they implement in a way that over rules the unions.

Say what you want about msnbc, but Chris Hayes was talking about this last night. I don't think it's out of the question that national & state level dems push for reforms with actual teeth.

NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian has said that she supports the police application to make Saturday’s Black Lives Matter and Indigenous Lives Matter protest illegal.

The NSW police have applied for an injunction in the supreme court to make the protest illegal. That result will be known in the afternoon.

Berejiklian says that police have ways to ensure social distancing during large gatherings, but that the attendance grew too high for Saturday’s protest for organisers to guarantee that.

The premier says:

I spoke to the commissioner and it became abundantly clear that police would not be able to assure the maintenance of those health orders, that the number of protesters far exceeded what the initial request was.

The police commissioner and I discussed the fact that the police commissioner would apply to the supreme court to have the intended protest tomorrow that was intended to go ahead deemed illegal.