Protests over George Floyd killing

[Guardian Enzo]

I shudder to think what's going to happen when those cops in Minnesota are acquitted, as cops always are on the rare occasions they're even charged. That could be a bloody day.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Politico and, in particular, The Hill are among the more conservative organizations in the mainstream media.

I would add that CNN is center right, but the thing is that anyone that plans to vote for reagan 2.0 coming november has not watched/read (or believed if they did) any of those three news outlets because they think they are part of the liberal media.

BTW, Esper has since backed down on ordering the troops back to their barracks. Trump apparently exploded when he heard Esper's remarks.

Any sauce to dig into it?

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

I shudder to think what's going to happen when those cops in Minnesota are acquitted, as cops always are on the rare occasions they're even charged. That could be a bloody day.

There's a trick to this I think.

It's harder to prove 1st degree murder. You have to prove there was a premeditated plan to murder someone. If they are charged with 1st degree murder, they could be acquitted.

If they are charged with 2nd degree murder, you have just to have prove there was an intent. That can be done with already publicized autopsies.

I suspect that some white supremacist groups might actually push for a 1st degree murder charge for these cops, and try to agitate people.

//

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

I shudder to think what's going to happen when those cops in Minnesota are acquitted, as cops always are on the rare occasions they're even charged. That could be a bloody day.

Well, consider the last time there were riots over the matter with Philando Castile. Merely charging them doesn't mean much.

Oh, and one of the cops arrested here in this case was already involved in some violent conduct.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, consider the last time there were riots over the matter with Philando Castile. Merely charging them doesn't mean much.

Oh, and one of the cops arrested here in this case was already involved in some violent conduct.

That's nothing new. Most of the killer cops have had a track record.

Cops pretty much always walk. They almost never get convicted. It sucks but between the prosecution tanking the cases and the near-impossibility of getting 12 jurors to convict a cop, it's a fait acompli.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

While the police makes peaceful protest impossible? Good luck.

Who cares about per capita? Even today, the USA are ranked 10+ in GDP per capita. So what?

In 1998, China was already #7 in GDP. Indonesia was #36, with 10 times less.

I'd say the direction of causation is the reverse. The rioting forces police to respond, which in turn makes peaceful protest impossible.

If your argument is that there's no way for various diasporas to succeed in foreign countries unless their home countries are wealthy first, then there's no evidence of such a link.

As a simple example, consider the incomes of ethnic groups in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

There isn't a strong link between incomes and the GDP of their ancestral countries.

Why do you ask?


Depends. By whom? For what purpose?


Mostly the same as last time.

The reason why I ask these questions is because I don't see any substantive discussion of these important issues within this thread, which makes it difficult for me to follow the line of reasoning being put forward here. I have to admit, as a classical liberal who leans right, I'm puzzled by the opinions in this thread since they're pretty much the polar opposite of my own.

Feel free to respond to the questions however you like, and the more complete the better.

Enlighten me.

Originally Posted by Key Board

I lived in Indonesia Frivolity

Chinese Indonesians were not the ruling elite. They were actually the "Jew" equivalents.
They're ethnic scapegoats. The one that demagogues blames for everything.

Riots in Indonesia were equivalent to white people oppressing minorities and screaming at them for "taking their jobs"
I should know. My family was victim of the Jakarta riots. And it happened because systematic racism has brainwashed many people into believing Chinese Indonesians to be the root of the problem instead of corruption and nepotism.

Gee does that sound familiar?
Riots in the US are an oppressed minority making a statement against a much more violent establishment. Totally different things.

Honestly the only reason why we didn't riot in Indonesia was because there weren't enough.
1% of the population compared to what? 12% of Blacks in the US?
I still remember taking the national exams and my Bahasa Indonesia teacher explicitly telling not to write anything in my essay that would give away that I was an ethnic minority.

I remember being forced to pay respects to the flag every damn Monday.
I was hoping things would be different in the US but noooo, y'all started that jingoistic poison and get worse after 9/11

Things got better in Indonesia after President Gus Dur made some reforms.
Do you think Trump will do the same, or will he just double down on racism?
You know the answer

//

My own family was affected by the 1998 riots too. My father's factory was almost looted, but we had a close shave as the security guard was able to redirect the mob towards the supermarket across the road. I'm fully aware that we Indonesian Chinese are not the ruling elite, and my previous post never indicated as such. The point I'm making is that the Indonesian Chinese community succeeded without rioting. Our economic success in Indonesia as a community largely came about through business, not through politics.

If we take a look at examples of minorities across history and across the world that found success in spite of discrimination, the vast majority of cases occurred without rioting or violent protests on the part of these minority communities, but instead through skills, education, and business. This is true of the Chinese diaspora all around the world, especially in Southeast Asia. It's also the case for Gujarati Indians around the world, as well as for Japanese Americans and Jewish Americans. There's very few examples of minority communities becoming successful through violence, which is why I don't think violent protests are the answer.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by frivolity

I'd say the direction of causation is the reverse. The rioting forces police to respond, which in turn makes peaceful protest impossible.

The police has been, on camera, violent toward peaceful protestors. And even if that wasn't the case, it takes cooperation between police and protestors to separate and isolate bad actors so a peaceful protest doesn't turn into a riot. Which Trump and his ilk are openly uninterested in.

If your argument is that there's no way for various diasporas to succeed in foreign countries unless their home countries are wealthy first, then there's no evidence of such a link.

No, my point is that it's impossible or at least pretty unlikely for a small, despised minority to change policy without some kind of external pressure, like a need for allies in the Cold War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg1X1KkVxN4

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...=1591259551792

(Other tactic: throw some other minority under the bus?)

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The police has been, on camera, violent toward peaceful protestors. And even if that wasn't the case, it takes cooperation between police and protestors to separate and isolate bad actors so a peaceful protest doesn't turn into a riot. Which Trump and his ilk are openly uninterested in.

Would you agree that violence by rioters is a lot more commonplace than violence by police against peaceful protesters though? If the violence has only been on the side of the police, then I'd fully agree with your argument.

In terms of cooperation between police and protesters, what leads you to your conclusion that Trump prefers violent protests instead of peaceful protests? And what's your view on celebrities paying to bail out rioters who have been arrested?

All serious questions, btw.

No, my point is that it's impossible or at least pretty unlikely for a small, despised minority to change policy without some kind of external pressure, like a need for allies in the Cold War.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg1X1KkVxN4

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...=1591259551792

(Other tactic: throw some other minority under the bus?)

The argument I'd make is that historical examples of minorities who have succeeded in spite of discrimination did so without engaging in violence or even through politics. This has mostly been the case not just in the US but around the world as well.

In my view, the rioting is more likely to be counter-productive, in that swing voters will be more inclined to vote for Trump in November, but I could be wrong about that of course.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Would you agree that violence by rioters is a lot more commonplace than violence by police against peaceful protesters though?

No, I wouldn't. But without good data it is impossible to know the answer to questions like these.

Pew today republished some stunning data from its 2016 surveys comparing the attitudes of police officers with those of the general public.



You have to live in a cocoon to believe that "our country has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights with whites." Attitudes like that make police more likely to deny the legitimacy of protests by blacks.

The other issue that the media is reluctant to address is the role of provocateurs on both sides. I agree there is a small contingent out to take advantage of the thousands of peaceful protestors. However, while the Administration points to Antifa, the real threat seems to me to be white supremacist "boogaloo" types like these three charged in Nevada. There's ample cellphone footage of whites busting up stores and being restrained by black protestors.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

You have to live in a cocoon to believe that "our country has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights with whites." Attitudes like that make police more likely to deny the legitimacy of protests by blacks.

Do you figure that police work attracts people of this attitude, or are the egalitarian ideals of these people crushed because of police work?

That would be an interesting study, maybe I'll snoop around for one.

[SeijiSensei]

I believe there is both a recruitment effect and a persuasion effect. People with authoritarian personalities are drawn to jobs like policing, but there are strong pressures within police forces to conform to an us-vs-them view of the world. Again from the Pew study,

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by frivolity

My own family was affected by the 1998 riots too. My father's factory was almost looted, but we had a close shave as the security guard was able to redirect the mob towards the supermarket across the road. I'm fully aware that we Indonesian Chinese are not the ruling elite, and my previous post never indicated as such. The point I'm making is that the Indonesian Chinese community succeeded without rioting. Our economic success in Indonesia as a community largely came about through business, not through politics.

If we take a look at examples of minorities across history and across the world that found success in spite of discrimination, the vast majority of cases occurred without rioting or violent protests on the part of these minority communities, but instead through skills, education, and business. This is true of the Chinese diaspora all around the world, especially in Southeast Asia. It's also the case for Gujarati Indians around the world, as well as for Japanese Americans and Jewish Americans. There's very few examples of minority communities becoming successful through violence, which is why I don't think violent protests are the answer.

your father's factory? WHO CARES!
my family was RAPED
They weren't the only one either, and this kind of shit has been going on a while. And they still don't have justice.

And you act like racism has completely been solved after Suharto. Sure there were improvements, but do you remember Jakarta's Chinese Indonesian governor from a few years ago? He got jailed for something so trivial.

And let's not forget Jokowi's current challenger Prabowo. He's going all Trump with that anti minority demagoguery. Thank god he didn't win the election, but 40% of voters still voted for him. That's something to think about.

It's good that your family is a successful enough to manage their own factory. That means you can bribe police officers and other no gooders looking to harass you. I know it, because I've seen it.

But what about poor Chinese indonesians? They are at a constant pressure to shut up and be deferential, because look, don't hey, don't rock the boat. What happened to the governor of Jakarta can happen to you.

I think Chinese Indonesians merely endured, and this is not over.

But I've taken enough attention away from BlackLivesMatter.

I'm just going to that society follows a contract, and if you keep breaking the rule by arbitrarily oppressing minorities than sooner or later they'll realize that they shouldn't follow society's rule either. The threshold is just different among different minorities.

//

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The other issue that the media is reluctant to address is the role of provocateurs on both sides.

Speaking of finding provocateurs, the FBI issued a request for people to send photos or videos of individuals provoking violence. They didn't quite get what they expected: https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-asks-ev...police-1508165

[dragon1412]

I thinks that everyone here should take a breather and calm a little bit down, meanwhile educate me a little bit on the matter. Of couse, I'm saying as someone who is not in the US and not really understand the situation so feel free to roast me for what I might say that seem outrageous.

From what I peeped around online, what I get was this:
- A group of police, some say a single police, using force on a black man name George Floyd, leading to his death, the reason to this force is varied between media that I searched, some say that he is using counterfeiting bill, some say that he is high on drug. Anyone know the actual reason ?
- First protest broke out, but largely peaceful, and then it turn into vandalism and rioting. This leading to violence from both Police and Protester. which lead to our current debate here as to it consequences and reason

I might be step on someone toe because of this, but from where I see it, Isn't the whole vandalism seem like just some opportunist taking the chance to loot what they can exploiting the protest ? And some Police seem to break out in violence in responds, I do read up on the police brutality and the trait of jobs that related to enforcer, so I'd not really surprise if someone in the police actually willing to take the chance for violence but definitely not all of them, the same goes for protester. From where I see it, it more like some bad apples from both sides stirred thing up for the opportunity and the effect of covid lockdown starting to escalate the entire issues.

Sorry If my post was offending to anyone involved, I'm not in the US and really don't understand much of the matter, and I don't have the skill to read between the line in the media report and they are throwing too much conspiracy theory around for me to make sense of. I'd appreciate it if someone here can give it more info about the situation

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Speaking of finding provocateurs, the FBI issued a request for people to send photos or videos of individuals provoking violence. They didn't quite get what they expected: https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-asks-ev...police-1508165

Can't say if they here optimist or stupid; it was obvious than they would get a lot of photos or videos of cop .

[SeijiSensei]

I'd start with this, a reconstruction of the event by the NY Times using footage from various cameras on the scene.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/u...stigation.html

Next you might take a look at the indictment against Chauvin:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/de...rnd/index.html

The three other cops who assisted/watched Chauvin kill Floyd were just indicted yesterday on aiding and abetting murder, while Chauvin's charge was raised from third-degree to second-degree murder. (First-degree murder is not an option since there's no evidence Chauvin's act was "premeditated.")

There also a controversy over the autopsy report. The City's medical examiner claimed that Floyd died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." Floyd's family commissioned a second, independent autopsy that said he died due to "asphyxiation from sustained pressure." It also implicated the other officers on the scene besides Chauvin who were pressing Floyd down on the street.

Yes, there has been vandalism and rioting, but most of the protests have been overwhelmingly nonviolent. Some of this was the result of actions by blacks. However there is also video footage of young white guys busting up storefronts and encouraging violence. Adapting Donald Trump's famous phrase about the Charlottesvile protests, "there were bad guys on both side."

In many cities the police have engaged in thuggish practices like beating protestors and journalists and shooting them with rubber bullets. At least one reporter has lost an eye after being shot by police. One contingent of Minneapolis police shot rubber bullets at people on their porches because they didn't immediately go inside their homes when ordered to do so. Today there is footage of a Los Angeles Sheriff's Department vehicle shooting at people standing on a sidewalk. Most of these scenes appear on Twitter.

The Trump Administration has repeatedly claimed "Antifa" was responsible for the protests and violence, but I have yet to see any such people indicted. Meanwhile right-wing "boogaloo" nut jobs like these three guys in Nevada also see the protests as something to exploit to incite a race war. AG Barr and FBI Director Wray notably did not mention these arrests in their press conference today even though the FBI was involved in the investigation, and the three were indicted by Federal prosecutors. Heard a lot about Antifa though.

Meanwhile Washington, DC, looks like a war zone. There are guys in uniforms with no identifying insignia standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Trump has had a metal fence erected around a large area enclosing the White House, and compliant Republican governors are shipping their National Guard troops to DC. The other evening protestors were cleared out of an area in front of St. John's Cathedral (Episcopal) so that Trump could stride over to stand in front of the church with a raised bible. The Bishop of St. John's strongly criticized Trump's actions. I read today that she cannot get into her own church because it's behind the fencing.

People have begun wondering whether this is a rehearsal for an attempt to maintain Trump's control of government after he loses in November. I'm not that pessimistic, yet, but it is worrisome.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Would you agree that violence by rioters is a lot more commonplace than violence by police against peaceful protesters though? If the violence has only been on the side of the police, then I'd fully agree with your argument.

Like SeijiSensei said, no one really knows.

But I'll add that even if the cops weren't violent toward peaceful protesters (which some of them absolutely are), it's still their job to make it possible to protest peacefully.

"They make it easy to riot" isn't a reason to ban large protest, it's a reason to tell the police to do its damn job. While protest organizers also have a responsibility to, well, organize, I haven't heard any complaint about them that wasn't simply "they're inconveniencing me for a cause I don't respect".

In terms of cooperation between police and protesters, what leads you to your conclusion that Trump prefers violent protests instead of peaceful protests?

Basically everything that's come out of his mouth on the subject.

And what's your view on celebrities paying to bail out rioters who have been arrested?

All serious questions, btw.

I don't have one.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I'd start with this, a reconstruction of the event by the NY Times using footage from various cameras on the scene.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/u...stigation.html

Next you might take a look at the indictment against Chauvin:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/de...rnd/index.html

The three other cops who assisted/watched Chauvin kill Floyd were just indicted yesterday on aiding and abetting murder, while Chauvin's charge was raised from third-degree to second-degree murder. (First-degree murder is not an option since there's no evidence Chauvin's act was "premeditated.")

There also a controversy over the autopsy report. The City's medical examiner claimed that Floyd died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." Floyd's family commissioned a second, independent autopsy that said he died due to "asphyxiation from sustained pressure." It also implicated the other officers on the scene besides Chauvin who were pressing Floyd down on the street.

Yes, there has been vandalism and rioting, but most of the protests have been overwhelmingly nonviolent. Some of this was the result of actions by blacks. However there is also video footage of young white guys busting up storefronts and encouraging violence. Adapting Donald Trump's famous phrase about the Charlottesvile protests, "there were bad guys on both side."

In many cities the police have engaged in thuggish practices like beating protestors and journalists and shooting them with rubber bullets. At least one reporter has lost an eye after being shot by police. One contingent of Minneapolis police shot rubber bullets at people on their porches because they didn't immediately go inside their homes when ordered to do so. Today there is footage of a Los Angeles Sheriff's Department vehicle shooting at people standing on a sidewalk. Most of these scenes appear on Twitter.

The Trump Administration has repeatedly claimed "Antifa" was responsible for the protests and violence, but I have yet to see any such people indicted. Meanwhile right-wing "boogaloo" nut jobs like these three guys in Nevada also see the protests as something to exploit to incite a race war. AG Barr and FBI Director Wray notably did not mention these arrests in their press conference today even though the FBI was involved in the investigation, and the three were indicted by Federal prosecutors. Heard a lot about Antifa though.

Meanwhile Washington, DC, looks like a war zone. There are guys in uniforms with no identifying insignia standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Trump has had a metal fence erected around a large area enclosing the White House, and compliant Republican governors are shipping their National Guard troops to DC. The other evening protestors were cleared out of an area in front of St. John's Cathedral (Episcopal) so that Trump could stride over to stand in front of the church with a raised bible. The Bishop of St. John's strongly criticized Trump's actions. I read today that she cannot get into her own church because it's behind the fencing.

People have begun wondering whether this is a rehearsal for an attempt to maintain Trump's control of government after he loses in November. I'm not that pessimistic, yet, but it is worrisome.

Believe me, if he loses this election he will be pulling every trick in the book from voter fraud to dealing with mail in votes (even know that he try to do it himself) plus with maybe dealing with COVID second round is going to make this election very hard.

But for the protest, most of them has been peaceful, sure you got some knuckleheads that want to riot and get free stuff but most of the damage was done by young white guys with no reason at all.

But I have a bad feeling that if those cops gets off with something light or get off scot free, its going to ugly, very ugly

[ramlaen]

Are we pulling the 'Trump won't accept election results' card again after accusing him of it in 2016 and spending almost 4 years refusing to accept he legitimately won?

[frivolity]

Seems like my posts ruffled a lot of feathers, so I'll provide more context so that we can hopefully engage in some fruitful discourse.

As I've made clear from my earlier posts, the political ideology that best represents my views is classical liberalism. If we're going to restrict it to the left-right spectrum, then I'm definitely a right-winger.

The reason why I came back to this forum after several years of hiatus is because I recently opened a Twitter account to follow the FinTwit community after I made the decision to invest in shares when the recent market decline. I managed to identify a small subset of investors who had extremely original thinking and contrarian ideas. As a group, they were able to assess and forecast the impact of COVID-19 far better than the epidemiological experts did. Most of them recognised very early on that the epidemiological models would severely overestimate the number of COVID-19 deaths by several multiples, and that the optimal policy was a targetted one where the government quarantines the most vulnerable segment of the population and implements appropriate social distancing without necessarily requiring a hard lockdown. They were able to identify the key public policy issue much faster than the politicians and media did, specifically, how do we balance the health consequences and economic damage caused by the pandemic? These ideas were put forward within the FinTwit community while the overarching media narrative had stagnated along the lines of "anyone who does not support a hard lockdown is a murderer who priorities money over lives because every single life has infinite value".

Then George Floyd's death came about, and I was amazed. The very same group of investors that were able to assess COVID-19 so accurately had extremely polarised views on the same issue. As a group, we literally looked at the exact same raw evidence (i.e: videos, interviews, reports, numerical data, etc) and arrived at two sets of complete opposite conclusions. This left me stumped.

So I started revisiting various forums that I've participated in over the years, including this one, in the hope of understanding the rationale of people on the other side. The first time I read through this thread, it literally made me go "huh?" because I genuinely don't understand the line of reasoning being put forward in many of the posts here. I see the same raw evidence as you do but come to the opposite conclusion most of the time. Judging by the posts made by others in earlier pages, it seems that many of the users here also struggle to understand how and why people on my side of the aisle think the way we do (e.g: Sheba's post on page 2).

The aim of my posts in this thread is to understand from first principles how each of you interpret the raw evidence and the line of reasoning/assumptions that you use to come to your conclusion. My objective is purely to understand why you think the way you do. Naturally, it's only fair that I give my own views as well to anyone who's interested in understanding how a right-winger like me thinks. I do not aim to change anyone's views on this matter.

Every question that I ask is aimed at further clarifying your views and drawing out step by step how you go from the raw evidence to your conclusions so that I'll be able to compare that with my own step-by-step reasoning/assumptions. I'm not an undercover journalist asking "gotcha!" questions to force you into a corner or to bait you into giving a response that makes you look bad, so there's no need for anyone to get defensive over any question that I ask. I'm not here to debate.

Neither do I seek to effect social change through my posts here, such as spreading a so-called "love trumps hate" message and whatnot. Let's face it, nobody outside this forum community is going to read this thread, so the likelihood that our posts here will change any social narrative is very small. My posts are written in order to improve my own understanding, nothing more. We can all feel free to post our genuine individual views here without fearing that it'll contradict whatever broader social agenda we each may have.

Now, the three questions that I've asked are meant to be generic starting points. There's no need to be restricted by them. My own views are set out in some detail in page 2, and I'm happy to clarify them further for anyone who asks. Some of my reasoning is based on empirical data or empirical examples (including anecdotes), and some of it is based on logic and assumption.[1] Do note, however, that in general I'm not going to respond to personal attacks. I'll still read those replies but I won't bother responding to them.

I appreciate, however, that this is a sensitive topic for many people for many reasons. Perhaps we won't end up getting anywhere productive. So be it. Maybe by the end of this discussion you'll come to the conclusion that a right-winger like me is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, bigot who's a "disgusting being" that doesn't care about the poor. So be it, this is an anonymous forum, and I've been called a lot worse IRL. If productive discourse is not possible here, then I'm perfectly fine with stopping the discussion here and taking it to another website/forum if need be.

This post is sufficiently long so I'll end it here for now to get back to work. Will come back later to read/respond to the above posts.

[1] For example, one of my core assumptions that comes about through personal anecdotal experience is that human nature at its core is greedy, lazy, self-interested, and envious. This assumption and its ensuing implications influences a lot of my thinking.