Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think nothing is going to happen, mind you. The US empire will suffer for this, but it has suffered many things. I just don't think there's going to be any greater takeoff in unrest than this, not unless the ruling class seriously and publicly fucks up. The next escalation from this point would be forcing cops to flee their cities, and I just don't see how it gets there with the influence of perfidious bootlicking liberals, who even now want the police to be friends with them more than anything else. The US is still going to collapse though, just later.

Also, check this out: https://www.instagram.com/p/CA4YEAAlBR3/

[JoshuaFH]

I just don't think there's going to be any greater takeoff in unrest than this, not unless the ruling class seriously and publicly fucks up.

Isn't that the only thing they've been doing lately?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's the only thing they can do, but there are degrees of fucking up. Doing this "we will arrest the CEO of ANTIFA" thing, for example, is more of a long-term fuckup that could be used to eliminate any leadership of the protests in the short-term. It's just probably not going to work much because there isn't a centralized leadership right now. Whatever poor bastards they round up for this are going to suffer hard, though.

They can also just do nothing. Rather obvious downsides, but it has a chance of dissipation as long as the media apparatus does its job correctly. People distrust the media, but those who do still spread their propaganda through social networks and manufacture consent for them.

A more short-term fuckup would be escalation of violence, since it fucks with the ability of liberals to repatriate themselves if the cops gun down a bunch of them in the street. Even that could potentially work out for them though, Americans are pretty sick-minded. Just today I saw a video of protesters handing people over to the police, and these are people who actually care enough to attend the protest! I think it's entirely possible everyone gives up if the police start shooting, just not more likely than the alternative.

[ggamer]

1.  If a handful of cops lose their shit and shoot some real bullets, this could instantly explode into 4x as fierce an event as it already is.
2.  If that doesn't happen first, I don't think the police have the capability to quell this.  They're going to keep responding with violence and the protests are going to keep intensifying in response.  I think that's the nature of it this time around.  Question is what might the National Guard do, or any other military apparatus that gets brought in.  They could succeed in de-escalation the way they did in Ferguson (at least for long enough that most people stop paying attention and any reboot of rioting can be rebranded more effectively).  Or they could apply an overwhelming show of force that cows the whole movement.  Anything in-between while, I think, just continue to fuel it.

Well, at the moment protestors take inspiration from hong Kong, but if shit pops off, I'm sure there's some peeps we can take inspiration from.

Question: what do you get when an airborne regiment attacks a peaceful protest organized by a radicalized core ?

Edit: IIRC people are suspecting random property damage is an agent provocateur tactic, so I don't understand handing him out to the cops either. An arrested plainclothes Jake can just change clothes, there's other ways to remove them from play for the short term .

[nenjin]

To the Americans in this thread, I know you’re out there somewhere, may I ask, how do you think this will play out? Do you think it will keep going or slow down?

With how many groups there are with an opportunity to escalate this, it's hard to say right now.

What could set the powder keg off is a mass loss of life at a protest or riot. If the police / national guard / army decide to open up on a group of people, if bombs are planted which result in a significant loss of life, if some group organizes an armed attack.....all of these things could start a chain reaction that drives people in to "self-defense" mode. If a majority of gun toting Americans start taking matters into their own hands, whichever direction that is, there simply aren't enough police or armed forces to control it and it will be everyone for themselves. It will eventually stop at some point, no conflict can go on indefinitely. It's really a matter of what the loss of life will be and what form the conflict takes, i.e, open warfare in the streets.

That's what really has me down at the moment, is the potential for any number of people to escalate the conflict and the relative inability of anyone: individuals, state or federal authorities, to really stop it from happening or control what flows from it.

If it's kept to "garden variety" protests and rioting and the odd malicious attack, it will probably run its course in a few weeks......at least until more information is known about what's going to happen to the officer and officers involved. IIRC, there were the Rodney King riots immediately after the incident, and more during the trial. So even if it abates for a while, it will flare up again as the legal situation plays out and the nation reacts to it.

[Dostoevsky]

With how many groups there are with an opportunity to escalate this, it's hard to say right now.

What could set the powder keg off is a mass loss of life at a protest or riot. If the police / national guard / army decide to open up on a group of people, if bombs are planted which result in a significant loss of life, if some group organizes an armed attack.....all of these things could start a chain reaction that drives people in to "self-defense" mode. If a majority of gun toting Americans start taking matters into their own hands, whichever direction that is, there simply aren't enough police or armed forces to control it and it will be everyone for themselves. It will eventually stop at some point, no conflict can go on indefinitely. It's really a matter of what the loss of life will be and what form the conflict takes, i.e, open warfare in the streets.

That's what really has me down at the moment, is the potential for any number of people to escalate the conflict and the relative inability of anyone: individuals, state or federal authorities, to really stop it from happening or control what flows from it.

If it's kept to "garden variety" protests and rioting and the odd malicious attack, it will probably run its course in a few weeks......at least until more information is known about what's going to happen to the officer and officers involved. IIRC, there were the Rodney King riots immediately after the incident, and more during the trial. So even if it abates for a while, it will flare up again as the legal situation plays out and the nation reacts to it.

Yeah, that's what made the President's speech tonight quite probably his worst one yet by a longshot. The only explanation is that it was completely designed to instigate anger and possible violence. Speaking of justice without even referencing the injustice that's led to all this, the weird reference to the second amendment at one point, the threat of sending "heavily-armed military" as if he were leading the redcoats of old,  it was all just tragically horrible. And then the "field trip" (as one local reporter called it) to a nearby church where he did a super-awkward bible-prop photo-op.

I'm assuming that trip to the church was a response to the news stories about the bunker trip - strongarming a bunch of protesters to show he's got the power and they totally don't frighten him.

(In the ~half hour before the speech + trip, a combo of secret service, park police, and military police pushed all the protesters into little groups further away from the White House and Lafayette Square.)

[A Thing]

Going to update the thing where I mentioned the reporters being attacked last night in Birmingham to say that there were possibly warnings to stop recording that were not heeded. Couldn't find shit for a while, but I eventually found quite a few local sources on social media which give me the impression that there was more to what happened then what has been reported. Make of that what you will. I wasn't there, I'm not going to pretend I know the full situation.

edit: yeah I'm just going to avoid that other post. I'm not even going to try and unpack it.

Spoiler: It's happening.gif Warning large image of CRANE ON SHITTY MONUMENT ACTION (click to show/hide)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZeVVGgWAAA_uQH?format=jpg&name=large

Very glad the mayor made good on his promise.

[Folly]

To the Americans in this thread, I know you’re out there somewhere, may I ask, how do you think this will play out? Do you think it will keep going or slow down?

These sorts of protests and riots happen infrequently but regularly here in America, and they always end the same way. Most people in this country have jobs they have to go to, and families they have to take care of. People believe in causes and will stand up for them, but those not directly affected by the cause will begin to peel off soon and those who remain won't have the numbers to accomplish anything.

[Toady One]

Removed a post and a reply.  Please try to keep things less racist and strange.

[TamerVirus]

It was inevitable

[Rusty]

What's the de-escalation plan for the protesters?  Have they even indicated the things that would make them stop protesting / rioting?

I mean something practical, not just "we want justice!"  What do they want other than just having the perpetrators put in jail?  If that won't appease them, what will?  I don't think a public execution is a realistic demand, even though I'm sure that what some people want.

Fair question.  The protests aren't really centralized of course, so there isn't a hard line that would cause some high command to send all the angry, desperate demonstrators home.  But there are demands being made, some a bit more short-term and demonstrable than ending racial police brutality.

The main one is that the three other officers involved in the killing be arrested.  The mood seems to be that a single scapegoat isn't enough anymore (even assuming that this one gets convicted).  I agree with the logic here - the systemic problem isn't lone racists.  Its the fact that lone racists (or more generally, any cop who breaks the law of makes yet another fatal mistake) is supported by other officers.  There is an internal system for investigation and it has CLEARLY failed.  In my opinion it has failed to uphold justice and accountability, but it has very evidently failed to convince the public that they can trust internal investigation. 

Even prosecutors have to risk their entire careers by bringing such cases, in a systematic conflict-of-interest.  Theoretically departments should be happy to work with prosecutors to disavow and incarcerate dirty cops, but instead they very nearly always close ranks and resist investigation.  I know there are many good cops.  But the system is so deeply corrupt that they aren't in a position to help (beyond anonymous whisteblowing, or risking their lives).

Er, right - that's why the other cops involved need to be arrested this time.  To show that being complicit has consequences for once.

Other demands tend to include amnesty for nonviolent civil disobedience in the protest.  I don't know if that's common as a guarantee, but such charges are often thrown out by prosecutors after protests.  So... some evidence of that happening would be good.

More arrests of the police on video assaulting protesters with doors is probably on the list for many people.  Basically:  Getting more than one maniac cop off the streets would go a long way to showing that the protests were taken seriously.  Whether any charges will stick is obviously a longer-term issue, but the demonstrations have... demonstrated... that there will be consequences for trying to sweep these actions under the rug.

Edit:  Last I heard the body cam footage was still being held, too.  That's an obvious one, and I hope they have a good explanation for how long they're holding it!
(Like, I actually hope so.  This situation is very rough, and my voting ass wants my government to negotiate this situation away like yesterday)

The problem is that an arrest and prosecution isn't as simple as "they did a bad thing."  Now, my knowledge of the law in Minnesota is limited, but, based on what I know of the law there (and the law generally), I'm having a difficult time thinking of what they'd be charged with.  They can't be charged with murder because they didn't actually cause the death.  Almost every other crime they could be charged with is hamstrung by the fact that they aren't claiming that it was intentional homicide.  Aiding and abetting?  You can't aid and abet an unintentional crime.  Felony murder?  First, see aiding and abetting, and, second, in Minnesota felony murder is 2nd degree, which would be a really awkward theory to push (the actual murderer gets 3rd degree, but everyone else gets a higher charge).  In general, nobody has a legal duty to act without some special relationship, so trying to pitch it as a crime of omission (they failed to intervene) doesn't work either.  Maybe they could try to argue that their status as a police officer created a special relationship and duty to act, but that would be a super novel theory and unlikely to succeed given that what little case law exists on that point says "no duty to protect individuals."  I can understand the anger, but, to be honest, it's not an easy case.   Not at all.

[wierd]

Murder II might apply via depraved indifference.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1897#:~:text=second%20degree%20murder,arson%2C%20rape%20or%20armed%20robbery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20law%2C%20depraved,not%20explicitly%20intending%20to%20kill.

[Rusty]

Murder II might apply via depraved indifference.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1897#:~:text=second%20degree%20murder,arson%2C%20rape%20or%20armed%20robbery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20law%2C%20depraved,not%20explicitly%20intending%20to%20kill.

Nope... because those sources are not the relevant law here.  Those are okayish references for general law stuff, but once you put rubber to road and talk about specific facts in specific situations at specific times and places, the only relevant authority is the written statutes of the jurisdiction.  In Minnesota, under Stat. 609.19, Murder in the Second Degree only applies to (1) drive-by shootings, (2) felony murder and (3) deaths that occur while causing harm to a person that is under an order of protection.  That's it.

The closest Minnesota has to what you're talking about is Murder in the Third Degree.   However, that statue requires proof that the defendant "caus[ed] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others."  That explicitly rules them out because they themselves didn't cause the death nor did they act.   On the contrary, the complaint is that they failed to act, which is a valid complaint, but it falls outside the definition of Murder Three.

[wierd]

They could still be found guilty of a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, which seems to fit the circumstances more closely.

[Rusty]

They could still be found guilty of a 2nd degree manslaughter charge, which seems to fit the circumstances more closely.

Not impossible, but highly improbable.  The problem is the requirement that the defendant be "negligent."  More specifically, negligence requires that the defendant owe a duty to the victim.  The duty to refrain from engaging in dangerous acts is easy.   For example, when I drive a car I have a duty to other drivers and pedestrians to refrain from speeding the wrong way on a one way street.  This case is not that, though.  In this case, the prosecution wouldn't be claiming a negligent act, but a negligent omission.  The defendants had a duty to the victim to take certain actions and failed to do so.   That is a LOT harder.  No person has a general duty to act.  Period.  It's the baby on the train tracks.  If I recognize that danger and, instead of acting on it, I walk away, I might be a scumbag, but under the law I've done nothing wrong because I am under no obligation to act in someone else's interests.  To overcome that, they would have to argue that, as police officers, they had a special relationship with the victim that created a duty to act.  That's not a new theory.  It's been tried and failed.  The general position the law takes is that an officer's duty is to society as a whole and NOT to any particular individual.  No duty=no negligence.

If I were the prosecutor, I'd argue that taking the victim into custody created a special relationship and, by extension, a duty of care and a duty to act, but there's pitfalls to that, not the least of which is clarifying when such a duty actually starts.