US protests against police violence

[Steely Glint]

The reason why federal agents are in Portland is that federal building are being targeted and the local PD (due to Mayor) refuse to crush the vandals and rioters. Under no circumstances can violent mobs be allowed to go unpunished and the revolving door of instant bail in Portland is allowing that. There is no healthy fear of consequences and hopefully federal policing agents backed up by federal charges will change that calculus.

Bootlicking is not an extreme sport.

[Aimless]

https://amp.courier-journal.com/amp/5389881002

These animals killed an innocent woman and then threatened to harm her distraught partner after he'd seen her die. They belong in jail. At the very least, they belong on a national blacklist, barred from ever working in law enforcement again.

[Aimless]

American cops are morons:

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Assaulted and injured by some juiced-up halfwit with a God-complex:

Twitter Link

“Take a look at me. I‘m a fucking specimen right here, buddy. You have gotten on my last nerve. You’re gonna get your ass whopped in front of Lord and all Creation.”

This mfer should've been fired and behind bars a year ago.

[Aimless]

The cops are rioting:

Twitter Link

[Lewkowski]

I'm curious Aimless. Let's say you were in charge of the police and a mob starts to damage property. What orders would you give? How would you resolve the problem? What is the force escalation process you would use?

[Aimless]

I'm curious Aimless. Let's say you were in charge of the police and a mob starts to damage property. What orders would you give? How would you resolve the problem? What is the force escalation process you would use?

If you think that anyone who doesn't have their heads stuck up their asses would order cops to violently assault demonstrably non-violent protesters—as well as arrest not only protesters but also members of the press, without cause and frequently without identifying themselves, without articulating a reason for the arrest and without reading them their rights—then you might be a dumb-dumb. Just saying.

[Lewkowski]

If you think that anyone who doesn't have their heads stuck up their asses would order cops to violently assault demonstrably non-violent protesters—as well as arrest not only protesters but also members of the press, without cause and frequently without identifying themselves, without articulating a reason for the arrest and without reading them their rights—then you might be a dumb-dumb. Just saying.

Let's go then Aimless. There's a mob of 50 people who have started to vandalize a federal courthouse. You are in charge of the police. What steps do you take and what is your force escalation procedure? Its fine to criticize but what is your proposal to replace what is going on currently?

[Aimless]

I'd order cops to not violently assault or arrest peaceful protesters and journalists, I'd suspend and/or arrest cops guilty of assaulting or outright killing innocent people, and go back in time to stop the cops who sparked these fires from killing black people or letting their killers get away. What I would not do is order cops to violently assault a man who's clearly not attacking anyone, or pull people into unmarked vans without identifying themselves, articulating charges, reading rights, etc. I realize you think you're being smart, but you're just being a dumb bootlicker.

[Lewkowski]

Sure are talking a lot about what you wouldn't do. What *would* you do in regards to the actual riot and attack on federal property? Do you arrest the rioters? If they resist how do you escalate? Do you use tear gas at all? Pepper spray? Batons? Grappling? Here's your chance to present how you think police should handle it.

[Aimless]

God you're such a fucking moron. The point—which you can readily discern from my post—is that it is not appropriate to escalate; the focus should be on de-escalation and prevention. More importantly, what you're trying to get at has nothing to do with the police violently assaulting protesters and violating their civil rights like paramilitary goons in some fucking banana republic.

[Steely Glint]

what if this scenario i totally made up happened

what would you do then

[Lewkowski]

God you're such a fucking moron. The point—which you can readily discern from my post—is that it is not appropriate to escalate; the focus should be on de-escalation and prevention. More importantly, what you're trying to get at has nothing to do with the police violently assaulting protesters and violating their civil rights like paramilitary goons in some fucking banana republic.

Typical evasion. You don't want to pin yourself down with specifics because you lack a consistent framework OR you realize you'd be a hypocrite.

[Aimless]

what if this scenario i totally made up happened

what would you do then

That's not even the point. To Lewk, escalation is an objective in and of itself, even when it's counterproductive to the point of being dumb. His perspective is like that of a particularly stupid and poorly trained dog, who believes something that is moving quickly must be chased. All the spanking has made him as dumb as a dog, albeit not as kind.

[RandBlade]

Typical evasion. You don't want to pin yourself down with specifics because you lack a consistent framework OR you realize you'd be a hypocrite.

The specific answer is to de-escalate.

[Aimless]

Typical evasion. You don't want to pin yourself down with specifics because you lack a consistent framework OR you realize you'd be a hypocrite.

You're illiterate. Not my fault.

[Lewkowski]

The specific answer is to de-escalate.

All right let's go RB you are up to the plate.

Rioters start destroying federal property. You are in charge of the response. What do you do?

[Aimless]

It's so weird how you keep saying this like you're being smart, but all you end up doing is demonstrating—over and over again—how dumb you are. The level of fremdschämen is almost unbearable. The answer is that you avoid escalating, and you pursue de-escalation. The answer is not "violently beat people with batons when they're literally just standing there doing nothing to you" or "have unidentified officers drag people into vans". That will never be the answer. You have to be an actual moron to think it will ever be the answer.

Which, well, you kinda are.

[Steely Glint]

Lewk

what if 75 cops attacked a bus shelter

you are the chief of the protesters what do you do

[RandBlade]

All right let's go RB you are up to the plate.

Rioters start destroying federal property. You are in charge of the response. What do you do?

You de-escalate the situation and if you want to prosecute film everything and arrest any rioters away from the situation the next day.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[Lewkowski]

You de-escalate the situation and if you want to prosecute film everything and arrest any rioters away from the situation the next day.

So to clarify you basically let the criminals (who are masked) get away with it? Hmm you think that is going to encourage or discourage that behavior in the future?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm curious Aimless. Let's say you were in charge of the police and a mob starts to damage property. What orders would you give? How would you resolve the problem? What is the force escalation process you would use?

Since the apparent definition for this "violent property destruction" is grafitti, the order I would give is to ignore it and have it repainted later.

[Loki]

One of the buildings suffered $5,000 worth of damage. I wonder how much it costs to equip, house, and employ a stormtrooper.

[Lewkowski]

Since the apparent definition for this "violent property destruction" is grafitti, the order I would give is to ignore it and have it repainted later.

Been 40+ days of continual violence in Portland. So you clean it up and then they come back again the next day. And let's not pretend that the courthouse was the only place damaged. Private property was also damaged, one place was burned. This giving into the mob is nonsense. Confront them, arrest and lock the violent ones in prison with no bond. That's Portland's biggest problem, they release people on their own recognizance after taking part in a riot and assaulting people to do it again the next day.

Anarchy breeds escalating crime, lower property values, higher number of homicides and assaults. Look at CHAZ, Seattle was fully hands off and look what happened? The per capita murder rate for CHAZ would be higher than any nation on this planet.

[LittleFuzzy]

One of the buildings suffered $5,000 worth of damage. I wonder how much it costs to equip, house, and employ a stormtrooper.

Counting the legal costs arising from their behavior and interventions? (and I'm even ignoring the cost of successul prosecutions since well, there aren't coming out of this intervention in Portland anyway) Substantially more than $5000. Not that Lewk cares. This is what always infuriates him about retail loss-prevention policies too. He thinks the stores and companies should be willing to pay a lot more financially to "get" shoplifters than they lose in stolen merchandise, so he can jack off to the idea of "bad people getting punished"

[Lewkowski]

Counting the legal costs arising from their behavior and interventions? (and I'm even ignoring the cost of successul prosecutions since well, there aren't coming out of this intervention in Portland anyway) Substantially more than $5000. Not that Lewk cares. This is what always infuriates him about retail loss-prevention policies too. He thinks the stores and companies should be willing to pay a lot more financially to "get" shoplifters than they lose in stolen merchandise, so he can jack off to the idea of "bad people getting punished"

Stores aren't stupid there is a reason loss prevention is a thing. It isn't even about the *amount* the loss prevention stops it is about the *THREAT* of loss prevention. Because guess what - deterrence actually works. Stores that have no loss prevention in high crimes areas will lose massive amounts of inventory.

[LittleFuzzy]

Been 40+ days of continual violence in Portland.

Again, you're defining violence as "graffitti"

So you clean it up and then they come back again the next day.

I said "later." I did not say "the next day." That'll just get it tagged again. "Later" means "after the protesting dies down." I'm a cheap-skate, I see no reason to spend the money until it's likely to last for a while. Gotta keep that government spending low.

And let's not pretend that the courthouse was the only place damaged. Private property was also damaged, one place was burned.

I'm not seeing that in your scenario. You know the saying "don't change the goal posts"? Well you can't change the position of the ball from where it was spotted either.

This giving into the mob is nonsense.

Please, you know and we know that you won't be happy until the Colombia River turns red from blood.

[Loki]

This is what a "burned down police station" looks like.

Twitter Link