|
|
Post by sunshine on Nov 16, 2021 22:58:18 GMT
It wasn't a response to the hundreds of black Americans at all. It was a response to those 2 cases and those 2 cases only. Yes, I am aware of that. My post was in response to this post by sunshine that seemed to suggest those 2 convictions were sufficient and we should be content. Jason Van Dyke was arrested, tried and convicted for killing Laquan McDonald. Derek Chauvin was arrested, tried and convicted for killing George Floyd. More than 675 people from 40 different states have been charged following the Capitol attack. Is justice always fair, absolutely not. However, immediate lashing out by rioting, looting, burning, attacking and killing before all of the facts can even be determined isn't the way. I'll never condone, justify or condone any of that. I gave two recent examples of bad cops being held accountable. Obviously that doesn't make up for our past sins, but it's a small example that justice can be served. If you think I'm going to research thru the past 155 years for more examples, you'll be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Nov 16, 2021 22:59:30 GMT
I love how you ignore the rest of her factually correct statement and pick on the one thing that isn’t. Pardon me, but, Rittenhouse did in fact NOT cross state lines with a weapon. In fact, it was his friend Dominick David Black that both bought and transported the weapon. leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-kyle-rittenhouse-did-not-cross-state-lines-with-an-ar-15.htmlnightnurse said: Is it self defense if I break into my neighbor’s house and I only shoot him after he throws a brick at md and points a gun at me?
Kyle crossed state lines with a weapon with the intent of indulging his absurd male power fantasy. How lucky for him that opportunity so miraculously presented itself.And what "factually correct statement" are you saying she missed? Everything she said barring the comment about the gun is conjecture, lol. So Black used Rittenhouse’s money to buy him a gun. Hmmm why didn’t Kyle buy his own gun? You want to play semantics that he didn’t have the gun in his hand when he went from one state to another to play vigilante. I don’t. This is precisely why we need common sense limits on the 2nd amendment and why the law and order conservatives are such hypocrites. I have heard over and over again how black men need to just comply with the police,, that if you don’t break any laws, you have nothing to worry about. Here’s a kid flaunting the laws because it appears they truly don’t apply to him, and I think he’s gonna walk and we will see him again the next time he needs to parade around with a gun to feel manly. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 23:07:06 GMT
"So Black used Rittenhouse’s money to buy him a gun." PROVE IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 23:08:12 GMT
Your quotes -all of them- were written in your posts as if they were your words. If they're not your words you should put quotation marks to indicate you're quoting someone. In the second one I realize that your words indicate she said it. And nothing you supposedly quoted show that police response escalated the situation. If you read my post, I did say the quote was from Sunshine. These are my exact words. My post was in response to this post by sunshine that seemed to suggest those 2 convictions were sufficient and we should be content.
Now who needs to read more carefully? Now who needs to read more carefully? You do. I already SAID that I realize that. |
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Nov 16, 2021 23:13:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 23:18:15 GMT
www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/12/23/police-escalated-violence-while-protesters-tried-to-incite-video-showsPolice may have instigated some of the violence that followed a Black Lives Matter protest in Boston on May 31, according to body camera footage that emerged this weekend.
But the videos also show cases where some protesters clearly tried to incite the police, highlighting the complexity of the event. In the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, thousands of demonstrators representing a vast demographic swatch of ages, races and ethnicities descended on downtown Boston to protest police violence against other Black people across the country. Around 9 p.m., a large gathering on the Boston Common broke up and protestors began making their way home. Evan McDonald, a recent Emerson College graduates, said he and his girlfriend were heading home when police incited violence. “As we were returning towards Tremont Street, the police basically flanked us all, armed with riot gear," McDonald told GBH News. "And next thing I know, they were firing gas canisters at us." The videos show police escalating conflicts with protesters at various points that night. In one scene caught on tape, a group of Black men approach a line of officers and yell at them to "take a knee," the symbolic act of confronting injustice popularized by quarterback Colin Kaepernick. The police weren’t having it, and the next thing seen on the videos is tear gas canisters being thrown in the direction of the 100 or so lingering protestors on Tremont Street. But the videos also show moments where protesters hurled dozens of water bottles, unopened soda cans and trash bins in the direction of police officers. In response to the body camera revelations, Police Commissioner William Gross placed a sergeant who bragged about hitting three protestors with his car on administrative leave. In a statement, Gross said his office is also looking into other abuses shown on the tapes.
The body camera footage has also been turned over to Suffolk County D.A. Rachael Rollins’ office, which said it is focusing on “troubling scenes that merit further examination.”
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 23:26:30 GMT
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendmentThe protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd in late May prompted allegations of infiltration by out-of-state anti-fascist agitators (which have been refuted) and white supremacists (which have been borne out). But little attention has been paid to a third group of infiltrators: police. As with so many other police practices that are now coming under scrutiny, the longstanding practice of using undercover police to monitor protests and protest movements should be closely examined — and reconsidered. There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officer posed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled “F**k the police” while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officers disguised as Orthodox Jews attended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safety outright acknowledged embedding undercover officers in the protests to root out “criminals.” The idea, ostensibly, is that plainclothes officers can overhear people conspiring to commit violence or other illegal acts and disrupt their plots. But this rationale falls apart on closer examination. The notion that there were coordinated plans to engage in illegal activity turns out to be false. An internal Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment found that most of the violence at protests has been committed by opportunists interested in looting, not agitators or extremists. The benefits of infiltration are thus speculative at best. On the other hand, there are proven downsides. Indeed, undercover officers sometimes initiate or enable violence between police and protesters, further escalating the already-violent policing of dissent — a problem that is particularly pertinent for anti-police brutality and Black-led protests, which meet especially forceful resistance from law enforcement. Additionally, the history of police infiltration is one of the government disproportionately targeting progressive activists and movements — sometimes even going so far as to gin up violence as justification for scrutiny — rather than keeping protesters safe. Take, for instance, the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program, known as COINTELPRO. From 1956 to 1971, it targeted groups that the government deemed subversive, with methods including unconstitutional surveillance and infiltration. Included in its mission were efforts to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities” of the Black Panthers and other Black nationalist groups. COINTELPRO was designed explicitly to target Black activists because of their political stances. One of its ignominies involved an FBI informant providing Black Panthers with sticks of dynamite to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Or take the more recent example of the protests surrounding President Trump’s inauguration. As part of an investigation into a potential conspiracy to foment violence, police officers infiltrated a small group called Disrupt J20 that was planning meetings for the demonstrations. They followed up by arresting more than 200 anti-capitalist and anti-fascist activists, journalists, and legal observers en masse, simply because the individuals were in the vicinity of acts of property damage. The resulting prosecutions cases ended in mistrials, dismissals, and acquittals over the next 18 months. And while law enforcement agencies focus their infiltration on the advocacy of left-leaning groups, Black protesters, and Muslims, they continue to pay insufficient attention to the United States’ many violent white supremacist threats. Police infiltration of protests also has a chilling effect on protesters’ First Amendment rights. Fear of plainclothes police joining protests to surveil activists, the danger to undocumented immigrants of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers’ attendance at protests, the presence of agents-provocateur, and the resulting distrust of one’s fellow protesters all discourage would-be marchers from participating. These significant risks and harms outweigh any marginal benefit that might accrue from police infiltration, at least as it has been practiced up to now. It is apparent that the use of undercover officers at protests needs to be revisited. At a minimum, there should be more transparency and accountability accompanying the use of undercover police in protests. One model for this is the wave of surveillance oversight legislation being passed across the nation, most recently in the form of the POST Act in New York City. The measure will require the New York City Police Department to disclose basic information about the surveillance tools it uses, the deployment of those tools, and safeguards for New Yorkers’ civil liberties. Analogous legislation requiring police departments to develop and share policies regarding infiltration operations, including specific protections for protesters’ First Amendment rights, could increase their accountability to the communities they are intended to serve. A more far-reaching approach would be to adapt and expand the recommendations of the Church Committee — a Senate panel that investigated the abuses of various intelligence authorities, including COINTELPRO — by law enforcement. The recommendations in the committee’s landmark 1976 report focused on raising the threshold for intelligence collection by shifting the focus from association and advocacy to demonstrated dangerous conduct. A similar approach could be adopted in the context of police infiltration of protests — for instance, by limiting its use to cases in which there is a preexisting investigation based on facts that support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It is not clear, however, that raising the threshold would solve the problem. In Washington, DC, the 2004 First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act already requires police to obtain clearance from top police officials, along with evidence of a threat of violence, for infiltration of advocacy groups — and those measures did not prevent the J20 debacle. And the city’s auditor had previously raised concerns about police noncompliance with the law. A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 23:46:53 GMT
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/27/when-are-police-aggressive-or-respectful-toward-black-lives-matter-protesters/During last year’s Black Lives Matter protests, some police and other security officers used highly aggressive tactics. In Portland, Ore., federal agents detained protesters in unmarked vans. In Buffalo, police shoved a 75-year-old protester to the ground, as seen in a video that went viral. As recently as this month, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding Brooklyn Center, Minn., law enforcement from using physical force and arresting journalists covering protests there. Police in the Minneapolis area have recently used aggressive tactics — including firing rubber bullets, punching and shoving people to the ground — that injured dozens of protesters. Last year, the Chicago Police Department was among those using aggressive tactics. Numerous protesters alleged rampant physical and verbal abuse by Chicago police against demonstrations last summer. projects.propublica.org/protest-police-tactics/We asked experts to watch videos showing officers using tear gas, pepper balls and explosives on protesters. Police actions often escalated confrontations.ProPublica looked at nearly 400 social media posts showing police responses to protesters and found troubling conduct by officers in at least 184 of them. In 59 videos, pepper spray and tear gas were used improperly; in a dozen others, officers used batons to strike noncombative demonstrators; and in 87 videos, officers punched, pushed and kicked retreating protesters, including a few instances in which they used an arm or knee to exert pressure on a protester’s neck. While the weapons, tactics and circumstances varied from city to city, what we saw in one instance after another was a willingness by police to escalate confrontations. Experts said weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal, from beanbag rounds to grenades filled with pepper spray, can make officers more willing to respond to protesters with force and less disposed to de-escalate tense situations. N ot only can some of these weapons cause considerable injury to protesters, particularly if misused, but experts say the mere presence of the weapons often incites panic, intensifies confrontations and puts people on all sides at risk.
And of course, unlike a mass demonstration urging action on an issue like climate change, the protests over police brutality are directed squarely at the officers standing watch. Any use of force can remind protesters what brought them into the streets in the first place and redouble their outrage. To better understand the dynamics at play, ProPublica spoke to several experts on policing and enlisted two of them to review a selection of eight representative videos in which ProPublica could clearly identify problematic conduct by the police. We break down four of those videos below, accompanied by the experts’ assessment of the police tactics displayed. The videos have forced the public to confront the reality of dangerously excessive responses by officers against protesters, but will that reckoning be short lived?
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 17, 2021 0:05:26 GMT
www.hrw.org/report/2020/09/30/kettling-protesters-bronx/systemic-police-brutality-and-its-costs-united-statesOn the evening of June 4, 2020, about 300 people marched peacefully through Mott Haven, a low-income neighborhood in New York City’s South Bronx, to protest police violence and systemic racism. Less than an hour into the march, and about 10 minutes before an 8 p.m. curfew went into effect, the marchers encountered scores of police officers with riot gear, including helmets, shields, and batons. Bicycle police used their bikes to form a wall and prevented the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.” The protesters were trapped, with no way to disperse.“We were being packed and packed like sardines,” one protester later recalled. Many started chanting, “Let Us Go!” and one person cried out, “You’re gonna kill us – I can’t breathe.” Just after 8 p.m. and the start of the city-wide curfew – imposed a few days earlier due to looting in other areas– the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces.“Then it’s kind of all a blur,” one protester said, recounting how a police officer punched him in the face, another twisted his finger and broke it, and a third pulled off his Covid-19 face mask and doused him with pepper spray. “Then they dragged me on the ground and beat me with batons,” he said. “Somewhere in the process of being cuffed, I had a knee on my neck.” As protesters cried out – some with blood dripping down their faces – the police began to arrest them. They forced people to sit on the street with their hands zip-tied behind their backs, at times so tight that their hands went numb. Clearly identified medics and legal observers were among those targeted, as police beat a number of them, detained them and obstructed their work. Ambulances eventually arrived, and a medic who was zip-tied at the time said that he saw at least three people carried away on stretchers: “[They were] handcuffed to the stretchers, with head bandages, visibly bleeding from the bandage.” The protest in Mott Haven was one of hundreds that broke out across New York City and the wider United States following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25. Floyd’s was the latest in a series of high-profile killings of unarmed Black people by police in the country. Law enforcement officers across the United States responded to many of these largely peaceful protests with violence, excessive force, and abuse. They beat up protesters, conducted mass arrests, and fired teargas, pepper spray, stun grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse and discourage protests. This report is based on interviews or written accounts from 81 people who participated in the Mott Haven protest, interviews with 19 other community members, lawyers, activists, and city officials, and analysis of 155 videos that were recorded during the protest. Human Rights Watch also reviewed legal documents and sent questions to the New York Police Department, the NYPD, which replied in part (see Annexes). The NYPD did not reply to a Human Rights Watch request to interview senior NYPD officials.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 17, 2021 0:09:28 GMT
pamplinmedia.com/documents/artdocs/00003714896218-0644.pdfwww.koin.com/news/protests/report-blames-portland-police-for-protest-violence/PORTLAND, Ore. (PORTLAND TRIBUNE) — T he City Council will consider a report Wednesday, Sept. 22, that largely blames Portland police for violence at political protests and calls for a series of reforms.
The report will be presented by the Citizen Review Committee’s Crowd Control and Use of Force workgroup, which, according to the report, was created to critically examine the bureau’s use of force policies, training and tactics and make recommendations based on best practices and legal standards. “In response to the murder of George Floyd by police in May 2020, thousands of Portlanders took to the streets daily for months in protest of police brutality and the disproportionate impact on communities of color. During these protests, many concerning confrontations between Portland Police and the community occurred. In response, this workgroup set out to gather community input about what was happening on the ground at protests through a public forum and online surveys,” the report reads. The report is based in part on work done by Portland United Against Hate, which used a crowdsourced tool called ReportHatePDX to gather “first-hand testimonials from citizens engaged in First Amendment activities over the summer of 2020.” “The resulting report offered stories from Portland citizens who had experienced police violence and hate. T he report showed that Portland Police engaged in aggressive crowd control measures that left many individuals with lasting injuries and trauma. The data also described police who targeted journalists, legal observers and medics,” the workgroup report said. The report also includes feedback from a July 8, 2020, community forum where participants felt the police were biased in favor of right-wing groups and against Black Lives Matter protesters. Recommendations included in the workgroup report include:
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 17, 2021 1:07:20 GMT
Today I saw that his mom is asking for donations to help pay for the lawyers. Isn't that usually figured out BEFORE the lawyers take on a client?
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 17, 2021 1:23:04 GMT
"So Black used Rittenhouse’s money to buy him a gun." PROVE IT. Isn’t that what court documents said? www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/“ In a phone interview with the Washington Post, Rittenhouse revealed the gun he used in the shooting was purchased using money he received from an unemployment check during the coronavirus pandemic. Rittenhouse, 17, could not legally purchase the weapon himself, so he gave the money to a friend to buy it for him, according to both Rittenhouse and police reports. "I got my $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment, because I was on furlough from YMCA, and I got my first unemployment check so I was like, 'Oh I'll use this to buy it,'" he told the Post. Prosecutors have charged a Wisconsin man with supplying the gun. Online court records show prosecutors in Kenosha charged 19-year-old Dominick Black on Nov. 3 with two felony counts of supplying a dangerous weapon to a minor causing death. Black, who was 18 at the time of the purchase, told authorities that he purchased the weapon at a hardware store in Wisconsin. He could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted on both counts. According to Antioch police reports, Black's stepfather said Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, using Rittenhouse's money but put the gun in his own name.” Sorry, nightnurse, I found the same link and didn’t see yours right away. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 17, 2021 1:23:35 GMT
"So Black used Rittenhouse’s money to buy him a gun." PROVE IT. The buyer of the AR-15, Dominick Black, does face possible federal exposure related to the straw purchase of the firearm. Black testified during Rittenhouse's trial and he faces two charges of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to someone under 18, resulting in death, in state court. Federal authorities have looked into Black's purchase of the rifle, a spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told the Journal Sentinel earlier this year. Black testified he knew Rittenhouse was younger than 18 when he took Rittenhouse's money and purchased the gun for him.www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/rittenhouse-trial-semiautomatic-rifle.htmlMr. Black testified that he used Mr. Rittenhouse's money to buy a comparable rifle for him at a hardware store in northern Wisconsin in May abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gun-debate-rittenhouse-verdict-word-81163971But in May 2020 he gave money to his sister's boyfriend, Dominick Black, with whom he had gone shooting in northern Wisconsin, and Black bought the Smith & Wesson for him. The gun was supposed to remain in a safe at the home of Black's stepfather, Black testified. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 17, 2021 2:01:26 GMT
Today I saw that his mom is asking for donations to help pay for the lawyers. Isn't that usually figured out BEFORE the lawyers take on a client? She’s been fundraising this whole time - well before this went to trial. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 17, 2021 3:53:08 GMT
Thought GoFundMe (or whoever) raised $500,000...
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 17, 2021 6:41:25 GMT
Going just off your bolded posts, as that seems to be what you're asserting... Your link shows no video, it only plays audio with accompanying commentary on what the commentator thinks/wants you to think. No video provided for someone to decide for themselves. It even says "But the videos also show cases where some protesters clearly tried to incite the police, highlighting the complexity of the event." Police Commissioner William Gross placed a sergeant who bragged about hitting three protestors with his car on administrative leave. In a statement, Gross said his office is also looking into other abuses shown on the tapes. They're investigating a particular instance and looking into some vague claim of others. A single verifiable instance of bad behavior. There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officer posed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled “F**k the police” while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officers disguised as Orthodox Jews attended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safety outright acknowledged embedding undercover officers in the protests to root out “criminals.” Going undercover for surveillance is not instigating violence. A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring. So stop wearing protective gear and stop keeping an eye on protests. That doesn't seem very productive and still not showing police as instigating violence. We asked experts to watch videos showing officers using tear gas, pepper balls and explosives on protesters. Police actions often escalated confrontations. Videos from social media. How can we rely on those videos when they don't show what happened prior to the so called "escalation"? Not proof police are instigating violence. weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal, from beanbag rounds to grenades N ot only can some of these weapons cause considerable injury to protesters, particularly if misused, but experts say the mere presence of the weapons often incites panic, intensifies confrontations and puts people on all sides at risk.People call for non lethal force and then demonize the police when they comply. Still not showing police as instigating violence. about 10 minutes before an 8 p.m. curfew went into effect, the marchers encountered scores of police officers with riot gear, including helmets, shields, and batons. Bicycle police used their bikes to form a wall and prevented the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.” The protesters were trapped, with no way to disperse.Don't know if that was a mistake on the police's part, they had a specific reason for doing what they did, or not how it actually happened. But still not showing police as instigating violence. Just after 8 p.m. and the start of the city-wide curfew – imposed a few days earlier due to looting in other areas– the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces. How do we know that really happened? Where's the proof? T he City Council will consider a report Wednesday, Sept. 22, that largely blames Portland police for violence at political protests and calls for a series of reforms.Did they get police input at all or just input from a bunch of people already pissed off that police exist? As someone recently posted to me in a post that you personally LIKEd "Once again you put a lot of stuff out there but do not provide any actual proof what is being said is actually happening . People make all kinds of accusations but that doesn’t mean what they are saying is actually happening." So yeah, that goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 17, 2021 13:08:02 GMT
Going just off your bolded posts, as that seems to be what you're asserting... Your link shows no video, it only plays audio with accompanying commentary on what the commentator thinks/wants you to think. No video provided for someone to decide for themselves. It even says "But the videos also show cases where some protesters clearly tried to incite the police, highlighting the complexity of the event." Police Commissioner William Gross placed a sergeant who bragged about hitting three protestors with his car on administrative leave. In a statement, Gross said his office is also looking into other abuses shown on the tapes. They're investigating a particular instance and looking into some vague claim of others. A single verifiable instance of bad behavior. There is solid evidence that police infiltrated the recent demonstrations. A North Dakota officer posed as a protester, photographed activists, and yelled “F**k the police” while checking for guns at a Black Lives Matter protest in Fargo. Undercover officers disguised as Orthodox Jews attended anti-racism protests in New Jersey. The Texas Department of Public Safety outright acknowledged embedding undercover officers in the protests to root out “criminals.” Going undercover for surveillance is not instigating violence. A broader solution is to simply prohibit plainclothes police from attending protests. Using undercover police in connection with protests and protest movements can only further undermine trust between law enforcement and communities at a time when that trust has already been badly eroded by repeated, high-profile instances of racialized police brutality. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of undercover operations in other settings, protests are one context where people should feel free to come together and express themselves without fear of surreptitious law enforcement monitoring. So stop wearing protective gear and stop keeping an eye on protests. That doesn't seem very productive and still not showing police as instigating violence. We asked experts to watch videos showing officers using tear gas, pepper balls and explosives on protesters. Police actions often escalated confrontations. Videos from social media. How can we rely on those videos when they don't show what happened prior to the so called "escalation"? Not proof police are instigating violence. weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal, from beanbag rounds to grenades N ot only can some of these weapons cause considerable injury to protesters, particularly if misused, but experts say the mere presence of the weapons often incites panic, intensifies confrontations and puts people on all sides at risk.People call for non lethal force and then demonize the police when they comply. Still not showing police as instigating violence. about 10 minutes before an 8 p.m. curfew went into effect, the marchers encountered scores of police officers with riot gear, including helmets, shields, and batons. Bicycle police used their bikes to form a wall and prevented the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.” The protesters were trapped, with no way to disperse.Don't know if that was a mistake on the police's part, they had a specific reason for doing what they did, or not how it actually happened. But still not showing police as instigating violence. Just after 8 p.m. and the start of the city-wide curfew – imposed a few days earlier due to looting in other areas– the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces. How do we know that really happened? Where's the proof? T he City Council will consider a report Wednesday, Sept. 22, that largely blames Portland police for violence at political protests and calls for a series of reforms.Did they get police input at all or just input from a bunch of people already pissed off that police exist? As someone recently posted to me in a post that you personally LIKEd "Once again you put a lot of stuff out there but do not provide any actual proof what is being said is actually happening . People make all kinds of accusations but that doesn’t mean what they are saying is actually happening." So yeah, that goes both ways. So glad to see you acknowledge your own distribution of baseless, alternative so called facts and bullshit! |
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,803
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Nov 17, 2021 15:12:02 GMT
www.hrw.org/report/2020/09/30/kettling-protesters-bronx/systemic-police-brutality-and-its-costs-united-statesOn the evening of June 4, 2020, about 300 people marched peacefully through Mott Haven, a low-income neighborhood in New York City’s South Bronx, to protest police violence and systemic racism. Less than an hour into the march, and about 10 minutes before an 8 p.m. curfew went into effect, the marchers encountered scores of police officers with riot gear, including helmets, shields, and batons. Bicycle police used their bikes to form a wall and prevented the protesters from moving forward, while other officers pushed from behind – a tactic known as “kettling.” The protesters were trapped, with no way to disperse.“We were being packed and packed like sardines,” one protester later recalled. Many started chanting, “Let Us Go!” and one person cried out, “You’re gonna kill us – I can’t breathe.” Just after 8 p.m. and the start of the city-wide curfew – imposed a few days earlier due to looting in other areas– the police moved in on the protesters, unprovoked and without warning, whaling their batons, beating people from car tops, shoving them down to the ground, and firing pepper spray in their faces.“Then it’s kind of all a blur,” one protester said, recounting how a police officer punched him in the face, another twisted his finger and broke it, and a third pulled off his Covid-19 face mask and doused him with pepper spray. “Then they dragged me on the ground and beat me with batons,” he said. “Somewhere in the process of being cuffed, I had a knee on my neck.” As protesters cried out – some with blood dripping down their faces – the police began to arrest them. They forced people to sit on the street with their hands zip-tied behind their backs, at times so tight that their hands went numb. Clearly identified medics and legal observers were among those targeted, as police beat a number of them, detained them and obstructed their work. Ambulances eventually arrived, and a medic who was zip-tied at the time said that he saw at least three people carried away on stretchers: “[They were] handcuffed to the stretchers, with head bandages, visibly bleeding from the bandage.” The protest in Mott Haven was one of hundreds that broke out across New York City and the wider United States following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25. Floyd’s was the latest in a series of high-profile killings of unarmed Black people by police in the country. Law enforcement officers across the United States responded to many of these largely peaceful protests with violence, excessive force, and abuse. They beat up protesters, conducted mass arrests, and fired teargas, pepper spray, stun grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse and discourage protests. This report is based on interviews or written accounts from 81 people who participated in the Mott Haven protest, interviews with 19 other community members, lawyers, activists, and city officials, and analysis of 155 videos that were recorded during the protest. Human Rights Watch also reviewed legal documents and sent questions to the New York Police Department, the NYPD, which replied in part (see Annexes). The NYPD did not reply to a Human Rights Watch request to interview senior NYPD officials. My daughter’s best friend was arrested in this incident. She was peacefully protesting. She was not out after any curfew. The police tore her mask off, violently cuffed her, and forced her to sit on a curb for three hours. Her shoulder was damaged from it. All she did was peacefully exercise her first amendment rights. |
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,884 
|
Post by Just T on Nov 17, 2021 15:15:32 GMT
My daughter’s best friend was arrested in this incident. She was peacefully protesting. She was not out after any curfew. The police tore her mask off, violently cuffed her, and forced her to sit on a curb for three hours. Her shoulder was damaged from it. All she did was peacefully exercise her first amendment rights. I have heard so many stories like this. My son was hit with I think a rubber bullet, on his thigh, while he was kneeled on the ground with his hands in the air. No weapons were anywhere near him, he truly was at a peaceful protest in the middle of the day, somewhere in the Denver area. When he posted about it on FB with a picture of the horrible bruise on his leg, so many people commented on his post that they were there and that is was definitely peaceful. |
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,525
|
Post by casii on Nov 17, 2021 16:47:03 GMT
My daughter’s best friend was arrested in this incident. She was peacefully protesting. She was not out after any curfew. The police tore her mask off, violently cuffed her, and forced her to sit on a curb for three hours. Her shoulder was damaged from it. All she did was peacefully exercise her first amendment rights. I have heard so many stories like this. My son was hit with I think a rubber bullet, on his thigh, while he was kneeled on the ground with his hands in the air. No weapons were anywhere near him, he truly was at a peaceful protest in the middle of the day, somewhere in the Denver area. When he posted about it on FB with a picture of the horrible bruise on his leg, so many people commented on his post that they were there and that is was definitely peaceful. Same. A lot of well documented stories with video because everyone has their phones. When I see police aggression from several angles from different phones, it's pretty bad. Denver had a lot of aggressive police action in response to peaceful protests. My friend MK was there for much of it. A photojournalist, Linda Tirado, lost an eye to a rubber bullet while wearing press credentials in Minneapolis. She still has ongoing migraines as well. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 17, 2021 17:56:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Nov 17, 2021 18:13:46 GMT
I’m not a fan of protests and haven’t been since the 1970s when I lived in San Francisco. I was on my way home when I went by the hotel Nixon was staying at. There were protestors and a line of SF Swat Guys off to the side. I kind of hung around at the edge of the protestors to see what I could see. In a blink of an eye that protest turned violent. So I took off. I lived on a hill and that was the fastest I ever went up that hill to get where I was living. And I now stay far away from protests.
There is no excuse for police aggression at protests.
And there is no excuse for the protesters to trash people’s businesses and cars.
I understand that organizers of the protests, in most cases, condone violence at their protests. But on some level they must know it could or will happen but apparently they don’t care enough because their cause is righteous.
At a protests all who come are amped up. The protestors because they are protesting against the ills of the world. The police because they are outnumbered and history has shown that protests can turn violent. Business owners because their businesses are often a target when protests turn violent. It creates a perfect storm for things to go terribly wrong.
I support a lot of issues people protest about but feel there is a better and safer way to enact lasting change and that is through the ballot box. Although, thanks to trump, that might change.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Nov 17, 2021 19:09:36 GMT
That’s not withholding evidence. The likely process is that the have a computer based system through which discovery is provided. The system likely compresses all video in order to deliver it. All defense has to do is ask if there is a higher quality available. That’s pretty standard in most jurisdictions. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 17, 2021 19:45:51 GMT
That’s not withholding evidence. The likely process is that the have a computer based system through which discovery is provided. The system likely compresses all video in order to deliver it. All defense has to do is ask if there is a higher quality available. That’s pretty standard in most jurisdictions. I'd believe that except that the file provided to the Defense was 3.6MB while the State's is 11.2MB. Defense was working with mashed-potato quality of 480x212 megapixels while the Prosecution enjoyed 1920x844 HD. It doesn't take a genius to know that systems compress video but don't you think in a trial of this magnitude it would be prudent to ensure that "HD" box is ticked before delivering the file to ensure both sides have the same details to work from? edited>>>>>It gets even more interesting when the HD version was only disclosed 2 days before closing arguments and after the evidence had been closed. Give me a break, this wasn't an accident. |
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Nov 17, 2021 21:09:57 GMT
That’s not withholding evidence. The likely process is that the have a computer based system through which discovery is provided. The system likely compresses all video in order to deliver it. All defense has to do is ask if there is a higher quality available. That’s pretty standard in most jurisdictions. I'd believe that except that the file provided to the Defense was 3.6MB while the State's is 11.2MB. Defense was working with mashed-potato quality of 480x212 megapixels while the Prosecution enjoyed 1920x844 HD. It doesn't take a genius to know that systems compress video but don't you think in a trial of this magnitude it would be prudent to ensure that "HD" box is ticked before delivering the file to ensure both sides have the same details to work from? edited>>>>>It gets even more interesting when the HD version was only disclosed 2 days before closing arguments and after the evidence had been closed. Give me a break, this wasn't an accident. That isn’t how the systems that are built specifically for law offices work. There is no button to push for hd. I can easily see how this could happen. Maybe the defense should have done a better job and simply asked for a higher resolution video is available— that’s a common request. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Nov 17, 2021 21:25:52 GMT
He has a point…
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Nov 17, 2021 21:30:14 GMT
This is disgraceful. It really is.
|
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 17, 2021 21:31:53 GMT
I'd believe that except that the file provided to the Defense was 3.6MB while the State's is 11.2MB. Defense was working with mashed-potato quality of 480x212 megapixels while the Prosecution enjoyed 1920x844 HD. It doesn't take a genius to know that systems compress video but don't you think in a trial of this magnitude it would be prudent to ensure that "HD" box is ticked before delivering the file to ensure both sides have the same details to work from? edited>>>>>It gets even more interesting when the HD version was only disclosed 2 days before closing arguments and after the evidence had been closed. Give me a break, this wasn't an accident. That isn’t how the systems that are built specifically for law offices work. There is no button to push for hd. I can easily see how this could happen. Maybe the defense should have done a better job and simply asked for a higher resolution video is available— that’s a common request. LMAO! Here's a primer for you so you know what is actually supposed to happen. www.videoforensicexpert.com/5-tips-for-preparing-digital-video-evidence-for-court/"#2: As a rule of thumb, always present the original digital video recording, not a copy. Copies of digital video recordings can be misrepresented if there is not an authentic chain of custody. Digital compression from copying and converting recordings affects the authenticity of the events as they occurred. In addition, improper copying affects the digital information used to determine the circumstances around a recording’s creation.
Sometimes, the surveillance videos may need clarification or enhancement. In this case, the original recording has undergone changes. Once the video enhancement process has been completed accurately, the derivative video work product is properly authenticated as an original representation of the events. A document describing the enhancement process completed by a trained professional, such as a video forensic expert, completes the process. If you are uncertain if you have the original or if you believe you have an altered copy, seek guidance from a qualified and trained professional. Forensic experts authenticate digital video recordings scientifically and present a report of the digital integrity of the digital video file. Our experts provide a pro bono consultation to all clients." You can't tell me they didn't know this. It's best practice to make sure compression and misrepresentation of the original is prevented. You didn't have anything to say about how the HD version was provided "'until after the trial concluded". www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210087/Prosecutors-Kenosha-shooter-trial-WITHHELD-evidence-defense.html |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 17, 2021 21:37:55 GMT
Phooey… There is no question housing affordability plays a part in homelessness but it’s not now or ever the only reason people live in the street. What does this have to do with the Rittenhouse trial? I think you're in the wrong thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Nov 17, 2021 21:55:02 GMT
That isn’t how the systems that are built specifically for law offices work. There is no button to push for hd. I can easily see how this could happen. Maybe the defense should have done a better job and simply asked for a higher resolution video is available— that’s a common request. LMAO! Here's a primer for you so you know what is actually supposed to happen. www.videoforensicexpert.com/5-tips-for-preparing-digital-video-evidence-for-court/"#2: As a rule of thumb, always present the original digital video recording, not a copy. Copies of digital video recordings can be misrepresented if there is not an authentic chain of custody. Digital compression from copying and converting recordings affects the authenticity of the events as they occurred. In addition, improper copying affects the digital information used to determine the circumstances around a recording’s creation.
Sometimes, the surveillance videos may need clarification or enhancement. In this case, the original recording has undergone changes. Once the video enhancement process has been completed accurately, the derivative video work product is properly authenticated as an original representation of the events. A document describing the enhancement process completed by a trained professional, such as a video forensic expert, completes the process. If you are uncertain if you have the original or if you believe you have an altered copy, seek guidance from a qualified and trained professional. Forensic experts authenticate digital video recordings scientifically and present a report of the digital integrity of the digital video file. Our experts provide a pro bono consultation to all clients." You can't tell me they didn't know this. It's best practice to make sure compression and misrepresentation of the original is prevented. You didn't have anything to say about how the HD version was provided "'until after the trial concluded". www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10210087/Prosecutors-Kenosha-shooter-trial-WITHHELD-evidence-defense.htmlI’m well aware of what to do with the originals. I’m an attorney. We keep the original and those are only used on court. Discovery to defense is provided either through copies on dvds or through electronic systems that are specifically built for law offices. Based on my experience both sides screwed up. Another article claimed the electronic file was being moved around via cell phones. That’s idiotic on everyone behalf. But the defense is never provided the original. Maybe you need a primer on how discovery works. |
|
