Minneapolis PD Suspect Dies On Video While Handcuffed. FBI Investigating.

[HCountyGuy]

I was more thinking of what that says about the societal norms the police/NG are operating in there. Of course they have the technical ability to stop the looting. They had the technical ability to defend the police buildings that were abandoned. But they retreated. It's a reasonable question to ask why and what role the duty to retreat mentality plays in the minds of the civilian leadership making those calls, I would think.

I'm reasonable sure an infantry battalion could stop the looting crowds. But in what way that is palatable to the society they must operate in?

Is it more palatable to the citizenry when it's the citizenry doing it? Rooftop Korean vs police sniper? Which is a more sympathetic narrative to more people?

To be fair the civilian leadership likely is a bunch of cowards content to let whatever burn unless it’s directly relevant to them. Sure they could give a rat’s ass about the police precinct (after all, they tow the line of fuck the police mostly) but when the mob’s outside their mansion or state office you think they’d care about “duty to retreat”? Pffft, no it’s game on then.

To the overall question I’d say it’s a mix of both. The police and national Guard have a duty to try and keep shit from getting waaaaaay out of control using what means they can that doesn’t offend public sensibility. I agree letting a platoon go out and turn the streets red would do much more than really kick off something far bigger. I think the citizens that actually reside in the town should have a vested interest in ensuring it’s not burned to the ground and be allowed to help, so long as they too are not just indiscriminately shooting folks.

Guy making off with sneakers? Let’em go.
Guy with a Molotov? Drop that motherfucker

[HCountyGuy]

Breaking in where you are and the threat of starting fire where you are, seems to meet the 'test' for acceptable use lethal force. No problem with that. You are under direct threat.

Destroying your livelihood hasn't been part of the law, except in the circumstance I mentioned. Should it be?

Folks are confounding being under threat in a business from simple theft. If you are in the building and folks break in different from being outside your store and shooting people.

There is also the long term social impact of using lethal force with abandon as in the burning of the precinct.

Folks don't like to think about such.

You act as though the two are mutually exclusive. In the context of what’s going on, they’re not always.

I think we’re mostly in agreement here, it’s just some semantics we’re getting hung up on.

[troydobe]

New view




Link to video

https://www.facebook.com/SmartNaijaL...7728177108543/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You act as the two are mutually exclusive. In the context of what’s going on, they’re not always.

I agree that we are mostly in agreement. The situation is fuzzy. Folks will end up in court for the fuzzy set intersection. I was commenting mostly on the extreme view of hosing the street with a 50 BMG.

Here's a funny story to lighten the mood. Back during the Cambodia riots (if you are old enough to be through those, I was) - at a Midwestern college the students decided to march to demand the McDonald's take down the huge American flag. The franchisee called McD headquarters and got the CEO on the phone to ask what to do. Well, the conservative CEO, said don't give in to those Commies! Oh no, thinks the franchisee. Then the VP calls on the sly and says - is the meat truck coming? Why yes! Have it run over the flag pole by 'accident'. That was done.

[TGS]

I agree with you, @MickAK.

my personal viewpoint is that current caselaw is prohibitively restrictive when dealing with riots. I'm personally of the opinion that riots should be put down without hesitation like animals. That's generally how things are viewed in the rest of the world as well, since riots go beyond simple theft and property destruction......there's a lawlessness that takes hold which makes them especially vile within the context of civilization. It's also historically how we've done things within the US.....the idea that "people need the space to destroy" is a historical aberration, even within the US, as ALL civilizations make a delineation between protests/demonstrations and riots. In my Urdu class preparing for Pakistan, when we used the term for demonstration to refer to a riot, the teacher was confused. They're two completely different things in Pakistan, you would never use the words interchangeably like we do here in the US. It simply wouldn't make sense, and would cause the same confusion as if a Pakistani had said in English, "I would like to buy your car" while pointing to your house.

Protest all you want, it's your right and to that end I think contemporary permitting processes are borderline unconstitutional, and in some cases patently so. But riots are a whole different thing that I feel fairly Machiavellian about, and the belt fed water-cooled machinegun shouldn't stop firing until the street is clear. The rioters don't have to like it, or agree with it, or have a positive emotional impact from it to shape them into model citizens (looking at it from Glenn's POV). They need to not burn down the town. Using the language from Garner v Tenn, I personally feel that their right to life and interest in causing mayhem and engaging in patently illegal, violent, destructive behavior does not override the interest of the state, people, and civilization at large in ensuring their right to life, liberty and the order of civilization. I use "destructive behavior" as it pertains to destroying societal values and good order of civilization, not "destructive behavior" in the same sense as drugs/porn/alcoholism.

With that out of the way, under standing caselaw within the US and looking at what we have to work with, there very well may be a point to letting people have their "space to destroy". That subset of society is going to be involved in illegal behavior their whole life anyway, it's not like them burning down and looting stores is going to make them worse citizens than they already are. There very well might be merit in letting them get it out of their system up to including a sacrificial lamb (2nd Precinct, for instance), given that if we went after them with all the might that LE and the National Guard can muster, that's still like putting a boxer in a ring with one gloved hand tied behind his back....and even if you round them up, they'll get streeted within 24 hours, with no real consequences.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

FYI - https://time.com/5843911/george-floy...sourceId=75717

Read the letter from the school. Seems a touch too reflexive to me, but being an academic, it's what I would expect.

[BehindBlueI's]

To be fair the civilian leadership likely is a bunch of cowards content to let whatever burn unless it’s directly relevant to them. Sure they could give a rat’s ass about the police precinct (after all, they tow the line of fuck the police mostly) but when the mob’s outside their mansion or state office you think they’d care about “duty to retreat”? Pffft, no it’s game on then.

To the overall question I’d say it’s a mix of both. The police and national Guard have a duty to try and keep shit from getting waaaaaay out of control using what means they can that doesn’t offend public sensibility. I agree letting a platoon go out and turn the streets red would do much more than really kick off something far bigger. I think the citizens that actually reside in the town should have a vested interest in ensuring it’s not burned to the ground and be allowed to help, so long as they too are not just indiscriminately shooting folks.

Guy making off with sneakers? Let’em go.
Guy with a Molotov? Drop that motherfucker

One reason I ask is we're a "stand your ground" state and I think the mentality is different here. I don't think we're different because of stand your ground, I think we're stand your ground because we're different. I'm sure other factors are in play. I just don't know what they are. We just don't have that level of violence in protests here. A rally against the treatment of circus elephants drew a bigger crowd then most of the BLM protests, and neither turned violent. Somewhere out there is a picture of one of the BLM protestors posing with a police horse with it's tongue out as opposed to pictures of shit on fire.

We got info on a specific business that a flash mob was supposed to show up at at a certain time. People who posted "invites" on social media got a visit from Intel. We got there in front of it, had a big presence, and nothing happened. They took pictures and dispersed. Meanwhile in MN police stations are being burned.

Why? Why is the culture different here? Why when outside agitators come in can they not rile up much local support? I'm sure there are lessons there, I'm just not smart enough to suss out what they are.

[Wondering Beard]

Why? Why is the culture different here? Why when outside agitators come in can they not rile up much local support? I'm sure there are lessons there, I'm just not smart enough to suss out what they are.

Added question: how much of that has to do with the culture, and perhaps political outlook, of the higher ups in a police department, mayoral or state office and the managerial class?

[0ddl0t]

Someone stealing a pair of sneakers is simple theft, but hundreds of people ranksacking your entire inventory is not - particularly for a small business owner with no insurance.


Until the 1960's, English Law indemnified those using deadly force to break up a riot after the order to disperse went ignored. It is where "reading the riot act" came from.

[TGS]

Someone stealing a pair of sneakers is simple theft, but hundreds of people ranksacking your entire inventory is not - particularly for a small business owner with no insurance.


Until the 1960's, English Law indemnified those using deadly force to break up a riot after the order to disperse went ignored. It is where "reading the riot act" came from.

Fuck, somebody reset The Matrix^TM, something is askew, I agree with 0ddl0t.