Growing Disapproval of Protests Against Police

Did you just expect that nobody would look at your links? Or did you not look at them yourself?

Problems with First Link: First of all you didn’t give us a link to the study. You gave us a link to an article. The ACTUAL study is here. https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/de...violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The VERY FIRST paragraph shows the extreme bias of the group who created the study and I quote:

“...and police killings continue unabated, at 2.5 times the rate1 for Black men as for white men”. Of course they don’t mention the fact that in 2019 only 13 unarmed blacks were killed by police and the VAST majority of those the suspect is on video resisting arrest.

Furthermore your link fails to acknowledge that the “study” (by the obviously biased group) isn’t just referring to BLM protests but includes ALL protests including COVID protests, protests by conservatives against lockdowns etc etc.

Last, the study is Not only incredibly biased but also a complete fraudulent sham. The study separates a protests which occurred in the same town, on the same days, with the same groups by time. So in other words, if a protest started at 12 and technically ended at 6pm and there was no violence during that time period, the study lists it as a non-violent protest. If that SAME EXACT group of protesters stuck around past time for the protest to end, broke curfew and then started to engage in violence, the study separated those as two separate protests and only declared the second group as violent while declaring the first as nonviolent.

To add even MORE fraudulent data to their data sets, they also separated by geographic location. So, for example, if a protest started on 1st street and all of the protesting on 1st, 2nd and 3rd street was peaceful with no violence and on 4th street where the government offices and federal buildings are they broke out windows and engaged in violence, the study broke them up into two groups and two separate protests and declared the protests on 1st, 2nd and 3rd streets as a “peaceful Protest” and declared the protest on 4th street to be a separate protest and declared it nonviolent.

Problems with second link: Used the exact same study as your first link.

Problems with third link: Used the exact same study as your first and second link.

Problems with fourth link: Used the exact same study as your first, second and third link.

So you produced four links, all pointing to the exact same fraudulent study. Oh and might I add that your study asserts that much of the violence was actually caused by “right wing provocateurs” with absolutely zero evidence that is the case. Oh and one last thing your study declared that there was no violent protesting in CHOP. Even though multiple people died in an area the protesters declared police no go zones.

That study is a complete sham and fraud.

 

Genuine and appropriate demonstrations against police brutality have been infiltrated by mercenary trouble makers. How else can pallets of bricks in strategic locations be explained?

There is an agenda in play advanced by powerful men in society.

 

None.

 

How can a protest be appropriate and genuine when it's based on the false premise of racist law enforcement?

 

Several ways.

The snail mail version of REASON Magazine treats police brutality and more in its current issue.

There are many things that can be done, and a few of the big ones are ending the police unions and abolishing the legal sophistry of Qualified Immunity.

The police have been and are today out of control. That statement does not mean I hate the police or want to abolish them, not at all.

That statement simply acknowledges that in this country, for many reasons and in many ways, the police are out of control, AND there are intelligent and fair measures that can be applied to remedy the situation.

Racism permeates society. It is part of the human condition, like it or not.

Most cops are good men with good intentions, but poor policies (like prohibition) and inherent problems (like unions and qualified immunity) need to be addressed or nothing will change, it will only become worse.

 

So let’s just address qualified immunity for a moment.

‘qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" ‘

So it protects an officer from say, being sued civilly if he’s using department appropriate force in taking down a suspect. For instance, a suspect is on camera resisting and the officer slams him to the ground to cuff him and make him comply and the suspect hits his head and has brain trauma. The officer cannot be held civilly liable. If he acts in an unconstitutional manner or violates clearly established statutory law he CAN be held civilly liable.

I don’t see the problem. Especially given that if you take that protection away from police, the likelihood of getting ANYONE to take that level of risk (especially in today’s social environment) is essentially nil.

Would you be willing to take that risk as an officer? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

 

My grandfather was a cop in Chicago during the days of Al Capone and prohibition. No way in the world I would be a cop.

That said, if you read that REASON article, you will discover that QI is a sophistry created by Earl Warren. The end result all these years later is that cops are immune from being held responsible for their actions. It is a sophistry that has resulted in many harms over many years. Cops are not angels. They are mere humans and susceptible to all the things anybody is, including making mistakes.

That combined with many other factors have helped take us to where we are now. The other big factor is the militarization of police, and many have been writing against that policy for decades.

 

I isn't police that are out of control in this country today. It's a dangerous job and they need to go home to their families the same as the perps they have to deal with.

 

My thought: it's amazing how some people only quote polls when they agree with their beliefs. Otherwise they don't trust polls.

 

Agree. 100%.

 

Yet every Democrat and all the MSM hang their hat on this “study”. Sorry. BS is BS. If a protest is peaceful during the day then breaks out into the riot than it was never mostly peaceful. It was a violent protest. The ONLY peaceful protests are those that involve zero violence. But good luck finding any large protest that doesn’t involve some violence.

 

I dont think you can say that with any certainty if your being honest

 

That Trump didn't kill anyone? Yes, I think I can say that with certainty.

 

No you cant...
Tulsa rally and Trumps need for a liability waiver ring a bell?

 

Which studies have shown this?

 

Bell? You hear bells? As to that rally, they all yelled BLM one time and that made them virus proof.

 

That is certainly fair enough for me.

Is it fair enough for you that citizens are entitled to constitutional governance by their governments?

 

Do you realize how many things in the grown up world require liability waivers? Or maybe you think they're all out to kill you too

 

Do you realize why they give out liability waivers?

(Its increased risk of death dismemberment or injury for those keeping score at home)

 

Tulsa rally yelled "BLM"?????

Speaking of people hearing bells lol

 

Because real life doesn't come with any guarantees, and Americans love lawsuits.

Or, you know, it's because they're all out to kill you

 

Oh really lol so since its "real life" surely you can point me to other political rally liability waivers?

 

probably more like declarations than studies, lol.

 

Who else is having rallies during COVID? Biden's in his basement for the most part....

 

Yes and that's why I vote for Trump.