I think I materially agree with the positions staked out by the editors of the Washington Post, about the sad incidents in Kenosha and Portland. Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been in Kenosha at all, let alone armed with a semiautomatic weapon. And the riots that have broken out in so many cities in the U. S. must be condemned:
There is no excuse and no justification for the kind of bedlam that has followed peaceful protests in Kenosha with street skirmishes, looting, burning and other destruction to businesses and buildings. Such needless violence — which unfortunately has accompanied some protests in other cities this summer as the country was racked by the killing of George Floyd — undermines instead of advances any cause. It must be unambiguously condemned.
They’re understating the scope of the problem. Since the end of May there have been riots frequently accompanied by destruction, burning, and looting, in the following cities:
- Minneapolis
- Atlanta
- Bakersfield
- Chicago
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas/Fort Worth
- Des Moines
- Denver
- Detroit
- District of Columbia
- Houston
- Kenosha
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Milwaukee
- New York City
- Philadelphia
- Portland
- Sacramento
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- St. Louis
- Seattle
I’ve probably missed some. That’s more than “other cities”. That’s most of the largest cities in the U. S. What these riots have in common are rejection of liberal values and the rule of law.
I honestly don’t know if there’s anything that President Trump could do about the situation. His presence inflames the situation and his absence inflames the situation. It might help if political leaders on both sides of the aisle condemned the situation unambiguously. I doubt that will be forthcoming as long as one or both sides think they benefit from it.
“There is no excuse and no justification for the kind of bedlam that has followed peaceful protests in Kenosha with street skirmishes, looting, burning and other destruction to businesses and buildings.â€
How can a protest be peaceful if it was this violent? It’s an oxymoron.
It skips the media’s role in inflaming the situation. Would the rioting have started if the public had known the police was responding to a domestic incidence call involving a suspect known to have a outstanding sexual assault charge?
Or having NPR put out an article “In defense of lootingâ€.
Indeed their previous editorial on Jason Blake; ended with this; “Neither noncompliance with a police order nor unconnected past crimes justifies a death sentence, and it is inexcusable to try to use those excuses. Enough is enough.â€. I almost take it as condoning some level of violence — combine “policeâ€, “death sentenceâ€; and “enough is enoughâ€; and what are readers led to believe is a justified course of action?
The very description – “peaceful protests†makes the editorial more sophistry from the Washington Post.
It’s a clumsy and misleading phrasing on their part. “Peaceful protests” are followed by “street skirmishes, looting, burning and other destruction to businesses and buildings”.
I don’t try to split hairs the way they are. When the first rock or bottle was thrown or the first fire was lit, it was not a peaceful protest but either an unlawful assembly or, more likely, a riot.
Indeed their previous editorial on Jason Blake; ended with this; “Neither noncompliance with a police order nor unconnected past crimes justifies a death sentence, and it is inexcusable to try to use those excuses. Enough is enough.â€. I almost take it as condoning some level of violence — combine “policeâ€, “death sentenceâ€; and “enough is enoughâ€; and what are readers led to believe is a justified course of action?
Keep feeding that kind of agitprop to people who aren’t very smart to begin with and you’ll get what you want from them, at their expense.
Rand Paul is on the right track, follow the money. This is being organized and financed with plane tickets, motel rooms, bus tickets, probably meals, ect. Tie the financiers up in court with lawsuits and see how long they want to be involved.
According to best available timeline; the shooting occurred at 5pm on Sunday. A curfew was announced at 10pm that night due to violence.
Is that a peaceful protest followed by violence; or a violent protest to begin with?
I am not very charitable with the Post because their previous op-ed went one way when they thought the incident would work a certain way in politics; and now they shed tears when it seems to go in a different direction.
“Neither noncompliance with a police order nor unconnected past crimes justifies a death sentence, and it is inexcusable to try to use those excuses. Enough is enough.”
That is a sentiment I’m seeing a lot lately – one that is completely absent when it comes to people who are less sympathetic in the eyes of progressives.
I’m generally in sympathy with the quoted passage. However, policy decisions have implications. When law enforcement officers are incapable of exerting situational control without lethal force, the problem isn’t just with the lethal force. It’s in why these people were law enforcement officers to begin with.
If the answer is that a greater good was being served, then that’s your answer. The decision was made to accept the risk that they’d kill someone.
I really ought to deconstruct that sentence.
“unconnected past crimes” — when the police are responding to a 911 call that Mr Blake, who had an active warrant for sexual assault and a judicial restraining order, is at the alleged victim’s residence, is that unconnected to the past, that the situation is de novo?
“justifies a death sentence” — as far as I can tell, Mr Blake is alive. Did the Kenosha authorities or police ever state Mr Blake deserved to die?
“inexcusable to try to use those excuses. enough is enough.” — if one violates a court order, and is non-compliant with a legally authorized officer to enforce said court order, what’s left, the vigilantism that they decry in their subsequent editorial?
Relaxing standards for police officers was not a priority for conservatives IIRC.
So certainly it’s the bastard offspring of the same people midwifing BLM.
Following their logic there’s no reason transsexuals agonizing over their own genitalia shouldn’t be among the crew in blue. Unless of course they already are then we need more of them .
“I’m generally in sympathy with the quoted passage. However, policy decisions have implications. When law enforcement officers are incapable of exerting situational control without lethal force, the problem isn’t just with the lethal force. It’s in why these people were law enforcement officers to begin with.”
I’m generally sympathetic as well – just annoyed that most everyone doesn’t hold that as an actual principle. You go look at the OTB posts and comments on Ammon Bundy and his compatriots and compare them to what people are saying today. “Progressives” then were generally “f*ck them” and cheering the authorities while “conservatives” took the opposite view. Now their roles are reversed. It’s almost as if actual principles about government use of force don’t matter (yes, that last sentence should be read sarcastically).
I generally think that police should use the least amount of force possible to do their job. But with thousands of policing actions every single day, there are going to be instances where the non-lethal tools and training available to police in a particular situation are inadequate.
This would be the case even if the police didn’t have a blue line culture where perceptions about their own safety trump every other situational consideration.
And then there are perceptions, which I think are creating a self-fulfilling cycle.
IMO it’s a pretty reasonable inference that you intended to kill somebody when you empty your sidearm into them.
In a country of 330 million people there will be a certain number of times when lethal force will inevitably be used by law enforcement officers. Some of those against whom it will be used will inevitably be blacks. Were we to be subjected to months of rioting each time there is such an incident the rioting will never stop.
“IMO it’s a pretty reasonable inference that you intended to kill somebody when you empty your sidearm into them.”
IMO it’s a pretty reasonable inference that you intended to kill somebody when you empty your sidearm into them, because you feared that as they whirled around from the car they reached into after a protracted struggle, they might have a gun in their hands and shoot you.
There, fixed it.
The question was whether the Kenosha police officer intended to kill Jacob Blake. You have explained why it’s likely that he did. I tend to focus on actions rather than imputing motives although, yes, he was undoubtedly motivated by fear that Mr. Blake would harm him.
“The question was whether the Kenosha police officer intended to kill Jacob Blake. You have explained why it’s likely that he did. I tend to focus on actions rather than imputing motives…”
You can’t be serious. Motives determine actions. The cop’s actions weren’t mindlessly driven because he thought the guy’s tee shirt was insufficiently ventilated on a hot summer night. He wasn’t creating holes to grab the tee shirt with his fingers so he could pull the guy to the ground. He was motivated by fear of being killed, and as day follows night, his actions were dictated.
Intellectualizing the whole situation accomplishes nothing.
The real question is whether the cop could have realistically applied less force. None of us knows the full history of the subject and what the cop new of it. None of us was there in the moment, wondering what this guy, who had been tazed and had a scuffle with police, was doing when he reached into that car. Would you wait? Would you assume the guy would turn around and offer you a soda he had in the front seat? Or would he have turned around and shot you right through the heart? Would you muse intellectually about his motives?
You don’t know, and you would only have a split half second to make that decision.
They trailed after the guy just following him with their guns drawn when the guy had no weapons. (They were all in a nice line where the one officer would not have been able to assist the other, unless they were shooting.) They could have taken him down before he got to the car on the other side. Instead their only option was to shoot him or wait to see why he went to the other side.
So what we are condoning here is zero risk policing where the police dont have to see a weapon just be scared there might be one. We can do that if we want and just accept more shootings. However, we are also condoning poor policing. The police set themselves up so that the only thing they could do was shoot.
Steve
Speaking of Ammon Bundy; I tried to see what Trump said about it then.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/8/1467306/-Donald-Trump-says-he-d-end-the-Oregon-standoff-just-by-telling-the-Bundys-You-gotta-get-out
Surprisingly consistent.
“They could have taken him down”
No. They couldn’t. The officers were two small men and one woman. They tried to take him down. They failed. The athletic and muscular perp whipped them, broke away and headed for the car where he knew he would find his weapon. If he hadn’t been shot by the officer, the only question is how many would have been killed. Possibly even the three children in the car, bystanders, motorists, if he had gotten behind the wheel.
You can rest easy blaming the officer because of what DIDN’T happen.
Getting back to the original post for a moment, I happened across this analysis of what happened with the kid that killed two people in Kenosha and I’m finding it difficult to fault in it.
https://www.bullshido.net/anatomy-of-a-catastrophe/
Here’s the conclusion of the piece to which Andy linked:
Here’s the thing. Take all sides at face value. They aren’t just posturing; they really mean what they say. The fundamental principle of self-defense is to avoid situations in which you’ll need to defend yourself. That fails for everybody involved.
Bullshido article is good. Agree that self defense means as much as possible you avoid trouble to begin with. If running away is safer and doesnt put anyone at risk, then run if you can do so safely. Your ego will recover. However, if you are in a job that requires physical confrontation then you also need training. If 3 people cant take down someone, unless that person is really big, something is wrong. It looks like the 2 males are about the same size as the guy they shoot. Actual height and weight would be interesting.
Also of note, the office fired 7 times, at a range of about 2 feet. Only 4 hit the guy. There were other people around. Not only were these police unable to restrain the guy w/o daddy force they applied that badly force pretty poorly. (On the plus side, if they lose their police jobs they can always move to Chicago and do driveby shootings for the gangs there. They dont seem to prize accuracy either.)
Steve
I taught self-defense for years. That was one of the first things I taught my students. I received letters for years afterward from former students telling me how they had avoided and/or handled attacks.
I’m guessing everyone commenting is white.