Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone see this?
Charlotte faces aftermath of protests ignited by fatal police shooting; 16 officers injured

At least 12 Charlotte cops injured in protests following officer-involved death of black man

Protestors-turned-rioters on I-85 shut down the highway... and actually looted a semi.

o.O

I expected better concerning a riot in the South, and by better I mean the protesters getting rolled with enthusiasm by the PoPo.

Especially when this occurred. You block freeways and people in ambulances die and serious stuff happens:
"The destruction late Tuesday and early Wednesday included blocking all lanes of Interstate 85 and looting a Walmart on North Tryon Street at about 3:30 a.m. The store was closed early Wednesday, with wooden pallets piled in front of the doors and shopping carts blocking the driveway into the lot.

Three or more tractor trailer trucks were stopped and looted on Interstate 85, and at least two fires were started on the interstate, as the protesters burned items taken from the trucks.

Motorists were reportedly stuck on Interstate 85 for hours at the height of the protests,

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103009432.html#storylink=cpy"

Number of officers injured is up to 16 now.

A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

And this is what happens? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

Strange that the ones in Charlotte are getting this out of control, where as the situation in Tulsa seems more outrageous by comparison.

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

CNN police conference: firearm recovered, but no book and that witnesses support police statements. Now of course that could be a drop gun etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/us/charlotte-police-shooting/index.html

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

He was brandishing the weapon at some point... not sure of the when/timeline though.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

It matters not what the facts turn out to be- riot now just to be sure!

The level of destruction and violence being tolerated with the riots is disappointing. Protesting an injustice is commendable; committing injustice is deplorable.

 jmurph wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

It matters not what the facts turn out to be- riot now just to be sure!

The level of destruction and violence being tolerated with the riots is disappointing. Protesting an injustice is commendable; committing injustice is deplorable.

Exactly. I say it every time, wait until facts come out before you cast judgement.

There is no excuse what so ever for this type of activity. None at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A black officer, shot a black man, who was holding a weapon, and refusing to comply with multiple (corroborated by witnesses on scene) orders to disarm himself.

The last article I read on the subject said witnesses report he was not holding a gun. Which is most definitely the version of events the people out there believed.

Only thing I've read on that was his family said he was holding a book, not a gun, and unfortunately, family is the last people you can trust in this type of situation. Their emotions are going to cloud their statements, period.

Shutting down highways is just about method #1 for pissing people off and making them lose sympathy for a cause. Even disregarding safety and emergency issues, making people sit in traffic is a great way to make them infuriated.

That said, at this point I think what we're seeing is less a response to any singlr incident and more people just taking any excuse to vent and make their frustrations heard and felt in the most direct way possible, regardless of how appropriate it may or may not be, as they dont feel their concerns are being adequately responded to in many areas, leading to further social conflict.

I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

I hope I'm understanding your question correctly, but please correct me if I am not.

But basically, the riot is a flashpoint happening. You have groups that have had the decades of this behavior (not huge amounts, mind, but enough that it is the perception, especially in media) going more or less unchallenged, with the police closing ranks and protecting their own while shooting members of the public. Now I don't have the facts in this case, so really I can't speak to the reality, but the perception is what's important I think. We have an angry population in the area, and one that is seeing what is perceived as another in a pretty high rise in -visible- (note that term in terms of media coverage) shootings of their own, and their recourse is to strike back and not sit back and say 'well maybe this will be the one that goes to complete trial'.

Anger and perception are powerful things.

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?

I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?

Which is a false perception.
This study found race matters in police shootings, but the results may surprise you...

Or, even this harvard study that Police are not more likely to fire on blacks than whites. In fact, blacks are 20% less likely to be fired on.
EDIT... harvard study results has been challenged due to iffy methodology.

 Frazzled wrote:


I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.

Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.

True points there.

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I find it harder and harder to have sympathy for the police in these instances. As Vakthai has put it, this is not some wild, isolated incident, this has been a long-building anger and frustration that is now reaching a flashpoint. Years, decades of this kind of thing are coming home to roost, and the police shoulder some of this responsibility. They've burned their goodwill so badly that the perception is that all shots are abuses and crimes.

How does that relate to a riot though?

Karma. You keep shooting black people at slightest excuse and it adds up. You expect them to just keep accepting it forevfr?

Which is a false perception.
This study found race matters in police shootings, but the results may surprise you...

Or, even this harvard study that Police are not more likely to fire on blacks than whites. In fact, blacks are 20% less likely to be fired on.

Which is significant as long as police interact with the same number of people from each racial group.

Once a particular group is X% more likely to have an interaction with the police to begin with, the actual impact on these numbers begin to change.

 curran12 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.

Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.

Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.

 djones520 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.

Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.

Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.

Semis yes. Walmarts...well....

 Frazzled wrote:

I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

It leads to riots because the infrastructure to organise militant groups isn't there anymore (or yet). Rioting is simply what's available to channel anger into. We might be seeing more Dorners in the future, tho.

 Frazzled wrote:
True points there.

And while there are almost certainly people there interested in causing trouble/theft, the problem perpetuates when those people become the brush that the group is painted by. It furthers the feeling of disenfranchisement when their flashpoint of anger is written off as "some people wanting a five finger discount". Not to point out your words specifically, but that's just what happened to be there.

The larger point is that by doing that, it only adds more anger and more to the fire. And, to go back to my original point, furthers the perception that their community is second class and under attack.

The mentality behind these kinds of riots is the same kind of mentality that drives people to vote for Trump.

Long held perceptions of injustice, and a feeling powerlessness will lead people to act in a manner that is contrary to their long-term self interest, be that looting and burning a semi, or putting a check mark next to the donald's name.

 djones520 wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I should be more clear. How does that lead to a riot? A logical response would be actions against the PoPo. Frankly I could see "direct action" against police as a result, but a riot doesn't help them. Riots typically do not help the local area and can in fact slow it permanently or for decades. The Watts riots and LA riots are excellent examples.

I guess it helps them by giving the rioters the excuse of the five fingered discount.

Ah, I understand more clearly now, thanks.

Well, that I think is simpler. It boils down to have you having a large and angry crowd. The individuals there could run the range from 'I'm here to peacefully protest' to 'I'm here to start trouble'. That crowd hits critical mass at some point and just explodes.

Yeah, I'll always support protest. The second you start looting Walmarts, or hell, semi's still on the interstate? You've lost every shred of credibility in my eyes though.

Over the past year, heck even over the past few weeks, it seems that it's okay to protest. But people think protests have gone to far when:

- you shut down an interstate
- you shut down any road
- you disrupt a public event
- you make a statement anywhere people don't want to hear it
- you kneel during a national anthem
- you have a peaceful protest
- you say something as a politician

It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.

I don't care if anyone kneels during the national anthem as long as I can still eat my chips and queso during the national anthem. I also have no problem with a peaceful AND LEGAL protest.

 whembly wrote:

Or, even this harvard study that Police are not more likely to fire on blacks than whites. In fact, blacks are 20% less likely to be fired on.

I've explained this in a previous thread more than once, but that isn't a "Harvard study" but an unvetted anonymously funded working paper, it was done by an economist with no background in criminal justice, and people that are in the requisite field have called into question his methodology.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't care if anyone kneels during the national anthem as long as I can still eat my chips and queso during the national anthem. I also have no problem with a peaceful AND LEGAL protest.

But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?

Interesting ruling by a court in Massachusetts:

Mass. High Court Says Black Men May Have Legitimate Reason To Flee Police

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting ruling by a court in Massachusetts:

Mass. High Court Says Black Men May Have Legitimate Reason To Flee Police

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

More evidence of sjw tyranny. Vote for the donald before it's too late!