[thu2111]

But then there's also this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaQyClgU4AEJnWf?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaQyCmMUEAEn_1o?format=jpg&name=...

I've not before seen a summer street festival where armed militias wearing bulletproof vests patrol the streets.

[jakelazaroff]

I truly don't understand the problem here. Can you tell me what it is that makes these people dangerous and scary, but the similarly armed protestors who showed up at government buildings a month ago — or, frankly, the police — fine?

[DenisM]

The police follow orders from their chain of command that goes up to an elected official. You can petition the elected official, occupy their building, grill them in the media, and vote them out if you convince the other citizens. For example the knee-to-the-neck move was a part of the "orders" in that it was part of standard procedure and it is now being revised and removed. Similarly the tear gas was part of the procedure and has now been suspended by the order of the mayor. This can only be done because of the chain of command.

The people with masks and weapons on the street report to no-one we know, it's either a loose anarchic group or some sort or they report to a warlord. Can you petition the warlord? Occupy their office? Vote them out? This is a regression to the medieval model of governance.

It's all fun and games when no one really disagrees about anything important, but things change for the worse when disagreements start happening. This is how communes fall - either they fail to disagree constructively or they get subjugated by a dictator who forces an agreement.

This is why we tolerate the police for a few hundred years now - on occasion they cause violence that's predictable and can be influenced. The alternative is the violence we cannot influence and that spiral out of control when the going gets tough.

[jakelazaroff]

> This is why we tolerate the police for a few hundred years now - on occasion they cause violence that's predictable and can be influenced.

The point of these protests is that the violence is not occasional. It is endemic, and attempts to stop it stretch back centuries. It has persisted across the country, under both progressive and conservative politicians, despite many, many attempts to eliminate it.

If the violent system we have has successfully resisted change and accountability for hundreds of years, how is this a regression?

[jimbokun]

> The point of these protests is that the violence is not occasional. It is endemic, and attempts to stop it stretch back centuries.

I feel like these statements need to be qualified to be useful.

Has the level of police violence over the years gotten worse, gotten better, or stayed roughly the same?

How does the overall levels of violence compare to places without an organized police force?

[toofy]

> Has the level of police violence over the years gotten worse, gotten better, or stayed roughly the same?

I understand why some people’s initial instinct is to believe this is a new problem, but groups have been desperately trying to get people’s attention about police violence for decades.

Rodney King was nearly 30 years ago. And people were crying for help long before that.

I knew there was a problem before, but seeing things unfold the last week made it clear, this is a much more widespread and a significantly deeper issue than most people realized.

Even with all of that said, I think we would be silly to imply that abuse has to happen for a significant amount of time before it’s justifiable for someone to demand it stop.

[DenisM]

You have avoided answering the question you have quoted. It’s an important question.

[skissane]

A question – is the problem with police, or is the problem with US police specifically? Do we have the same problem with police in other countries? Canadian police? UK police? Police in EU countries?

If the US police have this problem and other (wealthy democratic) countries don't – or even if comparable countries have the problem too, just not quite as bad as the US has it – what makes US police different?

Racism and racial inequality. Yes, that's very real, but don't think for a moment other countries don't have that problem too – they do. But yes, historically speaking, the US was very much an outlier of extreme racism – few other countries ever had anything comparable to "Jim Crow laws", and the most obvious comparators (apartheid in South Africa and the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany) are not what the US really wants to be compared to. On the other hand, my personal impression is that contemporary Americans are (on average) actually much more highly committed to anti-racism than people in most other countries are.

Could there be other relevant factors causing problems unique to US police? I think, everyone is (quite rightly) focused on the racial inequality issue, but could there be other causes which might be less deeply entrenched and quicker to fix? Easy short-term wins?

(My thought: US has more independent law enforcement agencies than any other country on earth – force all the smaller ones to merge – bigger police forces tend to have a more professional culture, and a smaller number of big police forces is easier for the media/NGOs/etc to hold to account than a larger number of small ones.)

[frabbit]

As regards the Canadian police (especially, but not limited to the RCMP) they are no angels. Especially if you are indigenous/autochthonous. And that's because they are fulfilling the function for which they were created: taking land and living away from some people. A quick google on the history of the RCMP, their recent shoot-to-kill policies at indigenous roadblocks, the colonial/imperial origins will put Justin Trudeau's hypocritical taking a knee into perspective.

If you really want to feel sick read-up on the Highway of Tears and the systematic brutalization of indigenous women by Canadian society.

[skissane]

I know there are a lot of problems with how police in Australia treat indigenous Australians (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people), so it is totally unsurprising to hear that Canadian police have similar issues.

On that topic, how do US law enforcement treat Native Americans? In the present debate there seems to be very little attention to that question.

[DenisM]

In the US it is believed the opposite - more local power structures are easier to influence through local elections. It may not be a huge problem on the scale of Portugal, but as countries get larger things get worse. Imagine the entire EU having one police force - how do you go about changing anything? In the US you can run for mayor or City Council, much more direct connection.

[skissane]

More local power structures are easier to corrupt.

And I’m not suggesting the US should have one police force for whole country, or that EU should take over policing for its member states. In a federal system like the US, local policing is a state government responsibility. So I wouldn’t advocate going any further than merging local police into state police. And in bigger states, like California and Texas, even that is probably going too far-but one could at least merge city police forces into the county level.

[dmode]

I don’t know why you are getting down voted. I think your comments are asking genuine questions

[AnHonestComment]

Police are safer than cars, by an order of magnitude.

The only violence I’ve seen from police that doesn’t seem like an anomaly is violence that protestors incited by starting a conflict with the police.

So, empirically, it seems like the violence is occasional except when you go asking for it and the protestors just have a problem with authority and society at large.

It’s why their complaints are big on individual sob stories but lacking statistics to back them up.

[dragonwriter]

> Police are safer than cars,

For whom and per...what? Encounter? Mile traveled with them?

> The only violence I’ve seen from police that doesn’t seem like an anomaly is violence that protestors incited by starting a conflict with the police.

That suggests to me that either your perception of provocation or of anomaly is skewed (or that “anomaly” is used in the software sense of “behavior out of line with spec” rather than the more general sense of “behavior out of line with what is normal”.)

> So, empirically,

You just recounted what is, by the terms used, your subjective impression, and termed your conclusion built on that (which go far beyond what is justified even if that impression was undisputed fact) “empirical”.

That’s...not what that word means.

[AnHonestComment]

Per arrest to one year of driving: you would have to be arrested ten times in a year for your risk from the police to match your risk driving a car that year.

Per arrest for violent crime (where most of the deaths occur), blacks are safer than whites.

I’ve been reviewing the footage from Seattle — and protestors started every instance of violence by first getting forceful with the cops.

Show me any evidence that there’s an endemic problem of violence — because nothing I can find in either statistics about harm or footage from protests suggests there is.

That’s an empiric conclusion: studying the statistics about how often police harm people and comparing them to other sources of risk — which show they’re relatively minor.

[noobaccount]

I believe the issue today is that the police are causing violence against the people with little power in our political system. To those people the distinction you are making is without a difference.

[DenisM]

I feel like you're taking my reply out of context. Specifically I was addressing this questions:

> Can you tell me what it is that makes these people dangerous and scary, but the similarly armed protestors who showed up at government buildings a month ago — or, frankly, the police — fine?

and explaining why replacing police with warlords is not progress.

Are some classes of people unable to influence the system? I readily agree with that. Are we making our society better by replacing police with warlords or anarchists? I argue not.

[tshaddox]

It’s bizarrely contradictory to use democracy to decrease the accountability of elected officials, because no matter how bad the supposedly democratic government is, you can always just say it’s the public’s fault for not voting good enough or hard enough.

On the contrary, I think if a government claims to be democratic, then they are accountable for aligning their policies and outcomes with what the public wants. A democratic government should be actually accountable to the public.

[mayniac]

People aren't just scared of the idea of armed police, they're afraid of police departments who have a history of getting away with murder. John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt don't have that history.

There were also rumours of proud boys and other far-right groups attacking CHAZ. It's understandable that people would be more comfortable with vocally anti-fascist gun clubs defending them than the police, who often treat the far-right as friends.

[tekknik]

can you describe what you mean by “proud boys”? I have a bad feeling this word should actually be “patriots”

[tekknik]

A downvote and no answer. Interesting

[derstander]

It’s possible you were downvoted without being answered because it’s trivial to Google “Proud Boys”. Here, I’ve just done it for you and here’s the first link: the Wikipedia page on the group —- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

[tekknik]

Fair enough, but with a name as generic as “proud boys” and given this same phrase is being used negatively to describe people who are actual patriots you can see the confusion. TIL “proud boys” is an actual, far right, org.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

What makes these people dangerous and scary is that they're carrying dangerous and scary weapons. The flak jackets and face masks aren't making it any less scary either.

Personally, I'm not afraid of the police, of protesters, of armed militias, etc. I'm afraid of people with guns. Why does anyone carry a gun, unless they intend to use it, once some set of conditions obtain? I don't want to be around people like that, and I really don't want to live in places where they go around on public streets like this.

[ChristianBundy]

I think of it like nuclear weapons: it'd be great if they didn't exist at all, but if they do exist and are stockpiled by people who want to hurt us, then the only responsible action is to arm ourselves in self-defense.

In other words:

> An unarmed people are slaves or are subject to slavery at any given moment.

> -- Huey P Newton

[YeGoblynQueenne]

That's MAD, right? Mutually Assured Destruction. Well, that is the logic of a species that has gone kookoo bonkers bannanas bongos mad and thinks that "let's all threaten each other with total anihilation" is "rational". Why is it so hard to agree to not destroy each other needlessly instead?

[ChristianBundy]

Again, I don't think that we should threaten each other with total annihilation, but if someone is threatening you and ignoring your requests that they stop threatening violence what other avenues do you have? Fight or flight.

If given the option to run away, you should absolutely do so -- but that shouldn't stop you from learning self-defense in case the 'flight' option isn't available.

We shouldn't have guns, but I don't think that we should disarm ourselves unless everyone else agrees to disarm themselves as well.

[tekknik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

[kortex]

Game theory. The instant someone doesn't agree not to destroy, they have a massive upper hand.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

And then, what?

Suppose the world agrees to dismantle its nuclear arsenal but a single nation, the great atomic nation of Nuclearia, decides that it will keep its weapons and it will destroy the world unless every other nation obeys its rule. And assume Nuclearia has magickal weapons that do not affect Nuclearia lands, or its citizens. The world refuses to obey and Nuclearia unleashes the nuclear holocaust.

Now what? What did Nuclearia achieve by destroying the rest of the world with nuclear weapons? What will Nuclearia do in a world of its own? Note that the rest of the world is now a radioactive waste where nothing lives and nothing grows. Other nations' lands cannot be annexed and used for farming, because there is no fertile soil left anywhere. While some intrepid souls no doubt long to visit the great glass fields of New York, spending any time outside Nuclearia is deadly and most of the world is a depressing burned desert so travel is pointless and tourism is a joke. International commerce of course is out of the question because there is no other nation than Nuclearia. Any resources, such as metals, gases, fossil fuels etc are limited to what Nuclearia has in its own territory. Any scientific progress is limited to what Nuclearian scientists can achieve on their own, without any input from the outside, given that there is nothing on the outside.

How does destroying everyone else increased Nuclearia's chances of survival?

How do you protect yourself by destroying everyone else?

[lucassen]

this seems to be a common attitude in America. It’s game theory, but you should look more to the nash equilibrium than the prisoners dilemma. Unfortunately it must all start with trust, which seems like the fundamental scarcity in the US

[gray_-_wolf]

> Why does anyone carry a gun, unless they intend to use it

Yes, I carry a gun because I intend to use it. In self-defense, if ever necessary.

What is wrong with wanting to protect my own life?

[beerandt]

Deterrence also counts. You don't need to pull the trigger on order to use a gun.

[jakelazaroff]

Sure, that's fair — my question is really "what makes this person with a gun scarier than the other people with guns that we've seen lately?"

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Nothing. They're all scary people with guns. That is my point. Apologies if that didn't come across.

[hopfscotch2]

"Why does anyone carry a gun, unless they intend to use it"

Oh you mean like police officers?

[michaelt]

For some people it feels dangerous and scary because they're on the other side

For other people it feels dangerous and scary because rhetoric about "abandoned by the authorities" and "siezed by anarchists" alongside an unofficial militia sounds like the state's monopoly on violence being usurped.

[jl2718]

I spent a lot of time in combat zones with the Army, where everybody is required to carry a loaded weapon at all times, and actually, in terms of petty crime, squabbles and victimization, I’ve never felt safer. If there’s only a few people with guns, however, signs of emotional instability make me very nervous.

[wildmusings]

Because these people have claimed territory and held themselves out as challenging the sovereignty of the United States. So the implication is pretty clear, that the guns are there as a show of that sovereignty. Are they serious about using them? Who knows.

[c22]

Challenging the authority of the police department is not anywhere close to "challenging the sovereignty of the United States". No new state is being proposed, no old state is being dissolved. The people (in whom the power of sovereignty resides in the United States) are merely promoting policy change. Do you think if the U.S. Army marched on the CHAZ that these people would fight them? Do you think there's any chance that they could win? Where is the challenge?

[tekknik]

So to recap, these people know that if the US national guard (not the army) marched on them they’d lose, so then what is the purpose of the guns? Shoot civilians? Shoot protestors? Who is getting shot by these weapons? If nobody then why are they there? What law(s) give them the right to enforce the law on their own?

[dgellow]

You draw a false dichotomy. Nobody in this thread said that armed protestors or the police aren't scary.

[jakelazaroff]

I'm not drawing any sort of dichotomy; I'm just asking for an explanation as to why this is notable.

[luckylion]

"There are no armed guards", "It felt more like a summer street fair festival" picture of armed guards with semi-automatic rifles "Why do you think this is notable?"

[jakelazaroff]

There are armed guards in everyday life as well (police). So again, why is this especially scary or notable?

[umanwizard]

Because this entire subthread is about some claims that people are misinformed about CHAZ, including:

> People on the internet are convinced it's protected by armed guards

[dgellow]

I expect that someone with an assault weapon and what looks like a bullet proof vest is scary for quite a lot of people. And that's notable in the sense that is goes against the idea of "a peaceful event similar to a music festival" (paraphrasing).

[jakelazaroff]

But you see stuff like that at music festivals as well, in the form of police. So I'm asking why this is scary or notable but that is not.

[ALittleLight]

The policeman is a trained and vetted, albeit imperfectly, professional standing in a venue, the likes of which you've encountered many times. That policeman's goal is (highly likely) to keep order at the venue and collect a paycheck.

Contrast this to armed anarchists, anti-fascists, whatever, occupying city blocks as part of an organization that's connected to street violence and looting. The CHAZ guard, hasn't been trained and vetted and you don't know what his goals are and you haven't experienced it before.

As others have noted, it's a bit of a false premise to ask "Why are we scared of these people but not those other recent protests?" Because, of course, you assume people weren't scared by the other protests, which is not necessarily the case. Imagine someone who worked in one of the government buildings that the end-lockdown people occupied, there are now a hundred guys with masks and rifles occupying the building - is that imaginary worker scared or disturbed, and can you see why "But you aren't scared of the armed courthouse guards" isn't exactly equivalent?

[dgellow]

Just my personal opinion: I’m from a european country, so not a US perspective. Anyone with a weapon is scary as hell. I avoid to come close to any military or police people if they seem to be armed.

Also I don’t know how are festivals in the US, but I’ve never seen armed cops at one, and would be really uncomfortable if there would be some.

[umanwizard]

The only big music festival I've been to is Sasquatch (twice). I certainly did not see people with assault rifles there. Which festivals are you talking about?

[tekknik]

You don’t see a police officer at a music festival in the US with an AR-15. In fact in california (yes seattle) that specific rifle has been under attack for private ownership for a while with such things like “that gun is only meant to kill efficiently, no person needs one”. So, while not entirely on subject, I have a question as to what changed and why now the same groups of people trying to get this rifle banned are now walking the streets with them.

[austhrow743]

I've never seen police wearing armour with rifles at a music festival.

Your experience of music festivals and heavily armed people going hand in hand is not universal.

[rayiner]

Armed protesters aren’t scary. The fact that armed protesters managed to occupy a statehouse was confirmation that we still live in America.

[latencyloser]

That's just a plate carrier, with no plates in it. It won't stop a bullet, definitely not a rifle round. Maybe he has some soft armor jammed in there but doubtful based on the rest of his "I bought this from the local gunstore 3 days ago setup."

[dmoy]

You cannot buy a semiautomatic rifle in 3 days in WA. There is a minimum 10 day waiting period.

You could buy the pieces and build it yourself, but you'd need some tooling.

[latencyloser]

Yes, you're correct and it's a good clarification. Thanks. The rifle in this photo is definitely purchased and would've been subject to the waiting period you mention.

I was being a being a bit sarcastic about his gear being brand new and forgot about the relatively new laws as part of my joke. :)

[dmoy]

True, I'm being needlessly pedantic here :)

And who knows, they could have bought the parts and assembled it, if they can find things in stock somewhere.

[numpad0]

Looks like a completely stock S&W M&P 15 Sport II, 16” barrel, GI style mag, collapsible stock, plus a cheap airsoft optic.

M&P 15 is a complete knockoff of US military M4/M4A1 carbine, except barrel is longer and has no full auto function to comply with regulations.

Way too boring configuration to build from parts or build out of an 80% blank, and also probably not an airsoft.

Disclaimer: I’m an airsofter outside US at best in the context

[tekknik]

You got this backwards, an M4 is actually a knock off of the AR-15. That is to say the AR-15 came before both the M16 and the M4 and both of those guns were built from the AR-15.

[beerandt]

What's the waiting period on rifles looted out of stores, cop cars, and police buildings?

[ryanlol]

> I've not before seen a summer street festival where armed militias wearing bulletproof vests patrol the streets.

In big European cities it’s pretty normal to see cops wearing body armor and carrying rifles around such events.

[tekknik]

It is not common in the US. In parts of the middle east it’s a daily affair to see someone walking around with an AK or equivalent

[rayiner]

This is the point of the Second Amendment: for when people feel safer with random dudes in bulletproof vests and AR-15s providing security than they do with the police.

[jasonvorhe]

How many summer festivals have you been to where to people in charge are at risk of being attacked by armed white supremacists?

[thu2111]

Putting aside the question of who is going to attack these people, that's my point. It's not a summer festival.

[staticassertion]

Summer street festivals often have a police presence.