There's another video of a man who approaches a line of police at a protest, likely exchanging a few words but clearly unnarmed and walking very slowly. One police officer walks up to the man and pepper sprays him. As he turns to avoid it, a second police officer approaches, and fires what appears to be a tear gas canister at the man's head from point blank range.

Even not knowing what happened leading up to this, it's completely unacceptable behavior. The sheer number of videos just like this one make me ashamed that I ever gave the police the benefit of the doubt in the past.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jusalotofpain/status/126763842772...

God, actually shooting the guy in the head was just disgusting. Spraying him is bad enough. The final shot is nothing more than the officer saying he can do absolutely anything he wants up to and including murder (a projectile to the head like that could easily kill a person) and there's nothing that can stop him.

And the worst part is he's right.

I've been on the fence about giving up my US citizenship and taking on citizenship in my new home. Seeing the rapid decline in freedom these past two decades, and the absolute mess recently has helped me make up my mind. I can't let myself return to such a place. I can't be happy with myself knowing that my tax dollars are supporting human rights violations. I'm just done with it.

Sorry for ranting, but man, it's just frustrating seeing everything that's been happening these past few weeks, and seeing everything that's been happening for so long but ignored until recently.

> I've been on the fence about giving up my US citizenship and taking on citizenship in my new home.

I can totally understand wanting to do that, but if it's a jurisdiction that doesn't require an official renunciation or something, I'd keep the US one and continue to vote absentee from abroad.

There's only so much voting can do, but I really hope that the people with their heads screwed on straight don't stop any time soon.

You think this is a current administration problem?

Did you miss the commenter saying this has been a problem for two decades(+)???

I'm actually curious about your thought process. Not trying to be confrontational.

I'm not sure which country you are moving to, but the question is the same. With how much power the US has, and how intertwined the world is, do you believe that you are permanently better off out of the country?

Sure, the US is by no means all-powerful; but if the US joins China and Russia's descent into the throes of outright authoritarianism, what leads you to believe you are safe? In this scenario, you would arguably be better off at the onset, but these three countries would surely take the rest of the world down with them? Not even outright invasions and occupations, but bog-standard bullying and destabilization, a la South China Sea or Iraq?

EDIT: Iraq was invasion and occupation. That maybe wasn't the best example of mere "destabilization" on my part.

In a hypothetical all out war between China, Russia, and America, what place is safe? There's no way to know right now. Maybe all the countries America has invaded in that past decide to ally up and thoroughly pillage the country for all that its worth. Who knows. In a world war scenario, there's no guarantee that anywhere is safe.

What I do know is that looking at the state of the world today, being thousands of miles away is definitely safer. It's been nothing but consistent and rapid decline in liberty in the US and the protests. For every police department that says they've done something wrong, there are five of them out there cheering when an officer is released for brutality.

Maybe there's a chance America will do something someday in the future to my current home, but America is detaining and beating innocent people within its own borders today.

If you were committed to being an expat, there are tax advantages to renouncing your U.S. citizenship.

The police are individuals, don't treat them as one large indistinguishable group.

I’m afraid the two cops weren’t even fired, they had only been suspended pending investigation. So the rest of the force wasn’t protesting a result in favor of the protestors, they were protesting against even a review of the situation by their peers.

> I’m afraid the two cops weren’t even fired, they had only been suspended pending investigation

Your point still stands but fyi they were charged with assault today:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/buffalo-offi...

This is where people get the "All" from.

Yes, but the case is officially in national spotlight. There will be careers made on the way it is handled one way or another. Right now the pendulum is not on the cops'side so average politician's choice is obvious.

It will be hard to sweep it under the rug. Not impossible. Just hard.

The public is weary and between Epstein hitting Netflix and current waves of protests with all the surrounding circumstances ( brick pallets come to mind ), I would not be sure what the result would be.

The "brick pallet" rumor has been thoroughly debunked. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/investig...

I won't respond to the debunked claim as I did not read enough on it.

That said, the fact that bricks may have always been there does not take anything from my argument. The perception of the existence of spontaneous bricks appearing is already part of today's audience.

Lie can go around the world faster than truth can put its shoes on.

Thoroughly? Really?

International spotlight. There's protests on most continents.

Also, since you brought it up, has anyone seen the Epstein film? ...any mention of the Clinton Foundation /Global Initiative? Other political figures?

It's further been reported that the officers that resigned did so not in solidarity but because the union refuses to legally back them [1]. With the caveat:

> “Some of them probably resigned because they support the officer,” said another officer with whom we spoke. “But, for many of us, that’s not true.”

[1]: https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/exclusive-two-buffalo-p...

There is a lot of support for the officers to be clear though https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1269322620316442625

Watched a video of a girl essentially abducted off of the streets last night in San Diego. 3 unmarked minivans pull up to a family walking home from protests and plain clothes cops pull up and grab her right off the street and threaten to shoot the group if they try to follow. It's literally impossible to tell from the video if this person was just grabbed as part of a human trafficking crime or if they really were cops.

It _was_ the cops, in the end, and she was eventually released on bail, but that shit is _nightmarish_. All of these videos that we have been seeing on social media are exposing how this style of policing that we live with today has absolutely no place in our society.

edit/ Found a link: https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/jun/05/san-diego-police-offic...

> a human trafficking crime or if they really were cops

It can also be both [1]. Sex while being detained by the police is not illegal in 35 states and this was really only brought to light after two plainclothes NYPD detectives took an 18 year old woman in an unmarked van and took turns having sex while the other drove. She claims it was rape and that she was handcuffed the entire time.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli...

I feel like I can't even process what you're telling me here. Why would it be legal? What is the purpose? How could that _not_ be abused? I do remember hearing / reading about this case but this whole "sex while detained by the police is not illegal in 35 states..." thing is not something that I recall and is beyond disturbing.

I'll have to try and find the comment, but there was a reddit comment I saw linking to several stories from various media outlets describing the 75 year old man as a "violent agitator", which is apparently also the cities story.

Ok apparently the original comment must have been edited, as its now deleted and removeddit shows less content than I remember this morning, but here's an article noting how the mayor framed things:

https://nypost.com/2020/06/06/buffalo-mayor-calls-protester-...

They also said he tripped until the video emerged.

That's what bugs me so much. We'd never know if it weren't for video evidence.

Police testimony is treated with high regard in the legal system too, maybe in the age of hard video evidence that should go away.

This article from a local news station claims the real reason for the resignations is because the union said they wouldn't provide free legal defense to that particular units officers any longer and the two accused had to pony up for their own defense.

Doesn't make any of them look better but an interesting wrinkle.

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/exclusive-two-buffalo-p...

> Doesn't make any of them look better but an interesting wrinkle.

Of course it does. The pragmatic decision not to be without a legal safety net (which even a hypothetical innocent cop would want) is way better than resigning at the first hint of legal accountability.

Not really. It makes it sound like they know that professional misconduct happens with such frequency in their unit that they can't control themselves. It also turns the story from one of misguided support for a colleague to one of craven self interest.

Few if any professions I've ever heard of get blanket legal defense from their union or professional association to defend them against their own blanket misconduct. Soldiers for example manage without it.

> to defend them against their own blanket misconduct.

Do they expect defense from blanket misconduct, or from accusations of misconduct while performing their professional duties? There are plenty of rotten cops, and significant institutional rot in police depts, but it's seems unworkable to suggest that they should be on the hook for legal fees to defend against complaints filed in the line of duty.

Any system that takes seriously legal complaints against police will inevitably have false positives, which means that even a hypothetically-perfect cop who never does anything wrong risks being exposed to legal fees.

> Soldiers for example manage without it.

I'm not sure this is a great example; the limiting of rights that soldiers are subject to is pretty despicable IMO; there are plenty of phenomena we'd consider horrific in civil society that have been the norm for thousands of years of military history (hell, the rape problem in the military was treated with as much apathy as the rape problem in _prison_, of course until women started being victims in non-trivial numbers).

The reality of the situation is the opposite of what you are concerned about. There are large numbers of un-prosecuted police misconduct cases that we've seen happening just this week. You are making the same argument against passing a law to deal with real and current concerns that Sen Rand Paul says the new law against lynching will make it too easy to accuse people of lynching - but the us has a real problem with facing up to lynching as a historical reality. And almost all the other republican and democratic senators and reps don't see it.

We have an even bigger problem facing up to police misconduct in the US and the multiple layers of extra protection police get when something violent happens: (1) time to figure out their story before they are questioned, which normal people don't get, often based on union contracts (2) often cities have contracts to keep misconduct hidden, and we see many of these problem officers with multiple misconduct issues over the years until they finally go a bit too far (3) the supreme court and legal doctrine that sets a very high bar especially for convicting police of malfeasance.

I think in part this supports the proposal for officers to have to carry their own liability insurance like doctors instead of relying on near guaranteed liability protection from the unions and ultimately tax dollars.

How about when a pregnant couple driving home stops at a red light and comes under fire with pepper bullets due to nearby police?

Are you talking about this case? https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1268370620418527232. There was tear gas too even.

Yep! That's the one.

There is also a theory that a portion of the burnt out cars you see are actually set on fire by tear gas canisters. Those canisters contain a combustable charge which creates the aerosol (from a solid compound).

Since they are being fired everywhere, it's not surprising that some end up underneath parked cars.

I think you might have meant Dorn (as in David Dorn, the ex-cop who was recently killed during looting in St Louis) not Dorner.

I did not.

RIP the 4 innocent people Dorner murdered.

Certainly, but the case also illustrates serious issues with policing. During the hunt for Dorner, the LAPD shot up three separate sets of innocent people.

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

Bingo.

Alllllso, they burned the house down that he was in, so he wouldn't get his day in court to tell everyone the whole thing was over him reporting excessive force.

Tear gassing pregnant women, shooting at an old man on a wheelchair, attacking journalists, pepper spraying 10 year olds, etc.

All this crap while covering their name, badge numbers and turning cameras off.

Police unions and their code of silence have enabled all sort of abusive behavior.

Also, this: https://theintercept.com/2019/08/30/nypd-anna-chambers-rape-...

Technically in NY and a few other states, the police can legally kidnap you and rape you without any liability.

Police unions are running a protection racket with the cities and municipalities they engage with. I'm at a loss for words for understanding how this even happened. It's a national embarrassment.

What about when they killed a hit by keeping they knee on his neck while arresting him and preventing anyone from giving him care?

What happened to George Floyd has happened to white people too. Tony Timpa was one such victim.[0] Another one was Joseph Hutcheson.[1] Hopefully there can finally be change in the police, so that it doesn't happen again to anyone.

[0] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/07/31/yo...

[1] https://mashable.com/2015/08/31/dallas-man-dies-police

And since the parent is dead, I will add what I was adding there:

Personally, I've claimed it has more to do with socio-economic status. So, while there are plenty of stories about well off !white guy being hassled in his own neighborhood, it happens a lot less to people wearing business attire. OTOH, poor white people get hassled at 2AM too. I had white friends in HS who were routinely stopped and searched for drugs by the police simply because they were driving back from their 2AM fast food jobs in their beater cars while cutting through the nice neighborhoods.

So, the police definitely judge you and if you come across as a well off member of society your much more likely to be treated well. I've gotten pulled over for a fair number of traffic stops in the past ~20 years. Overwhelmingly I've never gotten a ticket driving a higher end vehicle with the wife/kids present. OTOH, driving the old clunker by myself, 100% hit rate.

This. I lived in a small city in Montana where 95% of the population was white. When there are no minorities police will find someone else to target, and usually it's the poor.

Justine Damound is another one that happened right in Minneapolis recently.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

This statement seems unfair. It is on par with people pointing out that white people did not start to riot after their guy was killed. It does not help the conversation at all. It is unnecessary race baiting.

Very true.

Here's something I found interesting.

I'm not sure how it got calculated because police kill around 1,000 people a year in the US and about 300 black people a year in the US.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

According to this the chance of black male being killed by police (over lifetime?) is 1 in 1000. The chance of a white male being killed is 1 in 2000. The chance of a female being killed is 1 in 33000.

I'm not sure what to say here. Are more men getting killed because men behave more violently (well probably)? Or are more men getting killed because of some bias?

Clearly theres a bias against men, even if they’re not violent they’re perceived as more dangerous because they’re potentially stronger. Men are also more likely to be part of a gang, women, not so much. Now add the race to the mix and black and hispanic men are very high on their radar. We’ve been hearing of racial profiling complaints for a while, for at least 15-20, it is a true thing.

Look at the question case by case, instead of statistically. You can see that almost all are killed as a result of their own violent behavior towards police or others.

It appears US police kills more people than police in Russia, or is roughly on par. Most years police in UK kills zero. Do you want to compete with authoritarian states in number of deaths caused by police?

There were ten cases of unarmed black Americans killed by police in 2019. Which of those killings do you disagree with?

Do you understand that US police kills people at a rate thats totally unseen outside of dictatorships and bana republics? Not just black people - white people, asians, there is no demographic who's deathrate is acceptable for a developed nation.

Why is that? Either us police is out control, or you have some sort of mass-criminal-psycosis going on over there, and it stops at the canadian border.

You want to go case by case? Explain how can police kill a woman sleeping in her house. To me this is unbelievable. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna12...

Yes, I want you to go case by case, and understand what most of them are like, instead of picking just those that are examples of bad policing.

> Either us police is out control, or you have some sort of mass-criminal-psycosis going on over there,

Why not both? We do have police problems. We also have mass criminal psychosis. (Just look at the news recently...)

> Which of those killings do you disagree with?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were an independent review board to look over mandatory body cam footage from an incident so we don't have to have speculative internet debates over what happened? And fair legal recourse for victims of officers who break the law so that people don't feel the need to seek out justice on their own?

> I'm not sure what to say here. Are more men getting killed because men behave more violently (well probably)? Or are more men getting killed because of some bias?

If you're taking feedback here mine would be to avoid drawing such enormous conclusion from such a minimal, uncontextualized set of data.

Maybe the major point they’re conveying is that in contrast to the George Floyd murder which could be construed to show isolated issues with cops, it’s unavoidable to paint with a broad brush in the Buffalo incident?

But still, feel free to assume their race and prejudices because you’re morally superior or whatever.

And before resigning, they all walk by the guy bleeding on the ground purposefully not looking.

Hard to watch that and not be horrified.

I guess this guy has been a constant gadfly at protests for some time. I don't know if that had anything to do with it or not but shocking.

This came up on a law enforcement subreddit. Riot police training is that the front line always keeps moving in order to provide a security barrier, the medics behind them will attend to anybody injured. In this case the medic was national guard. Supposedly it took 18 seconds between the time the man fell and the time the medic reached him.

So the initial shove was pretty horrific, but the line movement at least has a plausible explanation.

It wasn't a riot situation, it was a human situation, he was just standing there. Don't forget that also the initial police report (they put it on their twitter even) that someone "had tripped". It was the usual denial of the situation with lies that we see so much now, that actual video can expose. If that video of the old guy going down wasn't taken, we'd never have known.

That video is terrible. If even looks as if a second officer is about to strike him again until he is held back by a third officer.

But the walking over his body maybe the worst part.

Yeah, at least the two national guardsmen (stuck behind the cop line) check on him as soon as they get a chance.

> they all walk by the guy bleeding on the ground purposefully not looking.

There's another video, slightly longer, which shows that the police stop after a few more seconds and attend to him. I think they were a bit shocked by severe consequences of the shove and uncertain for a moment (even though it was a predictable result of the heavy-handed approach that the police have been taking that somewhere something like this would happen).

What is absolutely not forgivable, though, is lying that he "tripped and fell" on the police report. And it's even more outrageous that dozens of officers are coming together to defend that egregious lie!

That is incorrect; the police continued to walk past and a member of the National Guard ended up attending to him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE

I'm trying to understand where the riot was? They pan to the left and there's like 30 people max in the park across the street. This seems totally unjustified given the circumstances. Somehow they managed to easily apprehend the second man in the video without shoving him to the ground. Just disgusting either way.

Either he was severely incapacitated and needed medical attention, or he wasn't and lettit him stay behind the line was tactically dangerous. Either way, they were in the wrong.

It’s elder abuse.

If I recall correctly, they also instructed other officers to grab the two witnesses. No not protestors, not rioters, witnesses

The police helmet narrative is actually false. Supposedly he rides a motorcycle and that’s his helmet.

If that's true does it make the story any better?

Do we care about truth or narrative?

It hasn't been clear to me what "resigned from a riot group" means. Why aren't they all fired for refusing an assignment?

My understanding is it's a task force you volunteer for. Presumably you can un-volunteer.

Yes after a little research I see that. The use of the word “resign” seems like impressive PR though, like they were actually sacrificing something for principles.

Doesn't feel the consequence is enough. The old man could have been dead.

My gosh that’s horrific

The LAPD shot a homeless man in a wheelchair in the face with a rubber bullet.

https://twitter.com/sarahimages/status/1268223068255612930

They were telling him to back off. But the old man still approaches. Whatever motives you have, it's better to comply to law enforcement first.

But it's sad that apparently the reason it is "better to comply to law enforcement first" is not because they will arrest you but because they will pummel you.

No, he was standing still talking to the officers in front when the lieutenant saw him and told him to move back, at which point he was pushed by the officers in front.

The police are expecting an extremely stressful day where they will be outnumbered by the protestors; possibly by up to an order of magnitude. There is a high risk of physical violence, there is a high risk that the police are going to be attacked politically whatever happens. There is a mood in the air of "believe no cops". Their mindset will be combative, they will be on edge.

The old man has to shoulder at least some responsibility here. It was wildly imprudent to get all in-the-face of a police in a civil-unrest situation. He shouldn't have been doing what he did.

If that's what we're jumping to, an old man walking up to police, deserves to be pushed to the ground with enough force for him to almost die, then why don't they skip rubber bullets and switch to live ammo? I mean he was just standing there, menacingly right? Think about your grandpa, imagine if he was the one pushed to the ground and now in ICU and tell me again how stressful it must be to stand in full riot gear and have him approach you, alone.

Things happen to people that they don't deserve. Life is profoundly unfair.

I don't know what a US cop looks like on an ordinary day, but that group look like they are expecting trouble. There might be riots or unrest in their recent history. If you approach a group like that, things might happen that you don't deserve.

> Think about your grandpa, imagine if he was the one pushed to the ground and now in ICU and tell me again how stressful it must be to stand in full riot gear and have him approach you, alone.

Police aren't lab technicians, they work in an environment where they routinely have to deal with violent criminals who have no respect for the law.

It would remain a stressful job, even if I don't like the police.

And they should have been stressed; they did the wrong thing and are now in a lot of trouble. If anything, they should have been more stressed.

> an environment where they routinely have to deal with violent criminals who have no respect for the law

This is exactly what the protestors are saying about the police treatment of black people.

And they have special training, rules, equipment and they still act like petulant children. It was hard to believe all these police actions until i saw them this week. Are they really like that, the answer is yes. I get that it's hard.