Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation.
> if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall
Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense?
If he was breaking the law, why did they assault him rather than arresting him?
Also, how do we know the orders were lawful?
> If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day)
How is it relevant that he was laughing earlier?
The point is that it's incumbent on the police to determine the appropriate amount of force to use, not on civilians to retreat based on a worst–case scenario of what the police can do to them. They exist to serve us, not the other way around.
Yes? If they're incapable of enforcing their orders without hurting people they should not be trying to enforce them.
It's bloody alien seeing Americans arguing over this sort of thing as if there's a context that makes hurting the people you're sworn to protect okay. The rest of the world seems to understand what the point of police is.
I expect them to not shove the elderly onto concrete and then walk away as blood flows out of their ears.
That's not a high bar.
This is a null category. Free people don't take orders from their employees.
This repository is not junk.
I bet you might even find one that isn't brutality. So report it and see what happens.
Feel free to prove yourself wrong by creating a pull request removing or marking that entry.
Or go through any of the other entries to find one that clearly demonstrates no wrongdoing. Write up a clear, concise, impartial explanation. I'm sure it will be given appropriate consideration.
This is a good thing. You should be outraged. Emotions are okay to have and express.
Can you please provide actual reference material to back up either the "agenda" claims or the communism stuff?
Not the parent, but that's a weird question. A throwaway account is used precisely because you don't want your main account (and your irl identity) to be associated with something that might get you in trouble.
Giving out information that can massively shrink the number of accounts that may be your real account is counter-productive in that regard.
They may still be a troll, I'm just saying that being surprised that somebody doesn't want to divulge information when they've found it necessary to create a throwaway account is strange.
You needn't post examples from your city. If this database is as flawed as you claim you should be able to find examples that are not traceable to your information.
[0] https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herse...
[1] https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8?t=52
All of this from a Google search.
I'm having trouble understanding your line of argument unless you're claiming conspiracy and that this repo is in fact being ran by secret marxists. Or that all of the protesters are actually marxists. Which is insanity.
And, ffs, what does on earth does "trained marxist" even mean? I repeat my question: is it like a "trained capitalist"? If not, why not?