This was very predictable. Tools invented for military operations abroad eventually, predictably find their way back domestically.
Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.
I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.
Was my parent's home. We were south of Fargo, outside of the city dike. Fargo is very, very flat farmland. Our house was 40' above the river. The top of the city dike was around 43'. We melted down the ice, put down a sheet of plastic, and then built a wall of sandbags. Bonus, it was very cold, so you essentially had to bag and place the sandbag before the sand froze. We put around 10k sacks around the house -- and saved it. Nothing like paddling a canoe to my brothers to resupply fuel for the generators powering the sump-pumps that handled the water that seeps in.
We got very, very lucky. The weather froze the ice a few inches thick and it stopped rising. Had water reached that last bag, Fargo would have been a giant swimming pool.
The sacks were pretty easy to order. You would have a dump truck come out and leave a pile of sand on the driveway. From there, you basically shovel/fill sacks like mad and either place them on your wall or put them someplace heated. Next day you would order another truck of sand. A stupid amount of manpower was involved. Entire high school football team came over to help fill on one of the days. The entire city basically shut down and did little but. We did the same for at least five or six houses that we did for ours. Exhausting.
I'll have to dig up some of the 'end of days' photos where it almost breached the wall. You had to buy flood insurance early on... which was pricey, but covered a lot of the supplies. It was several thousand dollars for the 2009 construction.
We had 3 '500 year' floods. 1997, 2009, and 2011. The Red river flows north, which is an oddity. Lots of snow, with folks redirecting water caused some new records. Grand Forks was flooded out in one of those years - Fargo almost fell. By the time the third major flood happened - we were ready.
We set up a series of hesco bags and filled them directly. Worked great, and they came and picked up the bags to be reused in the Bismark flooding. Sand doubled in price each time... and the city really wanted this property on the cheap... so that last run took hours but cost about 20k. (yikes) After that, the city built a permanent dike that protected the property.
If you look at the aerial view, you can spot the neighbors homes that did not make it and the edge of the city dike now in the back yard. Many houses flooded. Heartbreaking when you saw folks trying to have a fire truck flood their failing dike with clean water rather than have the sewage/etc fill the house.
There seems to be a slightly schizophrenic relationship between the public and the government. The rather vocal wings of political discourse understand that half the time government will be controlled by people they really don't like. However the practical resistance to giving said people access to and control over major aspects of people's lives seems to be rather weak.
No kidding about the schizophrenia. I don’t understand how people can implore the government to do more such as UBI or universal healthcare yet in the same breath complain about not being able to trust the “police state.” I doubt we can have privacy and a strong effective government. A strong government will be one that’s in your life a lot. Whether it’s under the auspices of good intent or not is probably irrelevant by that point.
I want a government that trusts us and respects our rights (e.g., non police state) and that helps to provide for the poor and vulnerable (e.g., healthcare).
I don't see any conflict between these goals. Our medicare providers are not flying drones and kneeling on necks.
There is massive conflict between the goals when power and money enter the discussion.
I’m also not sure where what you describe exists and how it’s implemented. I am curious to learn if anyone has any sources on such a place: great healthcare, highly involved citizens and low government intervention in daily life. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, I am sincerely wondering about it.
I thing "government intervention" is too nuanced and expansive of a concept to meaningfully debate as if it were one thing.
It would include at least:
Police-state policies. Examples: laws against voluntary drug use, policies like stop-and-frisk, our incarceration rate, restrictions on contraception, etc., seem particularly in your face. Historically, the military draft. I'd oppose these.
Basic public-safety policies. Examples: Laws like speed limits, or driving while intoxicated, or some limits on gun ownership (e.g., folks with a history of violence shouldn't have machine guns). These will always annoy some people, but I'd support most of this.
Environmental and business regulations. These really make some folks mad. But I'm strongly in favor of clean air and water, solvent banks, safe working conditions, etc., and think regulations here are really important.
Social policies. Many people were/are violently opposed to school integration, affirmative action, gay marriage, etc. But I think we have a moral imperative to view and treat { blacks, women, gays, jews, ... } as real people, and history has shown that we won't do this on our own.
I certainly can see some cases where there are overlap between these. Example: government needed an army to enforce school integration. But, mostly mostly these are orthogonal, and lumping these into one "big government" bucket just makes it a muddy issue.
Doing a monthly direct deposit with no strings attached seems like a pretty un-invasive way for the government to support its citizens. Agree with you on universal healthcare, though.
"There was an armed standoff with police,[5] who lobbed tear gas canisters at the building. The MOVE members fired at them and a gunfight with semi-automatic and automatic firearms ensued.[32] Police went through over ten thousand rounds of ammunition before Commissioner Sambor ordered that the compound be bombed.[32] From a Pennsylvania State Police helicopter, Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[31]) made of FBI-supplied Tovex, a dynamite substitute, targeting a fortified, bunker-like cubicle on the roof of the house.[29]"
Police helicopters are modified civilian aircraft and yet they have been used by the police, through improvised means, to bomb people. The drone over Minneapolis is a MQ-9 reaper, aka "predator B", hunter-killer UAV.
"In 2006, the then–Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General T. Michael Moseley said: "We've moved from using UAVs primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper."[6]
The MQ-9 is a larger, heavier, and more capable aircraft than the earlier General Atomics MQ-1 Predator; it can be controlled by the same ground systems used to control MQ-1s. The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine). The greater power allows the Reaper to carry 15 times more ordnance payload and cruise at about three times the speed of the MQ-1.[6] "
I think it’s unlikely that CBP has armed aircraft. Might be the same model numbers as things the military uses, but they likely don’t have any reason to have them weapons capable and probably don’t have the weapons even if they weren’t actually demilitarized prior to them obtaining the aircraft.
> Missiles would be a whole new level of messed up, though.
Of course they'll eventually call them "non lethal payloads" :P
The interesting things that could be done when you have a line of sight to these things, a little bit of knowledge of RF modulation and have nothing left to lose…
> Philadelphia Police Department Lt. Frank Powell proceeded to drop two one-pound bombs (which the police referred to as "entry devices"[31]) made of FBI-supplied Tovex
This is a really important distinction. The media really buried the lede calling it a Predator, which I associate with recon/surveillance only. The fact that it’s MQ-9, capable of carrying all manner of weaponry including 4 air-to-ground missiles and 2 laser-guided bombs (according to the Wikipedia page—who knows what this particular UAV is carrying) really changes my evaluation of how bad this is.
One of the factors is the potential persistence and scale of drone-based surveillance systems. I think asking that question is important, because we have the capability to deploy (and shockingly, have deployed, at least on a trial basis) constant wide-area surveillance via drones in the US (Gorgon Stare): https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-battlefield-surveillance-c...
> Police helicopters don't have hellfire missiles as standard optional armament.
I mean, they could. And firefighting planes could be rerigged to disperse chemical weapons, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them existing.
>Also police helicopters are operated by local/state forces. This is a federal agency which is way out of its jurisdiction.
I'm guessing it's on loan. It's hardly unusual or questionable for the feds to provide assistance to local police during periods of extraordinary crisis. However justified the people of Minneapolis may be in reacting this way to yet another police homicide, what else are the local police supposed to do now except try to restore order using whatever tools are available? Including drones that can provide immediate information about hotspots, crowds, fires, etc.
Perhaps this is too political, but the only tool they actually needed was one they had the whole time. Charge the offices based upon the evidence and open a more detailed investigation. The military equipment was entirely unnecessary - but it's very availability makes opportunity for bad decisions.
In all probability, union rules stand in the way of making any quick arrests. Their hands are tied. It is better for them to appear slow and do things by the book than try to appease the irrational mob. They'll eventually get to where the mob wants to go rather than ending up with the cops "winning" in some way due violations of union rules and procedures.
If union rules delay the arrest of an accused officer for any amount of time longer than a civilian charged with the same offense and same facts, it seems reasonable that that union rule should be abolished.
I suspect it's not actually the case and there was some amount of calculation of the ex-officer's risk of flight, the likelihood that he would further offend, and the need to get some forensics, autopsy, and preliminary tox screen results.
In other words, if a civilian under the same set of facts would have also been arrested 4 days later, I'm fine with it. One criminal standard for everyone. Union rules don't have any place superseding criminal laws (and I haven't seen anyone presenting credible evidence that they do).
If me, and 3 buddies - all white took a white man behind a car, kneeled on him until dead while on-lookers video-taped it. How long before the cops show up?
Same scenario w/ a black guy. how long?
Same scenario w/ 3 Cops and a white guy?
Same scenario w/ 3 cops and a black guy?
I'm betting if you could do a study on all these scenarios of 'time to act/prosecute'... you'd find some major biases.
Would they need to do an autopsy or tox screen when there's video evidence from multiple viewpoints and the entire nation has seen the evidence and cops from other cities are calling for arrests? SEriously, this is clear cut. There is no ifs/buts.
3rd degree murder is also a joke, this is 1st degree, you don't kneel on someone's neck while paramedics and a doctor plead w/ you to stop because you're killing him without wanting to kill him, and not w/ someone you've known for 17 years.
When cops who choke a white person to death aren't charged, there's far less outrage. For example, David Glen Ward was killed by a police choke hold six months ago. The deputy responsible was fired, but no charges have been filed.
TBH, based on my understanding, I think this is 2nd, not 1st degree. I concur it’s not -3. (There’s nothing that precludes a filing of another charge as the investigation develops, of course.)
It is not just any union and any normal person. It is union for a government occupation which has protections for mistakes during duty. They have to be extra careful.
Let's just assume he was at some recent point trained to restrain in this manner and he can prove it. It is very unlikely he would be convicted since he was following his training and was unaware of the danger. If they were to try to convict him, I would imagine the union would be more than glad to back him up in a lawsuit which he would likely win.
Since he was charged, I'm assuming they've reviewed enough to be confident he was not acting within how he was trained.
When people around you told you that you were murdering and it took 8 minutes to kill your restrained victim 3 minutes of which the victim was unresponsive there is no plausible scenario in which you can claim that you didn't know you were killing him.
There is no cause to review how he was trained or how his actions comport with said training except to prevent it from happening again. There is no scenario which allows you to knowingly cause the death of your fellow citizen without just cause. A police officer is "a normal person" the same laws that apply to me apply to thee. If those whose job it is to enforce the law treat another officer differently it is corruption and cowardice. Cowardice is a character flaw not a justification.
“We have made men proud of most vices, but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, God permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which they feel genuine shame. The danger of inducing cowardice in our patients, therefore, is lest we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility.”
I have a hard time rationalizing this. I get the impression that they don’t want to conduct an arrest or get anyone in trouble — In their eyes, it was a mistake in need of no justice.
That’s what the riots are about after all; I don’t think anyone needs it to move quickly, they just need acknowledgement justice is needed and will meaningfully move forward. There was previously no promise of that.
It is for cops. IA has to proceed with an investigation following specific rules. Like if the cop is questioned without a union rep that evidence might get tossed.
It's hard to see why union rules would trump criminal procedure - if that were true the cops would really be a law above the law. You'd think the much delayed arrest was so that the suspects had time to scrub social media, get rid of Nazi paraphernalia, get their stories straight, that kind of thing. They can't get their fellow officers in trouble, that's part of their code.
It is a government position. It requires training and interactions which may cause death. If a person were trained to restrain a person in a manner which has a high likelihood to cause death and not informed of the risks, should the incorrectly trained person really be held liable for the person's death?
As I sit here trying to imagine the manner it which someone could come to the same conclusion as you I find myself unequal to the task. I don't know how it is possible for a person to come to the same conclusion after watching the tape.
It took 8 minuted for him to die 3 minutes of which he was unresponsive while people warned the cop and asked him to stop. The victim informed the murderer of exactly how he was being murdered and asked him to stop. He called out for his mother then stopped speaking at all while he died in silence. The method he was being killed would have been completely obvious to anyone who possessed a pair of lungs or understood how breathing worked.
Nobody gives precisely one hot damn what manner of training he received. It was obvious he was murdering his victim to a human of ordinary capability. The logical conclusion is that he didn't care or wanted to murder him.
Or, hear me out, the "delayed" arrests are so they don't make mistakes that would result in a mistrial because they don't want you to jump up and yell "they intentionally violated their rights so the judge would throw the case out".
There was more than enough probable cause for arrest, and after the perp has been arrested, prosecution has 72 hours to build a case and press charges. This is just more of the usual, also because the career of the prosecutor depends on the goodwill of the cops.
But really, there's little difference between a lot of civilian and light military aircraft. The Bell 206 that your local news station probably flies around was developed as a military helicopter.
The police aren't getting the 70mm rockets, or the launchers for them nor are the police pilots trained to use them. There's really almost no difference between the civilian Bell 204/212 and the military Huey, and Bell has sold lots of civilian Hueys. I really can't see what the problem would be with the military surplussing them to the police.
I don't think this drone has any hellfire missiles. While it's true, it could, it's not a stretch to imagine a door mounted machine gun on a police helicopter. Both can be used for peace, or war.
Which police forces use Cobra helicopters? These are gunships that have no utility what so ever.
As for Blackhawks I’ve never seen them used by police forces, those in civilian use are not surplus military helicopters or even the UH-60 but rather it’s civilian version the Sikorsky S-70 which are used by fire departments and search and rescue crews.
Police forces use transport and utility helicopters so what? None of these are attack helicopters other than the Cobra/Apache you won’t find a utility or transport (other than super heavy lifters) helicopters that don’t have a civilian version many of them started as civilian helicopter in the first place.
The UH-1 was developed as a medevac helicopter for the US army.
The Mexican Federal Police operate 6 Blackhawks provided by the US CBP. But it would be fair to say they serve a more militarized role than say Seattle PD.
I see nothing wrong with Blackhawks in civilian use they are one of the best medium transport helicopters out there.
SAR, medevac, fire fightings etc. are all roles that the Blackhawk is perfectly suited for and all for which it has dedicated variants.
As for law enforcement use again I don’t see a problem with it, the use of them is mostly restricted to very special cases (FBI/DEA etc) due to cost of both the aircraft itself and the operational costs.
The Mexican federal police is indeed essentially an army at this point since they engage in paramilitary operations against the cartels.
On the other hand Cobras have no use other than to spray a target with their auto cannon or missiles.
So I was really curious what police force in the US or anyone is operating attack helicopters.
The local forces failed (rather told to stand down) in Minneapolis. You really think they'd let the city just burn to the ground before bringing federal agencies?
I think we first need to determine what is upsetting about this, specifically.
Is it that they are flying a UAV that was originally designed for military use?
Or is it that they are flying a UAV period?
What if it was a new UAV, designed just for law enforcement? No problems then?
Presumably this UAV has no weapons on it, so I'm unsure what the problem could be unless we just flat oppose former military equipment being used?
It's safer and cheaper to fly a UAV than a manned vehicled - helicopters crash routinely and need multiple crews to keep them on station for extended duration. If it was a decommissioned military UAV that's being repurposed - then the tax payer has been saved a great deal of money as well.
So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?
Just playing devil's advocate - but this is democratically consented to.
Your elected politicians have specifically allowed the sale or transfer of retired military equipment to state and local police forces, for multiple reasons but the least-of-which was cost savings vs. scrapping all the prepaid equipment.
Similar, but admittedly not quite the same, to the sale of demilitarized Humvees, tanks and fighter jets to civilians. Or NASA owning and operating former US Navy F/A-18's, B-52's and more... war machines now repurposed for peaceful training and aeronautical research.
Yeah in the same sense of how we all democratically opted in to mass surveillance or encryption breaking. Let's be honest the people who are at the receiving end of this technology haven't been democratically decided anything in a long time. What this actually is, is what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism and when it comes to these police measures that's not even an exaggeration.
The solution is to vote-out the out-of-touch career politicians then, no?
I have a suspicion, being a Senator for 40 years sort of removes you from the concerns of everyday Americans.
These are the same Senators (and Representatives) that vote for these measures. They'll never be the target of these surveillance schemes... and when they are, they throw a huge fit[1] because they're supposedly above all of it. They're the same people who ban guns from the public, but own operate and illegally traffic them themselves[2].
They're the same ones that don't have to be strip searched every time they fly, but I digress...
It’s not clear to me that the Senators voting for this aren’t similarly situated to “everyday Americans.” Remember when armed civilians stormed the Michigan Capitol and nothing happened? They aren’t politically connected, etc. Maybe the folks who keep electing these senators correctly perceive that the power of the state won’t be used against them, so long as they belong to the majority.
> The ongoing militarization of state level police forces without the democratic consent of the governed for a start?
Are you living in the same country as me? The “governed” love this stuff, and keep voting for the people that do it. Civil liberties has always been something that has to be achieved through anti-democratic means.
Yeah don't get me wrong I'm well aware that there's a lot of public support for it. I meant the governed in the narrow sense here, the communities who are actually affected (and largely segregated).
Same goes for the policing. The amount of separation between the police and the policed, demographically, politically and so on is hard to defend.
> What if it was a new UAV, designed just for law enforcement? No problems then?
Fewer problems. Presumably it would be much less capable. The sister comment[1] lays out how dangerous this UAV is, and how powerful. History has shown that the police/military are eager to gain capabilities, and very reluctant to part with them. If use of these very capable military grade drones becomes wide-spread, using them aggressively against live people becomes more probable. And very easy to do — they're already everywhere.
We should also think about how regulated their use should be! These have the capability to just provide 24h surveillance on certain areas, which would erode citizens' privacy greatly.
> These have the capability to just provide 24h surveillance on certain areas, which would erode citizens' privacy greatly
How so? Public spaces have already been ruled over and over to have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the plethora of surveillance cameras sitting in store windows, people's doorbells, streetlight cameras, and more already surveil anyone in any public area.
Is it just these UAV's are more visible so they make you think about it more?
Different methodologies of surveillance have different costs, capabilities, and potential risks. In theory anyone stepping outside of their door could be observed at any time but in practice personal observation is very expensive and potentially obvious. Non network cameras controlled by a plethora of individual business owners might paint on net a very detailed picture of a persons comings and goings but acquiring and correlating that data likely limits it to discovering comings and goings in a limited geographical and temporal area of interest because of a major crime.
Pervasive cheap surveillance which needn't be attached to a very expensive mobile weapons platform or be limited to just cameras could be a birds eye view of everyone's lives. Good justifiable benefits are obvious. With enough surveillance crime becomes really hard to perpetrate. We can pick out all the drug dealers and make tons of arrests before people adapt. Petty stupid crime like breaking into a car means the eye of Sauron sees you and follows you back to your house. Acts of violence that don't take place inside buildings could prompt an immediate response at least as fast as the cops are capable of dispatching a unit. Acts of violence within a unit could be detected by mikes outside on street corners if we were even more surveillance minded. Perhaps we can train it to detect the sound of a person being beat. I don't like people getting hurt do you? Acts of terrorism or mass violence are even more important to prevent. With enough smarts maybe we can flag people likely to go postal or at least notice what is happening 30 seconds before the shooting starts. 30 seconds before instead of 2 minutes after might make a HUGE difference in body count.
As great as that sounds I'm sure you can think of 100 more dystopian use cases. It doesn't do us much good to treat cars as faster horses and not bothering to consider the implications.
As I said in another comment, the importance of the change doesn't lie in a narrow look at the changed component. It is formally about the overall balance of rights, responsibilities of citizens and police/military[1], and less formally about trust between the two and the overall climate we want to live in, as a country.
If you make a given police enforcement mechanism cheaper, it will be used more. What does that do to your average person's sense of privacy/fear/trust? What kind of relationship do we want to have between citizens[2] and its government?
I suppose, to that end, what about my rights to not be looted or have my car flipped over and set ablaze?
I suppose in those situations, I'd be grateful for some law enforcement presence monitoring the situation and guiding folks on the ground to the most appropriate places needing the most attention.
If law enforcement did their jobs properly, things wouldn't escalate to the point where you need to worry about being looted or having your car flipped over and set on fire.
This is a failure of law enforcement, and drone surveillance is a lazy band-aid that they're applying to a situation they themselves have caused.
I certainly don't condone rioting, looting, and setting random buildings on fire. But the police created this situation.
"Needing the most attention"? Bah. The only thing the police should be doing in this situation is standing down, admitting their wrongdoing, and accepting punishment. That will do much more to stop the rioting and start healing the police-citizen divide than anything else they can do. But of course that's not going to happen; police as a whole seem more interested in militarizing and acting above the law.
> I certainly don't condone rioting, looting, and setting random buildings on fire. But the police created this situation.
This specific situation? Ya, sure, maybe.
What about the rioting, looting, setting buildings on fire, etc. in Berkeley because some students opposed Ben Shapiro giving a talk? How did the police create that situation?
> The only thing the police should be doing in this situation is standing down, admitting their wrongdoing, and accepting punishment.
How exactly are the police being "punished" by my store being looted by people who don't even know why the riot started in the first place, let alone give any damns about someone being murdered by one police officer.
How is people carrying off 6 new televisions, freshly robbed from a local store, going to stop the rioting and "heal" the police-citizen divide?
> What about the rioting, looting, setting buildings on fire, etc. in Berkeley because some students opposed Ben Shapiro giving a talk? How did the police create that situation?
The New York Times States
> By the end of the night, the authorities said they had arrested nine people, some of them accused of carrying banned weapons. But no major violence was reported.
People remember the consequences of sitting idly by during the rise of fascism. The proper response to fascist light is anger. Almost all the people were able to do this without getting arrested let alone setting buildings on fire.
> How exactly are the police being "punished" by my store being looted by people who don't even know why the riot started in the first place, let alone give any damns about someone being murdered by one police officer.
When order breaks down people a minority take advantage. Everyone knows why the riot started in the first place. You are justly angry about bad behavior but how angry were you when black person after black person was murdered? If you don't want order breaking down punish all the guilty especially officers who murder the citizenry.
> This is sadly typical. An utter refusal to engage
Unfortunately I feel this is the direction most political conversations go as-of late. Talking right past each other.
To claim the other side has an utter refusal to engage is not just unfair, it's a perfect description of exactly the behavior you have just engaged in yourself. It would be more apt to substitute "utter refusal to engage" with "utter refusal to accept my opinion as fact".
I am the GP poster above. I thought I asked some provoking questions about why we have a problem with a former military drone (presumably demilitarized) flying over a city to conduct surveillance during a time of civil unrest.
Instead of thoughtful responses, this question has largely received criticism and claims that I support state violence. I haven't a clue how this is considered reasonable discourse - and it's no wonder the country grows further and further apart politically.
Thanks for explaining where you're coming from here. I'll offer my perspective.
I replied to your original comment, indicating my belief that the issue is substantially more complicated than your framing suggested, and briefly explained a couple reasons why. I have several more, if you honestly have any interest.
Your reply was to claim it is just about your property rights - the only relation to my comment was the response hierarchy. I honestly still don't see how that's not a refusal to engage.
One point:
> claims that I support state violence
Well, what do you call what's going on? (I do also consider intrusive surveillance a form of violence, but understand why some think that's dilutive to the term.)
To take this meta-discussion a step further, I think this is the inevitable course of an argument where one group cares about X but not Y, and the other group cares about Y but not X. The two debaters won't have much to say to each other except "Let's talk about X", "No, let's talk about Y", etc. You can't have a structured debate unless both people care about the same thing and hold explicitly contrary views on it. But this is rarely the case in today's fragmented information landscape where different information sources emphasize different things.
> What if it was a new UAV, designed just for law enforcement? No problems then?
> So, what specifically is it that we don't like about this situation?
What potential "mission-appropriate" use is a Customs and Border Protection drone performing 300 miles away from the border in a domestic unrest scenario?
To look at a related question, where do you draw the line between stakeouts and planting GPS devices?
The question should not be some sort of line-drawing based on looking at the narrow capabilities of a particular device or practice change. It needs to be a look at what those capabilities do to the current balance of civilian rights and responsibilities, and whether we wish to live in a world of robotic surveillance and law enforcement.
One is purposefully designed to surveil and kill (the Predator drone), while the other has a variety of uses. That’s where I draw the line: what was the purpose of creating it?
Actually the original Predator drone was meant strictly for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and didn't carry weapons. It was modified later to carry two Hellfire missiles. There are other far larger drones out there that were designed for carrying weapons from the get go.
The drone is also controlled remotely and thus has more of a disconnect between the “pilot” and the subject. The police helicopter has a human element to/in it so the pilot would feel more responsibility for the destruction they caused if it were right in front of their eyes.
This is unsupported by evidence. Drone operators have a high incidence of PTSD.
> Studies have found similar levels of depression and PTSD among drone pilots working behind a bank of computers as among military personnel deployed to the battlefield.
> The police helicopter has a human element to/in it so the pilot would feel more responsibility for the destruction they caused if it were right in front of their eyes.
This comment sounds like it's about attack drones. I concede that it's not necessarily about attack drones; a surveillance drone operator might facilitate and witness a lethal attack, and in that sense "cause" the destruction.
This seems speculative to me. Helicopter pilots are already hundreds or thousands of feet away from the action, they're not looking people directly in the eyes.
I think the difference is in cost (time and money) as well as stealth. A small drone is easily deployed and fairly unobtrusive. A helicopter takes a bit more time and I think it's more expensive. Plus it isn't exactly stealthy.
There are a couple of major differences. My understanding is that helicopters can’t typically reach and maintain the altitude that unmanned drones can, making drones more effective to be used in less conspicuous ways. There’s also the difference in the baseline level of security between the two. Helicopters do go down from time to time, thus creating a human risk that isn’t present in drones.
I feel that since drones pose less risk to the lives of their operators, the desire to use them will be greater.
>thus creating a human risk that isn’t present in drones.
most unmanned drones used today have a far higher history of 'unintended forced landings' than most other military craft -- when you use planes that have a high risk of crash over metropolitan and suburban areas, the human risk multiplies.
The US military has 'lost' about 400 'large' drones between 2001 and 2014.
To put that 400 number into perspective, the US had 5 or 6 major airliner crashes between 2001-2013, and about 400 accidents (including non-crashes and minor incidents) over the period of 2004-2013.
I'd rather have any fighter jet in production right now over me than anything General Atomics had designed.
Here's an older WaPo article from 2016. From 2001-2016 400 military drone crashes occured. Military incidents are harder to find out about, otherwise I would have used that number.
>when you use planes that have a high risk of crash over metropolitan and suburban areas, the human risk multiplies.
Yeah, but it's not a risk to the government. The government is very good at weaseling out of responsibility for killing bystanders with little more than a settlement check. When people acting on behalf of the government get killed then that's when government gets held accountable.
> This was very predictable. Tools invented for military operations abroad eventually, predictably find their way back domestically.
I've been saying for ages that these overseas actions are proving grounds for testing malicious tech - for it's eventual deployment against US citizens.
It's only a matter of time before Hellfires leave the rails from so-called "surveillance drone" Reapers.
The corporate Empire has been built and it's occupying the lands of 280 million Americans.
It's Rome 2.0 and the Rubicon isn't as clear, but it's already crossed.
---
Minneapolis is in a de-facto state of war, there is no police presence in numerous areas currently, and locals have already setup their own road-blocks and community defense forces.
The Minnesota State Police have been arresting more reporters since CNN and targeting them with tear gas canisters and rubber-bullets at point-blank range. The MSP doesn't respect the Governor, and John Harrington and/or Matt Langer should be disciplined. That is, unless they want a full rebellion.
> It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.
Let's be honest, the country is voting to become an authoritarian police state. US voters have historically had a flirtatious relationship with strong authoritarian style presidents. Trump just more openly so than others. When you look at voting patterns over the last 40 years, it's pretty clear we've been trending in this direction for quite awhile.
Let's be absolutely honest. Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being (not becoming, it's already there) an authoritarian police state.
> Who the President may be at any moment in time is totally irrelevant in US being
This is not the case and has never been the case. Presidents have different interpretations of executive powers. Trump clearly has an extremely authoritarian take on where the President sits in our government.
This is plainly obvious for everyone to see and a very non-controversial observation.
can you qualify these strong assertions? “plainly obvious for everyone to see” isn’t a convincing instrument. The role and powers bestowed on the President are set in the US Constitution.
2) Trump's authoritarian interpretation of these powers is pretty obvious and not really controversial. I think this is an obvious fact that requires little explanation.
Again, the President's "take" is totally irrelevant in US being an authoritarian police state. The issue is systemic and can not be attributed to an individual or office.
I'm not an American but have lived there in the past for many years. It has always baffled me how Americans are willing to blame the left or the right instead of the system as a whole. Maybe because if they did so, they would be undermining the very foundations that their country was built on.
It's not a huge leap from "we have systemic problems" to "both sides are equally to blame", and the latter is too often used as an excuse for bad behavior.
Remember, Obama order the extrajudicial killing of an American because he was a member of a terrorist organization. Terrorism is a crime in the United States. Hence there should have been an attempt to arrest.
I strongly disagree with drone striking, but arresting someone in an effectively hostile territory isn't a simple or safe job. Your only hope there is that he enters an airport, or international waters.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch and is instrumental in setting national standards and investigating police departments. FBI as well. The executive branch has a fair amount of sway in how policing is done in the US and largely can help set direction, set policies, investigate departments and "clean house".
Who is President is very much matters. You clearly see this in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, where mass incarceration was in vogue, at the direction of the Attorney General (William Barr), who is part of the executive branch, leading the charge.
Really? It is my understanding that in Minnesota the governor did not even have control over the local policing, that was left to local leadership (mayor + police chief). He only took over control today, which was a very rare move. So I am not following how the president has much authority over local police activities. That is why Trump is referencing the National Guard and not an actual police force.
What do you mean by "He only took over control today" ? From what I saw in this article it doesn't say anything about the Governor taking over local police departments; perhaps you're referring to the national guard?
In his press briefing today he talked directly about it and how he made the decision to take direct control of the situation when the 3rd precinct building was abandoned yesterday as he found that unacceptable.
I don't think I'm implying the president has direct control over local authorities. I'm simply saying that policing in the US is complex and saying "it doesn't matter who you elect" clearly isn't true. The executive branch has huge soft power over how policing is done in the US. For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment. The executive branch chose to donate this.
> For example, the rise of militarized police is largely due to donated spare Iraq war equipment.
I think there's a lot more to it than that. There's also the matter of a lot of war vets becoming police officers, the approach to policing they learned in the military, and their lasting effect on police department culture.
How is the US a police state? Can you give examples? In this case even, the police officers were responding to a 911 call from a store clerk that claimed a man matching Floyd’s description had attempted to use counterfeit money (crime) and was acting erratically. So, they were doing their job in responding to that call.
There's not a simple yes or no answer to this question. But if you sincerely want to understand where people are coming from when they make the claim, you ought to do some research.
I'll give you a head start. Try googling:
"police spying without warrant"
"stop and frisk"
"police perjury"
"police license plate readers"
"police phone data"
Also, check out organizations like the ACLU, EFF and many others who work very hard to prevent the US becoming a police state.
People will just make the argument that a drone patrolling is no worse than a police officer in his vehicle patrolling or a helicopter patrolling, both of which are incredibly common.
Native Minnesotan here — living in Minneapolis — that has lived on both coasts:
With all that's happening the last few days, please don't generally associate Minnesotans with the violent riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy the innocent. Those images are being overlooked.
What happened is awful. These violent riots, and the violent images aren't reflective of Minnesotans at large. The violence doesn't reflect how genuinely upset people in Minnesota feel about what happened and greater the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be most great.
I have friends and colleagues asking me "what's going on with everyone in Minnesota?" and I have to explain to them that these images aren't representative of the place I call home and my neighbors I call my friends.
There are businesses that didn't do anything wrong which have have been effectively `rm -rf` because of a small group of bad actors. The Target on Lake Street didn't do anything. Banadir Pharmacy didn't do anything. Seward Pharmacy didn't do anything. The pawn shop didn't do anything. The WIC office didn't do anything. The liquor stores didn't do anything. MoneyGram didn't do anything. The tobacco store didn't do anything. Disrupting those businesses and the livelihoods of their employees and owners doesn't prove a point.
But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that.
> With all that's happening the last few days, please don't associate Minnesotans with the riots that have captured the attention of everyone.
I understand what you're going for, but this is a bad approach. People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard. What you're saying here reads as "don't listen to them, they don't represent us" which is ... exactly the point.
We need to collectively shut the hell up for 5 minutes and just listen. Maybe if we actually did that, these riots wouldn't be happening.
He may be the poster boy of the chaos but I assure you, as someone who has been in these streets, he is not alone. Please, come join us and you can see for yourself.
There are countless innocent business owners who were ransacked, who were had their livelihoods changed that would beg to differ with you.
I understand the concept of being loud to be heard. I understand making a statement. I understand burning down the precinct.
What I don't understand is looting independent pharmacies, liquor stores, and restaurants to steal inventory and merchandize and break into safes.
Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
People are rioting because they are angry. It happens that people are constantly, very gently, angry at the entire capitalist complex. When people riot, therefore they are going to burn down the capitalist complex, because it irritates them and they are in a provocative mood.
>Your tweet links to an unmasking of a police officer committing false-flag violence in order to justify counter-violence towards protestors and rioters.
Please link some proof or stop spreading this rumor on HN.
>White guy breaks windows and.. walks away? Holds an umbrella?
Is this evidence that he's a cop or just your imagination?
There's a very short list of what that person can be:
Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.
Either the video is staged or not.
* if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
* if not staged, then this is a real person that did this
If this is a real person that did this, then:
* they either did it of their own free will, or
* there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.
If they did it of their own free will, then either:
* they want to steal things
* they want to break things
* they want to get back at Autozone
* they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location
If they did it as part of a group effort, then they were either coerced or not; but, in both cases, the intention of the group that caused it is what matters:
* the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
* the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
* the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.
Then you need to look at the probabilities of each of these situations, especially the person themselves and their attire.
I think it's reasonable to conclude either:
* this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
* somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
* it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
Did I miss any combination?
2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.
( edit: formatting )
edit: sorry, I did miss one:
* he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozone
> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
> * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
> * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.
This is not reasonable at all.
2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.
Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.
"Current manchild of the hour" has been identified as a police officer in plain clothes in other threads...
There are a lot of provocateurs and I don't think we can align any of their motives with those of the protesters. Many are trying to create a justification for violence against the protesters. Some are just "break shit and get free stuff".
Source for that? It's possible but it looked like white as antifa black block kid. The style is literally the same what they do all around the world during the G20 etc. meetings.
Does rioting destroy things? Yes. But read that sentence from me again: "People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things".
People are rioting because they see this as the only way forward, not because they want a new TV. They may get that TV in the process, but it's not the motivation.
It’s is wildly racist that this comment, and many other comments on here, are far more focused on the rioters than the murder that occurred on a sidewalk in broad daylight.
Also racist is the indifference to these riots, when their cost falls on the same minorities they ostensibly are in protection of. Look at Detroit. Look at Newark. Any wealth that might have been accumulating in the black communities of Minneapolis has just evaporated.
>they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
This is almost the exact same phrase that MLK used, and it makes complete sense. If we use violence (implicit or explicit) to exclude people from "polite" discourse, they will find other ways to communicate.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things, they're rioting because they don't feel like they're being heard.
That's not why people are looting liquor stores and target. Some people are just destroying things, there's always those groups of people in every riot. Sometimes people even travel to the riot just for the chance at destroying things.
I find it really sad that Target and other stores damaged in the protests may never return. Insurance and risk assessment may unfortunately decide reopening in a certain area is too dangerous.
Who knows, but the protests were noore violent than when white militiamen stormed the statehouse two weeks ago.. and yet the cops shot tear gas plastic bullets into the crowd anyway.
Police abuse of power and brutality happens every day and mainstream America doesn't bat an eye. But you burn down one Target... and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds!
Did blocking cafe counters work? Look outside: did it work??
My racism. Hahah. I love this tactic - no YOU'RE the racist cause uhh, oh, I know, low expectations!
What low expectations? I AGREE that it's great that people are burning down police stations and looting massive capitalist businesses. You're the one coming here with a twisted ethical system that somehow places property over people. And you call me racist, lol.
What I don't understand is why many of these small businesses — which have items of value to many people — were targeted. To me, that's burning to burn, damaging to damage, and looting to loot.
This is my home. I visit many of these businesses. I do business with two owners on that list. There are groups of people out here who, yes, are looting to loot and burning to burn.
I understand burning down the precinct though. I'm not upset about that.
We were promised change when a Minneapolis policeman killed a tourist three years ago. If the good citizens of Minneapolis has insisted that there be change, today there wouldn't be problems.
Is there a (real or perceived) class divide in the area? Just curious because I don't know, but I remember in prior riots some people explained that rioters felt like business owners were on a different level to residents and taking advantage of them in various ways like higher prices or not employing locals, so that helped paint them as targets.
To some extent, they were burned/looted/otherwise harmed because they were there. But on the other hand, you have things like this experimental Target whose whole purpose in that (very impoverished) neighborhood was to develop new LP techniques, aimed at putting more people of color in prison: https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them.
Target is complicit in racism for trying to stop people from stealing from them? Do you have any evidence that Target systematically lets white people steal from them while calling the cops on non-whites?
Would would you only try to stop somebody who is stealing from you if they were white? If so that would be quite racist! Trying to stop anybody regardless of their race from stealing from you is not racist.
Regardless, according to the tweet you posted the policy is targeting poor people not people of color. 40% of poor in the US are non-hispanic whites. That means this policy would presumably also be targeting a huge number of white people as well.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store that is poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground. Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty. And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
>"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
What other interpretation am I to draw? The person I was responded to said Target was intentionally creating new policies to put people of color in jail.
If anything the person I was responding to is the one that needs to take a more plausible explanation of what Target was doing.
>The larger point is the dystopian dynamic of developing a store meant to be deliberately poised against its customers, especially as a testing ground.
Stopping thieves is pro-customer. Stores have to mark up the price of the goods they sell to cover the losses from thieves. If less people stole then the price of goods would be less.
I also don't consider a thief to be a customer. Anti-thief is not necessarily anti-customer.
>Technologically defended islands of wealth in the middle of seas of poverty.
Completely unrelated to the topic of Target and possible racism.
Do you have a look on your door? That is a technology that is defending your wealth. Why not leave your front door wide open and let anybody come in and take anything they want?
I am guessing you dislike other people's wealth but are fine with your own.
>And the blame isn't even on Target specifically, but the system as a whole that is creating so much suffering in the first place.
The person I was responding to said "Target is complicit in this systemic disease; I have zero sympathy for them." This seems pretty direct in the accusation that Target is guilty. If he doesn't think the blame is on Target then he would presumably have some level of sympathy for them.
If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had. All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful. Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
>If you can't avoid reflexively jumping on phrases long enough to see the parallels to a common sci-fi theme, then there's no conversation to be had.
I have no clue what you are talking about. What sci-fi theme are you talking about?
>All I can say is that if you want conservative thought to remain relevant, try applying it where it can be useful.
Again I have no clue what you are talking about. I am not making a conservative point. I am just refuting the claim that Target is racist for arresting thieves.
Also seeing how I am being upvoted and you are being downvoted I am guessing my "conservative thoughts" are relevant to many people.
>Hint: the breakdown in law and order here started with the police department itself.
And? That has nothing to do with Target which is all we are talking about.
It also doesn't justify destroying other people's property.
I will admit that I had to re-read this argument. Are you suggesting that Target is racist, because it employs loss prevention tactics? I will admit that this is an odd conversation for me. In a sense, it feels almost as alien as a guy telling me that I owe him reperations by virtue of being in US.
Could you elaborate more? It is possible, I am not getting this.
> People aren't rioting because they want to destroy things
Tip: don't use absolutes. Always leave some margin. As long as there is one single person alive or that has ever lived that conflicts with your statement, that will be used as a counter-example and will be nitpicked to death and people will focus on that, instead of the main point.
If you say "most people", that immediately deflects those arguments. I've learned that the hard way.
Your words almost exactly echo Marilyn Manson’s commentary on the columbine shootings. Interesting parallel. He was asked what he would say to the shooters and he said “I wouldn’t say a single word to them. I’d listen to what they have to say. And that’s what no one did.”
I live a few blocks away from the location of the Floyd incident.
Attacking police officers (or really anyone, at all) shouldn't be encouraged, in my opinion. Ever.
Is an eye-for-an-eye the type of justice that's needed? I don't like it.
These are actual quotes:
"Fuck police, shoot the pigs!"
"Innocents are gonna die"
"This is just the start, you ready? You ready?"
"We're going to burn this fucker down"
"Kill the white folks! Kill whitey!"
Whatever. I've been labeled racist for not wanting to watch my city burn. Can't we have justice without violence?
Yes we can. In fact, this is the entire point of the police and criminal justice system - to reduce violence by providing a predictable and civil source of justice. Unfortunately yours has gone rogue, leading to the failed societal conditions you're experiencing.
That line of thinking is incentivizing violence as a means of "being heard". Whoever riots the loudest and strongest gets to speak and be listened to. No doubt the next step after listening is to compromise, aka "meet in the middle".
So the rioters are hurting their fellow innocents because it's easy and less risky than going after the guilty? You're probably right, but it's not a flattering view of the rioters.
I am talking about the potential for injury (as always exists with fires, looting, and the like, here exemplified by the wheelchair-bound woman sprayed with a fire extinguisher), as well as the property damage, which often causes stress and emotional injury.
It's also easy to forget that the people most harmed by looting are usually members of the (original) victims' own communities.
Attacking another user will get you banned here. The fact that emotions are so inflamed right now makes that more important, not less. I appreciate (having read your other comment) that you've been in a difficult situation, but taking it out on someone here is not an ok use of HN. It just damages this place as well, which doesn't help anyone or make anything better.
The factual correction in the second half of your comment would have made a fine contribution by itself. Indeed other users posted something corrections, without attacking anybody:
Do you think that telling someone to "shut up and listen for five minutes" is an effective way to communicate your message? How would you respond to such a lead-in?
But the police don't look like thugs and villains when they murder black men? Note this murder came off the heels of the protests at several state capital buildings where armed white males were in the faces of the police and shouting (images available on the internet). Not a single tear gas canister was fired. It's time for all of us to realize there's something sinister going on. The state is singling out a certain class of people for an extremely violent response. The point was driven home to me when I saw the CNN news crew get arrested. It's all on camera. It's all there now for the world to see. I'm afraid there's something really bad underfoot. We'd all better be paying attention.
It looks like this account is using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please not do that? It's explicitly against the site guidelines, because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for.
> disgusts the vast majority of law abiding people
Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy they burned down a police station. Let DAs and cops around America take note: going forward, if you don't act decisively when a cop murders a black person, you're probably gonna lose a police station.
It's just a damn shame the cops forced the people to go this far to get the message across. The police officer standing by that let the murder happen could have prevented it, the cops at the protests could have deescalated instead of firing tear gas into crowds of peaceful protesters. The cops did a GREAT job of descalation when white armed militia turned up at the Capitol two weeks back, they're clearly capable of it. And, the DA could have chosen to have the murderer arrested straight off.
You realize that radicals and those protesting are part of the "public", right? That their expression of grievances are part of "public opinion"?
As for the people who are disgusted? Nobody cares. They're apologists for state violence, and if after all this time they still don't understand why things are unfolding the way they are, they're only a roadblock to progress.
Fellow HN user, I welcome you with warmth so please don't take what I say offensively, but as a different perspective.
> What happened is awful. It doesn't reflect how genuinely kind people in Minnesota are and how we, collectively feel about what happened and the movement at large. There will always be edge-cases as there is with any situation in any context. But for everyone that I've known, for everyone I've met and encountered with in Minnesota, when I look back at my time spent on either coast I always have found the people in Minnesota to be great.
Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long. The police do not act with such impunity against citizens "just in this off case". It needs to be systemic for the reactions to be this strong.
If you haven't experienced this personally, that's great! I will not question your experiences. But please understand that others have not had the same experience. They've had such a bad experience that they're willing to go out in the streets during a pandemic to say "enough is enough". The police have had enough experience to be well prepared with crowd control tools and to use them immediately on peaceful protestors, when they could have de-escalated. People don't burn down a building they consider a symbol of tyranny just because of a single incident; their experience so far has ingrained into them a deep hatred for the police who are meant to protect and serve them.
As others in this thread have said, please try to listen to other perspectives. People experience different realities, and all of them can coexist without having to disprove the other.
May you never experience having your livelihood burnt down because of an unrelated issue.
It seriously blows my mind anyone does think this is justified or supports it. That is way beyond reason, even from an understandably aggrieved point of view.
I'm not in favor of burning and looting, but i'm not convinced it wasn't kicked off by the cops, gladio style. If we ever found that out, it won't be for decades, at which point anyone who talks about it becomes a crackpot going on about ancient history.
Once burning and looting starts, well it's like fire, or panic buying.
A group of people who are systematically disenfranchised witnessed a visceral oppression committed by the guardians of that system. They are now extremely upset and frustrated and expressing their anger and frustration at a system that for a long time now made snail's pace progress toward equitable treatment of them.
The police largely function as protectors of personal property and relationships of ownership. I mean, look at the very reason that the cops arrested George Floyd; an alleged fake $20 dollar bill. In a time of pandemic 4 police offers showed up to enforce the ownership of capital.
Those guys who the state dispatched to enforce the value of money then ended up killing a guy. Its quite possible that the people who are rioting and protesting feel pretty damn angry at their treatment under capitalism and don't give a damn ownership of resources right now. They might even feel angry about ownership of resources in general. This is their community, and I suspect it's not yours. They get to decide their relationship to owners of resources, not you.
Another fellow Minnesotan here and former Minneapolis resident (used to live a mile away from Hiawatha and Lake back in the day).
>Characterizing what is happening as an edge case is a huge mistake. People do not spontaneously start protesting with so much anger if it hasn't built up over so long.
These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators, and are implicitly condoned by a feckless and weak state and local government that would rather give ground (literally) than enforce the rule of law. Saying "enough is enough" means going to the polls, not burning down all of the businesses in your neighborhood that were already on the verge of collapse thanks to the pandemic. That people are making up excuses for this behavior is disturbing to me, and signals that America is farther along the path of Imperial collapse than I previously thought. What end do you think we end up with here by condoning this? Agitators taking over City Hall? Disbanding the police department?
Please don't excuse burning down entire neighborhoods. Thanks.
> These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators
This is a scary response. We saw, today, a black CNN reporter arrested by state police on live television. If that’s how an educated, gently-speaking, Constitutionally-protected member of the press is treated, there is a root issue festering. Blaming it on agitators deflects from introspection.
A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years. That civic neglect has consequences. Those consequences are coming home to roost.
> A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years
that is a massive leap in agency that doesn't seem appropriate at all. any cities' "moderates" (??) have extremely limited agency over "the problems in the police force": if the head police officer is elected, that's one, and perhaps city council members who control budgets or other things related to police work.
since you're strongly implying that civic neglect is what caused this issue, what are the civic actions that this city's moderates should have taken in order to have prevented these problems?
If you watched an of the live feeds from the last two nights there are plenty of people who announce that they're from e.g. Nebraska and part of some Antifa faction.
>A big part of the problem is Minneapolis’s moderates have turned a blind eye to the problems in their police force for years.
I don't understand how people can honestly think this is true. The Police Commissioner is literally the guy from Internal Affairs who filed a lawsuit against the city for not promoting black officers fast enough. The state attorney general is the guy who has proudly photographed himself with an anarchist handbook. All across state and local government in Minnesota you find people who are, allegedly, the kind that are supposed to address the "civic neglect" you assume to exist. What more do you want?
> The Police Commissioner is literally the guy from Internal Affairs who filed a lawsuit against the city for not promoting black officers fast enough.
Looking after their own. Should I give them a cookie too and a belly rub?
And the protests are clearly also not about the death of George Floyd. Unless you think all of these small businesses being burnt to the ground were somehow complicit in his tragic death.
For police to stop killing unarmed people. If I knelt on someone's neck for five minutes, I wouldn't get two days at home! Police need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
How about sending the bill for the civil suits from all these unlawful killings to the policemen's union instead of the city? How about cops who keep getting involved in officer involved shootings get their house taken to pay judgements?
I don't know if you've seen a map of the area, but outside of St Louis way to the south, Minneapolis is pretty much the only metro area near the states of ND, SD, NE, IA, MN. Many minorities in these states have felt marginalized for decades (particularly the Native American people, but that's a whole different story). Driving to the closest metro area in solidarity is the only choice for many people to be part of the cause they support without having to do it individually.
The protests started peaceful. There were no calls to burn down a police station. The first window shattered was done so by an undercover cop.
The first violent action taken was by the cops. So the people responded in turn.
Nope, I don't blame them. They tried kneeling, so the president got a football player fired. They tried peacefully protesting, the cops showed up armed to the teeth and fired at people with plastic bullets and tear gas. There's a video of a parade of cop cars driving by protestors, the last of which indiscriminately sprayed pepper spray into the crowd.
Please don’t do this here. Demonizing HN users or blaming them for systemic issues while trying to have an honest conversation is totally uncalled for.
> I stand by my previous statement that America is farther on the path toward collapse than I previously surmised
I don't disagree with you, but I feel that the blame lies with the government, not with the rioting people who are just tired of the government arbitrarily executing people in the street whenever they feel like it.
And please don't give me the usual nonsense about "you get what you vote for". The level of real disenfranchisement in this country is staggering.
Say what you want, the protests were peaceful until the cops started firing off tear gas. The videos are there for all to see.
Regardless, we shouldn't be surprised at the levels people will go when you grind their noses into the dirt for four hundred years. The law enforcement arm of the government brought this upon itself.
I don't think people are condoning or encouraging rioting, but are pointing out that violence is completely expected given the degree of disenfranchisement people feel in these situations.
"Going to the polls" hasn't worked. Allowing the courts to dispense justice has done anything but that. What then? People get frustrated and angry, correctly feel like they have no voice and no options, so they unfortunately resort to violence.
Local businesses being destroyed is a horrible outcome of this, but I can't even make myself feel bad about the police precinct burning. (I do feel very bad for and worry about the safety of firefighters.)
If you want to blame anyone, blame the police for getting us to where we are today.
> These protests are at least partly drummed up by out of state agitators, and are implicitly condoned by a feckless and weak state and local government that would rather give ground (literally) than enforce the rule of law.
Its primary failure in enforcing the rule of law has been its inability to enforce it on police officers.
What we're seeing is the consequence of decades of lawless behavior by police. People have had enough of being terrorized by it.
> Saying "enough is enough" means going to the polls
What if voter suppression or gerrymandering exists? What if no candidate wants to address police brutality? What if issues are easily forgotten over a multi-year cycle with a complicit media?
Rioting shouldn't be a first choice, but polls don't fix everything.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." - MLK
Not in /Letter from a Birmingham Jail/ (1963), but he would later go on to state the following (1967):
"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."
You're failing to understand that the ordered system of justice that you're prescribing only works for a small portion of (wealthy, powerful) American society, because the processes of that order are intertwined with a systematic, institutionalized effort to deprive minorities of rights. People are fed up with trying to work inside of a system that barely considers them human.
I think what you're failing to understand is that your kind of rhetoric is directly adjacent to the standard communist revolutionary rhetoric employed across e.g. South America.
>People are fed up with trying to work inside of a system that barely considers them human.
Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
> there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
Laws are meaningless when those responsible for enforcing them flaunt and ignore them, and the judiciary lets them off again and again with barely a wrist-slap.
People don't look at what's written in a law book and feel like the system is protecting them. They look at how the system actually acts toward them. And in this case, they're justifiably terrified.
> your kind of rhetoric is directly adjacent to the standard communist revolutionary rhetoric employed across e.g. South America.
Yeah, I'm a Marxist. I align with many (not all) ideas about proletarian revolution.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
We've seen how powerful people, the wealthy, politicians, and law enforcement have time and again broken laws and attempted to circumvent them for their own gain or to preserve the established order.
>there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
do you think the laws are literally broken or figuratively broken then? also there are many laws at many levels of priority. some of them in effect enable you to kill protected classes of people under convenient circumstances
Dissent is the most American value. The country was founded on it.
Accusing people who are trying to explain the logic of why reasonable citizens will take extreme actions as "communist revolutionary rhetoric" is neither here nor there. What if it is? Does that by itself make it false? Please engage with the facts, and if you can't, refrain from such nonsense. It won't take the discussion anywhere.
> Amazing that people actually believe this, when there's literally laws on the books making it a crime to commit an offense against protected classes of people because of their race alone.
The presence or absence of laws by itself means absolutely nothing. Can you not see how tone deaf you seem when there are all these people trying to express their frustration and you dismiss that with "why the f are you so angry, there are laws that protect you".
It's useful to point out communist rhetoric where it exists because they typically get to employ all sorts of useful tricks to shutdown discussion, like you just did with calling me "tone deaf" for not excusing rampant looting and destruction. It's effective to say things like this because it triggers a guilt response in people, and they usually back down.
If you want some facts, here's a list of all of the buildings damaged or destroyed by people "expressing their frustration". Notice that some are government buildings that provide services to the poor, who are obviously more affected by the ongoing pandemic. You can continue defending them, if you like.
>Dissent is the most American value. The country was founded on it.
This statement is thrown around all the time, but it's really an attempt at gaslighting people into thinking that chaos and calamity was what the people who started the American Revolution were fine with. Of course, the opposite is true, and the chaos and calamity of a weak and ineffective English Imperial Regime was what they were rebelling against and the final form of the revolution was an institution of essentially the same style of English Common Law but with distinctly American characteristics.
Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? It's not what this site is for, and it's against the guidelines because it destroys what it is for.
"Order" is not the same as "justice". I have no respect for people who advocate for the former without ensuring the latter is done. And those who are in a position to ensure justice is done, but refuse to do it, don't deserve order.
I just want to point out that you're wrong to say these places "didn't do anything". Or rather, I would contend that they did do something, aka nothing, which is what led to this situation.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
I'm not advocating for violence or destruction, this result right now sucks to the nth degree. But I am advocating that folks start paying attention to kneeling football players and other peaceful protestors instead of telling them to shut the fuck up.
Because you know what else sucks in addition to businesses burning? Folks dying for no other reason than the color of their skin. If you're asleep when it comes to human costs, but awake when it turns economical, take a look deep inside yourself.
If you make peaceful revolution impossible, if you deny justice for too long, this is the result. Don't pretend that society at large "didn't do anything". By doing nothing, we all did a whole lot of something.
That's a great quote, thanks for sharing that. Long, thoughtful, and almost certainly a real quotation for once.
I think there's a strong naivety in liberal perspectives on non-violence. Liberal successes like the civil rights movement were finalized and won by non-violent leaders like MLK, and so he has been championed as a hero who represents the values that won the day. Students in school are taught that "the good guys" follow his approach. MLK is, without a doubt, a social hero to a very high degree. However, there's a HUGE other side to the civil rights movement. The state is incentivized to work with non-violent leaders because the alternative is credible threats of violence. When the bulk of the population thinks violence is never an option, your non violent offering loses its teeth.
You don't need to advocate for violence. But if it happens, focus on the root cause and empathize with why people are driven to this.
"With all that's happening the last few days, please don't associate Minnesotans with the riots that have captured the attention of everyone. The peacefulness of the protests and gatherings has been overshadowed by the violence. There are countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to those who choose to loot and destroy. Those images are being overlooked."
MPLS homeowner here (although I no longer live there).
I hear what you are saying and I am sympathetic to it - especially given my broad experience with all facets of Minnesotans all over the state.
However this violence should reflect on Minnesotans, including my own many years of residence there. We failed to make investments in the built and the social infrastructure - including policing - that would have made it impossible for bad actors like this to carry a badge.
It's very easy to look romantically at the Prairie Home Companion caricature of the Good Lutherans that quietly get the job done - and I wish that it were true. The fact is, we let I-35 drop into the river just like any other bunch of assholes.
I don't mind if there's a disruption. But I do mind needlessly inciting chaos for the purpose of creating mayhem. We don't know this person, yet, but as AG Ellison said in his tweet he looks like he's just there to provoke.
Watching live streams from the protest informed me a lot about who these protesters are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZaOGehK6k . What surprised me is that they were mostly pretty young. They also looted a liquor store across from the police station and you can notice how everyone seemed to get drunker and drunker as the night went on. I think they are venting a lot of built-up frustration and honestly have a pretty good time doing it.
> But burning down the precinct? Yeah, I can get behind that
How is this not glorifying violence? Replace "precinct" with "school" or "church" , makes it more obvious. .. especially since the precinct was still occupied when it was attacked.
I assume if a school or church had a decades-long history of unjustifiedly killing civilians in a discriminatory way, it would be shut down by the justice system.
When the justice system itself has this dysfunction, however, that doesn't quite work.
What does this analogy gain when you replace it with school or church? People didn't attack schools or churches, and schools and churches didn't employ the murderer in question.
Indeed. The riots and destruction are an unfortunate byproduct of the outpouring of pent up rage and grief. They are a distraction from the real issue, which is the summary execution by the state of people in the street. The police are 100% responsible for all destruction that has occurred this week. If they had not executed a man in the street, none of this would have happened.
Honestly, I only wish I could generally associate the people outraged rioting in the streets with the average Minnesotans, that would probably have prevented the culture that lead to where we are today. Maybe, for example if there were countless examples of Minnesotans standing up to racism and police brutality?
Well if we can speak with such absolute certainty, I'll go next: there are dozens of undercover and rogue police officers involving themselves in escalating all the bad stuff
in the past, riots have strengthened public support for more armor, more weapons, bigger budgets, less oversight. But there are less calculating possibilities as well.
You think that others' views of Minnesota are worsened more by the riots than by the initial and continuing actions of Minneapolis police and authorities?
The people rioting generally seem like decent people standing up for a just cause. So no, we won't judge all Minnesotans the same way. We will judge the people who set things up so that this is a common occurrence much more harshly. And that includes most Minnesotans. But don't worry. That includes most Americans. We'll judge them all for the shitty society they created where cops can beat and murder innocent people and get away with it. And we'll especially judge the cops, all of them, for murdering, stealing, assaulting, and supporting their fellow officers in the commission of such crimes. People are not innocent simply because they are nonviolent when they fully support the violence of police.
FTA: "Unarmed Predator drones were first used within the United States in 2012, when the Department of Homeland Security flew one over the property of a cattle farmer named Rodney Brossart to surveil him, and to help end a 16-hour standoff between him and another rancher over a stolen-cattle dispute. The use was highly controversial at the time; since then, CBP has used drones hundreds of times, and has not kept very good records about their use."
That strikes me as a highly unexpected and odd situation to be the catalyst for "OK'ing" use within US.
Odd question. The thing that I find odd about it is the jurisdiction of US border patrol here. Why would the government call them as opposed to, say, national guard? I am curious.
Perhaps you or someone else knows, but I frequent the https://tar1090.adsbexchange.com website often and I see unusual tail numbers listed and I can't figure out why they are listed as such. They may not even be military aircraft but just small aircraft.
The tail number in this example below is _AE0B60 and registration is n/a
That's an ICAO/hex code. The transponder ping always includes that information, and then tar1090 tries to look it up in a database for other information, like the registration. If it can't find it in the database, then it just displays the code.
Codes that begin with AE are military aircraft, which don't appear in any official (e.g. FAA) database. Enthusiasts have built somewhat ad hoc databases that include many, but not all of the military ICAOs.
Am I correct in assuming this is actively recording footage that will be processed later to identify the paths of criminals?
edit: Interesting, I left this post an hour ago and it was getting upvotes, now it's negative with no negative responses. I wish the down arrow only worked on posts you replied to first.
I wouldn't be suprised. After the riots in Baltimore, a lot of people ended up getting arrested because they thought they police didn't care since they didn't stop the looting, but they just combed through footage afterward and arrested people in the following months.
I don't really see the issue here with a surveillance drone to help keep the peace. I don't really care if it's "military technology" or not. Look, what happened was absolutely awful. People have a right to protest - and should, but peacefully. Riots, looting, burning buildings? Sorry, that's going to far.
If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.
Well this is what we get for not listening. If your family and friends were being executed constantly you'd give up and rage too. Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored.
Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing
> Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored.
There was a republican protest over COVID where there was mass theft, looting, and arson?
Armed white men stormed Michigan's state Capitol if you don't remember. The only reason there was no violence is because the police were ordered to stand down. See the difference?
Stormed the capitol? You mean entered the capitol building -- as is your right as a citizen? Having a gun is not violence.
And, while police can certainly instigate violence, I find it difficult to believe that someone had to steal a TV from target or loot the apple store (as happened in portland) because the police instigated them to.
There are folks who are legitimately angry and are expressing that peacefully. And then there are people torching businesses, police stations and cars. Do you not think there is any sort of reasonable line being crossed here?
I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation?
This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area.
Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.
No, they are being murdered, how would you respond? We can't possibly understand the anger these people feel. If an innocent man is murdered by police, and they riot as a result, we need to start listening.
As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too.
Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the solution is to immediately reach for a Molotov cocktail and firebomb a Target. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't.
Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
"[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
ETA:
> Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.
What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505
Who are we to make that call, in either direction?
> If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable?
That's a pretty absurd, carefully crafted hypothetical situation that does not apply here.
> .... Yes it does. That's literally why that Target was there. Did you read the link?
Edit: alright, on that point I partially concede. I didn't realize that, and that is disturbing. However - and I just can't believe I still need to keep repeating this - I'm simply not going to go firebomb it because I don't like it. There are plenty of things I really don't like. Do I firebomb them because I don't like them? No, I choose not to firebomb them. Because that's not something responsible citizens do, at least in my worldview.
.... Yes it does. That's literally why that Target was there. Did you read the link?
ETA:
> I'm simply not going to go firebomb it because I don't like it. There are plenty of things I really don't like. Do I firebomb them because I don't like them? Nope, I choose not to firebomb them. Because that's not something responsible citizens do, at least in my worldview.
I'm very, very glad that you and I have a voice in our communities/countries and don't need to resort to violence to get our message across. I'm not glad that the reason you and I have a voice and the people rioting in MN right now do not, is because we benefit from state violence and they are on the receiving end of it.
"Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." --Martin Luther King.
"The Flag is drenched with our blood, because so many of our ancestors was killed because we have never accepted slavery. We had to live on it, but we never wanted it. So we know the flag is drenched with our blood. So what the young people are saying now - give us a chance to be young men [...] we know this country was built on the black backs of black people across this country and if we don't have it you ain't going to have it either cos we going to tear it up. That's what they saying. And people ought to understand that. I don't see why they don't understand it. All across this country, they know what they've done to us." --Mrs Fannie Lou Hamer
"The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal" --Donald Trump, on white rioters
"...These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!" --Donald Trump, on black rioters.
"Before I get to that, how would you define somebody who puts a cat where he is and takes all the money out of the ghetto where he makes it? Who is looting whom? Grabbing off the TV set? He doesn't really want the TV set. He's saying screw you. It's just judgment, by the way, on the value of the TV set. He doesn't want it. He wants to let you know he's there. The question I'm trying to raise is a very serious question. The mass media-television and all the major news agencies-endlessly use that word "looter." On television you always see black hands reaching in, you know. And so the American public concludes that these savages are trying to steal everything from us, And no one has seriously tried to get where the trouble is. After all, you're accusing a captive population who has been robbed of everything of looting. I think it's obscene." --James Baldwin 1968
If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say. They don’t seem interested in reasoning, only in taking what they want by force.
The armed protesters in Michigan were being jackasses but afaik they didn’t start looting or committing arson (or even hurt anyone for that matter). There is no equivalence here, it’s just as much a bullshit “both sides” argument as the one trump made three years ago.
Well, obviously that's not a reasonable first reaction, but if all the reasonable avenues of getting people's grievances addressed have not succeeded, then it's kind of inevitable that it will escalate to unreasonable responses.
A large number of the same people that now are saying that of course peaceful protest would have been enough and been respected (including high-ranking members of the current US administration) were insulting, ignoring, or calling for punishment for people that did peaceful protests in the past, e.g. by kneeling at football matches. What was the "good reason" to not listen then?
> If someone is unhappy about not being listened to and their response is to burn down half a neighborhood in my city maybe there was a good reason we weren’t listening to everything they had to say.
They were saying “don’t kill me”. This argument is blatantly racist.
For many white people that "good reason" not to listen is simply that they are poor and black. You ignore the innate institutional racism and assume the everyone can have a civil conversation. Some people just want to hate
Others have mentioned the air-to-ground missile problem, but my question is: “what does CBP have to do with this?” Border Patrol’s job is to, unsurprisingly, patrol the border, as in, the national border.
Even with the “100 mile zone”, Minneapolis is more than 200 miles inland.
My guess is that the drone is owned by the border patrol but currently used/controlled by a different agency. Like the national guard or police. I.e. border patrol lend it to them.
But this still shows how broken this is because now you have a drone survilence by some agency but people don't know which one and maybe a violation of responsibilities if it's actually operated by the border protection...
Well, first I can almost guarantee that the surveillance tech being employed on a predator drone is substantially more advanced and wide ranging than a simple human operated video camera, but I also don't think it's a good idea to have guys with video cameras in helicopters recording protests either unless it's to film illegality. It has a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Peaceful protesters really shouldn't be getting surveiled / data gathered during protests shouldn't be getting mined, and unless authorities can guarantee that isn't happening then recording makes me uncomfortable.
Yes, because a police helicopter is different for two reasons: (1) it’s not operated by CBP (who have no jurisdiction here), and (2) a police helicopter doesn’t have Hellfire missile bays.
Putting aside the CBP issue (fair point, agreed, that's weird), it's not like police helicopters haven't been used for pretty bad things in the past - e.g. when Philadelphia firebombed it's citizens in the 80s.
It both is and is not different. It's different because of the obvious riots.
But it's not different in the long: we should be aware of mass surveillance, because it can affect freedom of association (chilling), and can advance government abuse.
Citizens should always watch the government, so that we have a chance to rein them in. Its our government, not the other way around.
Predator drones can carry multiple air to ground missiles and guided bombs. This is the same model of drone which is used for drone strikes in the Middle East. There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.
I think the capability of carrying armament is irrelevant as long as it isn't actually carrying weapons. Anything can be retrofitted, and even without modifications any aircraft is a weapon in and of itself.
From CBP's standpoint, it makes sense. What other unmanned aircraft could carry the same sensor package, while also being incapable of being armed? There's the Global Hawk, which costs about 10x more than a Reaper.
There's a reason that a civilian agency like NASA owns so many fighter jets (F-15/16s). R&D is expensive and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. (Also worth noting-- NASA also owns some Predator drones)
> There is no reasonable reason for a domestic civilian agency to own or use these drones over US soil vs models which are incapable of carrying armament.
This is a model which is incapable of carrying armament.
CBP drones do not carry missiles. There are definitely reasons to use the predator drone vs non-armament capable drones. One such reason is cost. The predator drone Is lower cost and has much better performance to cost ratio compared to other options, such as Northrop Grumman global hawk.
I'm aware of that, but it's extremely, extremely unlikely that this drone is carrying any sort of missiles. I can't prove that for certain, but let's be realistic here. The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
Pointing a gun at someone is a threat even if you say it's unloaded. The US government should not be threatening its citizens.
> The government could in theory drive a ballistic missile launcher hidden in an 18-wheeler into any major US city - should we not allow trucks on the road?
This is a straw man, the Predator is a weapons platform, nothing is being hidden here.
Police helicopters don’t regularly kill dozens of people. The helicopter is more akin to a cop walking around with a sidearm. Still not great, but less overtly threatening.
That’s a false equivalence. The difference with your truck argument is that this air vehicle is specifically designed to monitor and shoot missiles at targets (“extrajudicial killings” is the phrase used). A truck carrying a missile launcher is different because trucks weren’t created will the express purpose of carrying missile launchers.
Except there's simply no way (short of the US falling into a total dystopian future) that someone is going to launch a missile on the Mall of America this week from this drone. Again - let's be realistic here.
Perhaps not ones designed for carrying ballistic missiles.
Though this still isn't a perfect comparison because it ignores the fact that drone usage can be targeted to individuals, which is a factor that makes it more dangerous in our context of homeland operations.
I really respect ADS-B exchange choosing to not block anything like the commercial alternatives do. Those block anything military and many private jets etc from their views. Basically anyone who asks is excluded from view.
Of course anyone with a $10 RTLSDR stick can see this info too but ADS-B exchange make it much more accessible.
Preserving the rule of law is one of the most fundamental reasons for government to even exist. It's predicated upon the idea that sometimes people break the law, and it's better for there to be due process administered by a judicial system than for there to be anarchy. If this is going to become a people vs. the government type issue, where the government isn't expected to be any better than looters, then the looters just got even more of my sympathy than they had before.
If the government is allowed to throw out the law at this point because people are rioting in response to delayed charges against a police killing caught on video, why did the government even have to exist in the first place?
The rule of law must be preserved when it comes to property damage, but it must also be preserved when it comes to murdering black men.
In addition, saying that people are rioting because of only one isolated incident is not true and reductionist. There is a history of law enforcement treating black people's lives as unimportant.
Yeah just to be clear I completely agree with both of those points. But that's only adding even more reasons why it's completely unacceptable for the riot response here to be anything but completely law-abiding. The police already have no moral high ground here IMO.
I'm not sure what part of my post you're responding to, but I don't expect people to protest peacefully anymore. I fully support Kapernick and think criticism of him was ignorant and wrong.
Maybe "riot response" is an ambiguous term, but I'm saying the response to the riot has to be completely legal, responding to a parent poster who was saying that it's okay for police the break the law in their response, which I strongly disagree with.
Agreed in general. In real life it can quickly become quite messy. For example, I have zero issues with HK rioting after all other venues are exhausted. It is difficult for me to argue that HK is magically different from the rest of the world. I do not advocate violence, but I understand the instinct to inflict pain after pain is inflicted upon you. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can make it a little less bad place to live in.
That said, rioters here seem more like opportunists than protesters..
And there's definitely some shady stuff going on with the videos of the person who broke windows at AutoZone.
Unfortunately, I think the police department's handling of this has only encouraged rioting. I would give them the benefit of the doubt if the officer was suspended pending an investigation or review. But he was fired. That's a mountain of paperwork and HR involvement - so they were probably pretty certain they couldn't defend what he did. But they didn't arrest him, which I'm pretty is less of a bureaucratic headache, until after the rioting.
Maybe someone can give a plausible and reasonable explanation for that sequence of events, but from where I'm sitting this just screams "rioting got our attention".
Under your logic, any time the government breaks a law and harms me, I am automatically entitled to disregard the law as well and retaliate. If government can't follow the law, why should the people? It's pretty easy to see why we don't want to live in a society where rule of law is disregarded.
>Under your logic, any time the government breaks a law and harms me, I am automatically entitled to disregard the law as well and retaliate.
I would reword that to say "any time the government breaks a law and harms me, I HAVE THE OPTION to disregard the law as well and retaliate."
That's just the way it is. It may be stupid to fight your government, but if they beat you down enough you may look at that as your best option.
The question I have about your statement is what do you expect an oppressed people are supposed to do when nothing else works?
Telling them to continue to work within a system that has failed them for hundreds of years seems to be the equivalent of telling them that you don't want to change the status quo.
Surely, you aren't comparing mass murder, likely an international crime, to spray painting a building or stealing a TV?
Property != people. People > property. Period. Nothing else to consider.
Additionally, it's fairly common for security forces to instigate criminal behavior during protests in order to justify the extreme measures they use to suppress those protests.
I am from the area and I agree wholeheartedly that people > property.
But let's be real, we saw a 182 unit multi story low income housing unit burn down to ash (the blaze was enormous). We also saw a police department building burn to ash. Countless local businesses have been completely destroyed by fire. That's a little more than spray paint and tv looting.
I find it funny that we expect black Americans to peacefully protest.
"Please use this system of peaceful protest that hasn't worked for you since forever." LA was 92, we're almost 30 years to the year. Has anything changed?
Do you tell HK protestors to write a letter to the CCP instead? It's such a double-standard.
Honestly I've been watching the protests and it's not black people rioting. It's a diverse group of black, Caucasian, and other minorities.
In fact, I saw the arsonist that set the police department on fire and it was a Caucasian male. This is not a group of African Americans rioting in protest. It's a diverse bunch of a bad actors ruining a community.
I'd argue the situation has gotten significantly worse since '92.
Post-9/11, especially in the early to mid '00s, there was this fetishization of the military and military aesthetic in American culture that had changed the public's appetite towards militarized police.
It is important to consider that a significant portion of the public thinks "the troops" aren't going far enough to end the protests in Minneapolis.
It's hardly fair to ask a minority to simply vote out their oppressors, they're a minority...
For political parties it's a real stretch to blame the Democrats. There's a reason the black vote is heavily Democratic, because their programs actually do help minority communities. But it's difficult to do with a majority Republican Congress for most of two decades and a majority "conservative" SCOTUS.
Now Democrats are far from perfect. But they are at least better than the alternatives.
Let's look at demographics and voting districts in Minneapolis. I'm willing to bet there's at least a little gerrymandering to suppress the black vote. It's hard to stand together and make your voice heard when the system is being designed to do exactly the opposite.
LA has a white majority. Felony prisoners aren’t allowed to vote, and are disproportionately black relative to the demographics and especially to the population affected by police brutality.
I'm not going to step into what is clearly an emotional argument for you, but I will say that downplaying what's going on in Minneapolis does not lend you any credibility. Social housing units, and hundreds of locally owned businesses have been rubbled and torched; and retailers have watched basically all of their inventory walk out the door (last time they bother setting up shop in this powder keg, seems Target was prettymuch expecting this to happen eventually).
One prominent case of this is Scores Sports Bar; there's video of the owner standing there powerless and crying, watching common crooks walk out with his life savings, all he earned working as a firefighter. You can see it set in on him when they come in right in front of him and start busting open the safe. After all this, he went to work the next day, at his day job as a firefighter, where he got a call that the bar had been torched to the ground. Now there's a GoFundMe, but he's never getting that time back.
So don't downplay what the rioters have done there, there are active warzones which are less rubbled and arsoned than this.
If you want to play the anecdote game: There's also a local Indian Restaurant whose owner was on the phone with the police while watching it burn on the local news, and he basically said "Let it burn. If that's what it takes to get justice."
Insurance will replace the buildings and stuff. Insurance can't bring George back, nor can it undo a bad system.
Glad to know you think of my intelligence so uncharitably that you have to explain a tautological definition.
I know that insurance only covers the insured. I charitably assumed the reading audience of HN knows that, too. Is there something more insightful you wanted to share? For example: have a conversation on the general risks of taking insurance versus not, or whether in these particular anecdotes the owners in fact did/didn't have insurance and their reasons for it? Or was it really just to try to make me look like a dumbass to the crowd?
I was responding to your assumption that he was insured, which was seemingly a defense of people looting and arsoning the business he worked his whole life to start, before it ever had a chance to open.
If you don't want to feel criticized when people point out basic facts to you, don't use things you don't know as the basis for an argument why people should feel justified in committing crimes against innocent people.
It's not about you, it's about the boneheaded idea that these riot traps are some sort of component of a movement for social justice.
There is zero justice in looting and arsoning this sports bar, stop trying to say that there is, and you won't feel like a fool when presented with the facts.
It's true that insurance can't bring George Floyd back; it can't bring back the dozen or so people killed so far in the riots either.
> If you don't want to feel criticized when people point out basic facts to you
Dude! As I said, you could treat me as a full fledged adult and we could have an actual intelligent conversation. Rather than you try to not-very-wittily say a one-liner "pwned a lib" stand-in for an actual conversation.
> don't use things you don't know as the basis for an argument why people should feel justified in committing crimes against innocent people.
Is the "thing I don't know" about "whether the guys is insured"? How does this tie into your goalpost-shift into moralizing me about the riots? Could you really not have taken a second to construct an argument so we can have a conversation? 'Cause now it seems like you are really hell-bent on merely trying to make me look like an idiot in a "got'em" zinger.
> There is zero justice in looting and arsoning this sports bar, stop trying to say that there is, and you won't feel like a fool when presented with the facts.
Are you trying to censor me? I can say what I damn please, thank you. You may not like it, but my arguments are here to stay.
My original point highlights there's going to be a wide spectrum of anecdotes coming from the riots. Using a sports bar example is stupid because I see a distinction between life and property. I wanted to challenge that anecdote directly with a counter-anecdote. I even said insurance "can't undo a bad system" which I intended to also be a point in favor of the very anecdote I was providing a counter-example for: the system has obviously failed the guy as he's at a total loss of his business. I showed the absurdity of loss of things versus loss of life. You don't see me straw-manning you by imagining you're OK with genociding people to protect "stuff".
On the other hand, you then assumed a lot and constructed a strawman of me, imagining me as, as far as I can tell, some drooling idiot that doesn't know "only insured parties are covered by insurance" and thinks that "the dozen or so people killed so far in the riots is OK" and that "the riots are a part of the movement for social justice". I highly recommend taking a step back and really look at yourself and ask what kind of conversation you're looking to have here. So far, it feels like you just want to insult me.
Let me tell you what I think straight up so we can clear this air and you can see me for what I actually believe. If you want to keep insulting me, that's fine. I, quite frankly, don't care about your opinion. I'm stepping away from your toxic bullshit after this. I'm frustrated that ideological-incest of Reddit and /pol/ is leaking to HN.
I believe these riots are a part of the wider movement to draw attention to police brutality (but not associated with the BLM organizers necessarily) due in part to the way the police over the last 20 years has shifted their training to be less community-focused and become much more military in training and
viewing confrontations in a militaristic rather than civic light. This affects every citizen, not just black people.
Do I want riots in general? No. Do I want these riots in particular? No. Do I applaud the loss of life in the riots? Hell no! Do I think the damage to property is OK? Fuck no. Do I think comparing total loss of a man's business to the loss of George Floyd is OK? No. But as uncomfortable as the riots are, they're here. In reality. I've got to accept that and figure out what the hell to make of it.
But fuck my beliefs, if people are so frustrated that they are rioting and the National Guard can't even restore order, that is a very strong signal that the civic system used to govern the people is broken. That should start a productive dialogue to those of us outside and able to look in. Is it only the police force no longer connecting with the local community and becoming more of a State Police? Is it local elected officials who've been ignoring their constituents? What are all the straws that broke the camels back?
There are additionally conversations about how movements against injustice should be conducted. We could be having similar conversations to the original debates around Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr's differing approaches to changing civil rights.
Finally, a word of warning: it's too easy to paint all the rioters as bad guys, their cause as obviously flawed, and therefore their movement as immoral. Liberties and injustices cuts both ways: when it's your pet protestors rioting, I sincerely hope you don't have to face your anti-clone.
For the record, I'm not feeling like a fool here, despite your operating assumption as such (there were no facts presented in your non-argument).
I am not downplaying anything and your points don't dispute my major argument of people are more important property.
The sports bar, inventory, etc can be replaced. Why should locals care about those things when there's a real, non-zero chance their family and friends might be killed arbitrarily?
Personally, I'd rather have my kids and wife than a Target.
You literally just characterized the largest mass arson in at least several decades as "spray painting a building or stealing a TV".
> ...your points don't dispute my major argument of people are more important property.
I guess the ten or more people who have already died in the riots don't matter though; nor the numerous women who have been raped under the cover of chaos, nor the victims of the kidnappings.
Effectively nobody is happy about the murder of George Floyd, but why cover for the killing of several more people and the destruction of countless lives? Is it over some bizarre sense of justice? What justice are you enabling, making cover for looters who were happy to bust the sports bar owner's safe right in front of him, and take what they please?
This is incoherent. If the riots were out of a regard for human life, they would not callously destroy so many such lives.
Violence is often normalized so long as those who are perpetuating it are politically aligned. For example, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his government genocided millions of Greeks and Armenians. Most nationalistic Turks found nothing wrong with that. In fact, Hitler admired Ataturk a lot, and used his actions as a template for his own programs.
"The minority problem in Anatolia was solved in a very simple fashion... “Only through the annihilation of the Greek and the Armenian tribes in Anatolia was the creation of a Turkish national state and the formation of an unflawed Turkish body of society within one state possible.”
You've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly by using HN for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, so please stop. It's off topic here.
Yes that is true, and one of the major failures of the Ottoman Empire. They couldn’t instill any sort of nationalism in Greeks and other minority subjects. The cultures were too different. Hence why the empire fell and Balkanized.
I assume the business owner had insurance? Bottles and buildings can be replaced.
It’s not exactly like the bar was going to be profitable in the next 6 months anyways considering the pandemic, it’s probably a blessing in disguise that may save him from bankruptcy, who knows?
He has a job still, he’s luckier than a lot of people.
The US had a fairly rich history of shooting rioters too. After Kent State there was enough backlash to at least prefer "nonviolent" methods, but I don't doubt they'd fire again if conditions get much worse.
edit because of Kent State, not after. Almost immediately after they still fired 460 shots at protesters in Jackson State.
Its basically an opinion of so many people that 1776 was a nice and pleasant meeting between locals and British Government.
The locals sat down and said: "sorry we do apologize but we do not want you here anymore; please kindly go". And then Brits responded: "sure! we spent centuries conquering the whole world, hundreds of thousands of our brothers and fathers died in the process, but since you so peaceful and ask so politely, we have no problems to give up on this vast land of minerals and opportunities, pack our belongings and sail home. See ya!".
In reality the 1776 happen pretty much the same as you watch the riots today, other than they didn't have tear gas and there were no cellphones.
Nice retcon, but even in your peaceful retelling it's still lies.
the locals sat down and said "we know you've made treaties with the natives to not expand anymore, but we want that land! So if you could get gone and let us get to our genocide we'd appreciate it."
and the Brits responded" "sure..."
Just a little different... High school history doesn't like to mention it was a battle between new and old aristocrats, but the whole slavery and 3/5ths of a person business and initial land owners only sort of system kind of shows the truth.
I'm 100% in favor of the protestors' cause, but if you want probable cause, burning down a police station, housing unit, and nearby businesses certainly qualifies.
And what about all the other people caught in the dragnet? Most of whom presumably did nothing. These people have no idea if they are also being surveilled. I mean, who knows what else the government is doing "while they're there."
There are smaller aerial drones that could be used, which would capture the same relevant footage, without the potentially miles-wide dragnet. That's my main objection here: innocent people shouldn't have to give up their rights because the government can justify it. A good justice system would do their best get the minimum amount of information necessary, in order to protect the innocent.
I see that there’s a plausible connection, but the phrase “predator drone“ is a bit of a loaded phrase. While Minneapolis is embroiled in riots, I think this article may be Stokes paranoia a little bit.
iirc it's the equally poorly named Reaper drone that is armed and the one to be worried about. The predator drone is basically an R/C police helicopter.
However, people have been freaked out about aerial surveillance for decades. It gets the clicks.
The MQ-9 Reaper is a larger counterpart to the MQ-1 Predator. They are both designed for military use, both capable of carrying weapons, and both appropriately named given their original intended purpose.
They're also both airplanes. Neither of them resemble a helicopter in any way.
Despite that, its a dangerous thing to happen. I am aware of how unlikely it is for the current US Government to use the drone offensively, but once you have a massive fleet of drones flying over the US, patrolling "troubling" neighborhoods constantly, the temptation to use those abilities rises significantly.
I hope that Congress takes action to outlaw this practice, but I have little faith it will happen. It seems like everyday the country is falling further into the pit of becoming an authoritarian police state.