Tons of people were reportedly arrested (and assaulted) by police for simply being there, including reporters live on camera, and they even pepper sprayed and arrested their own senator.
Kamala Harris knew that violence and crime on the ground in Minnesota was rampant.
*Insert politician* knew that police were beating up and arresting peaceful protesters.
That doesn't mean it's ok for someone to say "Republicans support police brutality and criminals".
You can't just raise a call to indiscriminately let people out even if caught in such a situation.
Fist of all, being granted bail means the release of arrestees who have been deemed not to be a significant risk to public safety. Secondly, you go through an application process that most likely prioritizes people arrested for picking up trash and minding their own business than someone arrested for setting a car on fire.
After the unbelievable amount of footage that emerged of police misconduct and questionable arrests at a time when they knew the world was watching and they needed to be on their best behavior, there's ample reason to believe that many people were wrongfully arrested at these events. So likewise you can't just throw everyone else under the bus because of the ones that may have misbehaved.
Either way, bail is part of the justice system in America where people are 'innocent until proven guilty'. But I guess that doesn't apply to poor people.
Depicting Democrats as supporting of criminals or riots because a politician supports raising bail to people who can't afford it and have yet to be proven guilty in events where people were known to be wrongfully arrested is not an honest framing, even if it was just about her. And it wasn't. It was a generalization about a group.
If people can't discuss things without making outlandish generalizations like that, then just don't
You're using a separate issue of alleged police misconduct as an excuse for making the situation impossible to control.
There's nothing separate about police misconduct during the BLM protests. Minnesota is no exception. Even when there's no protest, let alone riot.
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Dan Rojas was arrested on the morning of 27 May. Though there were no protests occurring at the time, Rojas had decided to clean up fragments of rubber bullets, teargas and frag canisters on the public sidewalk in his neighborhood when six police officers confronted him and arrested him.
“They put me in handcuffs, took my property off of me, and they shoved a local reporter out of the way. They put me in a squad car and arrested me for rioting at 10.30 in the morning, the day after a peaceful protest,” said Rojas, who was not released until over 48 hours later. “At the end of it no charges were filed, everything was dropped and I was never told the probable cause they had to arrest me.”
Seemingly arrested for rioting, when there was no protest, while picking up trash.
There were tons and tons and tons of reports of people getting arrested as a scare tactic. On your way home? Too bad, get in this unmarked black van.
Skipping over the exercise in whataboutism.
That's not whataboutism. That would be excusing the behavior of A by pointing at B.
I already told you what I thought of your examples, without mentioning B.
I brought up those examples to demonstrate why it's not ok to make these flamebait generalizations of either party.
See, more of this. Splitting hairs. Whole sections of communities burned to the ground or ransacked, but we're more worried about the fraction of protesters responsible.
The reason people point out that the protests are mostly peaceful is because some people, including some users here, are keen on conflating the peaceful protesters with the violent ones. And because some news outlets chose to focus almost entirely on the riots, instead of the peaceful protests.
That is something to be worried about. But that doesn't mean people aren't also worried about the communities that were hit. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Just a few after a quick Google search.
Portland DA makes it policy to decriminalize illegal actions by protesters.
"Schmidt announced Tuesday that his office will decline to prosecute cases related to the protests that do not involve violence, theft, or deliberate property damage."
How is that controversial? What kind of riot without violence, theft or deliberate property damage do you want people arrested for?
The second story doesn't mention the details behind the decision, and the one link it provides leads to 'Access denied'.
I'm guessing the third is more of the same, but it doesn't really matter, because they don't represent 'Democrats' the way Melbye and Eva depicted it.
Skipping the weird rape part. That isn't related to anything near as I can tell.
About as related as support for communism, riots and criminals being attributed to a group is to the new supreme court pick.
You're posting that on this thread of all places?
For the people already involved here.
Last edited by Hiku - on 28 September 2020
We know this is often ignored across many threads though.
We're looking into revising the rules and guidelines to match all the new toxic ways people find to rile up others and waste their time. Stay tuned.