Straw arguments aside, my point is you can't say "BLM rioted" (at least in Seattle where I have 1st person experience). BLM held protests during the day and the marches were peaceful. BLM did not run the CHOP, they had speakers there, but did not run it. Saying "BLM rioted" is propaganda and seeks to draw a false equivalence. It's commonly lost that the experience in Seattle is very different from what happened in Portland. In Seattle the police moved in and cracked skulls for a week, so I agree "not being taken care of by functional responsible adults."
Sorry to call a response straw arguments, but nothing of what I have said is refuted by acknowledging violence occurred in the CHOP. Though, that is not without its own nuance.
As a first person account, and not as talking point, this was just not the case. The police responded with an aggregate violence that was greater than the night-time-post-protest issues that were happening - the CHOP brought immediate relief and was pretty close to a festival atmosphere for its entire first week (again, not as a talking point, as observed - the CHOP was in our commute path to work and we traversed it daily).
I don't want to toss talking points back and forth. An important difference of perspective is the role of the police presence. In Seattle, the police were largely inflaming the situation (1) and their departure defused it (for some time until, other problems cropped up). This is an important difference compared to the narrative that the police were doing too little (they were doing quite a lot).
"Without working with protesters to understand their goals and work toward mutually agreeable solutions, the department continued to make tactical decisions that did not de-escalate the situation,” the report says."
Coming from 'k5', a very conservative viewpoint, saying "did not de-escalate" is another way of saying they were doing nothing to help things, but make them worse. The after-action report of the police response that the article is reporting on largely found low incidents of police brutality (a controversial finding), but the police in a number of ways could have avoided antagonizing the crowd.
*Which is all to say, in Seattle, had the police protected the protests & protestors, it would have all been different.
Come on man, “straw man” and “false equivalence” in the same response to me?
People were ultimately shot and killed in CHOP - and not that long in to its existence.
You walked in CHOP on your work commute - presumably in day time light hours and it was festival like? I find that believable.
But crowds change at night. I can say the same thing when I walk on James and 3rd during the day. It’s a shitshow but it’s mostly drunk and high homeless people. At night and in the dark I’m definitely not walking there.
Anyways I’m new to seattle. A liberal group in a liberal city in a liberal state befouling it’s own nest isn’t inspiring to me. I guess it is to you but to reach their own.
Sorry to call a response straw arguments, but nothing of what I have said is refuted by acknowledging violence occurred in the CHOP. Though, that is not without its own nuance.
The conservative media narrative is that the CHOP was lawless, was like Portland with buildings being burned every night, and before it was non-stop riots on the streets. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...)
As a first person account, and not as talking point, this was just not the case. The police responded with an aggregate violence that was greater than the night-time-post-protest issues that were happening - the CHOP brought immediate relief and was pretty close to a festival atmosphere for its entire first week (again, not as a talking point, as observed - the CHOP was in our commute path to work and we traversed it daily).
I don't want to toss talking points back and forth. An important difference of perspective is the role of the police presence. In Seattle, the police were largely inflaming the situation (1) and their departure defused it (for some time until, other problems cropped up). This is an important difference compared to the narrative that the police were doing too little (they were doing quite a lot).
(1) https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/sea...
"Without working with protesters to understand their goals and work toward mutually agreeable solutions, the department continued to make tactical decisions that did not de-escalate the situation,” the report says."
Coming from 'k5', a very conservative viewpoint, saying "did not de-escalate" is another way of saying they were doing nothing to help things, but make them worse. The after-action report of the police response that the article is reporting on largely found low incidents of police brutality (a controversial finding), but the police in a number of ways could have avoided antagonizing the crowd.
*Which is all to say, in Seattle, had the police protected the protests & protestors, it would have all been different.