Just watched a vid of LAPD trampling a person with a horse, then shooting them with what looked like a baton round at a range of 5-10 feet. That is a life altering injury, administered with direct intent, while the protestor was trying to flee. Holding my breath for zero consequences for unnecessary force. Not to mention qualified immunity. LAPD doing LAPD things.
How can one argue that the police serve the people? They don't necessarily even serve local government. They get a lot of federal funding and equipment, and in riot-control mode their purpose is to brutalize protestors until people stop showing up.
I also find it rather grotesque to watch Newsom argue that state and local police are perfectly capable of handling (i.e. crippling) protestors by themselves and don't need any federal assistance to do so.
Nobody should be trampled, but for some context there was a Molotov about 10 seconds beforehand, and the first trample was a horse being spooked by some fireworks.
How can the incident (with video evidence) you describe not potentially result in criminal charges? Why hold your breath? Surely there are countless people to act on that.
We know from the BLM protests that police are rarely prosecuted for misconduct unless there's massive public outrage, i.e. you need another riot to get the injuries from the first one prosecuted.
Presidential pardon? All jan 6ers were pardoned, despite extensive video evidence of their crimes. If you're loyal to the power in place, you can do whatever you want. That's fascism 101.
What would be the point? There's almost nothing they could do that would be against the law if they're just given a pre-emptive pardon. They could put up an arena with citizens vs lions as long as it pleases Donald...
Practically? The judicial branch will do it via qualified immunity. "Not clearly established law that you can't trample people on a street with a horse."
I initially thought this was a joke or sarcasm, but not everyone has seen everything that happens (the lucky 10,000 and all that). But during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, police, especially in Portland Oregon, used brutal and indiscriminate violence against protestors [1]. Some of the most brutal and blatant cases were eventually prosecuted [2] but most were not and never will be [3,4]. There were also multiple cases of Federal officers without uniforms in unmarked vehicles grabbing people off the streets to take them to unknown locations [5]. But there were cases across the country. In buffalo, 57 officers resigned after two cops were suspended for shoving a 75-year-old to the ground and cracking his skull (better to find a new job than the slight chance of accountability, I guess) [6].
But there was countless incidents that were not high profile that went completely unpunished. The purpose was to terrify protestors. If the police beat, abduct, maim, and injure protestors, and a year or two later, a half dozen get some light punishment, are you going to risk getting your eye shot out by a rubber bullet or your arm broken by a baton to protest the police next time?
[1] “Police here routinely embrace the violent crowd-control tactics … indiscriminately attacking protesters with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets, and other “less lethal” munitions. The bureau has been hit with two temporary restraining orders from federal judges: one rebuking the PPB for likely violations of protesters’ rights to free speech and against excessive force; the other ordering the PPB to stop arresting journalists and legal observers for documenting police clashes with protesters.” https://archive.ph/39lib
[2] “Donovan LaBella, 30, was peacefully protesting outside the federal courthouse in Portland on July 11, 2020, when a deputy U.S. Marshal fired a “less lethal” impact munition that struck LaBella in the face, causing brain damage.” https://www.opb.org/article/2024/11/20/portland-protester-do...
[3] “A Portland cop who chased down and beat a protest medic, in one of the most harrowing incidents of police violence from the city’s Black Lives Matter protests last year, will not face criminal charges.” https://archive.ph/6ErUo
[4] “[N]ot a single federal officer on the Portland streets at that time has been held individually accountable for alleged constitutional violations over claims brought by David and other protesters. In fact, courts have not had a chance to assess whether constitutional violations even occurred. That is thanks to the intervention of the Supreme Court, which in a series of rulings has created an accountability-free environment in which federal officials interacting with the public on a daily basis…can violate people’s constitutional rights with impunity.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/portland-prot...
[6] “the video shows Mr. Gugino stopping in front of the officers to talk, an officer yells “push him back” three times; one officer pushes his arm into Mr. Gugino’s chest, while another extends his baton toward him with both hands. Mr. Gugino flails backward, landing just out of range of the camera, with blood immediately leaking from his right ear… ‘These officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square’[John T. Evans, the president of the Buffalo police union]”. https://archive.ph/KYOIS
> better to find a new job than the slight chance of accountability, I guess
People have long argued for a national register of police officers who were terminated for cause, or resigned to avoid termination for cause.
Awesome.
Except, at last count, about 70-75% of the nation's police departments have forbidden its use in hiring decisions due to their collective bargaining agreement with police unions...
There is a misunderstanding compared to OP's intent. It's not that separating military and police guarantees that the police will make the police serve and protect the people. Rather, if separated, police has a better chance to serve and protect the people, compared to a situation where it's the military's job.
Consider the the separation of church and state. It's done so the government remains neutral in religious matters and does not favor or establish any religion. In reality, some churches are clearly favored. Or the review system in academia. Peer reviews are so that bullshit doesn't make it into published papers. Yet, bullshit and bias does make it into published papers.
This is just a system that is working somewhat well. With obvious, very large room for improvement. But the direction, separating military and police, is good. Just not enough.
How can one argue that the police serve the people? They don't necessarily even serve local government. They get a lot of federal funding and equipment, and in riot-control mode their purpose is to brutalize protestors until people stop showing up.
I also find it rather grotesque to watch Newsom argue that state and local police are perfectly capable of handling (i.e. crippling) protestors by themselves and don't need any federal assistance to do so.