George Floyd

Nation's Cops Seem Determined To Demonstrate Why People Are Protesting Them in the First Place

Aggressive police tactics are likely to worsen the situation.


It's already a surreal scene: The National Guard and local police are marching through a leafy neighborhood in Minneapolis. Then the shooting starts.

Tanya Kerssen was standing on her front porch filming the procession of armored vehicles and riot gear–clad troops rolling through Whittier, a neighborhood a few blocks north of where protests over the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, had recently turned into riots. The National Guard had been called in to help restore order and enforce an 8 p.m. curfew set by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Kerssen was complying with that order—the curfew applies only to public spaces, not private ones like residences, porches, or front yards—but she became a target anyway.

"Light 'em up!" someone can be heard shouting in the video. Then bean bag rounds and paint canisters are fired at Kerssen and others, who quickly flee inside.

The video is shocking, but it was hardly the only scene of apparently unnecessary policy brutality to be captured by smartphones and TV news cameras on Saturday, as peaceful protests in many cities across the country turned violent once again. Rather than helping to lower the tensions and restore peace, however, aggressive police tactics are likely going to worsen the situation—after all, the protests began because Minneapolis cops used unnecessarily brutal tactics to subdue and ultimately kill Floyd.

In Atlanta, cops smashed a car's windows and tasered the occupants while TV cameras rolled. (Those two officers were fired on Sunday, according to The New York Times.)

In New York City, a cop ripped off a protester's face mask to pepper-spray him at point-blank range while the protester had his hands raised to surrender.

And elsewhere in New York City, cops literally drove into a crowd of protesters.

Reporters who were on the scene to cover protests in many cities were not spared. Cops in Minneapolis shot rubber bullets at an MSNBC camera crew during a live shot with reporter Ali Velshi, fired tear gas at reporters, and reportedly shot out the windows of a car driven by a Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter, bloodying the man inside.

It is important to remember that photos and videos of clashes between protesters and police can omit critical context. They are snapshots of wide-ranging and chaotic scenes, and often do not tell the whole story.

It's also important to keep in mind that the police do not have a monopoly on senseless violence. Protesters looting private businesses, setting fire to buildings, and destroying public property do not get a pass for their actions. Such violence should stop.

Still, it is exactly when tensions are running so high that the police, National Guard, and other law enforcement personnel must keep their cool. Driving a squad car through a group of protesters is never justified. Neither is firing potentially harmful projectiles at Americans who are peacefully standing on their own property, exercising their First Amendment rights.

Officials in charge of the law enforcement responses to this weekend's protests could learn a lesson from Chris Swanson, the sheriff of Michigan's Genesee County. Swanson was caught on video Saturday removing his helmet and telling his officers to lay down their batons. He spoke directly to a group of protesters, encouraging peaceful protest and denouncing the actions of cops like the ones who killed George Floyd.


Enforcing a curfew is not a license to commit violent acts. Doing so will only encourage more violence. If cops show up to today's protests looking for another fight—or behaving like an occupying army—they are likely to find one.

NEXT: Police and Rioters Get Violent at Protests in Cities Nationwide

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m old enough to remember three weeks ago when the media were very certain that protests were dangerous and irresponsible because they would spread the virus and kill thousands

    1. They sure changed their tune quickly!

      1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . .DCx I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

        Heres what I do…….............► Online Jobs Provid

    2. Yeah - why is this okay but people peacefully protesting lockdowns is not?

      1. They weren’t peaceful

        1. They weren't?

          1. Marketthugs is doing a little thing popularly called "lying".

          2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . YEr Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr..........

        2. You’re right, those cities barely got the destruction cleaned up after lockdown protesters destroyed businesses when THIS happens.

        3. "They weren’t peaceful"


          1. More likely he's a sad high school drop out that can't even keep a burger job.

            1. So, he's a perfect candidate for police recruit?

            2. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h. I use details from this webpage.... Continue Reading

        4. [citations needed]

        5. OK, where was any violence by the lock down protesters? C'mon, give us a list or a link!

        6. You sound like the a-holes whose smeared the Tea Party protesters as violent, even though they weren't, just to push their political agenda. You don't give a damn about the truth.

      2. Hope you had a good (enough) birthday, Lady

    3. It’s all good, they are wearing masks. So responsible!

      1. I'm not entirely convinced that the masks are because of the virus. I feel like anonymity might be the bigger factor.

        1. We all recognize the guy from Portland...some masks are memorable.

    4. I’m old enough to remember the same media and pols calling anyone that protested government action while armed a domestic terrorist.

      Oh, and fuck the police.

    5. Thank you. We peacefully protest the lockdown and we’re terrorists. We “protest” (riot and loot) Starbucks, Ferrari, Target and Nordstrom, and threaten police and we’re totally justified in using our first amendment rights in a “pandemic” (joke). I’m done. You have all lost me as TOTAL hypocrites with zero credibility on this issue

      1. On any issue really I thought I might be Libertarian because I spent my life immersed in a marijuana organization movement, but reading Readon Magazine has showed me this particular group of "libertarians" are charlatans who have the most screwed up belief system of anyone I ever cmr acro I wish these frauds would stay away from important social causes, they are a joke.

  2. I mean, I haven't seen everything but I have seen molotov cocktails, bricks, and other objects constantly thrown at and hitting cops. Their reactions have struck me as remarkably restrained

    1. I also saw some asshole jump on the hood of an suv, then the suv swerve to hit him after he'd jumped off.
      Kudos to the driver

    2. In some instances. Firing paint canisters at people standing on their own porches just filming? That's clearly excessive force and a violation of those people's rights. And it's exactly the problem with police accountability because you KNOW nobody is going to face punishment for that.

      It's an example of police overreach with zero recourse, and it's at the very heart of the problem with police in this country.

      1. [citation needed

    3. It’s almost like people are pissed off at the thugs who constantly get away with raping and killing their fellow citizens while claiming they have the authority to do so...

    4. Maybe next time they will think twice before standing idly by and watching their cohorts murder american civilians; or driving through a crowd of them

      As a little bitch copsucker, you wont understand that sentiment. Just a garden variety GOP, copsucking, LEO worshipping lick-spittle here to defend the cops rights to kill whoever doesn't obey. Every bit as bad as a prog.

      1. Aww, dicklessjimbo is mad someone isn't deferential to the antifa soyboys he so loves.
        You're out of your weight league, little guy

        1. Defending the state is a bad look.

        2. Defend the boys in blue some more you little bitch. Those soyboys are little pussies, and you are right among them.

          You are right, I left the featherweight league a long time ago. Good luck when the soyboys come for you, the cops wont come rescue your little bitch ass.

          1. Ha.
            Jimbo, you're a pathetic little soyboy yourself.
            Keep up the crying, it goes well with your very low IQ

      2. Up yours, a$$whole!! Where the hell were you when Floyd was pinned down?? Why did you not stop the police from doing that? Kind of a stupid question, just like your stupid f'kn reply! I bet you say that all blacks are thugs! Or that all blacks are rapists! You are a racist idiot and it is people like you that are destroying the same people you portend to support!! What the hell is wrong with you?

  3. Ok, the Atlanta incident is completely on the people in the car. One does not have the right to ignore legal curfews and if found to be breaking the curfew one does not have the right to ignore lawful police commands and one certainly does not have the right to keep nunging their car forward as if they may accelerate over a cop. But all the other videos the cops should be ashamed and charged.

    1. Depends on how you interpret the legitimacy of the curfew order. If people are simply outside and doing no harm, their only crime is violating curfew, which is a restriction placed upon their rights of free movement and assembly. And the best way to deal with an overreach of government authority is Civil Disobedience-breaking the law in a way that harms no one and forcing legal authorities to enforce an unjust law.

      1. Since widespread riots are occurring, you can't have a large number of people congregating indefinitely near businesses and housing. If 12 of them start looting, then the crowd will follow.

        Curfews in these cases are absolutely legitimate and not a violation of your freedom of movement. No one had a right to block traffic on a public road to begin with.

        1. Since widespread riots are occurring, you can’t have a large number of people congregating indefinitely near businesses and housing. If 12 of them start looting, then the crowd will follow

          I'm not sure that follows logically. And I don't know that I agree with the legitimacy of curfew orders, for the same reason I had issues with the legitimacy of quarantine orders.

          In the case of the curfew, it's clear that it's a shorter term measure, but I'm not certain that it's a legitimate legal authority; it also prevents lawful and legitimate exercise of freedom. For instance, the curfew is not going to be a perfect measure to stop the rioting, and you may want to defend your friend's business from looters, as some have. The people who would stand outside to defend their friend's business will obey an order to disperse, while people who seek to loot and riot will not, so it undermines public safety in that sense.

          The purpose of government is to ensure liberty and establish justice, and I don't know if a curfew furthers those goals.

          1. Curfew is a public safety measure. It isn't all that different from the police evacuating an entire building when a criminal on the run gets inside. You can't say "I have a right to keep on working here".

            There should be a compelling reason for cities to impose a curfew. Given that cities are burning from rapidly mobilizing anarchists, I would say curfews are generally appropriate.

            You won't be able go outside to defend your business. But the objective of the curfew is to keep everyone off the streets to minimize the threat to businesses and houses.

            1. Curfew is a public safety measure. It isn’t all that different from the police evacuating an entire building when a criminal on the run gets inside. You can’t say “I have a right to keep on working here”.

              Surely you can recognize the difference between these two things. In one case, you have an imminent and clearly defined threat, and also a defined end to threat. There's a dangerous person inside the building, and once the threat is removed (and any relevant evidence collected) then things may return to normal.

              The other case is, "People may start rioting and looting and the curfew will be extended until we are sure people aren't doing that." There's no defined end and no clear threat. It's a city-wide curfew so it's not confined to locations where looters or rioters may be gathering, and it's stopping people from doing any number of legitimate activities. Moreover, the way police react, they're going to spend more effort enforcing the curfew than actually responding to reports of actual riots and looting because they have to lock down a whole fucking city.

              And a curfew is different from clearing out an area after a protest or riot has taken place. If you're just asking people to disperse, you're trying to clear the area so that the area can resume normal activity-clearing the street so it can be re-opened to traffic, or perhaps clearing out a crowd after violence has already started-a clear, imminent threat. A curfew bans everyone from doing anything anywhere in the city. If you're visiting your parents for dinner and happen to hang out, chatting, until after 9 PM, you're fucked-police will bash in your car windows and drag you out of your vehicle on the way home, even if you weren't immediately aware of the curfew order. And to what end? Forcing people to comply with the orders of the authorities, of course.

              1. Riots are a clear, definable and in this case, a developing threat. Why would you think otherwise? It's comparable to evacuation in that police are forced to take blanket measures in the face of immediate danger to protect the community in general.

                If ISIS blew up a building, the police may enforce a curfew over the entire city. They won't opt for some surgical approach in which they try to pinpoint the next target or enforce crowd control selectively.

                These protests aren't like some uptick in robbery around the neighborhood. They looters are legion, and some are armed with guns. They're also spreading. These protests are basically criminals run amok, you can't assume scenarios where we could apply curfew only after every single incident. That would achieve nothing.

                1. Without talking to people the police have no way of knowing if you're in your car heading home, or to help an elderly relative, or evacuating to somewhere safer, or any other legitimate excuse to break curfew. These violent cops saw someone they could push around without repercussions and enthusiastically embraced it. And then the comments section of this libertarian website were full with comments saying that the government can take away the freedom of movement and assembly if it's just too gosh-darn inconvenient.

                  1. So it's ok to ignore lawful police commands and to just inch you car forward as if you're ready to run someone over?

        2. Sorry, XM, but you're just wrong. Curfews are constitutionally suspect in the best of times. They are especially suspect when they are being used to suppress politically motivated action. Protesting police violence is about as clear a case of something that must be protected as you can come up with.

          That position does not defend the protestors' actions. Looting of private businesses has no connection to the issue of police violence. Vandalism (lighting cars on fire, etc) is also unjustifiable. "Rioting", on the other hand, is a very open-ended term that could include illegitimate violence but has also been abused to cover angry but non-violent protests.

          Curfews are defensible only to the extent that they are narrowly tailored and are the least-intrusive means of stopping the illegitimate looting and violence.

          If you really want to stop the "widespread riots", perhaps you should consider solving the underlying problem. And since the underlying problem is overly-aggressive police tactics, maybe you should reconsider whether doubling-down on police aggression is really the best approach.

        3. " can’t have a large number of people congregating indefinitely near businesses and housing. If 12 of them start looting, then the crowd will follow."

          Sounds like the template argument for gun control: Something 'might' happen so authorities must preempt it with termination of civil rights or violence.

  4. So I can go into a large crowd to protest police violence that occurred in another state, and I won't wear a mask and that's ok. Maybe the sheriff will walk with me. But I can't go to a movie? I can't go to a bookstore? I can't go to a bar? I have seen nothing in the MSM discussing the danger posed by these protests as relates to Covid. Whatever it is you see in ANY of the protest videos, it is the opposite of social distancing.

    I'm appalled by the murder of George Floyd - and that's what it was. And I understand why there would be protests. I cannot help but think, though, that suddenly people have permission to go out and be part of a community, part of a movement, and commune with like-minded people, and so they do it. We've been under house arrest for months. It's unnatural to live this way. So I suspect that the protests would not be as large as they are without the Covid counter-measures. I'd give almost anything to feel like I am part of a community again.

    1. When there's a spike in COVID cases in a couple of weeks, the right can blame the riots and the left can blame businesses being allowed to open too soon. Win-win

      1. and when there's no spike in cases, that news will go unnoticed

        1. Noticed, but buried.

        2. Ahh, but as more people are tested the number of cases will increase, leading to headlines like "Huge New Spike in Covid Cases in X location", which will be technically correct, but pointless except to continue the hysteria.

    2. "So I can go into a large crowd to protest police violence that occurred in another state, and I won’t wear a mask and that’s ok."

      Churches had to sue MN to do services.

      Perhaps they should've just firebombed stuff.

      1. A church was even burned down for going through legal recourse to open.

    3. Small issue that in a good number of municipalities it is illegal to protest with a mask on.

      Arrest you for wearing a mask, arrest you for not. All within the letter of the law.

      Issues of police brutality aside, a system of law that is that schizophrenic can justify any response as well as the police to enforce it, not to mention selective enforcement because hey, the law codifies for that too.

    4. "So I suspect that the protests would not be as large as they are without the Covid counter-measures. "

      I suspect that is a massive, massive understatement.

    5. Newsweek online today has an article defending these huge protests during the COVID-19 pandemic because racism is even worse than the COVID.

      IOW, favored political groups get a pass to go out en masse in public, while those that the elite don't like are condemned.

  5. Ok that’s enough. Reason is now siding with the terrorist antifa and other far left groups agitating looting rioting and causing unnecessary property damage and even loss of life.

    I’ve had it. I’m gone for good. Trump 2020 and I hope you libs lose every election and the courts for good.

    1. "I’ve had it. I’m gone for good. "

      How many times are you going to come back to this web site and tell us that, over and over and over again? Don't let the door hit you in the ass! Also, ask webmaster for your money back, all $000,000.00 of it! And consider that, QUITE justifiably, to be PAYMENT IN FULL!

      1. Once for every time you've eaten shit. So going to be a while.

        1. "...every time you’ve eaten shit."

          Citations please, lying asshole! For every time that YOU have gargled your maggot-laden and yeast-infected twat juice! I have every bit as much proof of YOUR habit of gargling your maggot-laden and yeast-infected twat juice, as you have of my make-believe shit-eating habits!

          And THIS is an example of your high-brow, fact-driven analysis?

          1. You seem Off you meds again?

            1. You seem rather... Jerky and jerkish again today! Your Momma never taught you how to behave respectfully, to those who deserve respect? Or did she teach you that you are the ONLY Jerk on the planet, who deserves ANY kind of respect?

              1. LOL, respectful like your previous post to Jessie?

                You're an asshole Sqrlsy.

                1. "Once for every time you’ve eaten shit." A lie from LIAR = JesseSPAZ. Those who don't respect others, get very little respect from me! Fight fire with fire DOES work! Do you think we should all be doormats for all of the Jerks of the world? Well, I guess you would, wouldn't you, Jerk who is PROUD of being a jerk?

                  Read and head, evil Jerk! M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie

            2. Freddy, the jerk store called to say they're running out of you!

              Sorry, I couldn't resist!

    2. Reason is literally siding with Antifa. No hyperbole in that statement.


        This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.
        Masked Antifa agitators told Welch, a Hillary voter, to hand over the flag. He resisted. They attacked.
        ROBBY SOAVE | 8.21.2018 8:55 AM sides with Antifa? Got some "prime real estate" in Florida to sell to us, lying evil asshole?

        1. "For a few years now, "Antifa" activists have served as a good foil for their Trumpian counterparts and handy villains for Fox News segments. "

        2. Sure, sure... but do you have any shady links that will help him start making $2560 per day working from home?

    3. Open wider, clinger. Your betters are not nearly done shoving progress down your whining, bigoted, right-wing throat.

      1. You and Sqrsly should go on a date.

      2. Hey, gecko! We haven't seen you in a while!

        Shouldn't you be throwing a brick through a Starbucks or something?

      3. "Open wider, clinger."

        I picture you as being some smug lefty retired piece of shit, existing on money you didn't earn, and hoping that as a retiree, you'd contracted the 'rona an died. Please forgive my disappointment that you haven't.
        Gonna be a real pleasure when Trump gets jammed down the throat of an asshole bigot one more time.

      4. Haha. Yeah. “Progress”. Pretty impressive, old man.

      5. This is what it actually looks like when your irresponsible "open wider, clinger" rhetoric materializes:

        Watch the _entire_ video, asshole - if you can stomach it. That's what "shoving progress" down throats ends up becoming in the real world instead of whatever fantasy land you've concocted in your misfiring brain. May the anguished cries of that husband and wife thwart your every attempt at sleep for the remainder of your putrid existence.

        1. To the "rev", the husband and wife are just eggs, on the way to making the omelette his kind wants to see this country become.
          He just loves antifa and the BLM thugs, who think protests are calls for a shopping spree

    4. Huh? This has been their position for years.

  6. How about a little due process.

    What’s the evidence that will be submitted in court that Chauvin killed Floyd because he was black?

    EVERY person looting should be in jail. The other place blacks congregate. The evidence is all over the news. What do these looters know about anti black racism?

    1. Yeah, Rob Misek, NAZI sympathizer, we all know, the Jews deserved EVERY BIT OF the abuse that they did NOT suffer, from the NAZIs!

      The Holocaust never happened! Says Rob NAZI!

      Sane people with a grip on reality don’t deny history, as history is defined by a vast, vast majority of historians, with (in cases like this) boat-loads of evidence. No, historians and history aren’t perfect… Nothing (or hardly anything) is. But your denial of overwhelming consensus history shows some pretty severe paranoia… Everyone is out to “get you” and to trick you, right?
      I am doing a service to readers who aren’t familiar with your paranoia… Let all new (or newer) readers beware, much of what Rob Misek has to say, needs to be examined carefully!

      The Earth is actually flat, and the center of the Universe.
      A secret cabal of Jewish bankers is diabolically manipulating the world towards world-wide communism.
      Space aliens secretly comprise 10% of Earthings, and are twisting us and them towards the day when they will enslave and eat us all!
      The Earth is hollow, with a vast array of large, powerful beings living underneath us.
      Being part of a TINY-TINY elite of humans who know the “secret truth” is the other element of your serious whack… Paranoia, and “special elite knowledge”… The later is evidence of mania, of egomania… Some serious self-examination on your part, would be in order!

      You can show Rob Misek an endless parade of well-documented history books about the holocaust, interviews with a few survivors, and video of walking tours of holocaust museums and preserved genocide sites (gas chambers etc), photos of starved corpses stacked cordwood-style…
      And Rob Misek will “summarize” for you, saving,
      “OK, sure, I’ve heard that before! Ha!…
      ‘Mustache Man Bad’ hyped propaganda!”

      1. There is not one shred of physical evidence of the holocaust AND all the evidence that refutes it is a crime to recognize in every nation where it exists.

        Go back to looting scaredy bigot.

        1. And THERE you go, comment readers! Do not believe ONE damned thing that you read, as written by this self-deluded, psychotic writer!

          All the folks you meet who SAY that they lost friends and family in the Holocaust? They are ALL liars, 'cause Rob the NAZI says so!

          WHO do you want to believe; all of written history, or the drunk under the overpass, writing in from the public library?

          1. Oh, goody! Scumbag bigot and the spaz arguing.

            1. Sevo has NO facts to add to the argument! Other than, as usual, the "fact" that ALL are INFERIOR to Sevo!

              So… Sevo is on the rag AGAIN today! Has it ever occurred to you, you could spend your time more efficiently, by letting us know when you are NOT on the rag?

            2. "Let them fight."

              Somewhere else, ideally, but you can't have everything. (Where would you put it?)

              1. Yes, but it fucking turns my stomach to agree with SQRLSY One on any topic whatsoever. It is proof positive that even a blind (and retarded) squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

                1. Hey scaredy bigot, the cure for the perpetual butterflies in your stomach is to read the book and consider the evidence.

                  The truth isn’t going anywhere.

                  1. "The truth isn’t going anywhere."

                    Strange is seems to have eluded you. Maybe like finding your ass, you need both hands and a road-map. Scumbag bigots are stupid that way.

                2. "Yes, but it fucking turns my stomach to agree with SQRLSY One on any topic whatsoever. It is proof positive that even a blind (and retarded) squirrel finds an acorn once in a while."

                  I guess it's possible, and I'll agree if you're willing to do a pull-quote, but the spaz' comments are rarely even comprehensible, so you'll forgive me if I assume he's just loaded a new pile of copy-diarrhea on us.

        2. There is not one shred of physical evidence of the holocaust"

          Wait, what?
          My grandpa was Canadian Infantry assigned to the British 11th as a translator when they took Bergen-Belsen. He had to translate for both the victims and the guards. He died 14 years ago but always said what he saw was worse than what they say and what you can imagine.
          He was not a liar or the type to exaggerate.

          1. Where exactly was he and what specifically did he testify that he personally witnessed that proves anyone was gassed by cyanide as is required to confirm the holocaust story?

            Dead bodies are a dime a dozen in war.

            1. There's no scientific evidence proving Rommel was ever in North Africa, stormfag. But guess what? He was.

              Arbitrarily ignoring the historical record and worshipping the God of the gaps? Do it everywhere or do it nowhere.

            2. For instance, he saw emaciated corpses stacked like cord wood with a few still breathing kids in same the pile for good measure.

              But it's pointless for me to go any further, because from your reply I can see that you're not actually even remotely interested in listening. You think you've been redpilled, but you're really just another form of indoctrinated stooge. I may as well be talking to a prog.

              1. Yet you have the opportunity but won’t consider the evidence that refutes the holocaust.

                That makes you the bigot by definition. You’re afraid to, scaredy-bigot.

                Read the book,
                Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality.


                1. Fuck off, you gullible fool.

                  I've heard shit first hand from a man I trust implicitly.
                  He was born on the Canadian prairies and both he and my grandmother were 100% Palatinate Lutheran stock and not particularly philosemitic. He had no reason to lie to me about his experiences.

                  I don't need to read your conspiratorial horseshit to know you're full of it.

                  1. But he has a link to a BOOK! Who are you gonna believe, your own grandfather, or someone prestigious enough to have a BOOK? I mean, it's not like they let just anyone write a book, right? Lol

                    1. You know who else wrote a book?

              2. Well mother’s lament.

                There is no point in debating an anti Semite.

                This is what they want. We all know around here what kind of person we are dealing with.

                Now watch him try to bait me.

                1. You just demonstrated bigotry.

                  Read the book. Consider the evidence.

                  1. Here's a review of that book from a non-Nazi:

                    "A horrible and dangerous book. Kollerstrom cherrypicks himself through the history of the Holocaust, ignores evidence, presents dubious evidence and investigations from other deniers and tells outright lies.
                    No archeological evidence in Treblinka? Google archeological evidence in Treblinka.
                    Zyklon B only used as pesticide? Read Rudolf Hoess and the reports of the German perpetrators, well documented. Literally tons of documents, trials and confessions, it is truly amazing.
                    The extermination of the Jews was mostly done by bullets (read Holocaust by Bullets by P. Desbois and the tons of -physical- evidence). Something in Babi-Yar but I forgot. Masters of Death by Rhodes and of course the "Einzatsgruppen Trials", all conveniently forgotten in this vile book.
                    I am happy for the white supremacists who want their Aryan bias confirmed. Read "Denying the Holocaust by Michael Schermer" for a concise, patient and intelligent rebuttal of all deniers. If you don't like Israel and/or the political exploitatation of the Holocaust, read Norman Finkelstein's "The Holocaust Industry". If you are a nazi and hate jews, stick a rusty nail in your brain.
                    Your Führer is dead, get over it."

                    The pile of bullshit you refer to has been disproven many times since 1945, but scumbag bigots cling to the hope that maybe the earth really is flat after all the evidence to the contrary.
                    There are books which are definitive: They demolish all the bullshit shoveled in the past; Frank does that for those who claim 'the US was a big poopyhead for ending the war with nukes', while Shermer does the same for Nazi-apologists like scumbag Misek.
                    Sticking a rusty nail in what passes for your brain might actually help; it can't possibly harm you, since no useful organ would be involved.

                    1. He's still citing Kollerstrom? The clown that says Paul McCartney was killed in the 70's and replaced by a double?

                    2. I did not know that, but I do not find it surprising.
                      Supposedly 'refuting' Frank, you'll find claims that 'Halsey opposed the use of the nukes'. Yes, and Halsey had no knowledge of the strategic choices involved.
                      Similarly, Stimson 'opposed their use', but could offer no alternative.
                      Whiners are amazingly easy to find; separating the whining from the facts takes some work, and it's certain that Misek is not only not willing to do so, but us unable.

            3. Here's a penny. Kill yourself and keep the change.

              1. You’re the terrified one dipshit.

                Read the book.

                1. "Read my pamphlet"

                2. "Read the book."

                  As mentioned above, there are books which, absent new evidence, factually refute nonsense such as our scumbag bigot offers.
                  Of all people, read Judt ("Post War") to find why 'social democracy' is doomed; given that it steals a bit less money than plain, old socialism does, it'll last longer, but the internal contradictions leave the result in no doubt.
                  Tooze lays to rest the claim that the Nazis didn't 'employ women' in the war effort. Bullshit; they took over the farms when their husbands were handed a rifle, while the Nazis ended up trading the body fat of the population to steal potatoes for conversion to fuel.
                  Similarly, Shermer beats on scumbag Nazi apologists like Misek by citing Nazi records, and does so clearly and completely; scumbag bigots like Misek are ignoramuses, liars or both.
                  I've wasted time reading three or four books opposing the use of the nukes to end WWII; every one of the arguments presented was demolished by Frank, largely citing Japanese comm. Now, unless it is published AFTER Downfall, and the reviews suggest it's worth a look, it no longer gets a read; I'm tired of reading the same lies over and over..
                  This screed was published in 2014, and the positive reviews cite nothing which Shermer has not already debunked.
                  Stuff the book up your ass, scumbag bigot; that's not a "book"; it's a shit-pile of propaganda for assholes like you.

                  1. Ooops:
                    Tooze - "Wages of Destruction"

                    1. And Shermer - “Denying the Holocaust"
                      Stuff your Nazi apologies up your ass, Misek. Your head is hoping for some company.

                  2. Too afraid to review the evidence for yourself eh scaredy bigot?

                    1. "Too afraid to review the evidence for yourself eh scaredy bigot?"

                      Too stupid to read what I wrote, Nazi apologist?

            4. "Dead bodies are a dime a dozen in war."

              To Nazis like you, they were more expensive and worth it, since your self-worth was based on the assumption that all those folks who constantly made an ass of you must be wrong.
              Yep, every time you hoped for a promotion, some guy who had a vaguely Jewish name beat you out of it. Nope, couldn't be that you're a fucking loser who is forever looking for someone else to blame!
              Nope, you're not a fucking whiny loser; you're a *VICTIM* of those people who laugh at you .
              Yes, they do, you pathetic piece of shit. "They", like the rest of us laugh at your whiny claims at being a *VICTIM* of those who are Jewish.
              Fuck off and die.

              1. You apparently want to argue for yourself in favour of your holocaust narrative.

                But you refuse to review and consider for yourself the evidence that refutes it.

                That makes you a brainwashed scaredy bigot.

    2. Chauvin’s not charged with that, so no prosecutor needs to prove that it was about Floyd being black. He’s charged with manslaughter and third-degree murder.

      In the court of opinion, it’s already pretty much decided, whether it’s true or not. Might not be true. He might just be an asshole sadist jonesing to put his knee on the neck of people of all colors.

      1. So it’s not about racism, huh.

        Someone should tell the media and the looters.

        1. Chauvin probably is racist. But, who knows, maybe he is just sadistic.

          The wider context of why African-American people are protesting is about racism.

          And the rioting, as contrasted to peaceful protesting, is a whole ‘nother thing which I’m not going to defend.

          1. You’re “not going to defend” rioting.

            Big whoop.

            What was the point of your reply to my comment?

            1. To annoy a commenter who is clearly a racist.

              1. Yeah..... racists hang out at all the time...

                What an idiot.

              2. You’re nothing more than a self admitted troll.

                1. "You’re nothing more than a self admitted troll."

                  You're nothing other than a self-admitted Nazi.

                  1. You’re a full of shit retard. Truth is completely foreign to you.

                    I have never admitted to being a national socialist. That rhetoric is your delusion.

    3. Look at the pathetic scaredy bigots, too afraid to consider the evidence that refutes your cherished bogeyman narrative. Do you also believe in Santa Claus?

      The truth isn’t going anywhere. You’ll be brainwashed terrified fools until you let go of your bigotry and consider the counter evidence.

      I’m pleased with the optics of this dialogue.

      1. Look at the scumbag Nazi apologist who has been handed his hat many times claiming that the hat was really tasty.
        Do you think anyone other than Nazi scumbags like you believes you are other than a Nazi apologist?
        Did you read, up-thread, where you cites of 'a book' were shown to be so much bullshit?
        "The truth isn’t going anywhere."
        Perhaps not but going nowhere seems to leave you wondering where to find it.
        Stuff your Nazism up your ass, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

      2. What you completely fail to recognize is that justice can’t exist in a environment of censorship of evidence whether by self (scaredy bigot) or by the state (every nation where the evidence exists).

        All rational argument, logic and science depend on this overriding principle.

        What is your rationale for disregarding this principle in regards to the false holocaust narrative? Fear?

  7. So what's your solution here' Boehm? Are we going to let people riot, destroy private property and threaten (in some cases enact) violence towards the citizens that want nothing to do with the protests? Are you incapable of being honest enough to admit that many of these people are outright committing felonies? Are you going to go with the rest of the media's narrative that this isn't an isolated anecdotal occurrence between a few individual policy officers and an individual that was treated absolutely deplorably?

    Nope, you going to join the choir and say that this was a collectivist sin against all people with a certain skin color and that any collectivist justice distributed anyway the mob sees fit is more than justified. I hate cops as much as anyone, but to pretend like the mobs are in the right here is utterly ridiculous. Many of these protests are demonstrably not peaceful and are threats to the life, liberty and property of the 98% of us who aren't indiscriminately committing arson and theft in the name of justice. Since private police forces are outlawed and the state has given themselves a monopoly on violence, they are the only resort for the rest of us that aren't prepared to let society die on this particular hill. Considering what the first 24 hours in Minneapolis looked like, it would be pretty hard to argue that riot gear (as "militarized as it may be") seems kind of hard to argue against.

    Why don't you try taking the libertarian stance. The individual officers involved in the murder need personal accountability and should be tried in court and punished in the harshest way possible. The people burning businesses to the ground and threatening violence against thousands of people who had nothing to do with this isolated incident need personal accountability and should be tried in court and punished in the harshest way possible.

    1. You don’t seem very speechless.

      1. I'm glad your name was the first to pop up after his comment.


        1. Thanks, Nardz!

          1. I was mostly applauding speechless, but your handle was the perfect response to his post, and yours was clever enough... so you get some of it too

    2. TARIFFS BAD. Burning down business is okay.

    3. The short-term solution: Applied Civics. Use the second amendment. Armed civilians guarding businesses and homes against mobs of looters. The citizenry are empowered to protect themselves and their property against people who would destroy or steal it. Form posses and reduce the application of uniformed agents of the state, who become symbols of the thing people are rallying against.

      The long term solution is police accountability. Shred qualified immunity so that we can actually start seeing police held liable for their reckless actions. Get rid of all these police training courses that teach them how to be Dirty Harry. Weaken the police union, and end civil asset forfeiture. And for fuck's sake, charge the other three officers on scene as accessories for the murder of George Floyd-they have a duty to intervene when someone is being restrained and is clearly in distress.

      1. Of course curfews preclude the first thing, and we've seen no significant political moves towards the second thing in years. I agree that riots and looting is bad, but trying to squash them using police is gonna make things worse before they get better.

        1. You can boil this down to two realistic options broadly speaking.

          You can let extremists commit arson, burglary, theft and assault against innocent civilians and completely undermine the value of self ownership and personal accountability. Make no mistake, these people will get away scott free after committing dozens of felonies each.

          Or you can have the police stop try to stop and arrest them.

          As soon as violence breaks out, if you consider yourself a peaceful protester, your duty and self interest lie in getting yourself out of harms way. You risk violence from the mob as much as the cops. You can and should take the stance that both the cops and the violent protesters are in the wrong, but your not helping by giving the felons a crowd to blend in with.

          1. There are rather a lot more than just those two options. You could, for example:

            - Encourage innocent citizens to take action to protect themselves. (ThinkingMan's proposal above)
            - Have the police actually try to solve and stop real crimes rather than shooting people on their own porches or pepper-spraying people who have already surrendered
            - Use legitimate anti-riot tactics which encourage the dispursement of crowds rather than intentionally bottling them up

            Your claim that peaceful protestors have a duty to leave as soon as violence breaks out fails as an operational tactic because it lets any bully exercise a heckler's veto over your protest. Peaceful protestors do not have a duty to leave. Peaceful protestors who choose to remain in harms way in the name of their causes should be celebrated for their heroism (whether or not you agree with their particular cause). They are the only ones standing up for rights that protect the rest of us. If police can't target just the felons without catching the rest of us in the constitutional crossfire, that's the police's failing, not the protestors'.

            1. Thanks for the response Rossami, you always have very thoughtful posts and I enjoy reading them. Just to push back a little bit, I think there are still issues with with some of the other options. None of this exists in a vacuum and a lot of this is much easier said than done.

              - I agree that citizens should take action to protect themselves using the 2nd amendment, however, if that is deployed at a level where it is a replacement for police, at some point that is going to go wrong and an innocent person will be murdered. We, as advocates for that position also need to realize that most of the media is against us and will use any instance like that as an excuse to attempt to bring further restrictions to our rights to defend ourselves. Oddly their fine with bricks harming people and property, but bullets are beyond the pale.
              - Again, this isn't in a vacuum and the real criminals are using the real protester as cover. The real protesters are potentially in as much danger from the rioters as they are from the cops. This isn't a matter of merely separating the wheat from the chaff. It all looks like wheat by the rioter's design. To be clear, I'm not okay with the cops harming people on their porches and if we can identify individual officers doing anything illegal, they should be tried. This issue is the most complicated since both the cops and the protesters are trying to blend in with their side to skirt accountability. There's no good solution let alone a perfect one.
              - You can try to disperse crowds with "legitimate" riot tactics, but people are going to still choose not to disperse and even with the "safe" tactics, people are going to get hurt.

              I still think people have a duty to leave once violence breaks out. The heckler's veto has already won at that point, but allowing the real perpetrators to escape and continue violence at future protests is harmful to the cause. I appreciate the sentiment the police's response catching innocents in the crossfire is the police's failing. The truth is that like almost everything in life, accountability must fall to everyone for their choices. Choosing to keep yourself in harm's way to make a symbolic point that no one will realistically hear doesn't strike me as heroic, it strikes me as unwise and frankly a little vain. Live to fight another day is usually the best tactic if you really want to be peaceful.

      2. You're right about just about everything you said. However, everything in your second paragraph is a tall order to put incredibly mildly. The state and it's actors will always be looking for any opportunities to skirt accountability and they make the rules.

        1. Oh, I know the second paragraph is a tall order. People from multiple sides to the issue would object to the changes necessary for it. Judges are in bed with cops in many ways so they're often upholding qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture, while legislatures are in bed with the unions and won't move to weaken them.

          But it's the path that is necessary and would prove much more effective than screaming "end racism" every time the victim of police brutality has the wrong skin color. It requires some actual consideration of the issues and is therefore more complicated to talk about, which ruins any attempts to score points through cheap sound-bytes. It is what needs to happen unless we want to endure an actual revolution and dismantle the whole system.

          1. I hope some of that reform actually materializes from all this violence, unfortunately I've only really ever seen things go one way. Most of these people will go to the voting both and not only continue to keep the very people that are harming them in power, they will give them more power under the never-realized promise that this time, things will go differently.

    4. punished in the harshest way possible

      It's the libertarian way.

    5. It's just the typical idiocy of Boehmovement.

  8. Reporters who were on the scene to cover protests in many cities were not spared. Cops in Minneapolis shot rubber bullets at an MSNBC camera crew during a live shot with reporter Ali Velshi, fired tear gas at reporters, and reportedly shot out the windows of a car driven by a Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter, bloodying the man inside.

    And here I had nearly concluded that cops are entirely useless. Thanks for a bit of upbeat news!

    1. Yeah. My only complaint is that they didbn't Velshi twice.

      I kid.

      I wish the protestors did it instead.

  9. No one is safe right now in our best and brightest deep blue cities. Truck drivers are being hijacked (I believe one was killed), firefighters need protection, medical deliveries, hospital workers and public utility repair, all afraid for their lives and families.

    Boehm, it takes a special kind of hipster asshole to keep throwing gasoline on the flames of violence and hatred with this kind of post.

    1. clickbait post

  10. Lord, propaganda sinks deep.

    1. "Lord, propaganda sinks deep."

      Given your demonstrated abysmal ignorance, you hope any one here even imagines you are capable of recognizing "propaganda"?
      Fuck off, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

  11. Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis

    1. Biden supports white supremacists, eh?

      *remembers Biden's "You ain't black" comment*

      Yeah, it fits his M.O.

      1. Says the guy who encourages everyone to let their biggest, baddest-assed dogs loose in public spaces, off of their leashes, to dog-poop everywhere, AND terrorize the humans and the wildlife! 'Cause freedom and stuff! 'Cause Nature, red in tooth and claw, treasures the RIGHTS of your vicious dogs, over EVERYTHING else!

        1. You sure have a thing for poop.

        2. "Says the guy who encourages everyone to let their biggest, baddest-assed dogs loose in public spaces"

          The guy who cannot stand dogs? This guy? OK, Karen.

          Hey, if you want to popularize your hybrid fascist-Libertarianism, more power to you.

          "off of their leashes, to dog-poop everywhere, AND terrorize the humans and the wildlife!"

          The same guy who said he'd happily and with literally zero qualms shoot any moron's dog who steps foot on my property? This guy? OK, Karen.

          As far as wildlife...nature isn't always pleasant and friendly.

          "Cause Nature, red in tooth and claw, treasures the RIGHTS of your vicious dogs, over EVERYTHING else!"

          The guy who, again, said he doesn't like dogs and finds them irritating at best? This guy?

          OK Karen.

          1. The guy who just yesterday bitches about barking dogs who bark and annoy people in his neighborhood... But then turns around to defend the Karens who let their dogs loose in public spaces, off of their leashes, against the law! The law should arbitrarily be WHATEVER way Damikesc wants them to be! "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is OK when loose dogs annoy or kill wildlike in public parks... Don't spend MY tax money enforcing THAT... But, "Nature, red in tooth and claw" had better NOT bark loudly in MY neighborhood! C'mere, cops, and shut those dogs UP!

            SOME people around here care ONLY about what THEY arbitrarily decide to care about, and, ALL other concerns of ALL others? Who THEY don't care about? To include even the very most basics about species diversity on the planet? If my grandkids NEVER get to see ONE SINGLE WILD BIRD on the planet, I, on my throne of today, do NOT care!

            Then we wonder why "libertarians" gain NO traction...

            1. OK Karen.

    A reminder to Democrats: after the 1968 riots and the broader explosion in crime that followed, Republicans won five of the next six Presidential elections (would have been all six if not for Watergate). CIVIL UNREST AND CRIME ARE TERRIBLE FOR PROGRESSIVE POLICIES.

      For students of history this feels very much like the Chicago riots of 1968 at the Democratic National Convention, except all over the country. Richard Nixon won election in 1968. These rioters and looters may very well have re-elected Donald Trump tonight.

      1. That’s some solid logic.

    2. A reminder: the violent crime rate in the US had already been going up. significantly, every year, since 1963, In fact, it nearly doubled between 1963 and 1968.

    Mayor Frey Gives Masks to Rioters But Says Opening Churches Would Be a 'Public Health Disaster'
    BY RICK MORAN MAY 30, 2020 10:06 AM EST

  14. Baltimore Mayor: ‘Gave Those Who Wished to Destroy Space to Do That’

    Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake held a press conference Saturday alongside community and religious leaders and asked for peace as hundreds marched in Baltimore in honor of Freddie Gray.

    But when one reporter asked to comment on how Baltimore police responded to the protestors she said she instructed officers to allow protestors to express themselves and that “we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

    Here’s her full comment:

    “I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

    1. So destruction of other peoples property is now free speech

  15. Of course the government must adhere to the law even during riots. If they don't, it's R-O-N-G wrong.

    But they should do right for its own sake, not under the assumption that doing right will appease the violent element.

    Which this article seems to suggest.

    BREAKING: rioters pull a black man out of his car and begin beating him on the streets In Dallas

    1. Good point to begin investigation.
      Also the agitorg document posted in that thread

      1. Damn it.
        Comment was meant for post about paying agitators

    2. Heart of Downtown Dallas.

      Not someplace I'd have chosen to be last night. Poor guy.

  17. On one side you have thugs taking advantage of a crowd to loot and burn. On the other, you have some cops trying to prove the demonstrators point. The people caught in the middle, the business owners and all are the ones being punished.

    You all don't see it but heres part of the antifa scum handing money to black kids to cause trouble. This is in my state capital of Columbus Ohio. How will be hurt because of these people

    Instead of suppressing lawless mobs, some states are bearing down on the real villains: people going to church.
    Quote Tweet

    Jason Calvi
    · 5h
    CHURCH FINES? Several Madison, WI priests say health officials warned about a $1,000 fine if they had more than 50 people at Mass today. One posted this letter, saying they were lead to believe “government watchers” would be present:


    This is Patrick Underwood. I have friends that knew him personally. He was murdered by rioters in Oakland last night. This gets very little airtime. My heart is broken. I guess it’s not the right narrative.

      #BREAKING: The Federal Protective Service officer who died Friday night after suffering from a gunshot wound in #Oakland amid protests has been identified as 53-year-old Patrick Underwood of Pinole, according to a family member.

  21. I can't believe Reason is siding with the criminals defying law and order, the bedrock principle of an orderly society, against the good people attempting to maintain an orderly and peaceful society. I hope those cops take down every last one of those law defying bastards. And once they've taken down the Antifa/BLM bastards spreading their hate and intolerance all around, they can go after those criminal bastard libertarians that are defying the stay-at-home orders and spreading the coronavirus all around because that's just how much I support law and order and support the equal application of the law.

    1. ...waiting for OUTRAGED responses, with bated breath, from the 0.000154% of REAL libertarians in the commentariat, who also don't fully know that Jerryskids is skidding the light fantastic, of groovy-trip-alistic sarcasm...

      1. Wow, a post where you didn't obsess over poop. Good job. Therapy is working well for you, Karen.

        1. Karen-defender defends Karen, whose dog SHOULD be allowed to run roughshod over EVERYONE! Pampered suburban dogs pooping all over everything, biting people and wildlife? Hey, man, get FUNKY!!! Live life on the WILD side! Nature, red in tooth and claw? Admirable, heroic! Except when the bad-dogs bark near MY house, THEN we have a problem worth spending tax money on!

          Me-me-me-me-me-me-MEEEE!!! Is all that matters to the Karens and Karen-defenders!

          1. OK Karen.

    2. sarcasmic-tier D-

  22. The sad thing is that so many people are letting others play them into the standard Red v Blue divide. To start, it is absolutely absurd to watch a twitter video of democratic cops- in a democratic city, protected by unions empowered by democratic policies and sheltered by democratic mayors- strangle a citizen, and then see every reply talking about how this is Trump's fault.

    That said, those who are jumping in with the Law and Order thing are allowing Antifa to set the agenda for them. There have been thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters. And then hundreds of Antifa assholes show up and start breaking shit. Why is that the peaceful protesters' fault?

    Think for just a minute. The protesters and pretty much every member of the conservative movement would love to see the policies enacted by these Democrat mayors to be dismantled. But Antifa is ensuring that conservatives will never trust the peaceful protesters and that the peaceful protesters never find any relief for peaceful protesting.

    I come from the right. I grew up in a military town where I was a major law and order voter. But about 5 years ago I realized just how wrong this is. I don't hold the peaceful protesters on the right responsible for the stupid white supremacists who try to start shit up, and we should not let the asshole Antifa people derail those people on the left who want to talk. If we do judge either side by those extremists, we will never make any headway- we will only get the race/class war that they want.

    1. There have been thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters. And then hundreds of Antifa assholes show up and start breaking shit. Why is that the peaceful protesters’ fault?

      Its not. People who actually give a damn about police brutality should be cheering the move against Antifa if Antifa is going to get their peaceful protests associated with mob violence.

    2. I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying. Large numbers (perhaps the vast majority) of the protesters don't deserve the police violence. Here's the problem. As soon as Antifa or any other groups intent on committing violence, destruction and chaos show up, those peaceful protester are already in physical danger. To allow Antifa to knowingly take advantage of this and use the peaceful people as human shields by telling the police to just stand down is most definitely not a solution either. The only way the cops can police the situation is to treat the entire crowd equally and Antifa wants that situation to play out for the optics. In other words, I don't believe most protesters or cops want violence, but there is another group of actors that most certainly do and they know exactly how to get it. If you can figure out a way to make sure Antifa are the only ones getting tear gassed to prevent buildings from burning to the ground and innocent people from being beaten in the streets by violent extremist groups, I'm all ears.

      1. This has echos of the "few bad apples" defense of police.

        If you are going to paint the protestors under the same broad brush (even if understandably so), why not the police who have failed to police their own? Given the circumstances, the protestors have no reason to give the police the benefit of the doubt, so treat all of them as Derek Chauvin?

        1. This defense completely ignores the most important part of the equation. The people and property that want nothing to do with any of it. I said that most protesters are probably the peaceful sort. The violent ones are using them for human shields to avoid accountability thus putting the peaceful people in danger. If the violence and fires breakout before the police even do anything back, it is your duty as one of the peaceful ones to get out of there for your own safety and to expose real criminals who are harming people in ways that are every bit as unjust as what you're protesting.

      2. Nope, the police need to stand down and let the rioters burn the city down around their ears. I'm actually being serious. This is a no win situation, and the best outcome is the rioters getting bad enough optics that the public at large turns against them. You fight back and you're the bad guy here.

        1. You might just be right about that

        2. "You fight back and you’re the bad guy here."

          Jake Gardner of Omaha, is finding this out now.

          'Course, he might actually be a bad guy. Hard to say from that video at that link. His pre-incident social media posts about shooting rioters are not going to do him any favors.

      3. Most people didn't care about the tea tax. There were just 20 or so guys who dumped some in the Boston harbor and the game was afoot!

    3. There have been thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters. And then hundreds of Antifa assholes show up and start breaking shit. Why is that the peaceful protesters’ fault?

      If they provide cover, which they usually do because everybody knows that's how hard left protests work, then of course it's their fault.

      1. I come from the right. I grew up in a military town where I was a major law and order voter.

        Okay. You probably just honestly don't understand the dynamics at these things.

  23. Current hive mind response to Antifa being labeled a terrorist organization is complaints that Obama never designated the KKK as one. Well, that is part of the KKK never being designated as a terrorist organization.

    The KKK is, what, half FBI plants already?

    1. The other half is just regular local law enforcement.

    2. You could probably hold a convention of all the genuine KKK members in the men's washroom at an Arby's.

      1. That's actually the best place to look for them. Only monsters eat at Arby's.

  24. If you're organizing a legitimate, peaceful protest - and every protest has turned into a riot for several days straight, what are you really doing?
    Your intent doesn't matter when you know the outcome will be rioting and looting.
    And at this point, what the fuck are you protesting?
    General unfairness?
    Collective original sin?
    Nobody think Floyd was anything but murdered. The killer has been arrested.
    Sorry, but none of these "protests" going forward can be seen as legitimate

    1. ^was supposed to be reply to overt

    2. I reject this attempt to put collective responsibility on peaceful protesters. I'm sorry. If every time your group organizes, a bunch of assholes show up to mess it up, they are infringing on my right to protest just as much as the right for others to be secure in their property.

      1. Sure, you have the right to protest.
        But just because you have the right to do so doesn't mean you can shirk the responsibility for known consequences.
        And the known consequence in this case is that all protesters are providing cover for rioters and looters.
        If you're willing to do that to also protest, fine. But it's not necessarily a respectable choice.
        There are 3 choices available:
        1) don't protest, or leave as soon as destruction begins
        2) continue protesting and thereby provide cover for rioters and looters
        3) continue protesting, and forcibly stop violence and destruction from your ranks by detaining and/or turning over anybody whose actions you don't want to be associated with
        You have to figure out which is the best choice for you, but you have responsibility for whatever choice you make and the logical consequences of your action.

        1. They've started fires in Lafayette Park, and broke into a historic church there specifically to start a fire in the basement.
          Looks like it's going to burn down, because the firefighters won't be able to get to it.

  25. Is it wrong to note that many of the people so pissed off about police brutality...want the only people to have guns to be the police?

    Seems like an exceptionally poor idea and I'd love to see Kamala Harris attempt to thrash her way to an explanation for it.

  26. Hmmm...
    Throw millions of people out of work, mandate that they be imprisoned in their homes, strike a spark and then be surprised at the result!
    You taxes at work!

    1. The media know the two real culprits here. Capitalism and Trump, just like every single problem in the world. Nevermind which parties run the cities that are always dreaming up new frivolous laws that all but guarantee increased hostile contact between the citizenry and the political class's personal armed guard.

      1. As was pointed out elsewhere, the Republicans have a lot to answer for in Atlanta, having had their last mayor in...1879.

        Man, that is some long-term damage from that one term governor 141 years ago.

  27. Am I seeing two of the NYC vids correctly? There's a metal barrier up to close an intersection, and the police drove thru that barrier into people in the closed intersection?

    1. The protestors moved that barrier to block the car. It was not there originally.

    2. This isn't a video game. You can't carry around a barricade to get +10 shield protection.

  28. I know that libertarians (nor do I -AT ALL) don’t support violent expression or destruction of property, but what are the overall thoughts of people finally getting angry enough with the government to do something?

    Peaceful protests worked in the 60’s, but the oligarchs got smart, and realized that with media 24/7 and society becoming easy to divide and distract, people developed the attention span of gnats, and as soon as we started to get upset about some wrong, violence against the people, pointless wars, unnecessary spending, or infringement on our rights or encroachment upon the constitution, they would just distract us with the next story, headline, or outrage. Taking a knee or holding up signs does nothing, voting just replaces one jerk for another. Nothing has improved since the 60’s regarding our freedoms, or the governments benefit to the country.

    Police have become increasingly violent towards the people (of all colors, but also to minorities and blacks). The militarization of the police has been happening for years. They will ticket you or arrest you for not having a permit to have a lemonade stand. LEO’s may be great individually, but on duty, they are agents of the government. Like the Milgrom experiment proved, people will hurt others if they believe they are following orders.

    Is anyone excited about the idea that maybe people are finally waking up and seeing past the smoke and mirrors, the division and distraction, to realize that this was not the country that our founding fathers intended?

    1. Everyone rioting is part of the majority party in the city their protesting. Maybe they could try not voting for the people passing the stupid laws.

    2. "Peaceful protests worked in the 60’s"

      Is this supposed to be some sort of sarcasm?

      Because protest in the '60's were often far from peaceful, and more importantly were often from the same class of people, often protesting the same issues, and often involved large amounts of arson and looting.

      1. It's a media matters concern troll

        1. I’m not a troll. I’m a “small l” libertarian. I’m in a few libertarian groups on other sites, but I only come here and post occasionally. I consider myself a constitutional conservative and classic liberal (Hope, Locke, Smith, Hayek, Mill, Mises, etc.)

    3. I don't know that people are waking up, at least not since Tuesday. This seems like as soon as it became about race and nothing else, it went back to the same old argument with the same sides just dialed up to 11. I hope I'm wrong.

      But riots just excuse more oppression. Maybe it changes votes come November, but I find that hard to justify. Ideally, people would take a two-pronged and far more focused action: 1. Record and vigorously pursue police wrongdoing in the courts. Not just sue, but also produce expert witnesses against those officers any time they bring a defendant to trial. Keep a national database, etc. 2. Start conducting citizens arrests on officers that we know broke the law. In states that allow them, pursue private prosecutions. Police WILL meet this with violence, so do it carefully, strictly by the law, and with plenty of backup.

      Unfortunately, I don't see either happening. Courts will shut down the former on some BS or another, and the latter will never be sufficiently organized to avoid people just getting blasted in the face by the cops' buddies.

      So at the end of the day, we are left with nothing feasible except incremental and inadequate changes through political action. Unless, of course, police themselves start to fix the issue... but they won't. Our courts and police unions have screwed the country over for at least another decade.

  29. Violence and looting aside, and ONLY referring to protests, as a libertarian, I am sometimes perplexed by conservatives; they support a smaller less powerful government, they strongly believe in gun ownership and being able to protect themselves, but then they also support the police and the military no matter what, even when they are being used by the government to limit our constitutional rights and get us into more needless wars.

    They generally don’t support protests, and tend to label anyone that speaks out a liberal, left-wing or Antifa. Conservatives didn’t support protests in the 60’s and labeled them all hippies. They didn’t support peaceful protests of occupy Wall Street, even after 2008 when no one on Wall Street went to jail, and the
    average American was hurt worse than anyone on Wall Street. Do they want a smaller government or more overreach? Why can’t people peacefully protest and always criticize and question ANYONE in power?

    Is anyone ok with getting a ticket for a lemonade stand without a permit (or permission from our overlords), or cops shooting family pets (there are videos all over YouTube), or disregarding eminent domain or civil asset forfeiture? They have been slowly eroding our rights for decades. The patriot act only accelerated that.

    Cops work for the government to enforce their rules, no matter how petty, not to serve and protect. That is just PR for LEO’s. The Supreme Court ruled in four separate cases including Rock v Menendez, that the cops have no duty to protect us or save our lives. They are government enforcers, and give out tickets to make the government money. That’s why they have quotas.

    This is all part of a much larger issue of government encroachment upon our Constitutional rights, and becoming too authoritarian.

    1. Perhaps you should spend more time trying to understand and less time making up straw men.

      1. Conservatives claim to hate government (they obviously don't), but for some reason they love the cops and the military. This isn't a straw man. This is fact.

    2. You weren't doing bad and then:

      "They didn’t support peaceful protests of occupy Wall Street, even after 2008 when no one on Wall Street went to jail,"

      Are you trying for the gold in the conclusion-jumping event; who should have gone to jail and why?

      1. Sevo - who should have gone to jail? Bankers, mortgage brokers and investment bankers who purposely targeted the sub-prime mortgage market, lumped the mortgage-backed securities and CDO’s and securities and sold them.

        “ As for Goldman, on July 15, 2010, the SEC settled with Goldman for $550 million. Goldman Sachs did not admit any wrongdoing. The SEC wrung an apology out of the bank, which the agency perceived as scoring a victory that critics called inadequate.

        It would be the only SEC action brought against the bank for its actions in this corner of the mortgage securities markets just before the meltdown, although a Senate investigation uncovered questionable behavior related to other Goldman mortgage securities. The Justice Department recently settled a case with Goldman that charged that the bank had misrepresented mortgage-backed securities. The bank had to pay on the order of $5 billion. The Justice Department did not charge any individuals.

        To this day, not a single banker has gone to prison for crimes during the last credit bubble.”

        I had friends of friends in the mortgage and banking in 2005-2008, and I would literally watch them use white out and forge W2’s, and when I would question them, they would laugh and explain that they made more money off of subprime loans, and that they would put the yield spread points on the back end, and let the banks hold the bag (Which was really the taxpayers).

        1. afk05
          May.31.2020 at 11:32 pm
          "Sevo – who should have gone to jail? Bankers, mortgage brokers and investment bankers who purposely targeted the sub-prime mortgage market, lumped the mortgage-backed securities and CDO’s and securities and sold them..."

          Thank you for proving that you are both an ignoramus and are willing to make claims with no evidence whatsoever.
          Can we assume you're a, perhaps sophomore majoring in liberal arts?
          Your bullshit claims sound pretty closely zeroed in on that cohort.

          1. Liberal arts? I thought this was a libertarian site. Last I checked, libertarians support free markets, removing regulations that limit competition and prosecuting thrives that steal our money.

            You do realize that the Fed started buying junk corporate bonds weeks ago, and now even ETF’s, right? Are we really going to still pretend that we have free markets?

            Are you going to defend banks, who control the government, financially engineering and then getting government bailouts? I recommend Nomi Prins’ “All the Presidents Bankers” for great research into the collusion between banks and the government that dates back over a century.

    3. " but then they also support the police and the military no matter what"

      Not hyperbolic in the least.

      1. ThomasD- it seems a common theme on Fox is to always support police no matter what. Perhaps that is a bit hyperbolic, but it’s not like it’s a completely false generalization. You are correct though, as I myself am a fiscal conservative, but certainly don’t align with the more standard republican.

        If SOME conservatives support smaller, less powerful governments, support 2A and proudly protect and defend themselves, then why the general lack of any criticism for bad cops (Or more accurately worded, defense of cops overall), or the system that allows that behavior and those actions to continue? It seems contradictory.

        1. Dunno.
          Why do you keep dragging strawmen around?

    4. You nailed the shit out them, afk05. Look at how they can't even respond because they know what you said is true. You got 2 or 3 lame non-responses because there's nothing they can really say.

      1. Thanks juice! Either they want smaller government or more police, you cant have both. Also, unions protect cops, but conservatives are supposed to be opposed to unions, except for cops??? The only unions should be voluntary - and only powerful enough to negotiate for more pay or benefits.

        Complete contradiction to suit their narrative.

    5. "...I am sometimes perplexed by conservatives; they support a smaller less powerful government, they strongly believe in gun ownership and being able to protect themselves, but then they also support the police and the military no matter what..."

      You missed the definition of a Libertarian: a person who believes in socializing the protection of their stuff, but nothing else 🙂

  30. If cops show up to today's protests looking for another fight—or behaving like an occupying army—they are likely to create one.


    1. Please stop repeating tired liberal logic that would be laughed out of any court. If someone escalated a situation and you responded by looting someone else's property by hurting anyone who had nothing to do with your spat, that's on you. That's the kind of personal responsibility and autonomy upon libertarianism was built upon - or it was anyways.

      Cops show up in riot gears because the protesters are rioting. If they declare the assembly unlawful because they overstayed curfew and the protesters respond by saying "Nah I don't want to go", they're the ones with create a confrontation.

      A lot of these rioters have now been designated as domestic terrorists. If the KKK was terrorizing minority neighborhoods, they cannot claim moral high ground by citing incidents of police brutality. They would certainly get an assist from Reason.

      "Oh but George Floyd" So what? Were there riots when Justine Diamond was shot? When Obama vaporized a wedding with drone strikes? I'm so sick of the moralizing and self righteous aggrandizement from libtards who have ALWAYS framed ANYTHING in terms of racial "us vs them". You're terrorizing an entire nation in the name of a victim, it's THAT SIMPLE.

      1. "You’re terrorizing an entire nation in the name of a victim, it’s THAT SIMPLE."

        And the asshole media still calls it "protesting"

  31. What a puff piece. Reason is trying to garner support for antifa thugs destroying private property.

    1. Totally right.

  32. "And elsewhere in New York City, cops literally drove into a crowd of protesters rioters who were attacking them." - FTFY

    What a difference an easily obtained camera angle makes.

    1. Wait, you mean to say that "it is important to remember that photos and videos of clashes between protesters and police can omit critical context."

    2. Um, I don't know what you are talking about. I am looking at a bunch of people blocking a police cruiser. Some are throwing shit at the car.

      That does not give a police cruiser the right to run those people down.

      1. Just like a suspected forged $20 bill doesnt give the cops the right to arrest someone and hold a knee to his neck. $20 isn’t even worth anything anymore. I can’t walk out of the food store spending less than $150. Are we going to arrest kids for stealing a pack of chewing gum now? Don’t cops have anything better to do?

        If they gave a crap about protecting and serving, why don’t they respond unless a crime has already been committed? Why do they have quotas? They are there to make money for the government and the for-profit prison system.

  33. Somehow, somewhere all of this makes sense.
    The Joker

    Perhaps it does. I do not see it.

  34. Wasn't reason bitching just yesterday that the police weren't doing enough to protect private property? Huh, funny, seems like the commenters had Reason's number once again when noting that what Reason was really bitching about was that the police weren't be violent enough to justify the rioters violence.

    1. Motte and bailey. With Reason it is always motte and bailey, and no enemies to the left.

  35. Honestly, at this point, just let a few of these Democratic Party strongholds burn. This is their desired policies at work. They prop up the police unions and defend nefarious actors with PD's, have deemed their prized low income voting base as non-essential. It was only a matter of time before something lit the powder keg.

    I will admit, as much as I dislike NYPD, what were they supposed to do in the blockade situation? Reports that they ran people over are blatantly false. They used some force to encourage rioters to move. No one was hurt or run over.

    Who wouldn't do the same if under attack?

    1. My only concern in that scenario is that some of these people will start to move into other states as their once proud communities (snickers) become the next Detroits. NY was already losing people.

      Lots of innocent people will get hurt when these kids burn down their towns. I know it. But if enough people start to say "I'm not dealing with this anymore" maybe it would be worth it.

      1. Fifty year cycle. We're headed for the urban flight & blight of the 1970s. It'll be ten years of desolation before urban renewal becomes a popular concept again.

      2. It's not an optimal situation. Just being a jerk. Detroit was the test tube baby for failed progressive policies. Jerome Cavanagh fucked Detroit hard. It's hip to rip Coleman Young but all he did was pick the remaining bits of flesh off of a cadaver.

  36. "The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder."
    - Mayor Daley the Greater, 1968

  37. "Protesters looting private businesses, setting fire to buildings, and destroying public property do not get a pass for their actions. "

    Says the man giving them a pass by using 'protesters' instead of 'rioters'.

    1. Right on. Libertarianism IS NOT about supporting theft or crime. Boehm is a moron.

  38. It turns out the police department controlled by Democrats are awful

  39. Did anyone still believe that the cops served the people?

    The cops serve the state, to keep the people cowed and compliant serfs. Police abuse is not a bug. It is a feature.

  40. Oh, the poor little ambulance chaser got popped with a bean bag. Eric Boehm is quickly descending to the bottom of the Reason lineup. You've got rioting and looting, peabrain. My niece has an "essential" retail business in Minneapolis, but she and her husband have boarded up their store and are warding off looters with shotguns. The cops need to stop this shit. If some gawker or protestor wants to be in the middle of it, they have no business complaining if they're collateral damage.

  41. No active conspiracy proposed, but it's hard to believe the rioting has not been exacerbated by the loss of jobs, the stress of 10 weeks imprisonment and the constant pressure ('stay 6' apart, wear your snow-flake mask', etc)
    Well, we now will have a pretty direct medical experiment on willing subjects; let's see if all those un-masked and un-'distanced' protesters result in a spike in flu cases in a couple of weeks.

  42. When I was just out of school i worked for a firm that had a contract with the LA Airport Authority...I was in LA takin a cab to City Hall a few weeks after the Rodney King Riots and the cab driver told me he saw his cousin on TV looting at the Circuit City. I didn't know what to say..when he delivered the punch line..."my cousin lives in San Diego." Govt is supposed to protect your life, liberty and property as its primary reason to exist...sounds like they didn't for Mr. Floyd and now everyone else's property....

    All looters should be arrested and be forced to work off the monetary damage they have caused.

  43. While Trump was talking tough the other night on Twitter, turns out he was cowering in an underground bunker at the White House.

    What a pussy. What a loser. What a blowhard. What a fitting leader for the clingers.

    1. You know who else...

    2. So you've been out looting and burning, "Reverend"?

  44. Many of you seem to favor government except for the part that has all the guns and unaccountability. Such rare and interesting places you people find nuance.

    Also, "It's time we used 2nd amendment options to take er rerts berk!" I wonder what changed between then and now. Is it that the ones who actually got off their asses to do what you guys always threaten to do are black? I bet it's because they're black.

    1. What rights are they taking back, Tony?

      1. The right to Bust Up A Starbucks

      2. The right not to be murdered by the state without due process, for one.

    2. "Many of you seem to favor government except for the part that has all the guns and unaccountability. Such rare and interesting places you people find nuance."

      You apprehend a world far removed from reality.
      Fuck off and die.

  45. One of the places we can start is by looking at how we're deploying and utilizing SWAT teams. A lot of abuses where we see someone accidentally killed by the cops, is in a SWAT raid!

    I used to be that you would only call the SWAT if there was an escaped fugitive or a hostage situation. But in recent years, we've seen a sharp increase in their use. You will now see SWAT used to enforce residential codes and tax laws. Of all things!

    I personally think we need reform in that area. I think that police should only be allowed to deploy SWAT in two situations: Hostage situation and fugitive escaped from custody.

    Any other use of SWAT, for example for a planned raid on a drug dealer, would need approval from a judge before being allowed to use. And they can ask for that permission while getting a warrant.

    Police are going to say, "We shouldn't argue about using our own weapons and equipment." And I too would love it if police could use discussion when planning on executing a warrant, but they clearly don't.

    1. Why are they needed or desired for finding escaped fugitives?

    2. "Any other use of SWAT, for example for a planned raid on a drug dealer, would need approval from a judge before being allowed to use. And they can ask for that permission while getting a warrant."

      The judges would just rubber-stamp SWAT authorization, just as they rubber-stamp the warrants themselves.

  46. People are sick of law and order. THEY WANT JUSTICE. There is a difference. Trump tweeting about unlimited military power. God help us.

  47. Take a strict action on these type mad people

    a href="">DJ Full Form

  48. This is what happens when criminals threaten the safety and well-being of the population and their property. Some cops and national guard soldiers will make bad decisions because they are people and not robots. Best way to avoid getting hurt is to stay away from potentially violent situations. Like, don't drive your car through a riot. If you see a cop car, uh, don't surround it and threaten cops. Pretty easy rules to live by.

    1. Just follow orders and no one gets hurt.

  49. Get daily new Friendship Shayari and status click here for Dosti Shayari in Hindi

  50. Get daily new Mahakal Shayari and status click here for Mahakal Status in Hindi

  51. Stupid article. Our police have been peaceful and stood down to people spitting on them, throwing rocks/bricks/glass bottles. I would have lost it. I never thought I’d defend cops so much but this is out of control! And they have shown tremendous restraint!!

  52. You. Must. Be. Kidding. Nine times out of 10, the police have either done nothing or responded mildly after being spit on, subjected to rants of profanity, endured fighting-words taunting, and having to dodge objects thrown at them.

    Mr. Boehm should apply for a job at MSNBC. He'd fit right in.

    I am disgusted by this article.

    1. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/RDc To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

      For more detail visit the given link.......► Home Profit System

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.