Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

If you're Robert J. Contee III: get off DCUM, you have more immediate worries right now.

If you're Peter Newsham: you don't have to worry about this anymore, yay!

If you're neither Robert J. Contee III nor Peter Newsham: let MPD leadership figure it out (or don't you have confidence in their ability to do so?).

I don't think they have confidence. That's why they "thumbs downed" the Councils summer riot gear legislation. They commented extensively on their reservations. It should definitely be looked at again in light of 1/6, so we can all have confidence.

If MPD doesn't have confidence in their own ability to reliably figure out when it's a peaceful protest and when it's a riot, that's the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

If you're Robert J. Contee III: get off DCUM, you have more immediate worries right now.

If you're Peter Newsham: you don't have to worry about this anymore, yay!

If you're neither Robert J. Contee III nor Peter Newsham: let MPD leadership figure it out (or don't you have confidence in their ability to do so?).

I don't think they have confidence. That's why they "thumbs downed" the Councils summer riot gear legislation. They commented extensively on their reservations. It should definitely be looked at again in light of 1/6, so we can all have confidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

If you're Robert J. Contee III: get off DCUM, you have more immediate worries right now.

If you're Peter Newsham: you don't have to worry about this anymore, yay!

If you're neither Robert J. Contee III nor Peter Newsham: let MPD leadership figure it out (or don't you have confidence in their ability to do so?).

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

It is a problem that needs to be addressed if/when it manfests, but you cant really nake up different rules for different permitted protests based on what you think might happen. Riot gear at all 1st amendment protests (and ongoing training and accountability) or at no protests, and the MOD go back to the van to change + grab their gear. That has to apply to Grannies for Peace or the Klan equally. Can you imagine if the Klan came to march (which courts have said over and over they have the 1st amendment right to do) and we sent the MPD to the perimeter dressed like English bobbies? How would that make sense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Council has banned them from attending 1st Amendement protests in riot gear. If they attend any protests on Inauguration in riot gear, then they are picking and choosing which first amendment protests are riots before any rioting occurs. That seems very Minority Report! The solution, which the MPD and Mayor asked for, ia to let them have some riot gear at any protest even if it makes them "look scary" and use it if needed. This actually does trust them to distinguish.

You might start by agreeing that it's a problem when MPD uses teargas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters.

If they fired on a peaceful group of permittrd first amendment protestors, of course that incident is wrong and should be looked at with consequences. However, not all first amendment protests are peqceful and you have pointed out that at that point they are no longer "protected" speech and are now riots. Have you read MPD comments that when projectiles were being thrown at their heads, agitators were changing clothing to not be able to be identified, all under the cover if darkness it is very difficult to distinguish a first amendment protestor from a riotor? Peaceful protestors should attend permitted, peaceful protests. If someone acts out in a rioutious manner, they should hand them to the police. If things get out of control, well, its a riot.

You seem unable to say "Yes, MPD should not use teargas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters", full stop.

The problem is that Black people are disproportionately deemed 'threats' that need to be physically defend against where white people doing the same are not.

One of the MPD officers summed it up nicely (talking about a rioter who gave him a hand): "Thank you, but f@*& you for being there"

Well, that's how I feel about MPD

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Council has banned them from attending 1st Amendement protests in riot gear. If they attend any protests on Inauguration in riot gear, then they are picking and choosing which first amendment protests are riots before any rioting occurs. That seems very Minority Report! The solution, which the MPD and Mayor asked for, ia to let them have some riot gear at any protest even if it makes them "look scary" and use it if needed. This actually does trust them to distinguish.

You might start by agreeing that it's a problem when MPD uses teargas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters.

If they fired on a peaceful group of permittrd first amendment protestors, of course that incident is wrong and should be looked at with consequences. However, not all first amendment protests are peqceful and you have pointed out that at that point they are no longer "protected" speech and are now riots. Have you read MPD comments that when projectiles were being thrown at their heads, agitators were changing clothing to not be able to be identified, all under the cover if darkness it is very difficult to distinguish a first amendment protestor from a riotor? Peaceful protestors should attend permitted, peaceful protests. If someone acts out in a rioutious manner, they should hand them to the police. If things get out of control, well, its a riot.

Anonymous wrote:

The Council has banned them from attending 1st Amendement protests in riot gear. If they attend any protests on Inauguration in riot gear, then they are picking and choosing which first amendment protests are riots before any rioting occurs. That seems very Minority Report! The solution, which the MPD and Mayor asked for, ia to let them have some riot gear at any protest even if it makes them "look scary" and use it if needed. This actually does trust them to distinguish.

You might start by agreeing that it's a problem when MPD uses teargas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

No, it means we never stopped letting them have riot gear to control riots with. We just stopped letting them have riot gear to use on peaceful protesters. Evidently the MPD is able to figure it out, so I don't understand why you're complaining.

The MPD was called to the scene with riot gear long after the riot developed. Is this what you would have happen whenever peaceful protestors turn violent, rather than have it on hand as police + the Mayor have requested? Seems inefficient. So I am to gather that for the inauguration day, MPD will not be deployed with gear until called/authorized?

It's weird how you have so little confidence in the MPD's ability to distinguish between a peaceful protest and a riot.

The Council has banned them from attending 1st Amendement protests in riot gear. If they attend any protests on Inauguration in riot gear, then they are picking and choosing which first amendment protests are riots before any rioting occurs. That seems very Minority Report! The solution, which the MPD and Mayor asked for, ia to let them have some riot gear at any protest even if it makes them "look scary" and use it if needed. This actually does trust them to distinguish.

Anonymous wrote:I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Right -- this idea that wanting systemic reform to rein in police brutality and racism means that you are somehow against the very idea of law enforcement is a strawman of the worst kind. The police failed to prevent violence by a big group of white people, in part, because of systemic racism and sympathy with white supremacists. It's the flip side of police committing violence against people of color and people protesting on behalf of people of color.

The police who put themselves in harm's way to protect the Capitol were doing their jobs, and for them I am grateful. But there are also police who enabled, facilitated, or were directly complicit in the violence at the Capitol, and they are not just "a few bad apples." They are symptoms of a serious, systemic problem with policing in this country. It's not one or the other -- law enforcement is necessary, and it is also flawed. We can recognize both things at once. It's not about whose side you are on, although some people really want to frame it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, yeah, that was kind of my point.

-PP who does not believe that the DC Council's decision to ban MPD from using tear gas on peaceful protesters meaningfully impairs MPD's ability to respond to riots

Completely agree. On the 6th the insurrectionists had bear spray and other chemical agents they used on law enforcement. If anything thats when law enforcement needs to be able to subdue the riot. Note several articles with first hand accounts from police that said they did not want to start shooting the rioters as they didnt want to have a firefight since they assumed the rioters had guns. In contrast with summer when law enforcement used rubber bullets on peaceful protest because they knew the protesters did not have weapons.

+1


Also, the real issue was that MPD was playing catch-up from the beginning, because the riot started on the Capitol grounds, which are the jurisdiction of a different agency. MPD responded on an ad hoc basis initially; whoever was nearby just ran over. According to articles I've read, MPD was concerned about violence at these protests, but the Capitol Police are in charge of the Capitol. MPD was on full deployment in the city on the 6th -- they called in NG to help with traffic control in order to free up more MPD officers to maintain order on the streets of DC. And MPD was busy. One of the articles in the WaPo article said they believed the crowd was armed because "we had been seizing guns all day." The problem wasn't that MPD did or didn't have riot police on hand, the problem was that the Capitol Police were utterly unprepared. They had staffed it like an ordinary day, not like the 1/2/3 in the line of succession would be in the building, and despite knowing that there was a high likelihood of violence (everyone knew there was a high likelihood of violence; the perpetrators had been planning it and bragging about it on social media for weeks). MPD wasn't the first line of defense.

I have always liked the idea of law enforcement.

AND I want the racist actions by law enforcement to stop.

AND I want law enforcement to do the work to stop insurgencies.

Anonymous wrote:Well, yeah, that was kind of my point.

-PP who does not believe that the DC Council's decision to ban MPD from using tear gas on peaceful protesters meaningfully impairs MPD's ability to respond to riots

Completely agree. On the 6th the insurrectionists had bear spray and other chemical agents they used on law enforcement. If anything thats when law enforcement needs to be able to subdue the riot. Note several articles with first hand accounts from police that said they dod not want to start shooting the rioters as they didnt want to have a firefight since they assumed the rioters had guns. In contrast with summer when law enforcement used rubber bulletsnon peaceful protest because they knew the protesters did not have weapons.

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point.

-PP who does not believe that the DC Council's decision to ban MPD from using tear gas on peaceful protesters meaningfully impairs MPD's ability to respond to riots

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As you no doubt realize, you havent answered my questions. I think MPD should be able to exercise discretion (with oversight) when a peaceful protest becomes a riot. Don't you? By the way, Mayor Bowser spoke out against this bill by our Council.

Guess what MPD did on January 6?

So evidently they're still able to do so, despite no longer being allowed to use tear gas on peaceful protesters.

Gosh, so does that mean we are back TO letting them have riot controlmgear + methods? Will they be deployed WITH these on the inaiguration? Are we deciding what is/isnt a riot before the fact? Or will there be a ride-along van they can hop into to change into teir shields etc and grab their spray? In future 1st ammendment protests when projectiles start flying at them, are they "allowed" to grab their gear? How much more muddied, really, can the Council directives be?

No, it means we never stopped letting them have riot gear to control riots with. We just stopped letting them have riot gear to use on peaceful protesters. Evidently the MPD is able to figure it out, so I don't understand why you're complaining.

The MPD was called to the scene with riot gear long after the riot developed. Is this what you would have happen whenever peaceful protestors turn violent, rather than have it on hand as police + the Mayor have requested? Seems inefficient. So I am to gather that for the inauguration day, MPD will not be deployed with gear until called/authorized?

It's weird how you have so little confidence in the MPD's ability to distinguish between a peaceful protest and a riot.

It's weird that you are posting on a local forum but apparently have no clue that MPD has a long history of being "unable" (read: unwilling) to distinguish between a peaceful protest and a riot. You might want to read up on the numerous instances of kettling and detaining peaceful protestors, shooting tear gas into houses harboring peaceful protestors, etc.