Why are the police so intimidated by protesters?

Post Reply New Topic

Unions are supposed to protect the interests of workers who have no other way to protect their interests than to organize. I don't know any numbers but I suspect the per cent of wage earners who are unionized is higher in Canada than in the US. In the US, union members fall into 2 categories: government workers whose right to organize is protected and groups such as Major League baseball players who organize to protect privilege. Police unions are in the latter category. They are actually much more like guilds than what you may think of as unions.

Oh okay. If they are much more like guilds, would BLM be pro-guilds too then, or no?

There is no BLM "organization" with a formal platform. It's not a political party. There is no "chairman" or committee.

In fact there are "BLM people" in Canada. Lots of them in fact.

In general I would expect most people who publicly support BLM are progressive and such people are typically also pro-union, but there is no formal correlation between the two issues.

Oh okay, I guess I just feel it's kind of hypocritical possibly, one cannot be for police escaping consequence, because of union protection, but at the same time, be pro-union, if that makes sense?

Membership in a union should never protect anybody from facing the consequences of their actions (in theory anyway).

Ideally yes, but how else do you fix that without getting rid of the whole union from the job?

If local police forces are giving in to the BLM movement, it’s because the BLM movement is backed by the state, the media and the big corporations, however much the protestors on the street want to pretend that they’re a grassroots movement fighting against “the establishment”. You can see the establishment-backing for BLM in the way the politicians take the knee, and voice their support for BLM’s supposed aims, and in the way big corporations proudly display their support for BLM, and in the way the media helped kick this whole thing off with the false narrative (contradicted by the actual statistics) that there is an epidemic of unarmed blacks being killed by police officers.

It’s all a bit similar to how we’re expected to believe that Greta Thunberg can get an audience with the U.N. without some seriously powerful people behind her. If you want to see what a real grassroots movement looks like, one example would be the Yellow Vests in France. They demonstrated (peacefully) against the French establishment for weeks on end, and were virtually ignored.



These protests are backed by the establishment. The amount of violence and destruction caused during these protests is huge, and is mostly the work of anarchist & antifa thugs.

Yes, these violent antifa types are using the protests as a smokescreen to cause trouble, but that is mostly what antifa is: an organization mostly composed of some of the worst dregs of society (violent criminals, sex offenders, paedophiles etc) who use the cover of a state-backed political organization to engage in violence they know they can almost certainly get away with.

And yes, the antifa thugs are tools of the establishment, but they are not tools the establishment uses to disenfranchise peaceful BLM protestors; they are tools the establishment has been using for years to carry out violent attacks on everyone from white nationalists to run-of-the-mill Trump supporters. That's because the establishment views any even vaguely populist group as getting in the way of the establishment's new woke religion.

The problem for the establishment now is that the extend of anarchist violence is causing them some embarrassment, which is why Trump tries to placate his supporters with the promise that he’ll actually do anything about it, while the media and state authorities try either to cover up the violence or manufacture right wing terrorists as a counter-balance.

I know most people on this thread won’t want to accept all this, but pay attention to what’s really going on and you’ll see it’s true.

Oh okay but if BLM is not an actual party, they are still an organization you can give money to, is that correct?

I believe there are various organizations that support that cause and accept donations to help fund their activities. It's much like the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 60s and 70s. Lots of different groups organizing protests.

Not sure...

I think the areas where there are protests should be left completely alone. No matter what happens, peaceful or not. When they get tired of being frightened by the protesters, there will be a mass exodus. We aren't experiencing any type of protests where I am from, I've seen one person with a sign since this all began. There's a reason protesters gravitate to certain urban areas. These same areas would choose our Presidents, time and time again, were it not for the Electoral College. I'm sure they see themselves as the only ones with the pulse on the American populace. Meanwhile, John and Jane Q. Public are looking at them all as though they have three heads.

I don't think the protesters represent what's going on in the hearts and minds of the silent majority, at all. Even the more moderate liberal or libertarians think they're nuts. So, have fun burning down places I'll never visit. Have fun knocking poor old people upside the head and dragging people out of their cars. Have fun ruining the lives of black business owners. You are driving people away... And only liberals believe you.

Oh okay but if the police have to give into protests and defund because of higher ups being intimidated by the protestors, then can the police invoke some sort of action like I asked before:

Anything is possible. The left in my country aren't that much better than the right so I'm finding myself not surprised by such theories.

Oh okay, so it's not that the police are intimidated by protests so much as mayors and governers. But don't the mayors and governers realize that if they give into the defunding the police, that will just make their jobs worse? For example, the mayor of NYC gave into it, and now the crime and murder rate, has went out, thus making his job worse now.

Same with the Chicago mayor it seems now. So why don't think they think that giving into such a demand will just make their jobs worse?

Even though I said that it's unions that protect police, that is really only a smaller part of it, isn't it? It seems to me that prosecutors are the ones who are to blame, and that instead of police reform, a more valid response would be distract attorney's office reform? But why not blame the DAs, instead of entire police departments? Why not go to the horse's mouth, so to speak?

^^^the "horse's mouth" so to speak would be the voters.

That makes sense. Why would the voters be voting DA's who are soft on police brutality crimes?