Chicago police tweak mass arrests policy ahead of Democratic National Convention
abcnews.go.com
Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling is touting the nation's second-largest police department as fully prepared for protests ahead of the Democratic National Convention, including on a new mass arrest policy

How do we feel about this? Article makes it sound like there will be a greater emphasis on deëscalation and oversight, but is that enough of a change?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    136·
    13 days ago

    Ever notice how the Party is tougher on progressives that belong to the party they’re protesting than they are on republicans trying to overthrow the national government?

    It’s weird, right?

    Especially this year, Biden should be inviting protestors front and center and engaging in a dialog.

    That would actually get him votes at least. Even if he doesn’t budge at all, a dialog gets more votes than police abuse.

    Like, the only reason there’s protests to begin with is we can’t open a dialog.

    It’s like Biden doesn’t even want to campaign for votes. He’s not putting the work in that traditional candidates do. Probably because most Dem presidents are much younger than Biden.

    • sub_ubi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      71·
      13 days ago

      Seems the democratic party exists to keep the left under control.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        13 days ago

        If you had billions of dollars and it only cost 100s of thousands to buy either political party’s leaders…

        Por que no los dos?

        It would be stupid to gamble when buying off both during the primaries was cheaper and guarantees the general doesn’t really matter.

        For bonus points, neither primary is legally binding. At the end of the day, if you bought off the people running the parties, they can do what they want to ensure your pick wins.

        The only thing crazier then donors not buying off both, is the people that say it would never happen. Like, this is politicians and corporations we’re talking about here… Throw lawyers in the mix and it’s a greatest hit of people who care about money and power over anything else.

      • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
        11·
        13 days ago

        The protestors against the nomination and selection of kavenaugh did not breach the doors, nobody died, proceedings were not disrupted, the aim of the protestors was not to lynch the sitting vice president and overthrow the government but to say “we shouldn’t hire a rapist,” no congresspersons toured the kav protestors, no congresspersons tweeted the live location of potential targets, … What, exactly, in your definition qualifies an insurrection? Could you define the word right now for us without looking it up? Would any dictionary agree with that definition?

        This feeble attempt at rewriting history is shivering nude, though I admit I am glad you agree that J6 was an insurrection, even if to get there you had to draw this false equivalence.

        edit: Oh, I almost forgot: 🤡

      • sub_ubi@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        13 days ago

        False equivalence as the other guy said, but also Jan 6 was so much funnier. I think about the guy tazing his balls whenever I hear a media person say “civil war???”

  • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
    3·
    11 days ago

    During the mass protest that erupted in Chicago over George Bush Jr.'s announcement that US troops were going into Iraq, the Mayor colluded with Police to unconstitutionally mass arrest and jail hundreds of peaceful protesters. It took almost a decade, but the city paid out a huge settlement to those arrested while engaged in first amendment protected activities.