There is a schism developing over the videos out of Portland. Some see the videos as telling a frightening story of a city flirting with anarchy. Others believe the footage has been co-opted into an anti-left straw-man argument.
Whatever the truth is, let's get this right.
Whatever the truth is, let's get this right.
To begin with, let's fill in context.
The events in the videos were part of a protest against the Sept. 30 shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons, by Portland police. The protest began at the site of the shooting. Actual information on the shooting is scarce. Rumor is not.
The events in the videos were part of a protest against the Sept. 30 shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons, by Portland police. The protest began at the site of the shooting. Actual information on the shooting is scarce. Rumor is not.
From what little we know, there's one red flag for me. 10-12 shots were apparently fired. Knowing nothing else, that seems excessive. On the other hand, given the apparent facts, I am agnostic until we know more. Who knows how many missed, for example.
PPD say they have video.
PPD say they have video.
Police apparently heard gunfire around 3am. Two men had just been shot by someone. That someone is likely to have been Kimmons. Whether it was or not, police had reason to think it was. That makes Kimmons an extreme threat as they encountered him on the night he was shot.
Police say he was coming toward them, armed with a gun. A gun was apparently found near his body. Some or all of those facts could be false, but I don't see how anyone working from the publicly available evidence could know that they are false. And this is the crux of the matter.
Based on the evidence available, deadly force may well have been justified. I have seen no evidence so far to suggest race played any role in this case.
The fact that protestors spewed anti-white bigotry at commuters tells us, whatever else is true, they're dangerously confused.
The fact that protestors spewed anti-white bigotry at commuters tells us, whatever else is true, they're dangerously confused.
What is visible in the videos is uncivil disobedience that seems responsive to an event that *probably did not* occur: the racially motivated shooting by police of an unthreatening black man. And city government seems to be playing along with the as-far-as-we-know false narrative
The implications are quite serious.
Anarchists frequently argue that police are unnecessary. This is false. Simply, objectively, game-theoretically false. And the fashion on the authoritarian left is to see every police shooting of a black man as murder. Also false. Obviously.
Anarchists frequently argue that police are unnecessary. This is false. Simply, objectively, game-theoretically false. And the fashion on the authoritarian left is to see every police shooting of a black man as murder. Also false. Obviously.
For the city of Portland to allow police-haters to displace police as they protest a murder that, as far as we know--and as far as the protestors know--did not take place, is to flirt with the dangerous, facile notions of anarchists, just as some of us alleged yesterday.
That the Mayor/Police Commissioner would respond by standing the police down for reasons of political expediency is all too reminiscent of what President Bridges did at Evergreen. But what the Mayor puts at risk by playing this game is many orders of magnitude more important.
Bridges supported and institutionalized anti-white bigotry. He implicitly embraced All Cops Are Bastards hysteria, and propped up the insanity that all people of color are innocent. The result was 100% predictable. Bullies of color and "allies" ran roughshod over everyone else.
Portland's Mayor/Police Commissioner seems to be doing the very same thing. The difference is that Evergreen fails in isolation. A major American city does not have that luxury. Citizens of Portland have a right to have the city governed. Every street, all day, every day.
Peaceful protest and civil disobedience clearly involves a gray area. This isn't in it. These protestors are challenging the legitimacy of police and standing in for them even as they proudly advertise that the color of one's skin is paramount in their minds. That can not stand.
If I have something wrong, tell me. If I have the analysis wrong, persuade me. I am more than open to hearing about it from respectful people speaking under their own names--as I am speaking under mine.
