San Jose Police Dept. admits BACKING OFF protesters to keep from INCITING them

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paradoxious
Hypothetical:

A small group of people go into a crowd and assault a single person, and nothing else.
Should the police not take action out of fear they might shoot others, or take action out of fear they might shoot others?

Further hypothetical:

The police chief has an "affiliation" with the group of people who have assaulted that single person.
Is not taking action equivalent to supporting the actions of that group of people?

The only "affiliation" the the Chief had to La Raza was to attend a community roundtable. At least, that's all that was mentioned in the article.

So if I attended a local KKK or other meeting, I wouldn't be assumed to have an interest in their agenda?

Are you claiming that the protesters who became violent are all members of La Raza? How do you know that?

I'm not saying that at all.

To a supporter of La Raza, however, every Latino is part of La Raza. An important distinction considering the topic here.

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paradoxious
Hypothetical:

A small group of people go into a crowd and assault a single person, and nothing else.
Should the police not take action out of fear they might shoot others, or take action out of fear they might shoot others?

Further hypothetical:

The police chief has an "affiliation" with the group of people who have assaulted that single person.
Is not taking action equivalent to supporting the actions of that group of people?

The only "affiliation" the the Chief had to La Raza was to attend a community roundtable. At least, that's all that was mentioned in the article.

So if I attended a local KKK or other meeting, I wouldn't be assumed to have an interest in their agenda?

Are you claiming that the protesters who became violent are all members of La Raza? How do you know that?

I'm not saying that at all.

To a supporter of La Raza, however, every Latino is part of La Raza. An important distinction considering the topic here.

I have no idea how to address your hypothetical. The only way I would know would be to ask you: Do you have an interest in the KKK?

If you're trying to draw parallels between that absurdity and the San Jose Chief participating in a La Raza event, it's a civic and community event. The Chief represents the City of San Jose and it's government. Why would he not go? If he went to a Hibernian Benevolent Society event, would that make him a member of the IRA?

So you don't know how many if any of the protesters are La Raza members? Okay.

Why would you connect that group to violence then?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong again. The OP made an argument based upon the Mayor's own words, and we all have seen the videos at this point. You based your counter argument upon a single sentence of hearsay of an article. You're attempting to refute the OP with hearsay. Total fail.

I quoted the article presented by OP here:

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another odd point....

San Jose Police Chief Under Fire for Allowing Attacks on Trump Supporters is Affiliated With La Raza

deep infiltration

So, no, I quoted from an article that the author here presented to us. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it hearsay. However, you can take your critiques of the article up with the one who posted it, not me.

The only "total fail" is your obsession here. You're plainly mistaken. If you don't like the article, take it up with the author, the OP, not me.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

For starters they could have been somewhere in the vicinity of the groups of protestors and perhaps stepped in once people started getting chased down the street.

Still perplexed about that one.

I will admit, there's a number of things in these violent protests/rallies that don't add up at all.

They were in the vicinity obviously. Apparently some of the conflicts between supporters and protesters took place out back?

Maybe they could have deployed forces better? It's easy to critique in hindsight I guess.

What bothers me most is that so many here validate the violence on one side. Political violence is always wrong.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now that I agree with (the lack of parity from some here).

My point, and I think the member who I referred to back on page one would agree with me, is that the way the PD handled things leaves a lot of room for questions to be raised.

Given who the event was for, and the area of the event, I think it's reasonable to expect there to be at least some level of confrontation and to plan accordingly. It doesn't look to me that the PD planned, or executed their plan, with that in mind. I wouldn't expect them to have everything locked down 100% and stop every last little thing from happening. On the other hand, though, I think it's fair to expect them to be close enough to react quickly to somebody being chased down the road.

For me, the comments after the fact just raise questions about the behavior during. They're hand in hand from my perspective, because what's being said afterwards doesn't add up to me as a logical, reasonable thought process during.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now that I agree with (the lack of parity from some here).

My point, and I think the member who I referred to back on page one would agree with me, is that the way the PD handled things leaves a lot of room for questions to be raised.

Given who the event was for, and the area of the event, I think it's reasonable to expect there to be at least some level of confrontation and to plan accordingly. It doesn't look to me that the PD planned, or executed their plan, with that in mind. I wouldn't expect them to have everything locked down 100% and stop every last little thing from happening. On the other hand, though, I think it's fair to expect them to be close enough to react quickly to somebody being chased down the road.

For me, the comments after the fact just raise questions about the behavior during. They're hand in hand from my perspective, because what's being said afterwards doesn't add up to me as a logical, reasonable thought process during.

I can see your points to some extent. Although, I would say again that hindsight is 20/20, foresight, not so much, even sometimes for law enforcement professionals. Maybe they had more faith in their community? It does seem like it is a well-known side-effect of Trump events held in these ... I think we all have to admit ... culturally incendiary locations .. that there may well be violence.

My wonderings go not only to the City and the Police Department but also to the Trump campaign organizers.

Why do they keep choosing these highly volatile sites? Surely they know by now what might happen.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Last question first: he's campaigning for president. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anybody in his campaign to stay out of an area because some people there don't like his message. Some people there do like his message and that's enough reason for any person running for high office to go there.

As to hindsight versus foresight, in my opinion it really isn't much of a mental exercise to think there's enough of a possibility in that area of something happening to be prepared for it. The lack of foresight, whatever reason they give, is to me a pretty boneheaded thing to have happen. No plan is going to be both a) planned perfectly and b) executed perfectly. Things happen, things have to adjust. And I get that. No plan survives first contact.

It just makes me scratch my head that there seems to have been a lack of uniforms in the area, and no explanation since has changed that for me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: paradoxious
Hypothetical:

A small group of people go into a crowd and assault a single person, and nothing else.
Should the police not take action out of fear they might shoot others, or take action out of fear they might shoot others?

Further hypothetical:

The police chief has an "affiliation" with the group of people who have assaulted that single person.
Is not taking action equivalent to supporting the actions of that group of people?

The only "affiliation" the the Chief had to La Raza was to attend a community roundtable. At least, that's all that was mentioned in the article.

So if I attended a local KKK or other meeting, I wouldn't be assumed to have an interest in their agenda?

Are you claiming that the protesters who became violent are all members of La Raza? How do you know that?

I'm not saying that at all.

To a supporter of La Raza, however, every Latino is part of La Raza. An important distinction considering the topic here.

I have no idea how to address your hypothetical. The only way I would know would be to ask you: Do you have an interest in the KKK?

If you're trying to draw parallels between that absurdity and the San Jose Chief participating in a La Raza event, it's a civic and community event. The Chief represents the City of San Jose and it's government. Why would he not go? If he went to a Hibernian Benevolent Society event, would that make him a member of the IRA?

Maybe this will flow better for you:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio attends at least one KKK event, we don't really know how many such events he's been to because that's not stated. People with an obvious "white power" slant were involved in violent activities at an NAACP rally, but his deputies don't get "too" involved in subverting the violence out of fear that could incite more violence.

You would not make any sort of allusion between his attending the KKK event and the officers not doing interdiction at the NAACP event?

So you don't know how many if any of the protesters are La Raza members? Okay.

Why would you connect that group to violence then?

You're right. I do not know how many there were part of La Raza. But like I said, to any member of La Raza, all Latinos are members of La Raza. Well, at least until gang affiliations are important.

"La Raza", as a nationally recognized organization is very much aware of its public image and goes to extremes to appear distant from any act of violence, yet at the local level, all bets are off. I've been threatened by La Raza members while at work... I work in construction. They tell me that I need to watch my back when I'm on the street; they respect me because I'm the boss on the job, but make no promises of safety after work.

Quick thinking double-speak kept me out of a lot of problems, much like it did when I was out servicing vending machines in South Central L.A. in the early 90's.

a reply to: paradoxious

Sure I would. Sheriff Arpaio has a reputation as an authoritarian nutbag. I doubt he'd send any Deputies at all to an NAACP meeting. Theoretically.

Does Chief Garcia have that kind of reputation? His family are long-time residents of San Jose, and he worked his way up through the police department. San Jose Police Department - Chief of Police

How do you know what members of La Raza think? Indeed, we had personal testimony from a poster here at ATS who is a recently naturalized citizen. He noted that La Raza is very discriminatory toward non-Mexican Latinos. I have no reason to dispute that ... what evidence do you have?

I'm sorry to hear that you're receiving threats to your safety from any quarter. Why would these La Raza members do this to you?

a reply to: Shamrock6

He's running for President but isn't exactly desperate for (nor should he expect a great number of) Latino supporters ... can we agree on that?

Still seems like baiting to me. He knows where his base is. He's done little to nothing to court the Latino vote, and a heck of a lot to alienate it.

As to the rest of your musing, I can't say.

a reply to: Gryphon66

San Jose is the third largest city in California and nearly half the population is white.

So you're contending that he should ignore his base (your words) because the city has a large (though not larger than his base) population of people, some of whom don't like what he has to say?

Really?

a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like they are basically admitting they are afraid to do their jobs - afraid a mob will overpower them if they arrest anyone.

Anyone defending this behavior is part of the problem. There is NO excuse for attacking people at a political rally. Time to call in National Guard, and arrest en masse.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: paradoxious

Sure I would. Sheriff Arpaio has a reputation as an authoritarian nutbag. I doubt he'd send any Deputies at all to an NAACP meeting. Theoretically.

I knew there was some way to get you out of your shell and admit which side of the fence your legs dangle over.

Does Chief Garcia have that kind of reputation? His family are long-time residents of San Jose, and he worked his way up through the police department. San Jose Police Department - Chief of Police

Does it matter?
Or have we somewhere stopped being a nation of laws where the police can selectively choose to enforce whatever they feel is appropriate IN SPITE of it happening right in front of their faces?

How do you know what members of La Raza think? Indeed, we had personal testimony from a poster here at ATS who is a recently naturalized citizen. He noted that La Raza is very discriminatory toward non-Mexican Latinos. I have no reason to dispute that ... what evidence do you have?

Yeah, La Raza is very discriminatory towards "non-Mexican" Latinos, but even those people are considered higher than non-Latinos such as I... or yourself.


In my experience, Mexicans and Cubans are like oil and water, but either would help the other before they'd help my white ass.

I'm sorry to hear that you're receiving threats to your safety from any quarter. Why would these La Raza members do this to you?

Maybe because I'm not Latino and they aren't compassionate?

What's your guess?

a reply to: paradoxious

I haven't been in a shell, nor have I been quiet here about my political beliefs. That's actually kinda amusing. Seeing that Arapaio is an authoritarian is obvious, that he is a nutbag is a personal take on it, sure. Glad you feel like you "accomplished" something by "drawing me out" LOL.

"Have we stopped being a nation of laws?" Excellent political rhetoric, though fairly hopelessly hyperbolic!

Counter-question, a bit more realisic, how many public disturbances have you tried to stop? If you have an answer to that, you might understand what San Jose was actually facing.

Now you're waffling on the absolute you offered for La Raza. I suppose we can agree that the matter is individual and/or local rather than universal.

I've been helped on regular occasions by "Mexicans" and many other Latinos. Cubans, in my experience, do seem a bit aristocratic.

My guess would be that you've had some personal issues with some people and you're generalizing that to a whole cultural group, since you asked.

The police Chief and the Mayor did this for political reasons. A FOIA request should be done asap along with an investigation to see exactly what the internal memos and Comms show.

There are videos and still shots showing police standing doing nothing and a couple even smiling when a Trump supporter had to defend himself from a mob, while they stood literally 3 feet away.

If cops won't protect citizens, for "fear of inciting more violence" as they claim, then the criminals have free reign. That is NOT a functional society.

a reply to: Shamrock6

First of all, I don't think you can make the claim that all White folks are for Donald J. Trump.

I certainly couldn't, at any rate. His "base," were I going to grossly classify it, would be Nativist, Anti-political, and Rural.

Further, this situation is not a matter of just "not liking what he has to say." You can certainly minimize the situation that way, but there has been a noticeable national trend in previous Trump rallies held in urban areas with deeply cultural concentrations of Hispanic and Black Americans, that his rhetoric has a strong tendency to incite people. Note that I am not "blaming" Mr. Trump for that, people are responsible for their actions ... but only someone very naive would say that this kind of reaction was not, as you pointed out, predictable.

As far as what I believe? Trump can have his rallies wherever he wants, and his supporters have the right to attend his meetings without being physically attacked. That's the American way.

However, what we've seen is not one-sided violence, and the fact remains, that Donald J. Trump has on more than one occasion called for violence from his own podium. That's NOT the American way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

First of all, I didn't.

Second of all, your entire premise is now "Donald trump should know better than to go in to an area like this and the fact that he is, is provocative and baiting. San Jose PD, however, may have just expected people to behave better than they did and we shouldn't second guess them in hindsight."

Normally I don't have trouble following your logic, but that one is baffling amigo. Blaming Trump for not knowing better right after giving the PD a pass for not knowing better. Amazing.