Minneapolis Police Killed George Floyd, Then Failed To Protect Property Owners From Riots

[swordfish]

 

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

On CBS News yesterday morning.  Barr answering questions and calling on the media to actually report truthfully.....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-barr-george-floyd-protests-blm-face-the-nation-transcript/

Below is a complete transcript of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Attorney General William Barr

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Attorney General, if you're ready, we'll dive in. Thank you for making time for us.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: Good to be here. Thank you, Margaret. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: A senior administration official told our CBS' David Martin, that in a meeting at the White House on Monday morning, the president demanded that 10,000 active duty troops be ordered into American streets. Is that accurate?

BARR: No, that's completely false. That's completely false. Sunday night,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president did not demand that?

BARR: No, he did not demand that. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: What happened? 

BARR: I came over on- on Monday morning for a meeting. The night before had been the most violent, as one of the police officials told us, the D.C. police, it was the most violent day in Washington in 30 years, something that the media has not done a very good job of covering. And there had been a riot right along Lafayette Park. I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property at the White House, federal personnel. The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops. But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops was a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources, they should be. I felt, and the Secretary of Defense felt, we had adequate resources and wouldn't need to use federal troops. But in case we did, we wanted them nearby.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So what--

BARR: There was never- the president never asked or suggested that we needed to deploy regular troops at that point. It's been done from time to time in our history. We try to avoid it. And I'm happy that we were able to avoid it on this occasion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were active duty troops put on standby. They were not deployed. The 82nd Airborne was put on standby,--

BARR: So the--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --but not sent into the streets.

BARR: Some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area. But they were not brought into D.C.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So what part- I just want to make sure that we're precise here, what part of that conversation, as it's been relayed to CBS and to other news organizations, is false? Did the president not demand active duty troops? Did--

BARR: Well, your question to me just a moment ago was did he demand them on the streets, did he demand them in D.C.. No, we had them on standby in case they were needed. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Which they were put on standby. They were not deployed. 

BARR: Right. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in our reporting, we were also told that you, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and General Milley, all opposed the idea of actually deploying these active duty troops onto the streets. Is that accurate?

BARR: I think our position was common, which was that they should only be deployed if- as a last resort and that we didn't think we would need them. Every- I think everyone was on the same page.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the president has the authority to unilaterally send in active duty troops if the governors oppose it?

BARR: Oh, absolutely. The- under the anti- Insurrection Act, the- the president can use regular troops to suppress rioting. The Confederate- the Confederacy in our country opposed the use of federal troops to restore order and suppress an insurrection. So the federal government sometimes doesn't listen to governors in certain circumstances.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The last time that this has happened was the L.A. riots in 1992 when the governor of California asked for active duty troops.

BARR: That's correct. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're saying your understanding and the law, as you interpret it and would support is that the president has the ability to put active duty troops on American streets, even if governors object?

BARR: It's happened numerous times. And the answer to that is yes. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You would support that?

BARR: Well, it depends on the circumstances. I was involved in the L.A. riots and the Rodney King matter. We tried to use non-military forces. I sent 2,000 federal law enforcement officers out there in one day, but it was overwhelming. And the National Guard couldn't handle it. And Governor Pete Wilson asked for federal troops. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: And he asked for them.

BARR: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a key distinction.

BARR: Or he approved the use of federal troops, but those troops were on standby as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because I think a number of people would be surprised to hear and it's been reported that you opposed sending in active duty troops on principle. You're saying you would support it?

BARR: As a last resort.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What is the last resort?

BARR: To restore law and order in- in a situation that is out of control and where life and property is endangered. And that's been done since the earliest days of the republic. General Washington, the president who led the army into the field to suppress rebellion and insurrection in Pennsylvania in the very first term of his administration. So it's been done periodically. When I was AG last time, we did it twice. We did it in the Virgin Islands. The governor opposed us at that point, but there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Lives were in danger, and we sent in 82nd Airborne military police, along with U.S. marshals and FBI agents, and then subsequently we did it in California. I would also point out it was done during the civil rights era in places like Selma, Alabama, and other places to integrate schools. The governors stood in the doorway. The governors did not approve the use of federal troops to enforce civil rights in the South.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the president, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the president?

BARR: I don't think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort and he didn't think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it's a last resort, but it's ultimately the president's decision. The- the reporting is completely false on this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement?

BARR: I think there's racism in the United States still but I don't think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist. I understand the- the distrust, however, of the African-American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. They denied equal rights to African-Americans--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Where are they now?

BARR: --first under slavery, then under Jim Crow. I think since the- the abolition of Jim Crow laws, which really didn't get struck down completely until the 1960s, I think since that time- and- and so as a result of that, you know, the civil rights movement was largely going, you know, battling these institutions that were imposing racism. Since the 1960s, I think we've been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they're in sync with our laws and aren't fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that's working? 

BARR: I think- I think the reform is a difficult task, but I think it is working and progress has been made. I think one of the best examples is the military. The military used to be explicitly racist institution. And now I think it's in the vanguard of- of bringing the races together and providing equal opportunity. I think law enforcement has been going through the same process. And while it's a difficult process and while law enforcement is not monolithic in this country, we have 50 states on a lot of local jurisdictions. There's undeniable that progress is being made. We have a generation of police- police leaders in this country, many of whom are now African-American in our major cities, who are firmly committed to equal justice and to fair policing. And we've been working hard on this. And I would say, you know, the president, before any of this happened, was out in front on this issue. Not only did he enact the First Step Act to bring greater justice to the African-American community within the criminal justice system, but he set up the first commission on policing and the administration of the Justice since Lyndon Johnson to look at precisely these issues. And they have been working on these issues. And in the days and weeks ahead, we're going to be expanding those efforts and coming forward with concrete proposals.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I take your point that it- it's not a monolithic system, but the Justice Department is the backstop for a lot of these local governments. When it comes to the issue of biased policing, the Trump administration's Justice Department has only opened one pattern-or-practice investigation into law enforcement agencies. The past three administrations combined had almost 70. Why hasn't this issue been a bigger priority?

BARR: Well, people- if you're skeptical that progress has been made and you have to wonder what was the results of those 70 consent decrees and pattern and practice investigations. Either progress is being made or it isn't. And from our experience and greater academic research is showing this to be true, that- that you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police. I saw that Mayor Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel, said, you know, recently that investigations should be done with police, not to police to have any real effect. And we've been doing that. We- we- we are working with police departments to address use of force policies, personnel policies, standards and practices. And we- and we feel that we can make good progress that way without the collateral effects that some of these consent decrees have. There's been a recent study that's been talked about from Harvard that indicates that some of these- the collateral consequences of these have been to- to make the police pull back and actually lead to more death, more murders, more crime. So we have to be prudent in how we approach this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you're saying you don't use this tool that you have because you don't think it's an effective one--

BARR: No, no it's--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --or because you think the problem is being solved on its own?

BARR: I'm just saying that just because we don't use that particular tool in every instance doesn't mean that we're not doing something about it. Actually, I think what's happened in the past is that politicians can check the box by slapping a consent decree on the department. We're not interested in gestures. We're interested in getting real results and working with police chiefs and- and- and public safety directors and mayors who really do want to change the system. But we've never taken this off the table. We- we- we have that power. We will use that power. We just say that, you know, you have to be selective in how you apply it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there should be some tweaking of the rules, reduced immunity to go after some of the bad cops?

BARR: I don't think you need to reduce immunity to- to go after the bad cops, because that would result certainly in police pulling back. It's, you know, policing is the toughest job in the country. And I- and I frankly think that we have generally the vast, overwhelming majority of police are good people. They're civic minded people who believe in serving the public. They do so bravely. They do so righteously. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the bad cops.

BARR: I- I think that there are instances of bad cops. And I think we have to be careful about automatically assuming that the actions of an individual necessarily mean that their organization is rotten. All organizations have people who engage in misconduct, and you sometimes have to be careful as for when you ascribe that to the whole organization and when it really is some errant member who isn't following the rules.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But doesn't the opening the pattern-or-practice investigation into a place like Minneapolis where there are questions about the broader issues with policing, it wasn't just the one officer, wouldn't that answer that question?

BARR: Well, that's exactly the reaction that I think has been a problem in the past, which is it just, again, just reacting to this incident by immediately putting the department under investigation doesn't necessarily result in- in improving the situation. But I would say that in the first instance, the governor has announced an investigation of the police department. The governor, Governor Walz, a Democratic governor, is investigating the police department. The attorney general of- of Minnesota is looking into the police department. We stand ready to act if we think it's necessary. But I don't think necessarily starting a- a pattern-or-practice investigation at this stage is warranted. Another thing is we have to look at some of the evidence. I mean, people, you know, the fact is that the criminal justice system at both the state and the federal level moved instantaneously on this. And we moved quickly with our investigation. But we still have to look into what kinds of use of force policies are used in that department, what the training has been and things like that. That's not something we can do overnight.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the events of the week. On Monday, Lafayette Park was cleared of protesters. You've spoken about this. The federal agents who were there report up to you. Did you think it was appropriate for them to use smoke bombs, tear gas, pepper balls, projectiles at what appeared to be peaceful protesters?

BARR: They were not peaceful protesters. And that's one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Three of my CBS colleagues were there. We talked to them. 

BARR: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not hear warnings. They did not see protesters--

BARR: There were three warnings.

MARGARET BRENNAN:--throwing anything.

BARR: There were three warnings given. But let's get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, OK, there were violent riots in- at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the- behind their bike rack fences. They were battling over the fences. They were trying to get entry. They were throwing bricks and inflammable liquid at the police. One fifth of the- there have been 750 officers hurt in the last week. One fifth of those have been in Washington, D.C.. Most of those have been federal officers at Lafayette Park. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John's Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: These were things that looters did.

BARR: Not looters, these were- these were the- the violent rioters who were- dominated Lafayette Park.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But what I'm asking about--

BARR: They broke into the Treasury Department,

MARGARET BRENNAN: --on Monday when it was a peaceful protest.

 BARR: I'm going to- let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?

BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a- a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?

BARR: No. The park police on their own on- on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day. The effort was to move the perimeter one block, and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 p.m.. The operation was run by the park police. The park police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond--

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you're saying there were projectiles--

BARR: On Monday, yes there were.  

MARGARET BRENNAN: As I'm saying, three of my colleagues were there. 

BARR: Yeah. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown--

BARR: I was there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --when that happened. 

BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you believe that what the police did using tear gas and projectiles was appropriate?

BARR: Here's- here's what the media is missing. This was not an operation to respond to that particular crowd. It was an operation to move the perimeter one block.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And the methods they used you think were appropriate, is that what you're saying?  

BARR: When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn't move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John's Church. That's when tear gas was used. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: There were chemical irritants the park police has said--

BARR: No, there were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant.

It's not chemical. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Pepper spray, you're saying is what was used--

BARR: Pepper balls. Pepper balls. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and you believe that was appropriate. I just I want to play this--

BARR: Well, first the- the attorney- yeah, well, I- I think as I understand it, the Park Police and the Secret Service, they were the ones who carried out the movement of the crowd back one block. And I think they used their standard crowd control protocols.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So if all- if all of that's true, why didn't this happen at another time of day? Why did it have to happen in the middle of the day, just moments before the president gives a press conference and then walks to the area where the protesters had been standing?

BARR: Well--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not do it in the middle of the night when the crowd thins? Move the perimeter?

BARR: Well, in the middle- in the middle of the night, the night before, which was Sunday, the law enforcement contingent was spent. They had lost 60 officers. In fact, in order to make the movement the next day, they had to bring in Virginia police departments to supplement units that were there, we had to build up enough people to control the situation and move it out. We were trying to do it as quickly as possible. After two o'clock, I heard that there was a point at which there were 300 protesters and- and the line could be more easily moved. But we didn't have the- the trained crowd control people in place to do it. And officers have to sleep. So on Sunday, it was a period where we were bringing in the required elements to do this and to back it up and to make sure if things got out of hand, we had adequate people there to deal with it. So as soon as the elements were in place, it was done. It was- it was handled by the park police officers, the tactical commander, and as soon as they felt they could.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But what you're describing is just a confluence of events and coincidental timing. I wanted- what I want to show you is what a lot of people at home who were watching this on television saw and their perception of events. So if I can just- guys, I want to play a video here. I want you to see what the public at home saw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

MARGARET BRENNAN: As you can see, this is around exactly the same time. So while the president says that he appreciates peaceful protest, around the same time, this crowd--

BARR: Well, six minutes- six minutes difference-- 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, around same time the area is being cleared of what appear to be peaceful protesters using some force. And after the speech is finished, the president walks out of the White House to the same area where the protesters had been and stands for photo op in front of the church where the protesters had been. These events look very connected to people at home.

BARR: Well,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: It is- in an environment--

BARR: Am I going to have to talk over--  

MARGARET BRENNAN: Cut the audio, please.

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

MARGARET BRENNAN: In an environment where the broader debate is about heavy handed use of force in law enforcement, was that the right message for Americans to be receiving?

BARR: Well, the message is sometimes communicated by the media. I didn't see any video being played on the media of what was happening Friday, Saturday and Sunday--

MARGARET BRENNAN: But- but this confluence of events--

BARR: All I heard- all I heard was comments about how peaceful protesters were. I didn't hear about the fact that there were 150 law enforcement officers injured and many taken to the hospital with concussions. So it wasn't a peaceful protest. We had to get control over Lafayette Park, and we had to do it as soon as we were able to do that. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you understand how these events appear connected? The timing of this--

BARR: Well, it's the job of the media to tell the truth. They were not connected.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well this is what I'm asking you. Did you know when you gave the green light for these actions to be taken that the president was going to be going to that very same area for a photo op?

BARR: I gave the green light at two o'clock. Obviously, I didn't know that the president was going to be speaking later that day. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You had no idea? 

BARR: No. No, I did not. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you see--

BARR: The go ahead was given at two o'clock. And to do it as soon as we were able to do it, to move the perimeter from- from H Street to I Street.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We're both Catholic. I know you're observant. You're a devout Catholic. Archbishop Gregory of Washington condemned what happened by gassing peaceful protesters.

BARR: There- there was no gas.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is- is doing- is what we saw there doing what you meant when you were on that call with governors and you said to dominate the streets? Is that what law enforcement is supposed to be taking away from this?

BARR: No, on the contrary. My point to the governors and what I was saying was that it's important when you're dealing with civil disturbances to have adequate forces at hand and out and about so you can control events and not be controlled by events. And that it's more dangerous for everybody if you have these wild melees with thinly-manned police lines running after protesters with batons and that and that it's important that adequate forces on the street. And so we're encouraging them where they were stretched thin to call out National Guard, if necessary, to restore order. That's what I was talking about. I would say that- that this particular- police have to move protesters, sometimes peaceful demonstrators, for a short distance in order to accomplish public safety. And that's what was done here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there was nothing that you think should have been done differently in hindsight?

BARR: Well, you know, I- I haven't studied the- the events retrospectively in detail, but I think in general, you had the qualified law enforcement officials with shields warning and moving a line slowly. They had mounted officers moving slowly, directing people to move. And most people complied. There was a small group that hung back and wrestled with the police officers trying to tear their shields from them. In one case, struggling to get one of the police officers guns and those people were subdued.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Mr. Attorney General, we have more questions for you, but I'm told we're out of time. 

BARR: Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[gonzoron]

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

On CBS News yesterday morning.  Barr answering questions and calling on the media to actually report truthfully.....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-barr-george-floyd-protests-blm-face-the-nation-transcript/

Below is a complete transcript of Margaret Brennan's conversation with Attorney General William Barr

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Attorney General, if you're ready, we'll dive in. Thank you for making time for us.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: Good to be here. Thank you, Margaret. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: A senior administration official told our CBS' David Martin, that in a meeting at the White House on Monday morning, the president demanded that 10,000 active duty troops be ordered into American streets. Is that accurate?

BARR: No, that's completely false. That's completely false. Sunday night,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president did not demand that?

BARR: No, he did not demand that. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: What happened? 

BARR: I came over on- on Monday morning for a meeting. The night before had been the most violent, as one of the police officials told us, the D.C. police, it was the most violent day in Washington in 30 years, something that the media has not done a very good job of covering. And there had been a riot right along Lafayette Park. I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property at the White House, federal personnel. The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops. But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops was a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources, they should be. I felt, and the Secretary of Defense felt, we had adequate resources and wouldn't need to use federal troops. But in case we did, we wanted them nearby.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So what--

BARR: There was never- the president never asked or suggested that we needed to deploy regular troops at that point. It's been done from time to time in our history. We try to avoid it. And I'm happy that we were able to avoid it on this occasion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were active duty troops put on standby. They were not deployed. The 82nd Airborne was put on standby,--

BARR: So the--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --but not sent into the streets.

BARR: Some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area. But they were not brought into D.C.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So what part- I just want to make sure that we're precise here, what part of that conversation, as it's been relayed to CBS and to other news organizations, is false? Did the president not demand active duty troops? Did--

BARR: Well, your question to me just a moment ago was did he demand them on the streets, did he demand them in D.C.. No, we had them on standby in case they were needed. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Which they were put on standby. They were not deployed. 

BARR: Right. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in our reporting, we were also told that you, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and General Milley, all opposed the idea of actually deploying these active duty troops onto the streets. Is that accurate?

BARR: I think our position was common, which was that they should only be deployed if- as a last resort and that we didn't think we would need them. Every- I think everyone was on the same page.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the president has the authority to unilaterally send in active duty troops if the governors oppose it?

BARR: Oh, absolutely. The- under the anti- Insurrection Act, the- the president can use regular troops to suppress rioting. The Confederate- the Confederacy in our country opposed the use of federal troops to restore order and suppress an insurrection. So the federal government sometimes doesn't listen to governors in certain circumstances.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The last time that this has happened was the L.A. riots in 1992 when the governor of California asked for active duty troops.

BARR: That's correct. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're saying your understanding and the law, as you interpret it and would support is that the president has the ability to put active duty troops on American streets, even if governors object?

BARR: It's happened numerous times. And the answer to that is yes. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You would support that?

BARR: Well, it depends on the circumstances. I was involved in the L.A. riots and the Rodney King matter. We tried to use non-military forces. I sent 2,000 federal law enforcement officers out there in one day, but it was overwhelming. And the National Guard couldn't handle it. And Governor Pete Wilson asked for federal troops. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: And he asked for them.

BARR: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a key distinction.

BARR: Or he approved the use of federal troops, but those troops were on standby as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because I think a number of people would be surprised to hear and it's been reported that you opposed sending in active duty troops on principle. You're saying you would support it?

BARR: As a last resort.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What is the last resort?

BARR: To restore law and order in- in a situation that is out of control and where life and property is endangered. And that's been done since the earliest days of the republic. General Washington, the president who led the army into the field to suppress rebellion and insurrection in Pennsylvania in the very first term of his administration. So it's been done periodically. When I was AG last time, we did it twice. We did it in the Virgin Islands. The governor opposed us at that point, but there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Lives were in danger, and we sent in 82nd Airborne military police, along with U.S. marshals and FBI agents, and then subsequently we did it in California. I would also point out it was done during the civil rights era in places like Selma, Alabama, and other places to integrate schools. The governors stood in the doorway. The governors did not approve the use of federal troops to enforce civil rights in the South.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the president, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the president?

BARR: I don't think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort and he didn't think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it's a last resort, but it's ultimately the president's decision. The- the reporting is completely false on this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement?

BARR: I think there's racism in the United States still but I don't think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist. I understand the- the distrust, however, of the African-American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. They denied equal rights to African-Americans--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Where are they now?

BARR: --first under slavery, then under Jim Crow. I think since the- the abolition of Jim Crow laws, which really didn't get struck down completely until the 1960s, I think since that time- and- and so as a result of that, you know, the civil rights movement was largely going, you know, battling these institutions that were imposing racism. Since the 1960s, I think we've been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they're in sync with our laws and aren't fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that's working? 

BARR: I think- I think the reform is a difficult task, but I think it is working and progress has been made. I think one of the best examples is the military. The military used to be explicitly racist institution. And now I think it's in the vanguard of- of bringing the races together and providing equal opportunity. I think law enforcement has been going through the same process. And while it's a difficult process and while law enforcement is not monolithic in this country, we have 50 states on a lot of local jurisdictions. There's undeniable that progress is being made. We have a generation of police- police leaders in this country, many of whom are now African-American in our major cities, who are firmly committed to equal justice and to fair policing. And we've been working hard on this. And I would say, you know, the president, before any of this happened, was out in front on this issue. Not only did he enact the First Step Act to bring greater justice to the African-American community within the criminal justice system, but he set up the first commission on policing and the administration of the Justice since Lyndon Johnson to look at precisely these issues. And they have been working on these issues. And in the days and weeks ahead, we're going to be expanding those efforts and coming forward with concrete proposals.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I take your point that it- it's not a monolithic system, but the Justice Department is the backstop for a lot of these local governments. When it comes to the issue of biased policing, the Trump administration's Justice Department has only opened one pattern-or-practice investigation into law enforcement agencies. The past three administrations combined had almost 70. Why hasn't this issue been a bigger priority?

BARR: Well, people- if you're skeptical that progress has been made and you have to wonder what was the results of those 70 consent decrees and pattern and practice investigations. Either progress is being made or it isn't. And from our experience and greater academic research is showing this to be true, that- that you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police. I saw that Mayor Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel, said, you know, recently that investigations should be done with police, not to police to have any real effect. And we've been doing that. We- we- we are working with police departments to address use of force policies, personnel policies, standards and practices. And we- and we feel that we can make good progress that way without the collateral effects that some of these consent decrees have. There's been a recent study that's been talked about from Harvard that indicates that some of these- the collateral consequences of these have been to- to make the police pull back and actually lead to more death, more murders, more crime. So we have to be prudent in how we approach this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you're saying you don't use this tool that you have because you don't think it's an effective one--

BARR: No, no it's--

MARGARET BRENNAN: --or because you think the problem is being solved on its own?

BARR: I'm just saying that just because we don't use that particular tool in every instance doesn't mean that we're not doing something about it. Actually, I think what's happened in the past is that politicians can check the box by slapping a consent decree on the department. We're not interested in gestures. We're interested in getting real results and working with police chiefs and- and- and public safety directors and mayors who really do want to change the system. But we've never taken this off the table. We- we- we have that power. We will use that power. We just say that, you know, you have to be selective in how you apply it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there should be some tweaking of the rules, reduced immunity to go after some of the bad cops?

BARR: I don't think you need to reduce immunity to- to go after the bad cops, because that would result certainly in police pulling back. It's, you know, policing is the toughest job in the country. And I- and I frankly think that we have generally the vast, overwhelming majority of police are good people. They're civic minded people who believe in serving the public. They do so bravely. They do so righteously. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the bad cops.

BARR: I- I think that there are instances of bad cops. And I think we have to be careful about automatically assuming that the actions of an individual necessarily mean that their organization is rotten. All organizations have people who engage in misconduct, and you sometimes have to be careful as for when you ascribe that to the whole organization and when it really is some errant member who isn't following the rules.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But doesn't the opening the pattern-or-practice investigation into a place like Minneapolis where there are questions about the broader issues with policing, it wasn't just the one officer, wouldn't that answer that question?

BARR: Well, that's exactly the reaction that I think has been a problem in the past, which is it just, again, just reacting to this incident by immediately putting the department under investigation doesn't necessarily result in- in improving the situation. But I would say that in the first instance, the governor has announced an investigation of the police department. The governor, Governor Walz, a Democratic governor, is investigating the police department. The attorney general of- of Minnesota is looking into the police department. We stand ready to act if we think it's necessary. But I don't think necessarily starting a- a pattern-or-practice investigation at this stage is warranted. Another thing is we have to look at some of the evidence. I mean, people, you know, the fact is that the criminal justice system at both the state and the federal level moved instantaneously on this. And we moved quickly with our investigation. But we still have to look into what kinds of use of force policies are used in that department, what the training has been and things like that. That's not something we can do overnight.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the events of the week. On Monday, Lafayette Park was cleared of protesters. You've spoken about this. The federal agents who were there report up to you. Did you think it was appropriate for them to use smoke bombs, tear gas, pepper balls, projectiles at what appeared to be peaceful protesters?

BARR: They were not peaceful protesters. And that's one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Three of my CBS colleagues were there. We talked to them. 

BARR: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not hear warnings. They did not see protesters--

BARR: There were three warnings.

MARGARET BRENNAN:--throwing anything.

BARR: There were three warnings given. But let's get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, OK, there were violent riots in- at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the- behind their bike rack fences. They were battling over the fences. They were trying to get entry. They were throwing bricks and inflammable liquid at the police. One fifth of the- there have been 750 officers hurt in the last week. One fifth of those have been in Washington, D.C.. Most of those have been federal officers at Lafayette Park. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John's Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: These were things that looters did.

BARR: Not looters, these were- these were the- the violent rioters who were- dominated Lafayette Park.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But what I'm asking about--

BARR: They broke into the Treasury Department,

MARGARET BRENNAN: --on Monday when it was a peaceful protest.

 BARR: I'm going to- let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?

BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a- a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?

BARR: No. The park police on their own on- on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 p.m. that day. The effort was to move the perimeter one block, and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 p.m.. The operation was run by the park police. The park police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond--

MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you're saying there were projectiles--

BARR: On Monday, yes there were.  

MARGARET BRENNAN: As I'm saying, three of my colleagues were there. 

BARR: Yeah. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown--

BARR: I was there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: --when that happened. 

BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you believe that what the police did using tear gas and projectiles was appropriate?

BARR: Here's- here's what the media is missing. This was not an operation to respond to that particular crowd. It was an operation to move the perimeter one block.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And the methods they used you think were appropriate, is that what you're saying?  

BARR: When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn't move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John's Church. That's when tear gas was used. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: There were chemical irritants the park police has said--

BARR: No, there were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant.

It's not chemical. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Pepper spray, you're saying is what was used--

BARR: Pepper balls. Pepper balls. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and you believe that was appropriate. I just I want to play this--

BARR: Well, first the- the attorney- yeah, well, I- I think as I understand it, the Park Police and the Secret Service, they were the ones who carried out the movement of the crowd back one block. And I think they used their standard crowd control protocols.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So if all- if all of that's true, why didn't this happen at another time of day? Why did it have to happen in the middle of the day, just moments before the president gives a press conference and then walks to the area where the protesters had been standing?

BARR: Well--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not do it in the middle of the night when the crowd thins? Move the perimeter?

BARR: Well, in the middle- in the middle of the night, the night before, which was Sunday, the law enforcement contingent was spent. They had lost 60 officers. In fact, in order to make the movement the next day, they had to bring in Virginia police departments to supplement units that were there, we had to build up enough people to control the situation and move it out. We were trying to do it as quickly as possible. After two o'clock, I heard that there was a point at which there were 300 protesters and- and the line could be more easily moved. But we didn't have the- the trained crowd control people in place to do it. And officers have to sleep. So on Sunday, it was a period where we were bringing in the required elements to do this and to back it up and to make sure if things got out of hand, we had adequate people there to deal with it. So as soon as the elements were in place, it was done. It was- it was handled by the park police officers, the tactical commander, and as soon as they felt they could.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But what you're describing is just a confluence of events and coincidental timing. I wanted- what I want to show you is what a lot of people at home who were watching this on television saw and their perception of events. So if I can just- guys, I want to play a video here. I want you to see what the public at home saw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

MARGARET BRENNAN: As you can see, this is around exactly the same time. So while the president says that he appreciates peaceful protest, around the same time, this crowd--

BARR: Well, six minutes- six minutes difference-- 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, around same time the area is being cleared of what appear to be peaceful protesters using some force. And after the speech is finished, the president walks out of the White House to the same area where the protesters had been and stands for photo op in front of the church where the protesters had been. These events look very connected to people at home.

BARR: Well,--

MARGARET BRENNAN: It is- in an environment--

BARR: Am I going to have to talk over--  

MARGARET BRENNAN: Cut the audio, please.

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

MARGARET BRENNAN: In an environment where the broader debate is about heavy handed use of force in law enforcement, was that the right message for Americans to be receiving?

BARR: Well, the message is sometimes communicated by the media. I didn't see any video being played on the media of what was happening Friday, Saturday and Sunday--

MARGARET BRENNAN: But- but this confluence of events--

BARR: All I heard- all I heard was comments about how peaceful protesters were. I didn't hear about the fact that there were 150 law enforcement officers injured and many taken to the hospital with concussions. So it wasn't a peaceful protest. We had to get control over Lafayette Park, and we had to do it as soon as we were able to do that. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you understand how these events appear connected? The timing of this--

BARR: Well, it's the job of the media to tell the truth. They were not connected.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well this is what I'm asking you. Did you know when you gave the green light for these actions to be taken that the president was going to be going to that very same area for a photo op?

BARR: I gave the green light at two o'clock. Obviously, I didn't know that the president was going to be speaking later that day. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You had no idea? 

BARR: No. No, I did not. 

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you see--

BARR: The go ahead was given at two o'clock. And to do it as soon as we were able to do it, to move the perimeter from- from H Street to I Street.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We're both Catholic. I know you're observant. You're a devout Catholic. Archbishop Gregory of Washington condemned what happened by gassing peaceful protesters.

BARR: There- there was no gas.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is- is doing- is what we saw there doing what you meant when you were on that call with governors and you said to dominate the streets? Is that what law enforcement is supposed to be taking away from this?

BARR: No, on the contrary. My point to the governors and what I was saying was that it's important when you're dealing with civil disturbances to have adequate forces at hand and out and about so you can control events and not be controlled by events. And that it's more dangerous for everybody if you have these wild melees with thinly-manned police lines running after protesters with batons and that and that it's important that adequate forces on the street. And so we're encouraging them where they were stretched thin to call out National Guard, if necessary, to restore order. That's what I was talking about. I would say that- that this particular- police have to move protesters, sometimes peaceful demonstrators, for a short distance in order to accomplish public safety. And that's what was done here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So there was nothing that you think should have been done differently in hindsight?

BARR: Well, you know, I- I haven't studied the- the events retrospectively in detail, but I think in general, you had the qualified law enforcement officials with shields warning and moving a line slowly. They had mounted officers moving slowly, directing people to move. And most people complied. There was a small group that hung back and wrestled with the police officers trying to tear their shields from them. In one case, struggling to get one of the police officers guns and those people were subdued.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Mr. Attorney General, we have more questions for you, but I'm told we're out of time. 

BARR: Thank you.

 

 

 

[gonzoron]

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/kkk-president-arrested-for-hitting-protester-with-his-truck

HENRICO COUNTY, Va. -- The Henrico Commonwealth's Attorney said a hate crime investigation was underway against the self-proclaimed president of the Virginia KKK.

Harry Rogers appeared in Henrico Court Monday morning where he agreed to receive a court-appointed attorney.

Rogers, 36, of Hanover, was formally charged with attempted malicious wounding (felony), destruction of property (felony), and assault and battery (misdemeanor) after police said he drove his pickup truck into a group of protesters Sunday in Lakeside.

The destruction of property charged stemmed from a bicycle damaged during the ordeal.

A Henrico judge denied Rogers' bond during Monday's hearing.

Henrico Sheriff's Department

“Several witnesses reported that a vehicle revved their engine and drove through the protesters occupying the roadway,” a Henrico Police spokesperson said of the incident on Lakeside Avenue near Vale Street.

No one was seriously injured physically.

The person who called police was checked by rescue at the scene and refused further treatment.

The protest was part of the Black Lives Matter marches that have taken place around Virginia and the nation following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd.

In court Monday, the Henrico Commonwealth’s Attorney said Rogers told arresting officers he was the president of the Ku Klux Klan in Virginia and the highest-ranking member not imprisoned.

“The accused, by his own admission and by a cursory glance at social media, is an admitted leader of the Ku Klux Klan and a propagandist for Confederate ideology,” Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor said in a statement released after court. “We are investigating whether hate crimes charges are appropriate.”

She urged witnesses to call Henrico Police at 804-501-5000.

“While I am grateful that the victim’s injuries do not appear to be serious, an attack on peaceful protesters is heinous and despicable and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law,” she said. “We lived through this in Virginia in Charlottesville in 2017. I promise Henricoans that this egregious criminal act will not go unpunished. Hate has no place here under my watch.”

Rogers is due back in court in August.

[Muda69]

30 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

But this doesn't apply to self-identified members of ADOS, correct?

 

 

 

[gonzoron]

Bond raised to $1M for Derek Chauvin, ex-officer charged in George Floyd's death

https://www.theindychannel.com/news/america-in-crisis/derek-chauvin-former-officer-charged-in-george-floyds-death-has-1st-court-appearance?fbclid=IwAR3STN4crU04nEz83mSqX7vfaY4CncHM-C3LBxT0C4m8xm_cW2mnj6ei2pw

 

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

But this doesn't apply to self-identified members of ADOS, correct?

 

 

 

It applies to everyone.

[gonzoron]

[Muda69]

26 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It applies to everyone.

But, but it has been said on this very forum that blacks, and especially those who identify as ADOS,  can't be racists.  It is an impossibility.  Are you saying this is not true?

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Muda69

[gonzoron]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

But, but it has been said on this very forum that blacks, and especially those who identify as ADOS,  can't be racists.  It is an impossibility.  Are you saying this is not true?

 

I'm not aware of any blacks on this forum, and I don't know what ADOS is, so yeah, it applies to everyone.

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

I'm not aware of any blacks on this forum, and I don't know what ADOS is, so yeah, it applies to everyone.

American Descendants Of Slavery.

 

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, Howe said:

I'm unaware if Minneapolis has consolidated their Sherrif's Department with Minneapolis police. 

They have not.

[Muda69]

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can’t-be-racist

 

[gonzoron]

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can’t-be-racist

 

Happy to see you are educating yourself.

[swordfish]

Oh I have been told on more than one occasion that a POC cannot be racist.......

But just to be clear - if my house is broken into, I am privileged if I call the police?  That's the new normal now?  Gonna need to pick up another box of Hydrashox just to have on hand when the PD gets de-funded....... 

Edited June 8, 2020 by swordfish

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Happy to see you are educating yourself.

So you agree with the author of said commentary that black people can't be racist?

 

[gonzoron]

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So you agree with the author of said commentary that black people can't be racist?

 

Black Americans can't be, that's correct. racism=prejudice+power. 

[gonzoron]

6 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Oh I have been told on more than one occasion that a POC cannot be racist.......

But just to be clear - if my house is broken into, I am privileged if I call the police?  That's the new normal now?  Gonna need to pick up another box of Hydrashox just to have on hand when the PD gets de-funded....... 

What connection does racism have to your house being broken into?

[swordfish]

4 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

What connection does racism have to your house being broken into?

Nothing - why do you ask?  Are you as confused about "privileged" as I am?  

[gonzoron]

34 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Oh I have been told on more than one occasion that a POC cannot be racist.......

But, just to be clear - if my house is broken into,

 

21 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Nothing - why do you ask?

Because you brought it up immediately after a statement about racism.

 

22 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Are you as confused about "privileged" as I am?  

No, it's pretty simple.

[Howe]

I married a black woman in the early 90's. She is an attorney and has been black her entire life. Her opinion is black people are the most racist of all people in America. I have asked dozens of black people the same question and every one of them has said the same.

Rasmussen conducted a poll in which blacks, whites and Hispanics were asked which race is the most racist.

A majority of white people said blacks

A majority of Hispanics said blacks

A majority of blacks said blacks

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.

From a partisan perspective, 49% of Republicans see most black Americans as racist, along with 36% of unaffiliated adults and 29% of Democrats.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.

Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.

These figures reflect more pessimism than was found in April when 42% gave race relations positive marks and 39% said race relations were improving.  However, the April number reflected all-time highs while the current numbers are more consistent with the general attitudes of recent years.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 1-2, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently killed a key portion of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional and sent a lawsuit challenging the University of Texas’ use of race as a factor in admissions back to the appellate court level for further review. Most Americans believe affirmative action admissions policies discriminate against whites, as the lawsuit argues, and think it’s better for colleges and universities to accept the most qualified students.

[gonzoron]

19 minutes ago, Howe said:

I married a black woman in the early 90's. She is an attorney and has been black her entire life. Her opinion is black people are the most racist of all people in America. I have asked dozens of black people the same question and every one of them has said the same.

Rasmussen conducted a poll in which blacks, whites and Hispanics were asked which race is the most racist.

A majority of white people said blacks

A majority of Hispanics said blacks

A majority of blacks said blacks

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.

From a partisan perspective, 49% of Republicans see most black Americans as racist, along with 36% of unaffiliated adults and 29% of Democrats.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.

Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.

These figures reflect more pessimism than was found in April when 42% gave race relations positive marks and 39% said race relations were improving.  However, the April number reflected all-time highs while the current numbers are more consistent with the general attitudes of recent years.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 1-2, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently killed a key portion of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional and sent a lawsuit challenging the University of Texas’ use of race as a factor in admissions back to the appellate court level for further review. Most Americans believe affirmative action admissions policies discriminate against whites, as the lawsuit argues, and think it’s better for colleges and universities to accept the most qualified students.

racism=predjudice+power. A definition accepted by millions of people of different races, myself included. Anecdotal stories from one person won't change the definition. It just means they don't understand it yet.

[Howe]

gonzoron and other white liberals need to put their masks on and shelter in place. They do not know more about how black people view other blacks than they themselves.

[gonzoron]

3 minutes ago, Howe said:

gonzoron and other white liberals need to put their masks on and shelter in place. They do not know more about how black people view other blacks than they themselves.

gonzoron knows a lot more than most white people of any political persuasion about how black people view other blacks and how they view themselves. 

[Howe]

Black Lives Matter Co Founder demands Minneapolis mayor to defund police. "We don't want no mo' police"

 

[Muda69]

12 hours ago, gonzoron said:

gonzoron knows a lot more than most white people of any political persuasion about how black people view other blacks and how they view themselves. 

How exactly? You live in a compound in lily-white northern Hamilton county.

[swordfish]

Not sure if I should post this in the Flloyd thread, the Coronavirus thread, or the meme thread........