You're right -- you didn't mention law enforcement shootings. You just mentioned some irrelevant bullshit about white supremacy and police which is more of the leftist fan fiction you use to justify looting a target or burning an apartment building.
Acleddata is a leftwing propaganda group that can't even get basic facts right, see here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308781.msg56149662#msg56149662But please do answer me what methodology they use to quantify these protests, and what objective method they use to categorize something as violent. And by violence, how do they differentiate between the severity of violence? Where do they get that data from? Do police departments disclose the amount of resources used at riots to quantify the violence to Acledata? How do they objectively verify how many violent participators are at these events?
I'm sure you have answers to zero of these questions because you couldn't think that far enough. Just slapping a link down and hoping I wouldn't notice, hilarious.
You post a link to thread where you fail to provide a single source or credible citation for your claims against the ACLED. Your word vomit proves nothing without sources. If you weren't too much of a lazy brain to read the link I "slapped down", you would already have the answers you claim I can't provide. If I spoon feed it to you, I doubt you'll actually read it. Even IF you read it, you'll just shift your argument anyways. I shouldn't bother, but here you go. Here is something you could have easily read yourself if you had more than an 8th grade learning curve:
"What is ACLED’s relationship to Princeton University? The US Crisis Monitor is a joint project of ACLED and BDI. Through this project, ACLED is able to extend its global methodology to conduct data collection for the US, making real-time data available for public use, while BDI is able to use these data to identify emerging risks and to inform and motivate policy and programming discussions within its civil society network.
ACLED and BDI are both independent and non-partisan, and the US Crisis Monitor is dedicated to providing objective information. The US Crisis Monitoris guided by the belief that transparent, independent, credible data on political violence and demonstrations can improve decision-making and policies, enhance peace building, and ultimately facilitate efforts to track, prevent, and mitigate violence. For these reasons, we are committed to making all data, analysis, methodology, tools, and resources publicly available. At the same time, we recognize that data, statistics, and analysis can be misinterpreted and manipulated towards political or other ends, in turn fueling conflict, harmful or incorrect narratives, and even violence. The US Crisis Monitor takes these risks extremely seriously and will work to ensure that materials made available through the project do no harm (in so far as it is within our power to control), and that principles and approaches of conflict sensitivity are adhered to strictly.
ACLED includes events of police brutality where the details conform to our global standards of political violence. Such events are coded as ‘Event type’ Violence against civilians, ‘Sub-event type’ Attack, with police forces and civilians coded as the two primary actors. Violent policing is often particularly excessive towards select groups in the US, but much of this policing is within the bounds of the law— and these bounds can vary, with different levels of protections extended to law enforcement by state legislatures, in addition to the federal government. As such, only police engagements that are explicitly outside of established legal parameters are included, however unfair the existing constraints on police behavior maybe. In practice, this means that the following types of events are the only ones categorized as such: (1) events in which an individual was not engaging in a crime, yet was seriously hurt or killed, (2) events in which an individual was (assumed to be) engaging in a crime though was visibly unarmed, yet was seriously hurt or killed; or (3) events in which an individual was in pursuit of a crime and was seriously hurt or killed, but without evidence that the suspect in question posed a risk based on subsequent reports.
ACLED does not record all instances of violence. For example, criminal violence, defined as violence that is motivated by personal or purely criminal motives, is excluded from the ACLED dataset. Some mass shooting events fall into this category. Violence that takes place in the private sphere, such as domestic or interpersonal violence, is also not recorded in the ACLED dataset, even when these events could have wider repercussions among the public. Similarly, events that are categorized as standard police enforcement are excluded from ACLED’s coverage. These typically include incidents where law enforcement agencies appear to have used violence within the bounds of the legal constraints on their activity, either in reaction to an attempt on the life of a police officer or otherwise in the presence of a threat. Finally, ACLED only captures events that are reported to have actually occurred. As such, ACLED Researchers do not record threats of violence or intimidation. Non-physical violence, such as online or cyber-violence, is also outside of the scope of ACLED’s data capture and mandate.
Please note: ACLED does not collect ‘big data’ or personally identifiable information about individual participants in any of the events that fall within our catchment. Data collection is specifically restricted to the dates, groups, locations, fatalities, and types of political violence and demonstration events.
ACLED defines political violence as the use of force by a group with a political purpose or motivation. ACLED records political violence through its constituent events, the intent of which is to produce a comprehensive overview of all forms of political disorder, expressed through violence and demonstrations, within and across states. A politically violent event is a single altercation where force is used by one or more groups toward a political end. ACLED employs this definition of political violence in every country we cover. It is a core component of the established global methodology.
In addition to political violence events, ACLED also codes both non-violent and violent demonstration events. Demonstrations include events coded with ‘Event Type’ Protests, which in turn encompasses three specific sub-types that appear as ‘Sub-event Types’ in the data: Peaceful protest, Protest with intervention, and Excessive force against protesters. Events coded with ‘Event Type’ Riots include sub-event type Violent demonstration.
ACLED codes all physical congregations of three or more people (single-person demonstrations are not coded) as a demonstration when they are directed against a political entity, government institution, policy, group or individual, tradition or event, businesses, or other private institutions. This includes demonstrations affiliated with an organization (e.g. NAACP), a movement (e.g. Black Lives Matter), or a political party (e.g. Republicans), as well as those affiliated with identity groups (e.g. LGBT, women, Native Americans). Whenever such salient identities exist, they will be coded as an ‘Associated Actor’ to the respective primary actor (for more on coding decisions, see the ACLED Codebook). In addition, ACLED also codes demonstrations around a certain topic, even if not associated with a specific identity group or organization (e.g. against climate change, anti-vaxxers, COVID-19 restrictions, etc.).
Given the above-outlined definition, political or party rallies, town hall meetings, and caucuses are not coded as ‘demonstrations’ by ACLED, as they reflect regular political activity by members of political organizations, civil society, and the general public. ACLED covers the occurrence of events, not the absence of action; this means that physical congregations of people are coded, while a labor strike where workers stay at home is not (though significantly large strikes would be captured by ACLED as ‘Strategic developments’). Symbolic public acts are also not coded as ‘demonstrations’ — such as displays of flags, putting up a sign in one’s yard, written chalk messages on sidewalks, a congressional walkout, etc. Additionally, vigils that are not intended to manifest any protest message also do not fulfill ACLED’s requirements for inclusion."
Officers that took place in the violence were arrested, but so far there isn't evidence that off duty officers participated in violence. 900k police officers in the US, yes, I'm sure one or two were at the riots. Doesn't mean they participated.
I never said they participated in violence. I said the off duty officers breached the capitol building. Once again putting your shitty reading skills on display for people to see. HILARIOUS.
And...? Who cares? 74 million Trump voters. You found a few racists, congrats. Would you like a medal? Plenty of felons, sex offenders, so on, at BLM protests, I'm sure if I wasted time I could give you a laundry list of them that were arrested during BLM riots.
That's funny, because out of the millions of anti-police brutality protestors this last year I never saw ONE nazi flag. Not one. According to your genius law of averages, there should have been a couple. Or at least ONE confederate battle flag. But there were none. Weird huh? So the real question is, why would you support a political figure who draws out the only people in America waving those symbols? Why would you enter the capitol building alongside those types of people, even if it is only "a few"? Racists are one thing, but I make it a general rule not to support any cause or event if it draws the support of even one Nazi. But hey Gyfts, I see where you set YOUR standards.
You keep labeling me "leftist" but know nothing about me. I do not affiliate with partisan politics, and actually registered republican to vote for Ron Paul when he ran (fuck Rand Paul). You are clearly brainwashed by partisan media. I'm not going to address your other points because your opinions are deflective, played out and cyclical. You clearly can't even read. I hope I never meet you or anyone like you. Have fun screaming into the void, I give up trying to shake sense into you.
