Mayors Won’t Even Denounce Police Violence at Police Violence Protests

Cops who mostly don’t live in the cities they police are causing mayhem. Who are the outside agitators?

Sipa USA/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

At protests of police violence across the country this weekend, police were—again—violent. In Salt Lake City, an armed officer pushed a man walking with a cane. In La Mesa, California, a woman peacefully protesting was shot in the head with a rubber bullet and went to the hospital. In Louisville, Kentucky, cops used tear gas during what a police official admitted was a “peaceful protest.”

And, in the aftermath, politicians felt the need to clarify: Violence is unacceptable. It cannot represent their city.

They meant violence from the protesters. The violence from those who actually wear a badge and work for the cities—that barely merited a mention.

Instead, mayors across the country, straining to square their support for the cause with their distaste for the means and a need to placate powerful local interests, continued to press the case that “rioting” was strictly the purview of the protesters—and of outsiders, at that. It was the old canard about “outside agitators,” and in this case it was true in ways the politicos did not intend: Cops tend not to live in the city they police. They are the ultimate outside agitators.

In Raleigh, North Carolina—where a former mayoral candidate tweeted that she saw “kids get tear gassed”—the current mayor, Mary-Ann Baldwin, said in a statement that “a small number of people…showed up with the intention of inciting violence and chaos.” She is not referring to the police, who showed up with plastic shields, batons, and in an armored van. These protesters, she said, “do not reflect who we are as a city,” but presumably the cops who “shot rubber bullets at protesters and journalists” do. That latter detail is from the The News & Observer, which nevertheless noted in its headline that “looters” left “a trail of destruction.” 

In Seattle, Mayor Jenny Durkan took a similar line. Praising the peaceful protests, she pivoted, swiftly, to say that “individuals who came to Seattle with the purpose of destruction” do not “define our city.” In a tweet the next day, she noted in a viral tweet that white men were at the center of violence in a viral tweet. Cops, she meant? No, of course not: She meant anarchists and opportunistic leftists, neither of whom were present, for instance, in this viral video showing cops smashing up a downtown storefront. It wasn’t an anarchist who maced a man trying to barge through a police line, nor was it an opportunistic leftist who “would throw a flash bang or tear gas just randomly into the crowd.” Those were cops.

In New York City, when footage emerged of a police car mowing people over, Mayor Bill De Blasio said he was “not going to blame officers who are trying to deal with an absolutely impossible situation.”

A line was drawn in Louisville, at least. Mayor Greg Fischer on Monday fired his police chief, Steve Conrad, after the shooting death of David McAtee, a beloved barbecue restaurant owner, during the protests. Two officers, who either were not wearing their body cameras or had not activated them, were placed on administrative leave. Conrad was set to retire later this month. Police had already shot a reporter with rubber bullets as she broadcast (for which they apologized) and fired tear gas before curfew into a crowd that “looked peaceful,” admitted a police official. None of that was deemed worthy of censure.

In Nashville, Mayor John Cooper said vandalism “does not represent our city.” But he doesn’t feel the need to call out a SWAT team who lobbed explosives at reporters. 

Like his fellow mayors, Cooper also had the right message for the wrong people. “If you mean our city harm,” he tweeted, “go home.” Someone should put that on a protest sign.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate