Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
from the 'fuck-the-police'---Mahatma-Ghandi-(1940) dept
I have written at least two (admittedly) incendiary posts for this site responding to the response (and -- one level further -- commenters' responses) to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin has been arrested and is now facing a shifting set of charges -- some of which are unlikely to be sustained. Minneapolis is still burning. And it will probably burn again once the justice system is done with what's left of Chauvin and his criminal charges.
In these posts, I openly advocated for the targeted destruction of government property. I do not apologize for that. If the problem is law enforcement, it should be law enforcement's stuff that burns. Say what you will for peace and reason, but we're dealing with unreasonable forces that consider themselves soldiers in a warzone, rather than public servants in troubled areas where a little kindness on their part would go a long way.
Peaceful protests can effect change. I'm not arguing that they can't. But decades of peaceful protests -- interrupted occasionally by violent civil uprisings -- haven't changed much in this nation. And that's just the last 50 years of this on/off cycle. The anger presenting itself now dates back more than 300 years to slavery. And the 300 years following that haven't been much better. Nearly 100 years after slaves were freed, governments in America -- along with the populace supporting them -- treated blacks as subhumans only worthy of very limited rights and privileges.
But let's go with the argument that peaceful protests will bring peaceful resolutions. Here's how that's playing out around the nation.
This guy is bleeding from his skull and the police have the nerve to tell the media he “tripped” pic.twitter.com/WPjvZNAneo
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) June 5, 2020
1️⃣7️⃣3️⃣ San Antonio, TX: police abruptly open fire into crowd of peaceful protestors
🗣: "Everybody put your hands up!"
👮🏼♂️👮🏼♀️👮🏼: ::starts shooting::
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 3, 2020
1️⃣8️⃣0️⃣ Wilmington, NC: police kneel "in solidarity"...
...so protestors will get closer...
...for the police to shoot them.
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 3, 2020
Seattle police pepper spray, gas and flashbang peaceful protests for the third day in a row. @MayorJenny should be ashamed of herself and everyone involved. #seattleprotest #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/Jole1XcSLG
— anxiety feverdream (@catsayshello) June 3, 2020
#BlacklivesMaters SAN DIEGO PROTEST WE ARE BEING PEACEFUL pic.twitter.com/91TuXmWuKe
— Mariah (@mariahalize3) May 31, 2020
2️⃣0️⃣3️⃣ Huntington Beach, CA: police open fire on unarmed protestors laying flat on the ground
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 3, 2020
TURN THE VOLUME UP: This footage is unbelievable!
This happened today: Philadelphia Police Officers were firing tear gas on peaceful protesters who were TRAPPED on a fenced off hill on the side of a highway!
THIS IS SAVAGE BRUTALITY!pic.twitter.com/r5UgBAfAcd
— Trisha (@Trisha_Tahmasbi) June 2, 2020
2️⃣3️⃣2️⃣ Huntsville, AL: police officer gets out of his car and just walks around casually pepper-spraying people
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 4, 2020
2️⃣4️⃣0️⃣ Indianapolis, IN: police teargassing a worship service for sport
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 4, 2020
Here is a 38 photo sequence of what happen this morning with Joyce Beatty, Shannon Hardin, Kevin Boyce, protesters and Columbus Police. pic.twitter.com/ZZEd6MfJCh
— Kyle Robertson (@KRobPhoto) May 30, 2020
Fuck NYPD #BarclaysCenter pic.twitter.com/9hJTROT8RK
— Jane Doe (@crankberries) May 30, 2020
we were doing nothing wrong. the organizers of this protest put so much fucking effort into keeping it as peaceful as possible and look at what these pos cops CHOSE TO DO TO US#columbusprotest #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/sY4PQlMQc8
— BLACK LIVES MATTER (@rottenstrwbry) May 30, 2020
#RICHMOND #VIRGINIA peaceful protest attacked. pic.twitter.com/saxfBeDkAn
— JUST ADD HAND SANITIZER (@Justiceaddwater) June 2, 2020
Need more? Plenty can be found here. And Twitter has no shortage of footage showing cops behaving violently in the face of non-violent protests.
With a nation watching them -- including the hundreds of cameras present at any protest -- police officers are acting as though nothing matters. They have responded to accusations of excessive violence with excessive violence. They have greeted non-violence with violence. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down. Empathy and self-awareness are apparently traits considered to be weaknesses by our nation's law enforcement agencies. Proving protesters right isn't helping the cops win. But leaving it up to ineffective and cowardly legislators isn't ending the cops' winning streak either. The cops claim fear provokes every violent reaction they have. But when they have nothing to fear, they engage in violence anyway.
Let's not abandon peaceful solutions. But let's not pretend they're more effective than violence targeting the objects of state oppression.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: change, civil rights, defund the police, police, police brutality, police violence, protests
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
shooting into crowds
While the first choice of oppressors, violence is a last resort of the desperate and oppressed.
I believe we all learned what happened when shots were fired into a crowd of protestors in Boston. I believe we called it a massacre and it started this country. Riots; Boston tea party. Change occurs when the oppressed stomach no more and organize.
I applaud those who call for peace, but I commend those willing to fight for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shooting into crowds
The most succinct and coherent summary yet.
When the social contract is abandoned by one side the other side will act accordingly. These riots are lamentable. Deplorable. And they happen because the side of "Fuck you, I got mine" couldn't be arsed to uphold their end of that contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being a bully doesn't stop bullying
One of the points of peaceful protest in the current state of things (and even for prior advocates and practice of peaceful protest) is that it puts the protesters in a different light than law enforcement. To be the 'bigger person', to have 'greater character', to 'behave more ethically', to 'be better'. That some extremists involve themselves in the protests and do harmful things such as violence and looting makes a statement about themselves, but not all protesters. It also gives cover to bad behavior on the other side.
I hear a lot of talk about the protests being about BLM, but I think there is more than one thread to these protests. They are not just about racism, but also about authoritarianism. They are about the police 'respect mah authoritay'. They are about the police unions, and administrations, and the prosecutors, and courts who don't hold officers who commit bad acts accountable. They are about the militarization of police departments. They are about the propensity to shoot (whether taser or gun no matter) first and forget about other techniques. They are about the First Rule of Policing (get home for dinner tonight) rather than everyone gets dinner tonight, either at home or in jail if appropriate. They are about the lack of necessity for the police to know the law while mere citizens are required to. They are about the misuse of asset forfeiture. They are about the almost ubiquitous surveillance without cause. They are about a whole host of things that have more to do with excessive power rather than protecting and serving. Hell, the police as a representation of authoritarianism is just one example and given the copyright industries extra judicial stranglehold over culture or the inability for the government to recognize inappropriate monopolies and/or the compromise of legislative processes via corporate or special interest corruption we might say those are also contributing, but underlying aspects of the public rage.
Someone came up with 'All Lives Matter', which they do, but that phrase has been co opted by some to mean only specific lives whereas it should be taken for what it says. All lives matter and the police should be admonished to behave accordingly. The police don't just kill black, brown, yellow, (or whatever criteria) minorities (religion or national origin or etc.) might be defined as. They also kill whites and Christians. They should employ deescalation rather than force. They should respect Constitutional restrictions rather than trying to fudge their way around them. They should treat each and every citizen, suspected criminal or not, as they would a treasured member of their own family, and react with force only when all other options have been judiciously expended, not when it is most expedient. And, as pointed out in the recent John Oliver piece, it is the system that allows or even encourages bad things to happen. We need to make changes at a systemic level.
The point of non-violent protest is to be better, and when the police act aggressively, or violently anyway, holding the ground of non-violence will, in the long run (sometimes very long), make a greater statement than succumbing to 'well they did it first' childish reactions. Some say one stands up to a bully. That may be correct, but there is more than one way to stand up to a bully. That people get injured or killed by those bully's is terrible, but acting as a bully oneself is just as terrible. Be better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being a bully doesn't stop bullying
"The point of non-violent protest is to be better, and when the police act aggressively, or violently anyway, holding the ground of non-violence will, in the long run (sometimes very long), make a greater statement than succumbing to 'well they did it first' childish reactions."
I'm guessing you aren't black. Or that you haven't very many black friends who could explain to you what it's like to do exactly that. For generations.
It's fairly obvious you have no skin in this, because at this point what you are really asking for is for US blacks to do what even Gandhi acknowledged as a losing tactic - using nonviolence against an adversary which has no conscience.
Riots are a last resort, and unfortunately the one black people keep coming back to having to use. Again and again and again.
Holding the ground for very long will change things? That's not how this works. If it did you'd still be british.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the cops being violent is a good thing (in the long run). If enough of this behavior is exposed to get our government representatives off their asses to create real oversight and enforce penalties on officers that act this way, that would be a win. Police culture needs to be changed from the outside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to protest the police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
This ^
All of the peaceful protesters need to exercise their peaceful right to peacefully arm themselves while protesting peacefully. They need to start showing the police that their brutality will not be tolerated any longer. And if the shell casings start flying the multitude of video will show who fired the first shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
In the end then, not peaceful and maybe admitting that their intentions were not in fact peaceful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to protest the police
You can be peaceful and armed at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Si vis pacem, para bellum — if you want peace, prepare for war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
That's a great idea. Let's give Trump an excuse to bring in the military. I assume you will be the one standing in front?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to protest the police
Come now, it's not like there have been people calling for hunting down protesters who would absolutely jump at the chance to point to pictures of armed protesters to support their murderous arguments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
Wrong color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'All of them.'
I suspect if 30-40 police showed up to a protest with 300-400 armed protestors, it would be a much different scene.
Indeed it would, it would be an absolute bloodbath. Police are already beating, pepper-spraying and shooting protesters with 'less than lethal'('Less than Lethal: It's not meant to kill you, but maiming is definitely still on the table') rubber bullets, you seriously think that a large group of armed black men and women showing up would cause the police act to less extreme? Because if so I've got some amazing bridges to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'All of them.'
There was no bloodbath with the armed anti-lockdown protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'All of the
A) They were white.
B) They weren't advocating for systemic change that would remove power from authoritarians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'All of
Wrong on both counts, as usual.
A) They were in fact advocating to remove power from authoritarians. That's exactly what they were doing - in fact, you couldn't come up with a better definition of what they were doing.
B) It's not that they were White. It's that they weren't torturing dogs, smashing business owners with 2 x 4s, destroying businesses, committing arson, throwing bricks, etc.
C) What they were protesting was real, not made-up victim fantasies.
Postscript - If they had decided to destroy public property, they'd still be wrong … but at least they'd know they paid for it with their taxes. Which is untrue about the majority of the BLM ingrates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'Al
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?' 'Al
Wrong on all counts, as usual.
A) They were protesting because it wasn't their favored leader who made the decision, and because their favored authoritarian is fanning the flames. If they really were protesting authoritarianism... well, then they'd be Antifa.
B) It's totally because they were white. You know who does that other stuff you mentioned? White supremacists.
C) What they were protesting was imagined oppression, as opposed to the very real and documented history of police brutality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'I feard for my life.' 'For how many clips?'
C) They were protesting for death, as opposed to against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
I see that going very badly for this round of protesters. In my opinion, there are two huge differences between the previous Michigan protests and the current protests. The most obvious is... well... skin color. The second difference is that any outcome of the previous Michigan protests would not have threatened a police officers way of life. The cops aren't out there making mistakes and having lapses of judgement in front of the camera, they are showing us that they are willing to fight a war to preserve their status. They are not serving and protecting the protesters... they are counter-protesting. because when their status is stripped away, all of the sudden, they will have a lot of explaining to do. And you can bet your ass they will fight as hard as they need to in order to answer as few questions as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
The question is, would that be a good thing?
Right now, the protestors are calling for police reform, and the police are replying by demonstrating exactly why reform is needed. And lawmakers are taking note.
There are three scenarios that I can see if the protests become armed:
... I can't see how any of these scenarios benefit anyone. Heck, #1 and #2 still carry the risk of justifying the existing police violence, even if protestors don't become violent themselves.
It just seems like a lot of risk, for very little possible reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
"Right now, the protestors are calling for police reform, and the police are replying by demonstrating exactly why reform is needed."
No. In fact, the rioters are teaching America the exact opposite lesson: that large groups of unruly Blacks are so violent that they need heavy-handed policing to keep cities from burning, dogs from being tortured, neighborhoods destroyed, etc.
Just as the unnecessary leftist violence of the 1960s ensured Nixon's reelection … well, draw your own conclusions about where this is leading...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to protest the police
I've been ignoring this racist up to now, but I have got to ask where this "torturing dogs" thing is coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
"It becomes increasingly clear that if you are going to protest the police, you should outnumber them, and be fully armed."
And, as in the armed protests at the Michigan State House, more important than being armed was being white and Trumpian. 30-40 cops faced unexpectedly with 300-400 armed, black protester, call in the National Guard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Can't Stop The Signal, Mal.
It was expected one knight (that's heavy cavalry) could take on less than fifty angry serfs with sharpened farming implements. And with that capacity, the feudal order was sustained. (More than fifty, you might need two knights.)
In the US, we realized government and enforcement should be by consent, which is one of the reasons for the right to bear arms (I know, blah-blah militia, but the arguments made by Jefferson when talking about the right to bear arms, he was thinking they would be tools to keep the elected officials nervous.) But it means fewer angry civilians are necessary to adequately challenge nobility / law enforcement. The ratio is much less.
One law enforcement officer may be able to handle ten or twenty unruly metropolitan citizens armed with umbrellas and briefcases, but more than that (or better armed) he's going to need to call for backup. A protest numbering in the actual thousands, some of which are armed, cannot be put down if the majority of them agree it's become a riot and those weapons need to be used. And yeah, sometimes we call in the state National Guard. Friends of mine who were active Marines in the sixties remember doing crowd control in the states -- maybe in DC -- and not shooting at guys throwing rocks. (They were armored up and could laugh at rocks. A solitary sniper watched for real threats.)
But also now we're in the age of social media, in which gazillionaires who run the press don't get to dictate the narrative of social unrest. Law enforcement fighting crowds is always a bad look and is recognized worldwide as the stompy jackboots of oppression. A boot stamping on a human face - forever.
It only gets worse when infantry in armor and battle fatigues are shooting real bullets at civilians, even when those civilians are throwing Molotov cocktails back. The viewers are just not going to sympathize with the uniforms, especially if their grandfathers can remember similar uniforms and similar guns coming after them during unrest.
This is what Dr. King was counting on in his peaceful protests: the police would attack and it would get out. He was lucky to have a sympathetic press in an era without social media.
But now we have social media and a lot of private cameras.
(I mean, they could try, but if the US suddenly got firewalled like China it would be sending a pretty strong message as to state of the US. And underground media flows from China like a torrential river.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
This is one of dozens of the same essential comment.
Apparently on Techdirt, "White and Trumpian" is code word for: "law-abiding, non-destructive, non-violent, and taxpaying".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
Armed protesters are not protesting. They are attempting to intimidate. That is a big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to protest the police
"I suspect if 30-40 police showed up to a protest with 300-400 armed protestors, it would be a much different scene."
Yep. It'd give Trump all he needs to order the military to go out and get him some body bags so he can call himself a wartime president.
Unfortunately it won't matter who fires first. There'll be a massacre, military intervention, and the fired shots may be the first ones in a civil war with incredibly uncertain battle lines.
Now if what you wanted was to have Trump suspend elections and split the US right down between a with-us-or-against-us republican america and the actual people then this is the way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to protest the police
He might try, but he does not have the legal authority to do that. I hope that if he just announced that the election is postponed, all the state and county election officials would just give him the finger and hold it anyway, since only Congress has that authority. But who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Let's just pour ALL the gasoline on that fire shall we?'
Because nothing says 'it's only a few bad apples' and 'there's most certainly not systemic corruption and rampant police brutality' like entire groups if not departments engaging in brutality against peaceful protesters on live tv and the internet equivalent.
Even worse, if this is what they are willing to do when they know they are being recorded does anyone think that the are or would be more restrained when the cameras are off or they think that only a few people might be watching?
The police may think that they can beat crowds into submission just like they beat individuals into submission, but all they're doing is fanning the flames and showing the world that people pissed off at american police are absolutely justified in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Let's just pour ALL the gasoline on that fire shall we?'
And ironically. They are proving why people should fear them. If police get.to use the I feared for.life, citizens should too. And since the bad apples seem to slip past , why, since they do notmlnow which police is which, using cops own logic, every encounter.with police is with a bad.apple.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Let's just pour ALL the gasoline on that fire shall we?'
Nothing says 'groups of Black people don't need aggressive policing' like groups of Black people and fellow travelers battering business owners, torturing dogs, committing widespread arson, rampant violence, looting... on and on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never seen such a literal example of the cliché "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have the right to Peacefully Protest. You have no right to be a looter or violent thug!!! You should be arrested and thrown into jail.
You care so much about this Criminal. Yes, what the police did to this criminal was WRONG. He ended up arrested for it. Though with the way the charges are going, they may walk.
People supposedly care so much about this criminal all the while they are looting Black business owners!!!! All the while a bunch more blacks are killed by black on back violence. I was just reading how a bunch more were killed including 2 18-year-old BLACK young women. Now that is something to protest over and yet no one seems to care.
Yes, the police need some reforms. This is also a long time Democrat-controlled City. Yet they keep voting for these people year after year after year. Of course, nothing is going to change. If you keep voting for the same and expecting different results, that's on YOU.
All this Black on Black Crime has been going on for YEARS. Something like 3500 Black Murdered by other blacks while OBAMA was in office in his city of Chicago and what did he do? NOTHING!!!!!
You have no right to RIOT. You have no right to LOOT. Most all of these looters are doing it for money. You don't see them wearing work boots. Or Looting a Home Depot. They're looting Electronic and Shoe stores!!!! I saw the one where the looters were trying to break into a safe of a Black-Owned bar that was almost ready to be opened and it got destroyed. What they expected in a safe of a business that had not even opened up. Not the brightest people I see.
You try to break into my house, you'll get SHOT!!! You try to break into my business and loot and destroy, you will be SHOT. I'm sure as hell how going to get on my knees and apologize for being white. Or wash anyone's feet black, white or any other color. BLM is a racist group. It's a group that really doesn't even care about any other Black people. Just this narrow little view of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How's that Shiva Ayyadurai fund coming along bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the nonviolent, nonresisting guy who was suspected of passing a 20 dollar counterfeit bill and was subsequently brutally murdered is, in your eyes, the criminal? Of what? Ah, yes, being black.
"You have no right to RIOT. You have no right to LOOT."
Tell it to the founding fathers. I'm sure a lot of british merchants and landowners are happy that fscking finally there's an american colonist willing to defend them against that terrorist organization The sons Of Liberty.
"...while OBAMA was in office..."
You really can't help yourself, Baghdad Bob. At some point I can only imagine you looking through all your little rants with a wrinkled forehead, wondering how come we're always on to you. I'll give you a hint - the "But Obama!" you always fit in is a pretty solid tell.
"I'm sure as hell how going to get on my knees and apologize for being white. Or wash anyone's feet black, white or any other color."
No one's asking you to. They want the same rights you do. That you appear to think those "rights" may include having your feet washed and apologies uttered over your skin color only tells Us what you expect from others.
"BLM is a racist group."
Uh huh. Because in your little world, having to be equal to a black person means to be oppressed.
You forgot the usual spiel about "They're comin' for our wimmin'!", Baghdad Bob. If you keep that up we might even imagine you aren't typing the shit you do from behind a white hood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The loudest voices calling for peaceful protests and working within the system are those of the people that control the system because they know nothing will be achieved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peaceful is not the end of the story
Continuing to buckle down on only half the story continues to accomplish nothing.
The fact that these protests claim (and yes, they only claim this so far) they were peaceful is not the end of the important list of facts.
In many of these cases the protesters were breaking a lawful curfew. The police shooting teargas at them is a polite way of making them disperse and obey the law. The alternatives are not better. Try to arrest a mob that large and you're only going to put cops in a dangerous situation they shouldn't need to be in. This is not me saying that all of these fit into that explanation, only to point out that many seem to be happily ignoring those that do. Pretending that all these protesters are in the right is not helping.
I would also honestly be more on your side if the riots today were targeting police institutions. You keep saying that makes what's happening here ok and ignoring that that's not what's happening at all. People are randomly destroying anything for whatever twisted reason floats their boat. Comparing this to the Boston tea party is ridiculous. They're nothing alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
You and I have very different definitions of the word "polite." Granted, I'm a Canadian, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
No, we don't. You just stopped before the rest of my statement. Considering the alternative possible solutions, that was very polite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
"The alternatives are not better" doesn't apply that one solution is polite. Calling someone an asshole isn't polite, even if "the alternative" is something with sixteen expletives, three anatomically impossible suggestions, and a derogatory comment about that person's mother. Similarly, assault doesn't stop being assault just because the police think it's necessary assault.
"Polite" would be a respectful request to vacate the premises, perhaps a barrier to prevent any more people from entering, and patience. Would that be effective? Maybe not, but sometimes there are no polite, effective solutions. That doesn't make the least-rude effective solution (which I am not convinced that this was) polite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
"No, we don't. You just stopped before the rest of my statement. Considering the alternative possible solutions, that was very polite."
Not really, no. There is another alternative. Not firing teargas and simply allowing the fairly normal and usually accepted way of civil disobedience to proceed.
Because, honestly, if what you have is a thousand people violating a curfew over the shit currently going on the one way you get people back from the streets as a police officer is by playing it very cool.
Instead what this shit accomplishes is that you'll get two more riots for every one dispersed in this manner. AND add credence to the idea that peaceful demonstrations are a wash so let's try the other kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
Those curfews may be lawful, but are they moral? On one hand we could argue that they were meant to stop violence and looting, on the other hand they are a way for the authoritarians to express their authoritarianism. If the latter is true, why shouldn't those curfews be protested, peacefully, along with other issues?
I do not believe that any of these protests have just one single agenda. I believe that people are out there for a multitude of reasons, many of which revolve around authoritarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
And if you can find a way to argue that the curfews in question have gone beyond what has been considered acceptable by most courts for a general curfew then great.
The reason they cannot be protested by being out in public is pretty obvious. Because it's a curfew and breaking it makes you a criminal. If the curfew is considered Constitutionally lawful (which most courts have long recognized that as long as they only go on for a limited time during a state of emergency they are within the bounds of the Constitution) then no they cannot be protested in this manner. There are other ways that don't involve breaking the law to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
You can't break the law to protest that law. Wonderful logic there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all felons already, ducking the DA's gaze
The law is super fluid. We're all felons already and could get put into prison for twenty-five years if a DA had cause to bring our lives to ruin (say, he wanted your land and your wife).
The law doesn't mean much in the US. We put away people we don't like, not people who did wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
"The reason they cannot be protested by being out in public is pretty obvious. Because it's a curfew and breaking it makes you a criminal."
Wonderful circular logic. Now let me introduce you to the concept of the universally held standard of civil disobedience.
Basically, and this may come as a surprise to you, the law not being equitable and fair is precisely the issue here. In the US, today, it's the police who are being judged.
"There are other ways that don't involve breaking the law to do so."
Which for the last 50 years have resulted in nothing other than murdered black people.
I don't think you realize the point you people are at right now. It's yet again one of those points where you and others like you decide whether your children will grow up in a racist shithole or an enlightened multicultural america.
You speak a lot about the constitution while somehow missing the point that in practice it has utterly failed to protect people which aren't white. When the social contract has failed what you have isn't law enforcement anymore - but thuggery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
The fallicy here is that the law and morality sleep in the same bed. Often, they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
Reasonable force is an actual doctrine for how to approach a situation. And people have the right to gather and protest, you cannot force them to disperse. So shooting tear gas (which is illegal) to disperse protestors (a violation of their rights) while they are protesting is actually exactly what not to do, and saying they could do WORSE things does not make it okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
It is banned in war by international treaty, but not illegal to use by police in the US. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banned in war
To be fair, war and police actions are different situations. Safety-bullets like dum-dums / hollowpoints and Glasers are used in police actions to prevent penetration. (A 7.62×39mm FMJ round will penetrate eleven houses, and any residents.)
But even the dawn of CS gas use in the US demonstrates our propensity for abuse when (California Governor) Ronald Reagan authorized the kettling of protestors and dumping gas of them during the Bloody Thursday incident in Berkeley.
We haven't mellowed out ever since, though a pervasiveness of phone video of police-involved violence may turn the tide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't finish my thought.
Safety-bullets like dum-dums and Glasers are forbidden in war, but have an obvious advantage in police actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banned in war
Cops aren't above bombing people, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banned in war
True, but I am aware of no such factor in favor of allowing chemical weapons such as tear gas in policing but not warfare. Unless it's useful enough as a substitute for lethal force that it's worth allowing it. That could potentially be a viable argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NBC Weapons banned in war used in police actions
The Geneva conventions have banned sweeping types of ordnance carte blanche, and I can see an argument that dismissing one weapon over other based on its method doesn't help, rather weapons should be outlawed if they are more cruel, more inhumane, messier, etc. than what is already in use.
The US for example, has a policy against assassination. Which is understandable given we botched a few, and even successful assassinations tend to cause a lot of blowback. The problem is, we swapped assassination with targeted killings which is essentially assassination by burning the village the target happens to be in at the time. This is how our drone strike programs kill fifty civilians per person-of-interest, and how we engage in acts of terror in our War on Terror.
War is generally a terrible thing, and no matter how we regulate it, it's still pretty awful and brings ruin to those generations who have to experience it. Rather than trying to govern the rules of warfare, it might be a better solution to try to make a court of last resort in which belligerents try to hammer out a way to not fight. The cold war forced us into such a position, but with a Sword of Damocles that could split the earth and loomed over everyone.
Getting back to CS gas, it's essentially yet another device by which the state can make participation in unrest less pleasant. The problem is it's a tech that makes it easier to dismiss unrest and fail to recognize the societal problems that cause it. Crowd control weapons are symptom management, not treatment for the disease.
And our institutions are already notorious for disregarding the diseases of society, both literal and proverbial, and effective crowd control technology only gives them more latitude by which to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
"shooting tear gas (which is illegal)"
This is a beautiful example of what almost all leftists are guilty of: speaking of that which they don't have a scintilla of knowledge about.
I don't know anything about basketball or Japanese animation; therefore, I keep my mouth shut about those subjects.
Leftists don't understand what "being American" means; therefore, they should stick to discussing Marx in coffee shops and reciting slam poetry and going on slutwalks and stop trying to make or enforce law or vote. Leave that to those of us who know what "being American" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
And protest usually cause a obstruction of public roads and pathways, and so should disperse when told, because the are breaking the law.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Targeted Destruction
While I advocate for peaceful demonstration, if peaceful demonstration does not achieve the desired end, and violence is necessary, then targeting the actual "enemy" is the only acceptable approach. It is NEVER acceptable to target innocent businesses or people or property for looting and destruction. That is simple vandalism and only serves to hurt the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeted Destruction
In a system that values property greater than lives and and looks at the value of lives almost exclusively in terms of their economic productivity, the destruction of property is a powerful message. It motivates business and property owners to call for change when they would otherwise ignore the issues. And, most importantly, it works, as history shows. Its the only thing that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Targeted Destruction
The system in question does not value property over lives. Some individuals certainly do, but then you're talking about all businesses everywhere and that is simply not true.
And the fact that doing this causes some change to happen does not make it ok or justify doing it. You need far more than that to justify this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Targeted Destruction
"And the fact that doing this causes some change to happen does not make it ok or justify doing it. You need far more than that to justify this."
You DO realize that the entire american revolution against british colonial rule was over FAR less than what black people have had to put up with?
I'd suggest before you keep going down that road of fiat iustitia ruat caelum, you spend a few minutes thinking about the issues that prompted this whole mess and their comparison to where you lot all came from.
Because from outside what I, as a european white man, am seeing, is that white americans seem to cling to wilful blindness as if it was a religious commandment. Even, or perhaps especially those who aren't white supremacists or bigots.
It's an ugly reminder that Malcolm X once said that he feared the ignorant but well-intentioned liberal more than the openly malicious racist. And why he said this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your shop?'
In general, yes, not torching or otherwise destroying property of those not involved would be better and help avoid giving ammo to their opposition, but as has been pointed out a few times if one side of the social contract isn't going to be upheld then why should the other?
As Trevor Noah pointed out in his video, and another woman further backed up in a clip at the end John Oliver's video, when one side sees that their lives are given little to no respect by the society around them then it's not too surprising that some members of that side wouldn't be too concerned about the property of those around them.
If society isn't going to value someone's life then why should that person value society's property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your shop?
The premise of your balance is not true of our current state. That's why.
Some individuals have not valued their lives. That does not show society not valuing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your s
Voters have been electing officials that refused to fire, or have re-hired those officers. Juries have refused to convict murderers wearing blue. Lawmakers have protected the officers' qualified immunity, preventing them from being sued for the damage they've done.
If society values their lives, it's doing a piss-poor job of demonstrating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your s
A cop does not murder someone on camera unless they have a damn good expectation that the system that might hold them accountable isn't terribly interested in doing so, and that takes more than a few people involving not putting any value on black lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your s
"Some individuals have not valued their lives. That does not show society not valuing them."
Really? See, this is why the wilfully blind are a god damn menace.
The police are the people tasked by society to enforce law.
When police become murderers instead who owns the guilt?
When it becomes impossible to censure the police, who owns the guilt?
When police, rather than being restrainedf, are encouraged to get even tougher? Who owns the guilt?
We have this dog. Society owns it. Problem is that it bites people for no reason. Those people have complained. You do nothing.
The dog bites more people and those people come every day to you to complain. You do nothing.
The dog returns bloody one day and people come to you crying, saying it killed someone. You do nothing.
The dog returns with a dead child in it's jaws. People come and demand justice. You do nothing.
Then the dog is finally caught in broad daylight slowly worrying a man to death. The people follow the dog to your door bearing torches and pitchforks. NOW you squawk in outrage that "Something should be done"?
I suggest you take more than a few second to think about WHY the society above all need to feel this. It's pretty clear the US well beyond any conveniently peaceful solutions.
And it didn't get there just because of the odd white supremacist. It got there because society did nothing to restrain society's own employees when those employees saw fit to devolve into a gang of racist-riddled thugs.
Right now, today, the streets belong to Jeffersson, not King George.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your s
I would argue, Cdaragon, that you have it backwards.
There is a plethora of recorded evidence and history of American society as a whole not valuing Black people's lives (or the lives of other People of Color, very notably Native Americans).
That there are individuals who do value their lives, or small pockets of society that buck the trend, does not show that Society as a whole values them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about yo
"...does not show that Society as a whole values them."
It's worse than just not valuing them.
Consider that society as a whole has done absolutely nothing to stop the police - employed by society to enforce law - from murdering and harrassing people. On the contrary society has encourage the police to get steadily worse.
That's outright society ridding itself of the vaguely undesirable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your shop?
It would help if the cops behaved in line with that as well. Cops slash dozens of car tires,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent Businesses
Those businesses are depending on a society that kills people. To outlaws (those of us outside the law and the protection of the society) everything that is inside the law and the protection of the state is infrastructure and supports the system that kills us.
Besides which, it was an evil, creepy Target.
But no, if the system is going to murder people with impunity, then they are obligated to raid and raze as is necessary to survive.
Feel free to build a new society that is genuinely all inclusive. But this one isn't. And it's outlawing more and more people with time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Targeted Destruction
"It is NEVER acceptable to target innocent businesses or people or property for looting and destruction."
There is an argument to be made that the community as a whole needs to bear the cost for persistently allowing their employees, the police force, to get away with thuggery and murder.
And unfortunately that argument in the US goes all the way back to when the terrorist organization The Sons Of Liberty attacked the businesses of innocent british tea merchants, looted their cargo and threw it into the boston harbor.
The lesson is pretty clear. If things are so bad that peaceful demonstrations don't get the job done and violence becomes necessary there will no longer BE an innocent community. Only one which has allowed, for far too long, their paid employees to recklessly murder other people in the name of law enforcement.
Bluntly put if your dog bites someone else because you refused to watch it, at the end of the day you will be the one paying for it.
If you've been such a shoddy dogkeeper your dog has bitten multiple people to death despite those people coming to you numerous times and telling you to god damn leash that dog, then you have call on neither surprise nor outrage when they come with a torch and an axe.
This is all on the community of Decent People who stood by and did precisely nothing when their own law enforcers indulged in ever worse acts of thuggery. The same way it was all on the poor british landowners and merchants when outraged colonists finally took matters into their own hands and vandalized the british businesses in Boston and elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will history repeat?
This is important to remember. There will likely be several trials coming in the next many months or years of several cops who killed unarmed, non-threatening, blacks.
The protests after the Rodney King beating didn't hold a candle to the literal firestorm aftermath of the trial verdicts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Millenial attention span.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Millenial attention span.
Police killed about 1,000 people in 2019 alone. Extrapolating that, that would be 10,000 people in the last decade.
Your position is that this "damage" has been doubled, and then doubled again by the rioters and looters, so can I please get a source stating that 40,000 people have been killed in the rioting and looting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watching the world burn
Did you listen to the woman who observed that the Minneapolis police station and target (and a football hall-of-fame) weren't theirs. Her community, the one in which law enforcement pulls them over until they find reason to shoot them dead doesn't own anything and does not actually get any benefit from the corporate infrastructure.
Indeed, the Target in question was creepy like in Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes. It sold only shoddy goods and was the place were Target Inc tested its more extreme security measures. People avoided shopping there.
No, our black communities are like Indian reservations or Jewish ghettos in Poland, places the state drives people it doesn't like to languish and be contained.
And then we send law enforcement there, not to actually keep the police, but to harass the people for minor infractions against the state (id est not against each other). When there's a domestic incident, the police don't give a fuck until long after someone is dead.
So when they burn down corporate property or state property? That's essentially akin to Mexicans burning the property of the French occupation. (Or humans taking down Martian infrastructure)
The United States is totally the Nazis, and the only thing we haven't yet done is decide we can't afford to sustain black communities so we should just evacuate them (to mass graves.)
Only the Allies aren't coming to save us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Millenial attention span.
How many black corpses is a Target worth?
Stop pretending this is some isolated incident, this happens all the time and has been going on for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A strange thing
Something I point out to persons that say, they are Christians.
A group of EU people wonder the world and declare lands as Discovered, for their own nations.
Then send in the preachers, and demand they convert or we kill them. Then we take all these New christians, as slaves..
For all that Rome and other nations persecuted Christians, Christians have returned to the rest of the world, manifold. We even persecute the religion we came from, the Jewish people Love us, sooo much.
Trying to get people to understand their Own past, is so much fun. The New testament has only been around <400 years. And it change Christians After Along time.
Would be interesting, to go back a few steps and get the Church itself to Kick persons out that ARENT acting NEW Christian.
(love people who think they are, and act nothing like it)
Lets Dump that idea for now.
Why did people from the EU run to the America's?? SAME reasons as now, to much BS happening, but who is in control? Who is pushing buttons.
Its patterning. Its been created over time, and gotten worse and worse. Its the thought of WHO do we blame or point at if something is SEEN, Done, ???..
This is as bad as the creation of religions, when asked about something NEW happening, "God did it" was the Answer.
For some reasons, we are not taught to question, or to discover anymore. We are as bad as many animals. And we are treated as such. Our Keepers are taught the same, to Control over us. Ya, ya ya... but watch.
How mnay of you/us treat others(unless proven) Abit like Cause and affect? Pat them on the head and they Purr, bark. Many people Never learn to control themselves and not LET others push the buttons.
Some people have figured this out, and it works for so many people. I dont like saying it this way, but we arent much better then a trained dog. With Programming as soon as we goto Church of listen to HOW, our nation is run.
Those from the past are still here.
Its up to us, and others to Take things back if we can. Try to get the Others that are treated as trained dogs, to Learn to care for themselves and others..
recently.. Someone got into an archive for a famous experiment. The info inside Proved the Experiment was rigged. The Scientist TOLD the jailers what to do..this is NOT human reaction.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/behavior/social-psychology/v/zimbardo-prison-st udy-the-stanford-prison-experiment
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment -fraud-psychology-replication
JUST MY OPINION..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A strange thing
my point comes to 1 thing..
A dog only has a few things he can do..
Cower in the corner and let it happen, of Fight back..
And when he fights back, he has seen something better then he has, he hopes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A strange thing
Stop parroting this misinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
"The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.[27] The following table lists the earliest extant manuscript witnesses for the books of the New Testament."
It's not less than 400 years old. The surviving copies, which are understood to have been penned at least a century after the originals (and, yes, this is par for the course for most ancient documents, surviving originals are rare), are dated to the 2nd century. The copies are between 1,870 and 1,770 years old.
I don't take issue with most of the rest of what you've said, ECA, but please, please get your facts straight on this particular point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we have the 2nd amendment.
Citizens are being targeted, citizens need to protect themselves.
Since the police in this country now depend on federal funds, they are not community police, they are federal police with a federal agenda.
Community police mission:To serve and protect.
Federal funded police mission:Control and Suppress (for Oppression by others)
IF you resist, you be shot at, gassed, trampled, beat, arrested and killed - all without due process.
No more Federal Funding for police.
No more collective bargaining for police.
Citizens are being targeted, citizens need to protect themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smooth move, brainiac.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chicago PD is one of the worst
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law enforcement's role in oppression
I openly advocated for the targeted destruction of government property. I do not apologize for that. If the problem is law enforcement, it should be law enforcement's stuff that burns.
Much the way the bad apples within precincts are overlooked and condoned by the other officers, the deeply entrenched garrison model for for law enforcement is deeply entrenched in the justice system. Judges help officers lie and set precedents that give the people fewer protections against police overreach. And all this is to support a system that entirely fails to voice the will of the people or push for public interests, and then still taxes them.
We've seen these things before, and the indictments in the Declaration of Independence are applicable here today.
The destruction of government property, of the infrastructure on which it depends is a mainstay of insurrection, and sabotage and destruction are more ethical directions than killing government officers and agents, or attacks that kill ordinary people (e.g. suicide bombers and rampage killers). Anything that supports law enforcement is going to need to be reconsidered, especially if the infrastructure drives law enforcement to act outside its parameters of serving the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
almost on a daily basis, USA police use violence when not needed and are then not just backed up by colleagues but are actively praised by them and then backed up still further by bullshit claims of Union Reps. these acts of unnecessary violence lead not to less unrest of citizens but more, which in turn leads to even greater acts of police brutality both on the street and in police custody. these acts are further enhanced by the continuous deployment of ex-military vehicles and equipment which have not just been sold to the various police forces but actively asked, even begged for by police chiefs for the express aim of quelling even the slightest bit of civilian unrest, whether justified or questionable. this, in my opinion, is purposefully done because the headof and members of the various locality services want to put the fear of fuck into everyone, killing people when feel like it, knowing full well that they will get away with it scot free, in other words, get away with legalised murder as has happened in the Floyd case and numerous cases before it! the police have been turned, by a minority, into nothing less than Nazi thugs and we could well do without any of them, ever again!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence as an answer to violence
The author does make a very good point. Sometimes violence must be met with active defense. (1776, anybody???) I do however take issue with one thing...
"If the problem is law enforcement, it should be law enforcement's stuff that burns."
A very important point here is being missed or ignored. The police own NOTHING. We the taxpayers do. If a police station burns, no officers that are housed there, nor any government agency, suffer any personal financial loss. We do. If we need to destroy our own stuff to make a point, then so be it. Just make an informed decision, knowing who will ultimately foot the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence as an answer to violence
They may not own the guns, armor and "non-lethal" weapons they use but they have the exclusive right to use them. If it requires taking all of that away from them to curb their violence then so be it.
No amount of legal wrangling or political posturing is going to change the hearts of our nation's law enforcement. The only thing that will is removing their tools of destruction and, hopefully, removing them from their jobs at the slightest whiff of violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violence as an answer to violence
It was not my intent to advocate for or against, any position. My comment isn't about that. I'm merely pointing out that it's not law enforcement who will pay the financial cost, and reminding everyone that "their burning stuff" only applies to private property, not public assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence as an answer to violence
" We do. If we need to destroy our own stuff to make a point, then so be it. Just make an informed decision, knowing who will ultimately foot the bill."
True enough.
Sadly, I think black people still think it's time to toss the tea into the boston harbor. Even if it means both british merchants and british colonials get hurt by it.
Unfortunately it appears it's time to water that bloody tree of jefferssons again, and damn the complacent fools who let it all come to this point.
If white privileged europeans could see this coming from years back there's no way white privileged americans couldn't see the same. It's just been more "Three monkey" bullshit or not seeing, hearing, or speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence as an answer to violence
I would argue that we don't, in fact, own it. The equipment may have been paid for with tax dollars, but the taxpayers do not get the use out of it, and it is not used to taxpayer benefit. If anything, given the abandonment of the contract to actually "Protect and Serve" the community, I would consider the equipment to be stolen.
Part of the funding often comes via Civil Asset Forfeiture, which is also theft. And thus, again, the equipment is stolen.
If calculating actual cost to the taxpayers, consider that the money is already spent. Recovery of lost funds is simply not going to happen. The cost has been paid, there's no way to get it back; against that simple fact, destruction of the stolen property to prevent continued misuse does not actually cost the taxpayer anything more. It may, in fact, be of benefit.
I should note that I, personally, advocate peaceful demonstration, and practice peaceful demonstration, for multiple reasons. But if someone else does not agree, and if they are going to go out and destroy something? Far better that their target be the tools of the oppressors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Not Oversimplify
King's approach of civil disobedience targeted the conscience of the white oppressor. Malcolm's by-any-means-necessary strategy scared white people. The Watts and Rodney King riots frightened the government. Every little bit helps in differing ways and degrees. Some approaches are more effective than others - it depends on who's watching. I keep hoping people will avoid all the brouhaha and simply snipe the individually evil bastard cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Not Oversimplify
so... all of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump has already said the 75 yr old faked his injuries as he is ANTFIA trained operative who had a scanner he was using to block the radio control signals or some shit.
The leader of our country is pushing a conspiracy theory from OANN (or whatever the fuck that horrible thing is) that the police were justified in putting a 75 yr old in the hospital because he was a clear threat.
Pretty sure the clearest threat we have is Trump & his lackeys, they are actively just trying to destroy the Republic so he can claim he is the only one who can save us, while hes driving the bus without brakes towards the cliff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump may be clearly a threat, but he is not the only one. Systemic authoritarianism has been building for a long time, and neither side of the aisle has be clearly opposed. Some, for sure, but without the many we would not have things like the FISA court, or the Patriot Act, or many other bad laws. Not to mention all the corporate favors done because of the corruption of the political process with dirty, filthy money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: Election officials in red states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The leader of our country is pushing a conspiracy theory from OANN..."
It's so much worse than that. The OANN article he got it from literally sounds like it was being read by a Russian bot. It could not be a better example of actual fake news.
I'm not sure what's worse; that he knows this and decided to spread it for nefarious reasons, or that he's mentally impaired enough to not realise it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe because OANN has "reporters" literally paid by the Kremlin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proper response to you coming to burn a police car is to shoot you. As much as you think you deserve to commit violence against the system, if you do so, the system should respond to you in kind. That the system is being violent regardless makes no difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never make an argument you wouldn't want turned on you
If the attempt to burn a car, a piece of property, warrants execution, then pray tell what would be the appropriate response to routine brutality and/or murder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It makes all the difference. That is would be more effective (long term) to protest in a non-violent way, violence against property does not warrant execution. That you, and many law enforcement officers, and way too many of our politicians think it is, is a huge part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does that follow?
You're saying that if you commit violence against the system, then the system is justified in being violence against you -- and then, in the very next sentence, you argue that the reverse is not the case.
What is it about the system that makes it justified in committing violence without provocation, and what is it about private individuals that makes them unjustified in committing violence in retaliation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proper response to a police-car arson...
The thing is, the police shoot us anyway.
We're already outlaws to the police to be summarily executed without trial.
If you were on gang terf and they were coming to make an example of you what would you do?
Because that's the US. Only the state supports and supplies the gang and its color is blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. The proper response to burning a police car is to apprehend and detain you, in which a gun may or may not be necessary. It depends.
To a properly trained officer, a match is no threat. (Unless they happen to have an accelerant on their uniform, at the time. Not likely, but OK.) Facing a flamethrower...? By all means, shoot away! A good officer can assess, a bad one cannot.
A sidearm as a first resort instead of last is pitiful policing at best, Gross Negligence (by the legal definition) at worst. Policing as a profession, may have become professionally "lazy" because of their over reliance on firearms. Cops are just like any one of us. "I just want to hurry up and get this job done, so I can get home." Expedience is easy. Not a good habit to develop, in ANY difficult job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As much as you think you deserve to commit violence against the system, if you do so, the system should respond to you in kind."
Wouldn't 'responding in kind' be them coming to burn your car? How do you not see homicide as a disproportionate reaction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As much as you think you deserve to commit violence against the system, if you do so, the system should respond to you in kind."
I read that statement twice and it still didn't come off as anything other than the call of a british national in King George's day going "The colonial scum shouldn't be surprised when the king's redcoats gun them all down like the dogs they are".
You, uh, might want to nuance your approach to the "proper response" under that "justice at any cost" philosophy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, peaceful protests are actually legal, that's one thing.
The Vietnam War, alongside the struggle of Black people, sparked
the youth revolt of the 60's and created the conditions for the New Left to
mature. The relentless barbarity and length of the US aggression became a
crucible within which our generation learned about US society. We were
forced to see the horror of empire and the real nature of the monster we live
in: we "discovered" imperialism.
Many conflicting forces were at work within the youth movement;
progressive characteristics were in conflict with reactionary aspects, and class
struggle took place within the culture. The growing independence of young
people was a multi-hillion dollar market to be exploited with waste
commodities. But during the years of resistance —from the Pentagon and
Stop the Draft Week, to Kent State and massive protests against the
Cambodia invasion —the strength of the growing anti-imperialist forces and
consciousness were the "best self" of the youth revolt. We did, at long last,
get into the fight against the dirtiest of all wars. Slowly, in hesitation and
confusion, we responded to the heroism, humanity and revolutionary
principle of an Asian people, led by a saintly and very tough revolutionary.
Ho Chi Minh.
That's right. Ho Chi Minh. Oh hell, is that right? Am I lost in time again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I didn't think (OK, I know) that it would end in bloodshed, I'd love to see a whole squad of paintball players in the crowd start returning fire on the cops. When I see videos of cops just casually pepper spraying people for no reason, I can't help wishing someone would walk up to that cop and blast them right in face with pepper spray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this
guilty land will never be purged away but with Blood. I had
as I now think vainly flattered myself that without very
much bloodshed it might be done.
John Brown
Get that? He's a black hero. We want a LOT of bloodshed. Pick a side. BLM!
Black Lives Matter because people's history is a powerful weapon. in the hands of the
oppressors, history is twisted and caricatured. In the arsenal of the
revolution, it helps us draw the difficult lessons from past struggles and
identify the resistance which has always opposed the enemy.
History must be ERASED! Tear down the statues! Write a new history!
Omerica, the beautiful, the land I love to tax. Oh tax, again, oh tax, again, there is no higher calling. Omerica, Omerica, I shed my seed on thee, fuck liberty, more poverty, from Sea to shining Sea!
Omerica (Obama America) GET ON BOARD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Man, you white supremacists just can't let go of the desperate blackface act where you take a stab at pretending to be what you imagine a black activist is like.
And I notice you still aren't letting go of the "But Obama!". Honestly, if anyone had told me the white power crowd would develop actual sexual fetishism over the first black president I'd have called them liars.
But here we are and the white supremacists just can't stop calling his name as if it was their safe word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect the people
Governors need to send in the national guard. To protect the people from the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point ....
At this point, there is no widely -felt organized force of
revolutionary fat women; this has yet to be defined and built. Michelle is working on that This force is
necessary to realize the full potential of the uprising of fat women, especially big ass bitches like Michelle, to carry it
forward, to embody and fight for the collective interests of fat women and former presidents.
We recognize the necessity of resisting and destroying the
anti-fat-women institutions of society, including Trump. He doesn't even like fat women. We recognize that sexism and imperialism
are the enemy of all oppressed fat women, meaning myfat wife, and that is our common ground in our marriage.Not much sex, just that. Our
goal is the development of a feminism which genuinely determines,
safeguards and defends the collective interests of fat women, and which points
in the direction of revolution. We need to build a revolutionary fat feminism.
Fat women are not isolated from the clashes and contradictions in US
society. These are reflected in the contradictions holding back the
development of a revolutionary fat woman's politics. Class privilege, racism,
liberalism and anti-militancy, if not met head on, will militate against the
development of revolutionary fat feminism and defeat the struggle for the full
freedom of fat women.
When the fat women's movement first began, its spontaneity and
openness was a great fat strength. We now have to raise the political questions,
struggle them out, and organize ourselves. Organization and leadership are
major weapons of revolution. We cannot afford to give them away because
of fear of elitism. Anti-elitism is destructive if its political content isn't
left-wing. We need to study, to have ideological debate among fat women who
work in many different facets of the struggle to create a new and
comprehensive analysis of fat women in society and in revolution.
Fat women rule! Fuck skinny women! No, DON'T FUCK THEM. FUCK US. WE'RE FAT! BLM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At this point ....
Wow. Just wow. Not a single "But Obama!" and instead a straight-off rant about just how much you hate women. Judging by the last sentence, black women in particular.
Are you sure the KKK will let you get away with that, Baghdad Bob? You only mentioned black lives matter once, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FWIW...
"Defund the police" (in the sense of zero-base budget and complete reconstitution/rebuild of police departments) is probably more effective than violent protest or peaceful protest alone.
It needs a better slogan, though. It's too easy for opponents to twist "defund" into "remove all services" and "descend into anarchy". Much like how the Equal Rights Amendment was twisted in the 1970s to interpret "sex" as the sexual act, rather than gender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FWIW...
Very good point. "Defund" is a bad slogan and bad PR. But "Redirect Funds From The Police To More Worthy And Effective Prevention Programs" just doesn't have much zing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FWIW...
And "Downsize the police" is too weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FWIW...
'Rethink the police's place in society'?
Tricky to come up with something that accurately represents the goal and isn't a lengthy sentence long, though I imagine someone will come up with something, and until then defund works I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FWIW...
Maybe 'Replace the police'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FWIW...
"Tricky to come up with something that accurately represents the goal and isn't a lengthy sentence..."
How about To Protect and Serve?
Or the peelian summary - Policing by implicit consent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence is a spectrum
When we talk about peaceful versus violent protest tactics, we're not talking about a toggle switch. We're talking about a dial with many settings.
Going directly from mostly passively asking for change to burning down the city skips over all those intermediate options. Doing so de-legitimizes the protesters. Makes it look like they're not interested in solutions, they just want to be angry and act out.
Temper tantrums aren't attractive or convincing to rational adults when toddlers pitch a fit, and they're even less so when it's adults doing it.
Why not try one of those intermediate, more active/violent options before jumping directly to the dial's maximum? Nobody ever tries them.
For example: what would happen if the police attacked a crowd with weapons that it is a war crime to use on a battlefield, and instead of throwing bottles the crowd started making mass arrests upon the police?
The courts have drawn a very bright, very solid line at the idea that ANYONE can decide their own case. This is why resisting arrest even if the arrest is blatantly illegal is ALWAYS considered an illegal act by the courts.
So as a protest tactic, put that to the test. If the tactic works, the system will be swamped with cops who are under arrest whose cases need to be processed and decided, even if that decision is a dismissal. If the system ignores the fact that the cops were arrested - and almost certainly resisted arrest with violence - it will serve to prove to everyone and anyone that the system is in violation of its own most sacred rules!
How long will a system proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be hopelessly corrupt be able to continue doing business as usual? Everyone will know it's a joke, that the rule of law is dead, that only violent force perpetuates it. Instead of a small fringe knowing that, EVERYONE will.
And that's a LOT of votes come election day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest the police
Law enforcement already routinely escalates confrontations to violence and is favored unreasonably by the courts. Trying to arrest them is an experiment we don't need to test to know it's a good way to get shot.
And, at least for the moment, they don't seem to be fazed by a dozen phone cameras pointed at them while this goes down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence is a spectrum
For example: what would happen if the police attacked a crowd with weapons that it is a war crime to use on a battlefield, and instead of throwing bottles the crowd started making mass arrests upon the police?
Derisive laughter and mockery, followed by more beatings, pepper-spraying, and shooting, potentially with non-rubber bullets for 'assaulting an officer'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence is a spectrum
"When we talk about peaceful versus violent protest tactics, we're not talking about a toggle switch. We're talking about a dial with many settings."
Not really. The slider is the exception. What you have is two crowds facing each other. If one crowd member becomes violent dozens will reply in kind, from both sides. Once you take the step out over the brink the only determining factor of how bad the fall will be is the steepness of the slope.
And in most cases in the US right now, that slope is about 90 degrees vertical.
"Temper tantrums aren't attractive or convincing to rational adults when toddlers pitch a fit, and they're even less so when it's adults doing it."
Here's the thing - it only pays to be the adult when you aren't the only on in the room. Black people have been adults about this since MLK. The only feedback from 50+ years of being adult is that nothing will change from being adult - in fact, it gradually gets worse.
And so, much like the toddlers who in a fit of pique saw fit to senselessly toss crates of tea in boston harbor - as if that would actually help colonists from getting shot by redcoats - black people are now out there using that one method proven to work.
"Why not try one of those intermediate, more active/violent options before jumping directly to the dial's maximum? Nobody ever tries them."
Because you've decided to conveniently forget how those intermediate options were used? How many years since MLK? For how long has the american black remained nothing more than the N-word?
Ferguson, charlottesville, george floyd...THAT is the result of black people trying to use the nonviolent approach.
"For example: what would happen if the police attacked a crowd with weapons that it is a war crime to use on a battlefield, and instead of throwing bottles the crowd started making mass arrests upon the police?"
The police would open live fire with the military weaponry they keep for just such cases. The black crowd would get massacred. There'd be some outcry but the vast majority of both police and police policy would remain untouched. The republicans and the white supremacists would be out in force justifying arming the police even more and removing even more "obstructions" from police "protecting" themselves.
"This is why resisting arrest even if the arrest is blatantly illegal is ALWAYS considered an illegal act by the courts."
Nice theory. Good armchairing. The reality is that the DA and the judges will be sentencing the black people én másse - with a good chance that one republican or other will see fit to invoke the "enemy combatant" provisions of the patriot act.
"And that's a LOT of votes come election day."
Not a single one of them black after the disenfranchisement run sure to result after this. The majority of white liberals won't give enough of a shit to pick the guy with a conscience over the guy promising their kids will go to college and the white supremacists will be all-in for the candidate promising more hate on the black man.
"How long will a system proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be hopelessly corrupt be able to continue doing business as usual? Everyone will know it's a joke, that the rule of law is dead, that only violent force perpetuates it."
That's what the US knew even before Ferguson. The result was Trump.
You have a lot of naíve assumptions there. In a First Past The Post system the way the US runs it there will be two candidates to choose from. One will be an outright racist and strongman, beloved of low-brow racists and bigots. The other will be whatever odious political windsock the DNC feels compelled to produce. It'll come down to the minority of the citizens voting at all and half of those always holding their noses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massacres
I get the feeling a massacre is the next step.
It may be from protestors retaliating versus less-lethal attacks, and it may be from protestors just getting too resilient to crowd control.
But it seems on the checklist of getting the party started, we are waiting for the next Kent State, where a whole bunch of innocent lives are put into the ground.
Right now, we're waiting, either for some truly profound reform to be set in motion (such as the abolition of the police force in Minneapolis to be followed by other municipalities following suit), or for some offers to kill more people heinously on camera.
More police-involved killings are inevitable without reform.
But if we get reform, the white-supremacist, radical, police unions may decide to retaliate violently.
Either way we will be in a lawless feud without an established monopoly of force by a rational deliberate entity. Id est, we'll be in civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Massacres
"But it seems on the checklist of getting the party started, we are waiting for the next Kent State, where a whole bunch of innocent lives are put into the ground."
And sadly, since Kent State, both the military and the police have been given a LOT of hardware. It's unlikely the next time military open fire on demonstrators the toys used will be single-shot rifles.
"Either way we will be in a lawless feud without an established monopoly of force by a rational deliberate entity. Id est, we'll be in civil war."
Unfortunately the more I look at it the less inclined I am to thinking "civil war". African americans are about 13% of the demographic, if wikipedia is to be believed. The remainder is a mixed bag of ethnicities, few of which have historically cared enough about civil rights to bother adjusting the way they vote, let alone anything more bothersome than that.
It's pretty obvious that to the GOP of today, some form of ethnic cleansing is not that far down on the list of possible solutions. Although so far at least even the supremacists who have the balls to make their desires known restrict it to shipping black people back to africa rather than advocating an "endlösung".
Given how unlikely it seems to be that the mild-mannered nonconfrontative majority of liberals will manage to push meaningful and sustainable reform (even sisyphos would be giving up if what he had to push was a runny pile of shit continually flowing back down) there may be a lot of black people ending up eventually preferring that solution as well.
Maybe I'm a pessimistic, but I think the real window of opportunity for reform closed shortly after MLK died. Everything since then just seems like the slope the US is already on just getting steeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The police created an Us vs Them mentality and when people get tired of not being heard, shit happens. If it takes violence to get the public's and government's attention, well, guess what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]