Non-violent protest that doesn't impede the flow of business is acceptable. Freedom of speech shouldn't be curtailed however it doesn't entitle someone the right to destroy property. I am in no way conflating peaceful protest and rioters.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You don't seem to realize that communities that have long been mistreated and victimized by the police aren't going to just assume that a tremendous use of force against rioters is justified. They're more likely to see that as the perpetuation of that long-term police abuse. And that means that a substantial portion of the community that dislikes the police but also dislikes violence would be pushed to engage in the latter given a sufficiently large police use of force. Have you not been keeping track of the Arab Spring? A huge response is precisely what precipitates large-scale violence.
Hope is the denial of reality
Strikes, sit ins and city wide marches. Some of the biggest civil events that have helped shape America and you're against them all. Yet youre fine with the police seeding a peaceful crowd with a few chaos makers and using that to bust everyone's head up. What a horrible person.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
You're right that crime must be stopped, wrong in the methods. The criminals need to be arrested and prosecuted - not shot at extra-judicially.
Abuses of power will just make the matter worse not better.
Either you want to go full scale totalitarian dictatorship with no civil liberties whatsoever (and hand in your guns as without total gun control this won't work). Or the Police and government institutions need to be above reproach and be seen to be so too. If the Police start shooting at the crowd, the crowd won't disperse it will shoot back. As the second amendment allows, unless you want that revoked too?
The Arab Spring is quite different in the fact there are actual dictatorships. Baltimore is a democracy and they can choose to change it at the ballot box, they have the power of the vote. Not so much in the Middle East.
Crime must be stopped as crime is occurring. You don't let rioters riot, you stop the riot. This isn't a judicial punishment - it is stopping an ongoing crime.
I don't think it should matter how many people are involved when it comes to a crime. If 4 people are beating someone to death or if 4,000 people are beating someone to death it should be stopped. If the police see one person rob a Wal-Mart they should stop it. If they see 200 people robbing a Wal-Mart they should stop it.
You are suggesting that we capitulate to the criminals and only go after them AFTER the crimes have been committed.
And you are talking nonsense when it comes to civil liberties. Everyone should have the right to protest. Everyone should have the right to speech. You will find no greater advocate than me. No one should have the right to riot. Stop the riots. Stop the arson. Stop the looting. Don't stop speech, don't stop protest (unless it turns violent), don't restrict people's civil liberties. The ability to do crime is NOT a civil liberty.
Possibly it would lead to people self policing trouble makers. "Don't stop breaking things or we all gonna get it!"
Civil disobedience has a place as a form of protest however those who partake it in should still be held accountable to the law. In fact that is actually part of the point of civil disobedience. An act of protest that says "I am willing to suffer so that my message can be heard about this in-justice." When it turns violent it no longer contains any shred of value. Some of the greatest civil rights leaders of our past held this and begged their supports to never act with violence.
I think you'll find that many black communities in the US have a view of the police force that is not very much different to how the Egyptians viewed their own.
Hope is the denial of reality
Possibly. I think you'd get different results if you just look at the folks that make the up black communities who aren't committing crime on a regular basis. And I really don't give two shits about the opinions of criminals. If you regularly steal, vandalize, destroy property, break and enter, rape, murder and extort then I really don't care about you.
That being said I do find it somewhat entertaining that liberals are the ones who fully own Baltimore. The city has been run by Democrats for years - who's fault is it then if there are abusive officers? (And lets face facts probably in every city you have some. I'm all in favor of cracking down hard on police corruption).
Wow. Lewk is a bigger troll than I thought.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...ry.html#page=1
Looks like it's not really illegal though.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is it not a legal requirement to ensure your passengers wear a seat belt. Any Police Officers who don't strap in detainees should be arrested and it most definitely should be illegal. That is inexcusable.
A lot of states don't have passenger seat belt laws, especially for transport vehicles. School and public buses for example have no seat belts.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm not sure if this is relevant. The results of their actions were reasonably foreseeable. They intended to injure. If in the commission of a felony another felony takes place, you're guilty for both.
Hope is the denial of reality
Over here it is indeed a legal requirement to check that everyone wears a seat belt. If you're stopped by the police, it's the driver who gets fined (and, depending on the age of the offender, also the one without a seat belt).
School and public busses indeed don't have those, private busses actually do - and the bus drivers also do remind you to wear them.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I meant that it's apparently not illegal in practice because I don't see anyone eg going to jail over these things or even admitting fault.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It should be an illegal practice. Not only that, it is unethical.
People shouldn't have to fear the police, and peaceful protestors shouldn't be lumped in with rioters and looters, either.
Lewk, what you're advocating is pretty close to Stop-and-Frisk racial profiling. Not all peaceful protestors have rap sheets a mile long, and you're too ready to see them as rioters/looters in the first place. When 60's student protestors were non-violent and didn't impede the flow of business on the west coast, did you think it was okay for police to use pepper spray and gas bombs? Do you think it was acceptable for state police or national guard to use water hoses or dogs against people who had the constitutional right to vote, or attend a non-segregated public school?
Criminals should fear the police.
Peaceful protest that doesn't impede people's daily lives (the flow of business) is perfectly acceptable. Police should not go after those folks at all. It is when it turns violent that measures need to take place. If you are in favor of peaceful protest you should support draconian measures against non-peaceful protest. Though in many cases the 'violent protesters' weren't protesters at all and just thugs looking to use the chaos to be thuggish.
This is one of the weirdest remarks I've read on this forum ever, or at least this year
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When protests turn violent, peaceful protest also gets shutdown. See mandatory curfews as an example. You can't just let a city burn of course so the option of doing nothing doesn't exist. Not sure why this is difficult - if you value peaceful protest you should be for getting violent protesters locked up/out of the streets ASAP.This is one of the weirdest remarks I've read on this forum ever, or at least this year
its that thinking that allows police (or anyone who wants the protest shutdown) to seed a protest with a few undercover trouble makers in order to shut it down. its all about the propaganda, and nothing works better than a few well placed shots of a few hooded men smashing windows.
I've already tried explaining this to lewk once, since he seemed unable to handle a larger understanding concerning such things, but he brushed it off.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-08-2015 at 12:33 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Locked up? Pretty sure you were talking about assassinations earlier so the question is, really, how much are you for peaceful protest and against assassin-cops respectively? And we can then pose the same question to less borked people who want more than one thing in life (something other than bloodfap in other words).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Populace is committing violence. One of the fundamental parts of government is protecting people from violence. There are two options.
1. Attempt to put down violent criminals (who in the case of riots drastically outnumber police) in risky physical confrontations and try to bring them to prison. This option is risky for police.
2. Attempt to put down violent criminals safely. IE through use of snipers and clear deterrents. This option is least risky for police and has the added benefit of putting down rabid dogs who make society a worse place.
Unless you are suggesting we simply *allow* people to burn, loot and riot to their heart's content?
An ounce of prevention and get rid of your fat dumb racist cos
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Considering the amount of firearms in your country, and a constitution saying you need them to fire at tyrannical governments, I think shooting protesters might actually be more dangerous for the police since it's not unlikely you'll get a lot of fire back.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I'm all for equality. Rioters of all races should be shot. Its the liberals who believe people should be treated differently based on race. (It is after all an official part of their platform.)An ounce of prevention and get rid of your fat dumb racist cos
Possibly but if you have folks willing to get into armed confrontations on the streets... don't you want those people in the ground or in prison as opposed to on the streets?
No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who believes it's good that cops mistreat black people due to racism.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Liberals - why bother even arguing with them?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote