https://youtu.be/ao9Wxov9lQM
Printable View
...And we're back. I mean, he's not actually dead so that's something.
Seriously, the policing culture in the US is broken beyond belief.
And you can bet that next to none, if any at all, of the people who have been spouting "all lives matter" will do or even say a damn thing about this. If those people were actually trying to do something about police brutality for the benefit of everyone then you might be able to take them seriously but it's patently obvious that "all lives matter" is just code for "black lives aren't treated any differently to any others so there's no problem to address so we can all do nothing".Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It's another messed up situation... the fact he is alive is obviously good (the long term damage to him isn't), but there is surprisingly little "official" information, and from the video I can't see any reason for the actual shooting (the only thing I can think of is that there was a gun in the car door, and the officer reacted to that).
The protests seem to have gone a bit too far again, as apparently two people have died in them.
I wish there was a "civil" way to get things resolved, but there are just so many bad events in recent months, and no significant signs of change. It is understandable that emotions are running high for those who want the police to be held accountable, but as things stand the results of the protests seem to be worse for the people than the cause of the protests.
From what I have read - this may be inaccurate or incomplete - the protesters have "clashed with groups of armed men", so it appears to self-styled militia who have taken the law into their own hands and have shot protesters in the process. I agree that the protests have gone too far but anyone who knows much of anything about human nature should know that when people feel angry and powerless, they tend to lash out. Anyone who thinks that protesters should just get over it (I'm not necessarily saying that that includes you, si) are denying human nature and if they want this kind of behaviour to stop then they need to stand up and do something about the root cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
I agree with the protestors (the police should be accountable, and avoid bad methods etc), I just think that there are too many people taking the protests too far - and in the process making things worse rather than better (hence the family of the original victim in this case asking for protests to be peaceful). Obviously I understand it is hard to keep emotions under control when you are on the receiving end and feel so powerless.
I'm hoping that the effects of all these protests mean that Trump loses the election (as I was always hoping), and Biden quickly implements police reform of some kind. Biden at least seems to have that kind of intention, and I don't think Trump ever will.
Yeah, I'm not clear on the details so far. Here's the BBC news' latest. There's not enough details to say with any surety but it sounds like a self styled militia was trying to protect businesses: "Other video shows armed civilians, many dressed in military fatigues, congregating outside businesses they said they were protecting." Something went South and it escalated: "Footage shared online showed a man with a rifle being chased by a crowd before he fell to the ground and appeared to fire multiple rounds at them."Quote:
this may be inaccurate or incomplete
So it sounds like it was protesters that were shot rather than doing the shooting but the shooting probably occurred in self defence. Without knowing what led to that man being chased by a crowd it's hard to make moral judgements but I'll say two things:-
1. If I was being chased by a mob and I had a gun I'd likely feel compelled to use it
2. I'm pretty sure I could avoid putting myself in that position. I suspect he could have avoided it too. Which means he chose to be there.
^Yep, that. The riots are not the cause, they're the effect.Quote:
if they want this kind of behaviour to stop then they need to stand up and do something about the root cause.
This may be a stretch and I am definitely anti-Trump but pundits have been saying for years this was bound to happen. Trump's dog whistles, racism and his support for the far right have been on display since the beginning. I can't realistically assign the blame to Trump. He certainly contributed to the mess we are in with his devisive approach to governing.
I believe it will have the opposite effect. In fact I'd say he couldn't be happier that these riots are happening. He has been using it as a scare tactic, saying if Biden is elected the rioters will throw the country into complete chaos, there would be no police protection, no one or no business will be safe. And I'd have to say that these cities that have allowed the vandalism to continue are helping Trump get reelected, because it's mostly happening in in states ran by Democrats. So Trump says if the Democrats win this type of violence will be rampant.Quote:
I'm hoping that the effects of all these protests mean that Trump loses the election (as I was always hoping), and Biden quickly implements police reform of some kind. Biden at least seems to have that kind of intention, and I don't think Trump ever will.
Well they have arrested the guy. I watched one video, it didn't show how it started but did show the man running down the street chasing people with a rifle. That doesn't seem like self defense. We'll see, hopefully more information will be provided. Dumb asses with guns, we got boat loads of them.Quote:
So it sounds like it was protesters that were shot rather than doing the shooting but the shooting probably occurred in self defence.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/...155557844.html
Yeah the rioting and looting gives the people that didn't want to listen in the first place an easy excuse to dismiss the protesters. It also weakening the attitudes of the people that are open minded. I know it affects me, I'm very pro civil right for all and pro police accountability. But then I'm also pro personal accountability, so when people are smashing store windows or setting fires, I think they need to be held accountable.Quote:
I wish there was a "civil" way to get things resolved, but there are just so many bad events in recent months, and no significant signs of change. It is understandable that emotions are running high for those who want the police to be held accountable, but as things stand the results of the protests seem to be worse for the people than the cause of the protests.
Non violent civil disobedience. That's the only way people will listen to the actual problem. Well that's my two cents
That's interesting. It's the exact opposite of what the BBC were reporting as they were saying the protesters were chasing him, not the other way round. If it happened the way you describe then, no, it definitely isn't self defence.Quote:
it didn't show how it started but did show the man running down the street chasing people with a rifle
I took a look at the video in your linked article and it was still difficult to say. It starts with him on the ground (presumably having tripped), three or four protesters run at him and attack him, he pulls a sidearm and starts shooting. My take away from that and whether you could call it self defence very much depends on whether he was chasing the protesters (which your linked article says) or whether the protesters were chasing him (which the BBC says). Is there any footage that shows what happened just before that video?
Either way, though, it's pretty clear that this guy saw himself as a vigilante. For the record, I'm not necessarily anti-gun. Other countries that have liberal gun laws get by just fine. But the US has an incredibly toxic culture around it's guns and how a lot of you guys see yourselves that really needs addressing. It'd be childish if it wasn't so damn tragic.
Indeed. From what I understand from American "stand your ground" laws, they give you the right to use deadly force if someone invades your home but not beyond that. He went there with a gun and put himself in front of an angry mob. While I certainly can't be sure about this particular individual, I would not be at all surprised to find out that he was hoping for an excuse to cry self-defence. From what I have heard from various people talking about "stand your ground" laws, you can tell that they genuine want someone to break into their home so that they can murder them legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
That clip has changed. Before you could see him running down the street with his rifle up and then he fell.Quote:
I took a look at the video in your linked article and it was still difficult to say. It starts with him on the ground (presumably having tripped), three or four protesters run at him
This is a different clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqZ-aS7Qzk4
I think this is the original one I saw https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ed/3441271001/
Just Google kenosha protester being shot video
I can tell you two things, I wouldn't bring a gun into that environment and I wouldn't chase someone who was pointing a gun. As I said I don't know how it started.
"Stand your ground" laws are not national. Some states don't have them at all and some states seem to issue a license to kill. In Georgia, at the time I lived there, you could use deadly force to defend your home but not if you could have run out the back door. In Florida if you feel your life is in danger you can stand right there in the street and use deadly force, that is don't run. In Texas you can use deadly force if you suspect someday the person might try and harm you :pQuote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Some states don't have a "stand your ground" law, but do have a "castle defense" law... which is similar but different in that the castle defense can only be used within your home or property, while stand your ground can generally be used anywhere. Here in SC we have the castle defense but not the stand your ground... also, castle does not apply if the perpetrator is in the act of leaving - ie, once you confront them, if they back down and start to leave, you can't continue to confront them and then shoot them if they then try to return to retaliate (because you then provoked them). But if you've given them warning and they continue to be a threat and not vacate, you have every right to defend your home & property as you see fit. It's designed to defuse and deescalate if possible, but it isn't it gives property owners the right of protection.
-tg
It looks like the clip that's in your first link in post 132 precedes the one now in post 129 and it does tell a story. It looks like the protesters were chasing him with what look like bats or lengths of 2 by 4 (you can hear someone say "beat him up" at 0:09). He slipped and they caught up to him. They began to attack him and he started shooting. So I guess you can argue that in the moment it was self defence.Quote:
That clip has changed
Thing is, I still find myself wondering why the crowd was chasing him in the first place. On the whole people with bats tend not to chase after people armed with guns just for the hell of it. I wonder what preceded all this.
Edit> and, actually, as I watch the vid from post 129 again I'm amending that a bit. The person who I at first thought attacked him doesn't appear to have been one of the people that was chasing him. Rather, it's a bystander who actually tries to kick the assault rifle out of his hands (which must have taken balls of brass).
And even after the crowd have fled, he keeps shooting.
Here is the shooter...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/ke...ect/index.html
It might not surprise anyone but he was in the front row of a Trump rally and proud of it.
Quote:
The protests seem to have gone a bit too far again, as apparently two people have died in them.
I wish there was a "civil" way to get things resolved, but there are just so many bad events in recent months, and no significant signs of change. It is understandable that emotions are running high for those who want the police to be held accountable, but as things stand the results of the protests seem to be worse for the people than the cause of the protests.
Many protesters have been non violent in fact the non-violent protesters have massively out weighed the violent ones, but its the looting and damaging of property that stands out.Quote:
Yeah the rioting and looting gives the people that didn't want to listen in the first place an easy excuse to dismiss the protesters. It also weakening the attitudes of the people that are open minded. I know it affects me, I'm very pro civil right for all and pro police accountability. But then I'm also pro personal accountability, so when people are smashing store windows or setting fires, I think they need to be held accountable.
Non violent civil disobedience. That's the only way people will listen to the actual problem. Well that's my two cents
I agree that it disrupts the message, but i would counter that people have been protesting against police oppression of black people in the US for many years, the Rodney King incident happened in 1991, the Eric Garner killing happened in 2014, both of these incidents and others were followed by significant protests, and nothing has changed.
This time the George Floyd killing was just the straw that broke the camels back, people want thing to actually change and previous protests have achieved nothing and nothing has changed for years and years, so things escalate and they will likely continue to escalate now until the protesters see actual change.
I dont condone the rioting and looting but i understand it, and i dont think that those protesting feel that the results of the protests is worse than the cause, whats worse then dying and constantly being afraid of death.
There are a lot of people complaining about the violent protesters and implying or outright stating that they should be protesting peacefully. My question to those people is this: what exactly do you think they should be protesting peacefully against? What do you think the problem is? Do you think there's a problem at all? If there is a problem that preceded this violence then why is the fact that this violence has occurred a reason not to address it? If that problem had been addressed before now then this violence wouldn't have occurred in the first place. I believe that the Kenosha sheriff or similar has stated that the protesters who were shot would not have been had they not been out past curfew and I bet there's plenty of people nodding their heads and agreeing with that. To those people I say this: if you had stood up and done something about the problem of police brutality in general and particularly against black people then this violence never would have happened. Don't be hypocrites. If you don't think there's a problem in the first place - there are plenty of such people - then I can only say screw you because you deserve what you get. These are the people who say "all lives matter" as though that actually means something if you ignore the fact that some lives are treated as though they matter less than others.
Sounds like the kid shot somebody first, then fled, was chased, tripped, and shot again once he had fallen.
The problem I have with the vigilante militias is that a whole bunch of them want an excuse to use those guns. Why carry a toy when you can't play with it? When you add youth and desire into the mix, a shooting was eventually going to happen. There are plenty of non violent people who can defuse situations, like that group of mothers in Portland, but the vigilantes don't really want to defuse.
True, I'm one of them. For reasons I've stated before like in #129. There are other reason, like I've never seen violence help promote change in this country. The last significant and lasting changes came in the 1960's and was lead by MLK. It was none violent.Quote:
There are a lot of people complaining about the violent protesters and implying or outright stating that they should be protesting peacefully.
Yes there is a problem, lots of problems.Quote:
What do you think the problem is? Do you think there's a problem at all? If there is a problem that preceded this violence then why is the fact that this violence has occurred a reason not to address it?
Racism, prejudice
Bad police officers that hide behind a wall of silence from other officers. Not held accountable.
Poorly trained police.
Our country and I assume most others have bias and prejudices going back for generations. Hell there are still countries with people trying to commit genocide.
Violence is not a reason to not address the problem, I've never said or thought anything close to that. As I've said before is does give people who are racist or who don't think there is a problem a reason to ignore the protest.
This just goes to my point, the riots drowned out the protests and nothing changed.Quote:
I agree that it disrupts the message, but i would counter that people have been protesting against police oppression of black people in the US for many years, the Rodney King incident happened in 1991, the Eric Garner killing happened in 2014, both of these incidents and others were followed by significant protests, and nothing has changed.
I think there is a real chance for change with this current movement, if they can keep people focused on the problem and message.
I don't know how old you are but the 1960's racial riots were extremely violent. Granted there were non-violent movements too. Just like today. I personally believe the non-violent movement got attention/results but the riots did too. The country was "on fire" at the time.Quote:
There are other reason, like I've never seen violence help promote change in this country. The last significant and lasting changes came in the 1960's and was lead by MLK. It was none violent.
I am NOT advocating violence..this is just clarification.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history...ce-riots-1960s
I'm on the fence on this one. I don't feel that most riots are immediately useful, but I also don't feel that most peaceful protests are all that useful, either. If everybody gets up and gives nice speeches, what changes? Most such protests gather a very small fraction of the population and are ignored by any politician who doesn't feel they will benefit from participating. They might change a few minds one way or the other, but do they really have much of an impact?
If you can get millions into the streets, then you might well be heard. Otherwise, direct action seems to always be more effective. Direct action doesn't mean violence. Directly contacting political leaders is one route, political campaigning is a slower, but ultimately pretty effective route. More confrontational would be sit-ins, strikes, and the like. More controversial still would be violence. ALL of those will get attention. All will result in change. Some will result in the change you want, others in changes you don't want.
Saying, "we're angry enough to take action" while taking action that gets ignored, seems kind of futile. Once people decide to take action that won't be ignored, everybody will make a choice as to what that is. I likely won't agree with some of those choices, but I'd like to know more about what underlies the choice when it comes to property damage. If it's violence against people, that's just bad, but property damage....I'd like to understand it better.
Well there are some quite famous strikes happening apparently, for most major sports in the US (basketball, baseball, tennis, ...):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/53926764
It has resulted in an invitation to the White House for one of the major stars to discuss solutions to racial injustice, so it is possible that Trump might now pay some attention to the cause rather than just trying to stomp on the effects.
I was born in 1953, so the early 1960's riots aren't very clear. Also I live out in the country so not alot of news or people talking. Plus my family talked about blacks as "those people", my dad was much more insulting. My grandmother hated Kennedy because she thought "he started all this civil right crap". Sweet lady but a huge racist. But I remember in @66 I lived in town and when the marches started taking place and even though the marchers were beaten they didn't respond with violence, it really seem to catch peoples attention. Once white people got over their fears it made talking much easier. Your right though between the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the hippie counter culture, we were on fire.Quote:
I don't know how old you are but the 1960's racial riots were extremely violent. Granted there were non-violent movements too. Just like today. I personally believe the non-violent movement got attention/results but the riots did too. The country was "on fire" at the time
It hasn't resulted in an invitation yet, hope they do. Got to be careful around here, the WH says a lot of things but don't do it. lolQuote:
Well there are some quite famous strikes happening apparently, for most major sports in the US (basketball, baseball, tennis, ...):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/basketball/53926764
Sadly an NBA walkout would probably have more effect than 1,000 different protests. But I'm glad they're doing it. If you remember it was the NBA and others canceling games/races that finally got the politicians doing something about the virus.
Does that mean the NBA would be a better president than Trump? :lol:
Ah yes, I didn't read that part carefully enough "intend to" invite :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
lol, I'd say hell yes but it depends who you ask. You wouldn't know it from this forum but there is a very good chance he will be reelected. So there has to be a lot of people that think he's a good president. They actually believe the things he says and all of the bad things are fake news. A nurse my daughter works with is certain the virus will go away after the election, it's just being keep around to keep Trump from being elected. A whole world wide pandemic just to get rid of Trump. Scary isn't it.Quote:
Does that mean the NBA would be a better president than Trump?
I am very proud of the NBA and other sports for their social consciousness with the virus and now with the BLM movement. Well it's more than just BLM, I'll let people put what other names they want to the issues.
My guess is there will be a WH invite, Trump likes to make a public gesture, like when he pardons a black person and then touts how he has done more for the black community than any other president.
While there are a lot of people who truly support him, there are also a lot in the camp that are voting him "just to piss off the dems" and a lot in the camp that are fed up with the dems period and will vote for anyone but (whether they abstain or vote for him).Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Regardless, he has seen a huge jump in the last week or so. It is looking like the "safe" choice for the dems wasn't what people were looking for.
Well, it wouldn't be a slam dunk, but policies would dribble out over time, and they'd do less traveling, or at least it wouldn't be called that.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Biden is a bad candidate. Trump was going down in the polls while Biden was absent. Now that he's starting to speak up, he's making Trump look less bad. This election is truly case of the least worse candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Except that George Floyd and Jacob Blake weren't out past curfew. Given that, why would anyone respect that curfew? What incentive have they been given not to behave in the way we're seeing?Quote:
I believe that the Kenosha sheriff or similar has stated that the protesters who were shot would not have been had they not been out past curfew
All protest is violent, it's just a matter of degree. The most peaceful march through a city centre closes that city centre for a day and costs the business owners. You'll hear all the same "property damage is violence" arguments in response to that peaceful march that you would to a riot.
Once you start down the route of saying protests must be peaceful what you are actually saying is "don't protest". Because dialling back the disruption doesn't result in the establishment dialling back the outrage it will express that a message they don't want to be heard is being heard. Colin Kaepernick's protest was as peaceful as I can possibly imagine but the outrage was the same.
I condemn violence against people. Violence against property, incomes and civic purses is an inevitable consequence of protest and it's better to address the cause than the symptom if you want to prevent it.
I suspect the lift Trump is getting is more to do with the Republican conference rather than a bad presentation of Biden. The media over here roundly portrayed the Dem conference as a success. Though I do agree that Biden seems pretty bland to me. I know almost nothing about him... and don't really find myself wanting to find out.Quote:
Biden is a bad candidate. Trump was going down in the polls while Biden was absent. Now that he's starting to speak up, he's making Trump look less bad. This election is truly case of the least worse candidate.
They've got bigger balls. Mind you, both are practically dribbling.Quote:
Does that mean the NBA would be a better president than Trump?
You have fouled this thread for the third time. You are out....Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You're mixing your sports. Three fouls isn't even enough to get you benched. I've got a few more to give....so just wait.
Traditionally, every candidate gets a bump in the polls during and following their convention. It's what happens in a couple weeks that matters more.
Biden is not a great speaker, but he isn't polarizing. The real question is whether or not the group that comes out to vote because the loathe Trump will be greater than the group that comes out to vote because they love Trump. Both sides know that. Trump doesn't have enough support to win unless the group that loathes him stays home. That's not likely to shift, so both sides will be trying to get out their side of the love/loathe equation. That likely means nothing all that much from Biden, and a whole lot from Trump.
I think no matter what, just because Trump is involved, it is going to be messy. It will Bush vs Gore on steroids only chads will be mail in ballots. The greatest irony for me is Trump screws around enough the constitution kicks in and the congress elects the president. Who do you think Pelosi will push :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The downside is the Senate picks the vice president. So it would end up a Biden Pence administration.
"A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the presidency or the vice presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, that election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the 12th Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote-winners as the president, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote-winners as vice president."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contin...th%20Amendment.
Oh THAT would be entertaining. Two cardboard cutouts, desperately smiling, waiting for the other to actually say something.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Where did you come up with this concept? Sounds like something Trump would say, "If you don't vote for me then you hate America". You certainly have the right to your opinion but it's far from what I mean when I say non violence can be more effective.Quote:
Once you start down the route of saying protests must be peaceful what you are actually saying is "don't protest"
Your not going to reach those people but it does make it easier for the people who are willing to learn/listen. I think most Americans want change, but that's just my opinion.Quote:
Because dialling back the disruption doesn't result in the establishment dialling back the outrage it will express that a message they don't want to be heard is being heard.
So you would be just as outraged over losing business for a few hours as would be if your store trashed, looted or burned to the ground. Then there is the issue of one being a legal act and one being a criminal act.Quote:
All protest is violent, it's just a matter of degree. The most peaceful march through a city centre closes that city centre for a day and costs the business owners. You'll hear all the same "property damage is violence" arguments in response to that peaceful march that you would to a riot.
Your right though it is a matter of degree.
I agree with SH that just protesting isn't enough to cause change. You got to be engaging with the people that have that, and there desire to make changes will depend on the people that elect them.
Listen I'm no sociologist, far from it. Maybe violence is necessary but nothing I've seen has proven that to me.
Violence gets attention. I have no doubt about that. I'm not sure that it gets the right results, though. I think there are times when it has and times when it has not.
It sure has given us something to talk about. But I have to admit, I getting really mad. The politician, police, protester, rioters or various militia have not called me and asked for my advise. NONE OF THEM!!! I have all this problem solving, next level, wisdom to share and not one phone call or text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Have you made sure the phone isn't off the hook?Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I think it's working, I tried calling my phone number several times but keep getting a busy signal. I'll try again later.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Tell yourself to get off the phone...or just send a text.
maybe they don't have your phone number :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Gonna be a long one, here goes.
I feel like your “both sides” arguments are much closer to Trump’s position than I am but, OK, I’ll expand.Quote:
Where did you come up with this concept? Sounds like something Trump would say
All protest is violent because all protest is couched as violence by the targets of that protest. This was true of Martin Luther King and the American authorities, it was true of Ghandi and the British Empire, heck, it was true of Jesus and the Romans. The targets of the protest always perceive the protest as an attack, express their outrage in terms of violence and position themselves as victims of that violence. If they’re not talking about people being physically attacked, they’re talking about property damage. If they’re not talking about property damage, they’re talking about the cost to the tax payer. And always in terms of the damage and violence the protesters are enacting on the fabric of society. This was even true of last year’s extinction rebellion change protesters who were portrayed as anarchists bent on tearing society down for gluing themselves to trains so some commuters got to work late. Honestly, you will struggle to find a single protest in history which did not meet with this response from the targets of that protest.
From this we can conclude that “violence” in this discussion is actually a proxy for “disruption”. Except it’s worse than that. I used Kaepernick as an example in my previous post. His protest involved zero disruption and yet was still received in the same terms by the targets of his protest. It was an attack on American values, an attack on the flag, an attack on veterans… violence, violence, violence. So, actually, “violence” in this context is a proxy for the very act of making a statement, for the very act of engaging in protest. Merely calling out an injustice inherent in the status quo is violence. The nature of the protest is irrelevant, the act itself will be defined as “violence”.
And it’s worse than that too. Because having defined the mere act of protesting in terms of violence, the targets of that protest will meet it with a genuinely violent response. Don’t believe me? Ask Martin Luther King. Ask Jesus. Want a more recent example? Ask Heather Heyer.
So why does this make it problematic when you condemn the looting and rioting that’s spilling out of the current protests? I don’t believe you’re trying to excuse state sanctioned murder and I understand that your definition of violence extends only to direct property damage. I fully believe your intent is merely to challenge a thing you see as wrong rather than to condone what led to this. So why are you wrong to do that?
Because the arguments you’re using are exactly the same arguments that the perpetrators of that injustice use to justify perpetuating that injustice. The exact same arguments they will and are using to justify their genuinely violent response. Those protesters wouldn’t have been shot if they weren’t out after curfew. Wouldn’t have been shot if they weren’t rioting. Kyle Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to protect business owners from property damage... right?
Those arguments are a lie. These people do not need a “violent” protest to act as a call to arms. Jason Kessler and the Proudboys weren’t in Charlottesville in response to a protest, they went there to cause a protest which they could then react violently to. Black men repeatedly get murdered by police regardless of whether they engage in crime or not. The injustices in our society will be perpetuated with violence whether people protest against them or not and whether those protests are peaceful or not.
But lie or not, when you use those arguments, the people who are deliberately perpetuating societal injustices will receive it as endorsement of their position. Indeed, the public at large receive it as an endorsement of that position because you are using their argument. By saying “shootings are bad but looting’s bad too” you are not just removing your support from those people who would like to end injustice, you are, in effect if not in intent, gifting it to those who would violently perpetuate injustice. Particularly as, by doing it now, within a week of Jacob Blake's shooting, you give the appearance of equating property damage to attempted murder and you remove the focus from the fact that the property damage is in response to that murder, it is not spontaneous.
There is an appropriate time to condemn rioting in response to police officers repeatedly murdering black men but this is not it. The appropriate time will be when police officers are no longer repeatedly murdering black people. If people continue to riot, that will be the time to condemn them for it.
edit>Here's an interesting video I'd recommend. It's an examination of political violence throughout American history. The American Revolution was, of course, a violent protest... so there's that.
I think "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is actually true. The problem is that the people who say it invariably seem to be people who really, really want to kill people.Quote:
The problem I have with the vigilante militias is that a whole bunch of them want an excuse to use those guns
I think that I may have mentioned this earlier but I'm not looking back to see. Having read comments by people on "stand your ground" laws in the past, it's clear that some of them are genuinely hoping that someone breaks into their home so that they are able to legally murder them. In the case of these so-called militias, there's no doubt in my mind that, for some at least, their primary concern is not protecting property or people but rather goading or manipulating protesters into a position where they can shoot and possibly kill them and claim that it was a legal act. We've already had this one instance where people appear to be claiming that he was justified in shooting people because they were chasing him and ignoring the fact that they were chasing him because he had already shot people. According to so many gun advocates, who are generally right-wingers, the original protesters should have had guns on them too and, when that 17-year-old (can't recall his name right now) shot at them then they would have shot back and then others would have shot back at them and we would have a bloodbath on our hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I think I came close to that and would like to clarify. I wasn't attempting to justify it but was saying I could understand it if he was being attacked by a mob - self preservation is probably the single strongest instinct we have and at that point I think shooting is more of a reaction than a decision. Essentially, I didn't want to jump condemn someone for what could have been a natural human reaction to finding themselves in danger before I knew what the facts of the case were.Quote:
people appear to be claiming that he was justified in shooting people because they were chasing him
Having heard more detail over the last couple of days and watched the footage that Wes linked to I'm more and more convinced that it wasn't self defence at all. He placed himself at the scene, he provoked the situation he chose to provoke and he killed two people. So not self defence, that's just plain murder.
The only point I'm sketchy on at the moment was whether he had already killed someone before the footage where we see him running and slip. I believe he did but I'm aware I haven't actually seen that reported in black and white, though it seems to be heavily implied in a lot of what I've read. We could sill be making an assumption there. If anyone's got a source that confirms this one way or the other I'd love a link.
Well it was nicely written. But the conclusions you draw from the information you selected to present are much different than mine. You are also trying to represent my opinion with half truths. My objections to the violence involves a lot more than the fact it's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I appreciated (I guess), you trying so hard to explain your views(or justify them). But your views were already fairly clear to me.
Edit:
I guess I should acknowledge your response was trigger by my "Where did you come up with that concept" comment to this statement.
Well, you definitely answered my question. My mistake, I should have just said I completely disagree and not be so flippant. Lesson learned. Like they say, you got to know your audience.Quote:
Once you start down the route of saying protests must be peaceful what you are actually saying is "don't protest"
That response was an attack on my previously flippant response. It's all an attack. Still, well written, FD.
The first report I heard of the shooting was that the kid ran towards the group, shot a guy in the head (he died), after which the crowd chased him, he tripped, and then shot the other two. Upon looking online at other new sources, they weren't as up to date, and they weren't as detailed on the sequence of events. By now, it looks like that general timeline is correct. There may have been a conflict with the first guy he shot, but he had no legal right to be carrying that gun due to his age.
I'd say he had a vision of how things would unfold, and the truth turned out to be more complicated.
I don't see all protest as violent, but rather as attacks.
There are various ways those attacks can happen, ranging from Greta Thunberg's non-confrontational style (which has yielded great results worldwide, especially among the undecided and the unaware) all the way up to "War without firepower" (which is the kind of thing we've been seeing lately).
The more aggressive the attacks, the more likely you are to inspire significant fightback from politicians and other people - including those idiots with guns etc.
From what I have seen of various protests that have happened over the years, it is the ones without actual violence that have given the better results. In the current circumstances Trump has seen fighting back as the way to go, and lots of voters have supported that. Given that Biden is the better choice for making the desired changes, allowing Trump to get voters on his side because of the protests getting very confrontational is actually counter-productive.
I've never seen her speech but I know the jest of what she is saying. But you wouldn't believe how many Greta Thunberg haters their are in the US. I guess it's because she shed a negative light on Trump. But for a while FB was just flooded with nasty faced images and hateful little remarks. It was amazing how much energy was spent on smearing that young little girl. It was actually quite shameful. It astounded me how much affect she had on people, where as all the science and scientist are easily dismissed.Quote:
There are various ways those attacks can happen, ranging from Greta Thunberg's non-confrontational style
I'll have to admit I don't know what this means, "War without firepower". Thought maybe it was a movement of some type in the UK but when I Googled it I got nothing. Must be a term used by people above my pay grade. lol
Greta has said that while the attacks on her aren't nice, it makes her feel good because it shows the message is getting through - and that is what matters. Many people (especially children and young people) are making changes to their lives because of her inspiration, and governments are paying attention too because so many of their people are.
Unfortunately a similar style isn't going to work for black people (especially with Trump in power), but I do feel that the current late night activities are detrimental to the cause, because they are inspiring more resistance against it.
It's not a proper phrase, it was just my late-night way of indicating an angry mob causing destruction, rather than an actual army who would do more damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
I don't think she jests all that often, but I do get the gist of what you are trying to say. ;)
Reading is FUNdamental.
You mean she wasn't trying to be funny????? I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I hope it lasts till they're old enough to be in power. Just not sure the world can wait that long.Quote:
Many people (especially children and young people) are making changes to their lives because of her inspiration, and governments are paying attention too because so many of their people are
The good news is that the message got thru to politicians before the pandemic, and they were starting to act... now that the world has changed (lots of jobs are currently gone or are "unsafe") there is a need to create new jobs, and governments in many countries are focussing on creating 'green' jobs doing things to help the environment (so making solar panels etc, or making homes more energy efficient).
Lots of places in the UK were already in the process of making cars less attractive (by changing roads to be kinder to pedestrians and cyclists and busses), and that has been accelerated and amplified to help people keep their distance from each other. It seems to be quite popular, but we'll have to see how it goes over time.
So that's one issue with significant progress... now we need the other big social issue to gain momentum too, unfortunately because it is focussing on helping one group of people (rather than everyone) it is harder to get enough people on side.
Nice to hear someone with a positive attitude about something. Haven't seen any momentum here but maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
It's not an attack. It's a statement of why an end to to the rioting won't help the cause of preventing the repeated state endorsed murder of black people followed by an explanation of why call to end the rioting at this time are actively detrimental to that. The fact that it's been received as an attack and that we've immediately reached for the language of violence in response to a post on a forum somewhat proves my point that challenges to our world view are invariably received as attacks..Quote:
That response was an attack
I'll try to be more clear and concise:-
The removal of what you are referring to as violence will not result in the protests becoming more effective, it will simply lead to the reframing of "violence". Than language will change and the public at large will, at best, go back to ignoring the protests or, at worst, continue the calls for the protests to end. You can see this phenomenon throughout history and you can see it in recent times with Colin Kaepernick's protest. If you can provide me with an example of a protest more "peaceful" that that one then please do. The response to it from the public at large (who's opinion I think you're saying is the one that matters if we wish to affect change - I would agree with you) varied between total indifference and the active destruction of his career... for kneeling. It did not lead to the public at large rallying behind him and it did not lead to change.
Calling for an end to that violence, at this time, less than a week after an unarmed man was shot 7 times in the back, by police officers, while his children watched, is detrimental to preventing these things from happening in the future and therefore extremely poor behaviour. It puts state sanctioned murder on an equal footing with vandalism in response to that state sanctioned murder and it feeds in to the narrative that the problem is the protests rather than state sanctioned murder. 1. it sends a message to black people that their deaths are no more important than white people's lost business and 2. it makes a resolution of the causal problem less likely because it shifts focus from that problem and actively gives succour to those who wish to perpetuate it.
I don't believe I am. I get that your position you're currently expressing is at least twofold: 1. that the property damage we are seeing may be detrimental to the cause of black people no longer being murdered and 2. that looting and rioting are objectively bad. I feel I've adequately expressed my opinion on your first point and I actually agree with your second - I just think you're choosing the worst possible time to express it and, while I don't believe that you intend to act against the actual cause of all this (state sponsored murder of black people - lets keep pointing that out so it doesn't get forgotten), I do believe that, in choosing to express it at this time, that's the effect you actually have.Quote:
You are also trying to represent my opinion with half truths.
I think there's probably a third thrust but I don't think you've explicitly stated it - I'll answer it anyway because, whether you hold it or not, I'm sure a lot of people do: American People have the right to go about their day, walk the streets and run their businesses without fear of violence. This is true, they do. But unless you fail to extend the term "American People" to include American Black People, that right is unachievable until you have dealt with the state sponsored murder of black people because it is the authorities you are calling upon to protect that right who are murdering them.. That goal can only be achieved if you either 1. don't consider that the goal should include black people or 2. deal with the causal problem first. Chose one.
If there's a fourth or further thrust I've missed it. I'll be happy to engage with it once it's clarified.
Tangentially, I think Greta Thunberg provides an interesting case study in all this because she's probably the best case contemporary case study available for a peaceful protest. I'm afraid I don't think she's been effective. She managed to create a lot of discussion, certainly, but no actual concrete change at all that I can see. The single biggest factor that's worked to slow environmental damage recently has been Corona and, as that starts to lift, we are already seeing the calls to go back to work in offices even if you can work from home because we need support the economy. So, yeah, jump back in your car and get back to pumping those toxins out because... business first (which seems a familiar call).
To put it another way, we don't celebrate MLK because he was effective (we're still here), we celebrate him because he was passive.
I go and make a flippant remark, and you take me seriously? You should know me better than that. The rest of the post was serious, but that opening was just an extension of your assertion that every protest is taken to be an attack. I just had to come up with something that it could be said to be attacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I've been telling you all along your not very punny :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I wasn't going to respond at at all because I've reached a point of nausea with you droning on with your opinion, assumptions and conclusions. But if you believe that then I'm sorry I've wasted my time engaging in this conversation.Quote:
To put it another way, we don't celebrate MLK because he was effective (we're still here), we celebrate him because he was passive.
Fair enough, I probably should have known better from you. Mind you, if you haven't spotted the positioning as the victim that's going on now you're not paying attention.Quote:
I go and make a flippant remark, and you take me seriously?
I do. It doesn't stop him being a hero of mine but I recognise that the black civil rights movement of the 60s 1) contained just as much violence as the current BLM movement which you're choosing to ignore and 2) did not succeed in it's goals or we wouldn't be having the conversation now. That's why I think the conversation still needs to be focussed on the injustices in our society and why I think discussions about what strategies a protest should take be left to the people actually engaged in it.Quote:
if you believe that
You'll choose to take my statement as an indictment of King, it's not, it's an indictment of how the movement of which he was part has come to be viewed by history.
No your mind reading abilities have failed you again. I took it as a surprising ignorance of black lives in the US before and after the 1960's civil rights movement. If you want to say it wasn't effective because it didn't solve all problems, go ahead but that is an impossibility.Quote:
You'll choose to take my statement as an indictment of King