> I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work.
The president of the United States is threatening military violence against its own citizens and you criticize people for being "political"? Seriously?
The president of the United States is threatening military violence against its own citizens and you criticize people for being "political"? Seriously?
Some of these rioters set fire to occupied buildings with children inside and prevented emergency services from accessing the location. In other words, property destruction and attempted murder.
Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?
Someone was nearly stoned to death on the street with bricks by rioters for protecting a business.
That said, violence by police against civilians is far worse. It shouldn’t happen in response to property damage, but it especially shouldn’t happen unprovoked — and we’ve been seeing a lot more of that than violence from protesters.
That doesn't mean police are "less bad". It means they fucked up badly, and then rioters and looters are responding badly to a bad situation (including with attempted murder, rape, assault, property destruction, arson, etc).
In fact, numerous businesses owned by black people were unfortunately torched during the rioting. What part of that is justice? Further, what good does it do to black neighborhoods to have their houses burnt down, critical supplies interrupted in the middle of a pandemic and other such egregious behaviour?
Anarchists are using this situation to cause chaos and destruction.
First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in order for civilians to be safe. This is an axiomatic belief for me; if you can’t meet me on it, we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
I think everyone recognizes that the protests have caused far more violence than the murder of George Floyd alone. But the best way to prevent further violence would have been to immediately arrest the officers (as any civilian would have been) and hold them accountable. As it stands now, the other three officers who helped restrain him and prevent bystander intervention have not even been arrested. It seems to me that police and politicians across the country are willing to accept thousands of arrests, thousands more injuries and millions of dollars worth of property damage all to protect four officers who should absolutely face trial.
That brings me to “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rioting. There are no doubt people using the protests as cover to sow chaos, or to do “riot tourism” — we’ve all seen videos of that. That is not okay. But plenty of rioting is happening because a group of people have been crying out in every which way that they are drowning and nothing seems to help. I’ve seen even staunch conservatives acknowledge that Floyd’s death was beyond the pale. And it’s not just him: it’s Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others. And those are just the deaths that make the news — that’s a small subset of all the times when someone was “just” beat up, or profiled, or arrested for no good reason. Plenty of black people feel that society is not honoring its contract with them; given that, can we really blame those protesting for feeling that they don’t need to honor their contract with society?
Prosecutors are supposed to be making those decisions on behalf of the state or federal government.
The police did everything in their power (immediately firing them). It's up to prosecutors to do the rest.
Do you think police generally support what happened?
I do believe police generally support what happened.
So you've pointed out what the police have been up to, and why people are out rioting.
But torching a residential building with children inside as a response? How is that okay?
"But the children!" It was vacant. Nice try, though.
No one is condoning this specific act, but I'm not going to damn everything else because if it. That's absolutely silly.
Torching black-owned businesses? Looting critical supplies from pharmacies, supermarkets and other retailers? Stoning people nearly to death in the street? Murdering a federal officer in California?
Where's the line? What's acceptable?
FWIW, the vast majority of protesters involved are not involved in the aforementioned acts.
You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy.
"No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
As an example, firing rubber bullets at innocent people causing harm and arresting journalists.
That doesn't mean it's justified to burn down an occupied building with children inside and prevent fire crews from accessing it. That's diabolical.
How much more "context" do you need? You don't go around dispatching the military to shoot at your own citizens, not in a state governed by the rule of law. No amount of civil unrest will let an accountable government get away with that.
> Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?
Please don't put words in my mouth.
It's a simple question, and I never implied your response either way.
Do you think violence by police or military is justified when individuals are setting fire to occupied buildings?
Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.
The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died.
I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people?
Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
Anyways, you're ignoring the bigger picture, the mountain of bodies that led to this situation in the first place. The civil unrest we're seeing wouldn't have happened at all if policing across the country was done in a sane manner. The numerous reports of unjustified police violence in the midst of this crisis is already making things worse, and there's no need for the military to add to that.
Yes. Do you have ANY examples in history where protests were met with violence didn't end poorly? Hell, America celebrates the Boston Tea Party in school.
Civil disobedience is an American obligation.