Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[johnny karate]

I choose the police.

Easy choice to make when the police, without fail, always choose you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Easy choice to make when the police, without fail, always choose you.

It's also an easy choice when "African American" and "murder" and "rapist" are the the same thing in your head.

 

[Dr.Sid]

To me the self-defense claims miss the biggest point entirely, which is that there is clear evidence, if not proof, of a police department encouraging and assisting an armed right wing militia group during a volatile situation.

The legality of the killings in a vacuum is an important issue, yes. But not anywhere near the biggest one involved.

I don't see that. I have a car dealership. It's set on fire one night. There is high probability it will be set of fire again. Few friends offer help, and come with guns to stand in front of my car dealership.
What should police do ? Say they can handle it ? Clearly they can't.
Right wing militia maybe, but in this situation they are the good guys.
Their effort might end up counterproductive, but it's legitimate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know I'm getting tired of the worry about a "backlash" against the protesting. Not because it's not technically true, but because I rarely see the sentiment come from someone that wasn't just itching to part of the "counter."

Show me someone that is worried that the protests and and demonstrations are going to get a backlash for being too violent, and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you someone looking for the first excuse to dismiss the issues.

"Oh black people need to protest nicer against being murdered in the streets in broad daylight on camera by police officers who then receive no punishment! Oh if they aren't careful there's gonna be a backlash!"

"Oh a backlash? And do you plan on being part of this backlash you are so worried about?"

*Coyish grin* "Oh I'll never tell."

 

[Meadmaker]

Sometimes we have to choose between the police and our African-American neighbor who violated a restraining order placed against him for sexually assaulting a woman by going back to her house, who had a felony warrant for the rape, who ignored lawful orders from police, who brushed off two separate Taser shots, who physically assaulted police officers, who ignored repeated commands to drop a deadly weapon before reaching into his vehicle while guns were drawn on him. I choose the police.

Why do we have to choose between them, instead of just weighing facts and evidence?

I get what you're saying. The narrative advanced at the beginning of the Blake story isn't the one that we're getting now. An awful lot of people, and I do mean a lot of people, jumped on the police brutality bandwagon based solely on the color of skin of the people involved, before it was widely noticed that he (probably) had a knife in his hand, when it was being said that he was there to break up a fight.

But, can't we just call for justice here? Can't we just say that we ought to weigh the evidence and determine if a crime has been committed? (Well, we know at least one crime has been committed. Unlike a whole lot of other cases we have seen, Blake was genuinely resisting arrest.) I think weighing the evidence ought to come before choosing sides.

One of the horrible things about choosing sides first and weighing the evidence later is that tends to a sort of binary thinking. If you choose the cops, then you won't listen to any evidence that say maybe they didn't handle this so well. If you choose Blake, you may end up deciding that all the anger is justified, and start making excuses for the rioters, or for the idiots wandering into Kenosha showing off their brand new rifles, and killing two people......in self defense of course, or not, depending on which side you have chosen.

Anyway, I could say more specifically about Blake and the cop who shot him, but this isn't really the thread for it. For this thread, I would just like to say that people shouldn't riot. Cops shouldn't shoot first, "just in case". (Not specific to Blake, because that conclusion shouldn't be presented without discussing the actual evidence.) People shouldn't drive to the next town carrying guns and looking for trouble. And people shouldn't make excuses for anyone who does any of those things, even if some of those groups are on the side you have chosen.

 

[crescent]

You know I'm getting tired of the worry about a "backlash" agains the protesting. Not because it's not technically true, but because I have yet to see the sentiment come from someone that wasn't part of the "counter."

Show me someone that is worried that the protests and and demonstrations are going to get a backlash for being too violent, and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you someone looking for the first excuse to dismiss the issues.

"Oh black people need to protest nicer against being murdered in the streets in broad daylight on camera by police officers who then receive no punishment! Oh if they aren't careful there's gonna be a backlash!"

"Oh a backlash? And do you plan on being part of this backlash you are so worried about?"

*Coyish grin* "Oh I'll never tell."

I'm not sure I agree. What I see more and more of is groups of white people fighting cops or other groups of white people. The big BLM protests still happen, but many cities also have smaller but much more confrontational groups of protesters - and I think that does create backlash. There are people who are using the big BLM protests as a sort of cover to .... well, I don't even know what these smaller groups are hoping to accomplish. But they seem focused on fighting and burning. Denver officials denounce “anarchists” who damaged property, set fires during anti-police demonstration

Here's a twitter thread of that event. https://twitter.com/MarcSallinger/status/1297396960949702656

This was not a BLM protest, the city and police went to great effort to communicate that they understood this fight to be different from the actual BLM protest that also happened that same night.

But when things like this happen over and over again, people who support police reform also start to wonder what the police can do to deal with the small but very destructive bands of anarchist nihilists who seem to be using the BLM protests as an excuse and as cover to break things and fight and start fires. People may start to doubt or worry about efforts to dramatically restructure policing in America when they see people burning car dealships, fast food joints, landscaping trees, gas stations and just about anything else seemingly just as an excuse to fight with cops or militia (not to mention that the militia also live for this sort of confrontation, they love it when the anarchists set fires as that just reinforces the message that the militia are sending).


Lately it seems more and more like we've got two left-side movements going on right now - the BLM movement that wants genuine police reform, and the anarchist "movement" that wants no policing. We conflate them at our own risk. And the right-side militia loves, loves, loves the anarchist movement as that is just what they need to justify their own confrontationality, and serves as the perfect bogeyman to frighten people with.

 

[Thermal]

I don't see that. I have a car dealership. It's set on fire one night. There is high probability it will be set of fire again. Few friends offer help, and come with guns to stand in front of my car dealership.
What should police do ? Say they can handle it ? Clearly they can't.
Right wing militia maybe, but in this situation they are the good guys. Their effort might end up counterproductive, but it's legitimate.

Disagreed. If they showed up in numbers with baseball bats and ax handles, maybe shotguns with birdshot, that might be legit. They showed up with high powered rifles designed to kill people. That was their scope of intent, and it was highly disproportionate. How many lives were they going to take to 'protect' the remnants of an already trashed business? How much money was at stake here to warrant corpse collections?

 

[Suddenly]

I don't see that. I have a car dealership. It's set on fire one night. There is high probability it will be set of fire again. Few friends offer help, and come with guns to stand in front of my car dealership.

What should police do ? Say they can handle it ? Clearly they can't.
Right wing militia maybe, but in this situation they are the good guys.
Their effort might end up counterproductive, but it's legitimate.

Cops should be telling the people with guns to go home, and then arresting them if they don't. Simple as that. They are the ones more likely cause the situation to escalate into a bloodbath.

If anyone is justified in being armed to the teeth on the pretense that they are defending their rights it is the protesters. Somehow if some random group showed up with guns to defend a peaceful protest from people in trucks flying Trump flags trying to run them over, I doubt the cops would be glad to see them.

 

[Suddenly]

Disagreed. If they showed up in numbers with baseball bats and ax handles, maybe shotguns with birdshot, that might be legit. They showed up with high powered rifles designed to kill people. That was their scope of intent, and it was highly disproportionate. How many lives were they going to take to 'protect' the remnants of an already trashed business? How much money was at stake here to warrant corpse collections?

Still no. They aren't stopping anyone from burning down the lot, and if they want to make it more likely that what is left of their lot gets full and properly torched then they should do this. The whole idea that business interests are worth more than people is at the root of all of these protests.

The rationale of using force to protect property and quell these protests has proven laughably ineffective. Well, except to make things far worse and allow those making it worse to try to sell the illusion that it would be even worse if they weren't using all this force.

Which is where this has gone.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Disagreed. If they showed up in numbers with baseball bats and ax handles, maybe shotguns with birdshot, that might be legit. They showed up with high powered rifles designed to kill people. That was their scope of intent, and it was highly disproportionate. How many lives were they going to take to 'protect' the remnants of an already trashed business? How much money was at stake here to warrant corpse collections?

It all depends on exact Wisconsin law. Where I live I can kill defending my property. I don't have to run. I hear Wisconsin only allows shooting when you have no other choice (you have to run if you can).
And yeah, if you are setting buildings on fire, I think it's perfectly proportionate to shoot to kill. It's not just about money. First there can be people inside, so it's murder intent. But it's also my property. My freedom.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It all depends on exact Wisconsin law. Where I live I can kill defending my property. I don't have to run. I hear Wisconsin only allows shooting when you have no other choice (you have to run if you can).
And yeah, if you are setting buildings on fire, I think it's perfectly proportionate to shoot to kill. It's not just about money. First there can be people inside, so it's murder intent. But it's also my property. My freedom.

Yep it is the american way

Destruction of property is not an appropriate response to murder but murder is an appropriate response to destruction of property.

 

[Suddenly]

But it's also my property. My freedom.

Even if we ignore the moral issues about killing people and the idea that losing some property is the same as losing freedom...

You are aware that even trained people with guns usually miss, right? That those bullets do not evaporate into fairy dust?

When people decide they will shoot to kill to protect property, they need to ask themselves whether it is worth killing other people in the crowd threatening nothing or even some random child some blocks away.

 

[Suddenly]

Yep it is the american way

Destruction of property is not an appropriate response to murder but murder is an appropriate response to destruction of property.

Related to this is how with cops killing people, there is this tendency to consider the moral purity of the victim as if it really matters. That a person had a warrant or an ex-con or whatever. Or that the person was pure in all things big and small.

But when some business gets burned down there isn't a whole lot about their business practices. Like a car lot engaged in predatory lending that has several complaints regarding wage theft and fraudulently concealing defects in merchandise. Or a retail establishment that funded surveillance cameras and otherwise pressured cops to harass area residents likely to make suburban shoppers nervous.

That sort of thing.

 

[rdwight]

Related to this is how with cops killing people, there is this tendency to consider the moral purity of the victim as if it really matters. That a person had a warrant or an ex-con or whatever. Or that the person was pure in all things big and small.

Definitely is an issue when it is used as a defense against obvious misconduct that lead to a death. But sometimes it actually does matter if the facts are part of the response. If someone has multiple resisting arrests and fleeing police charges in the past, or violent weapons charges, it does tend to invoke more caution and what ends up being more extreme outcomes. I can understand it from my side. It becomes a lot blurrier when those mindsets are put into the mix with a mistaken identity. People will also act a certain way when randomly confronted by gun drawn police for going about their normal lives. It's all messy.

But when some business gets burned down there isn't a whole lot about their business practices. Like a car lot engaged in predatory lending that has several complaints regarding wage theft and fraudulently concealing defects in merchandise. Or a retail establishment that funded surveillance cameras and otherwise pressured cops to harass area residents likely to make suburban shoppers nervous.

Since the destruction of said businesses are generally said to be caused by out of towners and the like, I don't think trying to play both sides is a good angle. No one local did it, but they deserved it because x/y/z doesn't seem like a winning formula. There are plenty of proper avenues to deal with the issues you suggest, most people aren't going to be super eager to switch from them to arson and looting as a better solution.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Yep it is the american way

Destruction of property is not an appropriate response to murder but murder is an appropriate response to destruction of property.

We are talking about property of people unrelated to the original 'murder'. That's certainly not appropriate. Even destruction of property of supposed murderer is not appropriate these days. We have a justice system for that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We are talking about property of people unrelated to the original 'murder'. That's certainly not appropriate. Even destruction of property of supposed murderer is not appropriate these days. We have a justice system for that.

Ah so it is only acceptable to destroy property to protest taxes then, as we see in the Boston Tea Party.

And it is funny that you think the justice system will solve anything, it being broken is the whole point of the protests in the first place.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Even if we ignore the moral issues about killing people and the idea that losing some property is the same as losing freedom...

You are aware that even trained people with guns usually miss, right? That those bullets do not evaporate into fairy dust?

When people decide they will shoot to kill to protect property, they need to ask themselves whether it is worth killing other people in the crowd threatening nothing or even some random child some blocks away.

Sure. But in cases like this, when the self-defense criteria are met depending on local law, the idea is you had no choice but to defend yourself. The attacker is the initiator of the action, and thus all collateral damage is on him.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Ah so it is only acceptable to destroy property to protest taxes then, as we see in the Boston Tea Party.

And it is funny that you think the justice system will solve anything, it being broken is the whole point of the protests in the first place.

I don't know much about Boston Tea Party. I don't see how it's relevant. Wasn't that start of a war ? Like in medieval times ?
I don't think destruction of other's people property, including public property, is not appropriate, or useful, in any case.

Anyway, good luck changing justice system with violence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know much about Boston Tea Party. I don't see how it's relevant. Wasn't that start of a war ? Like in medieval times ?
I don't think destruction of other's people property, including public property, is not appropriate, or useful, in any case.

Anyway, good luck changing justice system with violence.

It was a protest destroying property to protest a tax on the sale of that property. It is also one of the most celebrated protests in american history.

 

[Suddenly]

Sure. But in cases like this, when the self-defense criteria are met depending on local law, the idea is you had no choice but to defend yourself. The attacker is the initiator of the action, and thus all collateral damage is on him.

Contriving some means to avoid moral responsibility doesn't make actual causation disappear. The innocent person is dead and they are dead because the shooter pulled the trigger and hit them with a bullet. A shooter that is only there in the first place to defend property with deadly force.

I'm sure the family of the person killed will feel so much better that it was because of a (almost certainly futile) effort to heroically save used cars from being torched.