On a larger philosophical note, isn’t people thinking they are above the law what this movement is protesting against? How can you argue that the police must obey the law when you’re tolerating antifa activists in your movement breaking the law?
I realize that the crime that was committed against George Floyd was far more serious than stealing milk or even looting stores. But the standard should be about obeying the law not about choosing which laws you like and which you don’t. If you argue that individuals have the moral authority to make their own choices about what’s right and which laws they have to obey, you have to accept that some individuals are going to make the same choices that Derek Chauvin made.
There is truth to that. I can identify friends who declined to join protests here because of the fear of things going south. And I agree, there are people who joined because they hoped things would go south.
I was also joined this week by people who never thought of protesting before. I see FB posts by friends in small towns who would have ignored this issue before, but are now being vocal because it can’t be ignored. I can’t quantify how much of that is due to the extensive media coverage, and how much greater the extent of that coverage was because of the disruptions. But it’s a factor.
I personally would never commit or condone violence or property destruction. But at the same time, I think it’s naive to think that protests of this scope can take place without some damage (and the bulk of violence I’ve seen has been by police). I’ts a tough subject.
I take very strong exception to your law and order argument. You say there’s no comparison between killing an unarmed man and breaking a window, then you do just that. We are not protesting against anyone going outside the law, and if you think that’s what this is about, please educate yourself.
Show up. Park your crowd outside city hall or the federal building or the police station or the city square. Hold your chants and wave your signs and sit down and refuse to leave. Challenge the police to mass arrests. Or they have to resort to tear gas, pepper guns, rubber bullets, and flash bangs. Who looks bad? The police.
Throw rocks and water bottles, take sticks and attack the police, bust up stores and cars and burn buildings. Now who looks bad? The protesters, who are no longer seen as sympathetic downtrodden, but violent criminals that need to be controlled.
Disruption doesn’t have to be violent to draw attention, but causing violence and destruction to draw attention is counter productive. It scares away the peaceful people you want to join your side, and it draws out the people who just want to riot and loot.
Notice as the rallies have become more peaceful, they’ve become larger. Notice as they stay peaceful, police are not enforcing the curfews. Notice how smooth Trump looks for having Bill Barr clear the park and the church for his bible photo op.
Showing up and putting yourself in the path of violence prepared to fight back is one thing. Torching buildings and turning over police cars is not that.
Yes.
Except your Antifa OP specifically advocates property damage. When Antifa is not an organization, it is a self-chosen label for anyone who opposes fascism, how do you separate Antifa from black-block anarchists?
Did the people who started the looting begin with simple property damage? How am I supposed to know if they self-labeled as Antifa?
I agree that police need accountability. I agree there is too much special treatment for bad police. I agree police culture is too much “protect your brother even when he’s wrong” rather than “protect the people even from other cops”. I agree this protest is in response to a pattern of violence by police against primarily black people, and specifically triggered by the George Floyd incident. However, protesters engaging in violence is not acceptable, either.
I never said there was no comparison. The fact that I was making such a comparison shows I don’t believe that.
I said that killing Floyd was a far more serious crime than breaking a window or looting a store. And I obviously stand by that. But both acts are breaking the law. So that’s the comparison between them.
This is fundamentally a protest against people breaking the law. The people are the police and the law is murder. We want the police to stop murdering suspects. We want people to obey the law.
Don’t you see the contradiction between breaking laws as a means of telling people they should obey the law?
More than that, right-wingers are gleeful that a subset of liberals tolerate or half-heartedly condemn Antifans. They love it when a segment of the Left nods approvingly about proposals to “defund the police”. It gives them an invaluable edge in securing support and votes for the more extreme segments of the Republican Party.
When we had frequent rioting in American cities in the late 1960s, it did not, if memory serves, result in a left-leaning President being elected.
A group of people that hides behind masks so it can intimidate and commit violent acts with relative impunity might as well be waving “Trump For President” signs. Donald should go on Twitter to thank them.
I unequivocally reject this argument. You make good points elsewhere, but you are flat out wrong on this. This protest is NOT fundamentally against people breaking the law. It is against systemic racism and police brutality. There is absolutely no contradiction between me saying police shouldn’t kill black men and me blocking traffic to bring attention to the issue, despite both those acts being illegal.
We can reasonably disagree on what illegal acts are morally justified to protest this. But a blanket statement that any law breaking is off limits is absurd.
Why not? That guy who tried to vandalize the transport buses at the ICE immigration centre chose a perfectly legit target. Did you mean random cars and windows shouldn’t be broken?
Laws sometimes support injustice, as mentioned by the OP. Little Nemo, saying that antifa should have “no breaking the law” as part of their code is frankly odd.
Okay, then what solution do you see for this problem?
Mine is the one I’ve mentioned. I want to see the laws against murder enforced upon police officers. If a police officers kills a suspects, he should be arrested and tried like anyone else. If other police officers assist him, they should be arrested and tried as accessories. I feel this would address the issue of the police killing suspects.
If you’re rejecting this “enforce the law” approach, what’s your alternative solution? What’s your plan for stopping police killings?
I agree that’s true in some situations. But I don’t think it is in this one.
It’s not legal for the police to kill suspects. We’re not asking for a new law to be enacted. What we want is for existing laws to be enforced against the police.
And I’ve explained the reasons why I feel protesters should adopt a blanket police of not committing any crimes as the best approach to addressing this problem.
I will concede this; we’ve been talking about crimes like stealing milk, breaking windows, throwing rocks, and looting stores. And I stand by what I’ve said: I believe breaking those laws is hurting the cause, not helping it.
But the issue of laws against things like assembling in public spaces have been raised. And I would agree with the breaking of those laws; protesters can do things like violating curfews and peacefully block access to public buildings without hurting the cause.
Are you familiar with Campaign Zero? This is the approach put forward by the Obama Foundation.
Some excerpts:
Note that I’m only including section headers. If there’s something in this list you find surprising, simplistic, impractical, irrelevant, or redundant, I encourage you to find the full section attached to that header and read it (including the underlying research) before responding.
Little Nemo, I can see your argument from a messaging perspective but “aren’t we fighting for enforcing the laws?” rather insults all our intelligence. If a cop kills someone, there’s an inquiry and he’s found to have used appropriate force but too bad so sad that the perp died, that would be enforcing the law. Without cellphone cameras, that’s exactly what would have happened here.
It was not my intent to insult anyone’s intelligence. I had actually thought this was something obvious and I’m surprised that there are people who disagree with me. But now that I know I’m certainly willing to discuss the issue.
I do disagree with your analysis. Part of enforcing the law is making sure there are honest and impartial investigations without any cover-ups.
I am familiar with the organization and I have supported it with donations.
Looking at the list of objectives you posted, I feel that they’re in agreement with what I’ve been saying.
All of these, for example, are just specific aspects of the broad principle of enforcing the law:
I agree that others items are just general objectives for police reform. But while they’re good ideas, I feel they’re separate from the protest movement we’re seeing. George Floyd didn’t die because of RICO laws or militarization.
I don’t think that really gets at the specifics of where the process of holding police accountable breaks down; nor does it get at the myriad acts of police violence that fall short of murder.
Police hold a special place in our society in their authority to use violence. Saying, in effect, “treat them like everyone else,” doesn’t get to the heart of the problem, nor does it present a plausible solution, in my opinion.
It has nothing to do with coverups, unless you take a very broad meaning of the term. The legal process has just always leaned towards giving police deference on how much force to use and they just so happen to use more force when dealing with minorities. There will always be legitimate times when police kill someone while performing their duties. “Just enforce murder laws” is completely obtuse.
“I want to see the laws against murder enforced upon police officers. If a police officers kills a suspects, he should be arrested and tried like anyone else. If other police officers assist him, they should be arrested and tried as accessories. I feel this would address the issue of the police killing suspects.”
And every police arrest, the officers can be charged with assault or forcible confinement? Every time they question someone’s neighbors, they can be charged with harrassment and stalking? And we’ll just see how it all shakes out?
Four years ago, the politicians promised reforms. Today, the politicians are . . . promising reforms. It’s a little early to be claiming victory.
Most police departments have unions. In order to make it easier to discipline bad cops, you will need to re-write thousands of collective bargaining agreements. That will take a long time. And it will pit ethnic lobbyists against union lobbyists. There’s no telling how that will turn out.