Is violence such as we have seen in Ferguson, MO ever appropriate?

Great Debates
1

The events in Ferguson informed this thread but the question behind it is hardly specific to what has happened there.

Throughout history, civil disobedience has always been one way - usually a last resort - if dealing with injustice, oppression and the continuing and unrelenting subjugation of civil rights.

Despite the fact that some conservative school boards would like to wash away the role that “civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law” in High School history classes, anyone with even the tiniest interest in American history can point out how from the very inception of the country, when people who are considered Patriots rebelled against Britain rule, through slave riots, Vietnam and civil rights in the '60s and the Stonewall Riots for gay rights, violence and civil unrest has been a method used to instigate profound change, even as a last resort.

And this says nothing of world history which is overflows for as long as we have records and even now where violent coups can change the government nations across the globe and not always for the worse.

Two camps have appeared in light of the Ferguson rioting. One of them simply points to the protesters and says they are animals destroying their own communities, accomplishing nothing.

The other camp - the one I am in - will respond that if all else failed, if the injustices never seem to end and nobody seems to be able to instigate change - what else is left?

When a community - whether it’s the black community in Ferguson, Missouri or any other group that feels injustice - tries everything it can to peacefully make change and finds that the corruption is too much to overcome, the institutional racism too ingrained, the infringers too powerful to overthrow, are they supposed to just give up? Futilely continue to bang their collective heads against the same walls despite no reason to expect it do accomplish anything other than more lumps on their heads?

Or are they ever justified in using their rage and frustrations through civil disobedience?

I believe that history has shown us that sometimes they are because sometimes profound and positive changes have rose from the ashes of civil disobedience. This isn’t to say that will happen in Ferguson or that it even should, but I do think that merely wagging fingers of disapproval at those whose anger and frustrations have boiled over is a lot less likely to affect change than pelting the police with rocks.

2

What happened in Ferguson has absolutely nothing to do with “injustice, oppression and the continuing and unrelenting subjugation of civil rights.” The guy who got killed was a hoodlum engaging in violence against a police officer and the people protesting don’t share traditional American values about law and order. For example:

3

Short answer, no.

You lump a lot of things together - protest, civil disobedience, rioting, and active revolution. Let’s separate them some.

Purely legal protest and civil disobedience are not what we are seeing. They can be effective techniques in the right environment. Disobeying an unjust law nonviolently can be incredible powerful in affecting opinion.

Active revolution has a place. Violence can and does settle things historically. It also can and has made things worse. The United States exists as it does because of the revolution (humorously against probably the most democratic power in the world). It’s a blunt hammer and should be used with care. It may be motivated by anger and frustration but if it is simply that passion without objective you can end up with a something like the tyranny of the guillotine after the French Revolution. International law of armed conflict looks at necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Those are probably useful terms to consider when considering use of force to address internal politics by other means.

That leaves us with riot. I could see a calculated “revolution lite” combining some violence with assembly. It’s usually the overflow of those strong negative emotions combined with crowd dynamics. It’s not usually very focused on any clear objectives once it gets going.

Ferguson is giving us riot. Some would argue different ways on whether it’s necessary. For even most participants I’d guess there hasn’t been a well thought out revolutionary plan and decision that violence is necessary at this time and place to achieve objectives. I certainly don’t see it as distinct or proportional. The very fact you are asking based on some opinions tend to show that it’s distracting from the core complaint of injustice. I see an unjust use of violence without even clear route to having a significant positive effect while already showing possible negative effects to their cause.

To quote Pam from Archer “Dude inapprops.”

4

But the point of the OP is, the community in question doesn’t think that they can or do benefit from “traditional American values about law and order.” It DOESN’T BELIEVE that Brown attacked Wilson because of a long history (which includes current events throughout the United States) of “injustice, oppression and the continuing and unrelenting subjugation of civil rights”. So I’d say that a blanket statement that the protests have “nothing to do” with any of these things is inaccurate.

Plus, we might want to keep the conversation non-Fergueson specific, if only because the OP seems to want to address the larger issue.

I’ve seen quite a few African-Americans believe that cops in this country gun down unarmed people of their race on a regular basis with complete impunity. I think that people with that belief would disagree with their actions not being “proportional,” at least. (Whether any of them are the ones doing the looting is, of course, another question entirely. Which does bring up a good point: it’s really hard to tell motivations, especially when crowds tend to meld together.)

5

I seem to recall one of the big founding mythic events of your country’s foundation involved looting and destruction of property. So I’m not entirely sure you’re correct about the part I’ve bolded.

6

Any action against the police would have something to do with the character and actions of the guy who got killed, since this informs how egregious an example of police brutality his killing was.

However, the looting has nothing to do with whether or not the shooting was justified. Even if the police just randomly picked someone out of the crowd to murder, it wouldn’t justify attacking private property of people who had nothing to do with it.

7

In Ferguson, people have chosen violence instead of voting, standing for office, joining the police force, or any other of the many options available to effect change. Violent protest - revolution, basically - can only be considered acceptable when there are no other options, and that by definition cannot be the case in a democracy.

8

In all likelihood only a very small number of people in Ferguson actually “chose violence”. As with most rioting/looting, it’s a small number of people responsible for a great majority of the damage and violence.

9

The specific sort of violent response in Ferguson creates an impression that:

  1. No thoughtful consideration of the evidence was given. This is a lynch mob mentality; the response did not begin with a review of the putative “injustice.” At a bare minimum, a considered review of the case after the data is released should precede torching the local 7-11.

  2. The violence is not directed against the perpetrator. It’s a temper tantrum, lashing out against anything nearby, utterly mindless.

A thoughtful, organized, violent revolt after considering injustice and making organized appeals is surely justified on occasion. I suspect most who look at this will not see much more than very violent people destroying their own house.

The Ferguson violence looks like…an angry mob, who have no more consideration for the result of their action than did anyone or any organization perpetrating injustice against them.

The best longer term solution is to recognize that black police forces need to police poor black neighborhoods. There is no other practical solution to this particular problem.

10

I think the problem is that these types of issues or events divide people into thinking their are only two camps, or lines of thinking.

I can imagine if you’re rioting directing against oppression, but destroying and looting the businesses in you’re own community? But I guess in some people’s minds the ends justify the means.

You bring up some good historical examples, but I think it’s unwise to lump them all together without looking specifically at the events and details of each situation. It’s easy to start a riot and destroy business and empty buildings. I just wonder why the targets of particular rioters like this are so weak? There was a much smaller scale of something like this in my hometown a while back. My hometown is infested with gangs with direct ties to prison mobs. There’s shootings all the time, kids getting killed, some of them not even gang related. But the community is used to it. But when a police officer is accused of wrongly killing a man, the community gets crazy and starts throwing rocks at police, holding signs and chanting “Fuck the police!” But they don’t do this with the local gangs.

11

Perhaps they feel like the police are sworn to protect them, but not the gangs?
:confused:

12

And yet more have chosen it than in the vast majority of other communities.

13

Does this lead you to some specific conclusion? Do you believe that there is something intrinsic to black people that is responsible for higher rates of crime?

14

I don’t recall mentioning black people at any point, and I certainly don’t think that the morality of looting and rioting changes based on skin colour.

And no, I don’t believe that skin colour determines the amount of crime one commits. A combination of poverty and a culture that has disdain for the law probably does, in part.

15

So you reject the idea that black people, collectively, deserve disparate treatment by the police and the justice system?

16

Not everything mentioned in the OP can be characterized as civil disobedience. You have to look at the specific action and the specific grievance, and there needs to be a direct link between the two. So, if, say, a poor community was protesting a decision that touched on unequal education communities and they broke into Scholastic Books headquarters and stole books, that would be one thing. Looting liquor stores and phone stores, and torching businesses indiscriminately because you’re not happy with a verdict having to do with the death of an 18-year-old kid is worlds away.

It is unhelpful in the extreme when one type of community (poor, black) repeatedly demonstrate that they such mindless, violent, thuggish behavior is an appropriate response to a perceived injustice. And when they lash out against the evil white power structure by destroying black-owned businesses, well, just :smack:

17

More assignations of collective responsibility. The vast majority of black people, even poor black people, are peaceful and lawful. The black community is not responsible for the actions of a few black people.

18

In Cleveland, a 12 year old black kid was shot and killed by police at a playground while playing with an airsoft gun. When my son was 12 he had an airsoft gun. I would hope my community would have been outraged if he’d been killed for playing.
Cite.

19

Yes, obviously. That you think I, or anyone else here, would think otherwise, says a great deal about you. And none of it complimentary.

The thing is, nothing about this case in Ferguson, or the rioting following it, has to do with any disparate treatment.

20

He responded to being told to put his hands up by pulling a gun out of his waistband. The gun was not brightly colored like a toy gun and did not have an orange safety band like a toy gun. Anyone would be completely justified in shooting first in that situation.