I honestly agree with Revenant Threshold’s point, which had nothing to do with whether the folks in Ferguson who are rioting and looting/burning shit are noble or not noble, but since I’ve been booted from a thread already this week for hijacking I’ll leave it there.
As for the OP, I don’t believe that violence is ever appropriate in this sort of situation, since it’s actually counter productive to the supposed aim of those protesting (of course, to those just looting and burning shit they don’t really have an aim, more just taking advantage of an opportunity). Protests in the 60’s were effective because for the most part they were non-violent and were able to capture the imagination and thinking of the majority of the population. This time what’s being underscored is the expected explosion and thuggery, and it’s not going to do shit to the popular image of this event and will actually detract from getting anything like justice.
Did you point those toy guns at cops and in general make threatening gestures to other people? If not, then your experience is irrelevant to the story under discussion.
Bob is angry with Jim, so he goes and punches Alice in the face.
At least, that’s about what it seems like there in Ferguson. Even assuming their gripe with the police is just, taking it out on innocent third parties is just plain bullshit, and a good way to alienate many people who might have otherwise been allies.
I didn’t ignore your points - I accepted them, but pointed out that they didn’t really have much to do with law and order values, but other values.
I’m not attempting to give the protestors in Ferguson who have committed crimes any degree of nobility. You really think that’s my intention? I guess I can see why you’d think that, but you have it the wrong way around; my intention is not to say “Look at these brave, noble protestors, standing up against wrong in the manner of your cherished Founding myths”, it was an attempt to point out that hey, traditionally people have been fuckheads who didn’t put much value into law and order, too, to borrow the phrasing. Effectively it’s not comparing Ferguson criminals to Boston Tea Party criminals to try and show the former as good, but the latter as bad.
I see no nobility in looting and destruction of property, to be entirely clear. Anyone who does so should be arrested and put correctly through the justice system for their crimes. I’m afraid the reason you see my argument as nonsense is because it’s not the argument I’m making. So, what, 1-1 in extra time? Penalties?
OK, I now understand that you’re comparing only the cost of the damage to Ferguson to the cost of damage to the East India Company property. Both are significant.
I’m comparing the actions of the protestors in Ferguson to the actions of the protestors in Boston Harbor. The Sons of Liberty marched to the ships, asked the guards to step aside, boarded the ships, threw the China tea overboard, prevented the personal theft of E.I.Co property, swept the decks clean, and replaced the one lock that had been damaged. It was a very orderly protest, but what else should we expect from British subjects?
When do you think the Ferguson protestors, rioters, looters, and arsonists will repair or replace the stolen property, burnt buildings and vehicles, and sweep the streets clean?
There’s no way that any protests against the decision of the grand jury or the nature of the investigation are legitimate. At the absolute best, they are jumping on a tragedy to protest about something else, but more likely even the peaceful protesters want revenge, not any form of justice.
Sorry, you’re still doing it. For some odd reason you feel a desire to draw equivalence between the two. And it is clear that you seek to have the nobility of the principled actions taken by men back in 1773 shared by the asshole thugs burning buildings and looting stores to get some free shit in Ferguson. We agree that both groups broke the law. That is where the similarity ends. One group did it surgically, making a specific principled point. The other group wanted some free vodka, malt liquor, cell phones and whatever else they could get their grubby hands on.
There was a review of the book “Ferguson in Black and White” written by a University professor who used to be a City Councillor. He detailed how African Americans in Ferguson were excluded from the Police, Government and other civic positions over decades by various means and how the black youth of Ferguson were chased into criminality by following up traffic tickets assiduously with the young black population, incarceratong them and destroying their career choices. He pointed out that the riots were not directly against a single case but against a racist city where 2/3 of the population was African American but less than 5% of the police department was. He compared the city government with St Louis where race issues had been much better handled.
My fault for not specifying the concept of proportionality I’m pulling over from international laws of war. You used a different sense of the word that considers the force used to be in proportion to the force being used against them.
The way I was modifying this for revolution was basically defining civilians as the innocent bystanders as opposed to the police and government forces that are the “combatants” in the oppression.
Two armed conventional conflict hypothetical might help:
One uniformed enemy combatant is standing in the middle of a field with a pistol, 20 miles from any civilian. He starts shooting at an entire company of Abrams tanks at a range where he’s lucky to even get a hit. Proportionality would not limit all 14 tanks from firing their 120mm guns at him simultaneously with the an artillery strike. They can open a truckload of whoop ass cans and have it still be proportional since the risk to civilians is basically zero.
Drop an operating day care behind him and proportionality gets tricky. They have to balance the potentially very small advantage of engaging against the very big risks most of their means of engagement present to the people in the school.
Your use of the word seemed to be more in line with calling the first example disproportional. The sense I was going for is the dilemma in the second example which calls for balancing advantage vs risk of collateral casualties. Since the rioters seems to be operating without a plan that offered much if any advantage to their cause, IMO almost any risk to bystanders makes it disproportional.
I asked why, he explained that the orange looked stupid (he might have called it “gay”, that was a thing for a bit). I never considered it a problem, more a curiousity, since the kids were playing in the backyard and woods. My big concern was eye safety, since they were shooting at one another. I was seriously concerned about their eyes. The airsoft phase was short; the kids moved on to paintball.
ETA: I think the “thing” the kids liked about the airsoft guns was how realistic they looked. And again, understand these were little kids playing in the backyard and surrounding woods of a nice neighborhood.
Right. People who are peaceful and lawful (like most of the protesters, excluding the violent opportunists among them who make up a small protion) can’t peacefully and lawfully disagree legitimately.
In this particular case, that’s correct. If they claim that there’s something wrong with the grand jury’s decision, or the investigation that lead to it, they’re ignorant or lying. Neither is a reasonable basis for protest.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right, or sensible, or meaningful.
What, because you say so? Even if the grand jury acted properly within the law, there still might be legitimate cause for disagreement – many of the protesters feel the law makes it too easy for a cop to lawfully shoot someone. According to the law, if I understand it correctly, after Brown fled from the physical altercation in the car, even if he actually turned and tried to surrender (which is as consistent with the evidence as Wilson’s assertion that he turned to charge) Wilson was lawfully allowed to shoot him. That’s a legitimate point of disagreement on how the law should be.
This is exactly the principle that supports the legitimacy of some of the protests – Wilson might have legally shot Brown, but that doesn’t make it right or sensible.
No, it isn’t. No-one should have to wait until they are injured to defend themselves.
That’s really what this is about, though, isn’t it? Wilson wasn’t injured enough for the tastes of the people claiming he shouldn’t have defended himself. And those same people are the ones who call Wilson’s, and the law’s, supporters bloodthirsty…
But the specific point at which a shooting is legitimate – as soon as someone punches you and then runs away? If someone punches you, then runs, then turns back again? If someone punches you, then runs, then turns back again and raises his hands? If someone punches you, then runs, then turns back again and runs towards you?
It’s legitimate to disagree on which of these points a shooting should be considered lawful.
