You are still missing the point. It is, and should be, legal to defend yourself before they punch you.
Expecting people to receive beating is not legitimate.
That’s not a point I’m arguing with. The specifics of the law on whether someone’s fear of death and harm are legitimate are a reasonable point of discussion.
While not statistics let me offer an example releveant to this point you were addressing which I requoted below.
1999 Seattle WTO protests. The organizations associated with protesting globalization aren’t typically poor and black. They were heavier on the vandalism than looting and it was more targeted instead of out of control. Most interesting is the common thread with Ferguson. A big name in Seattle, Lisa Fithian, is white …and was also involved in organizing before Ferguson.
Actually, I also pointed out the lack of injuries shared in both cases, though of course in Ferguson there were more, just nothing (so far, fingers crossed) significant.
You’ve used protestors there; I hope that the mere protestors do not repair or replace the stolen property etc. given their lack of guilt. The rioters, looters, and arsonists, on the other hand, should, but of course I doubt they will. Just as the BTP guys didn’t. I don’t hold it in particularly high esteem that they replaced one broken lock when they also destroyed $1,700,000-odd of someone else’s property. Nor that they cleaned up, given the same. It shows the importance of the point beind made to them, but it doesn’t change the fact and nature of their crime, at least to me.
The Ferguson violence appears to be mindless, unfocused savagery. It’s a temper tantrum where the unhinged have guns and really stupid messages:
“Black lives matter!” Let me shoot some guns recklessly to make this point.
“Our communities matter!” Let me burn down some strip malls and torch some cars to show you how much they matter.
Surely those who want real change for the black community have to be disappointed with the Ferguson violence. All it’s doing is creating a Hobson’s choice: More policing.
And if that choice is left untaken, I pity the law-abiding residents of Ferguson.
But, as I’ve said, it’s entirely the other way around. I’m not covering the Ferguson protestors who committed crimes with the BTP guys; I’m covering the BTP guys with the reputation of the Ferguson protestors who committed crimes. I’ve explicitly denied that I believe those who have committed crimes are noble; allow me to do so again. They are not noble; they are criminals, who deserve to be put correctly through the justice system. Utterly un-noble, unless I suppose we’ve lent you some Lords for the occasion.
I would say that the substantial cost of their actions (I don’t know the cost in Ferguson, but I would guess it to be high) is also a similarity. Other than that - yes, you are quite correct. As I have already agreed. Both groups are criminals who took and destroyed substantial property, illegally; that is the similarity.
You’re correct. Again - as I have already agreed. But as it comes to law and order values, the point that I was originally replying to, these features do not apply. They show the difference in political goals, or in long term planning, or in focus. They do not show a difference in whether or not a crime took place, or whether or not the criminals in either situation deserve to meet justice. And they do not show a difference in law and order values.
You think opposing the “reasonable person” standard is legitimate? What on earth would you think could replace it?
When people talk about white privilege, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing they mean.
The definition and actual legal usage of the “Reasonable person” standard might indeed be a reasonable point of disagreement.
Yeah, well, sorry.
But, as I’ve said, it’s entirely the other way around. I’m not covering the Ferguson protestors who committed crimes with the BTP guys; I’m covering the BTP guys with the reputation of the Ferguson protestors who committed crimes. I’ve explicitly denied that I believe those who have committed crimes are noble; allow me to do so again. They are not noble; they are criminals, who deserve to be put correctly through the justice system. Utterly un-noble, unless I suppose we’ve lent you some Lords for the occasion.
[/QUOTE]
You’re STILL doing it. As I said in my quote that you responded to, you’re attempting to draw an equivalence between the two groups. Regardless if you raise one group up or bring one group down, you’re trying to draw an equivalence. And WHY might you want to do that? Why look back over 200 years to the Boston Tea Party and compare the two? Because if you succeed in drawing some equivalence—bullshit as it is—either by raising up the thugs or lowering the BTPs, some of the righteousness, the nobility of the BTPs bleeds over to the lowlife, lawless, immoral, thieving, cocksucking violent thugs that you can watch on TV tonight.
I don’t know the dollar figures involved, but between the businesses that were torched and vandalized, the cars that were torched, and the looting, the dollar cost of ferguson is not in the ballpark of the damage done by the BTPs.
I’d like proof of the amount of property damage being similar.
You’re argument here boils down to “all crimes are equal, because they are all crimes”. But you’re biggest error is your astoundingly ridiculous claim that the two groups do not show a difference in law and order values. Reread what I and others wrote about how the BTP was carried out, the reason for it, and it’s surgical precision. Then turn on your TV and watch a bunch of lawless asshole thugs break into a liquor store so they can get their drink on. Aside from the fact that they both illegally damaged property that was no there, there as different as an apple and a vacuum cleaner. Please stop this utter nonsense.
I simply wouldn’t comment on the situation unless pressed for an opinion. However, if the parents tried to sue the heroic individual that shot their incredibly stupid borderline criminal kid, I would be more than willing to donate money, sign petitions, and demonstrate in favor of the shooter.
George Washington chopped down many trees during his lifetime. It was not an uncommon act during that time period. Clearing land for roads, buildings, and farmland. Felling trees for firewood, fences, and buildings. Maybe a cherry tree just blocked his view? 
Right – because what I was referring to was general forestry and lumber activities of US Presidents, not a specific story in American mythology. Thank you for this useful post.
The British colonists had a grievance with loony King George, Parliament, and the East India Co. The colonists did not burn the ships. They did not burn the piers. They did not burn the wharf. They did not burn the warehouses.
The colonists themselves prevented one of their own from stealing tea for his personal use. The only damage, outside of the tea and the boxes it came in, was one lock and the colonists made it a point to replace it. And they cleaned up after themselves. Their grievance was with the tea tax and the lack of representation in Parliament.
The colonists weren’t so stupid as to destroy their own neighborhood to teach the government a lesson.
No. Never. Just my opinion.
This says nothing about my views on the grand jury process or the police shootings of unarmed black youths.
You’re welcome.
I still don’t understand why, in the minds of rioters, an innocent store owner deserves to bear the brunt of rage over a shooting-by-cop incident.
Hey, I hear ya. Fuckin 12 year olds get away with too much shit, huh.
Your lack of understanding is an important point, and we thank you for bringing this evidence to our attention.