Quote:
Or is your attitude more “eh, if we catch them we catch them. If not, not.”
Sentient Meat
Not understanding this. At all.
Crowds can have weird affects on human behavior. An individual who isn’t normally prone to violence might suddenly find himself smashing windows and throwing rocks at people when part of a crowd. I’m no expert on crowd behavior but it’s been the subject of numerous studies. I wonder if someone wearing a disguise is more likely to cause violence while in a crowd then someone showing their face. I certainly don’t think those punk anarchist are wearing mask as a form of protest I just think they want to cause trouble without getting caught.
I can certainly understand the oppositions point of view when it comes to masks.
Marc
This tautology is true. People who break the law should be apprehended and prosecuted. Criminalising apparel based on past statistics of its wearers presumes guilt despite no crime being committed, and IMO is a cure which is worse than the disease.
How does that tie into not caring if we catch a criminal?
If a cop catches someone in the act, they are resposible for that act. Being found guilty or not guilty doesn’t change whether they did something or not. They must first be caught to stand trial.
I really still don’t get what you’re saying.
jimpatro, The line above is confusing because it was included out of contest. It is from post 23. Here it is:
Hope that helps.
Byt the way, your post #59 was perfect.
Thanks and thanks, magellan01.
Boy those quotes and sub-quotes can really add up!
Except that property destroyed in a riot is not covered by insurance. You’re arguing as if an anarchist has any common sense at all. Without exception, every anarchist that has been unfortunate enough to poke me with a finger has come across as a self-loading underachiever who couldn’t reason beyond the blind hatred that drives him.
You might as well argue with a Klan member.
Good point. In that case I shall wish them well and remind them to wear their “Rage Against the Machine” t-shirts when their out storming the corporate headquarters.
Marc
Out of curiousity, what do you think of loitering laws? If someone is hanging around an area, it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily committing some other crime, but there are laws throughout the country on loitering.
In the UK, loitering is linked only to soliciting, in which one is effectively inciting others to break the law. Yet again, I don’t think prostitution should be illegal in the first place, but that’s beside the point here, and there’s other laws which relate to incitement to riot and such like. If you’re talking about loitering with intent or suchlike, that “sus law” was abolished in Britain in 1981 after it caused riots itself.
Not a bad idea in theory, but in practice I think it would be problematic: a protest march is under way. Some people are masked, some not. As the march progresses the level of excitement increases. The protest then begins to show signs of becoming viloent. The police then make the announcement you suggest. I would think that would just add fuel to the fire.
Still, I don’t mind having your idea implemented as genreal practice. But, I maintain that if there is a likelihood of violence stemming from a certain protest or event, the police have the right and responsibility to manage the situation preempmtively, so it does not get to the point where chaos ensues.
I guess I’d have to disagree, but even if it did I would consider it the price we have to pay to not have laws that are vague. BTW, my suggestion is not new.
I’m not disagreeing w/ you on that. Merely the method.
Okay, you are in charge, There is going to be a protest by Anarchists. What do you do, both preemptively, if anything, and during the protest as it starts to turn violent?
Read them the riot act, as I described above. Those who don’t disperse, get arrested and charged with felonies. Those who get away are lucky.
Okay, but you’re bound to have clashes that could have been eliminated with the tiniest of restrictions.
I think we understand each other and we’re not that far apart. Thanks for the dialogue.
Do you understand that a Nike or Starbucks storefront is not actually owned by the Nike corporation, but is a franchise owned by the same sort of local small-business owner that would own a Mom & Pop store?
I agree with most of the issues anarchists raise; I’m a leftist myself, and have marched against the WTO, IMF, WB, etc. But property destruction of that nature effectively sets the movement back. It alienates potential supporters and gains us nothing. Activism isn’t about proving how much righteous indignation you’ve got; it’s about demonstrating to potential sympathizers that alternative points of view exist, and pressuring institutions of power to change. Throwing a brick through a Starbucks window isn’t about anything except impressing one’s friends with how committed to the cause one is.
Lexan, we don’t line up 100% on philosophy, but that was one of the best, most cogent posts I’ve read on SD. Thanks for playing.