What is the justification for rioting?

I didn’t say “white police”, I said “police”. Are the cops of Baltimore less truncheon- and gun-happy in their encounters with black people ?

That’s kind of an issue with it, wouldn’t you say ?

That’s entirely besides the point.

Who knows, nobody seems to give a shit. They just know a black dude died and so they riot.

And what would you replace democracy with?

No its not. Your argument was that even in clear case of police overreaction like the UC Davis pepper-spraying, it doesn’t gain any traction because “the other side” claims that the victims deserved it.

Well, after watching the video, Can you really say that the pepperspraying was an overreaction? I would make a horrible cop because the guys yelling that they would not let me leave unless I released the protesters that I arrested would have gotten at least a little bit of a beat down if he actually tried to stop me from leaving. Do you think its so crazy to say that the victims of pepperspraying didn’t deserve it, not even a little bit?

You know what I find REALLY obnoxious? The fact that you have such a perfect example of privilege where a bunch of white college students are surrounding cops and telling cops they can’t leave unless they release prisoners and everyone decides the real tragedy is that these kids who were well past peaceful protest at this point got peppersprayed.

WTF do you think would happen if cops arrested a bunch of black dudes for trespassing and interefering with the police and a bunch of black 18-25 year olds surrounded them and tried that shit.

They’re not innocent, man. They’re part of, like, the greedy imperialist capitalist MACHINE trying to bring down the people.

So, the Starbuck’s that got smashed is part of the ‘greedy imperialist capitalist MACHINE trying to bring down the people’…people who, what? Want some coffee? :stuck_out_tongue:

You aren’t serious with this old style communist rhetorical horseshit, are you?? Tell me this was tongue in cheek.

Are you talking about the video of the students sitting down on the ground?

The video where, while spraying them with pepper spray, the cops are freely stepping over and around them?

Those are the kids that deserved “at least a little bit of a beat down”?

That’s about the most peaceful you can have as a protest, even when being sprayed in the face with pepper spray, they didn’t lash out or react violently and you want to beat them down?

As much as you complain about BLM being violent, and not being respectable because of a few bad actors, I would have thought you would have applauded the efforts of these students to remain calm and peaceful.

Apparently not, I suppose it is just protesting that you are against.

Any protest where there is any property damage or criminal behavior of any sort, by any party, is by definition a riot according to you guys.

You know, like a bunch of college kids sitting on the ground and refusing to leave is a riot.

I think I might be misunderstanding this post. Are you saying you do support the 90’s LA rioters smashing Korean businesses “since a Korean had shot and killed a black shoplifter”?

How would you like the word “riot” defined?

It was sarcastic, I tried to even use the vapid language frequently associated with this kind of mindset.

In all seriousness, this often is the justification given to these acts of vandalism. Note that it is typically businesses attacked, and that is because of a hatred for any symbols of capitalism.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1540J7

This article was about the Trump inauguration riots.

They are adults not kids.

See? It was a riot, because there were two or three people who smashed two or three windows.

That means the whole march is discredited. Just like if there is one sign at a demonstration that I don’t like, that discredits the whole march.

So if one guy gets punched at a Trump rally, does that turn the Trump rally into a riot?

That was the definition this board seemed to be operating under the campaign.

I look forward to your many citations of that happening on this board.

Did you watch this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjXc…=youtu.be&hd=1

They weren’t refusing to leave, they were refusing to allow the police to leave unless the police released their prisoners.

What march do you think you are talking about? The activities of Disrupt J20 doesn’t undermine the Women’s march that occurred the next day, or even the other peaceful protest activities that occurred during the inauguration. But it does undermine legitimacy of DisruptJ20.

ISTM that a riot requires more rioters than police. If cops can round up every single “rioter” by walking over to the one dude that is doing something wrong, then its just called a crime.

How do YOU define a riot? Because the news media almost unanimously seems to be defining the events in DC as a riot.

Cite?

The women’s march was not a riot.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Try reading a bit closer before you accuse others of embarrassing themselves. :smack:

I said that the rioting by DisruptJ20 DOESN’T undermine the women’s march, which took place the next day. Nor does it undermine any of the other protests that took place on inauguration day. :cool:

There’s a gap between walk over and arrest one person and all the people in the area being rioters.

A large crowd of people that aren’t actively breaking the law provides issues. Just pushing through a dense crowd to the actual law breakers can be an issue. If that peaceful portion of the crowd goes a step further into civil disobedience by actively trying to get in the way or linking arms to interfere with movement are they “rioting” yet? You also need to keep an eye on everyone in the crowd being a potential rioter. Sending in a snatch squad to arrest a couple people throwing rocks can turn people who are peacefully and legally demonstrating into rioters. That can be out of support for the actual criminal element in their midst. It could also be out of ignorance of what is happening when all they are aware of is an aggressive looking move coming their way.

IMO a riot requires more total in the area people than the police can quickly and effectively control. That is not necessarily the same as the number of actual rioters outnumbering the police.

Oh. Well, it seems so simple and clear cut when you dismiss a whole city’s worth of grievances out of hand like that .

Worth a debate.

Of course it does. And that’s why you’re wholly missing the point. The thing is, while you feel all superior for knowing “the whole story” (biased as your account is), 99% of the people who were made aware of this specific incident only saw the pepper sparying cop. For better or worse.
And yet, even among the crowd that supported OWS wholeheartedly, and even among “liberal” journos, and even among anti-cops and so forth ; despite all the outrage and anger this clip produced and all the ink it spilled… nobody really gave a fuck. They tweeted and instagram’d and meme’d ; but nobody did anything. Which is the salient point. That the overwhelming majority of the US population saw a video which, context-free as it may have been to you, showed something that seemed absurdly questionable, but didn’t question. Showed something revolting, but they did not revolt.

And your whole line of argument could have been applied 1:1 to the Boston Massacre, too. Yes, the Bostonian crowd was rioting, yes they did pelt the soldiers with refuse and rocks, yes the lobsterbacks could conceivably have feared for their lives - but that. doesn’t. matter. What does matter is that armed and trained soldiers shot at an unarmed crowd, killing 5 and wounding 6. Which was an over-reaction, and a symbol, and was broadcasted as such and hammered again and again as proof that the British were cunts (whether or not they really were being wholly immaterial) - and *that *started a Revolution.

You know what I find really obnoxious ? When people deem that peacefully occupying a park as political protest, bothering nobody, is sufficient grounds for violent coercion in the first place.