What would you do if an angry mob demands you raise your fist in support?

I’m going to throw this one out again.

We live in the age of technology. Never assume that someone got away with illegal behavior just because no one swooped in and arrested them.
The cops have more tools at their disposal and they typically would review video footage and issue warrants based on that footage. It’s not as incendiary and it usually gives them a more solid case legally.

And I certainly hope these cities are doing that, especially with looters.

Looked kinda fascist, Right fist(hand) raised and yelling at people for not complying…hummm where have we seen this before?

You show you lack understanding of what fascism is. True fascists use the state to do their dirty work.

You can’t be serious with this line of argument. I would wager that any encounter between a mob and a diner regardless of the ultimate outcome are relative rare events to begin with. Though I realize I can only base this off my own limited experience with dining out throughout my life and perhaps these encounters are more frequent than I suspect. I don’t feel it requires a “disingenuous” rationalization to feel threatened by a mob cornering you, getting in your face, and making demands.

And I’m not fond of people bringing rifles to protests nor do I think this particular incident is a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But if I was the diner I would likely wonder whether or not this was going to end with me getting a beat down for not capitulating to the whims of the mob.

I’ve had that same feeling dealing with belligerent customers.

Should I have been allowed to react to them with violence?

I will share a quick story.

Back as an employee, I was maybe 19 or so, a person came up to the drive thru window and demanded that he be served. He got angry and started yelling, then he started climbing in through the window.

My manager grabbed him by the collar and then started slamming the window shut on the guy’s head.

My manager got charged with assault, the customer did not.

Who was in the right, in your opinion?

( I don’t know how it all played out, but I never saw that manager again.)

Last point. And then I’ll leave it for now.

I can see how someone may feel intimidated, I agree with that. But the question is, is there a sufficient threat for them to react with violence themselves.

And to that, I say no.

Unless you are saying that you would think that such actions are deserved of shooting them, then we are not in disagreement. That is what I am objecting to.

A point of clarification: what about shoving them away or fighting them?

~Max

That would be initiating violence.

Would not recommend.

Under what relevant circumstances, if any, would you have no objections to initiating violence?

ETA: like, if the mob made articulate threats against your person, or if they trained weapons on you, or if they blocked you on all sides, or if you had an irrational fear of being surrounded by mobs of masked people. Would any of these circumstances justify initiating violence, in your mind?

~Max

Very, very few. I’m definitely a let them throw the first punch kinda guy.

I see you got that in before my edit, but that’s okay. If someone is not willing to take the chance of getting punched first, do you think they are being unreasonable?

~Max

Oh, now you are changing things entirely.

Still, honestly, threats, whatever… still doesn’t do me much good to be the fist to initaiate.

If they are pointing a gun at me, then initiating violence would just get me killed. At that point, I would do what it was that was asked of me.

So?

Well, if I was irrational, then I’d probably do something irrational. Now we are not only getting into hypotheticals as to the actions of the “mob” but into me being a different person than I am.

Other than the guns pointed part, no. And that would make violence on my part, while justified, stupid.

So when it comes to the fight-or-flight response, it would appear that you always choose flight (at least in this kind of scenario). Which is fine, really. I was just curious. That only leaves my question as to whether you think someone else preferring the fight response is unreasonable on principle.

I know that you think it would be unreasonable for you to start or threaten to start a fight. You might have to imagine that you are a different person to answer this question.

~Max

I think that if I reacted to every possible threat with violence, every time that someone may have hit first, then I’d be doing a lot of punching.

Except that that is not what I said, and if you think that that is what I said, then you are simply twisting my words in your head to fit whatever narrative you are trying to make.

Not sure why you choose to do this, but I’m about done with that game.

…? Very well.

ETA: I guess I would be more accurate to have written “never choose fight”. Sorry.

~Max

You’re still not getting it.

I’ll stand my ground, but I’m not going to be the one to start a fight. All fights start because one side or the other chose to initiate violence, and it is a choice. It is a choice I choose not to make.

Were I different person, then I’d be a different person. I still don’t think it would be justified to initiate violence.

Look, I have had people yell and scream in my face for decades over stuff as petty as not enough salt on their fries to as serious as disputes over property worth thousands of dollars.

Violence has ensued in some of those cases, but the vast, vast, vast majority of them,it did not. The reason that violence ensued is because someone chose to initiate it. If I am choosing to initiate violence, then I am changing that vast vast majority of interactions that went without violence to the vast majority that do.

I do know people that prefer violence to deescleation, and they are not really all that good of people. They get in fights all the time, and always, always say that it was the other side that started it, even through they were the first ones to violence.

If you are looking for a fight, you will find one. But that’s about the only way that you will.

Ah, this is the response I was looking for. It’s a beautiful argument, and I hope redhook77 and Seanette read it.

I can, of course, think of counterarguments, but they wouldn’t be my arguments, and I would only do a disservice by enumerating them here.

~Max

The vast majority of virtually any group* (with obvious exceptions) are decent.

What matters is how the rest of the group responds to the minority who commit bad acts.

*even lawyers.