zlacker

>>pera+(OP)
I don't really see the issue here with a surveillance drone to help keep the peace. I don't really care if it's "military technology" or not. Look, what happened was absolutely awful. People have a right to protest - and should, but peacefully. Riots, looting, burning buildings? Sorry, that's going to far.

If the government starts firing rockets at people from that drone - well that's another story. But that is clearly not what is happening here.

>>king_m+Td
Well this is what we get for not listening. If your family and friends were being executed constantly you'd give up and rage too. Everyone has a breaking point - republicans were about to riot over wearing a mask to protect their families; these people are rioting over being murdered and ignored.

Disproportionate and inconsistent application are also a huge issue here - where were the drones when domestic terrorists took over the statehouse? If this technology is only going to be used against black people, then yes, it an incredibly dangerous thing

>>petee+Oe
There are folks who are legitimately angry and are expressing that peacefully. And then there are people torching businesses, police stations and cars. Do you not think there is any sort of reasonable line being crossed here?

I don't think it's fair to say it's inconsistent use when the domestic terrorists (yes, I agree with that portrayal) took over the statehouse. They were all in the statehouse, or in the immediate vicinity. How is a drone going to help in that situation?

This is clearly a different situation with widespread rioting over a large geographic area.

Edit: it's possible I have some of my facts wrong here - that's totally on me. But as much as I disagree with the GOP/COVID protesters - to their credit, they didn't start firebombing their local grocery store.

>>king_m+Sg
No, they are being murdered, how would you respond? We can't possibly understand the anger these people feel. If an innocent man is murdered by police, and they riot as a result, we need to start listening.

As for the domestic terrorists, they were all out and about the city. Either way, a group of people with guns you watch, how could you know where they'd go next, or what they'd do. And the core fact is, if those white people were pepper sprayed by cops in the same fashion, they'd be rioting too.

Edit: I should emphasize that I don't condone torching random businesses, what I am saying is that as a white person, thats not my opinion to have in this discussion since its anger boiled over. Some people just had enough, and I don't blame them. We don't get to decide their form of outrage.

>>petee+Ih
I'm sorry, but I don't think the solution is to immediately reach for a Molotov cocktail and firebomb a Target. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't.

Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.

>>king_m+Ki
> Edit: the law defines the boundaries of what is acceptable outrage and what isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

"[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."

ETA:

> Edit2: there is a world of difference between reasonable civil disobedience and firebombing your local Target.

What is "reasonable civil disobedience"? If that Target is only in the neighborhood because it's an experimental LP store put in an incredibly impoverished area so that they can develop better techniques for putting people of color in prison, is it suddenly reasonable? https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1265867904844693505

Who are we to make that call, in either direction?