zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
> So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it.

Taboos around violence for political are one of the crucial building blocks for a functioning democracy. If those taboos are broken, even for a good cause, you set a precedence that violence works. And the next cause won’t be as good. One only has to look at the lessons of the Roman Revolution that started with the murder of Grachus, and ended with an Emperor who everyone acclaimed as they were so tired of the bloodshed.

>>RcouF1+pg
I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen.

The non-violent protests of Colin Kaepernick were mocked and used to rally the other side and just weren't effective.

The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough.

The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard".

>>mmastr+Aj
> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen.

I don't think this is a good thing. The office involved should be charged or arrested based on the circumstances and evidence, not to appease angry protesters and to attempt to quell riots.

In this case, it appears overwhelmingly clear that the office should be charged; but arresting people because their actions have inspired protests or riots is very dangerous.

>>toast0+zn
> The office involved should be charged or arrested based on the circumstances and evidence

Obviously. But they weren't, and given precedent, probably never would have been. That's why this is happening.