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.

But it's not clear that the violence/property damage component was worth it. Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough. Hard to tell at this point.

>>pathse+go
> Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough.

We've had protests, for separate occasions, happen years and years and decades ago, and it has not been enough.

At which point will it be enough? How many more protests will it take? How many more decades will it take? Is anyone still on the fence on 2020 about whether or not bad cops are being protected by their peers and superiors? Do you have a timeline for when this sort of thing will change?

>>vkou+Tp
1992 LA Riots caused over a $Billion in damage and 63 people died. Given that the scale of those riots far surpassed anything we're seeing now and given that nearly 30 years later another instance of police brutality preceded the current turmoil isn't it clear that your approach has failed?

>>devalg+Br
LAPD underwent unprecedented reform in the wake of the riots. It’s certainly not a perfect department, but it is exponentially better than it was in 1992. You are making the opposite point you think you are. The riots and DoJ consent decrees are literally the _only_ tactics that have succeeded in the past.

The failure after the riots was that we didn’t treat it as a national problem and undertake systemic reform of our policing systems from root to stem.

>>bbatse+Cv
>The failure after the riots

It would appear that you in fact made my point for me.