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
It's the last way the people have for their voice to be heard. All laws come from the people governed; legislatures serve at their behest and for their interests. If you have SO MANY people decrying an action -- it's direct democracy in real time.

>>freeon+vp
Voting? Anyway, there's pretty broad agreement that the riots are opportunistic violence, not connected to or motivated by a concern for justice.

>>throwa+rA
Voting hasn't worked. Oakland PD still has half of its budget to brutality complaints. It's been 7 years since the movement started and 66 years since voting was allowed for Black people. Voting isn't going to change anything.

"Broad agreement" by who, exactly? I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame.

>>freeon+JZ
> Voting hasn't worked

What? If 10% of the people who turned out to protest actually voted in their local elections, they would have whatever they wanted. Voting has hardly been attempted, and there are voting data to prove it.

> "Broad agreement" by who, exactly?

Basically everyone who isn't an outside agitator, but if you don't already believe me I doubt I'm going to change your mind.

> I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame.

I don't know what to tell you. Cops aren't using kid gloves any more for sure, but cities are descending into chaos and no one in good faith thinks its the cops that are out there doing the looting and burning.

>>throwa+F61
> Basically everyone who isn't an outside agitator, but if you don't already believe me I doubt I'm going to change your mind.

Trotting out a nebulous, totally unsourced claim and then implying that anyone who questions you is wrong beyond help is… not exactly a convincing tactic.