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
> 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.

Why, is there evidence of this? It isn't very obvious to me that he wouldn't get arrested and charged otherwise, this case is way clearer than any other controversial police killing I've seen.

>>userna+7n1
The state's autopsy claimed he died of hypertension and coronary artery disease. It never mentioned anything about asphyxiation and went on to speculate about how he may have been on drugs. The police also claimed at the time that he was resisting arrest. The police were fired after the video was released. The cop that murdered him had eighteen prior complaints, none of which were followed up on. Why do we assume #19 would be the one without the video and the protests?