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. 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.

Really, honestly, think about this rationale and think about what it would look like if people with different views than you applied this line of reasoning. Would you be okay with anti-abortion activists employed direct action and did to clinics what these protestors did to police stations?

>>manfre+Tv1
No, for two reasons:

First, no one is forcing you to have an abortion you don't want. Anti-abortion activity is for the sake of others, and never yourself. This makes it no less noble of an endeavor for your personal beliefs, but since other people having abortions don't actually affect you one wit, it's hard to see abortion as having the same urgency as police brutality, where people at random are dying daily, and anybody could be the next target.

Second, because their voices are being heard. Between the banning of funding for Planned Parenthood domestically as well as internationally, and continued restrictions to constructively ban abortion in several states, it's clear that progress is being made, so voting is working. This is not clear at all for victims of police violence, where claims have been increasing over time, not decreasing.

>>freeon+DT1
Tell that to the people who genuinely believe that termination of pregnancies is murder. I don't deny that you see abortion in a different light (and so do I). That's the point. It's clear that the comment above is written without consideration for the fact that people have different worldviews.

Your comment is just as empowering for said activists to say "voting hasn't worked, murdering the unborn remains legal nationwide. We need to use direct action against abortion providers".

The idea that force is justified because democracy has not produced the desired outcome directly leads to a world where might makes right.