zlacker

>>laurex+(OP)
Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations.

I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the crowd.

I find it really hard to not come to the conclusion that the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith.

>>jascii+Wb
It’s the same here in Seattle as it was while I was in Berkeley during Ferguson.

People protest peacefully, and police shoot tear gas into the crowd and attack whomever they can get their hands on.

I’ll admit, the outright brutality I saw in-person in Oakland was worse than what I’ve seen here in the recent days.

In Oakland, the police would purposely corral protestors into groups and literally beat the shit out of them. I saw this in-person multiple times. In Seattle, I haven’t seen that sort of corral behavior. However, police do shoot tear gas completely unprovoked and fire rubber bullets and mace without concern.

In both places, no looting was occurring at the main scene of the protests. In both cases, numerous videos show police breaking windows themselves.

In any case, it’s all the same: in a country that parades its freedom, people of color can’t protest without the president calling for them to be roughed up, and without the police willingly complying.

>>jwilbe+ye
In a small suburb of San Diego the protest stopped traffic. Police forced the protesters off and then riots started and two banks were burnt down.

Two weeks ago a San Diego police deputy was released from jail after serving only six months after sexually assaulting (why forced oral sex is not rape I’m not sure) 16 women that had called the police for help. He does not have to register as a sexual offender.

Protesting is legal and a protest without a disturbance is not a protest, so arresting people causing a disturbance while shutting down non-violent disturbances is disappointing.

>>bradly+1A
Stopping traffic risks the lives of people in ambulances so it’s pretty hard to condone that. Make noise, block access to some businesses, etc, but don’t block streets and cause traffic jams that could kill people FFS.

>>kortil+YF
Your of course assuming that ambulance services don't track the protests and route around them as much as possible.

>>kayfox+IR
There is absolutely no need for emergency services to track pop-up protests, the very notion is absurd.

We don't have the right to block traffic to promote our political opinions.

When protestors block traffic, if the city decides they have to go, and they won't - in those situations, it's the protesters who are 'instigating', not the police.

NRA 2cnd amendment protestors, pro/anti-abortion protestors, anti-capitalist - whatever we want it doesn't matter. If the protest violates the local or regional ordinance, and the city asks protesters to move (and they do in many cases allow the protesters to stay) - they have to move, if they don't move, it's not the police's fault that they are literally required by us, the community, to move people.

Edit: I would like to invite anyone to define exactly under what conditions people think they have the right to stop traffic at major intersections for hours on end, other than of course signalling to the city beforehand.

>>jariel+VX
Protests are inconvenient. But if you can amass enough people day after day to block major intersections with crowds of people, then the correct thing to do is to block major intersections with crowds of people day after day.

If people don't want their intersections blocked by crows of people day after day, then they should consider the extent to which their interests are compatible with the interests of the protesters, and if necessary and reasonable, consider joining the protesters to help them achieve their goal sooner. If seventy percent of the US population were protesting, the protests wouldn't last that long - unlike in Hong Kong.

>>gindel+V41
Being a large enough crowd to block an intersection does not mean your views are valid enough to be supported by everyone else. Would you really advocate joining KKK protests just because they were large?

>>kortil+YF1
White supremacists are actively trying to fly under the radar in open-carry protests right now.[1] There’s a lot of weird noise in that area online and off. So just because white supremacists and their sympathizers get to protest, that doesn’t mean other people get to protest? Sounds like separate but equal to me.[2] Not for me or mine.

This was your hypothetical, but it’s actually reality. Protest is protest. It’s for the whole society to decide what are valid forms of it, at every level.

[1] https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-move...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

>>aspenm+cJ1
" It’s for the whole society to decide what are valid forms of it, at every level."

That's just lawlessness.

There's not way to make up the rules as we go along, using the 'winds of the day' and what's happening on the news to determine what's a legit protest and what is not.

We do decide collectively what's what by using laws and policies. We make those, we make them clear, and then we apply them.

It seems as though you can't block traffic at a busy intersection 'because' - and so whatever the protest is today, it's not right.

We can't make up as we go along, that's chaos.

People can protest in parks, in front of city hall etc. - that works, it's peaceful and within civil framework.

>>jariel+wl4
As I said before, that is not backed up by Supreme Court precedent. You need to cite your claims as to constitutionally-protected protests being synonymous with lawlessness. As I read the Constitution, any act determined to be protest by the courts is legal until found otherwise. Police decisions about lawlessness are only valid in a law-enforcement context, and such police determinations are only provisional, and are not exclusively binding; they can be superseded by higher authorities in the executive branch, and challenged by the public, legislature, and judiciary, on legal grounds as well as humanitarian grounds.

You haven’t responded to my legal arguments and justifications. You are moving the goalposts and doubling down. Please keep on point or I will not have any substantial points to respond to.