zlacker

> It is citizens job to be compliant. It is the government's job to enforce compliance.

That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship, not democracy. In a democracy, it's the citizens' job to keep their Government accountable - when the population says that the right to a presumption of innocence is paramount, they create a Government to ensure that right.

What you are suggesting is that the population does not believe that the right to a presumption of innocence is paramount - that it is ok to risk life, liberty and limb of innocent people to go after a criminal. That's maybe fine (although I'd argue ethically wrong), but stop teaching the opposite to your children. If you taught your children that the police and courts were out to kill them or lock them up indefinitely for nothing they have any control over, maybe they'd correctly be a little more terrified from an early age - and maybe they'd campaign to change that. Funnily enough, one demographic does get taught that, and others the opposite - because that's how it works out in practice.

The police have literally blinded people, including journalists, permanently, by the way. And potentially have killed people - "In Louisville, David McAtee, 53, the owner of a well-known barbecue business, was shot and killed early Monday. The authorities said that officers from the Louisville Metro Police Department and National Guard soldiers opened fire in response to a gunshot as they tried to disperse a large crowd after a curfew had gone into effect. It was not immediately clear if Mr. McAtee had been killed by the police or someone in the crowd, the authorities said." Of course, as always when the police kill people, body cameras were not on.

>>vertex+(OP)
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote "Government says one thing so we're compliant, and then does another when it suits it". I never said people don't have the ability to change how the government enforces compliance, simply that they are the ones who do.

Many people have died at the hands of other rioters as a result of the protests.

I'm not saying that people needed to loose their eyes, but they were out after curfew which was enacted because they wanted people to go home due to the violence.

>>kuzimo+nG
Who exactly are these "many people"? I haven't been able to find a source on this. When I checked yesterday, three protesters had been killed by people unrelated to the protest, and two people had been shot by some people driving around in a car (cannot work out how/whether that is related to the riots).

There's a lot of energy being put into making this sound like it's more violent than it is, again, so that you agree with it and stay compliant. When the Government does something violent that goes against the reasons it was created, you should not be compliant. I'd hope that you would agree that the Government cannot unilaterally execute people, and that just sitting there while it does so is... completely immoral.

>>vertex+HF1
According to this article [0], more than 20 were killed over the weekend in Chicago, when the previous max in one day was 10. Average people killed per day is about 2. I think it's safe to say the majority of those were due to the riots. That doesn't count numerous other cities where deaths occured.

> I'd hope that you would agree that the Government cannot unilaterally execute people, and that just sitting there while it does so is... completely immoral.

No of course I don't want the government executing people. But the death of George Floyd was the result of actions from one man, not of the entire government. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any member of the government that didn't see an issue with what happened.

[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-...