zlacker

There is one UK example which is actually a counter example where the police allowed a statue to be destroyed instead of intervening and creating a potentially dangerous altercation.

>>fnord1+(OP)
Oh yeah, we should just let the rioters destroy public property. If the police just didn’t enforce the laws, there’d be no problems!

>>jpxw+93
That's right. Depending on the law and the context, if the police don't enforce it then there are fewer problems. That's pretty much what Superintendent Andy Bennett said in the video.

>>fnord1+(OP)
The police did that in Portsmouth, VA ie. stood back and allowed a mob to pull down a statue which struck a man causing what is probably a life long injury.

>>fnord1+(OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston

The statue of a slaver and mass murderer had been controversial for the past 30 years. I wonder if things would have gone differently if the "recontextualisation" plaque had been allowed.

There has, predictably, been a backlash. Resulting in this fiasco where a guy came from Essex to defend some statues he didn't understand ended up urinating on a monument he didn't notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53040301

>>fnord1+(OP)
So they allowed a mob to circumvent the legislative/democratic process of monument removal and it's an example of a "good" action?

Mobs are not the law.

>>koheri+bg
Risk management. Allowing htem to tear it down vs. intervening with force to safe a piece of metal on a piece of rock. The latter can be put back up. The former carrers quite a risk for everyone involved. Sunds like a reasonable call to me.

>>koheri+bg
The alternative would be intervening and things possibly getting violent. The well-being of a statue isn't worth the possibility of causing harm to someone.

>>pjc50+jf
Symbols are more powerful than words. Statues have always existed to project values. A plaque adding context won’t actually achieve the goal.

>>lagadu+Ev
I suppose then I could organize a mob to vandalize anything I want because the police should prioritize the well being of the mob over that of property?

Seems like that would embolden mobs to destroy whatever they want. Doesn't seem like an intelligent or sustainable strategy.

>>hef198+Ho
If this were a one-time event, I suppose that might be true.

...but the unfortunate reality is that allowing mobs to destroy property become a feedback loop because they then realize that mobs can destroy anything they like with impunity.

That's no way to run a civilization.

>>pjc50+jf
> a guy came from Essex to defend some statues he didn't understand ended up urinating on a monument he didn't notice

That article doesn't say much about the guy who urinate, how do you know what he knew/understood, or where he came from?

>>Chris2+oR
via https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/1272478151143313408

>>koheri+sK
The mob may leave after the destruction, but that doesn't mean that the police don't later conduct investigations, arrests, etc based on tracking/video of the members of that mob.

I'm curious how many protestors or rioters keep their phones on them (with location/COVID apps or otherwise.) Even if they don't, plenty of others are taking the videos.

>>koheri+1L
Safely allowing protests to take place and let people have their say without fear of rubber bullets in their faces is a fantastic way to run a civilization.