zlacker

[parent] [thread] 22 comments
1. coldte+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-17 22:15:15
Perhaps when prioritising their morality and cause, over what's beneficial for them?
replies(1): >>m0zg+B
2. m0zg+B[view] [source] 2020-06-17 22:19:13
>>coldte+(OP)
What "morality" or "cause" are you talking about? She burned a police cruiser.
replies(3): >>komali+c2 >>coffee+t2 >>coldte+n3
◧◩
3. komali+c2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:31:44
>>m0zg+B
The war against police brutality, of course.

Kneeling didn't work, soooo...

Expected respondes: pass a law. Protest peacefully. Stand in front of city hall with assault rifles. Vote for (some centrist).

Just because you may not like how someone is dealing with the fact that they could be killed with no recourse by cops because of the color of their skin, doesn't mean their methods are invalid or even irrational.

The classic star wars question - is Luke Skywalker a rebel hero, or a terrorist threat to order? Before the Empire blew up an entire planet to make a point, it was a fairly valid question.

replies(3): >>m0zg+T3 >>coffee+94 >>RcouF1+db
◧◩
4. coffee+t2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:34:01
>>m0zg+B
In America right now there are ongoing protests and riots over the conduct of domestic police departments, specifically their proclivity toward extrajudicial execution and battery of black people in the streets. Damaging police property including their cars and precincts is a powerful (if legally risky) expression of that anger.
replies(1): >>rafael+v6
◧◩
5. coldte+n3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:40:42
>>m0zg+B
So? Some people consider police bad, either at specific instances (some policemen/departments at some times doing bad things) or inherently (the police as an institution in general), and have been fighting against them for centuries...

Some people think police should pay for the abuses that they regularly and without punishment do.

Some others think police should stop existing in general, or exist only in a very limited capacity, or be replaced by citizen patrols, and several other varieties...

So, that morality and cause... Doesn't have to agree with yours to be a morality, and even less so to be a cause...

replies(1): >>buzzer+ia
◧◩◪
6. m0zg+T3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:44:55
>>komali+c2
Please explain how a white woman torching a police cruiser advances _any_ goals other than increasing the dramatically underrepresented white female prison population. Please also mention which other types of crime you consider conducive to rectifying the situation in any meaningful way.
replies(3): >>coffee+05 >>jethro+75 >>fzeror+x5
◧◩◪
7. coffee+94[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:46:39
>>komali+c2
To expand on your explanation -- not only did kneeling not work, it was roundly mocked and derided by even progressives.

It turns out, Americans pay attention when you start smashing property and taking flatscreen TVs.

◧◩◪◨
8. coffee+05[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:51:55
>>m0zg+T3
How would you feel if someone set your car on fire? Probably like someone doesn't appreciate you very much, right? Well this is how they want the city to feel about their police force.

It also demonstrates that by and large, police don't prevent chaos and property damage. Most of the time, people simply decide not to do this, and when they decide they want to, police are largely powerless to stop them. This should lead others to more broadly question whether police are capable of stopping other bad actors, rather than merely reacting to them.

◧◩◪◨
9. jethro+75[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:52:46
>>m0zg+T3
Not a full study, but when people were kneeling to draw attention, it poled at about 30% for 60% against 10% undecided. When people burned down the police precinct in Minneapolis and documented the unwarranted police violence, it polled at about 60% for and 30% against.

I don't know why, but as a general rule with people, if it bleeds, it leads. And that's what's worked here.

◧◩◪◨
10. fzeror+x5[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 22:55:04
>>m0zg+T3
The opposite side of the equation is how does the police slashing tires and breaking civilian property advance their goal beyond dramatically increasing the levels of anger towards them?

If she's going to jail for torching a car, then will the officers that committed similar property damage also be going to jail?

◧◩◪
11. rafael+v6[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 23:02:02
>>coffee+t2
We are On 21st century, we know violence doesn’t stop violence, crime doesn’t stop crime. People should use modern tools to reduce racial issues. Like voting or social media’s, never burn a state property. Tax money could be used for better things But now the police department will buy 2 more cars.
replies(4): >>waynef+4a >>coldte+xk >>d2v+Gl >>coffee+xS1
◧◩◪◨
12. waynef+4a[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 23:29:30
>>rafael+v6
The revolution may not be televised... but couldn’t it be streamed?

I want to see people use live streaming to debate first, but then organize so effectively to just swarm on the old systems to make change. People need to move faster.

replies(1): >>pmille+vw2
◧◩◪
13. buzzer+ia[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 23:30:48
>>coldte+n3
Their beliefs are irrelevant. You don't get to break laws and due process just because of your beliefs and anger. How many mass shootings have we seen from people with "beliefs". Stop trying to justify people burning cars just because they don't get one they want right away.
replies(2): >>coldte+kk >>pmille+ox2
◧◩◪
14. RcouF1+db[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-17 23:40:47
>>komali+c2
> Luke Skywalker a rebel hero, or a terrorist threat to order

Given episodes 7-9, Luke is a terroristic threat to order. After destroying the existing order, he failed to establish anything better and it quickly devolved into what we see in 7. And he also failed to kill the main villain which meant that all the chaos and death that he was responsible for had no offsetting good.

◧◩◪◨
15. coldte+kk[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 01:05:37
>>buzzer+ia
>Their beliefs are irrelevant. You don't get to break laws and due process just because of your beliefs and anger.

Yes you do. You might not get away with it, but that's not really pertinent.

In fact historically most change happened through people breaking laws because of their beliefs and anger.

And in every past society, like ours, most thought its laws are the apex of law-making, and should never be challenged or broken in anger, nor its law agents assaulted etc. Only history doesn't work that way.

◧◩◪◨
16. coldte+xk[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 01:08:13
>>rafael+v6
>We are On 21st century, we know violence doesn’t stop violence, crime doesn’t stop crime.

No, we don't know that.

Historically it has been violence that stopped violence, and crime (like toppling an unjust government, breaking segregation laws, etc) that stopped crime.

>People should use modern tools to reduce racial issues. Like voting or social media’s, never burn a state property.

Yeah, they've tried blogging about it. There are also tons of books on the matter, vlogs, articles, etc. They voted Obama twice. Didn't work.

A few months of angry riots and a few burned down police departments though, could send a very clear message to politicians and police chiefs, and help change laws to restrict police abuse.

◧◩◪◨
17. d2v+Gl[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 01:21:35
>>rafael+v6
Idk, World War II ended a genocide, and the US civil war (mostly) ended slavery in the US. Both were pretty violent events if I'm remembering correctly. That being said, destroying property isn't violence, and "crime" is kind of a useless metric for morality. Slavery and genocide in the instances above were not legally crimes. Your opinion of police or nazis will color how much you view, say destroying a police car or a German tank as a morally wrong.

Black people in the US constantly fear being killed or harassed by police. Yeah, burning a car doesn't solve anything, but keeping quiet and playing ball since the civil rights movement hasn't really moved the needle. Policing and constant surveillance of black communities has gotten worse since then, and protections for police, both legally and politically, have increased. Sometimes you have to burn a car or break some glass for the nation to pay attention.

Also I would say that the initial reaction of rioting is what drove people to organize and peacefully protest, and in a lot of US cities and states, the combination of these has already resulted in policy change. I'm sure most of these people are also posting on social media and planning to vote as well.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying that torching a car is small potatoes compared to government sanctioned murder and oppression, and this kind of thing is forcing people to pay attention and have conversations about this stuff.

replies(1): >>rafael+2o
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. rafael+2o[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 01:48:10
>>d2v+Gl
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Martin Luther King Jr.

World War II and the US civil war didn't ended the violence, it just changed the way that violence manifests. If you look in many groups on Facebook, 9gag or redit , you will see Violence in protests are being used to create more hate in people who hates. I really believe that the society was improved by ideas not wars.

◧◩◪◨
19. coffee+xS1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 16:25:24
>>rafael+v6
> Tax money could be used for better things But now the police department will buy 2 more cars.

Police departments around the country are being downsized, kicked out of their unions, and in some cases defunded entirely. That's good news! The money will be used for better things.

It's not the sort of thing HN likes to hear but the techniques used in these protests are pretty much working as expected.

replies(1): >>Animal+O72
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. Animal+O72[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 17:48:57
>>coffee+xS1
That's good news? I disagree.

The police are not perfect. We need to hold them accountable to some reasonable standards of behavior. But if you defund them entirely, then what do you expect is going to happen? Peace and harmony?

No, what's going to happen is that criminals will still be criminals, and perhaps bolder and more blatant criminals. Drug addicts will continue to be drug addicts, and will do crazy things while they're high, and crazy things in order to get money to get high. Such people will continue to interact with non-criminal non-addict people, who will feel threatened. But now the police won't be there. Now what?

In a country with an armed population, the police probably reduce the number of misbehaving people who are killed, because (for all their flaws) they are still less trigger-happy than a frightened gun-owner who feels threatened by an encounter with some strange-acting person.

replies(1): >>coffee+7n2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. coffee+7n2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 19:11:27
>>Animal+O72
> Drug addicts will continue to be drug addicts, and will do crazy things while they're high, and crazy things in order to get money to get high. Such people will continue to interact with non-criminal non-addict people, who will feel threatened. But now the police won't be there. Now what?

As someone who has had many of these encounters, I've never had the police help. At best they'll show up a half hour later and take a report. The police were never "there" in any meaningful sense.

> because (for all their flaws) they are still less trigger-happy than a frightened gun-owner who feels threatened by an encounter with some strange-acting person

Time after time, this has proven to not be true. When a frightened gun-owner reaches for his weapon, he knows he is risking all his money and probably his freedom if he's found to have fired it when it wasn't necessary. And so they tend to use some discretion. Cops do not risk the same, and so they shoot people all the time when their life isn't threatened.

◧◩◪◨⬒
22. pmille+vw2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 19:52:13
>>waynef+4a
The debate is over. You and I weren’t invited.
◧◩◪◨
23. pmille+ox2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-18 19:55:22
>>buzzer+ia
Yes, you do get to break the law after working inside the system fails. You know this country was founded by people breaking the laws of England, right?
[go to top]