Violent Protests in Baltimore

[Tiger Devil Dog]

victimizing innocent people isn't justice.

No one here has claimed that it is.

The thirteen people who claimed the violence was justified did

 

[fonzob1]

Whatever. I have no idea where you're even going with this, or what message is supposed to be conveyed by the tee-hee-wink-wink smileys you've attached to the two replies to me. You declared that riots "are not justice". I pointed out that no one has said they are. There was nothing untrue or ambiguous about it.

The difference between justified and justice in this context is enormous and significant.

I never stated the two words had the same meaning, but I did state and do believe posters here have insinuated that these riots equate to justice. Oh and...

 

[Saito S]

victimizing innocent people isn't justice.

No one here has claimed that it is.

The thirteen people who claimed the violence was justified did

No, they didn't. Pay attention.

I never stated the two words had the same meaning, but I did state and do believe posters here have insinuated that these riots equate to justice. Oh and...

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. You believe incorrectly.

Eh, Locutus was right, this mess is an exercise in futility.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'm always saddened by the abject "othering" that arises from conflict. Situations like this are far from binary, yet so many engage in oversimplification, and othering ... leading to a dehumanization of the people involved.

Of course, that's also one of the root causes of what's transpiring. But that's a subtlety that is clearly being ignored by a lot of posts in this thread.

 

[HIjol]

I'm always saddened by the abject "othering" that arises from conflict. Situations like this are far from binary, yet so many engage in oversimplification, and othering ... leading to a dehumanization of the people involved.

Of course, that's also one of the root causes of what's transpiring. But that's a subtlety that is clearly being ignored by a lot of posts in this thread.

As I drink my morning coffee and read through what I missed ( I am 10 hours ahead of most of you) I nod at what Ancient Mariner said in his Post. I have the same thoughts.

If I may, please:

1. There are many more than 2 sides in this conflict.
2. To many involved, there are emotional layers to their reactions, not just one issue or one feeling.
3. There are genuine peaceful Protesters, genuine peaceful Peacekeepers, Opportunists who have no peaceful intent, Looters, who take advantage of the situation, and The Curious, who risk being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
4. The Protest is understandable, some would argue justified, and reasonable, provided it is peaceful.
5. The Violence, Destruction, Assault and Looting is not.

There are rules against looting and violent behavior. The rules require Human intervention. Which brings Human Emotion.
And that can get messy
There are rules for Peaceful Protests. They are relatively simple.
But some people are not feeling very peaceful.

Sometimes, there is no answer. No solution. Or, a solution takes time to even implement, for example, in this case, a Dialog and Reform are clearly called for. But difficult to hold, in the haze of anger and unclear participants to bring to the table.

Those who have said that this situation is not binary are absolutely correct. But those that ignore the situation, and do not attempt reconciliation at a more opportune time are wrong.

 

[ichab]

Cops aren't innocent bystanders. It's not about "their lives don't count", obviously. No one should be dying, just in general. That said, it's hard to muster of a great deal of sympathy for cops getting injured while doing a terrible job of handling riots and protests that are themselves a direct result of police abusing and murdering people and never being held accountable . "Protestors injured cops" again falls behind "cops murdered black people", not in front of it.

The cops responsible have been suspended pending the investigation. So the only cops injured yesterday were ones who had nothing to do with gray's death.

I'm curious, if someone beats you up or burns your house down and gives the excuse that he's angry at how society has treated him would you be okay with it?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'm curious, if someone beats you up or burns your house down and gives the excuse that he's angry at how society has treated him would you be okay with it?

False equivalency.

Unless you're insinuating the the subject of our little tall tale is putting his house (or person) in the middle of a demonstration for the express purpose of containing said demonstration (after his associates behaved in such a manner as to evoke/provoke said demonstrations to begin with).

 

[ichab]

I'm curious, if someone beats you up or burns your house down and gives the excuse that he's angry at how society has treated him would you be okay with it?

False equivalency.

Unless you're insinuating the the subject of our little tall tale is putting his house (or person) in the middle of a demonstration for the express purpose of containing said demonstration.

It's not a false equivalency. Businesses were burned down. People's livelihood was destroyed. 150 vehicles were destroyed. What if that was your vehicle destroyed? What did the owners of those businesses do to deserve that?

See, while you guys empathize with criminals, most of whom the mayor herself said doesn't give a shit about the community, I empathize with the actual residents who no longer have a place to work or means of transportation. I used the house example hoping that maybe, just maybe, you could put yourself in THOSE peoples shoes.

 

[cooleddie74]

People on food stamps provide no service to the taxpayers, they are simply given assistance in return for nothing.

WRONG.

They spend those Food Stamp benefits in the consumer marketplace and help fuel the economy, spurring sales and the growth of grocery stores and other retailers who sell their food to those Food Stamp recipients. In an era when so much of what we call money is just electronic numbers in a vast, global and interlinked computer network Food Stamp benefits are no less a valid form of currency than a handwritten check, a charge on a credit or debit card or cash.

You think they return nothing to society and the economy, but that's just one more thing you're sorely misinformed about. And let's not forget that most Food Stamp recipients actually do hold jobs and have gainful employment but don't earn enough to successfully feed themselves and their families without those benefits. None of this is news for anybody who actually wants to know the real statistics about who gets Food Stamps and why.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

I know Video's belong on another thread , but this mom catching her son preparing to riot is awesome.
Way to go Mom.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xHReQIPVVQ&feature=share[/yt]

 

[Captrek]

People on food stamps provide no service to the taxpayers, they are simply given assistance in return for nothing.

WRONG.

They spend those Food Stamp benefits in the consumer marketplace and help fuel the economy, spurring sales and the growth of grocery stores and other retailers who sell their food to those Food Stamp recipients. In an era when so much of what we call money is just electronic numbers in a vast, global and interlinked computer network Food Stamp benefits are no less a valid form of currency than a handwritten check, a charge on a credit or debit card or cash.

You think they return nothing to society and the economy, but that's just one more thing you're sorely misinformed about. And let's not forget that most Food Stamp recipients actually do hold jobs and have gainful employment but don't earn enough to successfully feed themselves and their families without those benefits. None of this is news for anybody who actually wants to know the real statistics about who gets Food Stamps and why.

You mean they're "job creators"?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I'm curious, if someone beats you up or burns your house down and gives the excuse that he's angry at how society has treated him would you be okay with it?

False equivalency.

Unless you're insinuating the the subject of our little tall tale is putting his house (or person) in the middle of a demonstration for the express purpose of containing said demonstration.

It's not a false equivalency. Businesses were burned down. People's livelihood was destroyed. 150 vehicles were destroyed. What if that was your vehicle destroyed? What did the owners of those businesses do to deserve that?

See, while you guys empathize with criminals, most of whom the mayor herself said doesn't give a shit about the community, I empathize with the actual residents who no longer have a place to work or means of transportation. I used the house example hoping that maybe, just maybe, you could put yourself in THOSE peoples shoes.

Of course it's a false equivalency. The post you quoted referred explicitly to police. And your post launched into an unrelated tangent about completely innocent bystanders.

To avoid false equivalencies, please do make sure posts are more accurate in their responses.

Furthermore, your latest response builds quite the strawman, considering I've yet to see anyone justify the actions of looting and destruction - rather, justify the emotions behind the acts - and point to the fact that the situation is bigger than one night of violence.

As I mentioned previously, this is a subtlety missed in many posts in this thread (including the one I quoted just now). One can certainly express empathy for the motivations behind the acts, while also condemning the acts themselves. As Ta-Nehisi Coates said, "none of this can mean that rioting or violence is 'correct' or 'wise,' any more than a forest fire can be 'correct' or 'wise.'"

This situation is far from a binary analysis. And yet that is precisely what the post I quoted did.

Such a shame. But that, too, is part of why all of this happened in the first places ...

 

[cooleddie74]

You mean they're "job creators"?

Funny how the world often works, huh? When the right-wingers scapegoat the most vulnerable people they end up hurting the bottom lines of their own.

 

[ichab]

False equivalency.

Unless you're insinuating the the subject of our little tall tale is putting his house (or person) in the middle of a demonstration for the express purpose of containing said demonstration.

It's not a false equivalency. Businesses were burned down. People's livelihood was destroyed. 150 vehicles were destroyed. What if that was your vehicle destroyed? What did the owners of those businesses do to deserve that?

See, while you guys empathize with criminals, most of whom the mayor herself said doesn't give a shit about the community, I empathize with the actual residents who no longer have a place to work or means of transportation. I used the house example hoping that maybe, just maybe, you could put yourself in THOSE peoples shoes.

Of course it's a false equivalency. The post you quoted referred explicitly to police. And your post launched into an unrelated tangent about completely innocent bystanders.

I was reffering to far more than the post I quoted. Had you taken the time to follow the conversation in the previous posts you would have known that.

To avoid false equivalencies, please do make sure posts are more accurate in their responses.

I have a better idea, don't inject yourself in the middle of a conversation unless you know what all has been discussed.

Furthermore, your latest response builds quite the strawman, considering I've yet to see anyone justify the actions of looting and destruction

Are you not able to see the poll results?

- rather, justify the emotions behind the acts - and point to the fact that the situation is bigger than one night of violence.

Anyone can justify a violent act. That doesn't excuse what they did nor make it relevant to whether or not the act was justified.

As I mentioned previously, this is a subtlety missed in many posts in this thread (including the one I quoted just now). One can certainly express empathy for the motivations behind the acts, while also condemning the acts themselves. As Ta-Nehisi Coates said, "none of this can mean that rioting or violence is 'correct' or 'wise,' any more than a forest fire can be 'correct' or 'wise.'"

This situation is far from a binary analysis. And yet that is precisely what the post I quoted did.

Such a shame. But that, too, is part of why all of this happened in the first places ...

The OP wasn't asking if anyone empathized with the looters. He was asking if their acts were justified. If the answer to that is yes, which thirteen people have indicated as their answer, then they are indeed condoning the violence. If they really mean to condemn the violence then their answer should be no and they should next time READ the poll and OP before answering. Simple.

 

[Saito S]

Cops aren't innocent bystanders. It's not about "their lives don't count", obviously. No one should be dying, just in general. That said, it's hard to muster of a great deal of sympathy for cops getting injured while doing a terrible job of handling riots and protests that are themselves a direct result of police abusing and murdering people and never being held accountable . "Protestors injured cops" again falls behind "cops murdered black people", not in front of it.

The cops responsible have been suspended pending the investigation. So the only cops injured yesterday were ones who had nothing to do with gray's death.

Nope. This is no longer true. Not only as it applies to Gray's death specifically (or Brown's death if we're talking about cops in Ferguson, or Garner's death if we are talking about cops in NYC, etc), but also in general. Firstly, the history of racist and abusive tactics within the Baltimore PD are part of what's fueling these protests. Even keeping things centered on Baltimore itself, this goes beyond one man's death and those specific few cops responsible for it. But it also goes far beyond just Baltimore. The blue wall, "not all cops/most cops are good" nonsense, that these things have been allowed to escalate unchecked, and the NUMEROUS instances of absolutely disgusting and unacceptable behavior on the part of police officers in a number of cities (that is, behavior aside from, but generally connected to, the murders themselves) have voided this entire concept. "A few bad apples" is apologist nonsense. Police culture and doctrine is entirely fucked up, and that is one of the primary drivers of this entire situation. "Figuring out who the bad cops are and throwing them out or punishing them" is not only not happening anyway (no one ever gets punished), but it's also not possible nor constructive to actually solving this problem.

I'll wait for the inevitable response where you interpret what I said as some kind of desire to see cops injured or killed or that I think cops being injured or killed would represent a positive development.

I'm curious, if someone beats you up or burns your house down and gives the excuse that he's angry at how society has treated him would you be okay with it?

Of course not. You posed this to me after I clarified that beating up innocent reporters was beyond the pale even within the context of my "it is justified in general" stance, so yeah. I've answered this already re: being beaten up.

Re: my house burning down, of course not. A place of business is not a house. A car is not a house. Damaging (let alone destroying) someone's residence would be on another level of unacceptable.

This is all aside from the base concept, summed up in excellent fashion by Mariner in the post above mine, that the question of "is it justified" is more about what is happening to cause the riots and unrest, not "do you like looting and property destruction?", no matter how much you and a few others want to frame it as the latter.

ETA:

I was reffering to far more than the post I quoted. Had you taken the time to follow the conversation in the previous posts you would have known that... I have a better idea, don't inject yourself in the middle of a conversation unless you know what all has been discussed.

This is singularly outrageous and asinine coming from someone who JUST tried to turn these "How would YOU feel??" questions on me, questions that are rendered at best moot and at worst disingenuous by my other posts.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Had you taken the time to follow the conversation in the previous posts ... The OP wasn't asking if anyone empathized with the looters. He was asking if their acts were justified.

So which is it? Are we following the conversation? Or going back to the OP? Or are we just picking and choosing in order to buttress posts that are bereft of any supporting rationality? Consistency is helpful in discussions such as these.

So yeah ... the point still stands: The situation is far more dynamic, complex and subtle than the simplistic, falsely equivalent posts I've quoted.

There is much more to this situation than a poorly worded, binary poll. And, following the discussion, that's essentially the point: looting, destruction, assault are not not justifiable actions, but the motivations behind such actions are entirely justified.

Seems pretty straightforward, unless one is intent on overly simplified, willfully ignorant posts that focus on false equivalencies, rather than on the reality of the entire situation.

 

[cooleddie74]

Tonight's curfew is now 2-1/2 hours old and as far as I can tell from the last time I checked the news channels things aren't escalating this evening. When the sun rises and the curfew expires, though, who knows.

Something's got to give. This goes beyond even the insulting War on Drugs, bigotry and police militarization. There has to be economic hope injected into these neighborhoods and communities or else the cycle will continue, police and narcotics law reforms or not. Without hope for good jobs and careers in their hometowns you're just fueling the anger that helps trigger these violent outbursts. The senseless violence against their own neighbors and community property is never justified, but can we say we wouldn't be just as angry if we were in some of their shoes?

Righteous anger doesn't require justification.

 

[Melakon]

You mean they're "job creators"?

Funny how the world often works, huh? When the right-wingers scapegoat the most vulnerable people they end up hurting the bottom lines of their own.

Sort of like in the days when Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat to a white man in the "colored section" in the back of the bus. The resulting boycott of public transit caused a major economic problem for the bus company. White citizens' groups bombed black homes, churches, and businesses in retaliation, besides the constant demeaning treatment and lynchings that had been going on for decades.

Whether or not one thinks the violence was justified, sometimes payback's a mofo.

 

[sidious618]

The idea that one or two cops are to blame is ludicrous. The entire police apparatus in Baltimore is broken and has been for years. The police have paid 6 million dollars in reparations to citizens who have been brutalized since only 2011. Don't sit there and act like the police in Baltimore are all just victims of these angry black rioters. If they'd done their fucking jobs instead of going to war with every black person they see then none of this would have happened.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

You mean they're "job creators"?

Funny how the world often works, huh? When the right-wingers scapegoat the most vulnerable people they end up hurting the bottom lines of their own.

Sort of like in the days when Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat to a white man in the "colored section" in the back of the bus. The resulting boycott of public transit caused a major economic problem for the bus company. White citizens' groups bombed black homes, churches, and businesses in retaliation, besides the constant demeaning treatment and lynchings that had been going on for decades.

Whether or not one thinks the violence was justified, sometimes payback's a mofo.

I get where you're coming from but, to me, it's not about the violence so much as it is about a repressed population reaching its breaking point. Throughout history, repressed peoples have reached their breaking points. And while the specific acts may not be defensible, the motivations behind those acts are certainly understandable. And defensible.

And that's what we have here ... people who have, for too long, felt powerless and without control ... taking that control. The means by which they are doing so are wrong ... but one can hardly argue against the desire to do something to change the status quo - to take back a bit of control over their own lives.