Violent Protests in Baltimore

[aridas sofia]

What is the point of this violent protest? What was it meant to achieve?

If it was the act of a people that truly believe there are no legal means to achieve their natural rights - then it is justified. But can any people rationally believe such a thing in a city where there is a legal option to organize politically to achieve their goals? Frustration is not a justification for violence if the frustration hasn't resulted from failures to get things done in other peaceful and legal ways.

Make no mistake - a lot of what is going on - and I am here watching it - is looting. It is unrelated to political protest. It is the taking advantage of a breakdown in social order by individuals because the police were stretched to capacity trying to create a bulwark between the peaceful protests and hotels, shopping venues etc. It is "wilding" by gangs trying to maximize their power by creating total disorder.

The last thing impoverished communities need is to suffer the loss of what meager public and private amenities they possess at the hands of their own young people. When I see an effort fail to bring together black and white, rich and poor, Asian and Hispanic, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to walk arm in arm protesting an injustice, or such an effort be denied their rights to protest peacefully, then I will know the time has come for violence. But that hasn't happened.

 

[fonzob1]

Oh, do enlighten us.

If you truly feel that way, I would love to send this shit up to your area of Jersey.

Sounds like you've admitted that there are circumstances under which you believe such rioting would be justified.

No...I was being facetious.

 

[Trekker4747]

Hey fonzob, do you think stuff like this is justified?

Of course not. I don't think excessive force by police is ever justified. I don't think many of you fully understand exactly what's happened in Baltimore.

But that stuff like that in the GIF happens to minorities *all of the time, every damn day* from the police, or things like it is part of the entire problem. That minorities are disproportionately on the receiving end of police use of force is why we keep having these national cases and demonstrations. It's reaching a breaking point.

Sometimes violence begets violence and sometimes it can be "justified." Strong emphasis on those quotes.

Justified in that people, and society, have a breaking point and sometimes that breaking point is violence and demonstration. And it could probably be argued that that breaking point is what is brought about some of the greater changes this country has seen. It took violence -and even a war- to end slavery. It took demonstrations and measured violence to get more equal rights for women, it took violence and demonstrations to end segregation. We like to think of bus seats, peaceful walks across bridges and powerful speeches from icons as being what ended segregation but with all of that was also lots of violence and demonstration.

Is it necessary? It may be. Considering that it takes high levels of emotions to get people from "talking about it" to "acting for it" and from there even there to "aggressively acting for it." And it's usually that last step that gets results. Our entire country was founded on violent protests and action.

And when the dust settles, the wounds healed, the dead laid to rest we're left with a free nation that in some 240 years has become *the* world superpower. We're left with the end of slavery. Equal rights. Not forcing people to use separate water fountains or sit in different areas due to the color of their skin.

Violence can be justifiable if the cause is important enough and big enough where the outcome outweighs any loss of life and property.

Violence can be necessary if emotions are high, the cause is important and those in power aren't doing anything to make the changes that need to happen.

If violent protests gets action to happen for police agencies around the nation to take a serious look at how they handle suspects of color or even just people of color in general -not disproportionately targeting them even for "stop and frisk" inconveniences- then I'd say we as a society come out on top.

Now, there's "good" violence and "bad" violence. It's bad when it starts impacting the truly innocent -the businesses damaged and destroyed during the Furgeson riots- or if people are actively seeking out those who're not strictly on the opposing side -reports of protesters/gang members actively targeting law enforcement without discrimination.

Sure, stuff like that can happen in *war* but this isn't a war, so targeting police is different than targeting a British soldier. So these gang members saying they'll target police officers is uncalled for and out of line of what we'd probably consider "good" or justifiable violence.

It may be hard to support this kind of violence or demonstrations but it's understandable why it has reached this point and if it turns out to get changes in the system then we'd say it was justifiable in some means, though history would make that call. Afterall, we as Americans may call the events that led to our independence from the British justified and necessary, but the British may call (or may have called) it something different. Not seeing it as justified or necessary.

At the very least, right now I can say I can see why it's happening. Things are fucked up and it's reached, and passed, a breaking point. Will changes happen? I hope so.

I wish it didn't have to happen with this stuff, but it may need it.

Though I cannot support, rationalize, or justify those targeting or threatening police officers. That's going too far. I think more passive demonstration may be called for, resisting with hands-up and not retaliating in any way. Maybe "entrapping" the police officer into misbehaving, or seen as breaking the law intentionally. But goading a police officer -passively- into lashing out is far preferable than hunting them.

 

[fonzob1]

What is the point of this violent protest? What was it meant to achieve?

If it was the act of a people that truly believe there are no legal means to achieve their natural rights - then it is justified. But can any people rationally believe such a thing in a city where there is a legal option to organize politically to achieve their goals? Frustration is not a justification for violence if the frustration hasn't resulted from failures to get things done in other peaceful and legal ways.

Make no mistake - a lot of what is going on - and I am here watching it - is looting. It is unrelated to political protest. It is the taking advantage of a breakdown in social order by individuals because the police were stretched to capacity trying to create a bulwark between the peaceful protests and hotels, shopping venues etc. It is "wilding" by gangs trying to maximize their power by creating total disorder.

The last thing impoverished communities need is to suffer the loss of what meager public and private amenities they possess at the hands of their own young people. When I see an effort fail to bring together black and white, rich and poor, Asian and Hispanic, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to walk arm in arm protesting an injustice, or such an effort be denied their rights to protest peacefully, then I will know the time has come for violence. But that hasn't happened.

^This

 

[Amaris]

What is the point of this violent protest? What was it meant to achieve?

If it was the act of a people that truly believe there are no legal means to achieve their natural rights - then it is justified. But can any people rationally believe such a thing in a city where there is a legal option to organize politically to achieve their goals? Frustration is not a justification for violence if the frustration hasn't resulted from failures to get things done in other peaceful and legal ways.

Make no mistake - a lot of what is going on - and I am here watching it - is looting. It is unrelated to political protest. It is the taking advantage of a breakdown in social order by individuals because the police were stretched to capacity trying to create a bulwark between the peaceful protests and hotels, shopping venues etc. It is "wilding" by gangs trying to maximize their power by creating total disorder.

The last thing impoverished communities need is to suffer the loss of what meager public and private amenities they possess at the hands of their own young people. When I see an effort fail to bring together black and white, rich and poor, Asian and Hispanic, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to walk arm in arm protesting an injustice, or such an effort be denied their rights to protest peacefully, then I will know the time has come for violence. But that hasn't happened.

^This

We're still waiting for you to illuminate us on what's really going on in Baltimore.

 

[fonzob1]

What is the point of this violent protest? What was it meant to achieve?

If it was the act of a people that truly believe there are no legal means to achieve their natural rights - then it is justified. But can any people rationally believe such a thing in a city where there is a legal option to organize politically to achieve their goals? Frustration is not a justification for violence if the frustration hasn't resulted from failures to get things done in other peaceful and legal ways.

Make no mistake - a lot of what is going on - and I am here watching it - is looting. It is unrelated to political protest. It is the taking advantage of a breakdown in social order by individuals because the police were stretched to capacity trying to create a bulwark between the peaceful protests and hotels, shopping venues etc. It is "wilding" by gangs trying to maximize their power by creating total disorder.

The last thing impoverished communities need is to suffer the loss of what meager public and private amenities they possess at the hands of their own young people. When I see an effort fail to bring together black and white, rich and poor, Asian and Hispanic, Jew, Christian and Muslim, to walk arm in arm protesting an injustice, or such an effort be denied their rights to protest peacefully, then I will know the time has come for violence. But that hasn't happened.

^This

We're still waiting for you to illuminate us on what's really going on in Baltimore.

Because that is important to you? I think aridas sofia said it best.

 

[Amaris]

^This

We're still waiting for you to illuminate us on what's really going on in Baltimore.

Because that is important to you? I think aridas sofia said it best.

You made a statement about a lack of understanding on our part. Clarify it yourself.

 

[fonzob1]

We're still waiting for you to illuminate us on what's really going on in Baltimore.

Because that is important to you? I think aridas sofia said it best.

You made a statement about a lack of understanding on our part. Clarify it yourself.

Is that an order, Captain?

 

[Amaris]

Because that is important to you? I think aridas sofia said it best.

You made a statement about a lack of understanding on our part. Clarify it yourself.

Is that an order, Captain?

It is.

 

[fonzob1]

You made a statement about a lack of understanding on our part. Clarify it yourself.

Is that an order, Captain?

It is.

Too bad you're not really a Captain.

 

[BillJ]

The 2001 riots did work to effect change to some degree here in Cincinnati.

 

[fonzob1]

The 2001 riots did work to effect change to some degree here in Cincinnati.

So, I guess you can consider any personal property damage, theft, and/or injury that occurred there to be "collateral damage" for the cause.

 

[Amaris]

Is that an order, Captain?

It is.

Too bad you're not really a Captain.

So your answer is either "no," "I don't know," or "I don't wanna." Yeah, that should work out well for you.

 

[Mudd]

The 2001 riots did work to effect change to some degree here in Cincinnati.

So, I guess you can consider any personal property damage, theft, and/or injury that occurred there to be "collateral damage" for the cause.

Still got to have the answer you like, regardless of the one you get.

So your answer is either "no," "I don't know," or "I don't wanna." Yeah, that should work out well for you.

Maybe someone else will come along and provide what he doesn't have, again.

 

[fonzob1]

The 2001 riots did work to effect change to some degree here in Cincinnati.

So, I guess you can consider any personal property damage, theft, and/or injury that occurred there to be "collateral damage" for the cause.

Still got to have the answer you like, regardless of the one you get.

I am simply discussing the topic at hand and expressing opinions.

Maybe someone else will come along and provide what he doesn't have, again.

Because it's important for me to respond to that.

 

[BillJ]

The 2001 riots did work to effect change to some degree here in Cincinnati.

So, I guess you can consider any personal property damage, theft, and/or injury that occurred there to be "collateral damage" for the cause.

If people don't want their property damaged then they should have been pressuring city leaders to improve the Baltimore PD long before Freddy Gray. It wasn't a secret that there were issues between the black community and the police.

In Cincinnati, change came because we had a billion dollars worth of stadiums that were being built and no one wanted to come Downtown after the riots. It was a real issue with businesses floundering.

Unfortunately, Baltimore will learn the lesson the same way we did.

 

[sidious618]

It's weird how so many people are eager to come out and denounce the rioters (and I don't condone the violence, no), but these people say nothing about police brutality and even if they do not nearly to the extent as they denounce the rioting.

 

[Mudd]

Condemnation of the police is always passing and offhanded - "excessive force." It's the "few bad apples" myth.

 

[Hound of UIster]

It's more like the entire barrel is rotten.

It's weird how so many people are eager to come out and denounce the rioters (and I don't condone the violence, no), but these people say nothing about police brutality and even if they do not nearly to the extent as they denounce the rioting.

It's not surprising. The lives of the helpless and powerless does't matter to much of society. And most of the victims of the police fall into those categories.

It's only when somebody's stuff is being destroyed that there are cries of outrage (which goes to show what people care more about).

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Hey fonzob, do you think stuff like this is justified?

Of course not. I don't think excessive force by police is ever justified. I don't think many of you fully understand exactly what's happened in Baltimore.

Seriously?! (trying unsuccessfully not to roll my eyes) I'd love to hear you "fully" explain what's happening. I'm also curious whether you happen to live in Baltimore.

If you truly feel that way, I would love to send this shit up to your area of Jersey.

Hmm...where do you live?

This is far from the worst mob violence in this area during my time. That would have been the riots downtown after Dr. King's assassination.

Still waiting to hear your full understanding of the situation. And still waiting to hear whether you actually live in Balto.