13 ms·

I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an

I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. The non-violent protests of Colin Kaepernick were mocked and used to rally the other side and just weren't effective. The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough. The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard".

supercanuck 6y ago
violence speaks the language of the non-educated in the short term, but it does more damage in the long run.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
    - testbot123 6y ago
      "Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
        testbot123 6y ago
        > Burning and looting homes I need evidence here. > and businesses Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices? > there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do your own homework. It's been going off 24/7 for days on social media or on the news station of your preference. We're talking about the mom and pop shops, not the big chains, but I'm sure you know that already.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        No, that's just violence. Political violence is when someone is murdered - by police or otherwise - for political reasons. And, property damage can be violence. Arson, in particular, has a non-zero chance of killing someone. And property damage - especially if it's to a home - can cause trauma to people. It's not just some innocent form of public expression.
        testbot123 6y ago
        Is it not political violence when a black man is killed in the street without due process, treated differently than a white person would be? I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries. While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.
        majormajor 6y ago
        "Protests of non-responsive oppressive governments and their agents that get accompanied by opportunistic looting" sounds like this last week to me.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.
        wan23 6y ago
        If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?
arpa 6y ago
"See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence." - Noam Chomsky.
- kindatrueyo 6y ago
  They do. But you can't complain if they answer in that same language. Like the current protesters who act surprised and offended when they get shot with rubber bullets after throwing bricks, rocks and enhanced fireworks at the police or people they deem opponents. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" -Matthew 26, 26:52
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I've been pretty happy that pretty much everyone (left, right, white, black, etc) agrees that the rioting and looting are just opportunistic violence and not actually part of the protest or "sending a message to people with power". Defending or promoting violence of any kind is repugnant, doubly so when it's directed toward impoverished communities.
  - zajd 6y ago
    > Defending or promoting violence of any kind is repugnant, doubly so when it's directed toward impoverished communities. Turns out when you do this endlessly, as many Police departments have done for our entire lifetimes, people eventually get desperate and resorts to more "loud" means to get their point across. If you want it to stop, listen. If you create an environment where extrajudicial murder is simply looked at as "the cost of doing business" you're going to get a world where riots become "the cost of doing business"
- arpa 6y ago
  The full quote is, however, "See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence. If violence is effective, it's okay. But if violence loses it's efectiveness, then they start worrying and have to try somethong else." - Noam Chomsky.
toast0 6y ago
> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. I don't think this is a good thing. The office involved should be charged or arrested based on the circumstances and evidence, not to appease angry protesters and to attempt to quell riots. In this case, it appears overwhelmingly clear that the office should be charged; but arresting people because their actions have inspired protests or riots is very dangerous.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  It's the last way the people have for their voice to be heard. All laws come from the people governed; legislatures serve at their behest and for their interests. If you have SO MANY people decrying an action -- it's direct democracy in real time.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Voting? Anyway, there's pretty broad agreement that the riots are opportunistic violence, not connected to or motivated by a concern for justice.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Voting hasn't worked. Oakland PD still has half of its budget to brutality complaints. It's been 7 years since the movement started and 66 years since voting was allowed for Black people. Voting isn't going to change anything. "Broad agreement" by who, exactly? I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        > Voting hasn't worked What? If 10% of the people who turned out to protest actually voted in their local elections, they would have whatever they wanted. Voting has hardly been attempted, and there are voting data to prove it. > "Broad agreement" by who, exactly? Basically everyone who isn't an outside agitator, but if you don't already believe me I doubt I'm going to change your mind. > I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame. I don't know what to tell you. Cops aren't using kid gloves any more for sure, but cities are descending into chaos and no one in good faith thinks its the cops that are out there doing the looting and burning.
pathseeker 6y ago
>I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. But it's not clear that the violence/property damage component was worth it. Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough. Hard to tell at this point.
- vkou 6y ago
  > Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough. We've had protests, for separate occasions, happen years and years and decades ago, and it has not been enough. At which point will it be enough? How many more protests will it take? How many more decades will it take? Is anyone still on the fence on 2020 about whether or not bad cops are being protected by their peers and superiors? Do you have a timeline for when this sort of thing will change?
  - devalgo 6y ago
    1992 LA Riots caused over a $Billion in damage and 63 people died. Given that the scale of those riots far surpassed anything we're seeing now and given that nearly 30 years later another instance of police brutality preceded the current turmoil isn't it clear that your approach has failed?
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      Credit assignment is a hard problem. Let's not trivialize it with post hoc fallacies.
    - bbatsell 6y ago
      LAPD underwent unprecedented reform in the wake of the riots. It’s certainly not a perfect department, but it is exponentially better than it was in 1992. You are making the opposite point you think you are. The riots and DoJ consent decrees are literally the _only_ tactics that have succeeded in the past. The failure after the riots was that we didn’t treat it as a national problem and undertake systemic reform of our policing systems from root to stem.
mmsimanga 6y ago
Not an American. Can you share one or two reforms that you would like implemented. It is hard to grasp what is really going on from a distance.
- slyslacker 6y ago
  Significantly expanding police training, and greater coverage of topics such as nonviolent de-escalation, community outreach, implicit bias training, and how to work with mentally ill individuals. Greater accountability through body cam programs, and community oversight boards for police departments everywhere. De-militarization of police, because right now, the police can legally buy surplus military gear and use it on American citizens, up to and including tanks. Frankly, I'd like to see most beat cops completely disarmed (but that seems unlikely to happen soon). I'd also like to see yearly community service requirements for police; make them volunteer their time in the communities they patrol, so they can feel invested in it and get to know the people there.
  - mmsimanga 6y ago
    You suggestion make sense to me, why haven't they been implemented? Is it lack of political will or lack of money?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      There's just no procedure to implement police reforms nationally in the US right now; the police in each city are entirely independent, answerable only to their city government, and generally represent an important political bloc. In many cities, the reforms have happened and the general public doesn't really have a problem with the police. In others, there just hasn't been the political will to push meaningful reforms past the police union.
    - evan_ 6y ago
      The police get unbelievably huge amounts of money (like serious amounts of money) so it's not that. Yesterday police in Columbus, Ohio replaced the American flag flying outside of their headquarters with a "Blue line" police flag. Just hours ago representatives of our nation's largest police force, the NYPD, posted on twitter the home address of the mayor's adult daughter. It's a lack of political will, but that's kind of putting it mildly- it would be more accurate to say that the politicians are afraid of the police.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Is that chronology right? Were there protests before he was arrested? Was there property damage in those protests? Even if so, 90% of the protests and property damage were after the arrest, so... they're pointless?
- evan_ 6y ago
  The protests started in earnest May 26 and Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged May 29. The Minneapolis PD third precinct building burned on the evening of the 28th. The other three cops who helped to kill George Floyd have not been charged or arrested. Neither have the men who killed Breonna Taylor. That's hardly the limit of police violence that has gone unaccounted for. At this point it’s more of a protest against police brutality than just the one specific murder. So, no, not pointless.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    The riots were mostly contained to Minneapolis until the weekend. The riots in my state and across the Nation mostly happened after Chauvin was arrested.
- teachrdan 6y ago
  The riots are also a way to maintain pressure on the DA's office to not drop charges or fail to fully prosecute Chauvin.
devalgo 6y ago
>The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". Trotted out by ignorant woke dummies. In his 1967 Stanford speech MLK also says: "Let me say as I've always said and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice." Using MLK to defend or advocate violence is astonishingly ahistoric.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  You cherry-picked just the MLK quote and added an ad-hominem which isn't a very productive argument.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem. Making accusations about a person's character can be a valid inference based on their behavior. What makes an ad-hominem is thinking that a person's character (or other attributes) has any bearing on the correctness of their argument. For example: "X is a bad person, therefore their argument is invalid" is an ad-hominem. Bad people can still make valid arguments. "X's argument is both invalid and in bad faith, therefore they are a bad person" is a logical inference.
    - vkou 6y ago
      > Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem It's not, but it also has no place on HN.
      - afiori 6y ago
        The insult was not directed at the commenter, rather to a group of people that popularized the quote. It is the difference between "If you believe X then your school must have had brain-dead teachers" and "If you believe X you are brain-dead"
  - downerending 6y ago
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The danger of violence is exactly that it's effective at producing change. People are much more willing to consider police reform than they were last week - but they're also much more willing to shoot thieves and deploy the Army than they were last week. The police reform message is not guaranteed to win if the dice don't fall correctly.
jmull 6y ago
> The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". MLK Jr was unequivocally non-violent. That quote was in the context of explaining the root cause of the rioting, not condoning or endorsing it. Don't trust anyone trying to tell you MLK Jr would have supported violent protests. They are either trying to manipulate you or sadly ignorant (or both, of course). In either case they have it wrong, in terms of history and in the implication that violent protest will lead to any kind of progress or justice.
- hysan 6y ago
  Do note the reverse though. Don’t let everyone who labels violence as unequivocally wrong trick you into thinking that all riots are due to bad people. You’re right in that MLK Jr’s point wasn’t to promote riots. However, if you automatically label all riots as being bad, you’ve also missed the deeper point MLK Jr was trying to make: listen to your fellow humans When you see news about a riot, your first instinct should be to ask why? What are they rioting about? What was being said that led to this situation? Were people listening? How did they respond? Not make a judgement of them. This is where media has great power in controlling the narrative. If they don’t report on what happened prior to the riots (ex: peaceful protests, calls to representatives for action, etc), then it becomes very hard to see rioters as human beings with a voice. Edit: note that I’m not making a judgement on OP. I writing this because I often see this reaction to riots and people often take away the wrong message both ways.
throwaway894345 6y ago
> The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". Does anyone really believe this applies in this case? Lots of protesters are openly condemning the riots as "patently not about justice but only personal greed and appetite for violence". > The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough. Both? I don't understand this "either or" mentality. "Why is everyone condemning the riots instead of condemning Floyd's murder?" Literally everyone is condemning Floyd's murder. Even the police unions are condemning Floyd's murder. It's the one thing everyone agrees on. Murderer was arrested and charged. The "debate" is about the merits of burning/looting/shooting-up communities (with an apparent preference for poor, minority communities) on top of the criminal prosecution.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Shut the fuck up.
rednerrus 6y ago
A mob demanding the arrest of someone is its own problem. You just tend to agree with the mob this time. When you disagree with the mob, you'll see the folly in the argument.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. It is especially important for people to condemn violence that leads to outcomes they are in favor of. Otherwise, groups that are in favor of something else, decide "hey, violence works, voting doesn't" and you descend into horror as different groups all use violence to get their ways.
username90 6y ago
> but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. Why, is there evidence of this? It isn't very obvious to me that he wouldn't get arrested and charged otherwise, this case is way clearer than any other controversial police killing I've seen.
- selectodude 6y ago
  The state's autopsy claimed he died of hypertension and coronary artery disease. It never mentioned anything about asphyxiation and went on to speculate about how he may have been on drugs. The police also claimed at the time that he was resisting arrest. The police were fired after the video was released. The cop that murdered him had eighteen prior complaints, none of which were followed up on. Why do we assume #19 would be the one without the video and the protests?
syshum 6y ago
>>a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough. The problem is there has been ZERO actual reform to policing at all, there have been at best some lipstick measures but there has been zero real reforms to the fundamental structure of policing in this nation. Which includes the Paramilitary style, training, order, and even ranking with in the various dept's The Militarization of the police force has been going on for decades, and this is what happens when you use a military for policing. It never works out well for anyone I have no hope that the police departments of this nation have any desire to roll back that militarization at all, and I have no hope that the legislatures of this nation have any intention to force that rollback to occur.
senderista 6y ago
Civil disobedience != violence. Illegal action is sometimes justified. Violence never is.
- krapp 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but that rings hollow in a country with the Second Amendment and a gun culture that likes to wax poetic about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, or preach that school shootings are simply the price we pay for a free state. You cannot tell a group of people that violence must be beneath them when they're facing a system that employs violence against them with impunity and often bends over backwards to justify it, in a culture which holds violence as one of the foundations of liberty itself. That would be suicidal. Violence should be a last resort, but it can't ever be off the table, not in the US.
- latortuga 6y ago
  This is just false though. Sometimes violence is all you have left. Without violence, we wouldn't be a country. Without violence a black person would still be worth 3/5 of a white person. History shows us that violence is sometimes necessary. We arm police specifically because violence is sometimes required.
  - anewdirection 6y ago
    Violence was not the solution for any of the problems you mention, but the cause of a few. Maybe re-examine your rationale.
afiori 6y ago
> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. I am deeply critical of this line of thought. There are so many negative consequences of properties destruction and looting that counterweight the benefits. As far as I am concerned this is an argument that only someone that did not have a riot outside of their own house can espouse. I apologize for the hyperbole of that argument, but it is something that I would personally say to everyone condoning the destruction, the looting, and the violence; even knowing that in some instances I will be wrong. I a couple of months there will be one less evil cop around and also quite few stores destroyed, livelihood evaporated, family savings lost, destroyed buildings in historically minority and poor neighborhoods. Once the dust settles hundreds of people will be in far worse conditions that they would have been otherwise AND those will not be the protesters, those will be the people, families, kids, that had the protest happen around them.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Better arrests and better prosecution may be helpful, not quick arrests. For example, the bar owner that killed a protestor in Omaha, NE was arrested right after the incident. Tonight he has been released because the investigation determined the shooting was self-defense. Omaha will burn brightly tonight.

supercanuck 6y ago

violence speaks the language of the non-educated in the short term, but it does more damage in the long run.

Avicebron 6y ago
On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
  - testbot123 6y ago
    "Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
      - testbot123 6y ago
        > Burning and looting homes I need evidence here. > and businesses Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices? > there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do your own homework. It's been going off 24/7 for days on social media or on the news station of your preference. We're talking about the mom and pop shops, not the big chains, but I'm sure you know that already.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      No, that's just violence. Political violence is when someone is murdered - by police or otherwise - for political reasons. And, property damage can be violence. Arson, in particular, has a non-zero chance of killing someone. And property damage - especially if it's to a home - can cause trauma to people. It's not just some innocent form of public expression.
      - testbot123 6y ago
        Is it not political violence when a black man is killed in the street without due process, treated differently than a white person would be? I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries. While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        "Protests of non-responsive oppressive governments and their agents that get accompanied by opportunistic looting" sounds like this last week to me.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.
        wan23 6y ago
        If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?

arpa 6y ago

"See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence." - Noam Chomsky.

kindatrueyo 6y ago
They do. But you can't complain if they answer in that same language. Like the current protesters who act surprised and offended when they get shot with rubber bullets after throwing bricks, rocks and enhanced fireworks at the police or people they deem opponents. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" -Matthew 26, 26:52
throwaway894345 6y ago
I've been pretty happy that pretty much everyone (left, right, white, black, etc) agrees that the rioting and looting are just opportunistic violence and not actually part of the protest or "sending a message to people with power". Defending or promoting violence of any kind is repugnant, doubly so when it's directed toward impoverished communities.
- zajd 6y ago
  > Defending or promoting violence of any kind is repugnant, doubly so when it's directed toward impoverished communities. Turns out when you do this endlessly, as many Police departments have done for our entire lifetimes, people eventually get desperate and resorts to more "loud" means to get their point across. If you want it to stop, listen. If you create an environment where extrajudicial murder is simply looked at as "the cost of doing business" you're going to get a world where riots become "the cost of doing business"
arpa 6y ago
The full quote is, however, "See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence. If violence is effective, it's okay. But if violence loses it's efectiveness, then they start worrying and have to try somethong else." - Noam Chomsky.

toast0 6y ago

> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. I don't think this is a good thing. The office involved should be charged or arrested based on the circumstances and evidence, not to appease angry protesters and to attempt to quell riots. In this case, it appears overwhelmingly clear that the office should be charged; but arresting people because their actions have inspired protests or riots is very dangerous.

freeone3000 6y ago
It's the last way the people have for their voice to be heard. All laws come from the people governed; legislatures serve at their behest and for their interests. If you have SO MANY people decrying an action -- it's direct democracy in real time.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Voting? Anyway, there's pretty broad agreement that the riots are opportunistic violence, not connected to or motivated by a concern for justice.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Voting hasn't worked. Oakland PD still has half of its budget to brutality complaints. It's been 7 years since the movement started and 66 years since voting was allowed for Black people. Voting isn't going to change anything. "Broad agreement" by who, exactly? I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      > Voting hasn't worked What? If 10% of the people who turned out to protest actually voted in their local elections, they would have whatever they wanted. Voting has hardly been attempted, and there are voting data to prove it. > "Broad agreement" by who, exactly? Basically everyone who isn't an outside agitator, but if you don't already believe me I doubt I'm going to change your mind. > I keep seeing videos of cops smashing windows then blaming it on protestors, cops attacking crowds with tear gas and less-lethal rounds, and now a shooting of a small business owner at a barbecue. It's not connected to a concern for justice because you're looking at the wrong side to blame. I don't know what to tell you. Cops aren't using kid gloves any more for sure, but cities are descending into chaos and no one in good faith thinks its the cops that are out there doing the looting and burning.

pathseeker 6y ago

>I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. But it's not clear that the violence/property damage component was worth it. Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough. Hard to tell at this point.

vkou 6y ago
> Nationwide protests and all of the public outcry could have been enough. We've had protests, for separate occasions, happen years and years and decades ago, and it has not been enough. At which point will it be enough? How many more protests will it take? How many more decades will it take? Is anyone still on the fence on 2020 about whether or not bad cops are being protected by their peers and superiors? Do you have a timeline for when this sort of thing will change?
- devalgo 6y ago
  1992 LA Riots caused over a $Billion in damage and 63 people died. Given that the scale of those riots far surpassed anything we're seeing now and given that nearly 30 years later another instance of police brutality preceded the current turmoil isn't it clear that your approach has failed?
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    Credit assignment is a hard problem. Let's not trivialize it with post hoc fallacies.
  - bbatsell 6y ago
    LAPD underwent unprecedented reform in the wake of the riots. It’s certainly not a perfect department, but it is exponentially better than it was in 1992. You are making the opposite point you think you are. The riots and DoJ consent decrees are literally the _only_ tactics that have succeeded in the past. The failure after the riots was that we didn’t treat it as a national problem and undertake systemic reform of our policing systems from root to stem.

mmsimanga 6y ago

Not an American. Can you share one or two reforms that you would like implemented. It is hard to grasp what is really going on from a distance.

slyslacker 6y ago
Significantly expanding police training, and greater coverage of topics such as nonviolent de-escalation, community outreach, implicit bias training, and how to work with mentally ill individuals. Greater accountability through body cam programs, and community oversight boards for police departments everywhere. De-militarization of police, because right now, the police can legally buy surplus military gear and use it on American citizens, up to and including tanks. Frankly, I'd like to see most beat cops completely disarmed (but that seems unlikely to happen soon). I'd also like to see yearly community service requirements for police; make them volunteer their time in the communities they patrol, so they can feel invested in it and get to know the people there.
- mmsimanga 6y ago
  You suggestion make sense to me, why haven't they been implemented? Is it lack of political will or lack of money?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    There's just no procedure to implement police reforms nationally in the US right now; the police in each city are entirely independent, answerable only to their city government, and generally represent an important political bloc. In many cities, the reforms have happened and the general public doesn't really have a problem with the police. In others, there just hasn't been the political will to push meaningful reforms past the police union.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    The police get unbelievably huge amounts of money (like serious amounts of money) so it's not that. Yesterday police in Columbus, Ohio replaced the American flag flying outside of their headquarters with a "Blue line" police flag. Just hours ago representatives of our nation's largest police force, the NYPD, posted on twitter the home address of the mayor's adult daughter. It's a lack of political will, but that's kind of putting it mildly- it would be more accurate to say that the politicians are afraid of the police.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Is that chronology right? Were there protests before he was arrested? Was there property damage in those protests? Even if so, 90% of the protests and property damage were after the arrest, so... they're pointless?

evan_ 6y ago
The protests started in earnest May 26 and Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged May 29. The Minneapolis PD third precinct building burned on the evening of the 28th. The other three cops who helped to kill George Floyd have not been charged or arrested. Neither have the men who killed Breonna Taylor. That's hardly the limit of police violence that has gone unaccounted for. At this point it’s more of a protest against police brutality than just the one specific murder. So, no, not pointless.
- manfredo 6y ago
  The riots were mostly contained to Minneapolis until the weekend. The riots in my state and across the Nation mostly happened after Chauvin was arrested.
teachrdan 6y ago
The riots are also a way to maintain pressure on the DA's office to not drop charges or fail to fully prosecute Chauvin.

devalgo 6y ago

>The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". Trotted out by ignorant woke dummies. In his 1967 Stanford speech MLK also says: "Let me say as I've always said and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice." Using MLK to defend or advocate violence is astonishingly ahistoric.

mmastrac 6y ago
You cherry-picked just the MLK quote and added an ad-hominem which isn't a very productive argument.
- lliamander 6y ago
  Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem. Making accusations about a person's character can be a valid inference based on their behavior. What makes an ad-hominem is thinking that a person's character (or other attributes) has any bearing on the correctness of their argument. For example: "X is a bad person, therefore their argument is invalid" is an ad-hominem. Bad people can still make valid arguments. "X's argument is both invalid and in bad faith, therefore they are a bad person" is a logical inference.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem It's not, but it also has no place on HN.
    - afiori 6y ago
      The insult was not directed at the commenter, rather to a group of people that popularized the quote. It is the difference between "If you believe X then your school must have had brain-dead teachers" and "If you believe X you are brain-dead"
- downerending 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The danger of violence is exactly that it's effective at producing change. People are much more willing to consider police reform than they were last week - but they're also much more willing to shoot thieves and deploy the Army than they were last week. The police reform message is not guaranteed to win if the dice don't fall correctly.

jmull 6y ago

> The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". MLK Jr was unequivocally non-violent. That quote was in the context of explaining the root cause of the rioting, not condoning or endorsing it. Don't trust anyone trying to tell you MLK Jr would have supported violent protests. They are either trying to manipulate you or sadly ignorant (or both, of course). In either case they have it wrong, in terms of history and in the implication that violent protest will lead to any kind of progress or justice.

hysan 6y ago
Do note the reverse though. Don’t let everyone who labels violence as unequivocally wrong trick you into thinking that all riots are due to bad people. You’re right in that MLK Jr’s point wasn’t to promote riots. However, if you automatically label all riots as being bad, you’ve also missed the deeper point MLK Jr was trying to make: listen to your fellow humans When you see news about a riot, your first instinct should be to ask why? What are they rioting about? What was being said that led to this situation? Were people listening? How did they respond? Not make a judgement of them. This is where media has great power in controlling the narrative. If they don’t report on what happened prior to the riots (ex: peaceful protests, calls to representatives for action, etc), then it becomes very hard to see rioters as human beings with a voice. Edit: note that I’m not making a judgement on OP. I writing this because I often see this reaction to riots and people often take away the wrong message both ways.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard". Does anyone really believe this applies in this case? Lots of protesters are openly condemning the riots as "patently not about justice but only personal greed and appetite for violence". > The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough. Both? I don't understand this "either or" mentality. "Why is everyone condemning the riots instead of condemning Floyd's murder?" Literally everyone is condemning Floyd's murder. Even the police unions are condemning Floyd's murder. It's the one thing everyone agrees on. Murderer was arrested and charged. The "debate" is about the merits of burning/looting/shooting-up communities (with an apparent preference for poor, minority communities) on top of the criminal prosecution.

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

Shut the fuck up.

rednerrus 6y ago

A mob demanding the arrest of someone is its own problem. You just tend to agree with the mob this time. When you disagree with the mob, you'll see the folly in the argument.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. It is especially important for people to condemn violence that leads to outcomes they are in favor of. Otherwise, groups that are in favor of something else, decide "hey, violence works, voting doesn't" and you descend into horror as different groups all use violence to get their ways.

username90 6y ago

> but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. Why, is there evidence of this? It isn't very obvious to me that he wouldn't get arrested and charged otherwise, this case is way clearer than any other controversial police killing I've seen.

selectodude 6y ago
The state's autopsy claimed he died of hypertension and coronary artery disease. It never mentioned anything about asphyxiation and went on to speculate about how he may have been on drugs. The police also claimed at the time that he was resisting arrest. The police were fired after the video was released. The cop that murdered him had eighteen prior complaints, none of which were followed up on. Why do we assume #19 would be the one without the video and the protests?

syshum 6y ago

>>a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough. The problem is there has been ZERO actual reform to policing at all, there have been at best some lipstick measures but there has been zero real reforms to the fundamental structure of policing in this nation. Which includes the Paramilitary style, training, order, and even ranking with in the various dept's The Militarization of the police force has been going on for decades, and this is what happens when you use a military for policing. It never works out well for anyone I have no hope that the police departments of this nation have any desire to roll back that militarization at all, and I have no hope that the legislatures of this nation have any intention to force that rollback to occur.

senderista 6y ago

Civil disobedience != violence. Illegal action is sometimes justified. Violence never is.

krapp 6y ago
I'm sorry, but that rings hollow in a country with the Second Amendment and a gun culture that likes to wax poetic about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, or preach that school shootings are simply the price we pay for a free state. You cannot tell a group of people that violence must be beneath them when they're facing a system that employs violence against them with impunity and often bends over backwards to justify it, in a culture which holds violence as one of the foundations of liberty itself. That would be suicidal. Violence should be a last resort, but it can't ever be off the table, not in the US.
latortuga 6y ago
This is just false though. Sometimes violence is all you have left. Without violence, we wouldn't be a country. Without violence a black person would still be worth 3/5 of a white person. History shows us that violence is sometimes necessary. We arm police specifically because violence is sometimes required.
- anewdirection 6y ago
  Violence was not the solution for any of the problems you mention, but the cause of a few. Maybe re-examine your rationale.

afiori 6y ago

> I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen. I am deeply critical of this line of thought. There are so many negative consequences of properties destruction and looting that counterweight the benefits. As far as I am concerned this is an argument that only someone that did not have a riot outside of their own house can espouse. I apologize for the hyperbole of that argument, but it is something that I would personally say to everyone condoning the destruction, the looting, and the violence; even knowing that in some instances I will be wrong. I a couple of months there will be one less evil cop around and also quite few stores destroyed, livelihood evaporated, family savings lost, destroyed buildings in historically minority and poor neighborhoods. Once the dust settles hundreds of people will be in far worse conditions that they would have been otherwise AND those will not be the protesters, those will be the people, families, kids, that had the protest happen around them.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

Better arrests and better prosecution may be helpful, not quick arrests. For example, the bar owner that killed a protestor in Omaha, NE was arrested right after the incident. Tonight he has been released because the investigation determined the shooting was self-defense. Omaha will burn brightly tonight.