5 ms·

Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot.

gnaritas 6y ago
> Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.
luckylion 6y ago
That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
0xy 6y ago
You carefully cherry picked one aspect of my argument and didn't address the arson of occupied buildings with children inside. That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. Someone was nearly stoned to death on the street with bricks by rioters for protecting a business.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I didn’t cherry pick, I’m simply not defending assaults on people. Any violence by protesters against humans (other than in self defense) is not okay. That said, violence by police against civilians is far worse. It shouldn’t happen in response to property damage, but it especially shouldn’t happen unprovoked — and we’ve been seeing a lot more of that than violence from protesters.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Do you believe in an "eye for an eye"? If not, how could you say that there's been more violence from police than protesters? By my count, more people have died in the resulting riots than the initial incident. That doesn't mean police are "less bad". It means they fucked up badly, and then rioters and looters are responding badly to a bad situation (including with attempted murder, rape, assault, property destruction, arson, etc). In fact, numerous businesses owned by black people were unfortunately torched during the rioting. What part of that is justice? Further, what good does it do to black neighborhoods to have their houses burnt down, critical supplies interrupted in the middle of a pandemic and other such egregious behaviour? Anarchists are using this situation to cause chaos and destruction.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      There are a lot of layers here; I’ll do my best to unpack things as I see them. First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in order for civilians to be safe. This is an axiomatic belief for me; if you can’t meet me on it, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think everyone recognizes that the protests have caused far more violence than the murder of George Floyd alone. But the best way to prevent further violence would have been to immediately arrest the officers (as any civilian would have been) and hold them accountable. As it stands now, the other three officers who helped restrain him and prevent bystander intervention have not even been arrested. It seems to me that police and politicians across the country are willing to accept thousands of arrests, thousands more injuries and millions of dollars worth of property damage all to protect four officers who should absolutely face trial. That brings me to “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rioting. There are no doubt people using the protests as cover to sow chaos, or to do “riot tourism” — we’ve all seen videos of that. That is not okay. But plenty of rioting is happening because a group of people have been crying out in every which way that they are drowning and nothing seems to help. I’ve seen even staunch conservatives acknowledge that Floyd’s death was beyond the pale. And it’s not just him: it’s Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others. And those are just the deaths that make the news — that’s a small subset of all the times when someone was “just” beat up, or profiled, or arrested for no good reason. Plenty of black people feel that society is not honoring its contract with them; given that, can we really blame those protesting for feeling that they don’t need to honor their contract with society?
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. So you've pointed out what the police have been up to, and why people are out rioting.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Please point out exactly where I justified police behavior or said they're all innocent, or downplayed the initial incident. I saw the video, it's disgusting. But torching a residential building with children inside as a response? How is that okay?
    - tomnipotent 6y ago
      > But torching a residential building with children inside "But the children!" It was vacant. Nice try, though. No one is condoning this specific act, but I'm not going to damn everything else because if it. That's absolutely silly.
      - 0xy 6y ago
        Which acts of destruction and rioting would you condone, if any? Torching black-owned businesses? Looting critical supplies from pharmacies, supermarkets and other retailers? Stoning people nearly to death in the street? Murdering a federal officer in California? Where's the line? What's acceptable? FWIW, the vast majority of protesters involved are not involved in the aforementioned acts.

> Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.

luckylion 6y ago

That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".

0xy 6y ago

You carefully cherry picked one aspect of my argument and didn't address the arson of occupied buildings with children inside. That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. Someone was nearly stoned to death on the street with bricks by rioters for protecting a business.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I didn’t cherry pick, I’m simply not defending assaults on people. Any violence by protesters against humans (other than in self defense) is not okay. That said, violence by police against civilians is far worse. It shouldn’t happen in response to property damage, but it especially shouldn’t happen unprovoked — and we’ve been seeing a lot more of that than violence from protesters.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Do you believe in an "eye for an eye"? If not, how could you say that there's been more violence from police than protesters? By my count, more people have died in the resulting riots than the initial incident. That doesn't mean police are "less bad". It means they fucked up badly, and then rioters and looters are responding badly to a bad situation (including with attempted murder, rape, assault, property destruction, arson, etc). In fact, numerous businesses owned by black people were unfortunately torched during the rioting. What part of that is justice? Further, what good does it do to black neighborhoods to have their houses burnt down, critical supplies interrupted in the middle of a pandemic and other such egregious behaviour? Anarchists are using this situation to cause chaos and destruction.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    There are a lot of layers here; I’ll do my best to unpack things as I see them. First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in order for civilians to be safe. This is an axiomatic belief for me; if you can’t meet me on it, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think everyone recognizes that the protests have caused far more violence than the murder of George Floyd alone. But the best way to prevent further violence would have been to immediately arrest the officers (as any civilian would have been) and hold them accountable. As it stands now, the other three officers who helped restrain him and prevent bystander intervention have not even been arrested. It seems to me that police and politicians across the country are willing to accept thousands of arrests, thousands more injuries and millions of dollars worth of property damage all to protect four officers who should absolutely face trial. That brings me to “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rioting. There are no doubt people using the protests as cover to sow chaos, or to do “riot tourism” — we’ve all seen videos of that. That is not okay. But plenty of rioting is happening because a group of people have been crying out in every which way that they are drowning and nothing seems to help. I’ve seen even staunch conservatives acknowledge that Floyd’s death was beyond the pale. And it’s not just him: it’s Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others. And those are just the deaths that make the news — that’s a small subset of all the times when someone was “just” beat up, or profiled, or arrested for no good reason. Plenty of black people feel that society is not honoring its contract with them; given that, can we really blame those protesting for feeling that they don’t need to honor their contract with society?
tomnipotent 6y ago
> That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. So you've pointed out what the police have been up to, and why people are out rioting.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Please point out exactly where I justified police behavior or said they're all innocent, or downplayed the initial incident. I saw the video, it's disgusting. But torching a residential building with children inside as a response? How is that okay?
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > But torching a residential building with children inside "But the children!" It was vacant. Nice try, though. No one is condoning this specific act, but I'm not going to damn everything else because if it. That's absolutely silly.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      Which acts of destruction and rioting would you condone, if any? Torching black-owned businesses? Looting critical supplies from pharmacies, supermarkets and other retailers? Stoning people nearly to death in the street? Murdering a federal officer in California? Where's the line? What's acceptable? FWIW, the vast majority of protesters involved are not involved in the aforementioned acts.