5 ms·

> Riots should not be a first resort but when other types of civic engagement have failed they're a wholly legitimate tactic to force change. This statement is

> Riots should not be a first resort but when other types of civic engagement have failed they're a wholly legitimate tactic to force change. This statement is devoid of any explanation as to what types of "change" are important enough to override "other types of civic engagement". The legislative process, voting, representative democracy, the "rule of law" are all designed to avoid having people take matters into their own hands. If you are going to argue that all that should be thrown out it has to be more convincing than just some generic statement that "change" is necessary.

anigbrowl 6y ago
Can you perhaps think of a fairly common event which is frequently followed by protests and, increasingly, riots? Go on, just take a wild guess.
- gwright 6y ago
  You aren't making the case for abandoning the rule of law, you are just asserting that it is the right thing to do in this case. Your argument seems to be that everything possible has been tried to address police violence and that there is no other solution other than to riot. I could point to various crime statistics to suggest that the problem is not in fact intractable or "fairly common" (while still being a problem to be addressed) but it really isn't worth it. Even if I shared your apparent assessment of the problem, how does it make sense to physically and economically destroy communities in response? How does it make sense to make it impossible to actually "police" in these communities? How does it make sense to drive away anyone with resources from these communities? Why do you even think the people reacting this way are making a principled statement about police violence and aren't just taking advantage of the situation? The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind but it is entirely inadequate to describe the disastrous sequence of events that is going on in so many communities right now.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    It's simple enough. The police primarily operate to preserve the existing social order which prioritizes property over life. The deliberate infliction of economic pain is being used to coerce change, because other avenues have failed. The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder. He'll have his day in court and be given ample opportunity to make the argument for why his actions were justified. In general, rioting is used selectively, targeting official buildings followed by corporate concerns, which extract capital from local communities. Little of the news coverage about Kenosha drew attention to the fact that the largest building burned down Monday night was the WI Dept of Corrections; many commentators prefer to focus your attention on commercial damage in order to push the idea that it's indiscriminate.
    - gwright 6y ago
      > The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder. You think the mob will stop? You are advocating for a justice system driven by threats from the mob that must be responded to in real time. You aren't even attempting to grapple with the particular facts that are in evidence at the moment in this case, never mind what might be discovered by actually asking questions. You aren't describing a justice system based on the rule of law, you are describing mob rule. It won't end well for anybody. Why would anyone in their right mind be a police office given the framework you describe? Why would anyone choose to stay in that type of a jurisdiction? The logical consequences of your framework would be disastrous for the community. The medicine you are prescribing is far, far worse than the disease.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Yes, I'm pretty sure it would, or at least would have had this happened earlier. I'm not advocating for mob rule; I'm saying that riots are a response to the lack of justice that prevails. The police officer should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of attempted murder, much as Derek Chauvin should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of murder for killing George Floyd. The reality is that police often shoot and kill with a sense of impunity because they enjoy considerable legal immunity, to the point that the identity of a police officer who carries out a shooting is often withheld from the public. I'm saying that any time a police officer shoots, kills, or seriously injures someone, they should be immediately relieved of duty pending a full inquiry, no matter what the circumstances. If there is a colorable suspicion of misbehavior (eg the shooting was not a case of returning fire or action during the commission of a crime), then they should be subject to arrest like any other criminal suspect, while retaining their full panoply of legal rights like presumption of innocence, access to counsel etc. If a lot of people don't want to be cops who are subject to such restraints, good. I don't want cops who use force casually. What we have now is a system that throws the book at anyone who takes or threatens life (with far higher sentences than most other developed countries despite little evidence of a deterrent effect) while frequently applying light or no penalties, or sometimes no serious investigation, to police officers who commit similar acts. These inequities are compounded by economic and racial disparities in the application of force, legal sanctions and so on. Unless you've lived in other countries or have significant first- or second-hand experience (including talking to current and former police officers) this might be hard information to accept.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Can you perhaps think of a fairly common event which is frequently followed by protests and, increasingly, riots? Go on, just take a wild guess.

gwright 6y ago
You aren't making the case for abandoning the rule of law, you are just asserting that it is the right thing to do in this case. Your argument seems to be that everything possible has been tried to address police violence and that there is no other solution other than to riot. I could point to various crime statistics to suggest that the problem is not in fact intractable or "fairly common" (while still being a problem to be addressed) but it really isn't worth it. Even if I shared your apparent assessment of the problem, how does it make sense to physically and economically destroy communities in response? How does it make sense to make it impossible to actually "police" in these communities? How does it make sense to drive away anyone with resources from these communities? Why do you even think the people reacting this way are making a principled statement about police violence and aren't just taking advantage of the situation? The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind but it is entirely inadequate to describe the disastrous sequence of events that is going on in so many communities right now.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  It's simple enough. The police primarily operate to preserve the existing social order which prioritizes property over life. The deliberate infliction of economic pain is being used to coerce change, because other avenues have failed. The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder. He'll have his day in court and be given ample opportunity to make the argument for why his actions were justified. In general, rioting is used selectively, targeting official buildings followed by corporate concerns, which extract capital from local communities. Little of the news coverage about Kenosha drew attention to the fact that the largest building burned down Monday night was the WI Dept of Corrections; many commentators prefer to focus your attention on commercial damage in order to push the idea that it's indiscriminate.
  - gwright 6y ago
    > The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder. You think the mob will stop? You are advocating for a justice system driven by threats from the mob that must be responded to in real time. You aren't even attempting to grapple with the particular facts that are in evidence at the moment in this case, never mind what might be discovered by actually asking questions. You aren't describing a justice system based on the rule of law, you are describing mob rule. It won't end well for anybody. Why would anyone in their right mind be a police office given the framework you describe? Why would anyone choose to stay in that type of a jurisdiction? The logical consequences of your framework would be disastrous for the community. The medicine you are prescribing is far, far worse than the disease.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Yes, I'm pretty sure it would, or at least would have had this happened earlier. I'm not advocating for mob rule; I'm saying that riots are a response to the lack of justice that prevails. The police officer should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of attempted murder, much as Derek Chauvin should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of murder for killing George Floyd. The reality is that police often shoot and kill with a sense of impunity because they enjoy considerable legal immunity, to the point that the identity of a police officer who carries out a shooting is often withheld from the public. I'm saying that any time a police officer shoots, kills, or seriously injures someone, they should be immediately relieved of duty pending a full inquiry, no matter what the circumstances. If there is a colorable suspicion of misbehavior (eg the shooting was not a case of returning fire or action during the commission of a crime), then they should be subject to arrest like any other criminal suspect, while retaining their full panoply of legal rights like presumption of innocence, access to counsel etc. If a lot of people don't want to be cops who are subject to such restraints, good. I don't want cops who use force casually. What we have now is a system that throws the book at anyone who takes or threatens life (with far higher sentences than most other developed countries despite little evidence of a deterrent effect) while frequently applying light or no penalties, or sometimes no serious investigation, to police officers who commit similar acts. These inequities are compounded by economic and racial disparities in the application of force, legal sanctions and so on. Unless you've lived in other countries or have significant first- or second-hand experience (including talking to current and former police officers) this might be hard information to accept.