5 ms·

So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe. But my concern is I felt like this

by hpoe 6y ago

So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe. But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting. Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance. Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands. Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.

tedivm 6y ago
There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.
- hpoe 6y ago
  I agree police reform is needed, but the rioting doesn't seem like a good way to deliver this message and will instead make enemies of those who could otherwise be allies. I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago? At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
  - ptd 6y ago
    So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?
    - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
      > So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right? Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  You're right, but calling it a 'simple solution' is disingenuous. We have decades of structural racism, policing legislation, ill-considered training regimes, and cultural bias to correct for in a federated system whose stakeholders are notoriously contemptuous of top-down approaches, and who's legislative actors avoid being responsible for any decisions with consequences like the plague. You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    You start by removing qualified immunity for people who murder. Not all police killings are murder but the ones we've seen show a systemic corruption that requires a systemic response.
- dazilcher 6y ago
  Shouldn't you be arguing for fewer police killings, period? Last I checked more white people were being killed by police than black people.
  - tedivm 6y ago
    Not as a percentage, which I'm sure you're aware of.
    - dazilcher 6y ago
      Indeed. Have you adjusted for police interactions though? How about poverty level and criminal history? We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    You're misinterpreting the facts. Black people are more likely to be killed by police - they're not more in number because they're only 13% of the population [1]. The problem is the power of police unions and qualified immunity which is a legal construct made to be abused. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/ https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
    - dazilcher 6y ago
      I misinterpreted nothing: more white people are being killed by police than black people [1][2]. Which part are you challenging? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
      - 6y ago
basch 6y ago
This is the kind of more controversial comment Id like to see upvoted to spur good discussion. The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters? This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted. The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  I think the crux is well regulated and you nailed that well. If there are random people showing up with guns is that well regulated even if they have similar aims and might work together? One of the clear things from this incident is that the shooter was alone. Basically a cardinal sin from a military standpoint. Add to that AFAIK it’s not necessarily legal for random people to show up and stake a claim to defend property. Even if sanctioned implicitly by the police. In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.

by hpoe 6y ago

tedivm 6y ago

There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.

hpoe 6y ago
I agree police reform is needed, but the rioting doesn't seem like a good way to deliver this message and will instead make enemies of those who could otherwise be allies. I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago? At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
- ptd 6y ago
  So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?
  - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
    > So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right? Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
crocodiletears 6y ago
You're right, but calling it a 'simple solution' is disingenuous. We have decades of structural racism, policing legislation, ill-considered training regimes, and cultural bias to correct for in a federated system whose stakeholders are notoriously contemptuous of top-down approaches, and who's legislative actors avoid being responsible for any decisions with consequences like the plague. You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
- r00fus 6y ago
  You start by removing qualified immunity for people who murder. Not all police killings are murder but the ones we've seen show a systemic corruption that requires a systemic response.
dazilcher 6y ago
Shouldn't you be arguing for fewer police killings, period? Last I checked more white people were being killed by police than black people.
- tedivm 6y ago
  Not as a percentage, which I'm sure you're aware of.
  - dazilcher 6y ago
    Indeed. Have you adjusted for police interactions though? How about poverty level and criminal history? We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.
- r00fus 6y ago
  You're misinterpreting the facts. Black people are more likely to be killed by police - they're not more in number because they're only 13% of the population [1]. The problem is the power of police unions and qualified immunity which is a legal construct made to be abused. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/ https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
  - dazilcher 6y ago
    I misinterpreted nothing: more white people are being killed by police than black people [1][2]. Which part are you challenging? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
    - 6y ago

basch 6y ago

This is the kind of more controversial comment Id like to see upvoted to spur good discussion. The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters? This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted. The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?

meheleventyone 6y ago
I think the crux is well regulated and you nailed that well. If there are random people showing up with guns is that well regulated even if they have similar aims and might work together? One of the clear things from this incident is that the shooter was alone. Basically a cardinal sin from a military standpoint. Add to that AFAIK it’s not necessarily legal for random people to show up and stake a claim to defend property. Even if sanctioned implicitly by the police. In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.