4 ms·

> exposed civilians exercising their democratic right to protest and assembly Where is destroying private property, throwing bricks, and setting things on fire

> exposed civilians exercising their democratic right to protest and assembly Where is destroying private property, throwing bricks, and setting things on fire in that sentence? Let’s call a spade a spade. Edit: And just so I’m not misinterpreted, I am completely against excessive force by police. Both sides are wrong and the author of this piece conveniently leaves that out.

Suzuran 4y ago
TIL the illegal actions of a few entirely negate the civil rights of the masses.
- prepend 4y ago
  If you have a crowd of 500 and 100 of them are bad actors, how do you disperse only the bad actors? But this is frequently done when curfews are enacted. They are put in place and limit civil rights of everyone to control a few bad people.
  - Suzuran 4y ago
    With all due respect, that's not my problem. I am supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. My rights are not supposed to be stripped from me without due process. What my neighbor does is irrelevant. The fact that a wrong is common now does not make it less of a wrong. Edit for clarification: It is not my duty to surrender my rights and accept collective guilt for another's crimes in order to make things easier on government agents.
    - prepend 4y ago
      Of course, you are innocent. But the crowd, as a group, is guilty based on their actions. That’s like saying “I’m not part of this lynch mob, I was just standing next to the tree protesting peacefully. Innocent until proven guilty.” For me, if I’m protesting peacefully and 20% of the crowd starts smashing stuff or burning cars, I’m going to split and disavow them. This isn’t your neighbor who lives next to you that you can’t do anything about. In my city, a peaceful protest turned violent and started smashing stuff. I’m not sure how I avoid that if I was trying to peacefully protest.
      - Suzuran 4y ago
        I can't disavow them because it always cycles back to "You're conveniently hiding the violent protesters!" or "You're denying the protesters as a whole were violent!" I'm not allowed to say "I'm non-violent and don't support violent protest", instead I am supposed to say "Because some some of those protesting discrimination against my people turned violent, I repudiate their cause and am obligated to support discrimination against my people".
foxyv 4y ago
So if you want to stop a protest you don't agree with, you can sabotage it by committing a few crimes during it and painting the protestors with the same brush. This is especially doable if you have the support of local law enforcement or the city.
- roarcher 4y ago
  Or likewise, you can get away with a whole lot of violence by claiming it was all done by saboteurs.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    Yeah, it's kind of suspicious when the police go in to arrest someone busting windows and everyone in the protest tries to stop the police...
    - roarcher 4y ago
      I agree, that is suspicious.
octokatt 4y ago
Additional insight for this, from my perspective as support ops for protesters in Portland. Bad actors from eastern Oregon, a heavily red and still pretty racist part of the state, would come into otherwise peaceful protests and cause property damage so police would be able to use greater force. It's a very effective way to get a protest re-labeled as a riot. Remember, Oregon banned black people as a way of dealing with the Civil War. [1]. Portland is a liberal island in a sea of of red, hence why it's become such a friction point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
- roarcher 4y ago
  I see this claim every time the riots of 2020 are brought up, but have seen little evidence for it. Are we to assume that anyone who misbehaves at these events is a saboteur? That seems awfully convenient.
  - brutal_chaos_ 4y ago
    it's also awfully convenient to assume that only the protesting party is at fault.
    - roarcher 4y ago
      I didn't say "only". I'm responding to GP's assertion that these were "otherwise peaceful protests" if not for "bad actors from eastern Oregon". They're the one claiming it was only the other side. To be clear, I am not taking a centrist "both sides" position. I definitely think the vast majority of the violence and destruction was carried out by BLM and Antifa, in Portland and everywhere else that these riots occurred. But I won't go so far as to say that there were absolutely no saboteurs. I believe there were a handful of documented cases of them.
  - prepend 4y ago
    It is weird how much of a talking point it is. No evidence whatsoever, yet it’s mentioned so frequently. “I just know that all the bad actors were not the good people.” I’m sure soon the police will claim that the bad police officers are just non-police dressed up.

Suzuran 4y ago

TIL the illegal actions of a few entirely negate the civil rights of the masses.

prepend 4y ago
If you have a crowd of 500 and 100 of them are bad actors, how do you disperse only the bad actors? But this is frequently done when curfews are enacted. They are put in place and limit civil rights of everyone to control a few bad people.
- Suzuran 4y ago
  With all due respect, that's not my problem. I am supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. My rights are not supposed to be stripped from me without due process. What my neighbor does is irrelevant. The fact that a wrong is common now does not make it less of a wrong. Edit for clarification: It is not my duty to surrender my rights and accept collective guilt for another's crimes in order to make things easier on government agents.
  - prepend 4y ago
    Of course, you are innocent. But the crowd, as a group, is guilty based on their actions. That’s like saying “I’m not part of this lynch mob, I was just standing next to the tree protesting peacefully. Innocent until proven guilty.” For me, if I’m protesting peacefully and 20% of the crowd starts smashing stuff or burning cars, I’m going to split and disavow them. This isn’t your neighbor who lives next to you that you can’t do anything about. In my city, a peaceful protest turned violent and started smashing stuff. I’m not sure how I avoid that if I was trying to peacefully protest.
    - Suzuran 4y ago
      I can't disavow them because it always cycles back to "You're conveniently hiding the violent protesters!" or "You're denying the protesters as a whole were violent!" I'm not allowed to say "I'm non-violent and don't support violent protest", instead I am supposed to say "Because some some of those protesting discrimination against my people turned violent, I repudiate their cause and am obligated to support discrimination against my people".

foxyv 4y ago

So if you want to stop a protest you don't agree with, you can sabotage it by committing a few crimes during it and painting the protestors with the same brush. This is especially doable if you have the support of local law enforcement or the city.

roarcher 4y ago
Or likewise, you can get away with a whole lot of violence by claiming it was all done by saboteurs.
- foxyv 4y ago
  Yeah, it's kind of suspicious when the police go in to arrest someone busting windows and everyone in the protest tries to stop the police...
  - roarcher 4y ago
    I agree, that is suspicious.

octokatt 4y ago

Additional insight for this, from my perspective as support ops for protesters in Portland. Bad actors from eastern Oregon, a heavily red and still pretty racist part of the state, would come into otherwise peaceful protests and cause property damage so police would be able to use greater force. It's a very effective way to get a protest re-labeled as a riot. Remember, Oregon banned black people as a way of dealing with the Civil War. [1]. Portland is a liberal island in a sea of of red, hence why it's become such a friction point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws

roarcher 4y ago
I see this claim every time the riots of 2020 are brought up, but have seen little evidence for it. Are we to assume that anyone who misbehaves at these events is a saboteur? That seems awfully convenient.
- brutal_chaos_ 4y ago
  it's also awfully convenient to assume that only the protesting party is at fault.
  - roarcher 4y ago
    I didn't say "only". I'm responding to GP's assertion that these were "otherwise peaceful protests" if not for "bad actors from eastern Oregon". They're the one claiming it was only the other side. To be clear, I am not taking a centrist "both sides" position. I definitely think the vast majority of the violence and destruction was carried out by BLM and Antifa, in Portland and everywhere else that these riots occurred. But I won't go so far as to say that there were absolutely no saboteurs. I believe there were a handful of documented cases of them.
- prepend 4y ago
  It is weird how much of a talking point it is. No evidence whatsoever, yet it’s mentioned so frequently. “I just know that all the bad actors were not the good people.” I’m sure soon the police will claim that the bad police officers are just non-police dressed up.