I wasn’t aware that I was “pontificating”. I was nearly exploring the issue, after pointing out calling someone names is not a constructive way to have a discussion (that is the goal here, no? Discussion and not one sided preaching to the choir.). People can disagree with you, this is fine. Hell it is healthy. People are allowed to have differing opinions, and this does not reflect at all on who they are as a person. Different lives and experience lead us to different views. This is the healthiest thing there is.
If no one listens, that doesn’t make them less rational. I might be a rarity, I find people calmly telling me what it is like to be them, what they face every day, and what they think should be done about it, infinitely more powerful than some asshole burning down my store. The asshole silences the quiet voices, who are equally, if not more valid.
I find it ironic that you dismiss rational voices in one sentence, then reference MLK in the next.
See, I was talking about the person you were chastising me for using “ad hominems”.
And, talking about people not listening? I was referring to the leaders of the Baltimore community not listening to the rational voices within their community which leads to riots when the people get sick and tired of all the shit.
Please know my intent in replying is not to pile on but to discuss a this very important point for which I am grateful you’ve broached.
These protests began because the people had no legal recourse available to them. They have been denied the rule of law for decades. When police abuse takes place, most often the offender is never prosecuted and in the rare instance when a case is brought against them, the offender is invariably released with little or no punishment. When a positive outcome does surface it is through civil courts rather than the criminal justice system. Unfortunately the citizens pay these fines rather than the offender.
This lack of legal recourse against corrupt and abusive police left the good citizens of Baltimore no other path to remedy via the rule of law than the time honored legal and protected right of assembly to demand a redress of grievance.
Remembering that these protesters did not riot or became a riot mob but were instead joined by rioters is important to separating these two unrelated groups of people acting upon completely different motives with unconnected goals. We are discussing the topic of a public prosecutor suggesting the solution of “Simple. Shoot em” as a resolution to the protests. In that light, the view of this prosecutor and by extension the tone deaf view of a not insignificant portion of the law enforcement community reveals the systemic nature of the struggle the heroic citizens of Baltimore have brought to the forefront of national and international discussion. For that, we must applaud and support the efforts of so few risking so much for all people of this nation in order that they may enjoy the protection the rule of law affords us which so many take for granted.
I totally agree that the right to assembly and protest is critical for a functioning democracy. I do not think, nor, from your post, do you, that assembly and protest includes rioting, looting, arson, and general mayhem. These are very distinct acts from protest.
Now, when there is lawless rioting, destruction of property, threats to the safety and lives of bystanders as well as law enforcement, my question was, what can, if anything, be done in such situations? I think I’ve got my answer, but there’s certainly been a lot of name calling and abuse along the way by people who seem to revel in anarchy rather than dialog.
Whatever man. This is the first time I’ve read the thread and that’s what it looks like to anyone else reading it for the first time, which is unfortunate if your explanation is what’s happened. In any case I was mostly just being a dick because your original comment:
Certainly shooting them is not the answer, but is permitting the lawlessness to continue the only other option?
makes out like someone at some point has argued that “letting lawlessness to continue” is the only other option. No one said that.
The primary source of lawlessness in this case has been the Baltimore police department. As I stated, left with no legal recourse, assembly and protest becomes one of the few ways to draw attention to your plight. Yet there were several days of peaceful protest without media attention or a response from the city. Only after rioting began did we see the issue brought to nations attention by the media. In that light, it seems that the violence was necessary in order to even begin a dialog with the city. So to answer your question of
the answer seems, in this case, to be that the lawlessness began with the police and that the rioting was a critical factor in bringing that fact to light. It seems that a police response is not required other than to simply protect the peaceful protesters and to provide them a safe and effective venue to exercise their liberty.
