Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

[Destino]

A lot of those things are not in fact violence, and I’m not going to pretend they are to justify whatever violent response that weird Twitter guy imagines is good.  That logical road leads directly to terrorism.  

[China]

65 years ago, Rosa Parks' arrest ignited the civil rights movement and led to yearlong Montgomery Bus Boycott

 

Sixty-five years ago, a civil rights icon’s rise began with five paragraphs buried on the bottom of Page 9 of The Montgomery Advertiser: “Negro jailed here for ‘overlooking’ bus segregation.” 

 

That day’s paper had no concept of the history it was covering with the Dec. 1, 1955, arrest of 42-year-old seamstress Rosa Louise McCauley Parks. Under Jim Crow laws, the Tuskegee native had been charged with “ignoring a bus driver who directed her to sit in the rear of the bus.” 

 

The story that’s been told through the decades is that Parks didn’t move because she was was physically tired. She later said that wasn’t the case. She was actually tired of being treated like that. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse’s MAGA-Loving Defense Team Implodes

 

While Kyle Rittenhouse awaits trial for killing two people at a Kenosha, Wisconsin, Black Lives Matter protest this summer, his lawyers are in prosecutors’ crosshairs.

 

From the start of the high-profile case, Rittenhouse’s lawyers have attracted nearly as much attention as he has. Now, the 17-year-old’s main lawyer, John Pierce, is off the case, after prosecutors argued that fundraisers for Rittenhouse could act as a “slush fund” for the embattled attorney. Another prominent attorney who has associated himself with Rittenhouse, Lin Wood, also appears to have pivoted away from the case in order to focus his efforts on overturning President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

You mean, both of his attorneys were manipulating him for their own purposes?  

[China]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

You mean, both of his attorneys were manipulating him for their own purposes?  

 

Of course, Lin Wood is MAGA through and through.

 

[China]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

Obviously they should have showed up outside the government official's house armed,  Then it's OK.  

 

[LD0506]

On 12/5/2020 at 1:41 PM, Larry said:

You mean, both of his attorneys were manipulating him for their own purposes?  

[visionary]

 

[China]

Judge: Seattle police violated court order by using pepper spray, blast balls on protestors

 

A federal judge said the Seattle Police Department (SPD) violated a court order limiting its use of pepper spray, blast balls, and other crowd-control measures.

 

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones has been picking apart SPD’s tactics during Black Lives Matter demonstrations in August and September and said the department was in contempt of court for using pepper spray and blast balls on four occasions.

 

It’s not yet clear what legal consequences SPD could face. Those details could be hammered out during a future hearing.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Officers face 2 more misdemeanors stemming from protests

 

Two Virginia police officers face more misdemeanor charges related to their actions during May protests against police brutality and racial injustice.

 

Richmond police detectives Mark Janowski and Christopher Brown were each charged with two more misdemeanor counts of assault and battery on Monday, building on a previous count of each charge, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

 

Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Colette McEachin confirmed the additional indictments but declined to provide further comment.

 

Authorities have released no details about what they allegedly did to merit the charges on May 31, during the second night of Black Lives Matter protests in Richmond.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Destino]

On 12/7/2020 at 3:58 AM, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

So we’re good with surrounding peoples houses because we disagree on transportation and homeless policy?  Am I missing something?

[Captain Wiggles]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

So we’re good with surrounding peoples houses because we disagree on transportation and homeless policy?  Am I missing something?

 

While idk the specifics the City of Los Angeles does own the residence. Peaceful protest outside doesn't seem like an issue. Good a place as any imo. 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

So we’re good with surrounding peoples houses because we disagree on transportation and homeless policy?  Am I missing something?

1). Maybe we're good with peaceful protest before government officials. 
 

2). Or maybe we're not good with the response to peaceful protest being mass assaults carried out by an organized gang holding government power. 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

So we’re good with surrounding peoples houses because we disagree on transportation and homeless policy?  Am I missing something?

I used to take a hard stance on the idea of following these people around in their personal lives and protesting

 

ive softened on that over the years as I’ve read arguments about it (mostly here) and seen the lack of movement on the issue

 

i don’t like it. But I think there’s a complex issue going on here and I understand it. 
 

but I think the general issue is more about when white people show up with guns they’re allowed to do whatever the hell the want including storming and occupying government facilities. But when other protestors show up peacefully and stay in public they’re met with batons from police and other things. 
 

I think the idea of our political leaders being isolated and insulated from the every day life the rest of us live, and how to deal with it, and what it means when they’re afforded the luxury of ignoring it and so it spills into their personal life, and what that means, is an interesting debate. 
 

if you refuse to entertain the issue in your official capacity are you supposed to be allowed to go to dinner in public and not have to face it? What is your privilege as a leader of a community to go into the community and not be faced by the community over the issues you’re ignoring?

 

As I grow older ive come to see the seemingly ever increasing gap between our leaders lives and the lives of the people they’re supposedly responsible grow, and I think it’s a problem and if the leaders won’t address it I think it showing up in their personal lives is not necessarily a bad thing. 
 

It’s a job you opted for and it’s a result of how you’ve handled your job. There’s multiple options for them. To just whine about it does nothing for me anymore

 

(I’m against violence and destruction of property across the board when it comes to protesting, even when I understand the frustration that led to it)

[Larry]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

I used to take a hard stance on the idea of following these people around in their personal lives and protesting

 

ive softened on that over the years as I’ve read arguments about it (mostly here) and seen the lack of movement on the issue

 

i don’t like it. But I think there’s a complex issue going on here and I understand it. 
 

 

Agreed.  I am at least uncomfortable with protesters taking the official's job home.  I can just see too many ways where it goes from protests to threats.  

 

Maybe a law prohibiting protests at people's residences?  

 

I'm not certain that it should be forbidden.  But I'm at least uncomfortable with it.  

 

(But then, isn't "uncomfortable" a necessary element of effective protest?)  

 

3 hours ago, tshile said:

but I think the general issue is more about when white people show up with guns they’re allowed to do whatever the hell the want including storming and occupying government facilities. But when other protestors show up peacefully and stay in public they’re met with batons from police and other things. 

 

And I'll say, that's certainly an element of what I'm pointing out here.  

 

Protesting at somebody's home is at least close to a threat.  

 

So is openly displaying how well armed the protesters are.  

 

And then add in what seems to be a pretty clear pattern of some protesters getting treated differently from other protesters who are being even more threatening?  Oh, and the protesters are of different races?  

[Simmsy]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

I used to take a hard stance on the idea of following these people around in their personal lives and protesting

 

ive softened on that over the years as I’ve read arguments about it (mostly here) and seen the lack of movement on the issue

 

i don’t like it. But I think there’s a complex issue going on here and I understand it. 
 

but I think the general issue is more about when white people show up with guns they’re allowed to do whatever the hell the want including storming and occupying government facilities. But when other protestors show up peacefully and stay in public they’re met with batons from police and other things. 
 

I think the idea of our political leaders being isolated and insulated from the every day life the rest of us live, and how to deal with it, and what it means when they’re afforded the luxury of ignoring it and so it spills into their personal life, and what that means, is an interesting debate. 
 

if you refuse to entertain the issue in your official capacity are you supposed to be allowed to go to dinner in public and not have to face it? What is your privilege as a leader of a community to go into the community and not be faced by the community over the issues you’re ignoring?

 

As I grow older ive come to see the seemingly ever increasing gap between our leaders lives and the lives of the people they’re supposedly responsible grow, and I think it’s a problem and if the leaders won’t address it I think it showing up in their personal lives is not necessarily a bad thing. 
 

It’s a job you opted for and it’s a result of how you’ve handled your job. There’s multiple options for them. To just whine about it does nothing for me anymore

 

(I’m against violence and destruction of property across the board when it comes to protesting, even when I understand the frustration that led to it)

I was going to say something along the lines of this, but you said it better than I could. Thanks.

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

Agreed.  I am at least uncomfortable with protesters taking the official's job home.  I can just see too many ways where it goes from protests to threats.  

 

Maybe a law prohibiting protests at people's residences?  

 

I'm not certain that it should be forbidden.  But I'm at least uncomfortable with it.  

 

(But then, isn't "uncomfortable" a necessary element of effective protest?)  

Agreed. And to add...

 

I don’t think it’s a one size fits all solution. I don’t think simply being a protestor and not getting your desired result, is grounds for following someone around. 
 

I think it’s a case where you can’t find a well defined line. For multiple reasons. 
 

but I also think a community leader has a responsibility to their community and part of determining how you feel about something like this (unless you take one of the absolute positions of its always ok or it’s never ok) is evaluating the exact issue, how the community has handled it to date, how the personal has handled it to date, and what the invasion into the personal life actually is and how that weighs with the rest of the information. 
 

which means it’s a topic prone to hypocrisy and everything that comes along with it. I foresee the debate basically being people who support the protestors think it’s ok, but if it’s a different situation those same people think it’s not ok because they don’t support the protestors cause. 
 

which means it’s a situation where mature and responsible adulting is needed to work through it. 
 

which isn’t something we’re good at these days (if we were ever good at it)

 

I am against threats, destruction of property, and violence. 
 

that aside, where the line is seems murky to me at best, and I’m only willing to have a stance on very specific situations. 
 

Trying to balance what’s fair and appropriate for politicians against how their insulated and isolated nature (compared to “normal life”) is hard. But it’s a real problem. And it shows up in a lot of places. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

43 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I am against threats, destruction of property, and violence. 

I find this part to be a position I’m softening on.  Plenty of examples where peaceful protests are simply not working.

[visionary]

 

[PokerPacker]

On 12/8/2020 at 11:21 PM, China said:

Judge: Seattle police violated court order by using pepper spray, blast balls on protestors

 

A federal judge said the Seattle Police Department (SPD) violated a court order limiting its use of pepper spray, blast balls, and other crowd-control measures.

 

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones has been picking apart SPD’s tactics during Black Lives Matter demonstrations in August and September and said the department was in contempt of court for using pepper spray and blast balls on four occasions.

 

It’s not yet clear what legal consequences SPD could face. Those details could be hammered out during a future hearing.

 

Click on the link for the full article

send them to prison.  they are committing assault in a manner explicitly outside of their mandate.

[PokerPacker]

On 12/9/2020 at 11:23 AM, Larry said:

 

Agreed.  I am at least uncomfortable with protesters taking the official's job home.  I can just see too many ways where it goes from protests to threats.  

 

Maybe a law prohibiting protests at people's residences?  

 

I'm not certain that it should be forbidden.  But I'm at least uncomfortable with it.  

 

(But then, isn't "uncomfortable" a necessary element of effective protest?)  

 

 

And I'll say, that's certainly an element of what I'm pointing out here.  

 

Protesting at somebody's home is at least close to a threat.  

 

So is openly displaying how well armed the protesters are.  

 

And then add in what seems to be a pretty clear pattern of some protesters getting treated differently from other protesters who are being even more threatening?  Oh, and the protesters are of different races?  

A government that does not fear its people is a government that acts with impunity.  Let them feel fear if they are going earn it.  Back in the day, people let their voices be heard by assassination or by revolution.  Perhaps a redressing of grievances isn't such a bad alternative.