Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Or get your brains blown out.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Prestor Jon wrote: It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
Who says it's exclusive black trait? Newsflash: It's universal.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Purple bookshelf, third row, fifth book from the right, Page 153, third paragraph.
Prestor Jon wrote: It may not excuse the riots but that sentiment is very patronizing and racist. Are black people somehow incapable of refraining from burning down stores and rioting every time they get emotional over a social issue? Is there some unwritten social rule that states how many buildings they have to vandalize and destroy in order for their grievances to suddenly be solved with government action? What other pressing social issues can we solve by torching parts of our cities? If it works for police brutality let's keep doing it and fix everything. Perhaps if we weren't readily accepting of actions that support the angry black stereotype it wouldn't be so easy for the underlying problems to be lost in the condemnation of their petulant criminal tantrums.
Who says it's exclusive black trait? Newsflash: It's universal.
No one said that. This thread isn't about riots in general it's about the current riots in Charlotte which are predominately being committed by a specific demographic group in the name of a specific grievance/issue so that is the context for the posts in the thread.
d-usa wrote: Some of the greatest improvements in this country, even the existence of this very country itself, came from violent and illegal uprisings.
People still wrap themselves in the flag of the biggest violent uprising even though it failed.
So what are the improvements we currently need in whose name my friends and I can go loot walmarts and burn them down, hijack trucks and loot them too and vandalize large swathes of downtown and have it be ok? Let's make a list so everyone knows when it's a bad riot and when it's a good riot.
Riot for whatever reason you want and let history judge you.
Only history will judge my riots? Cool beans but when did we move riots out of the jurisdiction of our criminal justice system? If only history can judge me did we get rid of the statute of limitations as well? How much of a city do we have to raze in a riot to get the improvement we want? Do we go on an overall percentage basis or is there a magic number of stores we have to burn down? Does it matter what city we riot in? Is there a city size requirement? Is it all written down somewhere?
Purple bookshelf, third row, fifth book from the right, Page 153, third paragraph.
Which purple bookcase? Are you counting rows from the top or the bottom?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 16:40:18
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Because sitting around with your thumbs up your rear has clearly done a lot of good for African Americans. We really need a sarcasm moticon on dakka.
The problem of course is, most of us could care less if there is a riot. It doesn't harm us, makes the rioters look bad, and is great TV.
Well, except that now we are talking about it and before we weren't. In that sense, I guess it worked?
How has it worked again? One person is dead so far. Stores have been looted-are they going to come back? Are hearts softened now that they've seen people terrorized on the freeway?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Because sitting around with your thumbs up your rear has clearly done a lot of good for African Americans. We really need a sarcasm moticon on dakka.
The problem of course is, most of us could care less if there is a riot. It doesn't harm us, makes the rioters look bad, and is great TV.
Well, except that now we are talking about it and before we weren't. In that sense, I guess it worked?
In the same sense that a terrorist bombing woks, I suppose. Again, the point isn't that there may be significant issues that need discussion but whether we, as a society, want to encourage this method for the subject.
Some of the arguments advanced, that whites are allowed to do it, that people upset about this don't want any inconvenient speech, are pure deflection. No one is arguing that some violent rioting and looting is okay, depending on race. And this incident is completely separate from peaceful protests (even contentious ones).
One common element in these riots is that they are flaring in areas where relations between a predominately minority, low income community and law enforcement is strained. The effect is that these same communities suffer further. Now, it is worthwhile to understand how it got to this point and see how these situations may be addressed to encourage greater cooperation and help these communities, but justifying the actions of a violent, destructive element hardly seems productive.
Trying to draw parallels to the American revolution only works if you almost completely throw out the history leading up to it and, in that sense, make it comparable with just about every other conflict ever.
Civil Rights gets closer, sort of, but still ignores that the fight was about codified discrimination not just a perception of being treated unfairly, a pretty major difference since the laws can be readily identified as targets.
Only liberals can get trigger warnings? That's the kind of oppressive second class citizen treatment that leads to riots.
You should peacefully protest instead. Don't expect any support for your plight if you throw a petty tantrum over your lack of trigger warnings.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Only liberals can get trigger warnings? That's the kind of oppressive second class citizen treatment that leads to riots.
You should peacefully protest instead. Don't expect any support for your plight if you throw a petty tantrum over your lack of trigger warnings.
But if I don't throw a tantrum and burn down some stores and threaten to do it again if I don't get my way I'll never get people to take the issue seriously and enact meaningful change. What if I only burn down small stores or only stores that are owned by people of the same ethnicity as those whom I fee oppressed by would that be more palatable?
Only liberals can get trigger warnings? That's the kind of oppressive second class citizen treatment that leads to riots.
You should peacefully protest instead. Don't expect any support for your plight if you throw a petty tantrum over your lack of trigger warnings.
But if I don't throw a tantrum and burn down some stores and threaten to do it again if I don't get my way I'll never get people to take the issue seriously and enact meaningful change. What if I only burn down small stores or only stores that are owned by people of the same ethnicity as those whom I fee oppressed by would that be more palatable?
Less palatable. You and your angry mob should spontaneously walk across town to the trigger-warning-rich areas and burn and loot there instead.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Alright, so one of the whole BLM movement's driving principles is that black people/men are shot disproportionately [by [white] police] and for little/no provocation.
In this particular situation:
An armed black man did not respond to police demands and as a result was shot and killed by multiracial police officers.
There are complications for this story, involving a family member of the victim who has claimed that he was quietly reading a book, versus a police report that says he jumped out of a car with a gun. So far, however, the correct/accepted narrative still seems to be black cop shot armed black man.
So in response to black cop shooting armed black man, the correct response or acceptable response is to have multiple nights of riots including looting of retail stores and unrelated property damage, hurt police officers.
In my opinion, it's amazing that more police officers aren't shooting more rioters.
I think it's to the point that they feel they have nothing left to lose. Peaceful protests haven't done anything. Riots at least get people talking about it.
Especially since there is still systemetic and widespread racism. It's just hidden behind plausible deniability. Black candidates for jobs (especially if they have a black sounding name) are less likely to get a call back. Black defendants are more likely to be found guilty and on average receive a much harsher penalty than whites do.
Part is socieo-economic, but the racism in the hiring department doesn't help that. Plus when you hear about police departments preying on inhabitants for money...it's always the poor areas you hear about them doing it to.
sourclams wrote: Alright, so one of the whole BLM movement's driving principles is that black people/men are shot disproportionately [by [white] police] and for little/no provocation.
In this particular situation:
An armed black man did not respond to police demands and as a result was shot and killed by multiracial police officers.
There are complications for this story, involving a family member of the victim who has claimed that he was quietly reading a book, versus a police report that says he jumped out of a car with a gun. So far, however, the correct/accepted narrative still seems to be black cop shot armed black man.
So in response to black cop shooting armed black man, the correct response or acceptable response is to have multiple nights of riots including looting of retail stores and unrelated property damage, hurt police officers.
In my opinion, it's amazing that more police officers aren't shooting more rioters.
Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Sublime wrote:'Cause everybody in the hood has had it up to here
It's getting harder, and harder, and harder each and every year
Some kids went in a store with their mother
I saw her when she came out she was gettin' some Pampers
They said it was for the black man
They said it was for the Mexican
And not for the white man
But if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King
In this fethed-up situation and these fethed-up police
It's about comin' up and stayin' on top
And screamin' 1-8-7 on a mother fuckin' cop
It's not in the paper, it's on the wall
I was a kid when this song was new, and I'm almost old now.
I don't condone the riots, but I'm not all surprised or indignant about them.
Plus, we riot when our hockey teams lose, and sometimes even when they win. Mob mentality is a hell of a thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 18:05:04
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Did you ever notice they always say the bad apples are not the locals? The hotels/ motels must make a killing when these riots happen. Because I never see any tents or anything during the day.
Now that I think about it the must bring a huge ammount of money to the community with them. They would need to buy food from grocrie/ resturants ect. Unless they brought food with them but if that was the case they would have to know how long they would stay outraged for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 19:25:25
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
OgreChubbs wrote: Did you ever notice they always say the bad apples are not the locals? The hotels/ motels must make a killing when these riots happen. Because I never see any tents or anything during the day.
Did you think it was just a coincidence that hotels rarely burn down in riots?
I never claimed that anyone in this thread didn't know that rioting was criminal behavior and bad for society and deflecting to that straw man isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Being purposefully obtuse isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Throwing childish self destructive temper tantrums isn't the way to convince people to take you seriously or to enact governmental reforms.
The Arab Spring wasn't that long ago was it?
If you think the Civil Rights Act was some sort of Danegeld that was extorted from the federal government via violent urban rampages you're wrong.
Someone doesn't remember the Long Hot Summer of 1967, not that it gets much attention in history books.
Of course working to build a unified political movement,
Tried that. People treat it like a circus show. On this very board people treat it like a circus show.
It's only depressing if you buy into the inane concept that we should feel some sort of collective guilt over actions done by other people who are now long dead.
There you go being obtuse again, and oh look shoving words into peoples mouths too! Now all you have to do is call me a bleeding heart liberal and you win the trifecta!
So what exactly *do* these rioters want?
Change. What kind of change? They probably don't really know. These things happen because of a deeper sense of frustration, not because of a concise strategy. Charlotte isn't really a pinnacle of great police relations. Much like Ferguson, there's a lot of very heavy handed police tactics and a lot of discontent with the state of things in the black communities. The shooting is as an earlier poster tried to explain just a flash point.
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Maybe they shouldn't vote for the same politicians in the same party year after year and expect change?
...this right here.
One of the most useful things about a book I mentioned earlier (The New Jim Crow) is the way it pointedly criticizes Republican politicians for beginning the massive upswing in incarceration of young black men. It also points a very angry finger at groups like the National Black Caucus and the NAACP, for prioritizing social policies like Affirmative Action that help very few members of Black Communities, and becoming a watchdog for a sort of Black social elite within Black communities that doesn't do enough to help the communities at large.
Yes. The current political apparatus of the US isn't doing anything, but their options are pretty much vote for the groups that at least pay them lip service, or vote for the groups that demonize them and run on veiled racism. It's crappy choice but the choice they're going to make is rather obvious.
And also, advocate for the changes you want by engaging the process.
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
CptJake wrote:Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
This. The color of officers does matter in certain ways, but the more significant matter is that law enforcement is seen as "white" regardless of the color of any specific officer. The entire system is what stands accused for BLM and African American communities, which is why its so much easier to go from outrage over a specific incident to general rioting over the state of things.
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
Don't be ridiculous.
But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?
It doesn't. Which is the whole point.
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wrooooooong"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 19:45:22
I never claimed that anyone in this thread didn't know that rioting was criminal behavior and bad for society and deflecting to that straw man isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Being purposefully obtuse isn't helpful for civil discourse.
Throwing childish self destructive temper tantrums isn't the way to convince people to take you seriously or to enact governmental reforms.
The Arab Spring wasn't that long ago was it?
If you think the Civil Rights Act was some sort of Danegeld that was extorted from the federal government via violent urban rampages you're wrong.
Someone doesn't remember the Long Hot Summer of 1967, not that it gets much attention in history books.
Of course working to build a unified political movement,
Tried that. People treat it like a circus show. On this very board people treat it like a circus show.
It's only depressing if you buy into the inane concept that we should feel some sort of collective guilt over actions done by other people who are now long dead.
There you go being obtuse again, and oh look shoving words into peoples mouths too! Now all you have to do is call me a bleeding heart liberal and you win the trifecta!
So what exactly *do* these rioters want?
Change. What kind of change? They probably don't really know. These things happen because of a deeper sense of frustration, not because of a concise strategy. Charlotte isn't really a pinnacle of great police relations. Much like Ferguson, there's a lot of very heavy handed police tactics and a lot of discontent with the state of things in the black communities. The shooting is as an earlier poster tried to explain just a flash point.
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Maybe they shouldn't vote for the same politicians in the same party year after year and expect change?
...this right here.
One of the most useful things about a book I mentioned earlier (The New Jim Crow) is the way it pointedly criticizes Republican politicians for beginning the massive upswing in incarceration of young black men. It also points a very angry finger at groups like the National Black Caucus and the NAACP, for prioritizing social policies like Affirmative Action that help very few members of Black Communities, and becoming a watchdog for a sort of Black social elite within Black communities that doesn't do enough to help the communities at large.
Yes. The current political apparatus of the US isn't doing anything, but their options are pretty much vote for the groups that at least pay them lip service, or vote for the groups that demonize them and run on veiled racism. It's crappy choice but the choice they're going to make is rather obvious.
And also, advocate for the changes you want by engaging the process.
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
CptJake wrote:Highlighted in orange is the problem with your whole post. BLM never really cared about the color of the cop, instead, they believe black people are treated poorly (and disproportionately shot) by cops. The color of the cop is not the issue. The perception cops treat black people poorly is.
This. The color of officers does matter in certain ways, but the more significant matter is that law enforcement is seen as "white" regardless of the color of any specific officer. The entire system is what stands accused for BLM and African American communities, which is why its so much easier to go from outrage over a specific incident to general rioting over the state of things.
It's almost like it's not about the protests at all, and more about a message people don't want to hear.
Don't be ridiculous.
But we run into that perception issue there. If one believes that the law is against them, or has shown little sympathy to what happens to them, why would it matter to a protestor?
It doesn't. Which is the whole point.
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wroooong"
The Long Hot Summer of 1967 came 3 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed which is primarily why you don't find a lot of people claiming that it was instrumental in getting segregation abolished. The Arab Spring absolutely included organized and unified political parties/movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Has the political process really failed the protestors? In what recent election cycle or campaign has police brutality or police discrimination been brought up as an important issue? What legislative efforts in what governmental bodies have been vetoed or voted down that would have addressed these problems if passed? If such legislation hasn't been put forth why are riots more acceptable and effective than getting such legislation submitted? You can spin things however you want but the fact remains that committing violent crime isn't going to help sway public opinion or push politicians to advance real solutions to social problems because such actions give everyone free reign to rightly condemn such criminal behavior and set aside the core issues by focusing on the immediate problem of restoring order by jailing protestors and having the public applaud the action because it saved the city from burning down. Violence and intimidation won't beget a better more tolerate and equitable society, it will sow fear and result in police crackdowns and a message lost in the noise.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Long Hot Summer of 1967 came 3 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed which is primarily why you don't find a lot of people claiming that it was instrumental in getting segregation abolished.
Yes. 3 years after. Passing a piece of paper into law that says "everyone is equal to everyone and you have to treat them the same" isn't going to suddenly make everyone equal overnight. The question of civil rights did not end in 1964, otherwise we would still have national debates about it.
Has the political process really failed the protestors?
It's almost like we could have been talking about that instead of debating the rightness or wrongness of rioting. 5 pages and we've finally gotten back to what was being discussed within the first five posts of page 1!
In what recent election cycle or campaign has police brutality or police discrimination been brought up as an important issue?
I don't think it has been. Even in the current election, it's been rather peripheral. Hillary Clinton's website has a few sections of its Issues subheader that talk about it; This one for example talking about Racial Justice reforms but on the campaign trail she certainly hasn't said much about it, and well I don't think any of us take presidential nominees at their website when they say something is very important to them. A lot of her bullet points actually strike me as very unsubstantial honestly. It's easy to say "lets break the Achievement Gap," but how exactly are you going to do that? She has a rather extensive "Economic Revitalization Plan" but it too seems to treat race inequality as peripheral to me.
What legislative efforts in what governmental bodies have been vetoed or voted down that would have addressed these problems if passed?
Almost none.
If such legislation hasn't been put forth why are riots more acceptable and effective than getting such legislation submitted?
Why would we assume that if the past (almost) 60 years have see almost no meaningful reforms come out of government would engender any faith in the process? Especially when the reforms passed in that time have effected black communities have largely had negative repercussions and disproportionate effects?
I think this is the wrong question. It's plainly obvious why their faith in the power of submitted legislation is wanting.
You can spin things however you want but the fact remains that committing violent crime isn't going to help sway public opinion or push politicians to advance real solutions
Except that it does, because when people riot you either have to let them riot (which looks bad), or you have to put the riot down (which also looks bad). Rioting is one of the worst outcomes of continual social neglect precisely because once things have gotten to the point of rioting you're in a catch-22. Rioting is obviously bad, but dealing with the rioting without dealing with its underlying causes almost universally plays out negatively. Especially when the riot is about race issues. That's why response to the Ferguson riots was so soft. There's more than enough reason to sympathize with angry black Americans, and violently shutting them down opens a huge can of worms that no politician seems to want to deal with.
Violence and intimidation won't beget a better more tolerate and equitable society,
No but obviously it begets rioting, which is why responding to rioting with more violence and intimidation one might expect there to be even more rioting.
Rioting isn't fun. Rioting is angry. Very angry. We've arguably ignored and band aid patched that anger since Reconstruction failed to fully resolve the end of Slavery, fooling ourselves into thinking "it's fixed now" because we manage to create a false sense of optimism about the prospects of the future with each band aid. But the band aid dries up and falls off eventually, and when that happens people start looking around and see that things haven't changed as much as they thought it had. We're in that moment right now. The band aid of the Civil Rights era is falling off, and black communities are realizing they're still widely subjected to injustice and social rot (assuming they ever really forgot). That's nearly 160 years of anger. That's not going to go away by taking a community that already feels subject to violence and intimidation, and subjecting it to an even heavier hand?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 20:58:34
The process is part of the problem for them. Law enforcement disproportionately affects black communities. And not just police shootings as some might claim. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and despite being 13% of the American population, blacks make up 40% of the prison population, most of them imprisoned for non-violent offenses, and destined to become third class citizens even after they leave prison. The problem is so pervasive that 1/3 of all black men will spend some years in prison in their lifetime. Everyone in black communities across the country knows people who've been sent to jail. They have family and friends who've been there.
You left out that those black disproportionately commits the crime as well.
Having said that, I've long argued that we need massive Justice & Incarceration reforms.
There are obvious bias against blacks when they're sentanced.
Mandatory sentencing need to "not be mandatory". (I realize that this may not be popular as some scum may skate lightly).
The state-provided defense attorney system is a joke.
For-profit incarceration really needs to be declared illegal (ping me if you're interested why I think it's illegal).
And furthermore, jail should only be used for dangerous & violent criminals. (expand the ankle monitoring system for non-violent offenders).
So, yes, I believe it *is* acknowledged that there are problems with these institutions.
But rioting and violence will NOT garner any sympathy.
The BLM and like movements are fething up big time.
Question though... is Charlotte and it surrounding areas "set up" like the st. Louis townships?
I don't know how St. Louis is set up. Charlotte sits right in the middle of Mecklenburg County, and is a fairly neat ring there. Surrounding townships though mostly have their own police departments. The CMPD (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department) has a few areas outside the city metro area they patrol, but they're not very populated. There's kind of a rural ring between Charlotte and the other townships around it.
Interesting.
Here's where I'm coming from... look at this map of St. Louis:
Spoiler:
See all the podunk townships all over the place?
Look for Ferguson and it's surrounding towns.
EACH one of those township has it's own municipal government / courts / police departments.
There's a high concentration of blacks living in those towns.
If these municipal government's budget relies on ticket infractions and such... guess who's the target?
To me, in Ferguson and surrounding areas, THAT's the major culprit of the tensions between residence and their local government.
FYI: here's the "judgemental non-PC" view of the map:
Spoiler:
But personally I think we should all sit down, hold hands and sing together; "Oh rioting is wrooooooong"
But Lordy... that doesn't solve anything!?!
Unless it's over pork steaks & beer... can solve the world's problems with those.
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Prosecutors in Tulsa, Oklahoma, have filed first-degree manslaughter charges against the white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man on a city street.
District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler filed the charges Thursday against officer Betty Shelby, who shot and killed 40-year-old Terence Crutcher on Sept. 16. Dashcam and aerial footage of the shooting and its aftermath showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby with his arms in the air.
The footage does not offer a clear view of when Shelby fired the single shot that killed Crutcher. Her attorney has said Crutcher was not following police commands and that Shelby opened fire when the man began to reach into his SUV window.
Tulsa police say Crutcher did not have a gun on him or in his vehicle.
3000
4000