Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
MontyPython

Even The "Peaceful Protesters" Are Wrong This Time

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

mjperry51

What they meant to say was "No vengance, no peace". . . .

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Pagan
35 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

So the "no justice" claim is AT BEST ridiculously premature. What's more, in addition to the moronic "no justice no peace" BS, they're ALSO including that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" crap, which is nothing more than a LONG-debunked lie. It's based on the LIE that Michael Brown was "unjustly" shot and killed while he had his hands up and was trying to surrender peacefully. That is, of course, pure bullsh*t.

Ferguson-MO-Michael-Brown-Darren-Wilson-

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad_Apple

Totally agree Monty

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax

Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, part of the basis for the protest is a demand for justice. And, as of right now, these officers are being held accountable. (Whether the charges will ultimately stick is another issue.)

Another part, however, is a call to recognize that we cannot keep doing this. No, we don't want law enforcement officers to escape accountability. But we also want our law enforcement officers to receive better guidance and training and be better equipped to effect arrests so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. (And again. And again.)

And yet another part is a call to recognize that we want to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and to do away with a mentality that leads some (SOME) LEO's to consider it okay to abuse the authority with which we're entrusting them. 

I have family members who've marched this time around. I have family members in law enforcement. I have family members who are black. What you're seeing in the peaceful protests (not the riots, not the looting, not the utter BS that's gone down after dark) is people in MANY communities standing up, speaking out, and doing exactly what we want a free citizenry to do. 

Added bonus: Their gatherings are putting the lie to any justification for further lockdowns. 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
2 minutes ago, Jax said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, part of the basis for the protest is a demand for justice. And, as of right now, these officers are being held accountable. (Whether the charges will ultimately stick is another issue.)

Another part, however, is a call to recognize that we cannot keep doing this. No, we don't want law enforcement officers to escape accountability. But we also want our law enforcement officers to receive better guidance and training and be better equipped to effect arrests so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. (And again. And again.)

And yet another part is a call to recognize that we want to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and to do away with a mentality that leads some (SOME) LEO's to consider it okay to abuse the authority with which we're entrusting them. 

I have family members who've marched this time around. I have family members in law enforcement. I have family members who are black. What you're seeing in the peaceful protests (not the riots, not the looting, not the utter BS that's gone down after dark) is people in MANY communities standing up, speaking out, and doing exactly what we want a free citizenry to do. 

Added bonus: Their gatherings are putting the lie to any justification for further lockdowns. 

 

But it's a myth that this sort of thing happens "again and again and again". Yes, there are such incidents, but the claim that it represents an "inherent" level of "racism" in police forces which needs to be "corrected" is just plain untrue. You must be aware of the statistics proving that while blacks make up only about 12% of the American population, they commit at least three or four times that percentage of the violent crime in America. So when they gripe that they get arrested/jailed/killed "more" than everybody else, it's directly because they commit more crimes than everybody else. It's NOT because of "racism" or "bigotry" or even "poor training" on the part of the police.

As I said, yes there are incidents like this one, and they are tragic. But it's simply a myth that they represent anything generally amiss among police. As long as the specific rogue cop is charged, tried, and jailed, AS IS BEING DONE this time, there's no reason for protesting. Not even "peaceful" protesting.

Don't misunderstand my point: I'm not suggesting they "don't have the right" to protest peacefully. Of course they do. Hell, if they wanna protest the color of somebody's socks they obviously have the right, provided they do it peacefully. My point isn't about their "right" to protest, it's about the fact that this time they have no reason to protest.

B) 

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
1 minute ago, MontyPython said:

But it's a myth that this sort of thing happens "again and again and again". Yes, there are such incidents, but the claim that it represents an "inherent" level of "racism" in police forces which needs to be "corrected" is just plain untrue. You must be aware of the statistics proving that while blacks make up only about 12% of the American population, they commit at least three or four times that percentage of the violent crime in America. So when they gripe that they get arrested/jailed/killed "more" than everybody else, it's directly because they commit more crimes than everybody else. It's NOT because of "racism" or "bigotry" or even "poor training" on the part of the police.

As I said, yes there are incidents like this one, and they are tragic. But it's simply a myth that they represent anything generally amiss among police. As long as the specific rogue cop is charged, tried, and jailed, AS IS BEING DONE this time, there's no reason for protesting. Not even "peaceful" protesting.

Don't misunderstand my point: I'm not suggesting they "don't have the right" to protest peacefully. Of course they do. Hell, if they wanna protest the color of somebody's socks they obviously have the right, provided they do it peacefully. My point isn't about their "right" to protest, it's about the fact that this time they have no reason to protest.

B) 

 

I wasn't speaking of systemic racism. Though, obviously, that's part of the larger discussion. 

I was speaking of policing tactics resulting in unjustifiable deaths (or injuries). That can (and does) happen to people of all colors. 

And we can noodle on the stats 'til the cows come home. But neither of us would be being truthful if we said we couldn't -- off the top of our heads -- name several high-profile instances of alleged police brutality in the past few years. Some of those don't wind up being what they're alleged to be. That's true. But some of those do. Michael Brown shouldn't have died but his death WAS justifiable under the circumstances. (And trust me, I didn't just watch Ferguson from afar. I was up close and personal and have the documentary to prove it.) Eric Garner shouldn't have died. George Floyd shouldn't have died. And anyone interested in GOOD policing has to recognize we don't want these sorts of incidents to keep happening.

Patting thousands of people on the head and telling them, "Look, your passion is misplaced. This wasn't REALLY a race thing. Wait for the right/perfect moment to speak your peace," isn't going to fly. We don't get to pick and choose what's going to inspire the passion in others. Just as they don't get to pick and choose what inspires ours. There were many who scoffed at protests over the lockdowns just weeks ago. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
22 minutes ago, Jax said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, part of the basis for the protest is a demand for justice. And, as of right now, these officers are being held accountable. (Whether the charges will ultimately stick is another issue.)

Another part, however, is a call to recognize that we cannot keep doing this. No, we don't want law enforcement officers to escape accountability. But we also want our law enforcement officers to receive better guidance and training and be better equipped to effect arrests so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. (And again. And again.)

And yet another part is a call to recognize that we want to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and to do away with a mentality that leads some (SOME) LEO's to consider it okay to abuse the authority with which we're entrusting them. 

I have family members who've marched this time around. I have family members in law enforcement. I have family members who are black. What you're seeing in the peaceful protests (not the riots, not the looting, not the utter BS that's gone down after dark) is people in MANY communities standing up, speaking out, and doing exactly what we want a free citizenry to do. 

Added bonus: Their gatherings are putting the lie to any justification for further lockdowns. 

 

 

1 minute ago, MontyPython said:

But it's a myth that this sort of thing happens "again and again and again". Yes, there are such incidents, but the claim that it represents an "inherent" level of "racism" in police forces which needs to be "corrected" is just plain untrue. You must be aware of the statistics proving that while blacks make up only about 12% of the American population, they commit at least three or four times that percentage of the violent crime in America. So when they gripe that they get arrested/jailed/killed "more" than everybody else, it's directly because they commit more crimes than everybody else. It's NOT because of "racism" or "bigotry" or even "poor training" on the part of the police.

As I said, yes there are incidents like this one, and they are tragic. But it's simply a myth that they represent anything generally amiss among police. As long as the specific rogue cop is charged, tried, and jailed, AS IS BEING DONE this time, there's no reason for protesting. Not even "peaceful" protesting.

Don't misunderstand my point: I'm not suggesting they "don't have the right" to protest peacefully. Of course they do. Hell, if they wanna protest the color of somebody's socks they obviously have the right, provided they do it peacefully. My point isn't about their "right" to protest, it's about the fact that this time they have no reason to protest.

B) 

 

Seems to me there's a granularity issue, and a clarity issue.

Words have meanings. Actions (protests) have stated meanings. When the words participants use to define their actions fail to align with the accepted meanings there is confusion. Which is the accurate definition of the action - how the participants describe it or what the action minus the stated objective represents?

Justice has a definition -- by it's very nature it is a process, with clearly defined paths. If we are truly a nation of laws that process must be followed - even for despicable actors like the police in this matter. For protestors to demand justice NOW makes the process irrelevant, meaning they don't want justice. They want revenge -- NOW. Justice takes time -- sometimes an incredible amount of time, but the process demands it.

The police officers who were part of this horrific event clearly SHOULD be found guilty in a court of law The preponderance of evidence seems to make that inevitable.

Monty's points about the criminal statistics need to be factored into any rational discussion of the issue. I remember the protest marches of Dr. King (yes i"m that old)- They never looked like the majority of the early contemporary protests.

Serious people seek to define the problem and look for viable answers. There's precious little of that in this event. I have NEVER seen a good definition of "systemic racism". The term "white privilege" IMO is a dialogue stopper - it's used to shut down debate. As long as these tools are used by one side there can be no real progress. Capitulation maybe -- that's not progress. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 minute ago, Jax said:

I wasn't speaking of systemic racism. Though, obviously, that's part of the larger discussion. 

I was speaking of policing tactics resulting in unjustifiable deaths (or injuries). That can (and does) happen to people of all colors. 

And we can noodle on the stats 'til the cows come home. But neither of us would be being truthful if we said we couldn't -- off the top of our heads -- name several high-profile instances of alleged police brutality in the past few years. Some of those don't wind up being what they're alleged to be. That's true. But some of those do. Michael Brown shouldn't have died but his death WAS justifiable under the circumstances. (And trust me, I didn't just watch Ferguson from afar. I was up close and personal and have the documentary to prove it.) Eric Garner shouldn't have died. George Floyd shouldn't have died. And anyone interested in GOOD policing has to recognize we don't want these sorts of incidents to keep happening.

Patting thousands of people on the head and telling them, "Look, your passion is misplaced. This wasn't REALLY a race thing. Wait for the right/perfect moment to speak your peace," isn't going to fly. We don't get to pick and choose what's going to inspire the passion in others. Just as they don't get to pick and choose what inspires ours. There were many who scoffed at protests over the lockdowns just weeks ago. 

 

 

Yes, it does indeed happen to people of all colors. That was part of my point, if I didn't make that clear.

And again, yes certain rogue cops use bad "tactics" (like Chauvin in this case), but they're NOT "policing tactics". It's one bad cop doing a bad thing. Something that isn't standard police policy. It isn't "approved" on police forces. Protesting against "police" in general, or "police brutality" or "police violence" or whatever only makes sense when the cop gets away with a brutal crime like this. This time that simply isn't the case.

And yes, we can all think of "high profile" cases. And that's another point: They seem to only become "high profile" in the first place when it's a black citizen and a white cop. I don't recall any protests (or riots) over any of the countless incidents involving white citizens, OR black cops OR black-on-black crimes or ANY other scenario. It's apparently only an outrage when it's a white cop and a black perp. That clearly demonstrates racism on the part of the "protesters", not the police.

But I do agree with you that telling the protesters they have no logical reason to protest ain't gonna fly. They're all worked up beyond any reason or objectivity.

B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
3 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

 

Seems to me there's a granularity issue, and a clarity issue.

Words have meanings. Actions (protests) have stated meanings. When the words participants use to define their actions fail to align with the accepted meanings there is confusion. Which is the accurate definition of the action - how the participants describe it or what the action minus the stated objective represents?

Justice has a definition -- by it's very nature it is a process, with clearly defined paths. If we are truly a nation of laws that process must be followed - even for despicable actors like the police in this matter. For protestors to demand justice NOW makes the process irrelevant, meaning they don't want justice. They want revenge -- NOW. Justice takes time -- sometimes an incredible amount of time, but the process demands it.

The police officers who were part of this horrific event clearly SHOULD be found guilty in a court of law The preponderance of evidence seems to make that inevitable.

Monty's points about the criminal statistics need to be factored into any rational discussion of the issue. I remember the protest marches of Dr. King (yes i"m that old)- They never looked like the majority of the early contemporary protests.

Serious people seek to define the problem and look for viable answers. There's precious little of that in this event. I have NEVER seen a good definition of "systemic racism". The term "white privilege" IMO is a dialogue stopper - it's used to shut down debate. As long as these tools are used by one side there can be no real progress. Capitulation maybe -- that's not progress. . .

I'm all for rational discussion. (I hope you're not implying that my point isn't rational.) 

I agree that certain terms have the effect of shutting down dialogue. 

The question becomes how invested both/all parties are in actually engaging in that dialogue versus scoring points. For, just as using certain buzzwords is likely to shut others down and therefore counterproductive, drawing lines around words and asserting "you say this and I'm done listening" also is. 

I'm working on a piece on this right now. We get awfully invested and entrenched in our positions and utterly unwilling to cede a milimeter of ground lest we wind up "losing." Either we need to loosen our grip a bit, or we're going to remain endlessly stuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Yes, it does indeed happen to people of all colors. That was part of my point, if I didn't make that clear.

And again, yes certain rogue cops use bad "tactics" (like Chauvin in this case), but they're NOT "policing tactics". It's one bad cop doing a bad thing. Something that isn't standard police policy. It isn't "approved" on police forces. Protesting against "police" in general, or "police brutality" or "police violence" or whatever only makes sense when the cop gets away with a brutal crime like this. This time that simply isn't the case.

And yes, we can all think of "high profile" cases. And that's another point: They seem to only become "high profile" in the first place when it's a black citizen and a white cop. I don't recall any protests (or riots) over any of the countless incidents involving white citizens, OR black cops OR black-on-black crimes or ANY other scenario. It's apparently only an outrage when it's a white cop and a black perp. That clearly demonstrates racism on the part of the "protesters", not the police.

But I do agree with you that telling the protesters they have no logical reason to protest ain't gonna fly. They're all worked up beyond any reason or objectivity.

B)

 

Okay. A tactic employed by a police officer. That's what I meant by the term. Wasn't qualifying it as an approved or disapproved tactic. Or standard policy. (And, btw, I've seen conflicting information re: whether the tactic employed by Chauvin here was approved or disapproved.)

The fact that the protests typically come when the perpetrator is black (there have been several where the cop was a minority, as well) derives from the perception that there is an inequity in the way minorities are treated by law enforcement. Again, you can trot out stats that say otherwise until you're blue in the face. But if that's your immediate reaction, you're going to get tuned out just as quickly as MJ notes our inclination is to tune out when we hear "white privilege."

And, sorry, Monty, but you're assuming a LOT about protesters and lumping them all into one convenient batch.   

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Any conclusions about groups of people which are based on arrest statistics are fundamentally flawed.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
8 minutes ago, Jax said:

I'm all for rational discussion. (I hope you're not implying that my point isn't rational.) 

I agree that certain terms have the effect of shutting down dialogue. 

The question becomes how invested both/all parties are in actually engaging in that dialogue versus scoring points. For, just as using certain buzzwords is likely to shut others down and therefore counterproductive, drawing lines around words and asserting "you say this and I'm done listening" also is. 

I'm working on a piece on this right now. We get awfully invested and entrenched in our positions and utterly unwilling to cede a milimeter of ground lest we wind up "losing." Either we need to loosen our grip a bit, or we're going to remain endlessly stuck. 

I've never felt you were being irrational 😉 

The operative phrase in your reply is "both/all parties". I'm open to rational dialogue, and an airing of grievances, as long as other parties are open to the same. I will not blindly accept responsibility for anything I didn't personally do.

Example: When the topic of American slavery gets thrown in the mix as a justification for someones angst, that's a non-starter. I have ancestors going back to the Colonies who were all Northeastern (New York to be exact). I had no ancestors who ever owned slaves. When the topic of reparations arises I'm out. Black Americans resent the untrue global criminal characterizations of their race; they should understand the inequity of "national guilt". Don't buy it, and I won't. I can understand it without accepting it.

"both/all parties" have their absolutes. I fell no need to accept responsibility (financial or otherwise) for something with which I was never directly involved.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
2 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

I've never felt you were being irrational 😉 

The operative phrase in your reply is "both/all parties". I'm open to rational dialogue, and an airing of grievances, as long as other parties are open to the same. I will not blindly accept responsibility for anything I didn't personally do.

Example: When the topic of American slavery gets thrown in the mix as a justification for someones angst, that's a non-starter. I have ancestors going back to the Colonies who were all Northeastern (New York to be exact). I had no ancestors who ever owned slaves. When the topic of reparations arises I'm out. Black Americans resent the untrue global criminal characterizations of their race; they should understand the inequity of "national guilt". Don't buy it, and I won't. I can understand it without accepting it.

"both/all parties" have their absolutes. I fell no need to accept responsibility (financial or otherwise) for something with which I was never directly involved.

Yes. The entire endeavor is fruitless if only one party is willing to listen/bend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
5 minutes ago, Jax said:

The entire endeavor is fruitless if only one party is willing to listen/bend. 

A strong argument for police organizations actually holding their members accountable for failing in their duties to protect and serve the communities in which they work.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach
53 minutes ago, Jax said:

I wasn't speaking of systemic racism. Though, obviously, that's part of the larger discussion. 

I was speaking of policing tactics resulting in unjustifiable deaths (or injuries). That can (and does) happen to people of all colors. 

And we can noodle on the stats 'til the cows come home. But neither of us would be being truthful if we said we couldn't -- off the top of our heads -- name several high-profile instances of alleged police brutality in the past few years. Some of those don't wind up being what they're alleged to be. That's true. But some of those do. Michael Brown shouldn't have died but his death WAS justifiable under the circumstances. (And trust me, I didn't just watch Ferguson from afar. I was up close and personal and have the documentary to prove it.) Eric Garner shouldn't have died. George Floyd shouldn't have died. And anyone interested in GOOD policing has to recognize we don't want these sorts of incidents to keep happening.

Patting thousands of people on the head and telling them, "Look, your passion is misplaced. This wasn't REALLY a race thing. Wait for the right/perfect moment to speak your peace," isn't going to fly. We don't get to pick and choose what's going to inspire the passion in others. Just as they don't get to pick and choose what inspires ours. There were many who scoffed at protests over the lockdowns just weeks ago. 

 

 

Save your sermon for those who elect incompetent and corrupt politicians in democrat/socialist cities across the nation. Officials who then fail to govern effectively. We have been placed at the mercy of the least rational and those who seize the opportunity for political gain. 

The onslaught on Drew Breese  is a prime example. 

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach
14 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

A strong argument for police organizations actually holding their members accountable for failing in their duties to protect and serve the communities in which they work.

Too bad the politicians in democrat/socialist bastions don't share your concern,. They are the ones who caused the chaos we now face.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Jax said:

Okay. A tactic employed by a police officer. That's what I meant by the term. Wasn't qualifying it as an approved or disapproved tactic. Or standard policy. (And, btw, I've seen conflicting information re: whether the tactic employed by Chauvin here was approved or disapproved.)

The fact that the protests typically come when the perpetrator is black (there have been several where the cop was a minority, as well) derives from the perception that there is an inequity in the way minorities are treated by law enforcement. Again, you can trot out stats that say otherwise until you're blue in the face. But if that's your immediate reaction, you're going to get tuned out just as quickly as MJ notes our inclination is to tune out when we hear "white privilege."

And, sorry, Monty, but you're assuming a LOT about protesters and lumping them all into one convenient batch.   

"The fact that the protests typically come when the perpetrator is black (there have been several where the cop was a minority, as well) derives from the perception that there is an inequity in the way minorities are treated by law enforcement"

Yes, I agree, that's the perception. And it's a false perception. And yes, the stats prove it. And yes, I realize people who are bound & determined to ignore the facts/stats and continue to "believe" the falsehood will tune out anybody who presents those facts/stats. Doesn't matter, I'll continue as always to present the facts. If they tune me out that's on them, not me.

But I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm "lumping" all the protesters "into one convenient batch". I realize there are some who are just thugs who wanna loot and smash stuff. There are others who are basically good, honest people who mean well, but have fallen for the long-disproven myth about "unfair" treatment of minorities at the hands of law enforcement. There are still others who don't really care if it's a myth, they just wanna be one of the "cool kids" who are "where the action is", maybe even get laid by a hippie chick. Others who are there to deliberately incite violence (Antifa-types.) Still others who match none of these descriptions. My point isn't that they're "all bad people"; Just that whatever their reason for protest, even if perfectly valid under other circumstances, it's misplaced this specific time. And the trouble that creates is that next time there IS a valid reason, it's just that much less likely to be accepted as valid, just like in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Last of all, I hope you still realize I'm your biggest fan. I appreciate a good discussion, even if I can't help disagreeing with you.

:)

 

Edited by MontyPython
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
4 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

And the trouble that creates is that next time there IS a valid reason, it's just that much less likely to be accepted as valid, just like in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Money quote. . .

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
27 minutes ago, Coach said:

Save your sermon for those who elect incompetent and corrupt politicians in democrat/socialist cities across the nation. Officials who then fail to govern effectively. We have been placed at the mercy of the least rational and those who seize the opportunity for political gain. 

The onslaught on Drew Breese  is a prime example. 

That was a sermon? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jax
7 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

"The fact that the protests typically come when the perpetrator is black (there have been several where the cop was a minority, as well) derives from the perception that there is an inequity in the way minorities are treated by law enforcement"

Yes, I agree, that's the perception. And it's a false perception. And yes, the stats prove it. And yes, I realize people who are bound & determined to ignore the facts/stats and continue to "believe" the falsehood will tune out anybody who presents those facts/stats. Doesn't matter, I'll continue as always to present the facts. If they tune me out that's on them, not me.

But I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm "lumping" all the protesters "into one convenient batch". I realize there are some who are just thugs who wanna loot and smash stuff. There are others who are basically good, honest people who mean well, but have fallen for the long-disproven myth about "unfair" treatment of minorities at the hands of law enforcement. There are still others who don't really care if it's a myth, they just wanna be one of the "cool kids" who are "where the action is", maybe even get laid by a hippie chick. Others who are there to deliberately incite violence (Antifa-types.) Still others who match none of these descriptions. My point isn't that they're "all bad people"; Just that whatever their reason for protest, even if perfectly valid under other circumstances, it's misplaced this specific time. And the trouble that creates is that next time there IS a valid reason, it's just that much less likely to be accepted as valid, just like in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Last of all, I hope you still realize I'm your biggest fan. I appreciate a good discussion, even if I can't help disagreeing with you.

:)

 

It's only misplaced, though, if it's narrowly defined as being solely about justice (in the legal/criminal sense) in this singular case. And if you believe the justice begins and ends at an arrest/charge. Yes. The officers have been charged. That's not a guarantee that justice will ultimately be served here (though we can certainly hope it is.) Keep in mind that many have lost faith (or have never had it) in the system itself. Pressure is being brought to bear on the system to ensure that it does work properly. And on law enforcement in general to take another look at standards, policies, and whether bad apples are getting a pass.  

Also keep in mind that many law enforcement agencies/officers are PARTICIPATING in the peaceful protests -- not just policing them. We've got police chiefs and officers marching WITH protesters, not just patrolling them. 

I didn't think you were calling all the protesters "bad people." I'm fully aware you're able to distinguish between people marching and carrying signs and people busting out windows and setting fires. ;) But you've implied that these thousands of people -- from differing demographics/backgrounds/locales -- are behaving irrationally. 

I would submit that just because you don't share their rationale(s) doesn't automatically render them irrational. 

And the admiration runs in both directions. I figure we've been civilly discussing (sometimes agreeing, sometimes not) topics for nigh on 20 years now. Always a pleasure. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
27 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

I appreciate a good discussion, even if I can't help disagreeing with you.

So you won't be calling her a moron, then? 

  • Disagree (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

So you won't be calling her a moron, then? 

Correct, I won't. Why? Because she has demonstrated over the years that she ISN'T a moron. A mark you have without exception failed to meet.

(Jax - You deserve a better, more detailed response. Be patient. That's next.)

:)

 

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
2 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

A mark you have without exception failed to meet.

Along the lines of what Jax said ("I would submit that just because you don't share their rationales doesn't automatically render them irrational"), I would submit that just because you don't agree with someone's values or reasoning doesn't make them moronic.

  • Disagree (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
2 hours ago, Jax said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, part of the basis for the protest is a demand for justice. And, as of right now, these officers are being held accountable. (Whether the charges will ultimately stick is another issue.)

Another part, however, is a call to recognize that we cannot keep doing this. No, we don't want law enforcement officers to escape accountability. But we also want our law enforcement officers to receive better guidance and training and be better equipped to effect arrests so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. (And again. And again.)

And yet another part is a call to recognize that we want to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and to do away with a mentality that leads some (SOME) LEO's to consider it okay to abuse the authority with which we're entrusting them. 

I have family members who've marched this time around. I have family members in law enforcement. I have family members who are black. What you're seeing in the peaceful protests (not the riots, not the looting, not the utter BS that's gone down after dark) is people in MANY communities standing up, speaking out, and doing exactly what we want a free citizenry to do. 

Added bonus: Their gatherings are putting the lie to any justification for further lockdowns. 

 

Yes..This is not just about one incident and not exclusively about shootings and death. And I don't know if it has escaped anyone's attention, but it seems when officers are brought to accountability, it is usually after loud and sustained protests. Also video helps (though not with Rodney King). Recently Will Smith noted that it's not that racism is on the rise, it's just that now it's filmed.

And for the record,  I was appalled by what I saw so I marched with the protestors, and as I've mentioned in other thread, volunteered for the cleanup after the anarchists and criminals took advantage.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...