Are not the civil rights of the non protesters being violated? Stopping traffic, tying up interstates, hindering people getting to hospitals, disrupting shopping, looting, destruction of property. This whole thing is total bull shit.
Civil rights
- Thread starter kingmanite
- Start date
What civil rights would those be?
Free speech and free assembly are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is there a constitutional right to shop?
BTW, I have no patience with looting or destruction of property. That those activities sometimes follow the public expression of unpopular view points is decidedly unfortunate, but are not part and parcel of the protests. Don't throw the free speech baby out with the criminal mischief . . . .
Free speech and free assembly are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Is there a constitutional right to shop?
BTW, I have no patience with looting or destruction of property. That those activities sometimes follow the public expression of unpopular view points is decidedly unfortunate, but are not part and parcel of the protests. Don't throw the free speech baby out with the criminal mischief . . . .
perhaps not to shop...
But to be safe within the confines of ones own place of business? The right to travel unimpeded? I don't know that these are rights, but the vandalism and blocking of traffic is hardly a good way to generate concern for the victims of out-of-control police.
But to be safe within the confines of ones own place of business? The right to travel unimpeded? I don't know that these are rights, but the vandalism and blocking of traffic is hardly a good way to generate concern for the victims of out-of-control police.
Re: perhaps not to shop...
There seems to be a fine line between civil rights and the right to demonstrate and "civil" violence for the sake of violence and disruption. At some point the right to protest must be judged against the lack of a right to commit violence..
There seems to be a fine line between civil rights and the right to demonstrate and "civil" violence for the sake of violence and disruption. At some point the right to protest must be judged against the lack of a right to commit violence..
Time and place restrictions
on free expression are common. Disturbing the peace is not part the calculus.
on free expression are common. Disturbing the peace is not part the calculus.
Don't disagree . . .
but Disturbing the Peace definitions can't contravene constitutional strictures either.
We both know that, even if mjvcaj doesn't . . . .
but Disturbing the Peace definitions can't contravene constitutional strictures either.
We both know that, even if mjvcaj doesn't . . . .
Attention: White people
What we call the criminal justice system "imprisoned. There are stark racial disparities at every level of the criminal justice system.
Black people aren't merely pissed off about what happened back in the Bad Old Days when there was still prejudice. They're pissed because the experience of their daily lives shows them that they're still being treated much more harshly than white people are. Perhaps if more white people grasped that their own experiences with the police don't resemble the experiences of black people, they might be less contemptuous of black protesters. Perhaps we'd also hear fewer white references to black people as "monsters", "demons", "animals", and "thugs"
What we call the criminal justice system "imprisoned. There are stark racial disparities at every level of the criminal justice system.
Black people aren't merely pissed off about what happened back in the Bad Old Days when there was still prejudice. They're pissed because the experience of their daily lives shows them that they're still being treated much more harshly than white people are. Perhaps if more white people grasped that their own experiences with the police don't resemble the experiences of black people, they might be less contemptuous of black protesters. Perhaps we'd also hear fewer white references to black people as "monsters", "demons", "animals", and "thugs"
Re: Attention: White people
Sir, when they act like thugs they are thugs. I don't cull them for color black, white, red, yellow or polka dotted. If you are black and I assume you are that group should spend more time on black on black crime and solving that problem. His majesty and Holder are making it worse on race relations.
Sir, when they act like thugs they are thugs. I don't cull them for color black, white, red, yellow or polka dotted. If you are black and I assume you are that group should spend more time on black on black crime and solving that problem. His majesty and Holder are making it worse on race relations.
Perhaps a better question . . .
Is why so many white people can't imagine -- despite a long history of institutional racism, its long-lived consequences, and the vast disparities in treatment that remain at every level -- that their own behavior and culture is at least part of the problem. That black people simply deserve the harsh treatment they receive, and they will get better treatment when they become sufficiently civilized to deserve it.
Or that, despite the lived experience of their own daily lives -- which are substantially different from the experiences of white people -- there is no rational basis for black people to view the world differently from the way white people view it. Which so many white people regard as the only conceivable view that any right-thinking person could have.
I don't know if you're a parent, but if you were I can't believe you'd be unaffected if we lived in a place where your children were much more likely than other sorts of children to be stopped, searched, roughed up or killed, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.
Is why so many white people can't imagine -- despite a long history of institutional racism, its long-lived consequences, and the vast disparities in treatment that remain at every level -- that their own behavior and culture is at least part of the problem. That black people simply deserve the harsh treatment they receive, and they will get better treatment when they become sufficiently civilized to deserve it.
Or that, despite the lived experience of their own daily lives -- which are substantially different from the experiences of white people -- there is no rational basis for black people to view the world differently from the way white people view it. Which so many white people regard as the only conceivable view that any right-thinking person could have.
I don't know if you're a parent, but if you were I can't believe you'd be unaffected if we lived in a place where your children were much more likely than other sorts of children to be stopped, searched, roughed up or killed, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.
The fact that 73% of homicides...
...are committed by blacks, and of those, 93% of homicides by blacks are committed....on other blacks. As long as there is a sympathetic ear to that culture, ignoring the fact that 74% of black children are raised in a fatherless home, and providing an excuse for the behavior they demonstrate, then things will never improve.
They would rather raise Holy Hell on the white cop, who, without any question, was put into a horrible situation, and arguably, responded in a perfectly normal way. I would love to see Sharpton, Obama, Holder, Jackson, and the rest of the leading black community, actually become leaders, and help the black communities elevate themselves. Unfortunately, that is not what they are doing. They are just adding to the racial divide.
...are committed by blacks, and of those, 93% of homicides by blacks are committed....on other blacks. As long as there is a sympathetic ear to that culture, ignoring the fact that 74% of black children are raised in a fatherless home, and providing an excuse for the behavior they demonstrate, then things will never improve.
They would rather raise Holy Hell on the white cop, who, without any question, was put into a horrible situation, and arguably, responded in a perfectly normal way. I would love to see Sharpton, Obama, Holder, Jackson, and the rest of the leading black community, actually become leaders, and help the black communities elevate themselves. Unfortunately, that is not what they are doing. They are just adding to the racial divide.
It is very obvious that many people here
Are not close friends with minorities. And I don't mean that negatively at all. For many people the opportunity just does not arise. But people can not hang out or date a person of color and feel this way. They just can't. They would know better.
Are not close friends with minorities. And I don't mean that negatively at all. For many people the opportunity just does not arise. But people can not hang out or date a person of color and feel this way. They just can't. They would know better.
They are ethnic entrepreneurs ...
A perfect case study of this is Yugoslavia. Sharpton is essentially Milosevic.
A perfect case study of this is Yugoslavia. Sharpton is essentially Milosevic.
The underlying issues here are...
Poverty and education (or the lack thereof). Unfortunately, it's easier to belly ache and see ghosts. (Those line peoples pockets and form their power base.)
Poverty and education (or the lack thereof). Unfortunately, it's easier to belly ache and see ghosts. (Those line peoples pockets and form their power base.)
That's because . . .
you're an idiot who can't distinguish between protesting (which mjvcaj deemed "disturbing the peace") and vandalism.
Par for your course, dave . . . .
you're an idiot who can't distinguish between protesting (which mjvcaj deemed "disturbing the peace") and vandalism.
Par for your course, dave . . . .
Now easy
there. We did see some "vandalism" but we also saw strong armed robbery, burglary and arson - all major felonies - committed by dozens or hundreds of folks all in the name of protest.
That is not some kind of common nuisance or vandalism.
Burglary stealing the contents of a liquor store is a felony for every person who entered and stole liquor. Pushing around the proprietor when he objected is robbery a felony. Burning businesses with the torch of "protest" is arson a felony.
We might appreciated the severity of the conduct if we properly defined it.
there. We did see some "vandalism" but we also saw strong armed robbery, burglary and arson - all major felonies - committed by dozens or hundreds of folks all in the name of protest.
That is not some kind of common nuisance or vandalism.
Burglary stealing the contents of a liquor store is a felony for every person who entered and stole liquor. Pushing around the proprietor when he objected is robbery a felony. Burning businesses with the torch of "protest" is arson a felony.
We might appreciated the severity of the conduct if we properly defined it.
Comparing riots
About 50 protesters surrounded an officer and taunted him, threw things at him, challenged him to shoot them. He did not, but was able to summon six other officers. The crowd now swelled to as many as 300. They once again surrounded the officers, threw items at them, spat at them. Finally an officer was knocked down by an object, got up, and fired. The other officers than fired as well.
That was the history of the Boston Massacre (replace officers with sentries).
Since you would be wise to this one I won't try to hide the origin, but what is sneaking onto ships and dumping out 300 plus cases of tea but the wanton destruction of private property.
We had the draft riots during the civil war, the bonus army march on Washington that led to MacArthur bravely attacking thousands of unarmed veterans, and of course the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam protests. This debate isn't new.
I don't mean to fully equate today's events with the past, but the question of what is an acceptable protest is as old as the US. I'll guarantee there were colonists very disheartened by the riot that led to the massacre, or by the looting of 3 ships of their tea. At the time of both events the rebel side was not a majority opinion in the colonies as a whole. Especially people in the south were turned off by Boston's actions. But after a time, both events became heroic symbols. I don't think I've ever heard anyone today criticize the destruction of property involved in the Boston Tea Party.
I'd prefer the protesters not close major roads, and I certainly do not want them looting or throwing things at officers. The former is somewhat negotiable, the latter to me is not. As much as anyone, I want looters to be prosecuted. But about the shutdowns, I don't like being inconvenienced either. I was trapped trying to meet someone in Indianapolis last month when Indy shut down almost the entire city for a marathon. I get people don't like just sitting in their cars and watch people walk by down the road, I didn't like it then, I doubt I'd feel any better about it if they were protesters (nor do I think I would feel worse). But I also don't have a constitutional right to not be inconvenienced. I believe a protest movement has a certain right to conduct small civil disobediences to drive home their point. They should be willing to pay the price, the protesters who block a highway can face charges. That is part of the civil disobedience game. But I'm not sure it is indicative of anything more. I won't criticize them any more than I might criticize Sam Adams for his civil disobedience. If the public grows tired, they will lose in the court of opinion. If the public becomes sympathetic, they'll win. It is the system.
About 50 protesters surrounded an officer and taunted him, threw things at him, challenged him to shoot them. He did not, but was able to summon six other officers. The crowd now swelled to as many as 300. They once again surrounded the officers, threw items at them, spat at them. Finally an officer was knocked down by an object, got up, and fired. The other officers than fired as well.
That was the history of the Boston Massacre (replace officers with sentries).
Since you would be wise to this one I won't try to hide the origin, but what is sneaking onto ships and dumping out 300 plus cases of tea but the wanton destruction of private property.
We had the draft riots during the civil war, the bonus army march on Washington that led to MacArthur bravely attacking thousands of unarmed veterans, and of course the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam protests. This debate isn't new.
I don't mean to fully equate today's events with the past, but the question of what is an acceptable protest is as old as the US. I'll guarantee there were colonists very disheartened by the riot that led to the massacre, or by the looting of 3 ships of their tea. At the time of both events the rebel side was not a majority opinion in the colonies as a whole. Especially people in the south were turned off by Boston's actions. But after a time, both events became heroic symbols. I don't think I've ever heard anyone today criticize the destruction of property involved in the Boston Tea Party.
I'd prefer the protesters not close major roads, and I certainly do not want them looting or throwing things at officers. The former is somewhat negotiable, the latter to me is not. As much as anyone, I want looters to be prosecuted. But about the shutdowns, I don't like being inconvenienced either. I was trapped trying to meet someone in Indianapolis last month when Indy shut down almost the entire city for a marathon. I get people don't like just sitting in their cars and watch people walk by down the road, I didn't like it then, I doubt I'd feel any better about it if they were protesters (nor do I think I would feel worse). But I also don't have a constitutional right to not be inconvenienced. I believe a protest movement has a certain right to conduct small civil disobediences to drive home their point. They should be willing to pay the price, the protesters who block a highway can face charges. That is part of the civil disobedience game. But I'm not sure it is indicative of anything more. I won't criticize them any more than I might criticize Sam Adams for his civil disobedience. If the public grows tired, they will lose in the court of opinion. If the public becomes sympathetic, they'll win. It is the system.
So when someone misses their flight...
because they are unable to reach the airport due to bozos blocking the highway you think so be it? How about when someone dies in the ambulance because the traffic hinders the ambulance from reaching the hospital in a timely manner? So be it?
There is a huge difference between throwing tea over a ship and actively disrupting others lives. Millions of others.
because they are unable to reach the airport due to bozos blocking the highway you think so be it? How about when someone dies in the ambulance because the traffic hinders the ambulance from reaching the hospital in a timely manner? So be it?
There is a huge difference between throwing tea over a ship and actively disrupting others lives. Millions of others.
What cities have you lived in?
Like I pointed out, we routinely shut down cities in this country for marathons that completely snarl traffic. And while I am sure if an ambulance needed through the police would close the course and let them through. But my experience is that blocks away from the actual course traffic is in total gridlock. The ambulance will be greatly slowed anyway.
Several years ago I went to Louisville's Thunder on the Ohio fireworks display, part of derby month. We arrived late but actually found parking near the river and followed a large crowd. We had never been before, didn't have maps, we just assumed everyone knew where they were going. We ended up watching the fireworks with thousands of other people standing on the I-65 bridge over the Ohio. It was a great view, but traffic was completely stopped.
These things happen. I-65 was different, as there are limited bridges across the Ohio. But interstates come to complete standstills all the time. We drove a couple hours on the DC beltway just to go 30 miles, and there were no protests. Emergency responders know when traffic is bad like that and they have alternate routes. As do cab drivers.
As I suggested, I have no problem charging them with trespassing. But it isn't a crisis. I was late for a meeting because I couldn't get through the Indianapolis marathon, and I assume it is likewise possible someone missed a flight because they were trapped inside the course. When a team wins the Super Bowl, people will gather downtown and riot and block traffic. I don't hear after every major sporting championship how terrible it is the roads were blocked by people celebrating. I know in 87 after Indiana won, there was no way a car could get down Kirkwood (and police/fire would have found it very tough).
Stiff upper lip and all that.
Like I pointed out, we routinely shut down cities in this country for marathons that completely snarl traffic. And while I am sure if an ambulance needed through the police would close the course and let them through. But my experience is that blocks away from the actual course traffic is in total gridlock. The ambulance will be greatly slowed anyway.
Several years ago I went to Louisville's Thunder on the Ohio fireworks display, part of derby month. We arrived late but actually found parking near the river and followed a large crowd. We had never been before, didn't have maps, we just assumed everyone knew where they were going. We ended up watching the fireworks with thousands of other people standing on the I-65 bridge over the Ohio. It was a great view, but traffic was completely stopped.
These things happen. I-65 was different, as there are limited bridges across the Ohio. But interstates come to complete standstills all the time. We drove a couple hours on the DC beltway just to go 30 miles, and there were no protests. Emergency responders know when traffic is bad like that and they have alternate routes. As do cab drivers.
As I suggested, I have no problem charging them with trespassing. But it isn't a crisis. I was late for a meeting because I couldn't get through the Indianapolis marathon, and I assume it is likewise possible someone missed a flight because they were trapped inside the course. When a team wins the Super Bowl, people will gather downtown and riot and block traffic. I don't hear after every major sporting championship how terrible it is the roads were blocked by people celebrating. I know in 87 after Indiana won, there was no way a car could get down Kirkwood (and police/fire would have found it very tough).
Stiff upper lip and all that.
I know all that . . .
can you distinguish between the opportunists who perpetrate the violence and vandalism from the protests?
dave essentially conflated the two . . . and it seems that you are too. That distinction is what I'm talking about . . . and it's clearly lost on dave . . . is it lost on you as well?
Let me ask you this: are you in favor of protests in Tiananmen Square? Hong Kong? Moscow? Or would you brand free expression of political speech to be "treason" the way Putin is in Russia?
This post was edited on 12/10 10:43 AM by Sope Creek
"Your Papa Is a Fascist"
can you distinguish between the opportunists who perpetrate the violence and vandalism from the protests?
dave essentially conflated the two . . . and it seems that you are too. That distinction is what I'm talking about . . . and it's clearly lost on dave . . . is it lost on you as well?
Let me ask you this: are you in favor of protests in Tiananmen Square? Hong Kong? Moscow? Or would you brand free expression of political speech to be "treason" the way Putin is in Russia?
This post was edited on 12/10 10:43 AM by Sope Creek
"Your Papa Is a Fascist"
You, young man
are who people of color fear most. Intelligent, articulate, successful, tolerant of those like you regardless of skin color, intolerant of differences, soul-less.
Paul Bunyan wore baggy pants, got drunk Friday nights and brawled. The sheriff told him to go home and drink it off. Once he wore blackface as a joke and wound up in jail for 30 days.
are who people of color fear most. Intelligent, articulate, successful, tolerant of those like you regardless of skin color, intolerant of differences, soul-less.
Paul Bunyan wore baggy pants, got drunk Friday nights and brawled. The sheriff told him to go home and drink it off. Once he wore blackface as a joke and wound up in jail for 30 days.
Of course
we can differentiate. Assuming the ability to identify from video or witnesses, the elements of the felonies must be supported by evidence and then prosecution pursued.
Vandalism is minor if expensive to owners. Felonies on the other hand did occur and should be prosecuted - there was lots of television videos of those crimes.
I support peaceful protest in which the protestors don't commit crimes and don't attempt to have their rights prevail over the rights of others. Many years ago I had the actual opportunity to protect those rights AND to protect others from the protestors' trampling of other rights. Both were worth the effort.
we can differentiate. Assuming the ability to identify from video or witnesses, the elements of the felonies must be supported by evidence and then prosecution pursued.
Vandalism is minor if expensive to owners. Felonies on the other hand did occur and should be prosecuted - there was lots of television videos of those crimes.
I support peaceful protest in which the protestors don't commit crimes and don't attempt to have their rights prevail over the rights of others. Many years ago I had the actual opportunity to protect those rights AND to protect others from the protestors' trampling of other rights. Both were worth the effort.
Re: That's because . . .
I don't see protesting as "disturbing the peace". However "Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of disorderly conduct, such as fighting or threatening to fight in public, causing excessively loud noise, by shouting, playing loud music, or even allowing a dog to bark for prolonged periods" - Under the legal definition of disturbing the peace many of us have questions as to what is constitutionally protected and what is not. There is a fine line and when is it OK to ignore the law and/or enforce it.
I don't see protesting as "disturbing the peace". However "Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of disorderly conduct, such as fighting or threatening to fight in public, causing excessively loud noise, by shouting, playing loud music, or even allowing a dog to bark for prolonged periods" - Under the legal definition of disturbing the peace many of us have questions as to what is constitutionally protected and what is not. There is a fine line and when is it OK to ignore the law and/or enforce it.
We agreed in another post that
poverty, not race, is the major determinate of crime in neighborhoods.
I ran across this interesting information I thought you might like. The internal links can be accessed by hitting control and clicking. The page 15 reference to the pdf from Census is a nice chart.
QUOTE
In July 2013, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said:
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest-hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the ZIP Code she grows up in. This is simply wrong."
However, let's consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.
The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:
1) Finish high school.
2) Get a full-time job.
3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.
The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.
Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.
Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.
(My source for that information is this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.)
UNQUOTE
This post was edited on 12/10 3:37 PM by Ladoga
poverty, not race, is the major determinate of crime in neighborhoods.
I ran across this interesting information I thought you might like. The internal links can be accessed by hitting control and clicking. The page 15 reference to the pdf from Census is a nice chart.
QUOTE
In July 2013, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said:
"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest-hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the ZIP Code she grows up in. This is simply wrong."
However, let's consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.
The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:
1) Finish high school.
2) Get a full-time job.
3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.
The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.
Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.
Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.
(My source for that information is this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.)
UNQUOTE
This post was edited on 12/10 3:37 PM by Ladoga
