Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

briany

At what point can it be agreed that a violent protest is legitimate? I don't think you could ever get two sides square on that. Not in the maelstrom, anyway. For example, if the Democrats really did come to take Americans' guns away, would all the NRA, 2nd amendment people protest that without resorting to violence? Call me crazy, but I have to think there'd be many in that contingent of people who'd think violence was a legitimate move. So, I think there's a case to say that how you see violence depends on which side you're on.

Further to this, when has an establishment condoned any violence apart from that which protects the establishment? Did the British condone the Boston Tea Party? No, it was met with dismay in Westminster. Did they British condone the war of Independence? No, they sent over the Black and Tans to help try and quash it. But yet these are celebrated historic events from the other sides, even though they feature wanton destruction of property and/or killing/thuggery.

So pro-establishment violence vs anti-establishment violence is how you arrive at battering BLM marchers vs. "We appreciate your help, Kyle."

Potatoeman

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No.. Not at all..

At this same point in the Election , Clinton had a 3 point lead , Biden's lead is 8. And most crtically , he is over the 50% mark , Clinton never got above about 44%/45% which left enough votes on the table for Trump to win.

In 2016 20% of voters had not made up their minds yet , today it's only 6%

Everything on CNN said she had it in a the bag.

Quin_Dub

Potatoeman wrote: »

Everything on CNN said she had it in a the bag.

Absolutely no question that the media over-egged her lead and the likelihood of her victory , but the polling was pretty accurate all along.

So the suggestion that we see frequently that "the polling was wrong" etc. is completely incorrect.

briany

Potatoeman wrote: »

Everything on CNN said she had it in a the bag.

OK

briany

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely no question that the media over-egged her lead and the likelihood of her victory , but the polling was pretty accurate all along.

So the suggestion that we see frequently that "the polling was wrong" etc. is completely incorrect.

Statewide polling turned out to be accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

Carfacemandog

Potatoeman wrote: »

Everything on CNN said she had it in a the bag.

That's nice.

Except Morning Consult is not CNN. Morning Consult polled on popular vote and not electoral college seats in 2016. Morning Consult had Clinton winning said popular vote by 3%, which in the end she won by 2.1%. They were accurate to within 0.9%.

Of the lead Morning Consult has Biden at holds and they are as accurate as 2016, he will win the popular vote by between 7-9%. Given the razor thin margins truno won so many states by in 2016, his failure to win over many of these states, and his falling popularity in several of those which narrowly voted for him in 2016, it will be extremely to see how or where Trump can get to 270 electoral college votes.

So moan about CNN of you wish, but you're discussing polls from an entirely different company to them, so they're hardly relevant.

AbusesToilets

briany wrote: »

At what point can it be agreed that a violent protest is legitimate? I don't think you could ever get two sides square on that. Not in the maelstrom, anyway. For example, if the Democrats really did come to take Americans' guns away, would all the NRA, 2nd amendment people protest that without resorting to violence? Call me crazy, but I have to think there'd be many in that contingent of people who'd think violence was a legitimate move. So, I think there's a case to say that how you see violence depends on which side you're on.

Further to this, when has an establishment condoned any violence apart from that which protects the establishment? Did the British condone the Boston Tea Party? No, it was met with dismay in Westminster. Did they British condone the war of Independence? No, they sent over the Black and Tans to help try and quash it. But yet these are celebrated historic events from the other sides, even though they feature wanton destruction of property and/or killing/thuggery.

So pro-establishment violence vs anti-establishment violence is how you arrive at battering BLM marchers vs. "We appreciate your help, Kyle."

If these protesters were out trashing Wall st or Congress, there might be some validity, at least in principle, to the violence. Instead they're destroying their own communities, looting luxury goods stores and randomly attacking people in the streets.

I'm not that well versed in my Revolutionary War history, but I don't remember Washington advocating the masses to seize whatever the equivalent of Gucci was at the time.

Startled Earwig

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If these protesters were out trashing Wall st or Congress, there might be some validity, at least in principle, to the violence. Instead they're destroying their own communities, looting luxury goods stores and randomly attacking people in the streets.

I'm not that well versed in my Revolutionary War history, but I don't remember Washington advocating the masses to seize whatever the equivalent of Gucci was at the time.

Would you have supported the Civil Rights movement had you been around in the 1960s?

Would you have supported the anti-apartheid movement?

AbusesToilets

Startled Earwig wrote: »

Would you have supported the Civil Rights movement had you been around in the 1960s?

Would you have supported the anti-apartheid movement?

Yes and yes

Water John

Violent protest is almost always wrong, full stop. Protest on the other hand is a protected right.

Startled Earwig

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes and yes

There were riots during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. There was actual terrorism during the anti-apartheid movement.

Neither took away from the fact that both movements were righteous and just. As is Black Lives Matter.

No such defence can be made for the white supremacists currently trying to cause chaos in American cities. Their assembly has no other purpose except chaos, violence and death. That's actual terrorism.

Trump is explicitly on the side of these people.

GreeBo

brentanrodgers wrote: »

That changes my opinion so - I think he was justified in defending himself on all counts. He still shouldn't have been there but I know IF I was put in that situation running from a mob and heard gun shots ring out behind me it's probable I would have returned fire.

"returned" fire.

There's your problem right there.

Person A fires warning shot into the sky, person B fires a defensive shot into someone.

Startled Earwig

Water John wrote: »

Violent protest is almost always wrong, full stop. Protest on the other hand is a protected right.

I would say that's highly debatable, which you tacitly acknowledge in your phrasing. The righteousness of the cause is the key thing.

If a righteous and just cause is continually denied, violence is usually the inevitable outcome.

"If you make peaceful evolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable".

Who said that?

Startled Earwig

Startled Earwig wrote: »

I would say that's highly debatable, which you tacitly acknowledge in your phrasing. The righteousness of the cause is the key thing.

If a righteous and just cause is continually denied, violence is usually the inevitable outcome.

"If you make peaceful evolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable".

Who said that?

Everyone thinks they're the righteous ones though..

StringerBell

2nd amendment will change once a large % number of NRA members are black. I'd be encouraging it all across America in fact.

Startled Earwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone thinks they're the righteous ones though..

I dare say the defenders of slavery thought they were righteous in their demands. But they weren't. Their cause was evil.

White supremacists today are no different.

AbusesToilets

Startled Earwig wrote: »

There were riots during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. There was actual terrorism during the anti-apartheid movement.

Neither took away from the fact that both movements were righteous and just. As is Black Lives Matter.

No such defence can be made for the white supremacists currently trying to cause chaos in American cities. Their assembly has no other purpose except chaos, violence and death. That's actual terrorism.

Trump is explicitly on the side of these people.

The Civil Rights movement was far removed from the exploitative sham that BLM represents. BLM is the monetisation of victomhood writ large. There might have been violence, but it wasn't a deliberate, organised effort, with a view to undermine social structures. As to apartheid, Nelson Mandela commited acts of terrorism.

You can support an idea without supporting a group or their actions. I support an equal, just society. I don't support BLM as an organisation, nor do I support many of their stated goals, or outright racism that they display towards white people.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

Wonder would he have similar concerns if they were bringing assault rifles across state lines and using them to throw bullets at people?

Oh wait.

You mean like the BLM rioters that were firing off shots in those videos?

StringerBell

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You mean like the BLM rioters that were firing off shots in those videos?

No I'd say trump would have a problem with that one. It's why it's fun to spot to odd one out in the things he has a problem with and doesn't

everlast75

StringerBell wrote: »

2nd amendment will change once a large % number of NRA members are black. I'd be encouraging it all across America in fact.

The NRA used to be highly influential. However, they are currently on their knees and in danger of disappearing altogether as a result of charges being brought for corruption.

Without their power in politics, with the number of school shootings in the relative past and with anti-gun politicians being elected, I am hopeful that the change is going to come.

AbusesToilets

everlast75 wrote: »

The NRA used to be highly influential. However, they are currently on their knees and in danger of disappearing altogether as a result of charges being brought for corruption.

Without their power in politics, with the number of school shootings in the relative past and with anti-gun politicians being elected, I am hopeful that the change is going to come.

I think you vastly underestimate the general sentiment towards firearms in the US. If you think that an Amendment to change the 2nd is likely to pass, or that it should be the priority, you're wildly mistaken. There are other, far more important issues to contend with than that.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You mean like the BLM rioters that were firing off shots in those videos?

Who'd they hit?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Who'd they hit?

Well, that gentleman in Portland most recently. How many were shot in the CHAZ?

Steve012

Brian? wrote: »

It would be extremely short sighted to think this is about the people murdered recently by police officers. The protesters are angry because this has been happening unseen for decades. The police are murdering black men because that’s what they’ve always done and always gotten away with it.

This is the first generation where everyone walks around with a video camera in their pocket, so a light is being shone on the problem. Imagine how it feels to know this had been happening and you’ve been ignored for decades.

If I was an African American I’m not sure I’d be as restrained as these protesters.

This is going to sound bad , "and god forgive me" the people who shoot most at police down through the years in the states are black. I'm sorry to say it folks but it true/fact.

Look at crime rate, firearms offences. The black population is 13.4 % of the US, But by far the most involved in crime over any other race.

Steve012

Steve012 wrote: »

This is going to sound bad , "and god forgive me" the people who shoot most at police down through the years in the states are black. I'm sorry to say it folks but it true/fact.

Look at crime rate, firearms offences. The black population is 13.4 % of the US, But by far the most involved in crime over any other race.

They'd stop if the cops left them alone though..

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Please, please read the charter, especially:

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it. Thread will be locked and posters may face a sanction for repeatedly breaking this rule. This forum is for discussion and debate and we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action. High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban.

And

Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article without comment from the thread starter. Add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion and/or analysis on the subject. Articles from blogs, newpapers, magazines etc cannot be put up in full in the politics forum due to copyright reasons. You can provide a link to the article and quote the opening paragraph or one that provides a summary of the key points. When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

Posts that consist solely or mostly of gifs, memes, tweets, videos etc are not what this forum is for. You have to make a your own contribution.

Steve012

Deleted User wrote: »

They'd stop if the cops left them alone though..

Stop what, crime?!? firearm offences? Gang banging, drug dealing, what would they stop exactly. Shooting at police cause their in their way?

everlast75

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think you vastly underestimate the general sentiment towards firearms in the US. If you think that an Amendment to change the 2nd is likely to pass, or that it should be the priority, you're wildly mistaken.

That sentiment was fermented by the NRA over decades. I am saying that years ago, the idea that the NRA would be gone would have been crazy.

We are in different times. I am not saying that the struggle to disassociate guns from America will be easy or that it will be quick, but it will happen.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are other, far more important issues to contend with than that.

I beg to differ. Police having itchy fingers lately is partly caused by the proliferation of firearms. If a cop didn't think that every person reaching into their jacket had a gun, things may be quite different than they are today.

rossie1977

Steve012 wrote: »

This is going to sound bad , "and god forgive me" the people who shoot most at police down through the years in the states are black. I'm sorry to say it folks but it true/fact.

Look at crime rate, firearms offences. The black population is 13.4 % of the US, But by far the most involved in crime over any other race.

We have been over and over this on this thread..

Those are convictions not offences. A black man is far far more likely to be convicted and sent to prison for doing the exact same thing as a white person.

Just look most recently. Look at the police reaction towards James Blake who was unarmed and towards Rittenhouse who walked back up the street after murdering people rifle in hand. It does not get any starker than that..

everlast75

rossie1977 wrote: »

We have been over and over this on this thread..

Those are convictions not offences. A black man is far far more likely to be convicted and sent to prison for doing the exact same thing as a white person.

Just look most recently. Look at the police reaction towards James Blake who was unarmed and towards Rittenhouse who walked back up the street after murdering people rifle in hand. It does not get any starker than that..

Not to mention that there is a direct link between poverty and crime.