Why should people believe that the justice system will protect them, if they get stopped by a cop after robbing a store and then apparently resist arrest?
That is an odd way to see it. It does not make any difference, why and under what circumstances the kid was shot. We do not know all that. But we do know that the cop that shot the kid will not stand no matter what happened. And a large number of citizens seem to believe that that would happen, if they were shot. They do not think the legal system protects them. And that is bad, because the legitimacy of nations stands and falls with the safety they provide their citizens. Without legitimacy the government can maintain order only with coercive force.
Germany had mechanisms in the 1930s and we have been trying to achieve equal rights since before I was born.
I said other because if the tables are turned what would be said? Suppose that a store owner "violently protests" being looted/burned out by shooting the looters/arsonists - would that be acceptable? Is that store owner not allowed the basic human right of earning a living and having their personal property (and safety) respected? When the police decide to "stand down", in order to appease the race hustling, poverty pimps, then they are simply begging the otherwise law abiding folks to take matters into their own hands.
I tentatively suggest that every person and institution is entitled to their own idea of whether violence is appropriate and that, the value of their violence should be measured according to whether or not it helped them reach their goal. In other words, I wonder if the question to ask is "Who won?" rather than "Who should and should not have used force?"
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.
In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?
Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.
The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest that involved the looting and destruction of private property.....and it is widely heralded as "patriotic" in our history books. I would say rarely is violent protest justified, but I think there are times when it is.
Well said, but I would add one caveat to that: When the gov't prevents the legal processes that allow this to occur from happening and a large percentage of the population finds themselves completely cut off from legal avenues to address the situation, then it's time to take the gov't down. Not burn cars in the streets, but to confront the GOVERNMENT with the necessary level of violence needed to stop it from further violations of the law.
I agree with you but I always remember Jefferson's comment that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." and then his complete horror when he saw
his remark made real during the French Revolution. Violence should be the very last resort.
I always thought Jefferson's appeals to revolution were rightly smacked down by Madison or Adams. From time to time Jefferson fell to fanciful delusions about revolution and when he mentioned these things to some of his more even-keeled colleagues, they tempered him.
Do you consider self-defense to only mean defense against an imminent threat (e.g. police officers shooting at you unprovoked) or does your definition of self-defense also include defending oneself against systemic threats (e.g. systemic abuse of police force)?like any other violent act... a violent protest is only justified in self defense.
in addition, for such a protest to be fully justified, the target must be only those whom have initiated violence on the protesters and caused them to defend themselves.
committing violence on bystanders or innocents is flat out unjustified.
so, in my mind, none of the violence in the protests in Ferguson are justified
Your second point is confusing because collective violence has historically been an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Moreover, while violence is often used as a tool of suppression, it is just as often a response to such suppression.From my perspective, violence has no place whatsoever in the realm of protest.
Protest is an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Violence is an expression of brute force and often a direct expression of suppression of collective ideas/ideals. The two are mutually exclusive.
My comment wasn't about the specifics of Ferguson. In any case, what is the next step people should take when the lawful ways to redress grievances do not work?Color me cynical, but I don't that those who have indulged themselves in criminal behavior in Ferguson have asked themselves these questions.
And being disappointed in a grand jury's decision is no excuse for violence. As noted immediately in this thread, we are are society of laws. There are ways to lawfully redress grievances.
Your second point is confusing because collective violence has historically been an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Moreover, while violence is often used as a tool of suppression, it is just as often a response to such suppression.
My comment wasn't about the specifics of Ferguson. In any case, what is the next step people should take when the lawful ways to redress grievances do not work?
Do you consider self-defense to only mean defense against an imminent threat (e.g. police officers shooting at you unprovoked) or does your definition of self-defense also include defending oneself against systemic threats (e.g. systemic abuse of police force)?
So there should be a trial everytime a police officer shoots someone? Whether there is any evidence of wrongdoing or not?
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
And so how does burning down stores achieve your end?
If your human or civil rights are being attacked and your legal means haven't yielded results for ~20 years, what do you do next?Keep using your legal means. Just because I am not satisfied with the way my causes have progressed, doesn't mean I should get to break the law to get my way.
In short: suck it up, butttercup.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?