kvnchrist Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 I've been seeing a lot of protests in the last few months and I've heard about blocking streets, highways and even malls and stores. I was wondering If the public has any right not to be confronted or molested by these protesters. Is there a point in time where the actions of those who abuse the right to protest turn the public against them and what responsibility, if any do protesters have to police the troublemakers withing their protest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraeten Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Each protestor is responsible for his or herself. They're all out there for the same reasons, but that doesn't equate to shared accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgeburner Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) They have a right to peaceful demonstration. IMO, I you inconvenience the very people you are trying to sway towards your "cause", your are just plain obsessed, or stupid.Lesson learned from the "occupy" movement?Personally, (and the mods can yank this if the want to) I think the most recent protest in Missouri concerning the white cop shooting a black crim, show the true colors of many of these protesters.....It ain't about justice to them.I'm not saying it's a majority, but, it's far from a miniscule minority. Each protestor is responsible for his or herself. They're all out there for the same reasons, but that doesn't equate to shared accountability. Until the mob mentality takes over....as it so often does. Then, if you get hung-up in the shuffle.... Edited December 26, 2014 by edgeburner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) They're breaking the law in most situations unless they get a permit to protest. Doing things like blocking an interstate highway isn't legal protesting, its breaking the law. But if there are enough people, they could overwhelm a police force's ability to control the situation, or the ones in charge might selectively choose to not enforce the law in that specific situation for political reasons. During the Ferguson riots, they had plenty of personel to gain control had they called in the National Guard, which were placed on standby and ready to act on a moments notice. They were awfully light handed with the situation. I guess someone up top was too scared to be called a "racist" for enforcing the law and protecting local businesses and property from destruction by mobs of looters. Rallying behind a thug like Michael Brown, and propping him up like he was a hero isn't going to win over hearts and minds among normal, sane minded people. Edited December 26, 2014 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgeburner Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) I guess someone up top was too scared to be called a "racist" for enforcing the law and protecting local businesses and property from destruction by mobs of looters. Rallying behind a thug like Michael Brown, and propping him up like he was a hero isn't going to win over hearts and minds among normal, sane minded people. Exactly. Remember how they (the MSM and others) tried to portray him as some sort of choir boy......until the STLPD/FPD released that vid of him robbing that store and physically threatening the owner? Of course, they were wrong to release that footage. Why? There are very few cops who are actually racist. Yet, we let a few isolated incidences influence the whole? Not only that, but the said instances are not in any way proven to be racist??? There are people whom benefit from these divisive tactics..... Edited December 26, 2014 by edgeburner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted December 27, 2014 Author Share Posted December 27, 2014 Each protestor is responsible for his or herself. They're all out there for the same reasons, but that doesn't equate to shared accountability. A group is a group. Those who are peaceable are always painted with the same brush as those who destroy. Have you not heard of the concept of guilt by association. Note, the media will show what they wish others to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Conspiracy- "An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors." ~ West Law When the protest becomes a riot then the latter half of the clause becomes relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serithi Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You've got your right to protest, but you also have just as much right to be able to drive to your destination without people illegally blocking the roads. If your protest is negatively affecting stuff (such as said road blockage, people rioting and looting a la the Michael Brown case), it's failed on every fundamental level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrovvind Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Rallying behind a thug like Michael Brown, and propping him up like he was a hero isn't going to win over hearts and minds among normal, sane minded people. Off-topic for a second: Everybody has a right to life in this country, regardless of whether they are a "thug" or not. Regardless of what gas station they stole from. Regardless of how "unruly" they could be. When an unarmed person of any color gets shot and killed, it's a travesty. I could understand if they had a bomb or a flamethrower or automatic machine gun and are harming others, but unarmed? Why not just call for backup to help subdue the suspect instead of becoming judge/jury/executioner and killing them on the spot? Where's the due process of law? Heck, the Boston Bomber got more due process..... On-topic: I don't think I'm exactly comfortable lumping all protesters together. All it takes is one person with a flaming bottle to ignite a frenzy, but not everyone there has a motive to loot or destroy stuff. While many might have been breaking the law, I'm sure a good many were also compliant. And shooting tear gas canisters anywhere and everywhere isn't exactly going to de-escalate things; people do crazy things when they are afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgeburner Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 When an unarmed person of any color gets shot and killed, it's a travesty. I could understand if they had a bomb or a flamethrower or automatic machine gun and are harming others, but unarmed? Why not just call for backup to help subdue the suspect instead of becoming judge/jury/executioner and killing them on the spot? Where's the due process of law? Heck, the Boston Bomber got more due process..... I think you have to take a minute and look at this from the cops perspective....Brown had just robbed a store, was walking down the middle of the street like he owned it, refused to take to the sidewalk when asked, reached into the cops car (to grab his gun?) when pulled by the cop, runs away with a bullet wound to the hand after, then turns and charges the cop (allegedly). What would you do if your were the police officer? Remember, Brown was a big strong dude, do you wait for him to get to you before you pull the trigger?? Oh...and how did the cop know he did not posses (in the moment) a firearm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now