LogFAQs > #942696136

Inviso posted...

I think you and I have different definitions of what constitutes violence that warrants a police response. I'm referring to violence against people, and you're referring to vandalism against property. I do not think vandalism of property warrants a response of police brutality against non-violent protestors, even if said protestors are impeding the police's ability to stop the vandalism in question. It's essentially arguing that one side if damaging inanimate capitol, and the other side is damaging living, breathing human beings, and the latter is acceptable in response to the former.

We've already established in this topic series that the police are not legally required to protect people, as per legal decisions handed down by the courts. So given that the police are not legally required to protect PEOPLE, why do the police NEED to protect property with such zeal as to harm innocent protestors in the process? I think that's where the disconnect is coming from in our attitudes. You're looking at the looters as "They're bad and should be punished no matter what", and I'm looking at the police as "If the only way you can stop those criminals is to commit what would be considered a far worse crime if you weren't the police...maybe you're the problem here."

You are looking at direct damage to lives versus indirect. The laws exist and are what they are. The police should be stopping those from breaking the law. There is no "Hey, they are only destroying that business that employs 40 people and possibly costing them their jobs. Or hey, they are only destroying that car that person worked their whole life for" so it is okay.

There is mental and physical indirect results from it.

Someone is gonna say "lol it's called insurance fuck those places let them burn". When insurance is used, it may cover all costs, but then insurance raises for everyone else. What if someone no longer can stay in business due to the raised costs, someone is unable to now accomplish their dream because of costs associated, etc. What if their car insurance totals that car for 5k and you are left on the hook for 18k you owe and you had a 2k deductible.

People shouldn't have to live their lives and be reactionary to what amounts to you to be allowable crime.

The problem is that if police say, hey, can you please back up so we can get these looters. They are met with fuck you you fucking pigs.

That said, many don't even ask anymore and just deem the assemblies riots. Mostly because probably none of them have permits at this point and have shown the propensity for damage to happen. Every damage to the community either leaves a community damaged or brings cost to others in order to fix it.

It is simply unacceptable to say that we are just going to let that crime go. We shouldn't even want that as a society. No matter if it supports your beliefs or not. I don't care what the cause is.

At this point, the protests have caused way more damage, injuries, and loss of life than the issue they are protesting in an apportioned amount of time. That signals something is wrong with what is happening during the protests. It doesn't mean the cause is bad. It doesn't mean the people that are peacefully protesting are bad. It means that their protests are being co-oped to something else.

---

Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)