Author Topic: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?  (Read 3568 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 41469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #75 on: September 08, 2020, 05:41:03 PM »
A report from an eyewitness in Portland.
Pat Conover Mickiewicz
I’m writing this morning as an eye witness. I wasn’t at the Portland protest at Ventura Park last night, but I was with grandkids who live in a house across the street from the park. I looked out the front window as police declared a riot. (It was not. It was people who had assembled for speeches, poetry, advocacy.) As they have done now for 100 days, police declare a riot to fall within a city ordinance exception so they can start covering the crowd with tear gas. The area cleared several times. At 2 points in time, police ran at protesters (who were running to get out of the way).  Police made a traffic jam on this usually quiet street, which was then at a standstill for about an hour with police vehicles, lights, sirens, loudspeakers. Teargas in a residential neighborhood.  We closed the windows & put wet towels under the doors of the rooms where the babies were. (Mercifully, asleep almost throughout.)

...

I’ve seen some footage of fires. I saw no fires from where I was, so I’m not a witness for fires, except that they weren’t being set where the crowd was being chased and gassed. From footage and reading, I believe there were 3 fires: the barricade at the crosswalk on Stark (to keep the crowd from going to East Precinct, a predictable target); a small dumpster on stark near the crosswalk; and whatever happened with a device like a Molotov cocktail that had a protestors’ pant legs on fire in alarming footage which goons found hilarious. (Not clear whether it was deployed by protestors or agitators; seems like it would be pretty straightforward to figure out who did that. After 100 days of protests, I’m sure the person is known to police.)


The fact that an eyewitness wasn't in the area where the rioting occurred doesn't mean it did not happen.
She wasn't outside with the protesters, but was in a house across the street from the park. She could see what was happening.
She ... like you... and the rest of us are clueless of the local laws involved here.  You however have a predisposition to portraying law enforcement with a less than best construction light. 


All appearances indicate that the article cited is written by a very biased author.


I grew up in Portland. My brother and his wife still live there. They agree with the article. Perhaps they are biased, too. I expect that they and the author are much more knowledgable about what's going on in Portland than you or me.
Brian Stoffregen
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ― Albert Einstein

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #76 on: September 08, 2020, 06:13:15 PM »
https://quillette.com/2020/09/08/police-violence-and-the-rush-to-judgment/

Excellent article. Rush to judgment expresses well so much of what we are seeing.

"Observers who reserve judgment until the facts emerge do not always end up ratifying received wisdom, because tidy political narratives rarely reflect the complexities of reality."

We become horrified when someone is shot by a cop and we jump to the immediate conclusion, if it involved a minority, that it was unjustified and therefore outright murder.  Yet do we consider the cops that die in the line of duty defending our communities? Statistically, an American cop is shot nearly every day in the line of duty, and officers often have to make critical, split-second decisions when their own lives—or the lives of others—are imperiled.

We justify violence saying sometimes it is necessary that something is broken before people will listen. But as the writer notes: Outrage does not bring about justice; it does precisely the opposite. Millions of dollars of damage ensure as people riot, victimizing even people of color, and injuring them as well. Under the guise of social justice activism, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,” according to the New York Times‘s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones. Instead of bringing about a constructive dialogue, it results in efforts to merely control violence for public safety.  But cops again are blamed in the process.

The last two sentences effectively sum up where we now find ourselves: The time has come for a serious conversation about police brutality, criminal justice reform, and how political polarization prevents progress. Until due process is enshrined in our political zeitgeist and lawlessness is tamed, the disintegration of civil society will only amplify racial inequality, embolden extremists on both sides, and exacerbate ideological tensions.

Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

James

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #77 on: September 08, 2020, 07:03:59 PM »

I grew up in Portland. My brother and his wife still live there. They agree with the article. Perhaps they are biased, too. I expect that they and the author are much more knowledgable about what's going on in Portland than you or me.
Mr Rustad indicated up thread some legal information about ‘declaring’ a riot.  Perhaps his knowledge could clear up some invalid assumptions. Perhaps declaring a riot anywhere in town effects the entire city.
I am incessantly accused of posting personal attacks. Requests form to cite specific posts are mysteriously censored by moderators and/or remain unanswered.
Apparently no personal attack exists ... but regrettably some of the baseless personal attacks accusations remain.

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #78 on: September 08, 2020, 09:14:37 PM »
A report from an eyewitness in Portland.

Pat Conover Mickiewicz

I’m writing this morning as an eye witness. I wasn’t at the Portland protest at Ventura Park last night, but I was with grandkids who live in a house across the street from the park. I looked out the front window as police declared a riot. (It was not. It was people who had assembled for speeches, poetry, advocacy.) As they have done now for 100 days, police declare a riot to fall within a city ordinance exception so they can start covering the crowd with tear gas. The area cleared several times. At 2 points in time, police ran at protesters (who were running to get out of the way).  Police made a traffic jam on this usually quiet street, which was then at a standstill for about an hour with police vehicles, lights, sirens, loudspeakers. Teargas in a residential neighborhood.  We closed the windows & put wet towels under the doors of the rooms where the babies were. (Mercifully, asleep almost throughout.)

...

I’ve seen some footage of fires. I saw no fires from where I was, so I’m not a witness for fires, except that they weren’t being set where the crowd was being chased and gassed. From footage and reading, I believe there were 3 fires: the barricade at the crosswalk on Stark (to keep the crowd from going to East Precinct, a predictable target); a small dumpster on stark near the crosswalk; and whatever happened with a device like a Molotov cocktail that had a protestors’ pant legs on fire in alarming footage which goons found hilarious. (Not clear whether it was deployed by protestors or agitators; seems like it would be pretty straightforward to figure out who did that. After 100 days of protests, I’m sure the person is known to police.)


The fact that an eyewitness wasn't in the area where the rioting occurred doesn't mean it did not happen.

She wasn't outside with the protesters, but was in a house across the street from the park. She could see what was happening.

She stated that there was no riot ("It was not. It was people who had assembled for speeches, poetry, advocacy.").

Police and TV news crews stated that there was a riot.  There is video of what certainly appears to be a riot.

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that there was a riot.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 41469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2020, 03:02:31 AM »
A report from an eyewitness in Portland.

Pat Conover Mickiewicz

I’m writing this morning as an eye witness. I wasn’t at the Portland protest at Ventura Park last night, but I was with grandkids who live in a house across the street from the park. I looked out the front window as police declared a riot. (It was not. It was people who had assembled for speeches, poetry, advocacy.) As they have done now for 100 days, police declare a riot to fall within a city ordinance exception so they can start covering the crowd with tear gas. The area cleared several times. At 2 points in time, police ran at protesters (who were running to get out of the way).  Police made a traffic jam on this usually quiet street, which was then at a standstill for about an hour with police vehicles, lights, sirens, loudspeakers. Teargas in a residential neighborhood.  We closed the windows & put wet towels under the doors of the rooms where the babies were. (Mercifully, asleep almost throughout.)

...

I’ve seen some footage of fires. I saw no fires from where I was, so I’m not a witness for fires, except that they weren’t being set where the crowd was being chased and gassed. From footage and reading, I believe there were 3 fires: the barricade at the crosswalk on Stark (to keep the crowd from going to East Precinct, a predictable target); a small dumpster on stark near the crosswalk; and whatever happened with a device like a Molotov cocktail that had a protestors’ pant legs on fire in alarming footage which goons found hilarious. (Not clear whether it was deployed by protestors or agitators; seems like it would be pretty straightforward to figure out who did that. After 100 days of protests, I’m sure the person is known to police.)


The fact that an eyewitness wasn't in the area where the rioting occurred doesn't mean it did not happen.

She wasn't outside with the protesters, but was in a house across the street from the park. She could see what was happening.

She stated that there was no riot ("It was not. It was people who had assembled for speeches, poetry, advocacy.").

Police and TV news crews stated that there was a riot.  There is video of what certainly appears to be a riot.

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that there was a riot.


It was a riot because the police, at some point in the evening, declared it a riot, which gave them license to use tear gas and other means to disperse the crowds. That's when it seemed that the people were running all over the place.
Brian Stoffregen
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ― Albert Einstein

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11703
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2020, 06:42:28 AM »
Given the amount of violence and destruction,  the number of people assaulted and killed, the government buildings vandalized and fires set at them, and the number of police officers assaulted and even killed at demonstrations it is perhaps understandable that perhaps in this instance the police over reacted and declared a riot when it was not. Do you want to assert that in every case a cross the country or every case in Portland these were peaceful protests until the police intervened?

Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

James

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #81 on: September 09, 2020, 09:40:13 AM »
Police and TV news crews stated that there was a riot.  There is video of what certainly appears to be a riot.

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that there was a riot.
It was a riot because the police, at some point in the evening, declared it a riot, which gave them license to use tear gas and other means to disperse the crowds. That's when it seemed that the people were running all over the place.
Again a double standard ... those of your ilk continually remind us that not all protesters are law breaking thugs and rioters ... which is true. What those of your ilk fail to accept is that the actions of a few others affects the actions of all.


Locally, a few months ago a peaceful group officially cancelled their participation in a march when it became apparent that groups with less than honorable intentions were going to be on the streets as well. 


Simply accept the fact that the lawless activities of the law breaking thug lawbreakers adversely and from the prospect of some have negative results.
I am incessantly accused of posting personal attacks. Requests form to cite specific posts are mysteriously censored by moderators and/or remain unanswered.
Apparently no personal attack exists ... but regrettably some of the baseless personal attacks accusations remain.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 41469
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #82 on: September 09, 2020, 01:38:42 PM »
Police and TV news crews stated that there was a riot.  There is video of what certainly appears to be a riot.

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that there was a riot.
It was a riot because the police, at some point in the evening, declared it a riot, which gave them license to use tear gas and other means to disperse the crowds. That's when it seemed that the people were running all over the place.
Again a double standard ... those of your ilk continually remind us that not all protesters are law breaking thugs and rioters ... which is true. What those of your ilk fail to accept is that the actions of a few others affects the actions of all.


Locally, a few months ago a peaceful group officially cancelled their participation in a march when it became apparent that groups with less than honorable intentions were going to be on the streets as well. 


Simply accept the fact that the lawless activities of the law breaking thug lawbreakers adversely and from the prospect of some have negative results.


I applaud the police when they arrest the law breakers at these protests. I've had two chief of police as members of congregations, plus city police officers, a deputy sherif, highway patrol officers, retired military police; some even came to worship in uniform because that's when they took a lunch break or were on duty right after worship ended.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 01:41:12 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
Brian Stoffregen
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” ― Albert Einstein

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2020, 09:52:52 AM »
More violent protests.

New York Times summary:
Protesters took to the streets in multiple cities after a grand jury in Louisville, Ky., declined to charge the two officers who fatally shot Breonna Taylor in March. Most protests were peaceful, but not all: In Louisville, two police officers were shot. Both are expected to survive.

The grand jury did indict one former detective for recklessly firing into another apartment during a raid of Taylor’s home, as the police searched for evidence against her ex-boyfriend.


Protests also spread to other cities. 

I understand.  Another Black person killed by a white officer.  I also understand that it was a 'botched raid,' that they shouldn't have even been in Breonna's apartment in the first place. 

But the call is for the officers to be charged with murder. 

Putting race aside for a moment (which I know is difficult in this case and in the current climate), how should the officers be treated?  A fatal mistake was made.  True.  A very unfortunate, fatal mistake. But the shots of the officers that killed Breonna were fired only after her boyfriend opened fire at them.  They did not know at the time that their raid was a mistake. They reacted the way police are trained to react - to defend themselves. As far as we can tell this was not a clear act of racial injustice in that a Black person was deliberately targeted by white cops.

If this 'botched raid' had not involved people of color, would the same call for an indictment of murder be made?  Do we charge all cops who kill someone in the line of duty if it is determined that their actions were a mistake, but not a deliberate act to murder? 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11703
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #84 on: September 24, 2020, 10:40:04 AM »
With what shall we replace the current criminal justice system of laws, police, and courts? In Louisville today there is the demand to replace the Grand Jury system to accumulate evidence, evaluate that evidence, examine the applicable laws, and reach a judgement on whether the suspects should be remanded for trial with a system whereby those interested with the loudest voices determine who should be tried for a crime. Later on, I suspect, if those indicted by the crowd are tried and not convicted they will also claim the right to overturn the trial verdict and render their own verdict with threat of violence if their verdict is not upheld and acted upon. We have been seeing this sort of trial by crowd carried out around the country for years. It usually has not ended well.


There has also been the demand that the job of determining law, enforcing it, and protecting people and property be taken away from government entities and handed over to self appointed spokespeople for the interested parties. They demand the right to appropriate property from whomever they decide for their own benefit - looting - as their right, and destroy property and assault whoever gets in their way or just crosses their path.


Is this what we want for our cities, our nation? There has been a long history of injustice, sometimes as a result of mob rule. Much needs to be done to right wrongs and improve the criminal justice system. But is this the best way to do it?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15792
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #85 on: September 24, 2020, 10:54:43 AM »
This is what happens when you indoctrinate people with the idea of systemic racism without pointing to any specific law or policy that is racist. There doesn't need to be evidence of racism. Nor are the facts of the case even relevant to the protesters. For instance, the police knocked and announced themselves, they didn't just burst in. Taylor was a known participant in her boyfriend's drug deals; they went down at her pace with her knowledge and consent. They weren't at the wrong address. Her boyfriend in prison for dealing drugs was having packages delivered to her address and told people over the phone from prison, whether truthfully or not, that Taylor was holding thousands of dollars for him in her apartment, etc. etc. it doesn't even matter. The black Attorney General of Kentucky has been publicly called a coon, a race-traitor, a house-n*****, a fake black man (he is a Republican, so according to Biden he isn't really black anyway), etc. The protesters can do that because they feel justified in using use real, overt racism to fight hidden, systemic racism. But it isn't the systemic racism that is their real target, it is the system itself. Calling it inherently racist is just a handy way to attack it. 

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #86 on: September 25, 2020, 09:00:24 PM »
More information is starting to come out about the shooting of Jacob Blake.

(CNN)Police Officer Rusten Sheskey has told investigators that it wasn't just his life he was defending when he fired his weapon seven times at Jacob Blake last month in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He said he used deadly force during the chaotic encounter because he was afraid Blake, while attempting to flee the scene, was trying to kidnap a child in the backseat of the vehicle.

"He's got my kid. He's got my keys," Sheskey heard a woman say, according to attorney Brendan Matthews, who is representing the officer. If Sheskey had allowed Blake to drive away and something happened to the child "the question would have been 'why didn't you do something?'" Matthews said.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2020, 09:32:32 AM »
Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal have now come under fire for their comments regarding the Breonna Taylor case.  Two former black athletes.  The terrible things they said?  They defended the police who carried out a valid search warrant and returned fire after Breonna's boyfriend opened fire at them.  Yet even criminal law experts agree. (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/07/29/breonna-taylor-case-should-louisville-police-charged-her-death/5529469002/)

Apparently the rule on the streets now is if a seemingly innocent black person is shot and killed by  police, the police who shot them are automatically guilty of murder. Automatically guilty of racist actions. Even if the shots fired were return fire from someone near that person and they were defending themselves. Even if it was done after one officer was shot and wounded. Even if the death of the innocent was unintended. 

Now it is also true that the officer in question was fired for firing 10 rounds into the apartment in what was considered a blind and reckless way.  And no-knock warrants are also being called into question.

But to charge the officer with murder?  What precedent would this set for the future? 

Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Pr. Terry Culler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2020, 11:28:32 AM »
Don, please stop trying to be rational.  The postmodern world cares nothing for reason or even common sense, it is all about their feelings.  I, at least, can't help but be reminded of idiot college administrators who allow "safe places" where no one with a different opinion, race, gender or preference for breakfast cereal can ever be allowed.  The results of such nonsense will only increase until we are on the road to the war of all against all. :(
Goodnewsforabadworld.wordpress.com

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Violent Protests and Riots - To What Purpose?
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2020, 12:10:56 PM »
Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal have now come under fire for their comments regarding the Breonna Taylor case.  Two former black athletes.  The terrible things they said?  They defended the police who carried out a valid search warrant and returned fire after Breonna's boyfriend opened fire at them.  Yet even criminal law experts agree. (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/07/29/breonna-taylor-case-should-louisville-police-charged-her-death/5529469002/)

Apparently the rule on the streets now is if a seemingly innocent black person is shot and killed by  police, the police who shot them are automatically guilty of murder. Automatically guilty of racist actions. Even if the shots fired were return fire from someone near that person and they were defending themselves. Even if it was done after one officer was shot and wounded. Even if the death of the innocent was unintended. 

Now it is also true that the officer in question was fired for firing 10 rounds into the apartment in what was considered a blind and reckless way.  And no-knock warrants are also being called into question.

But to charge the officer with murder?  What precedent would this set for the future?

The article you cite indicates that the detective who applied for the search warrant has been suspended while the his statements in the application are investigated.  It's possible that he will be charged with false swearing or more.  Even if that happens, the officers executing the warrant will not face additional charges unless there is evidence that they knew the warrant was falsely obtained.  This is as it should be.

As for no-knock warrants?  I find myself undecided.  I certainly understand the element of surprise as a benefit.  However, that same surprise can result in unintended consequences - death or injuries to innocent people as well as to officers.