[RD] Berkeley Riots

[aelf]

#salty

 

[Manfred Belheim]

#wilfulignorance

 

[BvBPL]

If there was a straightforward answer to that question, we wouldn't have much need of trial by jury.

TL;DR - The "standard" is... reasonable under the circumstances as determined by the finder of fact.

So you’re the finder of fact; you’re the jury. What’s the analysis?

If there was a straightforward answer to that question, we wouldn't have much need of trial by jury.

TL;DR - The "standard" is... reasonable under the circumstances as determined by the finder of fact.

An after-the-fact analysis isn’t the same sort of determination one performs before the action or in the middle of the event. What’s the process when you are planning a protest? What about when you are in the middle of things?

For the Berkley matter? Well... we could start here then move on to here... then dig into Plato, the Bible... you name it...

Under those legal standards, the violence was unacceptable.

 

[metalhead]

People aren't required to extensively contemplate beforehand whether or not their actions ill meet the standard of a reasonable person. All the law requires is that their actions meet it.

I'd argue that it's always reasonable to use force against police officers when they are advancing on you. So tossing a molotov cocktail in their general direction doesn't require forethought to be a reasonable action of self-defense.

 

[BvBPL]

So tossing a molotov cocktail in their general direction doesn't require forethought to be a reasonable action of self-defense.

It requires forethought to have a Molotov cocktail on your person.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If I'd turned up to a public place with a Molotov cocktail in my hand, and the police started advancing on me, I wouldn't consider it "reasonable" to chuck it at them by any stretch.

 

[Farm Boy]

If it looked like you were going to throw in their direction, I'd guess you'd probably have cleared the encumbrances the police have on killing you on the spot. In a defense of others line of reasoning, if it looked like you were going to throw it in a building that may or may not be occupied, I'd guess you may have also cleared the encumbrances the police have on killing you on the spot.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If it looked like you were going to throw in their direction, I'd guess you'd probably have cleared the encumbrances the police have on killing you on the spot. In a defense of others line of reasoning, if it looked like you were going to throw it in a building that may or may not be occupied, I'd guess you may have also cleared the encumbrances the police have on killing you on the spot.

Well, luckily I'm not American so I think the police I'd encounter wouldn't be quite so willing to leap to lethal action.

 

[Farm Boy]

May we all live in uninteresting times.

 

[metalhead]

It requires forethought to have a Molotov cocktail on your person.

I'm betting millions of people have the requisite materials in their cars this very moment.

It's also worth noting that a molotov cocktail is not necessarily going to be used to harm either people or property. I'm also still waiting for someone to actually prove where these were used at the incident in question.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's also worth noting that a molotov cocktail is not necessarily going to be used to harm either people or property.

Convenient way of remotely starting a barbecue?

 

[BvBPL]

Both CNN and the Daily Californian report Molotov cocktails being used by Black Bloc thugs as well as commercial-grade fireworks being fired at the police.

Also interesting:
Black Bloc members attempted to prevent the press from taking photographs at the event.
And here’s a reference to Yiannopoulos’s threat to name student without legal status.

 

[metalhead]

I didn't see that in the Daily Californian. CNN is fake news.

In any event, both stories make it clear that the people committing violence were not the student protesters and not affiliated with the University. So I'm still not clear on the relevance of any of this, regardless of its propriety.

 

[BvBPL]

So I'm still not clear on the relevance of any of this, regardless of its propriety.

Violence at the demonstration is what this thread is about. Yes, of course the violence is relevant.

 

[metalhead]

Right, but violence happens at sporting events too, so "Violence happened at X thing" is not a particularly provocative or controversial thing that merits actual discussion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So you’re the finder of fact; you’re the jury. What’s the analysis?

Well the Daily Californian article said:

Controversial conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos’ campus appearance was canceled Wednesday evening after a group of about 150 violent agitators interrupted an otherwise peaceful protest ... By 5:30 p.m., protesters had amassed on Sproul Plaza ... The protests later escalated... UCPD determined that it was necessary to evacuate Yiannopoulos from the premises to ensure his safety about 6:00 p.m.

CNN said:

Administrators decided to cancel the Wednesday event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."

So it seems clear from these articles at least, that there was a peaceful protest going on, and Milo was still going to speak, and it was only after the protests turned violent that Milo's speech was cancelled by the University... as a direct result of the level of violence going on in the protests. Reading both articles, it sounds like there was a lot of property damage, isolated fires (as opposed to people or buildings being burned down), broken windows, fireworks, chanting, yelling. One guy claims he was punched and had some cuts/bruises. Another two people claimed they were attacked but there are no details about the particulars of the attack. There was also a guy who's hat was taken and set on fire (poor guy, that sucks ). The article actually says that the guy was "thrown", but it seems like that was a typo, because then it says his hat was snatched and it was the hat that was thrown, then burned while he ran away. CNN mentions molotovs, Daily Cal doesn't. I didn't see anything about molotovs being thrown at police.

OK so my analysis. You already said that for the purposes of this discussion you define "violence" as person-to-person, not property damage... so all that rock, throwing and setting off fireworks, and the fake news claims about molotovs being thrown (with no reference to them hitting police or anyone else) is out. What we are left with is one guy got allegedly punched at least according to him, and two others were "attacked" but we don't know if that means beaten-within-an-inch-of-their-lives, or someone said "RAH!" to them and they ran off... so I'm discounting that. Oh and the guy who lost his hat... scary, but thank goodness he escaped with his life (unlike his hat).

Conclusion/TL;DR: I think it was a defensible trade-off. No deaths, estimated $100K in property damage. Milo was stopped from speaking and probably won't come back (which seems to have been the goal). Freedom of speech will survive. Bad dude was made to feel unwelcome...I'm not shedding any tears for him. University admins learned a valuable lesson, bad dudes are unwelcome and end up costing more trouble than they're probably worth. The students were protesting peacefully and it wasn't working, it was only when the anarchists showed up that the University got the message. I have said repeatedly that protest often, if not always involves a delicate bad-cop/good-cop balance to get results. So I can't blame the students, they were the good-cop and the anarchists were the bad-cop... Hopefully next time the University listens to the good-cops before the bad-cops get there.

So what's your analysis?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Right, but violence happens at sporting events too, so "Violence happened at X thing" is not a particularly provocative or controversial thing that merits actual discussion.

Does anyone justify the riots after sporting events? No? Then sounds like it would be a boring thread.

 

[metalhead]

Worth noting - the $100k in property damage is likely insured. Some people and some businesses are likely out a deductible.

 

[Lexicus]

Does anyone justify the riots after sporting events? No? Then sounds like it would be a boring thread.

No, but people sure do indulgently refer to people who riot at sporting events as kids blowing off steam.

 

[metalhead]

Does anyone justify the riots after sporting events? No? Then sounds like it would be a boring thread.

As I mentioned upthread, nobody seems that bothered by them either when the damage is confined to small fires, smashed windows, perhaps an unlucky car or 2 that gets dented or even torched.

If society looks the other way and shrugs at purposeless violence, or even laughs it away with a "boys will be boys" attitude, it makes it all the more curious when the exact same violence is then decried when it actually serves a purpose.