[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[cardgame]

It's not arbitrary.

You might as well defend mass murderers as "just a bunch of serial murders in close proximity and frequency" instead of calling them what they are, terrorists.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That has some interesting implications on the discussion, however. Both the one about arbitrary property valuation and the larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".

Great, so putting aside the former "implication" which I'm less interested in... please explain the latter "larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".

EDIT: I would have simply replied "Such as?" to your post but I wanted to make it explicitly clear that I'm not the least bit interested in hearing about that first "implication" you referenced. I'm only interested in the "larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".

 

[Crezth]

I just don't understand where people are seeing armed police shooting peaceful protesters and reporters dead in the streets, with the entire political establishment agreeing this is OK, and deciding that we need to talk about statues.

 

[Seon]

Right. We've established that there needs to be basis for opinions to be held in higher regard than other opinions. The law in this case fails to possess such basis.

law in this case succeeds to possess such basis.

And one of these opinions will be more accurate in a particular situation...namely how much "stuff" a person can get using a bag of yellow bricks. For whatever method you use to value property in the form of physical objects, it will eventually look something like ranking it in terms of monetary value.

And the amount of stuff that one can buy with gold is dependent upon consensus upon value of gold but apparently monetary value is a more consistent basis of legal truth than other forms of consensus.

Now, we need to establish a coherent legal basis to weight things differently than the already established legal basis of financial value, despite that the damage is still financial in the given example (assuming nobody is in the burned building).

Hence why we have common laws and consensus based reality.

Nobody has established a coherent basis for claiming property "transcends pure monetary analysis", however.

I believe that certain constructs and organizations have value greater than its monetary value is coherently based uponconsensus, legal precedents, and history.

"I consider your position patently absurd", and the fact that it's ignoring inconvenient arguments against it that have already been made to be a mark against its validity.

Questioning a validity of an argument by noting its positions are absurd have been a valid logical debating technique since the times of Ancient Greece.

If I were to base my argument upon the hypothesis that the color of the sky is hot pink, you would be correct to call me out for my absurdity. Likewise if the conclusion of my argument is that death is actually life or that the law does not apply to us, i would consider such a conclusion an absurd one requiring an enormously large burden of proof.

If you want to claim value beyond accepted monetary value with regards to property, there needs to be some way to demonstrate that value. When people try, this tends to keep looking like money. So special money? Or do you have something that demonstrates something beyond that?

As all value including monetary exists as a matter of consensus opinion, I argue that as you keep looking, it keeps looking like an opinion rather than money. “When people try, this tends to look like money” is an unproven assertion from your end. As such, I am not compelled to prove your point by arguing demonstrable value similar to monetary value.

It is a legal opinion written and issued by representatives of a consensus. This in itself have self-evident value as it is the same basis upon which fiat currency have value.

[quote{If you ignore reality you can pretend anything you like. But you're going to have to do better than that to substantiate a position. "I declare disagreement absurd" is not a viable effort.[/quote]

I am not substantiating a position. I’m pointing out that you have failed to substantiate yours.

Destruction of property with no due reason endangers the continuation of society. Committing either act could be and should be considered felony. No need to play pretend with value propositions.

A statue does not generally serve any function in community, and thus does not contribute to function of society aside from as a decorative fixture. A church holds services and engages in other valuable community activities.

If it is a truly empty church that’s not been in service for years it would be an empty derelict, not a church.

Actually, you're damaging a building, and with some difficulty perhaps some harm can be traced beyond that building and factored.

good thing we have laws founded upon consensus which spells out exactly why burning a building is bad and why it should be punished in this and such manner

Statues can and usually do represent something also. Perhaps repeated destruction of statues can be construed as an attack on either what they represent or their respective communities. Why not? It's as solid a basis as is being presented in the quote.

And thus it is not clear that there is "necessity for harsher penalty".

It could represent something of such nature, yes. You could consider that maybe when statues of racist slave owners get vandalized, it is a systemic attack on racist slave owners or their ilk.

We have agreed upon by consensus that racism is a problem and slave owning is illegal, and thus, destruction of these statues for these reasons do not constitute a violation aside from property destruction and is not an attack on our community.

on that same token if statues or busts of civil rights movements or minorities get destroyed or defaced I could entertain the possibility that this constitutes a systemic effort to terrorize said minority groups, and thus constitute a hate crime. This would necessitate a harsher penalty than simple vandalism.

As such the logic would still remain consistent.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I guess the community decided otherwise

Said the whites who burned down the black church.

 

[Estebonrober]

I still have yet to hear a good explanation as to (a.) what the motivations are of a cabal of closet neo-Nazis putting in secret codes (that aren't even secret since they get reported on each time they're "found") and (b.) what the numerologists think when they likely fail to find whatever it is they're looking for since not every ad or message gets reported on as having these secret codes.

The two possibilities as I see it are:

First, there is an underground network of neo-Nazis covertly operating in the Republican Party, sending hidden messages to neo-Nazis which accomplish... something, I guess? Again, I'm lost as to what's actually supposed to happen.

Or, people ascribe significance to coincidence, which is something that happens a lot and life is just mundane with people looking for something to do.

I'm going with the second.

They play in numerology and anyone whose spent any time looking into them knows about it. This definitely include right wing political operatives of a certain age. . .

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/10/14-and-88-why-white-supremacists-love-the-numbers.html

It was not a coincidence. They've been doing this from the start with the 14 words (easy coincidence) 88 reference (harder coincidence). In this case though using the extermination camp symbol for political dissidents in reference to antifa and "the left" is a bridge too far. Every right winger on this forum is either in utter denial or is ready to join up it seems to me. This garbage has a long history and so does the right wing and right now they are backing brutal repression of the first amendment rights of their political opposition.

 

[r16]

every time any "proper" goverment finds itself in trouble , them Jews are the easiest target , you know , despite the American Right's love for lsrael . And as the Blacks like can not possibly have the oft qouted CFC agency with them , all those hurting stuff must be some nefarious plot by them Jews and the concentration camp badge and 14s and 88s show them Jews the true mettle and power of the "proper" goverments , them Jews to stop or they will get what they deserve . That placard of Arbeit Mach Frei , ı think in Clown Car thread , like them Jews releasing the virus to hurt Trump . Didn't Trump gave the West Bank to Netanyahu ?

 

[Estebonrober]

Said the whites who burned down the black church.

Oh it seems highly unlikely that the members of that black church had murdered multiple whites without regress. Also it seems even more unlikely that members of that black church had used local poor whites as piggy banks for their misadventures against the local population. More blatant racist hot takes, nice.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not arbitrary.

lol

I just don't understand where people are seeing armed police shooting peaceful protesters and reporters dead in the streets, with the entire political establishment agreeing this is OK, and deciding that we need to talk about statues.

Not all of the protestors are peaceful, and not all of the police actions are justified or unjustified. Who is at fault depends on the specific sequence of events in each case.

Similarly, protests over the Atlanta shooting do not share the same credible basis as protests of the Floyd murder. Those incidents aren't even close to each other.

please explain the latter "larger one about George Floyd, protesters, and "protesters".

Let me say this up front so it's clear: the people who are actually peacefully assembling and do nothing but shout/hold up signs are not guilty of what is described below. I will disrespect claims that I'm saying otherwise in future posts.

~~~

What the "community" (in quotes because it does not represent everyone living there) decided was to break the law outright and commit arson, among numerous other serious crimes. The same arson that a moment ago was condemned by multiple posters here because it might kill people (outside of the context of the property discussion). The "protesters" who are less than peaceful have also forced a reduction in access to food and basic public services...exactly the kind of "hate actions" implied by the destruction of a church above...only on a much larger and more directly measurable scale. Given the heavy usage rate of places like Target imply that they could reasonably claim to be "community centers" also with similarly credible basis as any church.

Now we have cities/areas where truckers rightly refuse to deliver more stuff to them, businesses canceling plans to enter or pulling out of the areas entirely (creating more food deserts and less law enforcement of any variety...something these communities once demanded rather than decried in general).

The implication is therefore that those in favor of "hate crimes" as defined for protected groups must define rioters as committing hate crimes, the criminals that burn things like police buildings as terrorists.

law in this case succeeds to possess such basis.

Show it.

Hence why we have common laws and consensus based reality.

"consensus based reality" << objective reality. We use the former when the latter isn't known/knowable. You can't have a self-inconsistent/incoherent "consensus based reality", however. Reality in the constraints of macroscopic scales that we observe doesn't work that way.

Questioning a validity of an argument by noting its positions are absurd have been a valid logical debating technique since the times of Ancient Greece.

With the caveat that doing so requires a demonstration of why the argument is absurd.

If I were to base my argument upon the hypothesis that the color of the sky is hot pink, you would be correct to call me out for my absurdity. Likewise if the conclusion of my argument is that death is actually life or that the law does not apply to us, i would consider such a conclusion an absurd one requiring an enormously large burden of proof.

Yet despite saying this, your apparent proposition seems close to the above. Let's set property = P, non-property value as X, and another non-property value as Y. Your apparent proposition is:

P + X > P + Y

What you're not doing, however, is creating any clear basis to evaluate or even establish X / Y. Property damage that goes unenforced will damage a community regardless of its nature (so that should be X on either side of the equation). Your assertions of the "community" boil down to another measurable P, rather than a variable that actually transcends P. That means we could still better operate in a model of:

P = P, and simply calculate P in each instance.

As all value including monetary exists as a matter of consensus opinion, I argue that as you keep looking, it keeps looking like an opinion rather than money. “When people try, this tends to look like money” is an unproven assertion from your end. As such, I am not compelled to prove your point by arguing demonstrable value similar to monetary value.

Coherent valuation implies a consistent utility function.

I am not substantiating a position. I’m pointing out that you have failed to substantiate yours.

I assert that there is no coherent basis to support P > P, which is an apparent assertion. Proving a negative in this context isn't feasible. In contrast, my argument could be defeated by simply providing some self-consistent basis. Which if the rationale for the law were sound, we would expect to be trivial.

A statue does not generally serve any function in community, and thus does not contribute to function of society aside from as a decorative fixture.

A decorative fixture is a function.

A church holds services and engages in other valuable community activities.

Actually churches mostly just sit there. People in the churches might provide valuable services in addition to the building's value, but we had ruled out damage to them directly as part of the hypothetical. I don't think it's impossible or unreasonable to calculate indirect damage.

Similarly, police structures do not enforce law by themselves. The way you argue about churches, however, we should presume that they do and thus treat the rioters as hate criminals with a greater penalty.

good thing we have laws founded upon consensus which spells out exactly why burning a building is bad and why it should be punished in this and such manner

Yep, and what law is cited when someone sets fire to other, non-building property?

Hmmm, still arson.

It could represent something of such nature, yes. You could consider that maybe when statues of racist slave owners get vandalized, it is a systemic attack on racist slave owners or their ilk.

Far from the only statues that get attacked, but my argumentative perspective doesn't affix this kind of arbitrary conclusions favoring or disfavoring things based on personal preference so that doesn't really matter to me.

We have agreed upon by consensus that racism is a problem and slave owning is illegal, and thus, destruction of these statues for these reasons do not constitute a violation aside from property destruction and is not an attack on our community.

Statues don't commit racist acts or own slaves, fortunately. But we agree, this is property destruction, just like destroying a church with nobody in it is property destruction.

on that same token if statues or busts of civil rights movements or minorities get destroyed or defaced I could entertain the possibility that this constitutes a systemic effort to terrorize said minority groups, and thus constitute a hate crime. This would necessitate a harsher penalty than simple vandalism.

This has actually happened, as noted earlier in this thread. People weren't falling over themselves to label the perps as hate criminals though, despite that internal consistency would demand it.

And no, it would not "necessitate" a harsher penalty. You are advocating for one (potentially), that is not what necessity means.

As such the logic would still remain consistent.

Except it isn't, because you are selectively favoring minorities and civil rights movements.

 

[Estebonrober]

lol



Not all of the protestors are peaceful, and not all of the police actions are justified or unjustified. Who is at fault depends on the specific sequence of events in each case.

Similarly, protests over the Atlanta shooting do not share the same credible basis as protests of the Floyd murder. Those incidents aren't even close to each other.



Let me say this up front so it's clear: the people who are actually peacefully assembling and do nothing but shout/hold up signs are not guilty of what is described below. I will disrespect claims that I'm saying otherwise in future posts.

~~~

What the "community" (in quotes because it does not represent everyone living there) decided was to break the law outright and commit arson, among numerous other serious crimes. The same arson that a moment ago was condemned by multiple posters here because it might kill people (outside of the context of the property discussion). The "protesters" who are less than peaceful have also forced a reduction in access to food and basic public services...exactly the kind of "hate actions" implied by the destruction of a church above...only on a much larger and more directly measurable scale. Given the heavy usage rate of places like Target imply that they could reasonably claim to be "community centers" also with similarly credible basis as any church.

Now we have cities/areas where truckers rightly refuse to deliver more stuff to them, businesses canceling plans to enter or pulling out of the areas entirely (creating more food deserts and less law enforcement of any variety...something these communities once demanded rather than decried in general).

The implication is therefore that those in favor of "hate crimes" as defined for protected groups must define rioters as committing hate crimes, the criminals that burn things like police buildings as terrorists.



Show it.



"consensus based reality" << objective reality. We use the former when the latter isn't known/knowable. You can't have a self-inconsistent/incoherent "consensus based reality", however. Reality in the constraints of macroscopic scales that we observe doesn't work that way.



With the caveat that doing so requires a demonstration of why the argument is absurd.



Yet despite saying this, your apparent proposition seems close to the above. Let's set property = P, non-property value as X, and another non-property value as Y. Your apparent proposition is:

P + X > P + Y

What you're not doing, however, is creating any clear basis to evaluate or even establish X / Y. Property damage that goes unenforced will damage a community regardless of its nature (so that should be X on either side of the equation). Your assertions of the "community" boil down to another measurable P, rather than a variable that actually transcends P. That means we could still better operate in a model of:

P = P, and simply calculate P in each instance.



Coherent valuation implies a consistent utility function.



I assert that there is no coherent basis to support P > P, which is an apparent assertion. Proving a negative in this context isn't feasible. In contrast, my argument could be defeated by simply providing some self-consistent basis. Which if the rationale for the law were sound, we would expect to be trivial.



A decorative fixture is a function.



Actually churches mostly just sit there. People in the churches might provide valuable services in addition to the building's value, but we had ruled out damage to them directly as part of the hypothetical.

Similarly, police structures do not enforce law by themselves. The way you argue about churches, however, we should presume that they do and thus treat the rioters as hate criminals with a greater penalty.



Yep, and what law is cited when someone sets fire to other, non-building property?

Hmmm, still arson.



Far from the only statues that get attacked, but my argumentative perspective doesn't affix this kind of arbitrary conclusions favoring or disfavoring things based on personal preference so that doesn't really matter to me.



Statues don't commit racist acts or own slaves, fortunately. But we agree, this is property destruction, just like destroying a church with nobody in it is property destruction.



This has actually happened, as noted earlier in this thread. People weren't falling over themselves to label the perps as hate criminals though, despite that internal consistency would demand it.

And no, it would not "necessitate" a harsher penalty. You are advocating for one (potentially), that is not what necessity means.



Except it isn't, because you are selectively favoring minorities and civil rights movements.

Start a new thread with your racist hot takes tyvm.

I suggest the title "White Statues vs Black Churches"

 

[Bugfatty300]

We're operating in a hypothetical.

KKK terrorism is not hypothetical. Church arson happened. Including deaths and injuries and some had no casualties. Statue vandalism is real too. We don't have to imagine anything to make the argument that one is more serious crime than the other. It's literally written in law.

The only thing that's being hypothesized is the disgusting moral relativist word salad that equates the two things.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Start a new thread with your racist hot takes tyvm.

I suggest the title "White Statues vs Black Churches"

Calling my takes "racist" while I argue against arguments/assertions that intentionally discriminate against people based on race is comical.

Consistency of the law and behavior of the protestors and "protestors" are directly related issues to this thread, so I won't listen to your attempt to shout me down.

KKK terrorism is not hypothetical. Church arson happened. Including deaths and injuries and some had no casualties. Statue vandalism is real too. We don't have to imagine anything to make the argument that one is more serious crime than the other. It's literally written in law.

Derp

If you want more than that, please address the previous response.

 

[Estebonrober]

Calling my takes "racist" while I argue against arguments/assertions that intentionally discriminate against people based on race is comical.

Consistency of the law and behavior of the protestors and "protestors" are directly related issues to this thread, so I won't listen to your attempt to shout me down.



Derp

If you want more than that, please address the previous response.

Denying race and their implications on policy decisions is racist. Your takes are racist in effect.

Having a multi page discussion about the legality of burning churches vs tearing down statues is a distraction. It was fine for a bit but has turned into its own thing.

Note: I do not consider your take even worthy of response other than its gone on too long.

 

[Commodore]

. But cops are risking their lives for us so most people will give them some leeway

No, they aren't risking their lives for us. They also have no sense of duty or responsibility to the American public. This is demonstrated by the fact that cops are resigning and calling in sick with the "blue flu" just because a couple of them have rightfully been charged with murder. Compare that to soldiers who during some of these government shutdowns did not receive a paycheck, yet still continued to report for duty and do their jobs.

As soon as cops face any kind of discipline or oversight, they throw tantrums like little toddlers and start shoving old men onto the concrete and shooting protestors directly in the face with rubber bullets.

Also, the size and scope of these protests as well as the increasing calls to defund the police seem to counter your point that "most people will give them some leeway".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Denying race and their implications on policy decisions is racist.

I didn't do this.

Having a multi page discussion about the legality of burning churches vs tearing down statues is a distraction. It was fine for a bit but has turned into its own thing.

Unfortunately.

In my defense I have tried to relate this back to how it relates to rioters and burning police buildings to illustrate where I was going with it. However, I continue to get responses about that specific line of discussion. If you extend your request to focus back on the Floyd protests and the questionably charged "protesting while black" title topic to the rest of the posters as well, I can honor that and concentrate on why specifically these preferential laws are detrimental rather than beneficial to the issues that prompted the protests.

Note: I do not consider your take even worthy of response other than its gone on too long.

No worries, when I see posts like this I don't respect the person making them at the time either so it's mutual. No hard feelings.

 

[Estebonrober]

I didn't do this.



Unfortunately.

In my defense I have tried to relate this back to how it relates to rioters and burning police buildings to illustrate where I was going with it. However, I continue to get responses about that specific line of discussion. If you extend your request to focus back on the Floyd protests and the questionably charged "protesting while black" title topic to the rest of the posters as well, I can honor that and concentrate on why specifically these preferential laws are detrimental rather than beneficial to the issues that prompted the protests.



No worries, when I see posts like this I don't respect the person making them at the time either so it's mutual. No hard feelings.

Ok "others" please let it go. It is clear here that he equates white statues with black churches.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Phoenix PD decide peaceful protest is unlawful assembly

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/poli...t-unlawful-assembly/ar-BB15Tsk8?ocid=msedgdhp

 

[JohannaK]

Calling my takes "racist" while I argue against arguments/assertions that intentionally discriminate against people based on race is comical.

Consistency of the law and behavior of the protestors and "protestors" are directly related issues to this thread, so I won't listen to your attempt to shout me down.



Derp

If you want more than that, please address the previous response.

I get it. You have the supreme enlightenment of reason and logick on your side. Now that we have established your perfect Platonic ideal of society, can we go to objective reality, much of which is objectively unknowable, such as property value, which is roughly 300% arbitrary, and discuss how things are in the real world?

 

[Seon]

What the "community" (in quotes because it does not represent everyone living there) decided was to break the law outright and commit arson, among numerous other serious crimes. The same arson that a moment ago was condemned by multiple posters here because it might kill people (outside of the context of the property discussion). The "protesters" who are less than peaceful have also forced a reduction in access to food and basic public services...exactly the kind of "hate actions" implied by the destruction of a church above...only on a much larger and more directly measurable scale. Given the heavy usage rate of places like Target imply that they could reasonably claim to be "community centers" also with similarly credible basis as any church.

A community did not do this as looters are self-evidently acting against the interest of the community. However, destruction of a Target is still less offensive than destruction of a church.

Now we have cities/areas where truckers rightly refuse to deliver more stuff to them, businesses canceling plans to enter or pulling out of the areas entirely (creating more food deserts and less law enforcement of any variety...something these communities once demanded rather than decried in general).

This of course, sucks, but the strength of the protests nationwide as well as polling averages indicate that most people agree the goals of the protest are more important than temporary economic hardships.

The implication is therefore that those in favor of "hate crimes" as defined for protected groups must define rioters as committing hate crimes, the criminals that burn things like police buildings as terrorists.

This of course, is a ridiculous conclusion requiring a large burden of proof.

Show it.

When you look into most legal codices you will note that they explain their reasonings based upon why a law exists. I can bring any number of them if you wish, but do you want anything in specific?

"consensus based reality" << objective reality. We use the former when the latter isn't known/knowable. You can't have a self-inconsistent/incoherent "consensus based reality", however. Reality in the constraints of macroscopic scales that we observe doesn't work that way.

And as fiat currency is based upon consensus reality, an objective codex of law would not make reference to $ value, the value of which is in constant flux based upon people’s consensus upon its desirability and reliability.

Furthermore, while objective reality may exist, human beings are creatures blessed with a subjectivity. Consensus reality is the only reality that we can be agree upon is objective reality, and thus is used for legal purposes.

With the caveat that doing so requires a demonstration of why the argument is absurd.

As church is a very different social construct than a statue your argument insisting that destroying one is equal to another is an absurd conclusion requiring large burden of proof.

Yet despite saying this, your apparent proposition seems close to the above. Let's set property = P, non-property value as X, and another non-property value as Y. Your apparent proposition is:

P + X > P + Y

What you're not doing, however, is creating any clear basis to evaluate or even establish X / Y. Property damage that goes unenforced will damage a community regardless of its nature (so that should be X on either side of the equation). Your assertions of the "community" boil down to another measurable P, rather than a variable that actually transcends P. That means we could still better operate in a model of:

P = P, and simply calculate P in each instance.

Again, this resulted in an absurd conclusion which either requires reexamination of the logical processes or an incredible burden of proof.

Coherent valuation implies a consistent utility function.

This is still based upon consensus that it has consistent utility, which can be said to be true for other forms of consensus, such as laws.

I assert that there is no coherent basis to support P > P, which is an apparent assertion. Proving a negative in this context isn't feasible. In contrast, my argument could be defeated by simply providing some self-consistent basis. Which if the rationale for the law were sound, we would expect to be trivial.

Rationale for the law are sound in that a church is naturally more valuable for a community than a statue.

A decorative fixture is a function.

It is not a function valuable to normal functioning of a society the same way a church or a food bank is.

Actually churches mostly just sit there. People in the churches might provide valuable services in addition to the building's value, but we had ruled out damage to them directly as part of the hypothetical.

Destroying a church damages these people’s ability to carry on their work.

While a perfect government capable of omniscience may be capable of quantifying exact kind of harm that such destruction cause to these people that would be acceptable by a consensus of people, most government rely upon a shorthand.

Similarly, police structures do not enforce law by themselves. The way you argue about churches, however, we should presume that they do and thus treat the rioters as hate criminals with a greater penalty.

The police are not an oppressed minority and thus violence against them for being the police would not constitute a hate crime, which we have agreed are violence designed to intimidate an oppressed minority.

Yep, and what law is cited when someone sets fire to other, non-building property?

Hmmm, still arson.

Your position here is incomprehensible.

Far from the only statues that get attacked, but my argumentative perspective doesn't affix this kind of arbitrary conclusions favoring or disfavoring things based on personal preference so that doesn't really matter to me.

You affix an what seems to be an arbitrary conclusion that churches = statues.

Statues don't commit racist acts or own slaves, fortunately. But we agree, this is property destruction, just like destroying a church with nobody in it is property destruction.

While true, this also makes a fallacious assumption that a church is akin to a statue. Which I have demonstrated otherwise.

This has actually happened, as noted earlier in this thread. People weren't falling over themselves to label the perps as hate criminals though, despite that internal consistency would demand it.


And no, it would not "necessitate" a harsher penalty. You are advocating for one (potentially), that is not what necessity means.

Except it isn't, because you are selectively favoring minorities and civil rights movements.

The civil rights law is not arbitrary on the basis that it has a rational reason why it has decided to specifically award certain groups of people certain rights and not others. You may disagree with the reasoning but this would not magically make the reasoning arbitrary.




On a side note on consensus, it is rather incredible seeing the public discourse shift over the course of the last month. Previously extremist position of defunding the police force is now no longer considered to be beyond our reach, and police reform is a seriously discussed topic in all circles of public debate and politics.

it speaks to the strength and intensity of the protests, as well as abject monstrosity of the police force, that it has been capable of shaping our consensus to this degree.

 

[Seon]

Phoenix PD decide peaceful protest is unlawful assembly

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/poli...t-unlawful-assembly/ar-BB15Tsk8?ocid=msedgdhp

It shouldn’t take a big brain legal genius to figure out that this is a violation of first amendment rights and dangerous to our very concept of democracy.