[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[gay_Aleks]

Yes, so, contrary to some poster's fears, the mob wasn't coming for them. No one gave a single care about them until they brandished their weapons, against people who were moving through public property, not their private property. Therefore, we see a twisted form of class consciousness, as they claim that the mob were about to storm the Bastille , which I think is simply delightful, because they know that the jig is up, yet can't do anything but react against it.

I can only hope that if one grim day we see the videos and pictures of 50 dead protesters mowed down by some ******* with a gun that the movement doesn't immediately dissipates.

Dissipate? I think that would pretty much blow everything up in the U.S (as if it wasn't already on fire!), because then, the contradictions of U.S society would become impossible to ignore for any reasonable person, save, of course, for the privileged classes that have a dead man's grasp onto our society. Yet, the cracks are already here. One side of the battle will have to budge, eventually, or bring themselves onto the open battleground.

 

[red_elk]

Meanwhile...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-u...nds-in-front-yard-to-point-guns-at-protesters

That woman holds the gun like if she wants to take a selfie.
There should be laws against intimidation, I guess. They were pointing guns at people at some moments.

 

[Commodore]

Meanwhile...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-u...nds-in-front-yard-to-point-guns-at-protesters

, against people who were moving through public property

Small correction: the protestors were not moving through public property. It was a gated community and the street was a private street, not a public one.

With that said, those two acted like jackasses. If they truly felt threatened by the protestors, going outside with their guns would only serve to agitate and antagonize the crowd. If their goal was to defend themselves, as they claim, the proper course of action would be to certainly keep their guns handy, but also to remain indoors and not do anything to draw the crowd's attention to them or their property. Because even if we assume the protestors had violent intent (which they didn't), the last thing you want to do is confront them directly because even with guns, chances are that's a fight you are going to lose.

However, if they really felt that a visible "show of force" was necessary to defend their property, there is a much better way to go about that as well without displaying hostile intent or antagonizing the crowd. Adopting a stance similar to the one below allows you to show your willingness to defend yourself if attacked but does not indicate any overt aggression or hostile intent. In other words, it is a very defensive posture. Although the soldier below is Ukrainian, we used this posture frequently when pulling static sentry duty in Iraq.

TLDR: Those two clearly were engaging in intimidation and their behavior is inexcusable. If their claim that they felt threatened were genuine, their behavior would have been different.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

People don't have a right to petition the authorities?

Groups don't have a right to arbitrarily declare themselves to be in charge just because they want to be.

 

[Zardnaar]

Small correction: the protestors were not moving through public property. It was a gated community and the street was a private street, not a public one.

With that said, those two acted like jackasses. If they truly felt threatened by the protestors, going outside with their guns would only serve to agitate and antagonize the crowd. If their goal was to defend themselves, as they claim, the proper course of action would be to certainly keep their guns handy, but also to remain indoors and not do anything to draw the crowd's attention to them or their property. Because even if we assume the protestors had violent intent (which they didn't), the last thing you want to do is confront them directly because even with guns, chances are that's a fight you are going to lose.

However, if they really felt that a visible "show of force" was necessary to defend their property, there is a much better way to go about that as well without displaying hostile intent or antagonizing the crowd. Adopting a stance similar to the one below allows you to show your willingness to defend yourself if attacked but does not indicate any overt aggression or hostile intent. In other words, it is a very defensive posture. Although the soldier below is Ukrainian, we used this posture frequently when pulling static sentry duty in Iraq.

View attachment 561259

TLDR: Those two clearly were engaging in intimidation and their behavior is inexcusable. If their claim that they felt threatened were genuine, their behavior would have been different.

Something similar to the cops last year guarding the mosque.

First time I had seen armed police not on TV. Felt really weird for about 5 minutes then you don't care that you're standing beside someone with a Bushmaster.

 

[red_elk]

What's the thing with kneeling down?

Only white people suppose to do it?
Is it considered racist/offensive if somebody refuses?

I sympathize to the movement, but I wouldn't self-humiliate in order to show respect.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Probably just doesn't want to spoil those nice orange socks.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Small correction: the protestors were not moving through public property. It was a gated community and the street was a private street, not a public one.

With that said, those two acted like jackasses. If they truly felt threatened by the protestors, going outside with their guns would only serve to agitate and antagonize the crowd. If their goal was to defend themselves, as they claim, the proper course of action would be to certainly keep their guns handy, but also to remain indoors and not do anything to draw the crowd's attention to them or their property. Because even if we assume the protestors had violent intent (which they didn't), the last thing you want to do is confront them directly because even with guns, chances are that's a fight you are going to lose.

However, if they really felt that a visible "show of force" was necessary to defend their property, there is a much better way to go about that as well without displaying hostile intent or antagonizing the crowd. Adopting a stance similar to the one below allows you to show your willingness to defend yourself if attacked but does not indicate any overt aggression or hostile intent. In other words, it is a very defensive posture. Although the soldier below is Ukrainian, we used this posture frequently when pulling static sentry duty in Iraq.

View attachment 561259

TLDR: Those two clearly were engaging in intimidation and their behavior is inexcusable. If their claim that they felt threatened were genuine, their behavior would have been different.

Isn't the wife clearly guilty of brandishing a firearm?

Just google "man accused of brandishing" and there are dozens of people arrested and charged for doing less than she did.

 

[Commodore]

Isn't the wife clearly guilty of brandishing a firearm?

Just google "man accused of brandishing" and there are dozens of people arrested and charged for doing less than she did.

In my opinion she would certainly be guilty of it. And she might still face charges, especially if enough public pressure mounts.

 

[cardgame]

According to Fox News both of them were attorneys so they should certainly be aware of brandishing laws. I mean, all gun owners should be, but these people even more so.

 

[Seon]

Black atheletes have been kneeling during the anthem for years now so no, it’s not a white only thing.

 

[aelf]

Groups don't have a right to arbitrarily declare themselves to be in charge just because they want to be.

Funny, because you just arbitrarily declared yourself an expert on this matter.

 

[Socrates99]

What's the thing with kneeling down?

Only white people suppose to do it?
Is it considered racist/offensive if somebody refuses?

I sympathize to the movement, but I wouldn't self-humiliate in order to show respect.

Back when Kaepernick started doing the anthem protest he'd sit on the bench with a towel over his head instead of kneeling. That was actually kind of disrespectful. A fan who was also a green beret pointed that out and started correspondence with him about it. The compromise was the kneeling which the soldier said they did to respect fallen comrades on the battlefield. Kneeling is something we've done in sports when a player is down on the field regardless of which team. I think that's why it translated so well.

When athletes take a knee during the anthem its neither a sign of subservience or disrespect. Its mourning the lives lost to an unjust system and mourning the loss of the Age of Enlightenment ideals the flag is supposed to represent.

But yeah, race doesn't matter.

 

[red_elk]

Fair enough.

 

[GenMarshall]

Back when Kaepernick started doing the anthem protest he'd sit on the bench with a towel over his head instead of kneeling. That was actually kind of disrespectful. A fan who was also a green beret pointed that out and started correspondence with him about it. The compromise was the kneeling which the soldier said they did to respect fallen comrades on the battlefield. Kneeling is something we've done in sports when a player is down on the field regardless of which team. I think that's why it translated so well.

When athletes take a knee during the anthem its neither a sign of subservience or disrespect. Its mourning the lives lost to an unjust system and mourning the loss of the Age of Enlightenment ideals the flag is supposed to represent.

But yeah, race doesn't matter.

This is the first that I’ve heard such a thing applied to the civilian world. From what I have read the “kneeling as a form of protest” is a form being disrespectful for the American Flag, the anthem and to the US itself. As well as a form of being a subservient to an ideology, a literal “bend the knee”, especially when whites do it.

 

[cardgame]

From what I have read the “kneeling as a form of protest” is a form being disrespectful for the American Flag, the anthem and to the US itself.

You need to stop reading propaganda

 

[JohannaK]

That sounds like nationalist nonsense.

EDIT: x-post

 

[red_elk]

It's a cultural thing I guess. We don't do this, kneeling is considered as a gesture of subservience or begging for forgiveness.
During the anthem it's appropriate to stand up. If someone kneels down, it would look weird, though not disrespectful.
What would be inappropriate, is if only people of certain ethnicity or skin color would be required to do it.

 

[Berzerker]

These findings are further supported by Princeton University professor Omar Wasow’s study of presidential politics in the 1960s. He discovered that “proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines and likely tipped the 1968 election from Hubert Humphrey to Richard Nixon.”

and probably got MLK assassinated

Some claim now, as they did then, that the violence of those who supported Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and the Weathermen helped the overall cause because it made Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement seem moderate in comparison. But this perspective ignores the fact that the elites used violent acts to smear the moderates. Violence even by a small minority within a movement, as sociologist Todd Gitlin observed, “is food for the adversary.” The 1968 riots led to few reforms, but to great increases in the firepowers of the police.

 

[GenMarshall]

You need to stop reading propaganda

I know this is a separate topic though these days is hard to separate fact from fiction. Or in this case fact from propaganda. These days: one side’s fact is another side’s propaganda and vice versa.