How many riots does it take...

[Antilogic]

Yeah, property is totes more important than lives.

 

[Arwon]

Ta-Nehisi Coates

"...they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.&#8221 There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black es I have locked up.&#8221 There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.")

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves."

 

[nc-1701]

That's because destroying someone's property who was not involved in the incident being protested in any way, shape or form is just abhorrent behavior that is simply inexcusable.

Also, destroying property shows just how selfish and immature these "protestors" really are. They are basically telling the world they feel it is perfectly okay to destroy someone else's livelihood and rob, loot, and set buildings on fire simply because they are angry at the system.

If they are angry at the system then isn't attacking and destroying those who benefit from the system the rational conclusion?

 

[BvBPL]

A riot is not a rationally driven response.

 

[Arwon]

I just can't get into the heads of people who want to focus on riots in response to powerlessness and injustice as some sort of individual failing on the part of people who take part. As if rioting is the first-resort of people with no real grievances who live within a system in which they have adequate methods of redress, or something.

Like who does that sort of moralising actually help? It's a disturbingly authoritarian mindset. Or at least evinces a pretty lacking model of human behaviour and motivations.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Infinity, because onlookers will always commiserate more with the damaged property and injured police than the guy the police unnecessarily killed. I can't substantiate this with hard data, but it's clear to me that the vast majority of Americans don't care very much when the cops kill a thug, but are deeply concerned and troubled when rioters destroy property. They'll tend to defend their position by saying things like "well, it's bad PR for the cause and they're just hurting themselves," but this is usually disingenuous, as their first concern was, after all, damaged property.

I'm thinking the number is finite, and perhaps even reachable.

I was a denizen of Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, and my observations at that time would totally support what you said. I cannot recall a single person who had a job who saw the riots as anything but totally uncalled for generators of bad consequences in response to "a few bad apples" in the LAPD.

That is not the case now. People who will come right out and say "these cops need to be straightened out" don't appear everywhere I look, but they are not invisible either. Maybe because the aftermath of the riots here taught literally everyone that the LAPD was a cesspool of bad cider, not the home of an occasional bad apple, or maybe because we have seen the LA County Sheriff's Department openly court 'veteran officers' that the LAPD was finally forced to run off, but there seems to be a pretty widespread understanding of what makes the police tick.

So at least around here local politics doesn't run on the old principle of promising safer streets and getting an endorsement from the Sheriff, then making the payment to the cops the only inviolable thing in the budget. People look at that promise of safer streets and ask if hiring cops is really going to fulfill it.

I'm not saying that the number is small, by any means, but I have hope that it is finite...which I didn't have before. These last few riots may have taken some buildings, but they gave me that.

 

[Arwon]

It's really pretty hard to say the LA riots didn't get results in the end. How many years of federal oversight over the LAPD? How many officers sacked or run out of the department?

 

[BvBPL]

So let's take a step farther. Let's say these actions do effect positive change. What does that change look like?

Police accountability would be an obvious result. What else? Does this alter the broken windows strategies used in New York and elsewhere? What happens with community policing? Drug enforcement?

 

[Arwon]

I would suggest given its record a total federal reconstruction of the Baltimore PD would be the bare minimum, presumably by the US Justice Department.

Probably also needs the US Justice Department delving into local and state government policies, institutions, and individuals who have helped enable and cover for police brutality too.

 

[Antilogic]

Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's really pretty hard to say the LA riots didn't get results in the end. How many years of federal oversight over the LAPD? How many officers sacked or run out of the department?

There's no question that the riots worked...to the extent of the LAPD. Had the officers who got run out not all continued their careers with departments in surrounding communities it would have worked generally. If there is a lesson to be had it is that police organizations cannot be trusted with even the slightest responsibility for policing themselves. They would rather hire known monsters than see their brothers in blue left jobless.

Hopefully the more developed perspective coupled with the clearly obvious pervasiveness of the problem will make a better outcome out of this round of rioting. Unfortunately places like StLouis and Baltimore are probably not able to produce a big enough riot to close the deal, though they are making good points.

 

[Arwon]

Is there any good article or other kind of research on where all those former LAPD bad apples ended up? It's a very important and useful thing to add to conversations.

 

[Commodore]

If they are angry at the system then isn't attacking and destroying those who benefit from the system the rational conclusion?

Then they should set themselves on fire because we all benefit from the system in some way.

To answer your question seriously though: no, it is not the rational conclusion. These particular rioters in Baltimore and in Ferguson a few months ago clearly stated they were angry with police. So the rational conclusion would be to attack the police and their facilities. A case could also be made to justify attacks on courts and other government facilities since the police are an organ of the government. It does not logically follow though, to damage, destroy, and loot a privately owned business because you are angry at the government or a particular organ of that government. The privately owned business has absolutely nothing to do with the police or any unnecessary force they may use against citizens.

So since it doesn't logically follow to attack businesses that have absolutely no connection to the stated cause of the rioters, I can only assume the "cause" is really just an excuse used by the rioters to score some free stuff and burn off some pent-up stress by flipping a car or tossing a Molotov into a storefront.

In short, these are nothing more than thugs and street hooligans; not freedom fighters on the front lines of the struggle for your liberty. The peaceful protestors that took to the streets before the rioting started were the true freedom fighters and are the ones that should be getting our attention.

 

[Berzerker]

I see the mayor is taking heat over some comment she made about the space they gave protestors also giving the rioters and looters more space to destroy

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is there any good article or other kind of research on where all those former LAPD bad apples ended up? It's a very important and useful thing to add to conversations.

I dunno. I'm the king of anecdotal evidence, but I have been here the whole time and watched it happen. Pretend to be a law and order groupie and strike up conversations with cops anywhere in SoCal and I promise it will not take long to find one that will puff out his chest and say "former LAPD". In most cases if you pursue that with an 'appropriate' air you will get an even prouder statement that they left because the department was 'gutted by the feds and they refused to go along'. In short, they were run off.

For actual data the only place I can even think of to look would be the police union. I'm sure they would be proud of the number of members they have "helped to continue their careers" if the question were broached the right way, but they are gonna be extremely wary.

 

[Arwon]

Then they should set themselves on fire because we all benefit from the system in some way.

To answer your question seriously though: no, it is not the rational conclusion. These particular rioters in Baltimore and in Ferguson a few months ago clearly stated they were angry with police. So the rational conclusion would be to attack the police and their facilities. A case could also be made to justify attacks on courts and other government facilities since the police are an organ of the government. It does not logically follow though, to damage, destroy, and loot a privately owned business because you are angry at the government or a particular organ of that government. The privately owned business has absolutely nothing to do with the police or any unnecessary force they may use against citizens.

So since it doesn't logically follow to attack businesses that have absolutely no connection to the stated cause of the rioters, I can only assume the "cause" is really just an excuse used by the rioters to score some free stuff and burn off some pent-up stress by flipping a car or tossing a Molotov into a storefront.

In short, these are nothing more than thugs and street hooligans; not freedom fighters on the front lines of the struggle for your liberty. The peaceful protestors that took to the streets before the rioting started were the true freedom fighters and are the ones that should be getting our attention.

You don't understand much about the passions and emotions of we humans, do you?

 

[Arwon]

I dunno. I'm the king of anecdotal evidence, but I have been here the whole time and watched it happen. Pretend to be a law and order groupie and strike up conversations with cops anywhere in SoCal and I promise it will not take long to find one that will puff out his chest and say "former LAPD". In most cases if you pursue that with an 'appropriate' air you will get an even prouder statement that they left because the department was 'gutted by the feds and they refused to go along'. In short, they were run off.

For actual data the only place I can even think of to look would be the police union. I'm sure they would be proud of the number of members they have "helped to continue their careers" if the question were broached the right way, but they are gonna be extremely wary.

Unfortnately all Google can find is articles about Dorner.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To answer your question seriously though: no, it is not the rational conclusion. These particular rioters in Baltimore and in Ferguson a few months ago clearly stated they were angry with police. So the rational conclusion would be to attack the police and their facilities. A case could also be made to justify attacks on courts and other government facilities since the police are an organ of the government. It does not logically follow though, to damage, destroy, and loot a privately owned business because you are angry at the government or a particular organ of that government. The privately owned business has absolutely nothing to do with the police or any unnecessary force they may use against citizens.

So since it doesn't logically follow to attack businesses that have absolutely no connection to the stated cause of the rioters, I can only assume the "cause" is really just an excuse used by the rioters to score some free stuff and burn off some pent-up stress by flipping a car or tossing a Molotov into a storefront.

Inaccurate. In the first place, directly attacking the police doesn't send a message, it just gets you killed. In the second place, the local government that is supposed to be overseeing the local police generally only really cares about the concerns of citizens who contribute politically. Nothing is more likely to force change than a clear "there is no such thing as police protection" message sent via those people.

A hundred protestors or a thousand will be ignored as rabble, but business owners saying "this confrontation is bad for business" will always have the mayor's ear. The mayor may listen to the chief of police, who will say that the answer is "crack heads," but if the riot runs into overtime it demonstrates that the chief of police is wrong. Ultimately, the existence of the riot is the single undeniable demonstration that the police have failed.

 

[Commodore]

You don't understand much about the passions and emotions of we humans, do you?

Of course I do, I was specifically trained to understand the motivations of people and I was very good at what I did.

It's really quite simple: To understand one's motivations, you simply have to look at their actions. If you tell me you are rioting because you are angry at the police, but then I see you throw a brick through the window of a business and you come out with a bunch of stuff in your hands, I think it's pretty safe to say your true motivation was theft not "fighting the man".

 

[Commodore]

Inaccurate. In the first place, directly attacking the police doesn't send a message, it just gets you killed. In the second place, the local government that is supposed to be overseeing the local police generally only really cares about the concerns of citizens who contribute politically. Nothing is more likely to force change than a clear "there is no such thing as police protection" message sent via those people.

A hundred protestors or a thousand will be ignored as rabble, but business owners saying "this confrontation is bad for business" will always have the mayor's ear. The mayor may listen to the chief of police, who will say that the answer is "crack heads," but if the riot runs into overtime it demonstrates that the chief of police is wrong. Ultimately, the existence of the riot is the single undeniable demonstration that the police have failed.

So you are basically saying it is okay to attack innocents just to further your own agenda? I don't care how noble your agenda may be, that is an absolutely disgusting way to achieve it. What you are talking about is essentially mob rule, and that's no better than a police state.

EDIT: And you are wrong to say directly attacking the police doesn't work. Just look at the Euromaidan riots in the Ukraine and the numerous uprisings in the Arab Spring.