Well, I don't want to tell another community what to do -- but I think they should at least consider it, yes. They are being attacked with guns, they have a few choices: protest anyway but be defenseless, capitulate and give up and not protest, or fight back -- and if you are going to fight back, it is best to be armed. Now, if they do not want to take that risk and think it is too dangerous to take that step, I understand. I would not think them in the wrong if they did take that step though, I would think them brave.
Except the police have not shot the protesters. Protesters have shot each other, but the police have not used deadly force against the crowd. I don't identify with the tea party, but I just can't disagree more with your last take. You are arguing that looting is basically ok, maybe not ideal, but perhaps has some positives. Stealing and destroying other people's property because of what someone else may or may not have done to your community is just stupid. And wrong. As to the Boston Tea Party comparison, again, ridiculous. The Boston Tea Party (regardless of whether you support the Revolution or not) had real motivations behind it, it wasn't just angry individuals who saw an opportunity to get some tea that they wouldn't have to pay for. If looters in around the country wanted to loot police supply depots, slash police car tires, etc. at least they'd have an argument of some moral ground. When they are just stealing liquor and food and hair products and electronics for personal use, that isn't comparable at all to the BTP. It's simply thievery.
They have not been attacked with guns. The only individuals in the protests who have been attacked with guns were protesters attacked by other protesters.
The Tea that was destroyed during the Boston Tea Party did not belong to the British you know. It was just some random tea merchant's. How is that so different than people destroying property out of anger?
I think you are correct that the protestors have not been fired upon yet -- but guns have been used on member of the community multiple times, and the police and state officials are ramping up their preparedness and anti-protest rhetoric in a way that I think behooves the people in the community to take notice of and prepare for themselves. Best time to prepare for an incident is before it happens, right?
It wasn't just some random team merchant's tea. Perhaps you should read more about the Boston Tea Party, the laws that were passed, who those laws favored and who the tea on the boat belonged to. The looters of Ferguson are not destroying property to send a message to the state, they are doing what American looters historically have always done, seizing on a moment in time where there is chaos to get stuff without paying for it. Like I said, take your looting and destruction of property to the police, or to the state house. Let me see them use looting for an actual political statement instead of just getting liquor.
There's nothing funny about whats going on in Ferguson, MO. However, the last two pages of this thread are hilarious.
I don't think the boogeyman here is a complete phantom, but I don't trust the average citizen to make good choices with lethal force. I also think it is disproportionate to meet property damage with lethal force. And speaking to the issue of recent history, the good citizen does have a recent experience of lawlessness at the hands of rioters. It appears, though, that the black community there has both a recent and long experience of injustices from the police and court system. But, people don't want to talk about the million little instances of injustice but would rather hinge the whole conversation on whether Michael Brown's homicide was a murder, as if proving the officer's innocence there would mean that all those other injustices didn't exist. So, if you want to be understanding of the business owner that fears for his property because of what he's been through, also be understanding of the minority that fears for his civil liberties because of what he's been through. Rioters may be bad actors but protestors are trying to protect what they have just like any business owner would. These two are so much alike, each trying to push off risk onto the other to protect what's most important to them.
It wasn't the British government's tea. Certainly the merchant whose tea it was was benefiting from the Acts that the colonists were protesting by destroying the tea, but it was owned by a private company, not the government the colonists were protesting. Now, I do think that looting that takes advantage and profits from the chaos instead of being strategically focused on how to further the resistance to the issues that have angered the population, that such looting is often counter productive for the community. But the fact that an angry population has engaged in looting does not invalidate the entire movement or that population's anger. Not to say that you are asserting this (you may be, but I don't think you are), but many others are indeed using the looting incidents to do just that.
Why not do so exactly? Revolutions that modern day people put on an alter had innumerable acts of looting.
One was a protest against taxation without representation, the other is people whining about a fool that attacked a cop and got shot.....and people that just want to loot.
Mike Brown was a spark, but the protests are not just about him and his death, but of years of racial profiling and police brutality, as well as economic inequality that has existed for generations. To dismiss that is to purposefully ignore the facts out of fear of questionsing one's own preconceived notions. edit: also, I will point out, that the outrage over the Boston Massacre was also "people whining" about "fools" who attacked the police (or, in that case, soldiers).
Okay, this is has gone way too far, I'm pretty sure those looting in Ferguson just want their free Jordans and electronics and gives two ****s about what happened to Michael Brown. They are not utilizing looting as some sort of message to history of police brutality and racial profiling, they just want free shet, and if you ask any of the peaceful protesters they will say the same thing. I see nothing wrong with shop owners arming up for this, a mob is usually unpredicatable no matter how many people train for non violent protests, and if recent history tells us anything is that there will be fools being fools and damaging people's business, properties and livelihood for their own selfish gain of a free pair of shoes or a TV.
How do you know brown attacked did you you see the act how do you know the cop was really defending himself you just like everyone else here has to wait til the grand jury give a yes or no should there b e any looting HELL NO those business owners didn't do any killing.
There wouldn't have been a scuffle in the cop car had Brown not attacked. Simple as that. We know for a fact that happened thus we know Brown was in the wrong. You fight with people who have guns, you get shot. If the cop was treating him unfairly, he could have sued after the fact, instead he was an idiot and now he's dead. Sorry, but the mob really should wait till they have a better reason to riot. Perhaps an innocent that is harmed rather that someone who robbed a convenience store then fought with a cop.
Well I'd certainly hope not, there's nothing to complain about when it comes to his death. I get that people are using it as an excuse to complain about other things, but that doesn't make it any less lame.
