None . Why ? Because when the cause reaches the level of the streets, it becomes then one of the basic negative human behaviors . When any public gathering and it's almost always youth and young adults , goes to the streets it almost always degenerates to violence . This is where the organizers will justify whatever happens in the streets to the cause of whatever the issue at hand , but when it develops into violence it LOSES ALL POSITIVE MEANING to any cause..
So , this is where you justify the rioting , and defend " one or two people acting out " , any takers ?
Riots can serve many purposes.
An outlet for anger for people too stupid to understand that it causes them more trouble than anything gained.
Riots bring media attention: for organizers of "peaceful demonstrations" this is of great value.
When it includes stealing, it gives the thief an opportunity almost totally free of possible consequences.
It is fun for many: an exciting time when they get a great adrenaline rush.
It gives an opportunity to demonstrate how great and macho the rioter is as he sets fire to a car or something when no one is available to protect it.
It provides opportunity for those that can only destroy; that are too stupid or lazy to create or build.
Lots of purposes, then.
I don't like the concept of rioting. I much rather use the law and courts to get redress on unacceptable situations. It is like as an earlier poster said, it detracts from an otherwise justify able cause.
Unfortunately there are very few large demonstrations that don't deteriorate into violence. Usually not a full fledged riot, but violence and destruction.
Do you like the concept of large demonstrations, then, knowing there will be violence and destruction?
Ihave to defer to the First Amendment, the people shall have the right to peaceably assemble. Demonstrations are included in that as long as they remain peaceful and do not interfere with public throughfare. Because some of these can be large an intrusive in a large city, a permit is required, not just to interfere with expression but to route traffic etc. to accomodate. The same thing that they do for the Macy's parade.
I support them, too, from a legal standpoint. Just as I support What's His Name when he kneels at the national anthem.
But I asked if you like the idea of large demonstrations. (Don't think I've ever heard of the Macy's "demonstrators" starting a riot with their floats)
Depends on what the demonstration is about. I may not agree with the issue that is the subject of the demonstration. All have the right to demonstrate, and that does not require my approval
You don't like rioting, but DO like big demonstrations that nearly always result in rioting. Can you justify those, one with the other?
Would you support rounding up any and all "demonstrators" that are present during a riot and sentencing them to 90 days for being an accessory to destruction of private property and/or personal violence? With the first broken window, the first car overthrown, the first rock thrown at cops, bring in a thousand cops and start the roundup?
No, I do not favor that idea. Demonstrations are part of the democratic process, rioting is not. Those that are found in acts of violence or distruction of property are subject to arrest, not those who otherwise are just demonstrating I don't necessarily associate demonstrations with riots. One does not necessarily lead to the other.
"Demonstrations are part of the democratic process"
Can you elucidate on this? They certainly aren't part of voting, it is a massive stretch to think they are part of running for office, and an even bigger one to think that grabbing media attention with illegal activity (popularly called "civil disobedience") has anything to do with democracy.
(I assume that the driver of the bank robbers should not be charged, either? Or the one that launders the cash?)
Geez, Wilderness, What civic classes have you taken? I have seen demonstrations in front of Walmart to protest wage and labor disputes. No riots, there. But the fact that people do demonstrate serves as a form of educating the public. I have no problem with that. How is walking down the sidewalks chanting and waving signs civil disobedience?
Freedom of association and a free press, it is all part of the big picture.
You do know that Bonnie and Clyde's get away driver was an accessory to a crime, and that people marching and chanting in the streets are not?
So, anyone has the right to grab media attention as long as it is lawful, it is not illegal to protest and demonstrate. Is this how far conservatives actually go in their beliefs? No wonder there is stark difference between red and blue.
I call the lawful expressions of points of view by a group, legal. Again, rioting is illegal, protesting and demonstrating are not. I protested Nixon and his WAtergateaffiliation back in the Seventies. I was involved with protests over the Wounded Knee thing in South Dakota in 73. Was I engaged in illegal activity because I joined with others to have our points of view heard? After all, the FBI and Nixon certainly made sure that you heard their side.
Didn't realize that private contracts with WalMart is an example of democracy. Still don't, either. Did realize that education was democracy, and still don't. Blocking entrance to a private business is illegal but accepted as civil disobedience.
The people creating a mob that is then used for violent purposes are an accessory. Whether they realize it or not, they most certainly are an accessory, and perhaps assigning some blame to them will stop the process.
Media: see first paragraph.
Lawful expressions - you mean like looting, burning cars, hurting people and throwing rocks and bottles at police. We differ some here. Demonstrations have changed since the 70's and you know it. Sit in's, destroying public land and public access. Blocking freeways and preventing emergency vehicles (Boston, wasn't it, and now the politicians are charged). Closing off access to banks or creating such a jam inside that business is halted. Indians in the Dakotas, charging workers on horses, trespassing and halting machinery. Tree huggers chaining themselves to trees to be cut on private land.
Sorry, I highly disagree with ANY such activity. Walking down the sidewalk, leaving room for others - great! These others, not so much.
Can't speak as to whether you did something illegal. Did you trespass? Did you prevent public access? Did you stop business activities? That you classify your activities as "being heard" does NOT mean they were legal.
The Walmart protests were on public property not far from the store. Do you really think that Walmart would allow such protests on their private property. So, from your standpoint is that OK?
With you, I am getting the impression that you are in favor of stifling free speech when you find it distasteful, like in the case of BLM?
The principle behind demonstrations have not changed and neither have the people who wish to silent any form of dissent.
What is the difference between a mob and protestors in your mind?
All the examples given in your paragraph are examples of unlawful assembly and protest. You can't tell the difference between this and the lawful variety?
Walking down the sidewalk or walking down the streets with a permit is legal. An assembly is an assembly, just because those that speak are not saying the things that you would prefer does not make it so much different from a Macy's parade or a 5k run.
To speak to your last question, no I did not violate any of your hypotheticals, but I did upset those who would have preferred that the issues that I or we were making a point on were not heard in the public square. There are a lot of authoritarian types that don't appreciate dissent.
If it was on public property, and did not interfere with the public and did no damage then it's fine.
Yes, I would stifle free speech...when "free speech" interferes with free travel or costs borne by someone else. When it causes disruption of the public it is no longer "free" and needs curtailed.
Unfortunately, not a lot of difference between protesters and a mob. There should be, and is for small demonstrations, but mobs do have a way with interfering with the public. When the goal of a "demonstration" is to create havoc or to cause disruption in the lives of others it is no longer a demonstration but civil disobedience and while I understand that has become acceptable I do not agree with the concept.
I just haven't seen any lawful demonstrations being reported beyond a small sentence or paragraph on page 20. Which is the point, of course, for the organizers of giant "demonstrations" that deteriorate into riots.
Walking down a street, blocking traffic is not legal unless a permit has been issued. If it has, then no problem - if it has not then the illegal event needs shut down ASAP, not allowed to continue for fear of offending someone performing illegal actions. Do you disagree?
Good for you! Voices need heard, but not at the cost of reducing the freedom of action of others.
Black Rioting and White mob violence are two different extremes that can cause lost of property and life. Peaceful protest can turn into rioting and property lost which can cause the death of peaceful protesters who are mostly unarmed. Mob Violence is always hostile and violent, the mobs are always armed and White only.Theft and Stealing is punish more harshly than fraud and embezzlement, why? There should be more protest about White- Collar crimes than Black Collar Rioting. Rioting in America serves one purpose and that is an opportunity to shine a bright light on things done in the dark to too many who have been ignored too long.
Hi, Junko's, nice to see you back.
I was a kid in a Denver neighborhood in April, 1968. In the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. King, there were riots in our community. I asked my pop, why we're we destroying our own stores and private property?
Since that time, I never had a lot of use for people who lacked self control, going off into a frenzy without consideration of the consequences.
I have learned since then, be smart, don't get mad, get even!
Hi back at you Credence, I've been around expressing my opinions. My opinion on you never having use for people who lack self control, going off into a frenzy without consideration of the consequences, is how most people feel . In politics sometimes those kind of people are tolerated to save the masses in the case of Donald Trump and his supporters. Rioting serve no purpose and the intent of a peaceful protest is not to cause a riot. If !/10 of 1% of peaceful protesters act out and a riot is DECLARED all 99.9% of peaceful protesters are endangered. So riots serve no good purpose to solve the Negro's Problems.Believe it or not some people wish for a riot but not peaceful protesters their haters do wish the protest fails to solve their problems. In 1968 I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. Police unions was our last dialog.
Yes, indeed, there are many that want to discredit the the legitimacy of a peaceful political movement by desiring that the broad brush of 'rioter' be attached to them. Then it becomes easier to denigrate both them and the cause that they represent, by those that would just as soon not allow the issue of concern to see the light of day.
One purpose of a peaceful protest is to make people uncomfortable. Some people don't like that. They prefer to keep their blinders firmly in place so as not to feel uneasy about their complacency.
Credence, I am glad to see you agree, that we have to fail our way to success in our fight for equal rights and justice for all. " No Justice No Peace " is not a slogan it is a fact..
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." (JFK)
Some people clearly feel peaceful revolution is not possible in terms of racial equality. The question is, why do some people feel that?
When all that hateful organized energy should be spent in Tulsa, has instead been spent in Charlotte...something stinks! Officials of Charlotte said that 70% of the rioters / protesters that were arrested had out of state IDs. That, they were bused in or came in by train.
George Soros' name is written all over Ferguson...now Charlotte.
This eye witness says people think the black man was shot by cops, but that he knows for a fact that he wasn't, because he was standing 10' away from him. He hopes people get to see the video that shows what happened...I haven't seen it yet. There is an investigation, the truth will come out, we just have to be patient and not jump to conclusions.
George Soros name is written all over the Charlotte riots just like Ferguson. BTW, he is a big donor of Hillary Clinton's.
Hillary blew the dog whistle and made it a race war.
I guess she needed to politicize the shooting before the facts.
Now, there are a lot more black people mostly from poor inner cities who have arrest records, and one protester dead after being shot by another protester. Oh, but the media doesn't talk about that, and Hillary went silent. ... And, its still not over in Charlotte.
No riots in Tulsa? Only peaceful protests, because no one called out the hounds of hell (adjudicators, anarchists, social justice warriors).
Correction, I misunderstood. I heard from the eye witness I referred to. Daves MC, "I said the police didn't shoot the man that was at the protest. Another man was shot in the head during the protest by another black man." That's the man he was 10' away from.
My apology, so sorry for any confusion and that I must have caused.
Please, forgive me.
Apparently, white people think winning sporting events is justification for rioting. We must be really "deep" to feel so passionately about winning.
11 Stupid Reasons White People Have Rioted
My opinion, it takes away from their cause. Black people have been discriminated against in America since slavery. When they smash cars and loot businesses it only adds to the problem. President Obama asks for a calm and peaceful gathering. I hope they will listen. The white policewoman has been charged with murder, as she should be. The man held his arm's up and had no gun, yet she killed him. This must stop!
I agree that rioting isn't the answer and provides ammo to those who will trivialize the movement to hold police accountable for their illegal actions.
What incident (or riot) was that, and where?
ADDED: I just read the story about the shooting in Tulas.
Even if the man was on PCP, he should not have been shot.
I actually checked out the reasons - One thing , You are serious right ? ........Not.
What purpose does frustration-based behavior serve? Well, I am not sure it exists to serve a purpose. It is a spontaneous expression of a state of suffering.
I miss the understanding of law and order that dictated when a legal protest turns violent , then that violence is met by the same type of force.
"The perception of police discrimination should concern Americans " ----- Pres. Obama today . Gee there , Mr. President , what about the perception that most people are actually supporting the police . College age protesters , social-political activists and a jungle mentality in the streets leaves an awfully weird perception of your leadership too !
Mr. President ,Watch what you say !
Colorfulone -- this is totally correct !
A race war began by Obama , continued for Hillary's black vote - benefit . AND promoted by the Soros owned media ! It is the most falsely structured debate of the day , in fact , in history !
Have you heard about recently legalized ,illegal immigrants for democratic votes ?
by loveofnight2 years ago
Do you believe that rioting serves a purpose ?I was listening to the news about the riots in Baltimore,Maryland (police killed a kid). They are destroying property but I wonder how they think that it will solve their...
by Don Bobbitt5 years ago
Why have we, the citizens of America, sunken to the need to organize protests of our government?What has happened to our government when they are so distanced from what we, THE PEOPLE, must organize protests and...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
We've seen a lot of threads on the uprisings in Egypt and Libya that have spread throughout the Middle East/Asian Muslim population.There has been speculation: Is all this violence really about some schlocky, tasteless...
by ptosis16 months ago
Is Donald Trump criminally responsible for inciting violence at his political rallies?There is a well-established legal definition of incitement to violence, and it involves three parts (1) that the person is directly...
by Paul Swendson6 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter3 years ago
Most Muslims are peaceful. Why are they not more vocal in denouncing terrorism? If ISIS has 40,000+ terrorist and other terrorist groups have lesser numbers, what percentage of the Muslim population is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.