Rioting in Charlotte

You can thank the NRA for that. North Carolina is an open-carry state, no permit required. And legally you don't have to drop your gun if the police order you to. He was fully within his rights to have and keep the gun, but of course being black and having a gun got him killed. Rights be damned in NC.

What do you expect when innocent people get murdered and there is no consequence other than a paid vacation for the killers.

Since when is taunting police officers a "demonstration"?

There ere was no organization and no spokesperson for the "movement."

This event brought out all the kooks. Stores that got looted and a citizen to citizen murder. That mob would have destroyed the entire downtown area and more people would have gotten hurt.

To say this says a lot about one's ideological values.

Stay safe Finn and enjoy that grandbaby.

Thank you engineer.

I'm not really worried about our safety, and still waiting for grandchild to arrive.

We don't know if an innocent person was murdered.

We know a black man was shot and killed by a black cop. According to the Chief of Police, the cops and eye-witnesses say the man was approaching the cops with a gun in hand. According to the man's family, he was carrying a book. Chief says they found a gun and the man had on an ankle holster. He also said they found no book.

So what I expect and what everyone should expect is that people hold off on reaching conclusions about innocence and murder until all the facts are known.

I also expect that people who wish to publicly demonstrate and express their opinions do so in a lawful, non-violent manner. Early in the evening this was the case in Charlotte until the night wore on and the thugs and anarchists came out to play.

What I expect is for the police to use force to preserve persons and property from rampaging criminals.

What I also expect is the Left to make excuses for rioting.

It's not a question of ethics and it is not about a single incident. First, it is like physics: For every action there is an equal and opposed reaction. Which brings us to second. There is a cultural conviction that black lives are not valuable, that they are by nature nefarious and deserving of ill treatment. Cops all over the nation are killing black people or at the least profiling them. It was a powder keg before the killing that triggered it. First the wind then the whirlwind; the equal and opposed reaction. There will be riots and protests as long as an entire people know they or their children are almost certain to be the next victims.

I'm not sure what culture you're talking about?

Do black people protest when a white is shot and killed by the police? Nope and I don't necessarily expect them to but does it mean they think white lives don't matter?

Profiling and killing are hugely different actions and shouldn't be lumped together. Yes they are profiled and yes they suffer more discrimination at the hands of cops than other races, but the one study thus far undertaken by an economist (and a black one at that) indicates that they are not shot by cops, proportionately,more than whites. The economist was surprised by the result but he stands by it.

So an entire "people" shouldn't think their kid will be the next victim.

Beyond this, the people who were rioting in Charlotte last night were opportunists they weren't protesters. The peaceful, truly concerned citizens left when the thugs showed up.

It is a matter of Law & Order. No society can remain healthy if mobs can roam the streets looting, beating, setting fires, and killing, because of a perceived injustice.

The peaceful and truly concerned people know this, the thugs don't care.

You don't know what culture I am talking about?

You deny that black Americans are persecuted? I think I am done with the thread.

Time for pumpkin pie!

In case you had trouble reading it the first time.

I don't know what you mean by this... but no, this is nothing like Physics. Fitting science into political ideology is a pet peeve of mine.

So it exists but nobody should react to it in anger after centuries of this crap.

I am trying to understand what point Edgar is trying to make here.

My take is that Finn is saying that rioting and looting aren't any sort of appropriate response to what happened in Charlotte, and that there is question about the original case in the first place that seem to be interpreted differently depending on your ideology.

I don't see anyone making a rational argument against either of Finn's points (and I have nothing to argue against them either).

Is there a rational objection to what Finn is saying?

I got one word for you, dancona: feminism.

They should react to it and they have. Most of their victories against racism have been obtained through non-violent means. I can't think of any that have been the result of rioting, violence, and looting. Can you?

Anger doesn't require violence and criminality to be expressed.

If people believe their rights are being repressed, compromised, or violated, by governmental institutions, it is never acceptable to respond in ways that violate the rights of other citizens.

The people of Charlotte (irrespective of the color of their skin) have a right to walk down the Uptown streets without being confronted by overly aggressive demonstrators who scream, curse, spit and threaten them. They have a right to do so with being injured or killed. The owners of the looted and damaged stores had property rights that were clearly violated. Many of the peaceful demonstrators left as soon as the thugs and agitators showed up and so their right of assembly was compromised.

The legitimacy of one's demand for rights disappears when part of the demand involves depriving fellow citizens of their rights.

When a group of citizens feel that they are at such risk or under such oppression that they have no choice but to rebel, sometimes they will.

Once they do though they are engaged in a rebellion, not a demonstration, and it would be ridiculous for the rebels to demand their rights from the government they seek to overthrow or break free of, if their means involved violence.

African-Americans are not engaged in a rebellion and the vast majority of them do not condone violence as a means to confront the problem they are very concerned about. The thugs and anarchists that have set fires, looted stores and targeted and injured police and white citizens are not engaged in a legitimate response to those concerns.

What is the political statement made by looting a store? How about trying to drag an injured reporter into a fire that was set in the street? Then there's shooting someone in the head or beating up an innocent civilian in a parking lot? What's that political statement?

Its criminality, terrorism, or rebellion.

For most of the local thugs who participate in the riots it's all about criminal opportunism. For the out of town professional agitators, it's criminal as well, but it's also as close to terrorism or rebellion as I ever want to see on our streets.

Understanding why many African-Americans are concerned and angry over what they perceive to be open season by cops on members of their community is not the same as justifying, in any way, the violence that has been going on for the last three nights in Charlotte.

The same understanding is not the same as justifying or participating in rushes to judgment, ignoring actual evidence, and spreading disinformation about an incident (e.g. "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!")

That's funny Edgar. +1

You are making a few different points here Finn (and while Edgar isn't willing to engage you rationally.. I am).

1. I agree with you about the difference between peaceful protest and looting. This does matter (and it hurts the message of people who have a message they want to express peacefully).

You point out that looting stores, vandalism and violence gains absolutely nothing. I agree completely with you.

2. I don't know what you are getting at with "rebellion". The word "rebellion" can be used in many ways from defying laws to organized armed insurgency. I don't know what point you are making here. I think the word "rioting" is sufficient unless there is a distinction you are trying to make that I don't understand.

3. I think I disagree with you when you say "The legitimacy of one's demand for rights disappears when part of the demand involves depriving fellow citizens of their rights." We are always balancing competing rights which is a fact of life in a modern complex society.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this anyway. I think the rational argument of the protesters is that law enforcement should be fair and less lethal. These are the rights at stake.

4. I agree with you about the facts of this case. It does seem that now every case where a Black man is shot will lead to protests regardless of the facts surrounding the case.

I understand why this happens, there is a lot of history and many legitimate cases where racist or simply incompetent police have killed innocent mainly Black men. But I agree that we, as a nation, need to get to the place where the facts can be discussed rationally.

More important is the discussion of where we go from here. Police have an important job. They need to be given the respect and resources to do their job safely. They do need to be able to ensure their own safety. This is balanced by the failure of police organizations and society in general to prevent abuses in African American communities.

This will take a rational discussion where competing legitimate interests need to find common ground.

I personally think that the peaceful protests are an important part of this needed discourse. The chant "Hands up Don't Shoot" is a very effective expression of the emotion of the African American community. I don't think that this is a a bad thing. I also agree with and support the Kaepernick protest (which is also peaceful and powerful).

I do think that on the other side, both sides (including the Black lives Matters activists) are going to need to engage in productive discourse that means looking at the actual facts.