Re: Baton Rouge

[LuckyTheDog]

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Gandhi knew it. MLK knew it. 99.99% of Black Lives Matter supporters know it now. Fighting brutality by the authorities with violent retribution always backfires.

Participation in a cycle of violence, besides being immoral, is a losing strategy. The "powers that be" will always have more guns than you do. You also don't win allies by killing people who have done nothing wrong just because a few people with similar uniforms acted badly.

[mainstreetonce]

1. Good post

..

[Hulk]

33. Let's not turn into the beast we detest

We have to resist the urge to become the barbaric animals we recognize as evil.

[michaz]

2. Exactly!! n/t

[Silver_Witch]

3. I am sorry do you think BLM supports shooting officers?

[

[LuckyTheDog]

4. See above.

I think it's obvious that I don't.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Obviously not. Read the original post for comprehension. . . . nt

[KingCharlemagne]

5. John Brown's body lies a'mouldering in his grave, but his soul

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

is marching on. So your post is wrong on its surface.

[Martin Eden]

8. John Brown's plot failed

Therefore the OP is not wrong on its surface.

Are you arguing the Civil War would not have occurred if not for John Brown's 1959 raid in Harpers Ferry? If so, I think that's a bit of a stretch. He helped stoke the flames, but I doubt his raid was a deciding factor in Lincoln winning the 1860 presidential election or the southern states subsequently seceding.

[Hoppy]

20. Brown had little to do with Lincoln winning the election but a lot to do with southern secession.

Today, we look at Brown through the photograph with the crazy eyes and the long beard and figure, he's crazier than Ted Cruz. At the time of his hanging, he was a world wide hero and letters came to the White House from all over Europe asking for his pardon.

To the south, he was a symbol of northern tyranny... especially that most northerners were not condemning his raid.

Lincoln gets elected and the fear is that this will give permission for more such raids and Lincoln will do nothing to stop these assaults against the legal slave holders.

Why wait? Secede now.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Brown's raid apparently prompted several southern states to form, arm and train new

state militia, units which would prove useful to the subsequent formation of the Confederate armies.

[Martin Eden]

41. If Lincoln lost, the South wouldn't have seceded in response to the election.

And if Lincoln won, I think it's very likely they would have seceded if John Brown was unknown.

Speculation to be sure, but I'm pretty familiar with this history.

The Dallas shooter will never be revered by millions as a hero, even if the recent spate of violence leads to change for the better.

The analogy with John Brown is very thin to begin with, illustrated by this question:
Though force of arms ultimately resulted in the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, is armed insurrection against the police a means by which police departments and conduct will be reformed for the better?

[KingCharlemagne]

44. The 1992 Los Angeles insurrection in response to the brutal beat-down

of Rodney King by the LAPD, and the subsequent acquittal of the 4 pigs in Simi Valley suggests that sometimes the answer to your question is, "Fuck yeah!"

FWIW, only 4 pigs were tried and ultimately convicted. But 22 pigs stood around and kvetched while the beat-down was administered. So much for the "few bad apples" trope.

And then there's the Ramparts scandal.

[Martin Eden]

45. I don't think you understood my question

I asked:

Though force of arms ultimately resulted in the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, is armed insurrection against the police a means by which police departments and conduct will be reformed for the better?

Are you saying that in the wake of the police brutality cases you cited the police departments were forced to reform after being defeated in battle by armed insurrections?

Remember, the context in our hypothetical debate is the Civil War. One army, through force of arms, militarily defeated another army.

In the context of the issue at hand are you suggesting that more Dallas shooters will carry the day and defeat the authorities to stop police brutality and racial bias?

[KingCharlemagne]

50. Hiw much do you know or remember about the 1992 LA insurrection? The

LAPD surrendered (fled in complete disarray) like the bunch of racist, chickenshit pansies they were. Then-president George H.W. Bush had to send in the U.S. Army to restore order.

[bravenak]

52. The LADP ran outta my neighborhood so fast you'd think the devil was on their heels

[Martin Eden]

54. Enough to know it doesn't support your argument

The "LA insurrection" did not defeat the authorities through force of arms and impose the will of the victors, unless they also defeated the army sent in to restore order.

The South won battle after battle in the Civil War forcing the Union army to retreat back north, but ultimately they lost the war.

I'm not sure what your point is in the context of the recent shootings of police. Do you applaud the Dallas shooter and see his actions as a winning strategy to end police brutality and racial bias? If so, President Obama vehemently disagrees with you, and so do I.

[KingCharlemagne]

55. The LA insurrection defeated soundly the LAPD (the force in question) and

resulted in the massive reforms initiated by the Christopher Commission. Without the insurrection, no Commission and no reforms. So this is a specific instance in living memory where mass armed resistance to the police resulted in reforms, thereby supporting my original response to your rhetorical question in post 41.

[Martin Eden]

56. The authorities were not defeated by force of arms

On the contrary, after the police couldn't manage the situation the authorities brought in a greater force which restored order. What happened in LA in the wake of the Rodney King verdict involved widespread rioting and looting, though there were gun battles including armed store owners who banded together to protect their property:

Open gun battles were televised, as in one well publicized incident where Korean shopkeepers armed with M1 carbines, pump action shotguns, and handguns exchanged gunfire with, broke up, and forced a retreat of a group of armed looters.
Link

You have a valid point in that a commission and reforms of the police Dept. followed, which very likely would not have happened any time soon if not for the severity of the riots.

This is not remotely a good analogy to the Civil War, which prompted my initial reply.

And my last question remains unanswered by you:

Do you applaud the Dallas shooter and see his actions as a winning strategy to end police brutality and racial bias?

[KingCharlemagne]

57. The LAPD were defeated. That's all that's been at issue, as far as I'm concerned, per your

question as posed in Post #41. An insurrection defeated a corrupt and racist police force and compelled massive reforms.

I don't see individual violence as "a winning strategy to end police brutality". But organized mass resistance or even unorganized mass resistance is another matter entirely and you are trying to conflate the two (individual vs. mass resistance), so as to confuse the issue.

[Martin Eden]

59. "organized mass resistance or even unorganized mass resistance is another matter entirely"

Which takes us back to the OP:
Fighting brutality by the authorities with violent retribution always backfires.

That statement and this thread are in reference to the shooting of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Context is important. Organized (or disorganized) resistance is another matter entirely from the kind of violent retribution that recently took place. Perhaps you view our discussion as totally outside the OP topic of this thread but I don't, which is why I keep coming back to it. I got involved in the first place because you tried to conflate the OP's statement about these recent shootings with John Brown's martyrdom.

My entire purpose in participating in this thread has been to support the OP's assertion that these recent shootings of police officers are the wrong course of action in efforts to end police brutality and racial bias.

[KingCharlemagne]

60. Inferring from your most recent post, you seem to believe the system is capable of reforming

itself. I do not. I believe only revolution can force the necessary changes now and that reform is impossible. So I suppose I disagree with the OP and with you (and, I suppose, with the President).

[Martin Eden]

61. That depends on how "system" is defined.

Ostensibly, in a representative democracy all citizens eligible to vote are part of the system. I use the word "ostenibly" because I believe our political/economic system is highly dysfunctional, to the point of being a plutocracy. I think a political revolution is necessary for the needed change to occur, and civil disobedience (violating laws) may have to be a part of that.

But any movement which employs the intentional murder of police officers based on their race deserves to fail and probably will. Morally, it's much closer to Timothy McVeigh and Daesh than to Dr. King.

To my knowledge, BLM has not embraced these murders as a means to end police brutalty and racial bias.

[KingCharlemagne]

62. Back to John Brown. He and his followers represented the fringe of the fringe at the time. Most

Northerners and Westerners (like Lincoln) who evinced a distaste for slavery exhibted an equal distaste for the tactics of the radical Brown.

And yet history vindicated Brown in ways I doubt even he would have predicted.

[Martin Eden]

63. "And yet history vindicated Brown"

That vindication is not universally accepted among legitimate historians. Last summer my wife and I spent a weeklong vacation in Harpers Ferry and became fairly immersed in the subject of John Brown and his raid. He tried to enlist the help of Frederick Douglas, who wanted no part of it. One of the first casualties in the raid was an innocent black railroad worker.

Whether or not the Civil War would have ensued without Brown's additional fanning of flames can only be speculated. To believe it wouldn't have, you pretty much have to argue that Lincoln wouldn't have won the 1860 election or that having won, the South wouldn't have seceded. I'm very skeptical those outcomes would have been different without Brown.

I'm even more skeptical that a spate of murders of white police officers will be a catalyst for positive change, and I would bet heavily against the Dallas and Baton Rouge shooters being "vindicated" by history as some kind of heroes.

No reasonable person can dispute the cause of abolition or the cause of ending police brutality/racial bias, but that doesn't mean that all violent acts committed by people who believe in the cause are justified or help the cause. A deranged individual can do much more harm than good.

Personally I condemn these murders, and really have nothing more to add on the subject.

[KingCharlemagne]

64. Douglass may have been cool to Brown's entreaties before the raid, not wishing to embark on what he

knew or suspected would surely be a suicide mission.

Douglass, however, was effusive in his praise for Brown in 1881:

His {Brown's} zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine - it was as the burning sun to my taper light - mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity. I could live for the slave, but he could die for him.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/jbexhibit/bbspr05-0032.html

Plenty of "reasonable" people (among them Lincoln) disputed the cause of abolition at the time; abolitionism was seen as a fringe movement and Brown lived at the fringes of that fringe. Plenty of reasonable people believe in 'due process of the law,' even when said 'due process' lets rogue officers off with little more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. Just as 'due process' was used to justify slavery in its day, so 'due process' is used today to justify the exoneration of racist, murderous pigs. I also really have nothing more to add on the subject.

[brush]

53. John Brown's raid was perhaps one of the last turning points leading to the Civil War . . .

Another piece of history, hidden, was the decades long Gullah Wars led by a black man named John Horse.

Google it. These slave rebellions lasted for the decades that preceded the war and destabilized the slave economy as they won battles with army units.

This history has been hidden for years. Why? For some reason many don't want it known that black people fought and were successful in contributing to the downfall of slavery.

[KingCharlemagne]

22. Oy. "John Brown's plot failed." Shows a decided ignorance of the

difference between tactics and strategy.

Was slavery going to end by any other means than violence????

[Martin Eden]

39. "John Brown's plot failed" is a fact.

The operative word being plot. Are you ignorant of the difference between a plot and a cause?

He sought to spark and arm a slave rebellion with a stronghold in the southern mountains. It didn't happen.

Slavery was a very divisive issue that motivated the South to secede, but ending slavery was not (at the outset) why the North conducted the war. Northern victory did of course make it possible to pass the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) in January 1865 and ratify it in December 1865.

I agree slavery would not have ended at the time it did without force of arms, and it's difficult to speculate when it ultimately would have ended in the United States and by what means if the South had not seceded.

All of which is pretty much besides the point made in the OP. To refresh your memory, here is the statement:

Gandhi knew it. MLK knew it. 99.99% of Black Lives Matter supporters know it now. Fighting brutality by the authorities with violent retribution always backfires.

Analogy to the Civil War is pretty thin, especially with the qualifier violent retribution. The Dallas shooter was committing an act of revenge, not conducting a potentially successful strategy in a cause for justice.

History has shown that peoples have sometimes prevailed against oppressors through force of arms. The United States was born of revolution against the tyranny of a king.

But to include the Dallas shooter in the company of patriots and freedom fighters requires elevating that killer to something he is not or demeaning others for their sacrifice in a worthy cause. I don't doubt the Dallas shooter believed he was striking against the injustice of police brutality and racial bias, but I'm willing to bet he will never be elevated to a martyr revered by millions. And deservedly so.

[LuckyTheDog]

10. Fixed the typo

[craigmatic]

12. Yup. There are many ways to fight injustice. There's talking, economics, and then there's force.

Hopefully they can get police to stand down on all these shootings so force doesn't come from our side and we can do the peaceful ways.

[mrsv]

7. Did I Miss Something

were the officers shot by members of BLM?

[LuckyTheDog]

9. Nobody said that.

Please see above.

[mrsv]

23. Oh I see

the winning allies part threw me

[LuckyTheDog]

46. That was...

... Like everything else in the post, in the category of things 99.99% of BLM supporters know.

[chowder66]

11. These are not BLM supporters even if they claim they are....

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 02:48 PM - Edit history (2)

On Edit: The point I made on religion does not hold up under the equivalency another poster presented and I replied saying that I agree with them.

On Edit again: I am now removing it because it is still causing confusion. To be clear, I made a statement that was admittedly incorrect. It is posted down thread.
______________

This is what I'm focusing on.

"Black Lives Matter supporters know it now."

I don't think these violent bad actors are actual BLM supporters
since they are obviously missing the point of what they stand for.

"You also don't win allies by killing people who have done nothing wrong just because a few people with similar uniforms acted badly."

You also don't win allies by killing people who have done nothing wrong
just because a few people with similar skin color acted badly.

And to further that last thought,.... you don't win allies by killing people who do not deserve to die for minor (non-death penalty) offenses or for just 'being'.

[Democat]

13. You can't have it both ways

If right wing anger from people like Rush Limbaugh was partially to blame for the Oklahoma City bombing. If right wing hate against gays leads to violence against gay. Then there has to be an equivalency on our side.

[Schema Thing]

14. er, you're equating people asking simply to not be shot to "right wing anger"?

[Democat]

17. People are not asking not to be shot. They are raging about black men being shot

Justified or not, rage will drive some unstable people to resort to violence.

We have seen it from both the right and the left.

It is a fact and both sides have to deal with it.

[chowder66]

19. Right wing radio and personalities foment and call for violence

and/or imply it consistently.

The BLM movement does not and that's the difference.
The message is not being heard or it's being perverted by some looking for another reason to justify something they already justified doing before (intent on killing or harming others). Circular logic.

But yes, the point I made on religion does not hold up under that equivalency.

[Democat]

25. Unstable people sometimes go from rage to violence

There are unstable people on the right and the left.

[chowder66]

27. That is not my point in response to the OP though I agree.

I'm looking at people, who claim membership to some movement/group but do the opposite. It shows they are not hearing the message or misinterpreting it to fit their already messed up view.

People who are going to do harm typically do not wake up one day and become a murderer or wreak violence in the matter of hours. Something was brewing before that. Many of these type of bad actors tend to be all over the place in their politics and I wonder how reasonable it is to even look at that at times. Sure you can say he/she listened to hate radio all day but then you hear they had liberal principles or liked an independent, etc. It seems a bit murky at best in many cases.

[Democat]

28. I agree

I haven't seen any proof that those behind any of the violence is associated with BLM. I also think that BLM is justified in their anger even if I often don't agree with their tactics. I don't think hate radio is justified, but they have a right to rage as much as our side does. On either side, rage for the sake of rage is not very useful, and it does have potential to be misinterpreted by unstable people.

[Cosmocat]

38. OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

No, there isn't.

Not even remotely.

There might be some idiot on the "left" who says some abhorrent shit, but in no way, shape or form to liberals (including BLM) systemically message to foment the kind of hatred toward anyone that the right does, an ENDLESS stream of hate AM radio, thousands of books, they make hundreds of millions a year selling absolute bullshit ginning up hatred of the evil liberal.

And, sorry, the acts of these people (if it is what is looks like) and Dallas were driven by the endless steam of police killing black people, it is no coincidence that it has started after two videos in 24 hours of unjustified killings of blacks by cops.

For fucks sake, the root of this is right wing hate ...

[GulfCoast66]

21. Strongly disagree

If I kill in the name of and because of my religion then my religion is why I killed.

When racist were lynching blacks were they not really doing if because racism?

If the killers in BR are members of BLM, which I doubt, and say they are killing in the name of BLM, then the group will soon go defunct. I certainly hope that is not the case.

[chowder66]

29. I too disagree with my own statement regarding religion

The first poster pointed this out and I agreed. I also saw your response and to hopefully mitigate any confusion I have posted an edit in my original post.

[GulfCoast66]

34. All good.

We all have opinions and I am sure over half of mine seem crazy to someone smarter or more knowledgeable 😄

Have a nice Sunday. Or as nice as possible

[chowder66]

35. Thx, you too! nt

[X_Digger]

36. That's a bit of a 'no true scotsman'. n/t

[chowder66]

37. I'm not sure if you saw my edit but

here it is again. I have had this discussion with others that already pointed out my mistake.

On Edit: The point I made on religion does not hold up under the equivalency another poster presented and I replied saying that I agree with them.

***warning false equivalency. I wrote> Just like murderers who claim violence in the name of religion are not actually representative of their religions. These bad actors pervert the reasons and and have no real relationship with reality.

I would delete it but I don't want to confuse the issue any more than I have already with that bad example.

[Johnny2X2X]

15. Not an ambush

This was a shooting in progress police came upon. People were shooting at each other before the police showed. Then these heavily armed men had to shot their way out to get away.

[LisaL]

51. There was no people shooting at each other.

Sounds like this guy specifically came from another state to do this.

[IronLionZion]

16. The NRA and freepers don't know it.

They are the ones spewing nonsense about their guns are to resist tyranny. And that if they take away your guns, then they'll oppress you next. The first line of government that most everyone encounters in their communities, are the local police.

So in a way, the gun nuts rhetoric is promoting this violence against police. But they won't admit it and no one in power will talk about it.

[Democat]

18. Right wingers openly talk about their hatred of government

The police are the government.

[HockeyMom]

30. Blows the NRA Mantra

One "Good Guy with Gun" can stop a Bad Guy with Gun. If fully trained LEO's need a Swat Team (Orlando) or a Robot with a Bomb (Dallas) to take down ONE Bad Guy with a Gun, Civilian Rambo's will????

Hey, NRA how many Good Guys with Guns does it take? 50, 100, to take down ONE Bad Guy with a Gun?

[IronLionZion]

31. Police Chief and mayor of Dallas came out against good guys with guns

since it causes confusion in a crowd where the police don't know who is a shooter vs a good guy.

[hrmjustin]

26. Nonviolence is the best way to go.

This murder was evil.

May they rest in peace and healing take hold in that city and our nation.

[NobodyHere]

32. You do know Gandhi was racist right?

[Deuce]

43. I believe he was...

[yurbud]

40. which makes me wonder how much this really is related to BLM

[Wednesdays]

42. This thread...

John Brown's failed raid...Gandhi a racist...

[Rex]

47. "Fighting brutality by the authorities with violent retribution always backfires." Tell that to the

Founders of this country. If folks feel like they have nothing to lose, then we all pay for it. However, instead of facing the issue we like to talk around the issue and avoid it.

So George Washington was immoral? Got it, thanks.

[LuckyTheDog]

49. George Washington...

... Didn't commit senseless acts of vengeance against blameless people. He fought a war - two sets of military combatants. A cop in Texas or Mississippi doesn't become a legitimate target because a cop in Minnesota murdered somebody. Unlike regiments of the British army, the two cops have nothing to do with each other.

The people who killed those cops were not freedom fighters. They were criminals. They were not helping the cause of BLM in anyway and their actions were not condoned by any leader of that movement.

There is absolutely no comparison to be drawn between them and George Washington.

[MoonRiver]

48. Voting and spending are the ways to effect change....NOT violence.

[NaturalHigh]

58. Well stated.