Enlil said:

That's not the question, though.

Do you think that a person standing in the road justifies someone killing him/her?

---

qman said:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/01/black_lives_matter_wants_cop_charged_urging_drivers_run_over_demonstrators.html

That's fine, as long as they also charge the BLM's members who were calling for the murder of cops, talk about hypocrisy.

---

Quote:

Is it strange that on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays, thoughtful Americans speak earnestly about how much change is needed, not just elsewhere, but here in the us. on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, disturbed by the tumult of the previous evenings, when various people (blacks,students, draft resisters, mothers on welfare) have, in a disorderly way, demanded change, the same people call for "law and order."

On Sundays, our dilemma is solved. The New York times tells us change is necessary and protest desirable, but within limits. Poverty should be protested, but the law should not be broken. Hence the poor peoples campaign, occupying tents in Washington in the spring of 1968, is praiseworthy; but its leaser ralph abernathy, is deservedly jailed for violating an ordinance against demonstrating near the capitol. The Vietnam war is wrong, but if mr. spock is found by a jury and judge to have violated the draft law, he must accept his punishment as right because that is the rule of the game.
Thus, exactly at that moment when we have begun to suspect that law is congealed injustice, that the existing order hides an everyday violence against the body and spirit, that out political structure is fossilized, and that the noise of change may be necessary, a cry that rises for "law and order." such a moment becomes crucial test of whether the society will sink back to a spurious safety or leap forward to its own freshening. we seem to have reached such a moment in the US.

The signs are everywhere. Urban uprisings, exploding out of poverty and racism, have brout a flood of contrite words (the kerner commission report), but no concrete action to redistribute the enormous wealth of the nation; in the Civil Rights act of 1968, the most enforceable section will be that which provides five years in prison for those who "encourage" a riot, and one of the titles of the act is called, appropriately, Civil Disobedience. Student rebellion culminating in the occupation of various university buildings all over the nation, has evoked from those who once decried student silence, not praise, but a shower of commencement day warnings against going "too far." Resistance to the draft and the Vietnam war brought the conviction of Spock, Coffin, Goodman, Fereber -with a clear message from judge, jury and prosecutor: the making of speeches, the holding of press conferences, the distribution of petitions, may be used as evidence of a "conspiracy" punishable by five years prison. This current rush back to "law and order" finds its theoretical exposition in a recent booklet by Justice Abe Fortas of the supreme court, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience. Having been made uncomfortable on certain day by war, racism, poverty, and politics, and on other days by disorderly demonstrations, we seek comfort in the balanced judgement of Mr. Fortas. his essay has been widely distributed across the nation; his views on civil disobedience are probably those of the majority of the supreme court; the tone of his essay is very close to the statements on law and order we find everywhere today - in newspaper editorials, on radio and television. in the pronouncements of political leaders. Therefore, what Mr. Fortas says is important. If he mislead us, that would be very serious.

Mr. Fortas does mislead us on nine counts that I can see, in the fifty-five pages of his booklet. These nine fallacies, I believe, are not only harmful to the liberty of dissident minorities, but stifling to the growth of democracy for the majority of Americans.

What I suggest in this essay is that Mr. Fortas' brief on dissent and civil disobedience is exactly that sanctification of law which proved a failure in the tow greatest crisis in american history. In the 18th century, we had to go beyond British and colonial constitutions in order to gain independence. In the 19th century, we had to go beyond our own constitutional limits in order to end slavery.

Those crises were followed by what seemed a peaceful and successful national development, because american liberalism buried its corpses quickly (native Americans, blacks, the sent off to war) and kept its injustices (the human debris of racism, industrialism, urbanization) locked in the basement of the nation, where millions lived, silent and invisible. Those who fought their way to the surface to break the silence were met with just the right combination of the repression and reform (jail for the industrial workers of the world; new deal sweets for the progressives and socialist) to restore domestic tranquility. In this way american society could be said to be a success; its machinery was greased by the misery of many; but for many others -for a swelling, contented middle class -it "worked."

---

airclay said:

That's an agreeable stance, minus your addition about minorities at the end. I would challenge you to show evidence not hypotheticals that highway occupations are more harmful to the average citizen. I'd also ask you, let's say purely for the hypothetical of answering this question, you beleieve what BLM is standing for and are tackling an issue that exist mostly within the cultural mindset and not wholly a legal issue; what's your idea of fair civil disobedience?

---

qman said:

airclay said:

That's an agreeable stance, minus your addition about minorities at the end. I would challenge you to show evidence not hypotheticals that highway occupations are more harmful to the average citizen. I'd also ask you, let's say purely for the hypothetical of answering this question, you beleieve what BLM is standing for and are tackling an issue that exist mostly within the cultural mindset and not wholly a legal issue; what's your idea of fair civil disobedience?

---

"show evidence" -  How about nurses and doctors stuck in traffic unable to get to their hospital? How about people unable to pick up their children?  How about people getting fired from work by not being able to get to their job on time?  Blocking the highways is illegal and causes harm to innocent people, it can even cost people their lives. If you can't understand this basic concept, I have very little hope for you.

---

airclay said:

I thought that intro above was a good primer on the importance of civil disobedience. But your suggestion is to follow suit and quietly protest behind the lines? So if I'm not mistaken here you don't think civil disobedience is worthy endeavor? You think that peacefully lettering you can overturn something ingrained into the culture? Are you not a fan of the civil rights movement of the 60's? A successful movement based in civil disobedience and direct actions under the idea that what they were up against couldn't not be ascertained through the "proper channels" of law nor protest. (I'm not comparing BLM to the civil rights movement I'm more so looking at the civil disobedience involved)

---

mandrin13 said:

His job is "To protect and serve", he has failed to do that here, so we gave him a paid vacation.

---

qman said:

I'm afraid you are a little naive to think that "To protect and serve" the population was ever the duty of law enforcement, not even close.

---

Keep going - I might learn something here... 

airclay said:

lol so the guy got suspended from his job cause of obv stupidity but you're gonna take the time out here to support him.

if you oppose direct action say it, but this american pick and choose what's the most convenient way for everybody protesting is bullshit, what's the point if it doesn't truly interrupt?

don't build up false narratives of emergency vehicles, there are shoulders and other routes to be taken in case of life threatening emergencies other than just sitting on your ass and saying "well the road seems to be blocked"

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

I'm afraid you are a little naive to think that "To protect and serve" the population was ever the duty of law enforcement, not even close.

---

Keep going - I might learn something here... 

---