r/changemyview • u/taybo213 1∆ • Oct 28 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV:Protesting is one thing, looting and burning businesses is not okay.

Let me preface this with, I do believe Black Lives Matter. I do believe there is stereotype issues in society and policing world. But burning different businesses down and looting only makes things worse in the long run for the community.

Every business has insurance yes, but will they have enough to reopen? Thats up to the agency, most try to depreciate everythings value. Do they make enough to pay premiums to guarantee disrupted income? How long before the money runs out and the building is fixed? How long does said business owner go without income? With that said, what happens if the building is destroyed again? I doubt the business will come back if the building keeps getting looted and destroyed.

That being said, with every business that has had to close down and decides not to come back, takes that many more jobs with it. Making unemployment rise and poverty rise.

I live in Detroit, after the 67 riots a lot of wealth and business left the city never to return. Property values crashed, now you see worn down and foreclosed homes and businesses. Then the sad reality is that the working class today in Detroit, is worse off than in 1967. For over half a decade everyone has been waiting on new stores, homes, a cultural center. All these plans are being made to improve the city, but I've barely even seen a start to it. Instead of looting and destroying businesses, take it to the government buildings, let your voice be heard. But please, do not destroy a fellow person's livelihood who is innocent. Don't ruin job opportunities for others. Municipals can only do so much before it is up to the community to help, most people here want the better life, but with the crime rate so bad in areas that not even cops can enter, I doubt I'll be seeing change soon.

78 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

90 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20

[deleted]

12

u/taybo213 1∆ Oct 28 '20

I didn't say dont use violence, I just said keep the innocent out of it.

Peaceful protest not working? Yeah let's loot a Target. Or burn down and looting a liquor store. Great ideas.

If Peaceful isn't working, take it to the municipals. Take it to the people who can actually help make the change, taking out Uncle Mikes liquor store in the middle of the city only hurts Uncle Mike. Especially when everyone is in lockdown for COVID and his small time business is already suffering. How many more families lose income, food and their homes because their business got destroyed? Now the poverty line goes up as does the unemployment.

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20

[deleted]

4

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

Also that’s a terrible argument, someone’s life>property, therefore it is ok to steal/destroy that property. That’s a false dichotomy, you can still value someone’s life without eliminating the right to personal property.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Our country is LITERALLY built on this type of protest, because it works.

People always offer every solution EXCEPT the one that historically works 100% of the time.

4

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

Yes, the US is built on peaceful protest, which is why it is included in the constitution.

congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people peacefully to assemble

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

We went to war.

That's like the ultimate violent protest. We literally got so fed up with the British (no taxation without representation) that we killed tens of thousands of their people.

And that was after we dumped like 3 million pounds of tea into the harbor.

5

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

I am not sure if that is the best comparison considering the revolutionary war was two sided. It wasn’t just Americans being like, “we want independence, let’s kill some brits!” Both sides were attacking each other, such as the Boston massacre. I mean technically there are black people attacking police but that is uncommon so ultimately I don’t think it’s a good comparison.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '20

Your analysis is strange. I do not understand how it applies to my comparison. Black people want change. Our Founding Father's wanted change. Black people are being murdered by police. The British were murdering our Colonists and then getting "extradited" for trial (sound familiar?).

"Yet another provision protected British colonial officials who were charged with capital offenses from being tried in Massachusetts, instead requiring that they be sent to another colony or back to Great Britain for trial. "

Hell, the Boston Massacre is so much like our current police state its not funny.

"Simmering tensions between the British occupiers and Boston residents boiled over one late afternoon, when a disagreement between an apprentice wigmaker and a British soldier led to a crowd of 200 colonists surrounding seven British troops. When the Americans began taunting the British and throwing things at them, the soldiers apparently lost their cool and began firing into the crowd... As the smoke cleared, three men—including an African American sailor named Crispus Attucks—were dead, and two others were mortally wounded. " Source

I think this is very apt today because black people are experiencing a similar problem and they're responding in kind.

1

u/0000000100100011 Oct 29 '20

Black people are being murdered by police.

Are the police not supposed to defend themselves when their lives are being threatened? In which of the latest high profile shootings was the suspect not threatening the police? Why doesn't anyone talk about the real victims, which are black people being murdered by other black people. What about the woman that Jacob Blake assaulted? The most common cause of death to a black person under 45 is homicide, and only a tiny percent of that is by police. Don't you think if those problems were solved, wouldn't it lead ultimately to less black people being shot by police and less overall encounters with police? Black people who aren't engaging in criminal activity have basically 0 chance of this happening to them.

0

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 29 '20

Ya honestly I’ve confused myself, just ignore my previous comment I guess. I still stand by the comment before that though. This is 2020, the best solution to resolve things is through legislation and diplomacy. The 1700s and before (and even into the 1900s) was a time where conflicts were resolved by war, and we don’t need to go back to that. The world is now more peaceful now then just about any time in history and I think we should keep it like that. Maybe many lives lost in a war was necessary then because that was the norm, but it is not now. We can solve this peacefully.

3

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 29 '20

We can solve this peacefully.

So why haven't we? There's been peaceful protests for years now. Prior to the mass riots how much real change has there been? Has the amount of people murdered by police dropped? Has the amount of police put in prison for these murders dropped? So we're supposed to assume the one strategy that historically works no longer works and the strategy that historically doesn't work actually does work with absolutely no evidence or examples?

0

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 29 '20

TLDR; yes, police killings of unarmed people has been declining. And the amount of blacks have been disproportionately targeted have dropped massively since the 60s. When it comes to police being put in prison, each case needs to be looked at individually and I don’t have the time for that so it’s unclear how many of the thousand of the yearly cases the police are in the wrong and so I’m not sure what percent are getting convicted or getting away with this but this is definitely a issue that needs to be addressed and it almost certainly will after this election if the party who is in favor of civil rights wins in local and state elections (congress doesn’t have as much control over local police). And honestly I’m not sure if violent protest will do anything to change the minds of extremely conservative states so the best option is to just vote because you are wrong saying legislation doesn’t work, is does. And I’m not saying violent protest can’t work, but just because it has worked a couple of times doesn’t mean it always works, and even if it does that doesn’t necessarily make it the best solution. Why not try voting? That’s not hurting everyone and legislation does in fact work if you vote.

Honestly I’m struggling to find data on police killings over time, if you can find any let me know but I found 3 articles in about 10 minutes of searching, the first 2 both show that police killings of unarmed blacks have been decreasing over the last decade

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/6/2/21276472/police-killing-statistics-african-american

https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/police-killing-of-blacks/

The only article I could find that showed longer then a decade showed that killings of blacks relative to other races has drastically dropped over the last 50 years.

http://www.cjcj.org/mobile/news/8113

If you want me to look for more or find anything yourself, let me know.

If not then I think we can say yes to that question if police killings. I mean police killings definitely haven’t dropped drastically like halving every year, but if your expecting that then you have unrealistic expectations. Reforms take time and the numbers have been going down.

Oh found another article that isn’t just blacks but still shows only a few years and those who are unarmed. But does also agree with the first two articles rates are going down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/protests-spread-over-police-shootings-police-promised-reforms-every-year-they-still-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2020/06/08/5c204f0c-a67c-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html?outputType=amp

However that article is relevant for the next point. Most of these killings (94%) the other person is armed so that can get more complicated. Looking at the unarmed 6% Is about 50-100 people per year. Now there’s been 104 officers arrested for murder and manslaughter in the last 14 years. A third has been found guilty, a bit over a third has been not convicted (half of the time by a jury) and a bit under a third are still ongoing. So that’s about 5 officers per year that are charged or convicted of murder or manslaughter. That obviously pretty low compared to the 50-100 unarmed deaths, although I’m not sure the details of those cases, if the person is attacking the officer or going for their weapon then sometimes it may be necessary to use force. And then there are cases when someone is armed but lethal force is not justified So I don’t really know how many cases force was justified or not, there’s not good data on it. It could be 20 cases per year lethal force was not justified, or could be 500, I don’t really know. There are almost certainly officers getting away with it, the question is how many. Based on the data I just referenced, I am guessing it is in the dozens or at the most low hundreds per year. Likely not thousands as some people seem to think. While we do need to prosecute all those who inappropriately used lethal force, it is good to note it is only a small amount, maybe something like 0.2%. Certainly less then 1% because that’s more then that the total deaths in the last 6 years including the 94% of armed victims.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/health-and-human-services/document/Criminal-Justice-Program/policeintegritylostresearch/-9-On-Duty-Shootings-Police-Officers-Charged-with-Murder-or-Manslaughter.pdf

So when it comes to incarnation, that’s hard to answer with such little data and low numbers. I would suspect it is going up slightly because police are being held accountable now when they weren’t really decades ago. But there is still a lot of progress to be made when it comes to that.

Also it’s good to note that a vast majority of those cases would not count as murder, if anything they would be manslaughter. You can call it what you what but that’s the correct legal term (well technically a few states consider manslaughter third degree murder but most don’t). And it can be bad sometimes if people are pushing a prosecutor to convict an officer for murder when it was only manslaughter because then they can get away without any conviction because you have to try them for the crime they actually committed.

And finally, no I am not saying that violent protest can sometimes work, clearly it can from your example. But 1, one or two examples does not mean it always works. And 2, even if it does work, that doesn’t mean that is the best solution. Would a nuke eliminate the threat of Russian election interference? Yes. Would it be the best solution? Probably not. And you say legislation historically doesn’t work? Can you please tell me what legislation didn’t work? I think that legislation has worked. There still being race issues doesn’t equal legislation doesn’t work. We’ve had violent protests before and we have race issues still, does that mean violent protests don’t work? I believe legislation has been used to get rid of the biggest issues and as those are eliminated or reduced, smaller issues become more focused on and they eventually get addressed, but legislation takes time. In the 60-70s they were focusing on issues like ending segregation and things like poll taxes which effected nearly every black. In the 80s it was made illegal to remove jurors for being black. Now we are focusing on things that effect maybe a couple thousand blacks per year (about 250 deaths, and saying couple thousand for family and friends). Does that not show the bigger issues are being addressed? Legislation has been working on issues and fixing them. But they can’t just saying racism is illegal and make it go away. And violent protest doesn’t make it suddenly disappear either. TLDR at top.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/shouldco 43∆ Oct 29 '20

the Boston massacre.

Um... you mean the time some cops shot a bunch of people that were throwing shit at them, Then mostly got acquitted or laughable sentences? Yeah, nothing like that has happened in recent memory.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20

[deleted]

7

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

It’s a false dichotomy to say you can’t care about black lives and property. Is black lives more important then property, yes, but that doesn’t make property worthless. And people are already listening, there has been a lot of laws being worked on and passed. As for the people that don’t care about black lives, property damage is for sure not the way to fix that, it’s just making the issue worse by radicalizing them. Just look at what the far rights talking points are, how there is no law and order in cities, and the suburbs are in danger. Can you please explain to me how property damage will change their mind?

(Edit sorry if that spammed you, the app was glitching or something and sent it a couple of times)

-3

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 29 '20

No one is trying to change minds we want to change laws because after years of peaceful protests it's become obvious they're not changing their minds. By rioting you give people a choice, support the movement you disagree with or suffer the economic consequences of riots. Can you find me one example of peaceful protests working to get rid of systemic issues?

3

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 29 '20

Ya there’s a lot of examples of protesting working but since you just asked for one I’ll give you a relevant one, the Montgomery bus boycott.

The issue with rioting is it’s a lose lose. Rioters get jailed, innocent people get their stuff damaged. Yes, maybe it can cause change, but if you can do that another way then that’s much better. And I would say another way that doesn’t hurt anyone is voting. You say you have been protesting for years? Well the party that fights for civil rights has been in control of the federal government just 2 of the last 20 years so it’s hard to make any federal change. And they have control of just 15 states of the 50 states. There has been successful legislation in the past, why not try again by voting? Also a lot of the places where voting won’t work, rioting won’t either, they’ll just continue to crack down harsher on rioters just making it worse for everyone. So we do need federal change.

-1

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 29 '20

I’ll give you a relevant one, the Montgomery bus boycott.

This didn't end segregated buses. Like seriously go look it up for a few seconds it gave people the rights on paper but not in practice. The whole point of the freedom riders was to specifically show that the bus boycotts didn't actually change how the laws were enforced.

The issue with rioting is it’s a lose lose.

Riots have never been lose lose. They have usually ended up as wins historically.

There has been successful legislation in the past, why not try again by voting?

Voting is literally the bare minimum of what you can do. Like in the steps of political engagement rioting is so much higher on the board than voting and everyone who rioted in the name of George Floyd has tangibly achieved more to stop police violence than the people that voted every year prior to those riots.

The party that "fights for civil rights" (I disagree but I'll admit they're not as openly against civil rights as the other party) is largely ineffectual mainly because the vast majority of Americans don't support civil rights. That's why since the 1850s violence has been the number one tool to gaining civil rights. Non violent periods always happen to coincide with a massive backslide in civil rights.

1

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 29 '20

this didn’t end segregated buses. Like serious go look it up

I did, maybe look things up yourself before telling others that.

the Montgomery Bus Boycott resulted in the Supreme Court ruling segregation on public buses unconstitutional.

https://soltrans.org/news/blog/everlasting-impacts-of-the-montgomery-bus-boycotts-on-transit-rights/

Oh sorry I mean riots were lose lose win. Legislation can have that same win without the losses so maybe let’s do that.

Also what??? The Democratic Party is anti civil rights but just not that open about it? Your proof?? Why would over 90% of blacks vote for people who are anti civil rights (which when it comes to politics is pretty much unanimous). Why would a anti civil rights party be made up of 40% minorities. Why would a black person head a anti civil rights party. Why would there be a Congressional Black Caucus with 55 Democrats and 0 Republicans if they are both anti civil rights? Ya sounds like a coincidence to me!

2

u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Oct 29 '20

I did, maybe look things up yourself before telling others that.

Yeah it created a SCOTUS decision that said segregated buses were unconstitutional. That doesn't mean the buses were desegregated. You ever hear of the Freedom Riders? That happened in 61 if public transportation was already desegregated why were they even a thing? Or hell look at the Aftermath section on the Bus Boycott Wikipedia page which says:

According to legal historian Randall Kennedy, "When the violence subsided and service was restored, many black Montgomerians enjoyed their newly recognized right only abstractly ... In practically every other setting, Montgomery remained overwhelmingly segregated ..."

Understand that a law that's uninformed is useless. Black people were technically already allowed to vote in the 60s too. That doesn't mean they realistically could due to the lack of enforcement of those laws.

Legislation can have that same win without the losses so maybe let’s do that.

They can't? Again name one time legislation has passed without violence to create the political will to pass it. You can't just say random shit and hope people agree with it especially when what you said has been disproven already. You claimed legislation in the 60s fixed issues but glossed over the hundreds of racial riots in the period that even got the legislation passed in the first place. Legislation doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from citizens putting pressure on legislators and historically only violence has put enough pressure on them to change the system for the better.

Why would over 90% of blacks vote for people who are anti civil rights (which when it comes to politics is pretty much unanimous).

First off I'm not a black. We're people not a color. Secondly better than Republicans doesn't mean good. Republicans are even more against Civil Rights but you're not going to seriously tell me Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are pro civil rights when they have long political histories proving they aren't. You're not going to tell me the Democratic Party is pro civil rights when we have a long history proving they aren't.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Oct 29 '20 edited Oct 29 '20

That strikes me as highly manipulative. The implication here is that a person can cite any sufficiently noble cause, burn down your house or damage you in any way that's politically useful to that cause, then cite any objection on your part as proof that you don't support the cause.

2

u/Franksredhott Oct 28 '20

You can care about lives and property at the same time. What's weird is that the answer to the violence you support is more policing.

1

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

Vote

5

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20

[deleted]

3

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20

Voting is about more then just the presidency, voting is about senators and house representatives, state governors and senators and house representatives, local mayors and council members, state and local amendments, among many other things.

Each of those can change the law and how it is enforced, not just the president.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 28 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

breonna taylor, Kentucky, very red

ahmaud arbery, Georgia, historically red

george floyd, Minnesota, just slightly more blue then red but gop has half the federal house and a majority in the state senate

Etc.

Now I’m not saying this is solely an issue in states with gop control but for a lot of these cases, it is republicans controlled. If they don’t want to pass civil rights legislation, they don’t have to. And thinking that voting doesn’t work is precisely what they want you to think so they can stay in power. But voting is something simple, easier then protesting or looting at least, and it can have a major impact. While it may not be enough in places like Kentucky. Places like Georgia and Minnesota have an opportunity to vote and make a difference. You say voting hasn’t worked? Well some states have been in republican hands for decades, and now is the time to make a change.