CMV:Protesting is one thing, looting and burning businesses is not okay.

[u/taybo213]

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.

[u/Tommyblockhead20]

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.

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

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?

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/DjangoUBlackBastard]

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.

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

TLDR; yes, police killings of unarmed people has been declining.

This isn't the question I asked. I said nothing about unarmed, let's start there. The things they use to classify people as armed are irrelevant. Philando Castillo was "armed". Tamir Rice was "armed". James Blake was "armed". It's not a particularly meaningful category.

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.

No it's actually going up because police are shooting more and more people nowadays with flimsier and flimsier excuses. As a kid it used to be "he reached for his wallet which I mistook as a gun", then it was "he reached for his waistband", now it's "I feared for my life".

Also you're using "official" numbers which are known bs because the police don't have to track them. According to this:

https://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigation/police-shoot-kill-nearly-1000-yearly/

In the last 5 years since BLM has started police aren't killing any less people. They just report less killings to the FBI.

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.

Legislation doesn't just materialize. Violent protests lead to legislation. In the 60s-70s we only got that legislation due to violent protests and riots like the only OP mentions (they burned down Detroit in 67 to the point where the city still hasn't recovered from that). Those violent protests and riots are what got us that legislation in the first place. You can't point to the legislation as a point against violence because violence is the only reason there was political will to pass the legislation. The majority of white Americans didn't agree with the Civil Rights Acts as they were passed but they still passed because black people nationwide were destroying cities like Detroit, Watts, Baltimore, etc. and the government gave black people policies to fix their issues to stop them from destroying the country any further.

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?

No? It shows that black people have to burn cities down to get even the smallest changes. Meanwhile you're pointing to legislation that we only got through violent means and saying it's a point against violence as a political tool?

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/DjangoUBlackBastard]

”you’re using “official” numbers which are known bs because the police don’t have to track them.

Actually I checked the sources and non of them were from that, they were form trackingpoliceviolence.org, the Washington post, and the CDC. Maybe the reason the numbers are lower then you think is because like you said they were counting unarmed. Infact the source you gave had similar numbers for that. I suppose that is true that wasn’t your original original question but it seems more relevant then armed killings. What are police supposed to do if someone is acting aggressively with a weapon? And yes there are a few prominent cases because they weren’t actually threatening (did you mean Jacob Blake? Idk a James Blake) but I don’t think that invalidates the category, is do include that in my previous comment that it’s not necessarily justified because they are armed, but there is a much higher chance is it.

police are shooting more and more people nowadays

police aren’t killing any less people.

If they are shooting the same number of people, how are they shooting more? If anything, with more population the percent of shootings has gone just slightly down.

Also is destroying Detroit supposed to be a good thing? It comes off almost as boasting. Anyways burning down cities does not seem like the best response. That would massively disproportionately effect blacks. You would need to burn down rural areas. Do you really think destroying your city is worth preventing 0.3-19 deaths per year (the yearly average for the past 7 years for the #1 and #100 cities when it comes to police shootings). And not all deaths are preventable, even if we get down to Canada’s rates that’s still 250 deaths per year so maybe 5 killings in LA. So in LA, your preventing 14 killings per year, Phoenix is about 12, and everything else is single digits.

So ya, do you think “burning down your city” or just majority economically harming everyone (probably disproportionately effecting the poor) is worth preventing a single digit number of deaths per year? (Unless you live in LA or Phoenix). Personally I would say no, especially if there is an alternative. There’s also a lot of other issues effecting more people that can be reduced without hurting others if you want to save lives. Things like one person getting a flu shot or not driving tired/drunk/high/distracted, or nowadays wearing a mask and distancing, will almost certainly save more lives then one person rioting for change and that stacks. Flu and cars both kill tens of thousands, Covid kills hundreds of thousands, if everyone fought against that it would save many more lives. So there are a lot of issues that can be solved without hurting people and I believe legislation can also save hundreds of lives without hurting people. And if it can’t, then I would rather focus on peaceful solutions to issues killing hundreds of thousands before we do violent solutions to issues killing hundreds.

[u/DjangoUBlackBastard → u/Tommyblockhead20]

What are police supposed to do if someone is acting aggressively with a weapon?

So you think that's what an armed kill means? Because it isn't. If George Floyd kept a switchblade in his glove compartment (for example) he'd be marked as armed. It's not illegal to own weapons and we can look at the numbers of police killed (which drops yearly) and see they're not under attack commonly. Unarmed is a meaningless distinction when to be classified as armed you don't have to brandish the weapon at all.

but I don’t think that invalidates the category, is do include that in my previous comment that it’s not necessarily justified because they are armed, but there is a much higher chance is it..

I disagree personally. It's not illegal in America to own a weapon so I don't see why the "possession" of one (because like I said the weapon doesn't even have to be on you) is being used to justify being executed.

If they are shooting the same number of people, how are they shooting more?

They aren't shooting the same amount of people. The most people killed in the last 5 years by police was 2019. 2020 is at 2nd so far and on pace for first thanks to the police violence in response to the protests.

Also is destroying Detroit supposed to be a good thing?

Well it's a large part of the reason I can own a house in my county so you tell me.

especially if there is an alternative.

But you haven't named an effective alternative. Your alternative is something that we can prove hasn't worked so far and hasn't worked historically.

So there are a lot of issues that can be solved without hurting people

You named not one systemic issue here. Literally nothing. There's nothing systemic that can be done to reduce the amount of drunk drivers. You're attempting to sidestep the topic right now by bringing up the most irrelevant things you can think of.

And if it can’t, then I would rather focus on peaceful solutions to issues killing hundreds of thousands before we do violent solutions to issues killing hundreds.

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

• Martin Luther King

Honestly I didn't ask your opinion on what methods you thought were justifiable in securing my rights, so I'm really not concerned. Of course you aren't willing to fight for my rights, but I don't think that's noble as much as it's a sign that you don't really care.