Looting in one part of city does not excuses violence against demonstration in another part of city.

The two sides framing is manipulative and seeks to excuse violence against one group of people by acts of another group.

To what extent is the (non) overlap of the two in [geo,peaceful/looting,intent/instigator] known?

Do you have some sources so we can all have a better understanding?

Yeah, it is pretty much known as locations are known. Is this even serious question?

I think you're being downvoted because you're in a thread about police brutality and are attempting to frame this as the fault of the people being brutalized.

I think anyone who wrongs another is ...wrong

Is there something wrong with that? (where is the average moral compass of society today? how far am I from that?)

Is asking about how people can condemn one version of malevolence and condon another wrong? (just noticed how close malevolence is to "male violence")

Are we past the point of trying to hold each other to higher standards? (is that what the protests are about?)

What percentage of the protesters / rioters would not be there if they had jobs to go to? (is this more accentuated because the covid shelter in place is ending?)

Literally no one is condoning assassination of police officers on- or off-duty. No one is condoning rioting or looting. But we are adult enough to understand that rioting and looting are the result of civil unrest when the people do not feel heard.

Have you watched the live streams people put up while they looted?

(there was not this type of aspirational language)

They knew what they were doing, tried to say things on camera to sound like they hadn't just stolen though it was and remained quite obvious. They weren't talking about the injustices, they were talking about all the free shit and keeping tabs on the cops.

Then they realized the cops were driving around taking lots of pictures of the people coming out of the looted stores. (I think this was an LA stream iirc)

> I think anyone who wrongs another is ...wrong [...] Is there something wrong with that?

No, but that is an overly simplistic reduction of the current situation in the United States, and any conversation around this situation requires an acknowledgement of its complete history and many nuances.

> Is asking about how people can condemn one version of malevolence and condon another wrong?

No, but what was the point of linking that unrelated article from 2014? Would you like me, a protestor, to condemn it? I condemn it. And I also condemn police brutality because it is so much more frequent, disproportionate, and violent.

> Are we past the point of trying to hold each other to higher standards?

No. Police must be held to a higher standard, period. They have badges and guns and are entrusted with a higher power.

> What percentage of the protesters / rioters would not be there if they had jobs to go to?

I don't know, I don't have that data. But from personal experience, I can tell you that people in this country are fed up with police forces that have no accountability. This is a natural consequence of allowing violent LEOs go unpunished for years, with no recourse for the innocent people being brutalized.

> No, but that is an overly simplistic reduction of the current situation in the United States, and any conversation around this situation requires an acknowledgement of its complete history and many nuances.

I've been saying this about covid for a while, this is my main point.

> No, but what was the point of linking that unrelated article from 2014?

The article is about a police assassination in direct response to police killing to black men. It seems related to me, how is it not?

> 3 & 4...

This applies to a large number of groups. Congress and the MediaMachine have much lower approval ratings than the police.

Again, you are painting the police with one large brush, this sounds a lot like prejudice and loss of appreciation that people come in all types in all professions and walks of life.

> I've been saying this about covid for a while, this is my main point.

I'm not following this, and am not going to pivot the conversation to covid.

> The article is about a police assassination in direct response to police killing to black men. It seems related to me, how is it not?

So six years later, the police should be allowed to exact revenge on American civilians protesting in the street? I'm still not understanding the relevance of this article to your argument. Yes, murder is bad. We agree.

> This applies to a large number of groups. Congress and the MediaMachine have much lower approval ratings than the police.

Congress and "the MediaMachine" didn't just kneel on the neck of a man, killing him in broad daylight, on video.

> Again, you are painting the police with one large brush, this sounds a lot like prejudice

I think this conversation has had its run.

The point of covid is a bit from a personal event, but more broadly witnessed, and that is the hypothesis is that people are latching onto an idea, becoming too attached to that idea, and are becoming increasingly unable to accept new ideas into their context. I think this is largely the result of social media and being able to find places where you only interact with people who think like you.

It's good to introspect your beliefs and views on a regular basis.

I am happy to end the conversation, sibling poster.