Whoever seek to loot, destroy and coerce people into stupid acts needs to be condemned. BLM leaders didn't condemn the violence, which make the BLM movement just a bunch of terrorists, same as Antifa.
It doesn't matter how cute or righteous the name of your organisation, actions speak louder.
You may be surprised, but quite a few people do disagree with what you've just said: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matte...
I think that philosophically most people agree that all lives matter and behave accordingly. Who doesn't is definitely a problem, albeit they're a minority.
People do, in fact, disagree with the message, both on the level of the slogan, and on the level of the substance (which is not merely “Black lives matter at all”, but “Black lives matter much more than thet are treated as mattering by status-quo systems, necessitating urgent and immediate reform.”) Both the “All Lives Matter” as a dismissive generic, and the “Blue Lives Matter” inversion of the argument on who is undervalued, at least in the police vs. Black context which is the most common focal event of BLM protests, reflect.
I mean, some Republicans in Congress just founded a fairly overtly White nationalist caucus, which they wouldn’t do if they weren’t secure in the idea that White nationalism was a winning position with their base and donors. White racism is deeply ingrained in American society and institutions, and plenty of peple see that as a feature not a bug, and plenty more see it as a non-urgent concern that doesn’t touch their interest even though it is abstractly suboptimal.
> they smashed up mine and my husbands car windows
Hopefully this caused you to do more research on the message.
Well, they tried, but FB kept removing relevant links…
Well, they've gone underground with many of their goals due to public outcry. You'll have to use archive.org to see their true goals for our society. They've pulled most of them off their website.
This is a bad faith response, and I’m going to assume you’re a troll and not engage any further. Good luck!
Self-defense is important, and I'm so sick and tired of seeing people only bring it up when their own internal bloodlust flares up.
You either can protect yourself or not. Legal ability of citizens to protect themselves against worthless idiots is important part of keeping our streets and cities clean.
I wish same right will be given to business owners.
Then all these self-righteous corrupted criminal movements of "almost peaceful protesters" will cease to exist.
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12239517/garrett-foster-black-...
This guy you’re referencing here had a violent past and it’s possible that he was looking for confrontation. Believe what you may but a young man is no longer with us. I don’t buy this self defense blanket
Yes that is how self defense works.
The driver was an Uber driver who made a wrong turn and was mobbed by people, one of who pulled an ak-47 and pointed at him.
In most states you are allowed to use deadly force if you reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.
Situations like this are exactly what these laws are written for.
Hell, it doesn't even matter if you're in a car or not. Or would you be ok with someone randomly pointing an AK47 at you? Would you refrain from using deadly force against someone like that, just because you had priors?
No, not really. I'm talking about principles.
If a guy acts threatening towards you, then you're allowed to defend yourself.
If a guy holds a gun, and throws aggressive slurs at you while approaching, do you agree that it's a really threatening thing to do? Would you wait for the obviously threatening guy to raise his gun, or just shoot him before he ever gets to that point?
> There is no evidence pointing the victim pointed the gun at the suspect.
Is there evidence that he didn't?
Honestly, does it even matter? When some guy starts acting threatening while holding a gun, are you going to wait until he points it at you before defending yourself? Cuz you won't get a second chance, mate. You either make him a "victim" of your right to self defene, or you die. I'd rather survive to spend some time in jail, or die because of poorly thought out ideas about victimhood.
Killing some random grandma for showing you middle finger does not really qualify.
However killing threatening idiot armed with something and facing you is totally different. To note - if idiot hits you and then runs away - sending bullet to catch him is not a good idea and not going to work (unfortunately).
On a final note - in a state with good CCW laws people typically are more polite and well behaving. Flipping a bird to random asshole might backfire and it won't matter to you whether he knows the laws or not.
No, these two things are actually not the same at all.
I would fight to the death rather than be killed. But I'd give up my wallet and not worry about it.
Human lives are more important than property. Human lives are more important than property. Why this is constantly up for debate baffles me.
- 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than innocent white suspects.
- 3.5 times more likely ... for sexual assaults.
7x & 3.5x are lowballs since I expect only a relatively small % can actually afford to prove their innocence.
Conclusion: Good luck getting accurate crime stats from some of the most historically racist institutions in the USA.
Exoneration Stats https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race...
I'm against public police because they do a terrible job (in a lot of ways, from racing to just being incompetent, to persecuting victimless crimes) and I wish we had private police.
The only positive thing that could have come out of BLM was a discussion on this topic, instead they completely lacked the philosophical and political skills to do something about this. Defunding the police without having an alternative was obviously a terrible idea and it wrecked havoc wherever it was implemented.
I'm against BLM because they damaged and stole people's property for no reason, without condemning the actions of their violent members.
Violence is not protesting.
Who are "they"? I'm serious in this question.
Do you have the idea that these demonstrations are somehow carefully organized and that BLM upper management gave the instructions to break your windows specifically?
It is not the case.
The police kill some Black American in some particularly awful or gratuitous way.
It enrages a lot of people, as you would expect.
Many angry people take to the streets. They are not organized, for the most part. The vast majority are completely peaceful. Some of them aren't as is always the case.
Some of them hold signs saying, "Black Lives Matter".
Someone broke your window during these demonstrations. If I had to bet, it would be some young, angry person. Black Lives Matter did not make this happen, and if they didn't exist, people would still take to the streets when one of their own is murdered publicly by the authorities.
---
There is no "they" there. I recommend a broader and more nuanced view of the situation.
Please go troll somewhere else.