[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

I can't honestly say that rioting doesn't change things. It sparked a change in LA. This isn't like the first time this happened and people went straight to rioting. People are angry and this happens. I understand that unfortunately looting and rioting are too often intrinsically entwined. But if I was living in this situation, and kept seeing it over and over again, and the same placating was happening every time with no change, I'd want to pick up a brick too.

I guess it depends what you think qualifies "rioting". Disruptive and unruly protests that require a police response to contain, but don't cause extensive property damage (because some property damage is going to be inevitable), or lighting cars and buildings on fire and smashing up storefronts? I just don't think that part actually helps incrementally over doing exactly the same thing without the wanton destruction.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

But you can't argue that the more extreme the action - the more news coverage it's going to get and thus the more discussion the issue is going to get.

This makes some sense, intuitively. Again, though, I'm not convinced that the news would have spent less time and energy devoted to these protests if they hadn't burnt a bunch of stuff down and destroyed a bunch of buildings / storefronts / etc. I think it was pretty much front of mind either way, and I seriously doubt that absent the destruction, anyone would have been a) unaware that these protests are happening, and b) unaware that they're about police brutality against black people. In light of that, what additional discussion does the destruction generate that is actually helpful - rather than distracting from - the ultimate goal here? Would the discussion not be more squarely focused on the behaviour of the officers themselves and what's going to happen to them, rather than the damage that's been caused?

This just goes back to my point. You have to do more than say "we're getting attention for a worthwhile cause". I still need to know how doing this is actually going to result in some beneficial effect for your cause that wouldn't be achieved if you didn't break a bunch of stuff.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I stated earlier, peaceful protests wouldn't have solved anything. If the police precinct hadn't been burned down on Thursday night there wouldn't have been charges Friday morning. So that was a positive. And even then, it was filmsy charges at best. That should be minimum 2nd degree murder, if one feels that 1st degree murder would be too difficult to convict. Blacks have seen this dog and pony show too many times of police officers not being convicted for abuses.

This is a combination of nonsense and the same arguments I was already pointing out were flawed. The fact that being peaceful has not solved the problem does not constitute an argument for violence. You still have to make a convincing case that violence will solve the problem. No, the charges that were laid were not capitulation to the violence in Minneapolis - those were absolutely going to happen anyway, as everyone was already in favour of them and there was tremendous public pressure before the first window was smashed or the first fire was lit. And no, it should not be second or first degree murder - that betrays a lack of understanding of what those crimes entail and how they are proved, as was discussed for several pages earlier.

You can't just ignore a bunch of the discussion and then come in and repeat positions that have already been debunked at length. That is not a helpful contribution to the thread.