In the piece I linked, a very good point is made - which is: how can you condemn the violence of rioters if you do not equally condemn the violence visited by the State on the citizens? The underarmed civilian population is merely retaliating. Call it unwise if you wish, but don't lose focus on the cause of the violence - it was provoked.

ammunition to crowd --> ammunition into a crowd

Gunfighter06:
"I wouldn't think twice to use lethal force when lives and property are at stake"
Are you unaware that firing live rounds into crowd threatens lives? Perhaps you should think twice?

"Looters should be shot on sight too, which is where the live ammunition comes in handy."
After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration hired Blackwater mercenaries to do just that. I assume you also support shooting natural disaster survivors with sniper rifles?

into a crowd

"Looters should be shot on sight too, which is where the live ammunition comes in handy."

Oh, hahahaa, I know you meant to say looters should be arrested on site, hahahaha, Freudian slip, happens all the time, hahahaha...

"Detroit's current status as a shithole can be attributed to three main causes: 1) Over five decades of Democratic leadership 2) Labor unions 3) The aftermath of the 1967 Detroit Riot."

The amount of politics you can throw into a single sentence is appalling. Detroit was an economically inefficient manufacturing city with zero economic diversity and a lust for racial tension that ultimately resulted in the construction of a wall to keep black people and white people apart. It is the ultimate example of utter failure of urban planning and leadership in our country's history. One of the only moments in which Detroit's leadership actually showed signs of competence was in the aftermath of the 1967 riots, when, instead of continuing the same thing, the leaders of the city played the role of the bigger man and made steps to end housing segregation in the city, end hiring discrimination within the police forces of the city, and ultimately changed the perception of poor, unemployable people from a disgusting eyesore to a potential resource for a starving manufacturing sector that desperately needed help at the lower levels.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because you aren't, but your response to the various crises in Detroit's history is incomplete. You fail to recognize that the 1967 riots were in large part due to the consistent repression of civil rights in the city despite the progression of civil rights throughout the rest of the country. This was led by white conservatives, not Democrats. You acknowledge that thousands of businesses left Detroit as a result of the 1967 riots and effectively left the city to crumble, but you fail to realize that this exodus was among the white conservative group I referenced before. Over a hundred thousand white business owners left the city in the years following the riots, leaving those who either chose to stay or those who had to stay as the primary voting bloc in the city. As a result, Coleman Young served five corrupt, pathetic terms.

But really - if you want to blame anyone for Detroit, blame the developers that built the wall for cutting off the dreams of those who simply wanted to build a house at 8 Mile, the FHA for allowing that developer to build the wall and perpetuating the redlining process, the ultimate failure of public housing, and the people that decided not to diversify the economy despite a number of opportunities, particularly in the aftermath of World War II, to use federal moneys as a means of fortifying their city.

Again - are you wrong? No. You get half credit. A 50% is still an F where I come from.

@ Thucy

You do not have the right to violently protest in this country, retaliatory or not. In fact, we have laws in place designed to provide for the prompt extinguishing of insurrection using state (and in extreme cases, federal) military forces. Our founders and lawmakers have recognized that peaceful protest is an important tool in the toolbox of democracy. However, violent protest is only a tool in an anarchist's tool kit. Even if you use twisted logic to justify or excuse the attacks on police forces, how can you possibly justify looting and vandalism? What did that CVS store have to do with the suspect's death?

It's time for men in green to sweep the streets of Baltimore, since the men and women in blue have proven unable to do so.

@ JECE

"Are you unaware that firing live rounds into crowd threatens lives? Perhaps you should think twice?"

I wasn't saying that law-abiding crowds should be fired up; just looters. If it's a crowd of looters, then open fire. The lives of law-abiding citizens matter more than the lives of looters. The property of law-abiding citizens and business owners matters more than the lives of looters. This isn't the Stone Age; looting should not be tolerated. Any attempt at pillaging should be met with overwhelming lethal force.

"After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration hired Blackwater mercenaries to do just that. I assume you also support shooting natural disaster survivors with sniper rifles?"

Using mercenaries? Of course not. That would be illegal and unconstitutional. Mercenaries can only lawfully operate on the authority of the United States if they are privateering *and* if they have a Letter of Marque and Reprisal issued by Congress. But using National Guardsmen and (if the Insurrection Act of 1807 has been invoked) federal troops? Absolutely, if by "natural disaster survivors" you mean "looters". Semantics are fun.

@ bo_sox48

"Oh, hahahaa, I know you meant to say looters should be arrested on site, hahahaha, Freudian slip, happens all the time, hahahaha..."

Who's joking? The weight of historical precedent is on my side. One of the only legitimate functions of government is to provide for the defense of innocent lives and property. If some looters get ventilated in the process, then that's too damned bad for them. They shouldn't have tried to steal a roll of paper towels from a burning store.

"Again - are you wrong? No. You get half credit. A 50% is still an F where I come from."

I get an 'F' because I don't have time to type out an exhaustive analysis of Detroit's woes and their root causes like you did?

You get an F because you forgot that conservatives had a role in Detroit's failure too.

The weight of historical precedent is irrelevant when human rights legislation tells us that historical precedent is wrong.

Human rights legislation? Hahahaha. Oh. You're serious.

What human rights legislation? You forfeit your human rights when you are in the process of committing a felony. Looters were routinely shot in both the 1967 Detroit Tiot and the 1992 LA Riot. This is America. Property > Criminals.

"You do not have the right to violently protest in this country, retaliatory or not."

According to whom? King George III would have said the same to the colonists.

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army."

-From "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau

"You forfeit your human rights when you are in the process of committing a felony. "

Ehhhh, no you don't. You don't lose any of your constitutional rights.

No, just no.

@Smeck - yes, by all means address the sympthons - you don't ignore a fever just because it has an underlying cause - but likewise you don't waste time talking about a fever and completely ignore the infection which triggered it.

https://m.facebook.com/MyNaturalSistas/photos/a.334481723234612.100628.238619296154189/1115542735128503?type=1&source=48

"What did that CVS store have to do with the suspect's death?"

I actually believe the two are linked, though you would not.

This protest is not about one death. One death is an example of the injustice in the system and it was just the proximate cause.

theantimedia.org/orioles-vp-just-dropped-the-harsh-truth-about-riots

"The only legitimate function of government is to carry out summary executions. This isn't the Stone Age; let's make it one."

"Hi, I'm Gunfighter06 and I approve this message."

For the Stone Age of Tomorrow

PaidforbyGunfighter06forPresident.

Gunfighter making a strong case for the "most objectionable person on the forum" award.

screw rioters. screw occupiers. nuke em all

@ JECE

You are misconstruing my point. My overarching point is that police and military forces assigned to disperse rioters should be less hesitant to use lethal force. People aren't scared of tear gas and pepper spray. People *are* scared of bayonets and live ammunition. I am *not* advocating for summary executions or deliberately shooting bystanders.

I am merely pointing out the historical and tactical fact that bayonets and bullets have been more successful in dispersing riots than tear gas and pepper spray. I am also pointing out that American police, National Guardsmen, and federal troops (in cases where the Insurrection Act of 1807 is invoked) have the legal authority to do so.

Yes, and gun, you are pointing out that in your opinion violence by the state is justified because violence by the people threatens the state.

Unless the people are succesful, as in the war of indepence??

To quote: ""Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence."

From: https://radfag.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/in-support-of-baltimore-or-smashing-police-cars-is-logical-political-strategy

"Unless the people are succesful, as in the war of indepence??"

Precisely. In the case of Baltimore, their violence is futile because it will only result in a violent suppression of the rioters by the state. They have no chance of starting a larger revolution, because most of the population is in agreement that violence is NOT an acceptable way to raise awareness about the alleged issue at hand. If large-scale protests and riots started popping off in other cities, then we might be on to something. But revolution is like being pregnant: Either you are or you aren't. There's no gray area.

But the rioters in Baltimore have about as much legitimacy as a bastard child. They just want to burn stuff and steal from local businesses. There's probably only a handful of people in Baltimore that legitimately give a shit about Freddie Gray's mysterious death.

"When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine"

Well, minus the 'weathly' part, you basically described me. What the fuck am I supposed to do about Freddie Gray's death? Call my congressman? Haha. The dude's rap sheet was a whole page long. He had lead poisoning as a kid. I'm not a doctor, but can't lead poisoning at a young age result in underdeveloped bones? Let's say that the police tackled him (using a safe technique for able-bodied perps) and inadvertently broke his (unusually brittle) spine. He started bitching about it in the van, and the cops didn't buy it because perps will say literally anything to avoid jail. 30 minutes later, he's dead and every cop involved feels like shit. That's a pretty logical explanation. How about we let the investigators get to the bottom of it before we start burning shit?

I reiterate that it's time for men in green with bayonets and live ammunition to clean the streets of criminal filth.

Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.

So gunfighter = Travis Bickle?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That's all I'm saying.

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/greys-anatomy-baltimore-protests-double-standard/?fb=dd

"But revolution is like being pregnant: Either you are or you aren't. There's no gray area."

Often, you can only tell that after the fact. You don't know what will be a small riot, and what will be the next Arab spring...

But your solution of 'lets shoot them' without acknowledging that they have a point, doesn't do much to encourage the 'violence is not the solution' angle which you seem to think is morally right.

"There's probably only a handful of people in Baltimore that legitimately give a shit about Freddie Gray's mysterious death."

Who cares? One death may spark a revolution, but it is only the proximate cause; they are decades of repression and violence which has built up to this. Tradiations which people are trying to overturn. They may not care about this one death, as much as they care that the system is broken.

We're in for another 5-10 years of incidents of civil unrest until the Millennials start their careers, get married and finally settle down.

So many young people jostling for position in society and so few of them see a clear path to their American Dream.

I disagree, Jeff. What you said sounds like it's only the Millennials that are the cause of this level of civil unrest. It's not. It's decades and centuries of social stratification, social reproduction, and in the last thirty years, further polarization of the haves and the haves-not that are at the root of this civil unrest. I don't agree with violence, but these issues of social inequalities have been plaguing our society for a long time now and they cannot be contained or constrained anymore it seems. The pot is just starting to boil and sooner or later, if there is a way to reduce the pressure, it will burst.

Typo: *if there is NO way to reduce the pressure, it will burst.*

And really, when you actually analyze the data on social mobility and interclass mobility, the "American Dream" has been a myth for decades now. Yes, there are success stories but by and large, and I mean large, they are a very small percentage as the vast majority of people end up in the same stratum as their parents, even controlling for abilities and education. The holloi polloi may not be that intelligent but subconsciously for most and consciously for a few, they know that they are being oppressed by the system we have built.