I don't actually disagree with you, but I do think there is room for nuance.
When a group shows up armed and armored, is that evidence that the intent is "peaceful"? Or is it evidence of a de facto conspiracy to incite violence? That is the dividing line that the ACLU has apparently chosen. Certainly during the lead in to the women's march, there were clear directions to carry nothing that could be construed as a weapon -- no sticks to support signs, no glass bottles, etc.. Compliance was not an issue because the intent *was* peaceful -- even knowing that violence against marchers is always a possibility.
My ideal counter protest would be to have a bigger, better event elsewhere that sucks up all the attention. The area they've planned to rally in San Francisco is best known as an off leash dog park. The dog people are talking about suspending clean up for a day or two as a warm welcome.
Anyway, I'm off eclipse chasing and won't be here or even have much news access for a bit. Will be hoping whatever happens doesn't go beyond actual speech.
When a group shows up armed and armored becomes a 2nd Amendment question rather than a 1st. I have very different, and much less definitive ideas on the 2nd Amendment. Honestly that's a debate that I allow others to play out on both sides because I don't feel strongly enough about it to take a stance.
What I would say is that if they start shooting, then that action transfers their role of showing force to a role of assaulting citizens. It becomes criminal once the gun goes off.
I do believe that people should be able to defend themselves, but the best way of proving who the real asshole is is whomever throws the first punch. Unfortunately that means that those willing to use violence and coercion to achieve their ends seem to have an upper hand.
However, part of the effectiveness of peaceful protest is about the ability to face down violence without committing it yourself. If you attack the tank, you won't do much damage to it, but you'll give it a great excuse to blow you up. If you stand in front of the tank and do nothing, then the drivers of the tank have to decide whether to just run over you -- proving their own disregard for the value of human life in the process. Your life may be in danger, but the world is watching and if you die, it'll make a much bigger point than if you threw rocks.
These guys bring torches, to mean that means they are bringing torches. But if they set fire to something (say, a church), now they're arsonists. They bring guns, they're displaying a show of force. They shoot someone, they're murderers. They drive a car, they're commuters. They drive a car into a group of people, they're terrorists.
Maybe that is oversimplistic, but to me the translation of words to action makes a pretty easy and physically recognizable transition from one state to another, from idea to action, which switches argument into crime.
I think it mostly gets messy when you talk about conspiring to commit a crime, or planning a terrorist attack. The law around that is super messy and deals with a lot of the concept of 'ability' and 'intent.'
But who organizes a public demonstration as the place to conspire to commit a crime? I guess it could happen someday. We'll see then, but for now that's arguing a behavior that nobody exhibits.
Thanks for your thoughts and responses, by the way.
When a group shows up armed and armored, is that evidence that the intent is "peaceful"? Or is it evidence of a de facto conspiracy to incite violence? That is the dividing line that the ACLU has apparently chosen. Certainly during the lead in to the women's march, there were clear directions to carry nothing that could be construed as a weapon -- no sticks to support signs, no glass bottles, etc.. Compliance was not an issue because the intent *was* peaceful -- even knowing that violence against marchers is always a possibility.
My ideal counter protest would be to have a bigger, better event elsewhere that sucks up all the attention. The area they've planned to rally in San Francisco is best known as an off leash dog park. The dog people are talking about suspending clean up for a day or two as a warm welcome.
Anyway, I'm off eclipse chasing and won't be here or even have much news access for a bit. Will be hoping whatever happens doesn't go beyond actual speech.
Reply
What I would say is that if they start shooting, then that action transfers their role of showing force to a role of assaulting citizens. It becomes criminal once the gun goes off.
I do believe that people should be able to defend themselves, but the best way of proving who the real asshole is is whomever throws the first punch. Unfortunately that means that those willing to use violence and coercion to achieve their ends seem to have an upper hand.
However, part of the effectiveness of peaceful protest is about the ability to face down violence without committing it yourself. If you attack the tank, you won't do much damage to it, but you'll give it a great excuse to blow you up. If you stand in front of the tank and do nothing, then the drivers of the tank have to decide whether to just run over you -- proving their own disregard for the value of human life in the process. Your life may be in danger, but the world is watching and if you die, it'll make a much bigger point than if you threw rocks.
These guys bring torches, to mean that means they are bringing torches. But if they set fire to something (say, a church), now they're arsonists. They bring guns, they're displaying a show of force. They shoot someone, they're murderers. They drive a car, they're commuters. They drive a car into a group of people, they're terrorists.
Maybe that is oversimplistic, but to me the translation of words to action makes a pretty easy and physically recognizable transition from one state to another, from idea to action, which switches argument into crime.
I think it mostly gets messy when you talk about conspiring to commit a crime, or planning a terrorist attack. The law around that is super messy and deals with a lot of the concept of 'ability' and 'intent.'
But who organizes a public demonstration as the place to conspire to commit a crime? I guess it could happen someday. We'll see then, but for now that's arguing a behavior that nobody exhibits.
Thanks for your thoughts and responses, by the way.
Reply
https://www.instagram.com/p/BYEQtpNFgiY
Reply
Leave a comment