This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hurting, but they have every right to be there exercising some semblance of control over what is theirs, what the social contract is supposed to uphold. But they're still hurting things. That said, one cannot be so obtuse as to think that she wouldn't praise the police for standing down and would defend the mayors of Democratic cities not policing or enforcing laws. Perhaps I'm wrong and should click the link. I'll do that and report back. I just had a moment where reading that made me cross-eyed.
You know if you crackdown on the first two the armed vigilantes go back to watching mcguyver reruns while eating their frozen dinners...
I believe cracking down on burning cities, rioting, destroying random businesses, unprovoked physical violence, and general chaos on our streets would make armed vigilantism unnecessary, no?
I don't think that's really on point. I just read the article. She's complaining that the police and authorities are doing nothing about armed men roaming around, even suggesting that they're in cahoots with the police. Nowhere in the article does she mention that the police are also allowing arson, property damage, and theft go on, which is an affront to the social contract and the relinquishing the right to self-defense by force to the state. It's an implicit agreement when we give up our natural state of acting with force, and agree to a middle man, as it were, that we're going to be protected.
It's so indignant about its premise and these "armed men" wandering the streets, that the deflection aspect of it is breathtaking to me.
I don't think it's practical to arrest everyone violating curfew in large demonstrations. I'd think it's better for police to focus on those who are rioting, looting and brandishing deadly weapons.
So then why have a curfew. Just arrest people that are committing crimes.
Well...not sure on part of that. The Rittenhouse kid did not have such a right to be carrying the weapon he was...nor was what he was trying to control "his".'
That is highly possible...but also not for certain...some may find other wrongs to try to "right". Still is no excuse for such behavior...as I have said many times...I am against such looting and violence...I think we can also be against people trying to take the law into their own hands.
Curfews will reduce the number of people out on the streets, warn citizens of potential danger, and allow cops additional leverage to curb dangerous behaviors. If they would have enforced the curfew on someone dangerous like Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, two lives would have been saved.
Just to be clear. I think people that march around with guns acting all Hard Harry about it are seriously lacking in social graces and restraint. The Rittenhouse kid sounds brainwashed. Property owners, on the other hand, simply seeking to protect their property and limbs? I have no problem with them arming themselves in the sort of vacuums that we're seeing (generally Democratic, let's be honest) mayors and governors and DAs allow. It's a shame that it's happening.
So curfews are more like a heads up to be careful. OK. What leverage does it provide cops exactly?
This picking and choosing is why the thread exists. I don't say that tersely. I want to know where The Atlantic, home of Ta-Nehisi Coates, he who once refused to disavow violence as a means to achieve racial goals, is on the subject of arson and property damage and theft. I'd like a clarification, because in the absence of anything, and given their track record as a clearing house for people peddling urban violence, one might think it fair to ask that publication where they stand on the matter.
I also forgot until I started writing (and maybe subconsciously it stuck in my craw) that Ta-Nehisi Coates is housed by that very publication. He once advocated and refused to disavow political violence as a means to an end.
Doesn't it give them an easier legal reason to arrest people if they choose or even just tell people to leave?
Yes but, again, it isn't practical to arrest everyone if the numbers are significantly large. I also don't generally believe that's the government's goal by declaring a curfew.
Your two sentences contradict each other. Its easier to arrest people that it is not practical to arrest.
They don't contradict each other if most of the people there aren't rioting, looting or brandishing deadly weapons.
No, no it doesn't. What's the old mantra about pulling a gun? If you pull a gun, you'd better be fine with using it? I shudder to think at what the less self-reflective among us approach that mantra with.
This couldn't be more wrong. Let's say I'm at Walmart, in a state where masks are legally mandatory, and some other customers remove their face coverings. I absolutely do not have the right to force them to put their face coverings back on via threat of force.
"control over what is theirs" was bolded, by you. That should meet the criteria I bolded. I think you massively misunderstood my point, which may have suffered from a lack of clarity, though being able to pull a direct clause from what I wrote to rebut what you're saying points to a simple misreading.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
I thought the context of all this is the armed vigilantes referred to in the article, who aren't protecting their own property, but rather "seeking to uphold (what they perceive as) the social contract". If that wasn't your intended context, but rather a defense of "protect my own property" laws, then I guess I'm not sure why this thread exists, as that's not what the article in the OP was about.
