Moral justification for rioting

JohnLocke said:

What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?

Click to expand...

From a Christian, New Testament, perspective,.....there isn't one.

We can see this in the way that Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of John (18:36), not to mention the peaceful way in which the Apostles spread the Gospel.

Euler said:

Wow.

Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.

Click to expand...

Had a the races been reversed, it would not have even been an issue.

Ken

JohnLocke said:

What is the moral justification, if any, of rioting?

Click to expand...

Assuming that we're talking about rioting in contrast to protesting, there may be justification for it against an extremely oppressive tyranny, but otherwise there simply is no justification for it.

And most of the time, there isn't even a fair excuse. Like the Ferguson case for example- burning down neighborhoods..
We all know that is utterly the product of racial paranoia by blacks. I can't imagine how many times a black officer has taken down a white man under relevant circumstances and nary a thing is said- doesn't even hit news.

So by the very definition itself, it is nothing more then textbook paranoia. It is why in valid opposition, there is no ridiculous rioting. There are signs and there are marches, and they actually work- whereas rioting mostly does nothing period.
In fact, rioting is synonymous to a lesser form of terrorism.

Euler said:

Wow.

Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.

Click to expand...

If the races had been reversed, please tell me that Al Sharpton would have been there.

Actually, he probably would have been there, he just would be standing up there with his megaphone explaining to all us idiots how this poor black cop was being railroaded by the white justice system.

Unarmed white male Dillon Taylor shot by 'non-white' cop in Utah. No indictment

Unarmed white veteran James Whitehead shot by black cop Robert Arnold, who was suspended but not indicted.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Plus, you've never heard of any of these men who were killed. I can't think of why that might be

andypro7 said:

If the races had been reversed, please tell me that Al Sharpton would have been there.

Actually, he probably would have been there, he just would be standing up there with his megaphone explaining to all us idiots how this poor black cop was being railroaded by the white justice system.

Unarmed white male Dillon Taylor shot by 'non-white' cop in Utah. No indictment

Unarmed white veteran James Whitehead shot by black cop Robert Arnold, who was suspended but not indicted.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Plus, you've never heard of any of these men who were killed. I can't think of why that might be

Click to expand...

Were the details the same? Were those victims shot while holding up their hands? Were they shot a dozen times? Were their bodies left lying in the street for 4 hours? Did the prosecutor (you know, the guy who is supposed to go after indictments) in their cases make every effort to discredit witness testimonies, thereby stymying an indictment (AND making a federal or civil case more difficult)?

Just askin'

ETA: the story of James Whiteheads death is found here. WARNING - the story contains some very strong language.

http://www.texasobserver.org/james-whitehead-robert-arnold-shades-gray-orange/

And the Dillon Taylor shooting:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58472404-78/taylor-cruz-hands-gill.html.csp

Euler said:

Were the details the same? Were those victims shot while holding up their hands? Were they shot a dozen times? Were their bodies left lying in the street for 4 hours? Did the prosecutor (you know, the guy who is supposed to go after indictments) in their cases make every effort to discredit witness testimonies, thereby stymying an indictment (AND making a federal or civil case more difficult)?

Just askin'

Click to expand...

Was Michael Brown shot while holding up his hands? NO NO NO!!!

That's a lie told ONLY by Michael Brown's friend, AND PARTNER IN CRIME, Dorian Johnson.

It's a lie that was comprehensively disproved by separate autopsies and the TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL EYEWITNESSES, most of them African-American Ferguson residents.

It seems like you're the one discrediting African-American witness testimonies.

So, if you choose to believe something that's not true, I suppose I can't do anything about that. If you want to make up a fake story and get outraged about the fake story you're making up, how is anyone supposed to reason with that?

Just askin'

andypro7 said:

Was Michael Brown shot while holding up his hands? NO NO NO!!!

That's a lie told ONLY by Michael Brown's friend, AND PARTNER IN CRIME, Dorian Johnson.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd like that to be the case, but it's not. Sure, the witness statements are at variance with one another, as eye witness testimony often is. But a significant number still hold that Browns hands were held up when he was shot.

Euler said:

I'm sure you'd like that to be the case, but it's not. Sure, the witness statements are at variance with one another, as eye witness testimony often is. But a significant number still hold that Browns hands were held up when he was shot.

Click to expand...

Wait a sec. At first you said that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up in the air.

Now you're saying that 'witness statements are at variance with one another'.

So, unless you were there (and are willing to testify under penalty of perjury), you DO NOT KNOW if his hands were up.

Is that the case? Yes or No.

Now, if you were there, and saw it, and testified under penalty of perjury, then I apologize. It's not my call on whether you're telling the truth.

However, if you weren't, then you just admitted that, now please get this because it's crucial:

YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether his hands were up. You are CHOOSING to believe YOUR version of the story.

Now, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm choosing to believe my version of the story as well.

However, I believe my story not because I'm politically inclined to do so, as you obviously are; rather I believe it because of the EVIDENCE.

There are many good and logical reasons to believe the Wilson account of what happened, but the most important thing is the physical evidence and autopsies.

The autopsies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Dorian Johnson version of the story can't be true.

Witness lie, autopsies and physical evidence don't. Facts are stubborn things.

andypro7 said:

Wait a sec. At first you said that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up in the air.

Click to expand...

No I didnt. I asked a question. You can get help with those reading skills you know.

Now you're saying that 'witness statements are at variance with one another'.

Click to expand...

Correct. Your reading is improving already. I also said that many witnesses are repeating that they saw Brown's hands in the air when he was shot.

So, unless you were there (and are willing to testify under penalty of perjury), you DO NOT KNOW if his hands were up.

Click to expand...

Correct. And nor did I say that I was sure of any of the details. My questions had more to do with the attitudes of people reacting to this case.

Now, if you were there, and saw it, and testified under penalty of perjury, then I apologize. It's not my call on whether you're telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. But you don't extend that "call" to those who WERE there?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether his hands were up. You are CHOOSING to believe YOUR version of the story.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what I believe, just as you have no idea as to whether those who said they saw 'hands up' were accurate. But, to be repetitive, my questions were about the attitudes that surround this case.

Now, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm choosing to believe my version of the story as well.

However, I believe my story not because I'm politically inclined to do so, as you obviously are; rather I believe it because of the EVIDENCE.

Click to expand...

1. You have no idea at all of my political leanings.
2. When you say "evidence" of course you mean that evidence which comports with your opinion.

There are many good and logical reasons to believe the Wilson account of what happened, but the most important thing is the physical evidence and autopsies.

The autopsies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Dorian Johnson version of the story can't be true.

Click to expand...

That may well be. In Johnson's case. And all the other witnesses, many of whom who weren't acquainted with Brown, who say they saw his hands up when he was shot, what of their testimonies?

Witness lie, autopsies and physical evidence don't. Facts are stubborn things.

Click to expand...

Please explain the autopsy or other physical evidence that would determine whether or not a person had their hands up when being shot?

So, essentially you're now saying that you really have no idea of what happened there. I accept that, neither do I.

But, I originally responded to this:

Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.

We now know that you don't know the details of the case, yet you make an assumption that the prosecutor in the case made his judgment on racial grounds.

Your condition was 'all the other details were the same', and yet you don't know those details. And even though you don't, you ascribe racial motives to a man you don't know anything about.

Can you see how logical people might find fault in your logic?

andypro7 said:

So, essentially you're now saying that you really have no idea of what happened there. I accept that, neither do I.

But, I originally responded to this:

Please tell me that, if the races had been reversed (black cop shooting white kid), and all the other details were the same, that the prosecutor would not have more eagerly sought an indictment.

We now know that you don't know the details of the case, yet you make an assumption that the prosecutor in the case made his judgment on racial grounds.

Your condition was 'all the other details were the same', and yet you don't know those details. And even though you don't, you ascribe racial motives to a man you don't know anything about.

Can you see how logical people might find fault in your logic?

Click to expand...

No. Logic would have it that there's a clear pattern of black/Hispanic folk receiving a poorer deal from the justice system than white folk, on average.

Logic would have it that prosecutors usually go after opportunities to seek indictments. This guy not only shied away from that, he went further. He went to the media with a lengthy diatribe about how witnesses (all of 'em?) in this case shouldn't be trusted. By doing that, as I said before, he has effectively stymied the chances of there being a federal or civil case being mounted. You think that kind of behavior falls within his normal responsibilities as a prosecutor? I mean, shouldn't he be collecting some of the defence attorney' fees for that performance?

Poisoning the well just a tad?

This is where consequentuialism fails, because the outcomes (in the long term) are so difficult to predict.

Lots of judgementalism from people told not to judge.

I doubt the people that rioted were looking for moral justification. It was an emotional response for many, no doubt.

Euler said:

No. Logic would have it that there's a clear pattern of black/Hispanic folk receiving a poorer deal from the justice system than white folk, on average.

Logic would have it that prosecutors usually go after opportunities to seek indictments. This guy not only shied away from that, he went further. He went to the media with a lengthy diatribe about how witnesses (all of 'em?) in this case shouldn't be trusted. By doing that, as I said before, he has effectively stymied the chances of there being a federal or civil case being mounted. You think that kind of behavior falls within his normal responsibilities as a prosecutor? I mean, shouldn't he be collecting some of the defence attorney' fees for that performance?

Poisoning the well just a tad?

Click to expand...

There is not one bit of fact in what you said, only belief bordering on propaganda. It's convenient for you to blame the prosecutor in that case for not seeking and indictment, but again, that's not factual. He took it to a grand jury (which was convened BEFORE the incident, lest you accuse them of stacking the deck), and THE GRAND JURY determined that there was not enough evidence.

You say there is a clear pattern of blacks/hispanics getting a raw deal from the justice system. Even if that's true, what does that have to do with this case? Even if you could prove that blacks get a raw deal from the justice system in Ferguson FIFTY percent of the time, that tells us NOTHING about whether Wilson's or Brown's accounts were correct. (since we're jumping into logical fallacies here).

But since we've already established that you have NO FACTS to go on, you've moved on to trying to state your case based on generalities. The use of 'on average' and 'usually' sort of hint at what you're getting at.

You're basically saying that when it comes to interactions between black folks and cops, there's a pattern of abuse that harms the blacks. Therefore, in this case, Dorian Johnson's account should be taken as truth over Officer Wilson's.

Even though that's a logical fallacy, I'll bite and play on your turf:

If we're going to use generalities to determine the likelihood of truth in this case, consider some of these:

In general, when a police officer and a felon have two different accounts, how often is it that the felon was telling the truth? Ok, I'm pretty sure it's greater than 0%, but not much greater.

How likely is it that a police office with no history of violence, who has never even drawn his weapon, all of a sudden becomes a racist and guns down an unarmed man?

Or, what are the odds of this: Here we have two men, the first is a fine, non-violent officer of the law. The second is a felon, under the influence, who has earlier committed a felony where he was clearly VERY aggressive towards another innocent human being half his size.

So you're telling me, that for some illogical reason, you believe that the heretofore non-violent officer suddenly became aggressive with Michael Brown, who, AT THE SAME TIME, gives up his aggressive ways and just becomes an innocent victim? How likely is that? MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely than it being one of those 'blacks getting a bad deal from the justice system' things you're talking about.

Tywin Lannister said:

I'd say it's justified in certain situations, yes.

But this shouldn't be surprising either. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and yet most people considered him a hero.

The third party thing has always bugged me though, yes. It was the same here when an unarmed kid was shot(Which is really rare in itself that anyone gets shot), a lot of kids took it upon themselves to use that as a reason to be disorderly and basically just go out trashing things and robbing businesses.

Click to expand...

The same was said of George Washington.

andypro7 said:

Wait a sec. At first you said that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up in the air.

Now you're saying that 'witness statements are at variance with one another'.

So, unless you were there (and are willing to testify under penalty of perjury), you DO NOT KNOW if his hands were up.

Is that the case? Yes or No.

Now, if you were there, and saw it, and testified under penalty of perjury, then I apologize. It's not my call on whether you're telling the truth.

However, if you weren't, then you just admitted that, now please get this because it's crucial:

YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether his hands were up. You are CHOOSING to believe YOUR version of the story.

Now, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm choosing to believe my version of the story as well.

However, I believe my story not because I'm politically inclined to do so, as you obviously are; rather I believe it because of the EVIDENCE.

There are many good and logical reasons to believe the Wilson account of what happened, but the most important thing is the physical evidence and autopsies.

The autopsies prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Dorian Johnson version of the story can't be true.

Witness lie, autopsies and physical evidence don't. Facts are stubborn things.

Click to expand...

My reply does not answer your post directly.

I just want to point out that police fabricate evidence as we all know from the infamous Wilding Case where taxpayers have now been forced to pay $45 million in compensation while the cops have retired on fat pensions financed by taxpayers.


A new case has arisen where, again, the cops try to hide the evidence:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GncaM_lt3-E



Trusting the government's side on this issue is not always the best thing to do.

HonestTruth said:

My reply does not answer your post directly.

I just want to point out that police fabricate evidence as we all know from the infamous Wilding Case

Click to expand...

You literally could say that about almost anything, using this formula:

I just want point out that 'x happens' as we all know from the 'y event'.

And, if you replace 'x happens' with:

'Al Sharpton lies about a racially charged incident',

the values for 'y event' would be approaching infinity.

My point was, and still is, this: None of us know exactly what happened. However, some of us, for whatever reason, are choosing to believe the overwhelmingly least likely scenario, while others choose to believe the most likely scenario.

The members of the grand jury didn't see what happened either. They were asked to determine whether or not to indict based on the same sort of standard - i.e. what most likely happened. And they heard from many Ferguson residents who claimed to be eyewitnesses, most of them African-American, and based on that, they decided no to indict.

Another strong reason to believe the officer's account over Al Sharpton's.

Al Sharpton hasn't killed nor attacked anyone physically.

Police have attacked, killed, injured, and fabricated or suppressed evidence. Big difference between the two.

How the rest of the world sees Ferguson - The Washington Post



Meanwhile in Russia, a country with a far more negative view of the United States, Ferguson has become a major news story. As our Moscow-based colleague Karoun Demirjian writes, the riots in Ferguson "provide an opportunity, in this era of sanctions and new Cold War-style sentiments, to accuse America of being a giant hypocrite." Russian state television has ominously warned Obama that the problem may soon become national. Russia Today, a state-funded English-language news network that portrays itself as showing views more mainstream Western outlets wouldn't publish, has covered the riots extensively. One popular Russian Web site has labeled Ferguson's crisis as "AfroMaidan" and says that Americans have "prejudice towards African-Americans … in their blood.”




While the USA plays "moral guardian" for the rest of the world by invading the Middle East or other countries, the world criticizes it for failing to solve its own problems.

I'd still like Andy to give an opinion about a prosecutor taking the extraordinary step of, after the grand jury had decided not to indict, going on a 20 minute rant about how unreliable some of the witnesses were.

Would this be normal behavior for a prosecutor? Moreover, isn't it the prosecutor that basically runs the show? Isn't it up to him to bring forward witnesses that would assist him in securing an indictment? Wouldn't he have interviewed all the prospective witnesses beforehand to determine whether or not they were likely to help or hinder an indictment?

I'm not a legal person by any stretch, but I am familiar with the adage "You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to". One has to wonder where the prosecutor's interests lay in this case.