Moral justification for rioting

[andypro7]

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.

I think you're making a mistake going after McCulloch here, he actually did an extraordinarily good job here. And it seems to me that you are just parroting Sharpton talking points without thinking them through. Sharpton and his ilk wanted a guilty verdict, anything other than that, and they would find a way to complain about it.

Here's how this works:

1. They left his body in the street for 4 hours
And, if they had taken it away in 15 minutes, they would complain that they were taking it away in order to hide evidence

2. McCullouch went on a 20 minute rant about how unreliable some of the witnesses were
He was explaining why they chose not to indict. In other words, had he said nothing, then you would complain how they decided not to indict for no reason.

In other words, he was doing EXACTLY what a good prosecutor should do. Basically he's saying to all of us:
I know you want to go to trial, but we have a total mishmash of unreliable witnesses, that will never hold up in court. That is THE REASON why we can't indict
What you call 'ranting' is actually him explaining

3. It's on McCulloch, he basically runs the show, as you said
And if he would have immediately come out not to indict, they would have complained how one man decided the trial and the community of Ferguson wasn't heard from.
What he essentially did here was understand how charged this was, and said that he doesn't want to be the sole arbiter, he would let it up to a multi-racial mix of the Ferguson community. Seems smart and fair to me.

4. Why didn't he interview all the prospective witnesses beforehand?
Again, if he had done that, and then excluded some from the indictment process, you'd be saying he was suppressing witness testimony.
What he did was again very smart. He decided NOT to weed anything out. Let the multi-racial Ferguson grand jury hear everything they had from absolutely everyone, and then decide based on all the evidence presented.
Again, to me this seems like the fairest thing to do, yet you complain about it.

 

[Euler]

I think you're making a mistake going after McCulloch here, he actually did an extraordinarily good job here. And it seems to me that you are just parroting Sharpton talking points without thinking them through. Sharpton and his ilk wanted a guilty verdict, anything other than that, and they would find a way to complain about it.

I haven't heard nor read a word from Sharpton on the issue.

Here's how this works:

1. They left his body in the street for 4 hours
And, if they had taken it away in 15 minutes, they would complain that they were taking it away in order to hide evidence

How do you know?

2. McCullouch went on a 20 minute rant about how unreliable some of the witnesses were
He was explaining why they chose not to indict. In other words, had he said nothing, then you would complain how they decided not to indict for no reason.

How do you know what I would say? You seem to fancy yourself as some form of mind reader.

When was the last time you saw or heard of a prosecutor behaving like that? Particularly when the options of federal or civil charges are still on the table.

In other words, he was doing EXACTLY what a good prosecutor should do.

Exactly? Again, can you point to evidence showing this to be the normal behavior of a prosecutor when he fails to attain an indictment?

Basically he's saying to all of us:
I know you want to go to trial, but we have a total mishmash of unreliable witnesses, that will never hold up in court. That is THE REASON why we can't indict
What you call 'ranting' is actually him explaining

Is that "explaining" part of his normal responsibilities?

3. It's on McCulloch, he basically runs the show, as you said
And if he would have immediately come out not to indict, they would have complained how one man decided the trial and the community of Ferguson wasn't heard from.

Again, how do you know any of that?

And, isn't he just as free TO indict?

What he essentially did here was understand how charged this was, and said that he doesn't want to be the sole arbiter, he would let it up to a multi-racial mix of the Ferguson community. Seems smart and fair to me.

You heard him say all that? You've obviously been following his statements closer than I have.

4. Why didn't he interview all the prospective witnesses beforehand?
Again, if he had done that, and then excluded some from the indictment process, you'd be saying he was suppressing witness testimony.

Again with the mind reading! The job of a prosecutor is to secure an indictment! Why do you think people would be surprised if he had, you know, secured an indictment!?

What he did was again very smart. He decided NOT to weed anything out. Let the multi-racial Ferguson grand jury hear everything they had from absolutely everyone, and then decide based on all the evidence presented.

And then go to the media and complain about the poor quality of the witnesses which HE had arranged to testify!

Again, to me this seems like the fairest thing to do, yet you complain about it.

I'm sure you do.

 

[andypro7]

I haven't heard...

You're making my point.

We've already established that you don't know the facts in this case. We've pretty well established that, absent knowledge of the facts, you are choosing to believe the thing least likely to be the truth, and now we're establishing that NO MATTER WHAT anyone in charge did in response in this case, you will find a way to twist it to make it sound like corruption.

Feel free to live your life that way if you like.

But I for one believe that there's enough stuff in this world that could make you bitter that you don't have to invent stuff.

 

[JustMeSee]

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

Frustration, anger, and likely other emotions are involved.

I cannot speak for each and every rioter. They may or may not have a clear justification.

I don't see it as being effective, rather very counterproductive. I strongly believe there are other actions that can help in little ways for change.

Idk

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

I'm going to take this question as a request to explain what is going on in the minds of those who do the rioting.

Its a matter of delivering punishment to the guilty. In the eyes of the rioters, the authorities of the community are guilty . . . and so, rioting and destroying things of their precious city, is punishing them for their guilt.

That is the "thinking" of the rioters. Of course, its not truly rational, but as you know, lots of humans don't think in truly rational fashion. We have plenty of posts around here to show THAT.

 

[JohnLocke]

The same was said of George Washington.

I don't recall George Washington intentionally targeting civilians over targets considered proper under the conventions of war.

If you have any examples, I'd love to hear them. What I think is indisputable about Washington is that he did in fact fight proper military targets while uniformed.

 

[HonestTruth]

I don't recall George Washington intentionally targeting civilians over targets considered proper under the conventions of war.

If you have any examples, I'd love to hear them. What I think is indisputable about Washington is that he did in fact fight proper military targets while uniformed.

The King of England and his defenders all called him a traitor and terrorist for daring to question royal authority and leading a ''rebellious'' army. Washington's men confiscated stock and commodities from farmers in order to feed his men (only about one third of the colonists were actually on his side). Some made claims in courts after the war and demanded compensation but not everyone got what they thought they deserved.




briefly, here is one link to Washington's men stealing from farmers:


Praising Manners by Robert Bly | The Writer's Almanac with Garrison Keillor


Washington had to concentrate on figuring out how to feed and shelter his troops. He sent his men to seize food from nearby farmers, but there was little food to seize. His men subsisted on flour and water for days at a time




Thus, under the standards of the day he was a "terrorist" if you are on the side of the British.

 

[JohnLocke]

Honest Truth:

1. Royalists did call Washington a traitor; but at issue was the word "terrorist." According to Merriam Webster the first use of the term wasn't until 1795.

2. Raiding civilian farmsteads for provisions was within the conventions of war, it was called foraging. Both sides engaged in both foraging, the stealing of supplies, and quartering, the forced housing of soldiers. That experience is probably why the 3rd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights.

 

[HonestTruth]

Interesting because I just read Thomas Kidd's Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots and the term "terrorism" was used by Governor Murray [Earl of Dunmore] to describe him and his followers - one of whom was Washington. Dunmore was the legal ruler of Virginia and dissolved the House of Burgesses so that Henry and Washington had no legal standing at that time. He issued a decree freeing the slaves of anyone who agitated against the Crown and his office but neither Henry nor Washington did so. For their actions and inactions Dunmore called Henry's deeds "terrorism" in 1775 which is years before your quoted time frame. This is what Kidd reported.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

To the original question:

There is no 'moral' justification for rioting. None. There are any number of 'financial' reasons for rioting, all of them involve criminal acts, most of them felonies.

There are moral justifications for revolution against an unjust government. But revolution and rioting are two completely different actions and functions.

The illegal acts transpiring in Ferguson, has no moral justification. It is denial of the facts, 'revenge' for an imaginary crime, and an excuse to loot.

 

[HonestTruth]

Those are almost exactly the same words used to exonerate the troops who killed Americans during the Boston Massacre.


As for who is creating the violence, right wing Alex Jones and others are wondering if it isn't the government just as happened in the hey day of COINTELPRO:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT0uaZ5Ymeo

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Those are almost exactly the same words used to exonerate the troops who killed Americans during the Boston Massacre.

Worked then, why shouldn't they work now?

 

[sunshine456]

Ephesians 4:17-28King James Version (KJV)

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

20 But ye have not so learned Christ;

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 Neither give place to the devil.

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Every answer you seek can be found in TRUTH and WISDOM....and in whom do we find greater WISDOM and TRUTH? Find the answer to those TWO and you have found that which you are looking for.

If we look at the process of rioting; is it productive, beneficial or logical?

Let WISDOM and TRUTH answer that, but in my understanding it would appear un=beneficial and illogical for us to partake in violence and destruction of property of others; for it would convey a message of the flesh nature not the spirit of GOD the heavenly father; which is of patience, peace, love and kindness for.....LOVE is the greatest commandment were/are given.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son Lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[HonestTruth]

Worked then, why shouldn't they work now?

The unjust exoneration of those British troops led to a revolution. Hopefully, it won't lead to one here.