I can see making a case that nothing justifies it, as a principle, but not sure I agree that Molotov cocktail is just a harmless toy idea.
> These are very marginal actors doing something that can't really cause large scale damage
Just curious how would we know that? It’s nice if it was true, of course, but is it?
After all they are marginal actors and single person or home isn't large scale damage?
There are few "reasonable" options for redress or protest when the system itself is guilty and successfully sweeping nonviolent protest under the rug.
Those who feel more instinctive revulsion to intentional property damage than to injustice against human lives are part of the problem and must change. Property is never more important than human life.
You're OK with someone setting a precinct on fire at the risk of actually killing people inside or in the surroundings? People that might have had nothing to do with whatever crime the police got away with at first place?
You're not seeking justice, you're seeking vendetta, so why are you acting like justice has not been served at first place? You don't believe in Justice anyway.
>You're not seeking justice
You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life.
No you don't, you are okay with risking killing people. How did these protester know the police station was empty? They didn't. You condone violence.
> You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life.
Liar, these molotov cocktails were not thrown at buildings ,in a attempt at arson, for the sake of black people.
And don't make it about black people, like all that violence was for the sake of black people, it wasn't, it was for the sake of violent individuals who clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone.
Don't use black people as a shield for your violent ideology.
This is literally and precisely what I am against.
>And don't make it about black people
It is about the correct response to people who get away with literal murder.
>like all that violence was for the sake of black people
Or for murdered people who did not receive justice.
>clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone.
This is precisely the problem. What are the consequences if a cop murders someone and gets off?
If the state does not ensure consequences for the guilty then is the state not guilty?
And if the state is guilty, what should its punishment be?
Violent protest paired with nonviolent (e.g. Malcolm X + MLK/ireland/india) has a better track record of success at bringing about change. The Iraq war protests serve as an example of the failure of nonviolent only (and those protests were huge).
For the white liberal living in safety you can condemn the burned out police station and dead body equally. That's definitely your prerogative.
A sampling of such here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/08/protests-provocateur...
This isn't to say that some "real" protesters might not get caught up in the melee once it starts, but it's clear that outside agitators are actively working to destroy it.
Is it that you see an attack on a person as equivalent to an attack on a window?
Or if not, why blur the distinction?
I think that the peaceful anti-Iraq war protests of 2002 serves as a poignant example of what happens when you have a large and entirely peaceful protest. No windows got smashed in London. Only in Baghdad.
I actually dont think I can think of a protest that was that large and failed so utterly in what it set out to do.
I'm stating that some of the violence associated with BLM is coming from people actively trying to discredit the movement. My gut tells me that it's a significant amount.
What I find more interesting is that people who make a point about the violence categorically seem to to ignore this aspect of the matter.
Are you willing to consider that this is happening, and if so, that perhaps that should bother you more?
It bothers me but I consider it a separate issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-accident-false-thug...
It's pretty amazing that on this thread I have more people responding as if I said something completely divergent to what I said than responding to what I actually said.
It's a bit sad, kind of like being on cable news.
In my defense, my point still stands and it's a knee-jerk response to many here who equate BLM with violence, period. The detractors have done an excellent job in smearing the movement.
As to property damage, I recognize that there are understandable situations where that can occur but the real value is in the possibility of shit getting out of control vs mayhem on tap.
Public protest is an important civic action and those that work to undermine it should not be tolerated.
As far as the quoted text, perhaps I'm painting with a wide brush but I see a pattern here of framing BLM solely in terms of violence associated with it. Being that much of this is manufactured by interlopers I would hope that you would recognize how concerning that is.
It’s only a little Molotov cocktail, no big deal, hope nobody dies in the ensuing fire that will by the way cause huge property damage.
> something that can't really cause large scale damage
What planet are you living on?
I’m not familiar with how police departments and prosecutors (or in this case, the FBI and the Justice Department) determine how much effort to put into solving any particular crime. I’m sure they wouldn’t put as much time into solving a misdemeanor as they would a felony, and that they would put even more time into a murder than a regular felony, but I doubt they would have very many rules about whether a specific type of warrant is reasonable for a specific type of crime.
I suspect that once federal investigators are involved, they probably take the position that it is an extreme case and any legal technique is justified.