Stockley verdict coming down.

[jsharmon7]

So I talked to a friend of mine who took a job in St. Louis last year. They shared several stories to me of overt or nearly-overt racist treatment that were, frankly, shocking. This person is a professional, who I've known for years to not be a race-baiting type person. I believe 100% that the person experienced what they described, partly because I've seen how they act in situations that arguably had a racial component, and they dealt with it in a very balanced way.

I didn't think racism still existed the way it does until I became a police officer. The calls you get, the things people tell you, and the general way you see society interact will remove any doubt about how relevant racism is in America. And I'm not just talking about things said by a specific race. People of all groups say awful things about other groups AND their own groups.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Boston Tea Party was not an example of looting. The participants didn't abscond with the tea; they dumped it in the harbor. It wasn't vandalism, either, because goods were destroyed, not (real) property.

If I may take the liberty of re-framing FNS's question, in a way that makes it more specific to the events being discussed (since both of your examples involved actions against the State, and not against private persons): what would be circumstances where you approve of vandalism and looting of private property and goods?

Wait, what? Goods owned by someone else, and destroyed by someone else isn't "real" property? And forgive me, if I find it hard to believe that no one looted any tea. That story is, of course, written by those who committed the act, so to say that they actual looted property would certainly hurt their moral high ground. They, the Sons of Liberty, certainly had no issue ransacking and looting the home of Stamp Commissioner Andrew Oliver.

 

[chipbennett]

The reason for the rally appears to me to be legitimate. That certain segments abuse that exercise of a right to their own advantage, in the process somewhat de-legitimizing the original action, is... disheartening.

But, there's certainly a 2A parallel. Most, if not all, gun crimes are committed by criminals. We gun owners have always held the position that the illegitimate use of firearms should not de-legitimize our use.

What is the legitimate reason? These crowds have evidence that Stockley should have been convicted of first-degree murder?

 

[T.Lex]

What is the legitimate reason? These crowds have evidence that Stockley should have been convicted of first-degree murder?

Well, that's not a requirement to rally, eh? Just like we don't need to articulate a legitimate reason for 2A exercise, they don't NEED to articulate a legitimate reason for 1A.

FWIW, to the extent Stockley's actions and the consequences within the legal system reflect commonplace racism in that area, I believe that to be a legitimate reason to rally.

 

[chipbennett]

Wait, what? Goods owned by someone else, and destroyed by someone else isn't "real" property? And forgive me, if I find it hard to believe that no one looted any tea. That story is, of course, written by those who committed the act, so to say that they actual looted property would certainly hurt their moral high ground. They, the Sons of Liberty, certainly had no issue ransacking and looting the home of Stamp Commissioner Andrew Oliver.

No, it isn't. The use of the adjective real is intentional:

real prop·er·ty
nounLAW

1. fixed property, principally land and buildings.
   
   
   
   

Vandalism implies damage to fixed, i.e. real, property. Destruction of goods is something different.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, it isn't. The use of the adjective real is intentional:



Vandalism implies damage to fixed, i.e. real, property. Destruction of goods is something different.

If you say so... and when the same group ransacked Andrew Oliver's home?

 

[chipbennett]

Well, that's not a requirement to rally, eh? Just like we don't need to articulate a legitimate reason for 2A exercise, they don't NEED to articulate a legitimate reason for 1A.

Something-something-something to petition government for the redress of grievances something-something-something.

That, ostensibly, is the purpose of the "protests".

FWIW, to the extent Stockley's actions and the consequences within the legal system reflect commonplace racism in that area, I believe that to be a legitimate reason to rally.

And that view simply does not comport with the facts of the incident. Stockley was rightly fired for his actions (carrying a personal AK pistol, how he handled the stop, etc.). There is no known evidence to support a first-degree murder charge, much less evidence that his actions were racially motivated, or that his acquittal was racially motivated.

 

[chipbennett]

If you say so... and when the same group ransacked Andrew Oliver's home?

As if I'm relying on my own definitions of terms?

Andrew Oliver was an agent of the State, not merely a private citizen. He was acting under the auspices of unjust State authority, not as a private citizen.

If the rioters were throwing rocks through the judge's windows, then you might have a valid analogy.

 

[T.Lex]

Something-something-something to petition government for the redress of grievances something-something-something.

That, ostensibly, is the purpose of the "protests".

Wow. I'm a bit bewildered that you skipped the more relevant part in the somethings... "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." The redress of grievances is separate, and has its own procedural framework. Involving a petition.

And that view simply does not comport with the facts of the incident. Stockley was rightly fired for his actions (carrying a personal AK pistol, how he handled the stop, etc.). There is no known evidence to support a first-degree murder charge, much less evidence that his actions were racially motivated, or that his acquittal was racially motivated.

The "facts of the incident" include the local issues involving race. That is a context that is difficult, if impossible, to connect to from a distance.

Have you spent significant time as a black person in St. Louis? Do you know someone who has? I hope you know that I'm willing to consider alternative viewpoints. But having received input from someone I completely trust induced a paradigm-shift.

 

[T.Lex]

If the rioters were throwing rocks through the judge's windows, then you might have a valid analogy.

Wait.

You know rioters threw stuff through the windows of the home of the St. Louis mayor, right?

St. Louis protesters break windows at home of city's mayor after cop's acquittal | Fox News

(Please forgive the source of the link, it was the first one that came up in the search.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

As if I'm relying on my own definitions of terms?

Andrew Oliver was an agent of the State, not merely a private citizen. He was acting under the auspices of unjust State authority, not as a private citizen.

If the rioters were throwing rocks through the judge's windows, then you might have a valid analogy.

Gotcha. Looting and vandalism aren't looting and vandalism when the property is fixed, and if the victim is an agent of the state. So crowd damaged police cars, which ARE moveable and property of the state... not vandalism?

 

[chipbennett]

Gotcha. Looting and vandalism aren't looting and vandalism when the property is fixed, and if the victim is an agent of the state. So crowd damaged police cars, which ARE moveable and property of the state... not vandalism?

I'm going to let you re-read what I wrote, and try again. Because the conclusions you just drew are about 180 degrees out of phase.

 

[chipbennett]

Wait.

You know rioters threw stuff through the windows of the home of the St. Louis mayor, right?

St. Louis protesters break windows at home of city's mayor after cop's acquittal | Fox News

(Please forgive the source of the link, it was the first one that came up in the search.)

Yes, I do know.

What authority does the Mayor of St. Louis have over circuit judges?

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, I do know.

What authority does the Mayor of St. Louis have over circuit judges?

None. What authority does the St. Louis mayor have over the St. Louis police force?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to let you re-read what I wrote, and try again. Because the conclusions you just drew are about 180 degrees out of phase.

I honestly don't think so. I think you want to be creative with how and when you apply looting and vandalism. The Boston Tea party was vandalism, at the very least, and probably looting too. The ransacking of Commissioner Andrew Oliver's home was certainly vandalism and looting. There's really not much debate there. I'm not talking about the reasons or justifications, I'm stating plainly what those instances were example of.

 

[chipbennett]

Wow. I'm a bit bewildered that you skipped the more relevant part in the somethings... "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." The redress of grievances is separate, and has its own procedural framework. Involving a petition.

The "protests" ARE the "petition". Ostensibly. They are airing grievances, and demanding redress. Peaceable assembly isn't limited to petitioning for redress of grievances, but the latter is certainly included as a subset of the former.

(And, side note: the latter only remains legitimate within the context of the former. Once the assembly ceases to be peaceable, then the petitioning is no longer legitimate. See: riots, blocking roadways, etc.)

The "facts of the incident" include the local issues involving race. That is a context that is difficult, if impossible, to connect to from a distance.

Have you spent significant time as a black person in St. Louis? Do you know someone who has? I hope you know that I'm willing to consider alternative viewpoints. But having received input from someone I completely trust induced a paradigm-shift.

You do know that I lived in St. Louis for over ten years, don't you? Besides, I reject out of hand the notion that one is incapable of having a valid viewpoint on a topic if one does not have personal experience with it.

 

[chipbennett]

I honestly don't think so. I think you want to be creative with how and when you apply looting and vandalism.

No, I don't.

The Boston Tea party was vandalism, at the very least, and probably looting too.

It simply wasn't. It was destruction of goods, certainly. But by definition, it was not vandalism.

If you can provide evidence that tea was taken by any of the participants, then I would concede that such taking would constitute looting.

The ransacking of Commissioner Andrew Oliver's home was certainly vandalism and looting.

Kindly point out where I said otherwise.

There's really not much debate their.

...which is why I didn't debate it.

I'm not talking about the reasons or justifications, I'm stating plainly what those instances were example of.

I NEVER said that the ransacking o Oliver's home wasn't looting or vandalism. I merely said that it wasn't analogous to the present rioting. I even proffered an example of what I thought would be analogous: looting and vandalism of the judge's home.

 

[chipbennett]

None. What authority does the St. Louis mayor have over the St. Louis police force?

So, how is breaking her windows analogous?

The protesters are protesting the acquittal of a police officer whom they believe should have been convicted. The mayor has precisely zero influence over that outcome.

As for the police force: the police officer in question was already fired years ago, due to the incident. What more is legitimately expected?

(Side note: the mayor should NOT have control over the police force. If we followed the constitution, the Chief of Police would be subordinate to the elected Sheriff - or, at a minimum, would itself be an elected position.)

 

[T.Lex]

The "protests" ARE the "petition". Ostensibly. They are airing grievances, and demanding redress. Peaceable assembly isn't limited to petitioning for redress of grievances, but the latter is certainly included as a subset of the former.

That isn't how the constitution is written, nor interpreted. The right to peaceably assemble is separate. The right to petition is separate. They are independent of each other.

(And, side note: the latter only remains legitimate within the context of the former. Once the assembly ceases to be peaceable, then the petitioning is no longer legitimate. See: riots, blocking roadways, etc.)

Again, for this to make any sense at all, you really need to look at this as 2 separate things. This isn't a "roadway on a bridge" situation, where 1 thing can be 2 things. This is 2 separate bridges.

In terms of administration and governing, the "peacable" part is key. There's laws, rules, and cases galore on breaking it down. But, it is completely separate from petitioning. People can peacable assemble for a cause that the government has no part of. That content-neutral part is absolutely important.

You do know that I lived in St. Louis for over ten years, don't you? Besides, I reject out of hand the notion that one is incapable of having a valid viewpoint on a topic if one does not have personal experience with it.

I did not know that. I presume not as a black person. (BTW, totally unrelated, could Black Like Me get published or made into a movie these days?)

On your second point, I didn't say - and should clarify - that I don't think personal experience is required or that one is incapable of having a valid viewpoint in its absence. What I am saying is that personal experience can and should inform a viewpoint.

I have no personal experience involving St. Louis, and only a little in other parts of Missouri. I held a valid viewpoint based on my personal experiences in life.

I had a conversation with a black friend who, in the last year or so, had LOTS of experience in St. Louis and other parts of Missouri. Granted, this probably wasn't the best year or so in St. Louis history, but the conversation revealed to me that my viewpoint was limited by my lack of personal contact with St. Louis and Missouri. It did not make my prior viewpoint invalid; it rendered the information it was based on incomplete.

But now I'm curious - did you experience any racial subtext in St. Louis, or can you characterize your viewpoint of how black people are treated there? I am genuinely interested in your experience.

 

[T.Lex]

So, how is breaking her windows analogous?

Wait.

You don't see breaking windows of the mayor as analogous to busting up the home of the British tax dude?

The protesters are protesting the acquittal of a police officer whom they believe should have been convicted.

From what I can tell, that is an overly narrow view of the protests.

The protests include the larger issue of racism in that area.

The mayor has precisely zero influence over that outcome.

The outcome, yes; the policies - including hiring policies - that created the initial problem, the mayor does.

As for the police force: the police officer in question was already fired years ago, due to the incident. What more is legitimately expected?

While not required, I think it is appropriate to protest hiring, training, and enforcement policies - as well as larger racial/social issues in St. Louis specifically, and Missouri generally.

(Side note: the mayor should NOT have control over the police force. If we followed the constitution, the Chief of Police would be subordinate to the elected Sheriff - or, at a minimum, would itself be an elected position.)

While a derail, the US constitution offers no such guidance.