NYC getting looted live on a youtube feed Monday 9 pm sad

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Agreed. People of all colours helped to end slavery in this country. A new cable movie/show is coming out about John Brown who was definitely an inspiration, albeit a flawed one. Seems to be the case no matter the "radical'' thought. Thomas Paine readily comes to mind as do other lesser known people.

I hope fervently that those who are newly awoken are not discouraged by the violence into thinking the actual cause isn't just. That would be the easy way out.

That would be The Good Lord Bird airing in August (I've been hearing about it for months now and they just released the air date) on Showtime.

I'll be watching it for sure.

 

[Heather07438]

It's easiest to get on the side of peaceful protesters. It's harder to get on the side of frustrated desperate protesters that are just looking to take advantage of the situation. What situation is that? Feeling like you've gotten the crap end of the stick too often and like you aren't really a member of this society because experiences never cease to remind you. They started reminding you that you are less before you're ever even old enough to 'deserve' it. There's a million examples of people overcoming that but are we ingracious to lob back the full responsibility on those who haven't?

We all need to rethink this. Listen to each other and don't assume what's trying to be said. Stop and listen. I'd never want to take anything away from dedicated law enforcement who deal with enormous stress and danger to keep us safe. It helps to know they keep me safe. There is something that blows in the wind of the US, a notion of racism as sometimes acceptable. It lingers under the surface, that knob adjusted a bit too far. Maybe I need to feel culpable when an officer ruins his own life by recklessly killing another person because there was something seeded, lurking in his mind to feel OK this time kneeling for almost 9 minutes on somebody else's neck, the last 3 minutes lifeless. That officer isn't solely to blame, in fact he too is collateral damage of all our BS.

Camden NJ is often listed as the poorest large city in the US, most dangerous. PEACEful protest there. Did they listen when it was suggested rioting wouldn't help their cause? Plenty of Black people listen to objections and adjust. Plenty of Officers listen to objections and adjust. Improvements everywhere have been made but keep going not done yet. Don't let each other act a dangerous fool. Take responsibility where we can. Stop denying we have problems. Stop with excuses.

https://patch.com/new-jersey/cherryhill/camden-offers-picture-police-unity-after-george-floyds-death
I'm sorry to all of the Officers hurt and killed in retaliation. We can all help make this a better society. It's our society to fix together.

 

[Planogirl]

It's really not that hard to adjust as needed for individuals. Simply understand that people are people and act accordingly. It gets complicated when you deal with corporations or institutions though. Making laws is nice but it still all comes down to attitudes and strangely enough fear. I think that a lot of people are afraid because they see differences and some how that translates to feeling threatened.

Does this require more education? More shunning of those who would hurt others for ridiculous reasons? We could certainly do better when it comes to choosing leaders.

This late night ramble brought to you by Insomnia now available everywhere.

 

[Imzadi]

Ho-Hum! A peaceful night in Manhattan.

Two blocks north of that Gap store on the right, is the Disney Store in Times Square. You can see the NYPD in the middle of the street, standing guard, every several blocks throughout the city.

 

[mjkacmom]

It's easiest to get on the side of peaceful protesters. It's harder to get on the side of frustrated desperate protesters that are just looking to take advantage of the situation. What situation is that? Feeling like you've gotten the crap end of the stick too often and like you aren't really a member of this society because experiences never cease to remind you. They started reminding you that you are less before you're ever even old enough to 'deserve' it. There's a million examples of people overcoming that but are we ingracious to lob back the full responsibility on those who haven't?

We all need to rethink this. Listen to each other and don't assume what's trying to be said. Stop and listen. I'd never want to take anything away from dedicated law enforcement who deal with enormous stress and danger to keep us safe. It helps to know they keep me safe. There is something that blows in the wind of the US, a notion of racism as sometimes acceptable. It lingers under the surface, that knob adjusted a bit too far. Maybe I need to feel culpable when an officer ruins his own life by recklessly killing another person because there was something seeded, lurking in his mind to feel OK this time kneeling for almost 9 minutes on somebody else's neck, the last 3 minutes lifeless. That officer isn't solely to blame, in fact he too is collateral damage of all our BS.

Camden NJ is often listed as the poorest large city in the US, most dangerous. PEACEful protest there. Did they listen when it was suggested rioting wouldn't help their cause? Plenty of Black people listen to objections and adjust. Plenty of Officers listen to objections and adjust. Improvements everywhere have been made but keep going not done yet. Don't let each other act a dangerous fool. Take responsibility where we can. Stop denying we have problems. Stop with excuses.

https://patch.com/new-jersey/cherryhill/camden-offers-picture-police-unity-after-george-floyds-death
I'm sorry to all of the Officers hurt and killed in retaliation. We can all help make this a better society. It's our society to fix together.

I’m knocking on wood as I type, but newark and jersey city were also peaceful.

 

[cabanafrau]

That's almost always the case.

Also, there are situations where even peaceful demonstrators get told things they don't want to hear -- like "No" or "This has been declared an unlawful assembly, and you must leave the area." The fact that people are not throwing rocks and bottles, or causing other problems doesn't mean they are obeying the law. There is a difference between "peaceful" and "lawful."

If there were only peaceful protests going on there would be no need of curfews to make the people assembling deemed unlawful. Absent vandalism, violence and looting I don't believe the authorities would be attempting to curtail peaceful protests and demonstrations -- at least if they intend to stand for another election successfully.

 

[disneyjunkie]

******,

 

[skyblue17]

NYC did seem to stay pretty peaceful last night, including the thousands of people trapped on the Manhattan Bridge for hours, which, had they NOT stayed peaceful, would have been a monumental disaster.

 

[JimMIA]

If there were only peaceful protests going on there would be no need of curfews to make the people assembling deemed unlawful.

Those kinds of questions are really very locally-specific. Local leaders are much closer to the situation and better able to judge it.

The problem with letting even peaceful protests go on interminably is that there is a very long and detailed history of violent outbursts late at night. As I and others have said many times, the violent people are a different group, but they take advantage of the peaceful events for their own purposes.

Again, very local decision depending on local circumstances.

Absent vandalism, violence and looting I don't believe the authorities would be attempting to curtail peaceful protests and demonstrations -- at least if they intend to stand for another election successfully.

I don't think you meant that like it sounds, but that's not how elections work. Officials are elected for a period of time and they are responsible for performing their duties for their entire term of office. They don't get a free ride the last six months...or six minutes.

They have a legal, political, and moral mandate to do their jobs. They can't shrink from their duty, and they can't allow themselves to be bullied into not doing their job just because an election is around the corner.

(On a side note, there was an amusing open-mic gaffe yesterday. A New York congressman was asking to be allowed to speak to some demonstration and an open mic caught him saying, "If I wasn't in a primary, I wouldn't care..." )

 

[cabanafrau]

Those kinds of questions are really very locally-specific. Local leaders are much closer to the situation and better able to judge it.

The problem with letting even peaceful protests go on interminably is that there is a very long and detailed history of violent outbursts late at night. As I and others have said many times, the violent people are a different group, but they take advantage of the peaceful events for their own purposes.

So what you're suggesting is that the thugs, bullies and those who wish to do harm and create havoc decide to deliberately act up and cause mayhem and we should ignore that the purpose is to deprive people acting peacefully to exercise their First Amendment Rights? What a convenient means of shutting down the push for change.

As far as your suggestion of how I meant my other comment and how it sounds -- Don't twist my comments. I do not approve one iota of peaceful exercise of First Amendment Rights being shutdown -- particularly for campaign purposes. Treading upon Constitutional Rights by those who have sworn to uphold them should not be tolerated.

 

[shelemm]

The problem with letting even peaceful protests go on interminably is that there is a very long and detailed history of violent outbursts late at night.

Ah yes, constitutional rights are indeed problematic. They are terribly inconvenient.

 

[JimMIA]

So what you're suggesting is that the thugs, bullies and those who wish to do harm and create havoc decide to deliberately act up and cause mayhem and we should ignore that the purpose is to deprive people acting peacefully to exercise their First Amendment Rights? What a convenient means of shutting down the push for change.

No, LOL, I didn't suggest that, or anything even remotely like that. smh.

*****
There is one aspect of Constitutional rights that many people do not understand. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. They can be, and often are, limited or restricted in various ways.

Your rights and my rights are not special. We have the same rights as everyone else, no matter how special we may think we are. One person's Constitutional rights do not overrule other persons' rights, so to protect everyone governments can, and do, impose reasonable restrictions on those rights for the public good.

Specific to First Amendment rights, there is a generations-long list of US Supreme Court decisions upholding reasonable restrictions on both speech and assembly. So to be protected by the First Amendment, demonstrations have to meet two requirements, not one. They have to be peaceful...AND they also have to be lawful.

So for example, a group of peaceful people want to hold a massive demonstration in downtown Miami for some cause. That demonstration is certain to adversely affect businesses in the area, create traffic congestion and safety issues, and generally disrupt other citizens' rightful access and enjoyment of their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods.

So how do we accommodate the needs of the public (and private property owners) and protect the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators at the same time?

Simple. Local government issues a permit, allowing the demonstration subject to certain reasonable limitations. Those limitations and restrictions might apply to time, location, route if there is to be movement, safety, medical needs, traffic control and a whole range of other factors.

The demonstrators are free to assemble as permitted and express their opinions, but they are not allowed to shut down the entire city. The terms of those permits are negotiated with the demonstrating parties, and are agreed to beforehand.

Violating the terms of a permit makes the assembly unlawful -- and in fact, it can be declared an "Unlawful Assembly," it can be broken up, and anyone who does not comply can be arrested. The organizers can also be held financially responsible.

If the permit the organizers agreed to says the demonstrations must conclude by a certain time, it must conclude by that time. If it doesn't, it's unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If local laws require a permit for large gatherings and a group holds a large demonstration without a permit, that demonstration is unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If a community has a curfew beginning at some appointed time, anyone who violates that curfew is unlawful -- whether they are peaceful or not.

 

[Sanchez]

Ah yes, constitutional rights are indeed problematic. They are terribly inconvenient.

Your constitutional knowledge appears to be . . . limited.

 

[cabanafrau]

No, LOL, I didn't suggest that, or anything even remotely like that. smh.

*****
There is one aspect of Constitutional rights that many people do not understand. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. They can be, and often are, limited or restricted in various ways.

Your rights and my rights are not special. We have the same rights as everyone else, no matter how special we may think we are. One person's Constitutional rights do not overrule other persons' rights, so to protect everyone governments can, and do, impose reasonable restrictions on those rights for the public good.

Specific to First Amendment rights, there is a generations-long list of US Supreme Court decisions upholding reasonable restrictions on both speech and assembly. So to be protected by the First Amendment, demonstrations have to meet two requirements, not one. They have to be peaceful...AND they also have to be lawful.

So for example, a group of peaceful people want to hold a massive demonstration in downtown Miami for some cause. That demonstration is certain to adversely affect businesses in the area, create traffic congestion and safety issues, and generally disrupt other citizens' rightful access and enjoyment of their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods.

So how do we accommodate the needs of the public (and private property owners) and protect the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators at the same time?

Simple. Local government issues a permit, allowing the demonstration subject to certain reasonable limitations. Those limitations and restrictions might apply to time, location, route if there is to be movement, safety, medical needs, traffic control and a whole range of other factors.

The demonstrators are free to assemble as permitted and express their opinions, but they are not allowed to shut down the entire city. The terms of those permits are negotiated with the demonstrating parties, and are agreed to beforehand.

Violating the terms of a permit makes the assembly unlawful -- and in fact, it can be declared an "Unlawful Assembly," it can be broken up, and anyone who does not comply can be arrested. The organizers can also be held financially responsible.

If the permit the organizers agreed to says the demonstrations must conclude by a certain time, it must conclude by that time. If it doesn't, it's unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If local laws require a permit for large gatherings and a group holds a large demonstration without a permit, that demonstration is unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If a community has a curfew beginning at some appointed time, anyone who violates that curfew is unlawful -- whether they are peaceful or not.

So authorities can and should shut down peaceful assemblies and demonstrations as they wish simply by declaring them unlawful, thereby sweeping away any pesky Constitutional rights?

I guess if we want to avoid all the durm and strang altogether we could just go full on Chinese or North Korean approach, all nice and tidy, no muss, no fuss.

I'll pass on your primers on Constitutional law, thank you very much. I suspect my own education and experience will suffice quite nicely.

 

[JimMIA]

So authorities can and should shut down peaceful assemblies and demonstrations as they wish simply by declaring them unlawful, thereby sweeping away any pesky Constitutional rights?

You're just being silly. Nobody said that, least of all me.

I'll pass on your primers on Constitutional law, thank you very much. I suspect my own education and experience will suffice quite nicely.

Obviously not.

 

[daisy2013]

I find it interesting the constitutional law scholars on here that just a week ago were arguing that wearing a mask was unconstitutional but violent government reactions to peaceful protests are constitutionally fine. My law school professors would have had a field day with those arguments.

 

[shelemm]

No, LOL, I didn't suggest that, or anything even remotely like that. smh.

Local government issues a permit, allowing the demonstration subject to certain reasonable limitations.

This is not some kind of planned event where people need to fill out forms. Yes, everyone knows that Constitutional rights are not absolute. But the Supreme Court has made it quite clear about their reluctance to limit the right of assembly.

The folks claiming "it can't happen here" are now seeing by your words that it CAN happen here. Peaceful protesters have been fired upon.

 

[JimMIA]

Your constitutional knowledge appears to be . . . limited.

Please educate all of us.

 

[Heather07438]

There is one aspect of Constitutional rights that many people do not understand. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. They can be, and often are, limited or restricted in various ways.

Your rights and my rights are not special. We have the same rights as everyone else, no matter how special we may think we are. One person's Constitutional rights do not overrule other persons' rights, so to protect everyone governments can, and do, impose reasonable restrictions on those rights for the public good.

Specific to First Amendment rights, there is a generations-long list of US Supreme Court decisions upholding reasonable restrictions on both speech and assembly. So to be protected by the First Amendment, demonstrations have to meet two requirements, not one. They have to be peaceful...AND they also have to be lawful.

So for example, a group of peaceful people want to hold a massive demonstration in downtown Miami for some cause. That demonstration is certain to adversely affect businesses in the area, create traffic congestion and safety issues, and generally disrupt other citizens' rightful access and enjoyment of their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods.

So how do we accommodate the needs of the public (and private property owners) and protect the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators at the same time?

Simple. Local government issues a permit, allowing the demonstration subject to certain reasonable limitations. Those limitations and restrictions might apply to time, location, route if there is to be movement, safety, medical needs, traffic control and a whole range of other factors.

The demonstrators are free to assemble as permitted and express their opinions, but they are not allowed to shut down the entire city. The terms of those permits are negotiated with the demonstrating parties, and are agreed to beforehand.

Violating the terms of a permit makes the assembly unlawful -- and in fact, it can be declared an "Unlawful Assembly," it can be broken up, and anyone who does not comply can be arrested. The organizers can also be held financially responsible.

If the permit the organizers agreed to says the demonstrations must conclude by a certain time, it must conclude by that time. If it doesn't, it's unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If local laws require a permit for large gatherings and a group holds a large demonstration without a permit, that demonstration is unlawful -- whether it is peaceful or not.

If a community has a curfew beginning at some appointed time, anyone who violates that curfew is unlawful -- whether they are peaceful or not.

Thanks for adding that to the conversation for some background. Consistency can still be questioned though, both for decisions made and use of force. Not you personally, but I'm seeing alot of shutting down the whole issue on 'look at the destruction, look at the officers hurt.' While those are horrible, they're being use to invalidate the protest. It's the shortcut used to deny we still have a severe and dysfunctional problem. I've also heard, "Everybody has problems in life, deal with it." What kind of response is that when it's a problem that's trying to be dealt with.

Spoiler: tldr; personal example

I have a great family friend who's an all around good guy. He denies there is problem but is trying to understand. In the same breath he said there isn't really racism anymore but if Black people feel that way then they have a right to their own feelings.
Later I remembered a rough year he had. His son had just gotten his license. They live in a private gated community where public police cannot enter just to patrol. His son caught the attention of the police outside his gates. On many occasions he got tickets, starting from speeding but continued on with more and more petty stuff. He began to feel like his son was being targeted because his car was identifiable and certain local police would follow him every chance they got.
I don't know any more details than that and not choosing sides. The highlight is how would he feel as a parent thinking his child was being targeted on the color of his skin. Dad was frustrated but wasn't drawn into worrying about his son's overall welfare. If this same scenario was playing out and his son was Black, would it be justifiable to also fear for his son's welfare? His life? Could it be the beginning of impacting his whole future?
Kids do stupid things. Who's more likely to get caught, pay a stiffer sentence, have excess force used, have their life more impacted by it...

Just comply; Hands up, don't shoot; I can't breathe; Is my son next? This stuff has been rolling around and getting absorbed. More is sinking in. People all over are trying harder to recognize the right things we can do and putting the shoe on the other foot. There's still alot more needed to bridge the divide.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019...s-gun-violence-racial-bias-crime-data/595528/
It's complicated beyond what I can comprehend. Comment section is interesting. Statistics can go back and forth all day but most people are deciding from their own experience. From what I've personally seen and from others around me... White people are given the benefit of the doubt much more often than black people when comparing equivalent people in the same type scenarios. The air of racism feeds into actions taken and how we treat each other. Salt on other wounds. It's better for everybody that we break this cycle. This is our country.

 

[RamblingMad]

So authorities can and should shut down peaceful assemblies and demonstrations as they wish simply by declaring them unlawful, thereby sweeping away any pesky Constitutional rights?

I guess if we want to avoid all the durm and strang altogether we could just go full on Chinese or North Korean approach, all nice and tidy, no muss, no fuss.

I'll pass on your primers on Constitutional law, thank you very much. I suspect my own education and experience will suffice quite nicely.

The reality is that most cities require permits to assemble and protest.

Locally, the tear gas is being fired once we get past the time of curfew. Basically, go home before curfew or experience tear gas.

At the end of the day, I expect nothing to change.