posted May 03, 2015 07:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
The police need military equipment to restore peace and order when mobs turn violent. Without it, these small towns would be picked clean by these thieves. They even ransack their own neighborhood small businesses that the society depends upon, including African-American owned. Protesters? Really?

---

What about the harm the police are inflicting on the citizens? Tear gas? Unsanitary jail conditions? Illegal arrests with higher bonds that than those who murdered Freddie Gray?

Would I prefer non-looting? Absolutely. I am going to condemn them though? No. People seem to be okay when the majority of looters are white, but when the demographics turn to blacks, societal opinion changes. I don't see the value of overly aggressive tactics when they aren't warranted.

quote:

---

If cops break the law, they should be punished, but keep in mind that most police officers are good people who joined to protect and serve and who put their lives on the line every time they do a routine traffic stop

---

posted May 03, 2015 07:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I think you are missing the point entirely. Stealing Pringles isn't a protest. It's a thief and an opportunist. That person doesn't care about any issues involved.

---

My point is that HUMAN LIVES are more valuable than commercial goods. The majority of the protesters are doing it peacefully, why do we have to condemn the 1% that loot? The real problem is that the fact more concern is given to the pringles than Black lives-why is it that way?

I take serious issue with the fact some are more angry about this than the amount of young black men and women who are murdered unjustly each year, that is the message behind the post.

Unless you read the minds of the people committing the crimes, how you personally know they don't care about the issue? Yes, it would be nice they protested peacefully, but that doesn't mean they don't care- people tend to act out their emotions at times, and not always to their benefit. I think PJ's posts give a good information and background on the act of looting.

-----------
Juni, I think you make some good points, and surely I will not fully disagree with them. I'm definitely not saying we need to vilify those who go to war, but rather question the way the media frames things. The military is surely a job, but why did the media glorify American Sniper but leave Selma in the dust? That makes no sense to me.

However, my point is the glorification of violence depicted in media (i.e., American Sniper), where we praise one and condemn another, which I take issues with. I agree on the drugs getting out, obviously that is not a good thing to happen, but I believe (based on what I have read so far) that most stolen items are just food, drink, and less damaging items. Certain types of violence are okay, but others are deemed as 'not.'

posted May 03, 2015 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
And you should stop referring to Ferguson. You speak of wanting evidence. The evidence in Ferguson showed that he lunged at the officer. Still, the "protesters" used it as an excuse to steal TVs.

---

posted May 03, 2015 07:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
You comparing a soldier defending this country to a looter is disgusting. Yes, they are terrorists. Destruction of property is the definition for terrorism. And criminals will always be able to buy guns. Does anyone have trouble buying illegal drugs? Your stupid gun legislation will only make it difficult for lawful citizens to own guns.

---

Terrorism has multiple definitions, many of which fit my claims:

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and

Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and

§ 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.)

For the record, I don't run the country so I'm not sure why you are saying 'your stupid legislation.' That is sadly out of my hands, unless a major bill comes along and I have the chance to vote. Would you rather have more mentally unstable people like Adam Lanza getting hold of guns and committing massacres?

posted May 03, 2015 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I also find your comments about poverty being a "Black" problem to be an uneducated viewpoint, Bella. There are more Whites on food stamps and other forms of government assistance than are African-Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

---

Its uneducated to take issue with the fact Baltimore children couldn't eat those days, but we give out food to the armed forces?

I am well aware of the national statistics regarding food stamps.

First of all, there is a larger proportion of Blacks and Hispanics than Whites on food stamps per capita. The problem with your statistics is that the national level does not reflect Baltimore statistics. The point I made earlier with the hunger situation was that minorities in Baltimore, particularly those who are in impoverished areas, are way more likely that whites to need food stamps.

The majority of individuals on food stamps in Baltimore (which is 24%) are Asian American and African American. African Americans have 2x more food stamps than whites in the whole city and this number jumps rapidly in impoverished locations. Here are some statistics:

posted May 03, 2015 08:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
When I was growing up, we were dirt poor. We only went to school, because we could eat there. We didn't know where our next meal would come from on the weekends. My mom had to walk miles to coin laundries with an unraveled wire coat hanger to sweep under the washing machines for dropped change, just so her three young boys could have bread. Bella, have you ever cried in your room (that you shared with two other siblings) from your belly aching from starving? Or felt the shame from having to call a random church from a payphone to beg for canned foods? Poverty is not a race problem. Still, none of us ever threw a brick into a window or shoplifted or hit someone on the head or robbed anyone. We never sold drugs or used them. My mom told us that we could be anything we wanted to when we grew up, and we believed her...despite all evidence to the contrary. And you, Bella, with your life of privilege, dare to come in here and proclaim poverty to be a "Black" problem. I doubt you have ever gone hungry a day in your life. Furthermore, you dared to come here a few months past and to mock me for being accepted into a tier-3 law school. Is that what those on the left who proclaim big hearts are supposed to do? I can tell your first-hand about poverty. I can tell you with aching detail about having no food, about being homeless, and about living in a car. And it has nothing to do with the color of one's skin. But I can also tell you about hope. Dreams. Opportunity. About living in a country where anyone can go to college and work hard and become anything they desire to be.

---

I need to address this as well.Thank you for your candid story, however, your assertions about me are dead wrong. And I find it very odd how someone who struggled with childhood hunger isn't showing the Baltimore kids any empathy, and is instead hung up on proving whites suffer from hunger too. I'm well aware anyone from any race can be impoverished.

Actually, I have gone several days as a child without food, and a few times this semester as well when my paycheck got screwed up. Poverty is unfortunately a racial issue because minorities compose of the majority of the impoverished population. If you think for one second I am some rich, spoiled privileged white girl, you are sadly mistaken. Instead of feeling sorry for myself, I have become actively involved in dispelling childhood hunger, particularly for minority populations.

I spent many nights crying, just like you did. And seeing how it not only impacted my life but the lives of others, has made me an advocate for many social justice issues. However, the majority of people who suffered like my family, were racial minorities, which at a young age really hit me.

I also had to see racial discrimination as well. which didn't affect me personally because I sadly have racial privileges. My best friend was called racial slurs, a friend of mine in high school was killed by a man saying the 'n' word repeatedly, and not to mention having to watch systematic racism impact the lives of my friends each day.

Here is something I posted in AR in a few days ago which better sums up my thoughts.

I have nothing to gain by doing this. I've never had to face racial discrimination, called names due to my race, be limited by the infrastructure of systemic racism, face greater health and socioeconomic limitations of my race. I have every privilege at the tips of my fingers and will never understand what it is like to live under a systemic racial infrastructure.

Instead, I am part of a system that rewards people like me, all because of my skin color. I could sit back like most people and turn my back to the problem, but I do not. Why?

I was woken up very quickly as a youth. Seeing the racial slurs and jokes thrown at my best friend, who is black, made me realize how cruel and inhumane the world is. Furthermore, watching several of my black friends get stopped by police cars for no reason, and get denied privileges my own race has really shattered me. The final knife in the dagger was finding out a high school peer of mine was murdered due to his race, and was called the 'n' word repeatedly as he was stabbed to death. I will never forget this, as long as I live, and will do whatever I can to prevent another horrible crime like this from happening.

When I speak out and/or participate in socially conscious activities, I do not do it for personal glory nor do I expect anything in return. I do it because I feel a deep and profound love for humanity, in my eyes all lives are equal and have value. I do it for all of the young women and men out there who are called racial slurs, are denied rights due to their skin color, are frightened by unnecessary threats by the police, and to those like Travyon Martin, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, and countless others who will never get a final say on the value of their lives.

All lives matter, and no matter how utopian my ideas are, I will not stop until the systemic racial infrastructure is dismantled. Even if it does not happen in my lifetime, I will continue until the day I die to try and make a difference in the world.

posted May 03, 2015 11:46 PM            

Boston Tea Party? Yes, I did go there.

How are the Boston Tea Party people not thieves but the Baltimore citizens are? Both are looting events caused a group of oppressed people wanting their voices heard. One is a political protest and the other a criminal act?

When the US men looted several hundred years ago, was it about the property or their rights? I believe it was their rights being infringed upon, and reaching their limits, took action.

posted May 04, 2015 11:46 AM            

Bella, the Tea Party is a brilliant analogy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Banning guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals the same way it does illegal drugs. Only it will make it more difficult for lawful citizens to arm themselves. Any rational, logical individual can deduce the obvious about the futility of gun control. And did you really just compare the Boston Tea Party to that bunch of thieves in Baltimore? The real question is do the looters think more of Black lives or property? Obviously, the answer for them is property.

---

A major reason for the the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizenry has the power to overthrow tyrants. Spend some time on modern Tea Party sites and you'll see that they are armed to the teeth because they foresee the Police States of America and desperately want to ward it off (though, in my opinion, they never could. They are overpowered by the most powerful military that ever existed. Minutemen will not last.)

Anyway. Here we have the black people in America STILL being oppressed by tyrants. Rather than taking up arms as our Founding Fathers intended for real Americans to do in that situation ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," instructed Thomas Jefferson) these oppressed people merely riot and loot. Which is like war, on a tiny scale. It's war without the bullets, but the sentiment behind their throwing rocks is the exact same *right* of Revolution that's built into our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment. It's the protest of tyranny. It's also the claiming of property and resources...those of you in favor of the US involvement in the Middle East can hardly pretend to be unfamiliar with, or uniformly opposed to, looting, when we've taken so many resources from the countries we occupy. It's the spoils of war.

Really the only difference between war and looting is, what the Powerful People decide to name it, and how they supply the context for the history textbooks.

Here's a song I love about that ~ Pixie Jane knows it: Pirates and Emperors.

At any rate I gotta tell you, if the police, dressed up like the Death Squad, took my children off a bus, captured, corralled, and intimidated them, I would feel the urge to protest, and not by writing little notes to the editor of the town newspaper. All respect for what's "normal" and sanctified by the government's (often twisted) legalist ethics would fly out the window and my primal "mother bear" instincts would most likely prevail. And I'm pretty certain that if Americans saw pictures of little blond-haired white children being dragged off buses to face the militarized police, all hell would break loose immediately.

Unfortunately, the power of non-violent protest and civil disobedience to effect reform has been undermined by the participation of agent provocateurs and crisis actors who can create whatever images the media is looking for, to spin whatever narratives it wants.

Think about this:

There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies.

^^ Pretty sure the French philosopher Guy Debord said that. If not him, then I said it and meant it.

But here's another one:

Civil Rights were formally established in the 60's with the conjunction of Uranus and Pluto. We are revisiting the same themes now with the square...we are at the quarter moon phase, the crisis point where we have to decide how to resolve the issues born out of the conjunction.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I do know, it won't hurt if we all take responsibility for ourselves and raise our vibration. When one person's vibration goes up, it actually lifts the vibration of those in the same vicinity.

How to Change Your Frequency to Change Your Reality

With that in mind I am wishing peace to you all. It begins inside each of us.

posted May 04, 2015 09:43 PM            

The Tea Party was vandalism and theft. So what if they didn't make a Profit on the goods? The owners would disagree with your assessment I'm sure.

posted May 04, 2015 11:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I'm sorry, I haven't read this whole thread ~ I'm sure I could be sitting here replying all day if I felt like it. Forgive me if my arguments have already been made and are redundant.

Bella, the Tea Party is a brilliant analogy.

A major reason for the the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizenry has the power to overthrow tyrants. Spend some time on modern Tea Party sites and you'll see that they are armed to the teeth because they foresee the Police States of America and desperately want to ward it off (though, in my opinion, they never could. They are overpowered by the most powerful military that ever existed. Minutemen will not last.)

Anyway. Here we have the black people in America STILL being oppressed by tyrants. Rather than taking up arms as our Founding Fathers intended for real Americans to do in that situation ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," instructed Thomas Jefferson) these oppressed people merely riot and loot. Which is like war, on a tiny scale. It's war without the bullets, but the sentiment behind their throwing rocks is the exact same *right* of Revolution that's built into our Constitution with the 2nd Amendment. It's the protest of tyranny. It's also the claiming of property and resources...those of you in favor of the US involvement in the Middle East can hardly pretend to be unfamiliar with, or uniformly opposed to, looting, when we've taken so many resources from the countries we occupy. It's the spoils of war.

Really the only difference between war and looting is, what the Powerful People decide to name it, and how they supply the context for the history textbooks.

Here's a song I love about that ~ Pixie Jane knows it: Pirates and Emperors.

At any rate I gotta tell you, if the police, dressed up like the Death Squad, took my children off a bus, captured, corralled, and intimidated them, I would feel the urge to protest, and not by writing little notes to the editor of the town newspaper. All respect for what's "normal" and sanctified by the government's (often twisted) legalist ethics would fly out the window and my primal "mother bear" instincts would most likely prevail. And I'm pretty certain that if Americans saw pictures of little blond-haired white children being dragged off buses to face the militarized police, all hell would break loose immediately.

Unfortunately, the power of non-violent protest and civil disobedience to effect reform has been undermined by the participation of agent provocateurs and crisis actors who can create whatever images the media is looking for, to spin whatever narratives it wants.

Think about this:

[b]There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies.

^^ Pretty sure the French philosopher Guy Debord said that. If not him, then I said it and meant it.

But here's another one:

Civil Rights were formally established in the 60's with the conjunction of Uranus and Pluto. We are revisiting the same themes now with the square...we are at the quarter moon phase, the crisis point where we have to decide how to resolve the issues born out of the conjunction.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I do know, it won't hurt if we all take responsibility for ourselves and raise our vibration. When one person's vibration goes up, it actually lifts the vibration of those in the same vicinity.

How to Change Your Frequency to Change Your Reality

With that in mind I am wishing peace to you all. It begins inside each of us.

[/B]

---

posted May 05, 2015 01:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
... At any rate I gotta tell you, if the police, dressed up like the Death Squad, took my children off a bus, captured, corralled, and intimidated them, I would feel the urge to protest, and not by writing little notes to the editor of the town newspaper. All respect for what's "normal" and sanctified by the government's (often twisted) legalist ethics would fly out the window and my primal "mother bear" instincts would most likely prevail. And I'm pretty certain that if Americans saw pictures of little blond-haired white children being dragged off buses to face the militarized police, all hell would break loose immediately.

---

In the form of a lawsuit.

A major one.

Most people might "feel the urge to riot," but most won't.

They would, instead, get a lawyer on a contingency.

Don't you think it's odd that we aren't seeing all these do-

gooders and sympathy-pushers offering legal services or advice?

Something that could actually change things?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Unfortunately, the power of non-violent protest and civil disobedience to effect reform has been undermined by the participation of agent provocateurs and crisis actors who can create whatever images the media is looking for, to spin whatever narratives it wants.

---

This is the truth.

(Just like what happened with the original Black Panthers.)

And since you (you, meaning everyone) are armed with this

Knowledge, the rioters should not be justified, because it

obviously works AGAINST the peaceful protesters and the

oppressed communities, at large.

How can they affect change if the opposition (the agents prov

& cr. actors) continues to be vindicated?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BellaFenice:
The majority of the protesters are doing it peacefully, why do we have to condemn the 1% that loot?

---

That ^^ is why.

---

(You're ruining the band, Yoko.)

------------------
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world; not even our troubles.

posted May 05, 2015 09:55 AM            

The technology/surveillance state has taken a quantum leap just in the last decade, since enactment of the Patriot Act. History is not going to repeat itself, we're at a new frontier.

Have you ever looked at the military's plans for how to deal with nationwide civil unrest in this country? They are extremely well-organized and, in my opinion, will not be stopped by the Redneck Army.

Just my opinion.

Eirlys,

quote:

---

the rioters should not be justified, because it
obviously works AGAINST the peaceful protesters and the
oppressed communities, at large.

---

How do we know who the rioters are, and who the agent provocateurs are? Why judge anything, when we don't know who's who?

It's not that they are justified or not justified. It's that, those who keep their focus on the rioting and looting are too often fixed in an attitude of condemnation and judgement instead of understanding and empathy. It's like their minds get dammed up at the point of looting, and their currents of thought never reach beyond that dam.

quote:

---

In the form of a lawsuit.

---

No I said primal instinct. I am admitting to savage impulses. If I saw my children held at gunpoint by ANYONE, I would become like a living tornado of rage.

Lawsuits are not primal.

People who sit in their easy chairs wagging their fingers at the people on the TV screen who are acting out their frustration with oppression are, in my opinion, either:

1) Weirdly docile
2) Kidding themselves, about their own ability to maintain grace under pressure
3) Spiritually more evolved than me.

But I think most people are the first two.

And anyway, I'm still trying to work out my opinions about violent protest. I know that when China invaded Tibet, even the Dalai Lama reached a point where he wished the nation was better armed, because the Buddhists' collective spiritual vibration was NOT enough to ward off the insane Chinese, who were forcing Tibetan children to murder their own families.

And in the case of India gaining its independence, there WAS bloodshed. The tree of liberty was "refreshed" with blood as Jefferson said.

But again--

Positive, persistent change is potentiated by the individuals' attitudes. That requires social awareness (as in, unplug your brain the propagandist television set) and in some cases a constitutional readiness to act according to one's own informed conscience.

With that in mind, it's not the chain of command that can be so deadly in the face of tyranny...it's the chain of obedience. It's where the violence of the overriding structure successfully calls forth the violence we harbor within, and determines its expression.

K, I'm done here, I need a break from the forum.

posted May 05, 2015 01:12 PM            

And the other consideration is that whether or not the weapons of the "redneck army" can take on the power and organization of the state is irrelevant. No revolution is ever without casualties, sometimes horrendous, and though we arent there yet people only go into such confrontations when they feel their backs are against the wall. In Baltimore some people - the less thoughtful for the most part - already feel the wall at their backs and agents or not, showed their disrespect for the Structure they cannot fight in a meaningful way.

Maybe some of them were just grabbing an opportunity to help themselves to things they are denied by their status. Maybe they were provoked. The FACT is that Peaceful Protest was going on for days with no one tak ing a blind bit of notice until a bunch of "petty thugs" went into action.

Why?

posted May 05, 2015 07:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
This country's military will never fire on its own people--ever.

---

Oh, so you think they will always rely on the paramilitary forces for that?

quote:

---

But there's an even harsher truth, one some New Orleans residents learned in the very first days but which is only beginning to become clear to the rest of us: What took place in this devastated American city was no less than a war, in which victims whose only crimes were poverty and blackness were treated as enemies of the state.

It started immediately after the storm and flood hit, when civilian aid was scarce—but private security forces already had boots on the ground. Some, like Blackwater (which has since redubbed itself Xe), were under federal contract, while a host of others answered to wealthy residents and businessmen who had departed well before Katrina and needed help protecting their property from the suffering masses left behind. According Jeremy Scahill's reporting in The Nation, Blackwater set up an HQ in downtown New Orleans. Armed as they would be in Iraq, with automatic rifles, guns strapped to legs, and pockets overflowing with ammo, Blackwater contractors drove around in SUVs and unmarked cars with no license plates.

"When asked what authority they were operating under,'' Scahill reported, "one guy said, 'We're on contract with the Department of Homeland Security.' Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, 'He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary.' The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck.''

---

quote:

---

In July, the local television station WDSU released a home video, taken shortly after the storm hit, of a local man, Paul Gleason, who bragged to two police officers about shooting looters in the Algiers section of New Orleans.

"Did you have any problems with looters," [sic] asked an officer.

"Not anymore," said Gleason.

"Not anymore?"

"They're all dead," said Gleason.

The officer asked, "What happened?"

"We shot them," said Gleason.

"How many did you shoot?

"Thirty-eight."

"Thirty-eight people? What did you do with the bodies?"

"We gave them to the Coast Guard," said Gleason.

---