You have a really low bar for freedom if the destruction of property is all it takes for you to start justifying unmarked federal agents grabbing people off the street. Further the leadership in these states already have sufficient resources available to handle these protests if they decide it's gotten out of hand. People not from these neighborhoods are proclaiming these protests out of hand summarily.
The people protesting have been exceeding clear about what they are arguing for precisely. Holding police accountable is not some fringe political opinion and in fact the right, according to its own professed beliefs, should be natural allies in this movement. The further this continues the more evidence we have that these concerns about police in the United States acting with impunity are legitimate.
What is clear however, is that a significant portion of the people who have claimed themselves champions of freedom and states' rights always held the caveat that it be in the service of a particular group of people. It is interesting how people who in every other circumstance hold individual liberty as central to their beliefs now place law and order at the center of their arguments at the expense of individual liberty. Where in the Constitution are our rights subject to conditions on behavior? Fucking nowhere. The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government so why then would "not destroying statues" in any way be considered some kind of pre-requisite for legitimite protest?
> The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government
No, it grants them the right to keep and bear arms, it does not grant them the right to use them against the federal or state government, and in fact the Constitution specifically empowers the federal government to act against any who would do so.
Now, the Declaration of Independence appeals to a separate and independent of any human law right to rebel uncertain conditions, but the Second Amendment does not.
The first action of federal troops after the Revolutionary War ended was to suppress a regional rebellion of people who refused to pay their taxes. c.f. "The Whiskey Rebellion.". The US Constitution does not grant right to take up arms against the government, city state or federal. It may be the moral thing to do at some point, but the US Constitution doesn't make it legal.
> The Constitution was written by people that were willing to do exactly what you discuss.
It is at least as true to say that the Constitution was written by people who didn't view that as something that was or should be a legal right, and who were willing to violently repress others who tried to do it, both before and after their own Revolution.
>The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government
Who believes this? Some people believe in a separate and pre-existing right to rebel, and some may not, at least legally, but I'm not aware that anyone believes the 2nd amendment grants the right. People commonly claim that the motivation for the 2nd amendment is to make rebellion possible, but that's not the same thing as granting the right.
Complete and utter nonsense. People absolutely should be arrested for arson. It doesn’t make it any less legitimate when you use scare words like “unmarked” and “abduction”. It doesn’t make their rioting any more legitimate when you call it protesting. There isn’t even anything to protest. Anarchists, who are overrepresented in Portland for some reason, enjoy destroying society and we should not tolerate it. There can be no liberty with anarchy.
CHAZ was subject to several murders already, so it's not merely "destruction of property" here.
I presume they changed the name to CHOP because someone told them that creating an "autonomous zone" sounded a lot like insurrection, which is also the kind of thing that feds normally involve themselves with, but it's not like the feds need that as an excuse given that they already have plenty of authority to enforce the law whether or not Portland wishes to do so.
> Where in the Constitution are our rights subject to conditions on behavior?
In the 13th amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
And I'm on the other side of that. Why are you focusing on the protestors acting out angrily and violently but not focusing on the abundant evidence showing police doing the same?
What was the root cause of the protests? Have the people responsible for those root causes attempted to alleviate the root cause, or attempted to heap on more of the same?
Also: those are still Americans you're talking about, whether or not you agree with them. The whole point of our government is that those in power should be held to a higher standard, so the "so be it" argument is pretty stupid. Why don't the people in power do better? And for all this heat being thrown at the local politicians, aren't they the ones with their finger most on the pulse of their constituencies? Have you considered the protestors aren't behaving as badly as they're made out to be? Logic like yours makes me sick. You probably would have been OK with crucifying Jesus... "He should have followed the law!"
Sorry, no. Regardless of whether "something" needs to be done, that something cannot be "abduction by mute unmarked federal agents". I'm amazed that you accept and apparently condone this end-justifies-the-means thinking! The USG has its entire legal and military force at its disposal, and it has to resort to extrajudicial violence? This is abominable and inexcusable behavior.
Sorry, no. Anarchists trying to burn down our communities get arrested and go to jail. That’s the social contract. No extrajudicial violence. Rioting is abominable and inexcusable behavior. I’m amazed you’re surprised by this.
I live in Seattle and I don't see anyone trying to burn down our communities. Someone threw a candle at a cop. That's not a riot and you're being fed crap by whatever media you're watching.
Do you live here in Seattle, Larry? Some smashed windows and graffiti are not "trying to burn down the community". 12 officers got some bruises on their knuckles as they punched someone, and the media runs with it. Meanwhile hundreds of people have been beaten or gassed or hit with "non-lethal" weapons over the past few weeks. KOMO news won't spend time reporting on that because it doesn't fit their narrative.
I empathize, but you've been misled about the nature and extent of size of the protests. It so happens that I live two blocks away from where the feds were arresting people two nights ago. If the police were overwhelmed or were overlooking serious crime, I'd be right there with you.
How exactly do you know that only violent rioters are being forcibly taken?
And my comment was not about who they're targeting first, but about how that kind of logic is a slippery slope.
The reality is that most people lack empathy for those they do not know, and only become engaged when it affects them personally. It’s good to keep that in mind when taking dangerous stances like the above.
On the contrary, we know definitively that people who are not violent rioters have been kidnapped this way. And people who just don't want to care will still ignore it, because it's easier for them to assume that everyone being arrested is Bad and just lying about it.
A part of the HN crowd seems to have a strong opinion about this, it seems. You’d think that educated and technical folk would mostly understand why arbitrary arrests by federal agents is never a good thing...
I see the come up all the time and I can think is, maybe the HN crowd isn't as special an intelligent as it thinks it is. I enjoy it here, but let's not get too full of ourselves.
I don't want federal agents abducting people but I want a strict law enforcement that allows peaceful assembly enmasse but fines/detains and prosecutes people that destroy property.
BLM is a scape goat. The real issue is that poor are struggling in portland to feed themselves and COVID has caused them to not be able to afford rent, food and shelter. This is a civil unrest, BLM is an excuse.
What we should do is support these people financially, provide them shelter, get them gov jobs, and keep societal order.
At this rate, cities are getting destroyed and we are just on the sidelines debating about BLM/police.
I disagree with just about every claim you've made
a) the protests have gone beyond the realm of free speech
b) people who are violently angry cannot also be trying to enact change
c) something needs to be done
d) local politicians are abdicating their duty
d) if something needs to be done then anything is acceptable, including whatever unconstitutional fascism the admin wants to come up with
I will give you that China is still a lot worse. But that's like praising someone for not being Ted Bundy.
