Roving Mobs of White People Storm Black Woman's House in Act of Mob Violence

[Elixir]

I'm not inclined to spend time reading "Lynnwood Times", but -
My first thought is that if you are protesting what someone does in their job, then protest at their job site, not their home.
If you have a problem with whatever they are doing at home... maybe that's a different matter. But aren't you being a little overly nosy?

 

[Trausti]

I'm not inclined to spend time reading "Lynnwood Times", but -
My first thought is that if you are protesting what someone does in their job, then protest at their job site, not their home.
If you have a problem with whatever they are doing at home... maybe that's a different matter. But aren't you being a little overly nosy?

.

Right. Public and private life should be separate.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not inclined to spend time reading "Lynnwood Times", but -
My first thought is that if you are protesting what someone does in their job, then protest at their job site, not their home.
If you have a problem with whatever they are doing at home... maybe that's a different matter. But aren't you being a little overly nosy?

.

Right. Public and private life should be separate.

Unless you're hacking up people in your basement, right?

 

[Trausti]

I'm not inclined to spend time reading "Lynnwood Times", but -
My first thought is that if you are protesting what someone does in their job, then protest at their job site, not their home.
If you have a problem with whatever they are doing at home... maybe that's a different matter. But aren't you being a little overly nosy?

.

Right. Public and private life should be separate.

Unless you're hacking up people in your basement, right?

Touché.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't have much of a problem with it. It's a public official and a public street and it's not PROVABLY excessively going into private life. I'd be against it if it were PROVABLY excessively going too much into private life. Here are some other thoughts:

• Example of too much: 100 people spending 2 years, 8 hours a day, outside someone's home is an example and I am not claiming I would know the threshold of how often as that may depend on context, but a single instance of persons protesting outside the home of an individual who may or may not be responsible for something terrible, like the death of someone, is not in and of itself out of bounds. We have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest and nothing says it has to be done on the 4th tuesday of the month at the gazebo in the town center;
• The Act of going to a home may actually be a political expression itself in order to show what it is like for a home to be gone to by victims...like, say, Breonna Taylor...but this is nowhere near what happened to Breonna Taylor. I wouldn't do it because I am not a protestor but some people involve themselves in political expression of the protesting variety;
• I put PROVABLY in caps several times for a reason. A good 10%-15% of the US public literally HATES BLM and thinks they are terrorists, a good portion of the haters are willing to be political and follow a role model of Donald Trump and simply lie. I know. Because these people are on my facebook feed. They think it is okay to exaggerate because they are on the side of "good" and "BLM, Antifa, Communism, China, and anti-Americans" must be stopped at any cost. In a suburb where a police chief lives, you can expect some 40% or so people to be extreme Republicans, not mere moderates. So claims from neighbors/witnesses while they should be considered as possible, ought not be considered factual straight away.
• Consider this. Conservatives scream about how any white boy at a college raped someone, he is just a suspect and should not be tried in the court of opinion. But here we are yet again with conservatives claiming people are guilty without knowing both sides or determining through investigation what are the verified facts. Now, in this instance, there is no interview of anyone from BLM about the event. There's just what some neighbors said. It is up to good journalists to explore both sides of an issue.
• Lastly, come on people, really? White people storm a house? No one is going to call that out as a flat out lie? No house was stormed. This kind of goes to what I wrote earlier about conservatives being willing to lie about their political enemies. Here there is an example staring us all in the face. What motivates a person to claim a house was stormed but that actually wasn't?

Okay, now since I am a reasonable person, I am willing to be open-minded about BLM being the "bad guys." So show me the following:

• That conservatives making claims about BLM do not lie or exaggerate;
• For this specific instance, what does BLM say about it?
• More generally, show the official position of BLM is violence against humans.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not inclined to spend time reading "Lynnwood Times", but -
My first thought is that if you are protesting what someone does in their job, then protest at their job site, not their home.
If you have a problem with whatever they are doing at home... maybe that's a different matter. But aren't you being a little overly nosy?

.

Right. Public and private life should be separate.

Unless you're hacking up people in your basement, right?

I would go so far as to say, if people will not make themselves seriously available for discussing issues with their constituency, as they have a responsibility to do in their public life, they have automatically consented to have their responsibilities enforced through other means, such as following them through to their private life.

Further, we are talking about a party, and likely a person, who in their public life reaches into people's private lives himself. He has consented, through action, to symmetrical response.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ....
Okay, now since I am a reasonable person, I am willing to be open-minded about BLM being the "bad guys." So show me the following:
*That conservatives making claims about BLM do not lie or exaggerate;

Both left and right tell a lot of lies so there are quite likely a lot of lies about BLM.

*For this specific instance, what does BLM say about it?

Good question. What does BLM say? They seem awfully mum. It would seem that, since their name is being used, they would denounce such actions to protect their name if they are not involved.

*More generally, show the official position of BLM is violence against humans.

Official position? Dunno. But protestors marching under their name use chants like "What do we want?"- "Dead cops." "when do we want it?" - "NOW". Then there was that march in NYC under the BLM name chanting, "Kill whitey". Then, of course, there have been cops killed by people claiming to be with BLM - Has official BLM denied it was them and condemned the action? Maybe so but it didn't seem to make the news. Their PR people really need to do a better job protecting their name if they don't have anything to do with this stuff.

 

[repoman]

Replying to post #25

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Both left and right tell a lot of lies so there are quite likely a lot of lies about BLM.

Good question. What does BLM say? They seem awfully mum. It would seem that, since their name is being used, they would denounce such actions to protect their name if they are not involved.

*More generally, show the official position of BLM is violence against humans.

Official position? Dunno. But protestors marching under their name use chants like "What do we want?"- "Dead cops." "when do we want it?" - "NOW". Then there was that march in NYC under the BLM name chanting, "Kill whitey". Then, of course, there have been cops killed by people claiming to be with BLM - Has official BLM denied it was them and condemned the action? Maybe so but it didn't seem to make the news. Their PR people really need to do a better job protecting their name if they don't have anything to do with this stuff.

You for some reason are changing the subject.

This seems to have been Antifa, not BLM.

No one stormed a house.

There is no evidence anything illegal even took place.

Instead of continuing MORE spread of unreliable memes, why not tell Trausti to stop?

Why do you give Trausti special privileges?

 

[KeepTalking]

I guarantee that if the chief of police wants to talk to be about something he thinks I did wrong, he is going to send cops to my house. I don't see anything wrong with protesting at his house when you think he did something wrong. I don't see any evidence of violence, destruction of property, or intimidation.

I see people claiming that protestors took pictures of their houses and license plates. Is that what they were doing, or were they using cell phones and cameras to document the protest? Obviously when you are protesting in front of houses, the houses will be in the frame, when you are sitting in the street in front of cars (as was pictured in the article), the license plates are going to be in the frame.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guarantee that if the chief of police wants to talk to be about something he thinks I did wrong, he is going to send cops to my house. I don't see anything wrong with protesting at his house when you think he did something wrong. I don't see any evidence of violence, destruction of property, or intimidation.

I see people claiming that protestors took pictures of their houses and license plates. Is that what they were doing, or were they using cell phones and cameras to document the protest? Obviously when you are protesting in front of houses, the houses will be in the frame, when you are sitting in the street in front of cars (as was pictured in the article), the license plates are going to be in the frame.

Well, like I wrote there are two sides to each story. In this case, the newspaper is covering one side. If neighbors blocked off access to a public road, that is technically illegal. Specific persons doing the blocking could have been saying racist things, too, who knows. Antifa/whoever could have been taking their photos and asking their names as a way to record illegal behavior. We certainly won't know because not only do we not hear their side, but we also hear an exaggeration from the other side--mobs of white people storming a house...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where's the storming? Where's the mob violence?

I dislike protests at people's houses but I don't see what supports the title.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where's the storming? Where's the mob violence?

I dislike protests at people's houses but I don't see what supports the title.

What supports the title is the massive amount of spinning going on, much the same thing that holds a gyroscope steady on naught but the head of a pin.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I guarantee that if the chief of police wants to talk to be about something he thinks I did wrong, he is going to send cops to my house. I don't see anything wrong with protesting at his house when you think he did something wrong. I don't see any evidence of violence, destruction of property, or intimidation.

I see people claiming that protestors took pictures of their houses and license plates. Is that what they were doing, or were they using cell phones and cameras to document the protest? Obviously when you are protesting in front of houses, the houses will be in the frame, when you are sitting in the street in front of cars (as was pictured in the article), the license plates are going to be in the frame.

Would you also support pro-life protestors protesting at individual doctor/nurses/hospital staff personal residences? {I don't know if this happens or not, but I do not favor it}

 

[Harry Bosch]

Where's the storming? Where's the mob violence?

I dislike protests at people's houses but I don't see what supports the title.

What supports the title is the massive amount of spinning going on, much the same thing that holds a gyroscope steady on naught but the head of a pin.

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where's the storming? Where's the mob violence?

I dislike protests at people's houses but I don't see what supports the title.

What supports the title is the massive amount of spinning going on, much the same thing that holds a gyroscope steady on naught but the head of a pin.

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

Well, if you give an ear to the angry people without forcing them to follow you home to get it, these things don't happen.

This woman is a police chief, and her actions directly impact communities of color in Seattle. Her actions and advocacy of the status quo, her resistance to reform and growth, are absolutely a sore spot.

I mean heck, I'm sure LOTS of shitty people through history have had kids, and I'm sure it really fucked with those kids when their parents were confronted about their shittiness. Maybe rather than blaming people for exercising free speech in a way that actually drives home, you could blame a shitty police chief who has exacerbated issues and racial tensions through her department's actions and enforcement policies.

To that end I'm sure it fucked with my neighbor's kids when I pointed out how they were complete assholes for parking in the bus lane, even "temporarily" (while they were parked there, a bus actually pulled up and was obstructed by their vehicle). But sometimes having your kids see someone chastise you is the reason you get better.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

Well, if you give an ear to the angry people without forcing them to follow you home to get it, these things don't happen.

This woman is a police chief, and her actions directly impact communities of color in Seattle. Her actions and advocacy of the status quo, her resistance to reform and growth, are absolutely a sore spot.

I mean heck, I'm sure LOTS of shitty people through history have had kids, and I'm sure it really fucked with those kids when their parents were confronted about their shittiness. Maybe rather than blaming people for exercising free speech in a way that actually drives home, you could blame a shitty police chief who has exacerbated issues and racial tensions through her department's actions and enforcement policies.

I'd bet that there would be a much different reaction if a bunch of black protestors or Indian protestors marched to the house of a white family with white children. It's a double standard. Regardless. Would you also support pro-life protestors protesting at individual doctor/nurses/hospital staff at their personal residences?

 

[Arctish]

Where's the storming? Where's the mob violence?

I dislike protests at people's houses but I don't see what supports the title.

What supports the title is the massive amount of spinning going on, much the same thing that holds a gyroscope steady on naught but the head of a pin.

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

It wasn't storming, or roving, or a mob, or an act of violence. It was an attempted organized protest at the private residence of a public official. I'm with Loren in disliking protests at people's houses. But the headline and spin on this story are bullshit, possibly dangerous bullshit. Did you see this in the article I linked to:



"Hunkered" inside with a gun at hand, didn't think s/he would be sleeping that night, and had to be told by the police to only shoot protesters if they actually came inside the house? Talk about a threat of imminent violence!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

Well, if you give an ear to the angry people without forcing them to follow you home to get it, these things don't happen.

This woman is a police chief, and her actions directly impact communities of color in Seattle. Her actions and advocacy of the status quo, her resistance to reform and growth, are absolutely a sore spot.

I mean heck, I'm sure LOTS of shitty people through history have had kids, and I'm sure it really fucked with those kids when their parents were confronted about their shittiness. Maybe rather than blaming people for exercising free speech in a way that actually drives home, you could blame a shitty police chief who has exacerbated issues and racial tensions through her department's actions and enforcement policies.

To that end I'm sure it fucked with my neighbor's kids when I pointed out how they were complete assholes for parking in the bus lane, even "temporarily" (while they were parked there, a bus actually pulled up and was obstructed by their vehicle). But sometimes having your kids see someone chastise you is the reason you get better.

Secondly, judging by her bio, she seems like a very good chief:

https://www.thestranger.com/news/2018/08/01/29986805/meet-seattles-new-police-chief-carmen-best

I see nothing about her that is "shitty". If if she were "shitty", I do not think it's fine to terrorize her kids in order to "make her get better". Your words. That is the action of a bully.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, it wasn't storming. But I can understand why many of the neighbors were very concerned. I've got kids in my house. If I saw an angry crowd of white people walking down the street I'd be very concerned also. I don't like bullies.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...activists-dispute-claims-of-illegal-behavior/

Apparently the chief had young children in her house.

Well, if you give an ear to the angry people without forcing them to follow you home to get it, these things don't happen.

This woman is a police chief, and her actions directly impact communities of color in Seattle. Her actions and advocacy of the status quo, her resistance to reform and growth, are absolutely a sore spot.

I mean heck, I'm sure LOTS of shitty people through history have had kids, and I'm sure it really fucked with those kids when their parents were confronted about their shittiness. Maybe rather than blaming people for exercising free speech in a way that actually drives home, you could blame a shitty police chief who has exacerbated issues and racial tensions through her department's actions and enforcement policies.

To that end I'm sure it fucked with my neighbor's kids when I pointed out how they were complete assholes for parking in the bus lane, even "temporarily" (while they were parked there, a bus actually pulled up and was obstructed by their vehicle). But sometimes having your kids see someone chastise you is the reason you get better.

Secondly, judging by her bio, she seems like a very good chief:

https://www.thestranger.com/news/2018/08/01/29986805/meet-seattles-new-police-chief-carmen-best

I see nothing about her that is "shitty". If if she were "shitty", I do not think it's fine to terrorize her kids in order to "make her get better". Your words. That is the action of a bully.

I read your article, finding little of substance beyond "she's black, from Seattle, and supports body cameras".

And it isn't 'terrorizing her kids'. It's her hiding behind her kids because she is not brave enough to discuss these issues in an open forum.