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

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Bullshit. They didn't file an intent to protest at her house, they waited until the chief was not at home, then they blocked all exits stopping people from evacuating. That's the act of thugs. But you keep dodging my question. Do you support prolife protestors bullying prolife people at their personal residences? Don't worry, I'll keep asking the question!

 

[Arctish]

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.

Bullshit. They didn't file an intent to protest at her house, they waited until the chief was not at home, then they blocked all exits stopping people from evacuating. That's the act of thugs.

Hang on.

The OP implied it was the neighbors who blocked the road: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article I linked to also said it was the neighbors who blocked the road.

Are you calling the neighbors thugs? Or are you claiming the protesters blocked the roads and laid siege to the neighborhood?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bullshit. They didn't file an intent to protest at her house, they waited until the chief was not at home, then they blocked all exits stopping people from evacuating. That's the act of thugs.

Hang on.

The OP implied it was the neighbors who blocked the road: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article I linked to also said it was the neighbors who blocked the road.

Are you calling the neighbors thugs? Or are you claiming the protesters blocked the roads and laid siege to the neighborhood?

It appears that you are right. Maybe they simply didn't want any more bullies to come into their neighborhood. But it was the protestors who came announced, waiting until the captain was away. Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

 

[Arctish]

Bullshit. They didn't file an intent to protest at her house, they waited until the chief was not at home, then they blocked all exits stopping people from evacuating. That's the act of thugs.

Hang on.

The OP implied it was the neighbors who blocked the road: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article I linked to also said it was the neighbors who blocked the road.

Are you calling the neighbors thugs? Or are you claiming the protesters blocked the roads and laid siege to the neighborhood?

It appears that you are right. Maybe they simply didn't want any more bullies to come into their neighborhood. But it was the protestors who came announced, waiting until the captain was away. Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

I already said I'm with Loren in disliking protests at people's houses. I'd rather they protested at the Police Chief's office or City Hall. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their protesting to officially approved venues, especially when the thing they're protesting is something officials are doing.

We're talking about matters of life-and-death. That merits quite a bit more than holding signs and singing 'I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke" in a designated Free Speech Zone.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

It's called inflammatory hyperbole.

 

[ruby sparks]

It appears that you are right. Maybe they simply didn't want any more bullies to come into their neighborhood. But it was the protestors who came announced, waiting until the captain was away. Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

I already said I'm with Loren in disliking protests at people's houses. I'd rather they protested at the Police Chief's office or City Hall. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their protesting to officially approved venues, especially when the thing they're protesting is something officials are doing.

So you're willing, in the end, to partly excuse certain tactics, but only when you sympathise with the cause in question. That's what I'm hearing from a few posters.

I largely agree with Harry. This is not to be applauded, it is to be regretted. And I don't think it helps the BLM cause either. In fact, if I were part of a bunch of white people trying to discredit BLM this is the sort of thing I might agree to take part in. That is not a suggestion that those taking part were trying to do that, obviously.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

Nobody seems keen to answer this.

 

[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.

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}

Are they public officials who will send goon squads to my house if they want to talk to me? If not, then that is a different situation, and I am not in favor of it.

The recent protest here in St. Louis where the rich white couple brandished weapons at protestors walking in front of their house gets a lot of attention because of those idiots menacing the protestors. The interesting thing about that, which pertains to this conversation, is that the protestors were actually on their way to protest at Mayor Lyda Krewson's house. An act I would assume that you would not be in favor of, given your posts in this thread.

You might, however, be interested in why they were going to Mayor Krewson's house to protest. They were doing so because she read the names and addresses of protestors in an on-air briefing. Would you support those protestors, given the reason why they were engaging in that protest?

 

[Arctish]

It appears that you are right. Maybe they simply didn't want any more bullies to come into their neighborhood. But it was the protestors who came announced, waiting until the captain was away. Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

I already said I'm with Loren in disliking protests at people's houses. I'd rather they protested at the Police Chief's office or City Hall. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their protesting to officially approved venues, especially when the thing they're protesting is something officials are doing.

So you're pretty much ok with certain tactics, but only when you sympathise with the cause in question. That's what I'm hearing, and not just from you.

It's not that simple.

Sure, it's easier to sympathize with protesters when you agree with their cause. But it's pretty easy to understand the progression from petition, to polite protest, to impolite protest, to civil disobedience, to riot, regardless of how one feels about a cause.

I would be dismayed to see people marching in the streets demanding something that I thought would be harmful to people and society. But I wouldn't be surprised if, after weeks of demonstrations and marches and petitions being ignored by officials, some of the protesters took to marching in front of homes or businesses. It's the next logical step in the effort to get attention.

I largely agree with Harry. This is not to be applauded, it is to be regretted. And I don't think it helps the BLM cause either. In fact, if I were part of a bunch of white people trying to discredit BLM this is the sort of thing I might agree to take part in. That is not a suggestion that those taking part were trying to do that, obviously

It's always regrettable when disagreements become conflicts. And I dislike the idea of protests happening at people's homes. I would much rather they were in front of City Hall or the appropriate workplace. But I'm not going to pretend I'm surprised that protesters showed up at a mayor's house, or chief of police's address, or a city official's business, if/when those officials refused to meet with any of the hundreds of protesting citizens during office hours.

Part of the job of being a city official is managing issues so that disagreements don't become open strife. That doesn't change with the identity of the citizens or the nature of their concerns. Ignoring protesters, especially when there are hundreds of them united behind a single cause, isn't a winning strategy. It just incentivizes the protesters to become harder to ignore.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not that simple.

Obviously, it's not simple.

Sure, it's easier to sympathize with protesters when you agree with their cause.

Which to me is what seems to be informing the opinions of a few posters here, who I do not think would be saying what they are saying here (effectively expressing implicit partial support or excusing) in for example an alternative scenario such as the one that Harry asked about. It's the golden rule in a way. Don't do (or condone doing) to others what you would not want done (or condoned being done) to you. Not least because it could be you or yours next, and then you couldn't object so much.

 

[Arctish]

Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

Nobody seems keen to answer this.

I'll give it a go.

Should be allowed? Yes. It's part and parcel of the Rights of Free Speech and Assembly.

Should be praised? Not really. It's not the most extreme violation of the social contract but it's pretty offensive.

Should be condemned? If the protesters were unwilling to try other avenues of communication, then yes. If the protesters are upset that someone has a different opinion, then yes. But if the protesters are at the house because the official who lives there refused to meet with them and address their concerns, even though it's part of that official's job, then no. I would be more likely to condemn the official for not meeting with representatives of the protesters and giving them a fair hearing.

 

[zorq]

Roving mobs of conservative liars storm bulletin boards with fake news in attempts to prove how afraid they are of threats to their social hegemony.

Just another day at TFT.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you believe that these types of tactics (going after people's personal homes) should be allowed by pro-life protestors against pro-choice defenders?

Nobody seems keen to answer this.

I'll give it a go.

Should be allowed? Yes. It's part and parcel of the Rights of Free Speech and Assembly.

Should be praised? Not really. It's not the most extreme violation of the social contract but it's pretty offensive.

Sounds reasonable but debatable.

Should be condemned? If the protesters were unwilling to try other avenues of communication, then yes. If the protesters are upset that someone has a different opinion, then yes.

Here I have to wonder if you have any understanding at all of why people protest. If no one had a different opinion then there would be no protests at all. Protests are done by people that are royally pissed that others have different opinions so have policies the protesters want changed (currently BLM, antifa, and anti-abortionists).

But if the protesters are at the house because the official who lives there refused to meet with them and address their concerns, even though it's part of that official's job, then no. I would be more likely to condemn the official for not meeting with representatives of the protesters and giving them a fair hearing.

I know of no movement that have not had their complaints heard. Here by, "fair hearing", I have to assume that you mean that the protester's demands were accepted and met... Do you really understand how democracies work?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you really understand how democracies work?

The question is, do you?

"Democracy", at least in the American sense (as opposed to the sense that has been rejected through all history as an insanity) is not two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.

Protestors have grievances, and those grievances need to be considered and a solution of some sort needs to be innovated. Democracy in America is merely the mechanism of selecting which of various solutions seems most reasonable.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you really understand how democracies work?

The question is, do you?

"Democracy", at least in the American sense (as opposed to the sense that has been rejected through all history as an insanity) is not two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.

Protestors have grievances, and those grievances need to be considered and a solution of some sort needs to be innovated. Democracy in America is merely the mechanism of selecting which of various solutions seems most reasonable.

The protestors grievances have been considered. The "solution of sort" was that the anti-abortion protesters' demands of outlawing abortion infringed on the rights of other citizens (many more citizens object to the demands) and BLM's demands of elimination of police departments infringed on the obligation of governments to protect citizens (many more citizens demand police protection). Democracies do not implement the extreme demands of radical fringe groups just because they make a lot of noise.

 

[ZiprHead]

I really hate the idea of protesting at people's homes. But right-wingers have done this too. Hell, there was that abortion doctor that was shot and killed at his church.

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you really understand how democracies work?

The question is, do you?

"Democracy", at least in the American sense (as opposed to the sense that has been rejected through all history as an insanity) is not two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.

Protestors have grievances, and those grievances need to be considered and a solution of some sort needs to be innovated. Democracy in America is merely the mechanism of selecting which of various solutions seems most reasonable.

The protestors grievances have been considered.

So, that's it then? You only get one chance to protest, and once your grievance has been considered and rejected by someone you don't get to protest any more?

The "solution of sort" was that the anti-abortion protesters' demands of outlawing abortion infringed on the rights of other citizens (many more citizens object to the demands) and BLM's demands of elimination of police departments infringed on the obligation of governments to protect citizens (many more citizens demand police protection). Democracies do not implement the extreme demands of radical fringe groups just because they make a lot of noise.

Who gets to be the arbiter of which group is on the "radical fringe", so that we can know if they are allowed to protest or not?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I really hate the idea of protesting at people's homes. But right-wingers have done this too. Hell, there was that abortion doctor that was shot and killed at his church.

Agreed. I think that the anti-abortion protestors started this movement, now elements in BLM seem to be copying it. Dosn't make it right. I've done a lot of reading on this. It appears that courts have mostly upheld local laws protecting neighborhoods from protestors. As an aside, who the hell would ever want to be politician today?

 

[skepticalbip]

The protestors grievances have been considered.

So, that's it then? You only get one chance to protest, and once your grievance has been considered and rejected by someone you don't get to protest any more?

Surely you can't be that stupid... When has a failure to accept and implement the demands of protesters ever meant they have to stop protesting?

The "solution of sort" was that the anti-abortion protesters' demands of outlawing abortion infringed on the rights of other citizens (many more citizens object to the demands) and BLM's demands of elimination of police departments infringed on the obligation of governments to protect citizens (many more citizens demand police protection). Democracies do not implement the extreme demands of radical fringe groups just because they make a lot of noise.

Who gets to be the arbiter of which group is on the "radical fringe", so that we can know if they are allowed to protest or not?

Not who... mathematical statistics. If only a very small percentage of the population are promoting a movement then they are a fringe group - if they are demanding radical change then it is a radical fringe group. And then anyone is allowed to protest even if it is a lone nut demanding that the government outlaw poverty so that no one would ever have to work again.

 

[KeepTalking]

Surely you can't be that stupid... When has a failure to accept and implement the demands of protesters ever meant they have to stop protesting?

Your statement seemed to imply that, so I asked the question. No need to cast aspersions.

In that case, what value do you think your statement that "the protestors grievances have been considered" brings to the discussion? The grievances of protestors are often heard and rejected multiple times before change eventually results from protesting.

The "solution of sort" was that the anti-abortion protesters' demands of outlawing abortion infringed on the rights of other citizens (many more citizens object to the demands) and BLM's demands of elimination of police departments infringed on the obligation of governments to protect citizens (many more citizens demand police protection). Democracies do not implement the extreme demands of radical fringe groups just because they make a lot of noise.

Who gets to be the arbiter of which group is on the "radical fringe", so that we can know if they are allowed to protest or not?

Not who... mathematical statistics. If only a very small percentage of the population are promoting a movement then they are a fringe group -

Who gets to determine what constitutes a "very small percentage of the population"? Statistics can be, and often are, manipulated to suit the purposes of the person presenting them.

if they are demanding radical change then it is a radical fringe group. And then anyone is allowed to protest even if it is a lone nut demanding that the government outlaw poverty so that no one would ever have to work again.

The BLM protests have often been quite large, and there are many demands given the many voices, some of which are not at all radical. It seems to me then that BLM is not a radical fringe group going by your own definition, but I am glad that you feel they should be allowed to protest regardless.