Police keep killing black people

[StrangeSox]

People in King's peacefully and legal protests often had bricks, rocks, and other objects hurled at them. Other times it was the police beating and arresting peaceful protesters. Civil rights activists were murdered and their killers faced no justice.

 

Just look at the article you linked:

 

When businesses refused to change their policies, protesters held sit-ins and marches, with the aim of getting arrested. King encouraged these nonviolent tactics so that the city’s jails would overflow. Police used high-pressure water hoses and dogs to control protesters, some of whom were children. By the end of the campaign, many segregation signs at Birmingham businesses came down, and public places became more open to all races.

 

They deliberately broke the law! That was the whole point of many of King's direct actions!

 

Note that I'm not advocating for or justifying violence here. I'm saying that you manage to find something wrong with every form of protest and think protesters should just stay out of the way, not do anything illegal (as King and his group often did, let alone the wider CR movement), not inconvenience or offend anyone. Don't hide by King when you're doing that because he sure as heck didn't stand for what you're claiming he did.

Edited September 22, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Chicago White Sox]

1) the civil rights movement was larger than just King

2) please educate yourself on what King actually did. he certainly did not take a view that protest shouldn't bother or inconvenience anyone. they were also often illegal. he even ended up in jail and wrote a famous letter admonishing the people who were tut-tutting him for his actions just as you're doing to protesters today!

 

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/L...Birmingham.html

He also didn't advocate looting and violence.

[StrangeSox]

Cool, neither is anyone else in this thread. greg finds a way to complain about plenty of nonviolent protests as well and has demanded that they be 100% legal and not inconvenience anyone. He's free to think that, but he can't hide behind King's legacy because that sure isn't what he stood for.

[Balta1701]

I'm not doing a history lesson on Dr. King who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for his "nonviolent resistance to racial prejudice in America."

 

How bout this ONE article for research purposes though.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/martin-luther-ki...vil-rights.html

 

p.s. What in the hell good are unlawful protests in which people are put in harm's way?? Do you want one of your loved ones to get arrested on a serious felony charge of rioting (life ruined BTW; it's over, might as well either reserve a spot on the food stamp lists) or worse yet, DIE in a disruptive protest? Or get brain damage from a bottle hitting your loved one in the head; or have your loved one not be able to get to the hospital because of hooligans in the streets blocking the way?? That's more than simply"inconveniencing people" as you put it.

 

Dr. King pleaded for PEACE. Peaceful demonstrations! None of this nonsense was in his protest vocabulary.

 

 

He also didn't advocate looting and violence.

JFC. You really haven't read any of his actual writings or speeches have you. You guys are the people this is written about. I encourage you to read the rest.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

 

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

 

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

 

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

 

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

 

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

 

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

 

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "n*****," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

 

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

 

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

 

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

 

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

 

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

 

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

 

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[StrangeSox]

King also spoke on rioting in The Other America

http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/

 

Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

 

Now every year about this time, our newspapers and our televisions and people generally start talking about the long hot summer ahead. What always bothers me is that the long hot summer has always been preceded by a long cold winter. And the great problem is that the nation has not used its winters creatively enough to develop the program, to develop the kind of massive acts of concern that will bring about a solution to the problem. And so we must still face the fact that our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nations winters of delay. As long as justice is postponed we always stand on the verge of these darker nights of social disruption. The question now, is whether America is prepared to do something massively, affirmatively and forthrightly about the great problem we face in the area of race and the problem which can bring the curtain of doom down on American civilization if it is not solved. And I would like to talk for the next few minutes about some of the things that must be done if we are to solve this problem.

 

The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country. Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth. And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is. It is the nymph of an inferior people. It is the notion that one group has all of the knowledge, all of the insights, all of the purity, all of the work, all of the dignity. And another group is worthless, on a lower level of humanity, inferior. To put it in philosophical language, racism is not based on some empirical generalization which, after some studies, would come to conclusion that these people are behind because of environmental conditions. Racism is based on an ontological affirmation. It is the notion that the very being of a people is inferior. And their ultimate logic of racism is genocide. Hitler was a very sick man. He was one of the great tragedies of history. But he was very honest. He took his racism to its logical conclusion. The minute his racism caused him to sickly feel and go about saying that there was something innately inferior about the Jew he ended up killing six million Jews. The ultimate logic of racism is genocide, and if one says that one is not good enough to have a job that is a solid quality job, if one is not good enough to have access to public accommodations, if one is not good enough to have the right to vote, if one is not good enough to live next door to him, if one is not good enough to marry his daughter because of his race. Then at that moment that person is saying that that person who is not good to do all of this is not fit to exist or to live. And that is the ultimate logic of racism. And we've got to see that this still exists in American society. And until it is removed, there will be people walking the streets of live and living in their humble dwellings feeling that they are nobody, feeling that they have no dignity and feeling that they are not respected. The first thing that must be on the agenda of our nation is to get rid of racism.

 

Secondly, we've got to get rid of two or three myths that still pervade our nation. One is the myth of time. I'm sure you've heard this notion. It is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. And I've heard it from many sincere people. They've said to the negro and/to his allies in the white community you should slow up, you're pushing things too fast, only time can solve the problem. And if you'll just be nice and patient and continue to pray, in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out. There is an answer to that myth. It is the time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm sad to say to you tonight I'm absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the forces on the wrong side in our nation, the extreme righteous of our nation have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will and it may well be that we may have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people who will say bad things in a meeting like this or who will bomb a church in Birmingham, Alabama, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time. Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability, it comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must always help time and realize that the time is always right to do right.

 

 

 

As for the Nobel prize he won, it might be worth considering that Nelson Mandela, who most definitely engaged in (justified, imo) political violence, also won one and is internationally acclaimed. On some level, everyone but the 100% committed pacifist supports political violence.

[greg775]

You definitely have your priorities straight. An entire community of brown and black folks are upset at how they are being treated with so many high-profile cases of their people being murdered for no reason. But let's make sure a bunch of guys playing a kids' sport can happily ignore all of that for the greater good of entertainment.

I'm talking about sports. How many athletes have protested? I think my position is held by many athletes here. How many have been protesting during the anthem? I'm not worked up negatively about any athlete who disrespects the anthem. It's his/her right of course. I'm saying it's not the best tactic for a player in a team sport. If it was a positive tactic more would be doing it. Cmon. 8 of every 10 people I meet despise Trump and what he stands for. And most despise the police and their unnecessary horrific killings of innocent people they stopped. But this is sports. How much do you hear cliche wise from coaches and players about the team? It's not smart for one guy to take all the attention by protesting like that.

 

Don't hide by King when you're doing that because he sure as heck didn't stand for what you're claiming he did.

OMG. Hide by King? I've done college and high school papers on him. He is one of my heroes. I need to shut up because Dr. King was a peaceful man, a Nobel Prize winner whom I respect no matter what you say that I hide behind him.

 

He also didn't advocate looting and violence.

Yes sir he did not! That's what I'm talking about today: looting, violence, breaking windows, disrupting traffic where people will die if they can't get to the hospital. Dr. King wanted NONE of that folks. Kudos to the Nobel voters for recognizing his efforts toward peace.

 

Cool, neither is anyone else in this thread. greg finds a way to complain about plenty of nonviolent protests as well and has demanded that they be 100% legal and not inconvenience anyone. He's free to think that, but he can't hide behind King's legacy because that sure isn't what he stood for.

It's not too much to demand a protest to be legal. Legal protests are effective as I indicated in that article I posted. Not one or two but 8 examples of King's legal protests. I'll stop now. If you think I am scum I can't do anything to change your opinion. I'm done discussing St. Louis and won't comment again until the next unfortunate incident and resulting protests. Maybe there won't be any more. We can hope the cops start behaving the right way in ALL instances.

All I want is peace for all no matter if u believe it or not.

Edited September 22, 2017 by greg775

[illinilaw08]

It's not too much to demand a protest to be legal. Legal protests are effective as I indicated in that article I posted. Not one or two but 8 examples of King's legal protests. I'll stop now. If you think I am scum I can't do anything to change your opinion.

All I want is peace for all no matter if u believe it or not.

 

Greg, you are selectively ignoring what SS said. A number of protests led by King WERE illegal. Non-violent (at least on King's part), yes. Legal, no. If you are asking that protests only be legal, then you are implicitly condemning a number of the protests led by King.

 

If you are asking that protests not put protesters or others in harms way, you are also ignoring the number of peaceful protesters who were attacked during King's civil rights protests.

 

[Balta1701]

All I want is peace for all no matter if u believe it or not.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of the text since you didn't read it and there's 5 paragraphs by Dr. King disagreeing with what you just said word for word. READ HIS WORDS. RIGHT HERE. READ THIS. HE ADDRESSES YOU DIRECTLY. IT COULD START WITH THE WORD "GREG".

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[StrangeSox]

And that violence was deliberately provoked by King and other CR organizers. They wanted to be attacked. They wanted to show the sort of violence that enforcing segregation and oppression actually meant even if they themselves remained nonviolent. They knowingly put themselves in harm's way time and time again, and hand-wringing about "what if someone gets hurt?!" really misses how the movement was organized and why they were able to be effective. It minimizes their sacrifices.

Edited September 22, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Chicago White Sox]

I'm not even bothering with the rest of the text since you didn't read it and there's 5 paragraphs by Dr. King disagreeing with what you just said word for word. READ HIS WORDS. RIGHT HERE. READ THIS. HE ADDRESSES YOU DIRECTLY. IT COULD START WITH THE WORD "GREG".

Maybe I'm missing something here, but where does he say to loot and conduct violent actions in there?

 

 

[Kyyle23]

I'm talking about sports. How many athletes have protested? I think my position is held by many athletes here. How many have been protesting during the anthem? I'm not worked up negatively about any athlete who disrespects the anthem. It's his/her right of course. I'm saying it's not the best tactic for a player in a team sport. If it was a positive tactic more would be doing it. Cmon. 8 of every 10 people I meet despise Trump and what he stands for. And most despise the police and their unnecessary horrific killings of innocent people they stopped. But this is sports. How much do you hear cliche wise from coaches and players about the team? It's not smart for one guy to take all the attention by protesting like that.

 

 

OMG. Hide by King? I've done college and high school papers on him. He is one of my heroes. I need to shut up because Dr. King was a peaceful man, a Nobel Prize winner whom I respect no matter what you say that I hide behind him.

 

 

Yes sir he did not! That's what I'm talking about today: looting, violence, breaking windows, disrupting traffic where people will die if they can't get to the hospital. Dr. King wanted NONE of that folks. Kudos to the Nobel voters for recognizing his efforts toward peace.

 

 

It's not too much to demand a protest to be legal. Legal protests are effective as I indicated in that article I posted. Not one or two but 8 examples of King's legal protests. I'll stop now. If you think I am scum I can't do anything to change your opinion. I'm done discussing St. Louis and won't comment again until the next unfortunate incident and resulting protests. Maybe there won't be any more. We can hope the cops start behaving the right way in ALL instances.

All I want is peace for all no matter if u believe it or not.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm talking about sports. How many athletes have protested?

 

Here are a few

[illinilaw08]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but where does he say to loot and conduct violent actions in there?

 

Dude. No one is saying that King said to loot or conduct violent actions. And no one is condoning that in this thread - at least not that I have seen.

 

Greg is saying that King would not have protested illegally. In that, he includes protests in malls, protests that inconvenience anyone, etc. King's protests led to a lot of the protesters being beaten by police and arrested. They committed illegal acts. They also did those acts peacefully. King might condemn looting, but he also would have been very in favor of civil disobedience.

[Chicago White Sox]

Dude. No one is saying that King said to loot or conduct violent actions. And no one is condoning that in this thread - at least not that I have seen.

 

Greg is saying that King would not have protested illegally. In that, he includes protests in malls, protests that inconvenience anyone, etc. King's protests led to a lot of the protesters being beaten by police and arrested. They committed illegal acts. They also did those acts peacefully. King might condemn looting, but he also would have been very in favor of civil disobedience.

Well Balta's post clearly says otherwise. And no offense, there are definitely multiple posters here condoning that type of behavior indirectly. I've seen multiple comments like "well if your people were being gunned down unjustly" as some sort of justification for violent & illegal behavior. Civil disobedience is very much different from the type of behavior we have seen in most of the more recent high profile protests. Unfortunately in this country people tend to give others who fall on the same side of the political spectrum or share a particular belief a free pass for their immoral actions if it's in support of that idea or identity. I'm a liberal and I am sickened by the frequent police injustices against minorities in this country, but under no circumstance is looting & violence an acceptable response. This has nothing to do with Greg, but solely with some of the rhetoric the hard core liberals on this board are spewing.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Chicago White Sox

[Soxbadger]

Well Balta's post clearly says otherwise. And no offense, there are definitely multiple posters here condoning that type of behavior indirectly. I've seen multiple comments like "well if your people were being gunned down unjustly" as some sort of justification for violent & illegal behavior. Civil disobedience is very much different from the type of behavior we have seen in most of the more recent high profile protests. Unfortunately in this country people tend to give others who fall on the same side of the political spectrum or share a particular belief a free pass for their immoral actions if it's in support of that idea or identity. I'm a liberal and I am sickened by the frequent police injustices against minorities in this country, but under no circumstance is looting & violence an acceptable response. This has nothing to do with Greg, but solely with some of the rhetoric the hard core liberals on this board are spewing.

 

 

I think its the phrasing of your statement. I think you mean "violent illegal behavior" because things like Rosa parks not moving to the back of the bus, etc were "illegal." But one of the main arguments of civil disobedience is that if the law is unjust than breaking it is not "illegal."

 

As for whether violence is an acceptable response, that really is for history to judge. If a group of people violently rose up against Hitler would we consider them criminals? Was the Boston Tea Party "criminal" or "revolutionary."

 

There is no good answer because much of life is dependent on what side of the fence you sit.

[Balta1701]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but where does he say to loot and conduct violent actions in there?

Greg said that all he wants is Peace.

 

Dr. King literally says that the White Moderate who just wants peace is the greatest obstacle to justice. He basically calls out exactly what Greg said to the letter. The White Moderate fails to recognize that it is not the ones protesting who are creating the tension, they are exposing tensions that have been hidden from view and that exposing and rectifying these ills is the only way to bring justice. Furthermore, he then writes that if the White Moderate does not actively help seek justice, and turns their backs in favor of Peace (as Greg demands) the end result will be far greater violence.

And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

 

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.

 

 

....

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty n*****-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

He finishes the letter talking about how the Church had failed to stand up to support justice and that had left him truly disappointed in the white church.

[greg775]

Man there's a lot of anger in St. Louis. Did you see the protestors headed to the mall again today. Cops again did their thing, at the first sign of violence they go ballistic. Some people were tossing trash cans and the cops arrested 22 at that point when people wouldn't disperse. Included was a 13 year old kid and his granny. Kid was released with no charges; granny charged. Cops said the 22 would get serious charges.

Then the protestors headed to a ritzy hotel to continue protest after kicked out of the mall.

Man, eight days and counting of protests in St. Louis. Very wild. Again, the cops do nothing until the sound of breaking glass or any disruptive behavior at all. Then they let loose.

[StrangeSox]

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-a...0e1bd9ebee.html

 

On Friday, Mayor Lyda Krewson asked the director of public safety to investigate how an undercover officer became bloodied during his arrest Sunday when he was mistaken for a suspect believed to be carrying chemicals that could be sprayed on officers.

 

“The allegations are disturbing,” Krewson’s spokesman Koran Addo wrote in a statement.

 

City Counselor Julian Bush on Wednesday also called the allegations disturbing.

 

The incident began when two uniformed officers near the protest ordered the man to show his hands, sources said. When he refused, they knocked him down and hit him at least three times and zip tied his hands behind his back. When he stood up, his mouth was bloodied, the sources said.

 

 

Lt. Alex Nelson, 27, who works in cyberoperations at Scott Air Force Base, was walking around his neighborhood with his wife when they became trapped between quickly closing police lines. He said he was kicked in the face, blinded by pepper spray and dragged away.

 

“It’s our street,” he said. “I hear the police say it was their street, but it’s literally my street. I have coffee on that street, and I own property on that street. We were not active protesters. We were looking into the neighborhood to observe events that were unfolding.

 

“I’m very sad how they treated me and my wife through the escalation of violence they used on me. It was incredibly unnecessary. I’ve had training on how to arrest and be arrested, and I capitulated to every demand that was made of me, even before I was on the ground. We were told to move back, and we moved back. We were told to move this way, we moved this way. We obeyed every command that we heard. We were never given an order to disperse. Not once.”

 

He said while waiting to be loaded into a police vehicle, he said he was an officer in the military. He said the police officer replied, “Shut up. Stop. I don’t care.”

 

One of the most-repeated complaints of those swept up in the mass arrest was that they had nowhere to go. William Waldron, 38, who was in town from New York to build the stage for the U2 concert, which was canceled, said he was leaving a bar on Tucker Boulevard and had no idea police had given any order to disperse. He said he tried to get back into the bar but was shoved back by a police shield.

 

“They threw me on the ground and told me I was being arrested,” he said. “The guys inside were trying to come out and tell them I was a part of their crew, and police told them if they opened up the door they were going to arrest them.”

 

“I turned my camera off and asked if there was anywhere I could go, but I was denied the right to leave,” he said. “I didn’t want to be a part of this.”

 

Officers ordered him to turn his camera off and get down on the ground, and he complied.

 

“The only thing I cared about then was putting my arms around my wife,” he said. “I just, I just kept saying: ‘It’s going to be OK.’”

 

Burbridge said officers then grabbed him by both his arms and dragged him away.

 

“I just said: ‘I am a member of the media, I am not protesting, I am not resisting,’” Burbridge said.

 

An officer sprayed his face with a chemical, his head was forced into the ground and an officer ripped his camera from his neck.

 

Burbridge claims his hands were then bound by zip ties before two officers started kicking him in the back, neck, arm and legs while he lay restrained on the ground. He said he was knocked unconscious on the pavement for about 10 to 30 seconds.

 

After he came to, Burbridge said an officer lifted his head by his hair and pepper sprayed him in the face again.

 

 

 

[greg775]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-a...0e1bd9ebee.html

The St. Louis police have definitely been aggressive (some might say out of control) any time the protests have become violent at all. If they hear glass breaking, look out, they attack. Yesterday at the mall some folks started throwing garbage cans and all hell broke loose. Say what you want but they are kicking ass when ANY violence begins.

Of course I am against them attacking innocent bystanders. I hope those people sue the police department and I hope they win. It's pretty unfortunate (could happen to any of us) that u get maced and beat and arrested when you are merely in the neighborhood you live in headed to the coffee shop. Problem is like I said when the destruction of protestors begins, they announce that it's time to leave, and if people don't immediately leave ... there's some head knocking going on. They even arrested (later released with no charges) a 13 year old and his granny (charges stuck on her I think).

Edited September 24, 2017 by greg775

[Leonard Zelig]

The St. Louis police have definitely been aggressive (some might say out of control) any time the protests have become violent at all. If they hear glass breaking, look out, they attack. Yesterday at the mall some folks started throwing garbage cans and all hell broke loose. Say what you want but they are kicking ass when ANY violence begins.

Of course I am against them attacking innocent bystanders. I hope those people sue the police department and I hope they win. It's pretty unfortunate (could happen to any of us) that u get maced and beat and arrested when you are merely in the neighborhood you live in headed to the coffee shop. Problem is like I said when the destruction of protestors begins, they announce that it's time to leave, and if people don't immediately leave ... there's some head knocking going on. They even arrested (later released with no charges) a 13 year old and his granny (charges stuck on her I think).

 

I'm not sure if people realize that there are really 2 separate main police departments involved here. St. Louis City is not in St. Louis County, so there is a city PD and a county PD, in addition to the suburban towns' PD. The Galleria mall is in the county.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Leonard Zelig

[StrangeSox]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/body-came...-held-gunpoint/

‘Don’t Shoot Me’: Video Shows Cops Hold 5 Innocent Children at Gunpoint for Playing Basketball

 

Grand Rapids, MI — Outraged community leaders in Grand Rapids are demanding reform after five African American youths aged between 12 and 14 years were held at gunpoint — for no justifiable reason — as they walked home from playing basketball. Pressure on the department by The Grand Rapids Press through a Freedom of Information Act request finally forced them to release the body camera footage which is nothing short of horrifying.

 

As the Free Thought Project reported last week, original video of the incident, taken from far away, shows a number of Grand Rapids Police Department patrol cars descend on the scene, as officers point loaded weapons at the youths, order them to the ground, and eventually place them each in handcuffs — after a vague call to dispatch suggested a large fight in the area, and the possibility a teen was in possession of a gun.

 

None of the young teens in question were armed.

 

“Now they’re saying they don’t like the police,” Ikeshia Quinn, mother of two of the teens, told WOOD-TV — intimating the boys did not feel ambivalent toward law enforcement until this traumatic incident. “They don’t want to be involved with the police. They should’ve been approached differently because they are young boys. They had basketballs in their hands.”

 

As the body camera footage begins, Officer Caleb Johnson pulls up to the boys and immediately points his weapon at them and demands they get on the ground.

 

“Get on the ground!” Johnson tells the boys.

 

Three of the children were so confused that they did not immediately comply. Luckily they weren’t shot.

 

“Hey, get over here,” Johnson said, motioning with his arm. “Keep your hands where I can see them and get on the ground.”

 

“Can you please put the gun down?” one of the boys asked.

 

Another youth is heard saying, “I do not want to die, bro.”

 

“We are not about to die we didn’t do nothing,” another of the boys says to try and comfort him.

 

“Don’t shoot me,” one of the boys pleads with the officers.

 

The entire time, the boys are trying to explain to the police that they were not involved in any of this mess and they have the video to prove it.

 

“Calm down, calm down, it’ll be alright,” Officer Johnson says as he has his finger on the trigger of his police issued pistol as its trained on the boys. “They’ll give you directions, OK?”

 

As more officers arrived, the boys were instructed to stand up, put their hands on their heads, and walk backward slowly toward the car. They were then all placed in handcuffs while officers figured out they were assaulted with deadly weapons for the sole act of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

After being wrongly detained for 10 minutes, the officers then called the boys’ parents to come pick them up. When the parents got there, naturally they were shaken up and furious to find out their children had been held at gunpoint because police mistook them for criminals.

 

“I’m sorry, I don’t mean no disrespect, but you all have to understand that’s my baby,” said Shawndryka Moore, mother of one of the boys, crying as she stood outside of the police cruiser with her son inside, as reported by mLive. “We don’t deal with police. I don’t have charges. We don’t do this. All this stuff that goes on in this world – I worry about my kids every day. That’s why I don’t let them go nowhere.”

 

“We hate that it had to get to that point,” officer Troy Colegrove said. “We’re just doing our job because a lot of people out here have guns. We’re not saying that your kids have guns – we’re just doing our job,” Colegrove reiterated to the mother of an innocent child he just held at gunpoint.

 

Sadly, Colegrove is right. They were just doing their jobs — which requires the utmost attention to officer safety while acting in careless disregard for the citizens, even if they are children.

 

Although Grand Rapids Police Chief David Rahinsky and Mayor Rosalynn Bliss have since apologized for officers’ handling of the situation, fallout from the March 24 incident continues.

 

“The officers didn’t do anything wrong. They acted on articulate facts from a witness moments earlier who said he saw them hand a gun to each other,” Rahinsky said previously to The Press. “I think when the community sees what we’ve seen — with the body worn camera footage; I think they’ll have a different opinion. I respect their emotion. I think what we’re hearing is a lot of grief and frustration to systemic issues.”

 

A statement released by local police union leaders further exacerbated tensions between community leaders — who feel that if this incident represents standard protocol, change is imperative — and officers who see nothing of concern.

 

Local NAACP president Cle Jackson told local NBC News affiliate, WOOD-TV, “If this is protocol, in terms of how you detain and treat teens and youth, then there probably needs to be a change in that protocol.”

 

As mLive reports, this week the city announced results of a racial profiling traffic stop study showing bias in the police department which follows that very ‘protocol.’ Black drivers are twice as likely to be stopped by police in Grand Rapids than non-black drivers, according to a study done of 2013-2015 data.

 

“The issue is not about having bad police officers,” LINC UP executive director Jeremy DeRoo explained. “The issue is there’s a protocol in place that is causing significant damage to the relationship between the people and the police department.”

 

He added, “No community can be safe and be effective for all people without strong relationships between both the police and the community and that’s what we really want to make sure happens from this incident.”

 

As there is nothing that these children can do to prevent further situations like this one from occurring, hopefully, this situation teaches police to use a little more discretion next time the profile a group of children. However, judging from their response — claiming they’re ‘just doing our job’ — that is highly unlikely.

 

[StrangeSox]

St. Louis Police Department Defends Officer Reversing Vehicle Into Protesters

 

[greg775]

I think they protested by the stadium tonight. I think protests are ongoing nightly. Any updates from st. looie?

[StrangeSox]

Seven Reasons Police Brutality Is Systemic, Not Anecdotal

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/201...-not-anecdotal/

 

A whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians

[Balta1701]

So, Patriots fans gathering to burn Patriots gear is flag-burning right?