"There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. "
Yeah, because they do not bow to violence.
"What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?"
The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy.
I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that?
I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression.
1) Don't draw the line at zero violence.
Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored.
Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested.
2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists.
3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
"Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored."
And you think, that is a good thing?
There used to be laws up until recently, saying there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. And that husbands need to tame their wifes. Some policemen amd judges still think like that.
Not my take.
And everthing else you argue, was besides every point I made.
I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose and not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
Let's talk to each other in good faith, respectfully. Maybe I'm in good faith; the solution to disagreement is not to assume the other is all wrong. Maybe I know something you don't, maybe vice-versa, probably both.
I'm confused by this statement:
> I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose ...
So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you? My understanding is that you do, and that's what I addressed.
> not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them.
"So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you?"
It is not about processing every individual bloody nose in court, but the context. To determine, if the aggressors potentially will do more than bloody noses in the future. This is one of the jobs of the police and that was and is my point all along.
(but if a individual was charged by someone and wants investigation, then yes, that bloody nose needs to be processed)
"A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them."
And here is where we disagree, if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission. Why else would they cheer for it, if they do not support it? And if they support it, well ..
> To determine, if the aggressors potentiall will do more than bloody noses in the future. This is one of the jobs of the police
That's the question at the heart of the matter: What are the parameters, in your opinion? Can they just investigate dissent on the basis of a bloody nose, based on their own judgment? I think we need narrow restrictions, including objective reasons, or they can quash dissent just through intimidation of investigation.
> if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission.
Maybe they are some drunk or otherwise thoughtless people, or people just lost in mob psychology - the norms of the moment, or over-excited?
Have you been to a protest? IME, most people don't really know much about what's going on and they have no direction or organization. They wander around looking for something to do; you can't really see what's happening - all the other people's heads are at your eye level; if people cheer, others cheer without knowing why. The news clips pick out a tiny fraction of the area for a tiny fraction of time.
I've been to protests where violence occurred that you likely saw on TV. I oppose the violence, but it was a few people in a tiny corner of the protest. My guess is that they wanted attention and had an audience. It had nothing to do with 99.99% of the people there, almost all of whom were perfectly safe and peaceful, but that violence was all that was on TV.
> my point all along.
If you are making a point 'all along' and the other person doesn't understand, isn't that probably on you? I'd assume it's me. I could get just as frustrated as you seem to be, but I assume communication is challenging, and I expectthat we will almost always reach the point of misunderstanding, and then the best communication occurs:
That's when I learn the things that are outside my assumptions - including ones I'm not aware of - and perceptions and limitations. Because that's where the breakdown always occurs.
I just need to be curious and trust the other person knows things that are far beyond me.
Quite some. Not so much as participant for various reasons, more so as a observer.
And the pattern I observed, is the very same from left to right to environmental to whatever. And most of the protests have their own media, which acts the same across the sprectrum:
- not ever mentioning violence by the own group
- but if the own violence brings in a violent counter reaction from the police - that violence gets dramaticed "oh the evil and violent police"
And if there is violence from the own mob, the own mob will celebrate it. Or ignore it, but very seldom be stopped.
And being drunk is an explanation, not an excuse. And group psychology is a valid analysis, but it makes the group not any better. And groups can do aweful things, precisely when they individually have no idea whats going on but going "with the flow". That can flow into nasty places.
So, I am really not a fan of the police in general.
But if people cheer violence and act as a coherent group - well, then whose job is it, to investigate whether they will keep it down, if not the police? Some revolutionary council?
Yeah, because they do not bow to violence.
"What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?"
The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.