• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Atlantic: I Cannot Remain Silent

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
There are only two ways that I can think of to separate protestors from rioters:
  1. the protesters apprehend the rioters. I have seen this done a few times on the news. If peaceful protesters outnumber the rioters, they can be subdued. Odds are that the rioters are armed, so this means that some peaceful folks may die doing this.
  2. institute curfews. Most peaceful protesters will obey. Some won't, but given what I have seen in Minneapolis, the peaceful protesters are more compliant with police making it easier to identify rioters.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
There are only two ways that I can think of to separate protestors from rioters:
  1. the protesters apprehend the rioters. I have seen this done a few times on the news. If peaceful protesters outnumber the rioters, they can be subdued. Odds are that the rioters are armed, so this means that some peaceful folks may die doing this.
  2. institute curfews. Most peaceful protesters will obey. Some won't, but given what I have seen in Minneapolis, the peaceful protesters are more compliant with police making it easier to identify rioters.

I think option 2 has a better chance.
Give people a chance to protest, and work with them to enable that.
They'll be much more likely to then do so, and stand down at curfew time, particularly if the messaging is done with sensitivity and care...and transparency.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I think option 2 has a better chance.
Give people a chance to protest, and work with them to enable that.
They'll be much more likely to then do so, and stand down at curfew time, particularly if the messaging is done with sensitivity and care...and transparency.

Even if they don't stand down at curfew, the police can have some reassurance that these peaceful protesters are not a threat. They can then deploy most of their forces to other areas or to patrol for rioters.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I think option 2 has a better chance.
Give people a chance to protest, and work with them to enable that.
They'll be much more likely to then do so, and stand down at curfew time, particularly if the messaging is done with sensitivity and care...and transparency.
Both are good ideas, I'm sure.

I see also that some police chiefs are taking the initiative to extend an olive branch to the protesters. That Houston police chief in the video yesterday (I forget which thread it was on) seemed to know what he was doing.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There are only two ways that I can think of to separate protestors from rioters:
  1. the protesters apprehend the rioters. I have seen this done a few times on the news. If peaceful protesters outnumber the rioters, they can be subdued. Odds are that the rioters are armed, so this means that some peaceful folks may die doing this.
  2. institute curfews. Most peaceful protesters will obey. Some won't, but given what I have seen in Minneapolis, the peaceful protesters are more compliant with police making it easier to identify rioters.

Given that the normal protester is not trained for apprehension, I don't see 1 as being viable.

I *do* see it as viable to have the legit protesters form a barrier so that the looters cannot get to their booty. This has been done in some cases.

I *do* see it as viable to have the legit protesters direct police to the people being violent and being willing to give testimony in court. Having cell phone video of an incident would be helpful also *if* police and prosecutors are willing to use such.

Part of the problem in general is an 'us versus them' mentality between the police and the community and protesters. This distrust goes both ways and needs to be addressed. Police taking the knee in support of the peaceful protesters is a very good sign, I think.

The good cops and the community of legit protesters have two common enemies: the rioters/looters and the BAD COPS. Both of these categories need to be addressed. The first is more immediate, but a show of intent on the second could go a long way.

Being willing to fire, prosecute, AND CONVICT bad cops is a cultural change that needs to happen. The more typical good cops need to stand against, not for, the bad cops.

Similarly, the good protesters need to stand against the rioters and looters. Together with the good cops, both enemies can be brought to justice. And they should be.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Ha! I do, actually. I think the behaviour was absolutely problematic, and there's enough evidence to make that case, in my mind.

It was the rest of your point...around politicizing and Biden's actions, etc, that I thought might not have been directed at me. Disingenuous acts concern me more than political messaging, and acts against the democratic principles the US is supposed to be based on concerns me more than disingenuous acts.
Ah. I used that example to illustrate my point. It was the first thing that came to mind. Politicians simply aren't trusted anymore to be ideologists with good intentions, not even for part of the time.
Wait. If I'm understanding correctly, you're talking about something that happened after Trump left the WH. I'm talking about Trump's intentions beforehand.
I'm almost scared to ask which Biblical principles of justice you're referring to.
Suffice to say I think he belittles the Bible my holding it up, and belittles the Church by using it as a prop. There was no need for him to do either.
Here, I'll show you: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hjres150/BILLS-103hjres150enr.pdf
Text - H.J.Res.150 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Designating April 2, 1993, as "Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A.".

Joint Resolution
Designating April 2, 1993, as ``Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A.''.

Whereas the Congress recognizes that ethical teachings and values have
played a prominent role in the foundation of civilization and in the
history of our great Nation;
Whereas President William J. Clinton has indicated that ethical
considerations will inform all of the decisions of his Administration;
Whereas ethical teachings and values have formed the cornerstone of
society since the dawn of civilization and found expression in the
Seven Noahide Laws;
Whereas sharing and education represent two pillars of these Laws and of
ethical conduct;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Lubavitch
movement, is revered worldwide for the contributions he has made to
education and sharing;
Whereas the 2,000 educational, social, and rehabilitative institutions
administered by Lubavitch advance these ideals for the millions of
people whom they serve each year;
Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson has interpreted, in the
miraculous events of our times, the increasing vitality of these
ideals for the furtherance of human understanding and betterment;
Whereas the extraordinary life and work of Rabbi Menachem Mendel
Schneerson have long been acknowledged by the Congress through the
enactment of Joint Resolutions designating his birthday in each of the
last 15 years as ``Education Day, U.S.A.'';
Whereas the Lubavicher Rebbe's 91st birthday falls on April 2, 1993;
Whereas in tribute to this esteemed spiritual leader, the Lubavicher
Rebbe's birthday will be designated as ``Education and Sharing Day,
U.S.A.''; and
Whereas such designation will signal a renewal of our Nation's
commitment to greater acts of charity, to an enriched emphasis on
education, and to the furtherance of ethical teachings and values in
the affairs of government and in the lives of our citizens: Now,
therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That April 2, 1993, the
birthday, and the culmination of the celebration of theP
90th birthday year, of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the
worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as ``Education and Sharing
Day, U.S.A.''. The President is requested to issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with
appropriate ceremonies and activities.​

That's the first example that comes to mind.
And I'm an atheist. Were I Christian I'd be livid about the misuse of my religion.
Nah. You'd be livid 'cause you dislike Trump.
Our views on leadership are very different, then. To me, this is brittle and small minded politics in the face of widespread problems at a systemic and societal level.
Okay.
However, church personnel hadn't been told about this. And the protesters (I've seen no claims of them being rioters) were removed in the period leading UP to curfew. Wait a half hour and anyone there was breaking curfew. But at the time the action was taken?
They weren't.
https://twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/1267791336146636800

"First on WTOP: U.S. Park Police is explaining its decision-making in clearing Lafayette Square, at least 20 minutes before DC's 7p curfew, on night 4 of protests. A source says tear gas was never used -- instead smoke cannisters were deployed, which don't have an uncomfortable irritant in them. And, the source says Park Police didn't know President Trump would be walking across the park several minutes later. Park Police say the reason the crowd was disbursed with smoke cannisters is that at that moment, officers were being pelted with water bottles. Another factor was that protesters had climbed on top of the structure at the north end of Lafayette Square that had been burned the day before. [...] But, my Park Police source says the agency made its decision to use smoke cannisters at that moment because of what was being thrown at officers, not because President Trump planned to make an unannounced walk to the church. Park Police will be releasing a statement later today. We will keep asking questions. In theory it's possible another agency used tear gas, in addition to Park Police using smoke cannisters, but my source was on the scene, got a dose of smoke, but didn't feel the irritants of tear gas. Clearly, the phrase "tear gas" has been used widely in the reporting. [...]"
This is what I read, what, last night I think?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Given that the normal protester is not trained for apprehension, I don't see 1 as being viable.

I *do* see it as viable to have the legit protesters form a barrier so that the looters cannot get to their booty. This has been done in some cases.

I *do* see it as viable to have the legit protesters direct police to the people being violent and being willing to give testimony in court. Having cell phone video of an incident would be helpful also *if* police and prosecutors are willing to use such.

Part of the problem in general is an 'us versus them' mentality between the police and the community and protesters. This distrust goes both ways and needs to be addressed. Police taking the knee in support of the peaceful protesters is a very good sign, I think.

The good cops and the community of legit protesters have two common enemies: the rioters/looters and the BAD COPS. Both of these categories need to be addressed. The first is more immediate, but a show of intent on the second could go a long way.

Being willing to fire, prosecute, AND CONVICT bad cops is a cultural change that needs to happen. The more typical good cops need to stand against, not for, the bad cops.

Similarly, the good protesters need to stand against the rioters and looters. Together with the good cops, both enemies can be brought to justice. And they should be.
Hmm, this raises an interesting aspect of the issue: the police union. The politicians will need to get them on-side and signed up to not defending police where there is clear evidence of racism or brutality. I wonder how many black people there are in the higher layers of the police union........
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Even if they don't stand down at curfew, the police can have some reassurance that these peaceful protesters are not a threat. They can then deploy most of their forces to other areas or to patrol for rioters.
Personally, I think the more people there are around - regardless of whether they're actually doing anything or not - just serves to add more heat and pressure to the situation. I think cops would find that most unhelpful.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think the more people there are around - regardless of whether they're actually doing anything or not - just serves to add more heat and pressure to the situation. I think cops would find that most unhelpful.

So, what is your solution? Crack the heads of peaceful protesters who are breaking curfew? That seems like a 'law and order' solution that would just make things worse.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
So, what is your solution? Crack the heads of peaceful protesters who are breaking curfew? That seems like a 'law and order' solution that would just make things worse.
Why are peaceful protesters breaking curfew in the first place, if they're the "peaceful" ones?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
If they are not being violent and are not damaging property, they are being peaceful.
Presumably, they're interested in a positive outcome. At this point, what solution is there if curfews are placed but they're breaking them. Sure, peaceful - but totally unhelpful.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Presumably, they're interested in a positive outcome. At this point, what solution is there if curfews are placed but they're breaking them. Sure, peaceful - but totally unhelpful.

If they are being peaceful, the police can concentrate forces elsewhere and deal with the *real* threats.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
If they are being peaceful, the police can concentrate forces elsewhere and deal with the *real* threats.
Then I'm going back to what I originally wrote:
Personally, I think the more people there are around - regardless of whether they're actually doing anything or not - just serves to add more heat and pressure to the situation. I think cops would find that most unhelpful.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
In some way he is. And it's not preposterous. I live in a country that emulates American mindsets in many ways.
I hope not. I suspect that the Israeli population and leadership are significantly to the right of that found in the U.S.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I hope not. I suspect that the Israeli population and leadership are significantly to the right of that found in the U.S.
Sure, in a lot of ways things aren't as extreme as what's going on in the US, but in other ways, we're getting there, unfortunately.
 
Top