Unless you grew up in 'the hood' you can't judge the protesters. Until junior year of high school I did. Cops would stop my dark skinned friends and tell me to keep walking, though we weren't doing anything wrong. If all this police violence is not racial, how do you explain this? (spoiler alert, white suspect) Think it would have been different if he wasn't?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...dly-force-i-wanted-be-absolutely-sure-n344011

I don't judge the protesters, they have every right to protest even if I believe the claims are exaggerated but I want to make a clear distinction between protest and riot. Riot is a mindless beast once it gets started. Most are intentionally started by people who care nothing for the cause of the real protester and burning down your own neighborhood is never a smart move so rioters get an 11 on my stupid card.

 

occupy wall street ... what was their message?

It was adults acting like children. My grandson is 2, and this is when a long process of discovery begins. The discovery is that the world does not exist for your benefit and little cares how your life turns out. My grandson screams when he encounters this lesson. The OWS protesters looked, to my eyes, like so many 2-yr olds.

The biggest effect on your outcome comes from you. It's a tough message that takes the best of us many years to learn. Some never get it.

 

Unless you grew up in 'the hood' you can't judge the protesters.

Bullshit.

There may have been a some protesters there, but, the behavior of burning, looting, and sabotage is not protesting.

Bad behavior is bad behavior.

There are legal recourses available.

 

occupy wall street ... what was their message?

Wasn't it part of the anti-consumerism socio-political actions by Adbuster in Canada?

It's funny how politics is embedded, in all social endeavors.

Occupy Wall Street protesters did not know what their message was. I was in a bar in New York during their demonstrations. About a half dozen people came in and sat at a table next to me. I couldn't help but overhear part of their conversation. What was it? They were trying to decide what OWS represented. They had no clue and were trying to decide over a beer. Probably not unlike our (USA) founding fathers (Sam Adams was a brewer). Except the patriots met before taking action; OWS was demonstrating and then deciding what the demonstration WAS about. The incident changed my opinion of OWS.

 

There may have been a some protesters there, but, the behavior of burning, looting, and sabotage is not protesting.

Bad behavior is bad behavior.

There are legal recourses available.

1) Do you think that quietly marching around in circles will stop the killing?
2) Killing unarmed people is bad behavior, too.
3) I believe the lack of effective legal recourse has been established, thousands of times.

 

If you would like to see an example of how the Constitution works, I suggest you attend a Tea Party Protest.

Before my infirmity, I participated in several. We never interfered with car or pedestrian traffic. Stayed in the area we were told and at the request of police, did not use wooded sticks or poles for our signs and flags. That meant small signs and spread sheets. We always policed the area when leaving.

The politicians got the message, because we did not act up, they knew we were adults and were serious.

The results were amazing. Look at the red and blue counties of this country.

Only the large cities, where liberals control is this rioting permitted.

The woman being praised for pulling her son out, should be arrested.

You can't have it both ways. Her behaviour was illegal. And you wonder why her son acts this way?

His mother has been teaching him.

Hypocrisy.

 

Maybe this helps explain things.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...y-from-car-accident-a-week-before-his-arrest/

 

I really don't know which side is correct in this issue. However it looks like the U.S. is now moving into a period of intense opposition to government authority much like what occurred in the Vietnam era.

Perhaps it's explosive growth in white collar crime sine the 2008 financial meltdown and the proliferation of class warfare. Here in San Francisco, the whole place wreaks with government corruption and there are daily reports of scull duggery between the politicians and the politically connected.

If there's an incident between the police and someone in the gritty part of town, the whole place will go up like the L.A. riot.

 

"Perhaps it's explosive growth in white collar crime sine the 2008 financial meltdown and the proliferation of class warfare. Here in San Francisco, the whole place wreaks with government corruption and there are daily reports of scull duggery between the politicians and the politically connected."



Yes, that is a lot of the problem.
With the Internet, not as much can be hidden from the masses, as before.

 

"Perhaps it's explosive growth in white collar crime sine the 2008 financial meltdown and the proliferation of class warfare. Here in San Francisco, the whole place wreaks with government corruption and there are daily reports of scull duggery between the politicians and the politically connected."



Yes, that is a lot of the problem.
With the Internet, not as much can be hidden from the masses, as before.

Kids, nothing has changed, the Internet is just a tool for Astroturf.

 

1) Do you think that quietly marching around in circles will stop the killing?

No it won't. Neither will direct action by all concerned. What did puncturing the fire hoses do? What does throwing objects at the police do? Burning and looting ... well, that can accomplish one thing, the vendor moving out of the neighborhood.

2) Killing unarmed people is bad behavior, too.

Killing is bad behavior period. The court system, IF the prosecutor decides to take it to trial, will decide on the killer's fate. Why won't the prosecutors take them to court?

3) I believe the lack of effective legal recourse has been established, thousands of times.

Lack of effective legal recourse could be code for FUNDING. Where are the NAACP's lawyers? Follow the money. I don't expect the two race pimps to do anything but garner publicity for themselves, as the "voice" of the people.

 

The woman being praised for pulling her son out, should be arrested.

You can't have it both ways. Her behaviour was illegal.

I like most of your post but on this topic I believe you are mistaken. Parents may strike their children in almost every jurisdiction. The slap upside the head from a mom that's 4" shorter is not likely to be seen as a crime.

I don't think anyone has figured out a good way to draw the fine line between reasonable and excessive punishment of children.

 

If you would like to see an example of how the Constitution works, I suggest you attend a Tea Party Protest..

This thread will/is getting political fast. But, what is different about minorities today protesting and destroying property than the original tea party? The minorities were not brought along as full fledged citizens back then and in many respects aren't considered that way now. If you don't believe me on the last statement, look at the treatment of the president (and don't say his treatment is no different than an democrat president) and the way Faux news is talking about Baltimore compared to the local and all other news outlets.

 

But, what is different about minorities today protesting and destroying property than the original tea party?

A plan for the future that wasn't perfect but was framework for progress instead of we'll shut the place down without a plan for future other than the rioters singing 'burn baby burn'.

 

2) Killing unarmed people is bad behavior, too.

Not true. It can be laudable behavior, as in shoot-to-kill to protect property and public safety. The criminals do NOT need to be armed for deadly force to be justified.

 

Not true. It can be laudable behavior, as in shoot-to-kill to protect property and public safety. The criminals do NOT need to be armed for deadly force to be justified.

Nice theory. Apply it in practice.

 

Nice theory. Apply it in practice.

It depends on where you live. I'm not saying it's a good thing in all cases.
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/p...cleared-by-grand-jury-in-Pasadena-1587004.php

 

It depends on where you live. I'm not saying it's a good thing in all cases.
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/p...cleared-by-grand-jury-in-Pasadena-1587004.php

Ah yes. The "I am in fear of my life", "Get off my property", "He was reaching for my weapon" umbrella defense.
Dead men tell no tales.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Yet when people kill people, the bar is set so incredibly low for justified lethal force.
You can't ban guns and at the same time you can't punish people.
GENIUS.

 

You can't ban guns and at the same time you can't punish people.
GENIUS.

Plenty of people even in Texas have been punished for 'criminal' use of a firearm so that's a total straw-man argument so lets stick to the possible criminal use of weapons including projectiles throwing thugs who have now caused a baseball game to be played in a empty stadium on a picture perfect day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/s...ly-empty-stadium-sirens-in-distance.html?_r=0

Terrorist Win.

 

Plenty of people even in Texas have been punished for 'criminal' use of a firearm so that's a total straw-man argument

"Plenty of people." There is a fundamental problem of attitude toward the use of firearms and deadly use of force in this country. Please explain how someone can form a "reasonable belief that their life was in danger" in a fraction of a second and how you are comfortable with that being the basis of taking a life. Perhaps, "I would have done the same thing in that situation" is your conclusion. What a terrible, lowly bar to set.

If you are concerned about a baseball game, in a city where a man's neck was practically severed when in official custody, and cannot understand the difference between a rock or bottle against a gun, then you are part of the problem.