There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.
How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?
So are armed mobs that murder political opponents. Might does not equal right.
People have a right to protest.
They don't have a right to destroy property that doesn't belong them.
They don't have the right to circumvent democracy and infringing upon the rights of everyone else by shutting down infrastructure that belongs to the all people.
I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them.
I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.
We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate.
You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.
The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.)
Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, universal suffrage, etc...
When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.
So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that?
What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.
The U.S. was founded on the principle that people have the right to a voice in government, and if that voice is denied people can rise up and overthrow the government. This isn't to say that the expression of this right was entirely just, moral, or ethical. In other words, the ends don't necessarily justify the means.
> When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.
You're begging the question. There's no direct evidence for systemic racial bias in policing, there are only disparities, some of which haven't been accounted for because the U.S. does a shitty job of collecting this data (and sometimes left-leaning politicians even censor certain data that don't support their narrative, like offender race statistics in the NCVS or various city-specific data sets). Insufficient data isn't proof or even strong evidence of anything. That said, there are actual victims--those who have had their property stolen or destroyed or who have been harassed, assaulted, murdered by BLM activists.
> You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors.
I absolutely have a right not to be held hostage. I also have a right to use public infrastructure, especially when that infrastructure is used by emergency vehicles. Such protests should be met with the minimal necessary force to quickly restore order. Most importantly, these protests are often turn violent, so I'm thankful the police take (non-infringing) precautions to protect themselves and the safety and property of law-abiding citizens.
> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.
What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?
> How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?
Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?
>What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?
Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society.
>Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?
Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?
You misread my statement. To be clear, the police don't need extra justification to enforce the law so long as they are respecting the rights of the protesters.
If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it?
"Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.
I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?
A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else. If I'm inconvenienced, that's fine--there are ways to get around it, and it's a cost I'd gladly pay for the freedom of association and protest.
> Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing?
Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do.
> Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?
Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards. Violence is another issue entirely--if people are being violent in a protest, then stop and arrest them for being violent, not for merely protesting, and leave the other protesters alone.
>A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else.
No on is disputing this, the key part being "obeying the law."
>Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards.
And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.
>Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do.
So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?
> And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.
You mean bait & switch. It isn't--in many cases marches and protests are lawful even if they block roads. If they aren't, use muscle, batons, and shields so that the law is no longer being violated. Don't go after them afterwards.
> So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?
Absolutely, up to the point where guns became involved.
Are you really comparing "going to work without being held hostage", "not having your property looted or burned", and "not being assaulted/murdered" to slavery? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
> It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure.
---
> It seems reasonable at time when "legislating" means shutting down infrastructure.
I'm curious why you complain about one and not the other? The latter is being used to take away people's access to things like voting, etc. by shutting down polling locations, changing times, etc. to reduce access to people who vote for the "wrong" party.
How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?