10-minute' flash riot targets Seattle police over shooting

10-minute' flash riot targets Seattle police over shooting

www.rawstory.com

A group of about 30 "anarchists" dressed in black and wearing masks allegedly caused mayhem in Seattle Saturday night at the site of an unjustified police shooting.

(visit the link for the full news article)

they had flash protests in Tunisia before it all kicked off and now in America. Technology is changing the dynamics of protest. Groups can gather fast in ways that where unheard a few years ago.
2011 looks to have started as the year of protest and long may it continue. It gives people empowerment and allows the silenced voices to be heard. Peaceful Protest and activism have an intergral role in any democratic system.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by purplemer


they had flash protests in Tunisia before it all kicked off and now in America. Technology is changing the dynamics of protest. Groups can gather fast in ways that where unheard a few years ago.
2011 looks to have started as the year of protest and long may it continue. It gives people empowerment and allows the silenced voices to be heard. Peaceful Protest and activism have an intergral role in any democratic system.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Absolutely. Protest, activism and awareness (and education) are integral to a healthy democratic society. The relative instantaneous delivery of information and news due to the technology is one of the greatest assets to the common person acting against government oppression (anywhere), and spreads like wildfire, as we are currently seeing. Of course, if such things are not covered, or are downplayed, such as the lack of coverage of protests around the US in response to Wisconsin, then that prevents a problem in itself.

Unfortunately, along with the ease with which people can organize using media, and social media, there are efforts trying to crack down on these means (from non- and under-coverage, to the following). This is a few years old, and many probably recall hearing of it, but it is frightening. From 2009:

On Thursday, F.B.I. agents descended on a house in Jackson Heights, Queens, and spent 16 hours searching it. The most likely reason for the raid: a man who lived there had helped coordinate communications among protesters at the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh.

The man, Elliot Madison, 41, a social worker who has described himself as an anarchist, had been arrested in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 and charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime. The Pennsylvania State Police said he was found in a hotel room with computers and police scanners while using the social-networking site Twitter to spread information about police movements.

Source

One could argue, from a LEO perspective, obstruction, but from a practical position, using the methods of the day to actively and effectively organize granted by the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, we must stay vigilant.

Does anybody realize why this type of action won't take off? The average person gets turned off the second the "anarchist" start defacing private property. They think, "hey that could have been my home."

This type of action is self defeating. Spraying profanity on private property is inmature and self defeating. When these people grow up, somebody might take them serious.

I have voiced my opinion on the "wood carver" murder. I beileve the cop should have been tried for murder or at least negligent homicide. That doesn't grant people the right to destroy or deface the property of others.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Does anybody realize why this type of action won't take off? The average person gets turned off the second the "anarchist" start defacing private property. They think, "hey that could have been my home."

This type of action is self defeating. Spraying profanity on private property is inmature and self defeating. When these people grow up, somebody might take them serious.

I have voiced my opinion on the "wood carver" murder. I beileve the cop should have been tried for murder or at least negligent homicide. That doesn't grant people the right to destroy or deface the property of others.

what makes you think they are anarchists. Is anyone that questions the official line and protests an anarchist now. dont be fooled by the opinionated labels. these people were trying to defend justice. the police unlawfuly killed a being...


kx

reply to post by purplemer


I don't know that they were anarchist. That is why I put the quotation marks around the word. However, that is beside the point. Your right to protest ends where someone else's private property begins. You can not deface another person's property. That is called vandalism. It also imposes a financial loss on the property owner.

It is criminal and childish. You want to tag the police headquarters in protest, that is one thing. If you spray paint joe shop owner's building that shows disrespect for the other people in society. It is hypocritical to claim a great empathy for the repressed and down trodden and then destroy or deface the private property of innocent citizens.

reply to post by MikeNice81


are you saying that protests that contain a criminal element shoud not be allowed. If you are please have a look at history to see the amount of times criminal protests have occured and the change they have bought about. Would the protests in egypt have happened for example if criminal protest had not occurred or the American revolution that kicked off with the dumping of tea in boston.
As i said before civil disobedience and activism have played an important role in shaping our present society.

How do you know it's not agent provocateurs causing the riots? It could be staged to try to get people to join in. Conspiracy theorist keep saying we are going to get a Police or Military take over. Don't you think rioting will play right into their hands?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Does anybody realize why this type of action won't take off? The average person gets turned off the second the "anarchist" start defacing private property. They think, "hey that could have been my home."

This type of action is self defeating. Spraying profanity on private property is inmature and self defeating. When these people grow up, somebody might take them serious.

I have voiced my opinion on the "wood carver" murder. I beileve the cop should have been tried for murder or at least negligent homicide. That doesn't grant people the right to destroy or deface the property of others.

I agree with your sentiment that vandalism is self-defeating and immature, and that defacing property is wrong, and that they should not do it. It certainly is counter-productive, and harms property owning citizens, which it shouldn't.

However, the average person gets turned off simply by the concept and the use of the term "anarchist" and not necessarily that they vandalized private property, because most probably have a misconception about what anarchism truly is to begin with. Granted, what they see (here) probably reaffirms their opinions that anarchists are "organizers of chaos" or some such nonsense because of the protests, not that anarchists wish to simply see abolition of government/authority or are protesting an alleged crime by LEO.

The phrase "rioting anarchist" has all sorts of negative connotations, which in itself disrupts and defeats the intent of the protesters in the public's eye (Not that the anarchists probably care, if they are in fact anarchists).

That aside, good thing there was dash-cam video to show what really happened, not what the cop said happened.

I have long been of the opinion that it is counter productive to destroy property while protesting. As I have come to recognize the realties of protesting my opinion has shifted.

People never want to destroy private property. It is always said that it turns the public against you, and harms your cause. I realize now the public is an impotent force manipulated to harm itself by inaction. I am not saying I am some Marxist technocrat who believe that we should reshaped the masses because they are unable to know what is best for themselves. What I am saying is that the public will never do anything. Why does it matter if they think poorly of a protesting group? Maybe you lost some moral support. Who cares ! The one to three percent who have sparked every change in human history are committed regardless of the rest. The cause may benefit from widespread public sympathy, but a committed few will gain more support if their cause is justified.

Take Wisconsin for example. All those protests are hollow gestures. Eventually, the democratic senators will have to return, and the bill will pass. Those protests were a nice way to make you feel politically active, but really have no impact on policy. The same applies to the Iraq war protests. They were the larges anti-war protests in human history, and they were completely ignored.

Let us imagine the events in Wisconsin had progressed differently. Suppose a few dozen had defaced government property, threatened seizure of government offices, and clashed with police. At first glance this seems a negative hypothetical. The media would have portrayed these radicals as dangerous, and labeled all protesters as a threat. Police would have responded with overwhelming force, and many arrests would follow. What would be the impact on the bill? If violent clashes occurred for days on the streets would the bill pass? Possibly. The media coverage would increase. Pressure on political leaders would increase. The grievance would be addressed, or visibly disregarded. This would force many ambivalent people to recognize the injustice, and institutionalized power at work. The result may not differ from the results of the real protests that have occurred.

Still, it would have far greater an impact, and a greater chance to prevent such bills from passing in other states. It may not seem appealing to be raucous, or confrontational . Sadly, power give nothing unless challenged. The choice is to do the same old failed techniques, or adapt before full normalization is complete.

reply to post by purplemer


The Boston Tea Party was different. The company that owned the tea had used political favor to win a monopoly. The company was in effect acting as an arm of the government.

When you start attacking innocent people that are not involved you cross the line. It is not an act of protest it is a criminal act of disrespect.

Do you think it was okay for people to burn down hundreds of private businesses during the LA Riots? What did they acomplish? When you attack innocent people you don't hurt the government. You sew division in your own community. That makes the government's position stronger.

Dashcam footage of the incident showed that Birk gave Williams only seven seconds to put down a knife before shooting him. Birk claimed Williams lunged at him but photos showed that Williams' carving knife was in the closed position.

A Raw Story report revealed the dashcam video late last year.

While the Firearms Review Board ruled that the shooting was unjustified, prosecutors recently said that criminal charges would not be filed.

Why would prosecutors let a murderous criminal cop walk free, and was there any Indians involved with the 30 so called anarchists? Maybe this cop needs to be prosecuted on a Indian reservation, there hasn't been a good scalping in years...

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by purplemer

 

I don't know that they were anarchist. That is why I put the quotation marks around the word. However, that is beside the point. Your right to protest ends where someone else's private property begins. You can not deface another person's property. That is called vandalism. It also imposes a financial loss on the property owner.

It is criminal and childish. You want to tag the police headquarters in protest, that is one thing. If you spray paint joe shop owner's building that shows disrespect for the other people in society. It is hypocritical to claim a great empathy for the repressed and down trodden and then destroy or deface the private property of innocent citizens.

How about the cop is he an "anarchist" ??? He defaced private property with blood.... and he is a free man?

Since you have trouble with reading and comprehension, I will quote part of an earlier post.

I have voiced my opinion on the "wood carver" murder. I beileve the cop should have been tried for murder or at least negligent homicide. That doesn't grant people the right to destroy or deface the property of others.

The building owner had nothing to do with the murder. Why should he suffer? I guess it was okay for people to burn down half of South Central LA because Rodney King got beat?

Was it okay for the rioters to cause 1 billion dollars in damage to private property? Was it okay that 53 people were killed and thousands injured? Was it okay thaat Reginald Deny was drug in to traffic and beaten nearly to death solely for having a white face. The cops that went free were white, so was it okay to attack all white people?

Where do people draw the line?

It seems funny to me that people are so quick to condone the destruction or defacement of private property. What if it was your home or place of work?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by purplemer

 

The Boston Tea Party was different. The company that owned the tea had used political favor to win a monopoly. The company was in effect acting as an arm of the government.

When you start attacking innocent people that are not involved you cross the line. It is not an act of protest it is a criminal act of disrespect.

Do you think it was okay for people to burn down hundreds of private businesses during the LA Riots? What did they acomplish? When you attack innocent people you don't hurt the government. You sew division in your own community. That makes the government's position stronger.

i dont like seeing things destroyed. i was just saying these people are not anarchists nor do we live in a perfect world. people get angry and there is not a correct process in place to vent this. so in my eyes it is understandable

reply to post by purplemer


Would it not have been more understandable to spray pain the responsible person's house or car? Spray paint the former cops car, and every time he repaints it do it again. That sends more of a message than spray painting an innocent person's building. That tells the cops and others like him that people will remember and that people are watching them.

I have no problem with the rest of the protest. If no innocent people were hurt, it was a good idea. The spray paint thing just pisses me off. It reeks of juvenile deliquency and not someone truly standing up for a belief.

Actually I would have even been cool with them spray painting the DA's house and car. He should press charges. This officer should have to answer for what he did. If I kill somebody, can I quit my job and everything be even-steven?

reply to post by MikeNice81


if the scrawl was in oil based paint, you got awhile before you cant remove it, and by the tempurature id say 10 hours atleast. the cost for the owner of the building? about 4.99$ for a litre of mineral spirits or turpentine oh, and a rag is needed also.

if it was acrylic or latex, like most spraypaints on the shelf now, you can still get it off with the same thing if you act fast enough. and i mean, dont let it sit overnight.

so id say the damage to private property arguement is not really a strong one. id try and sue the police station for the 4.99$ repair haha.

-------

reply to post by MikeNice81


MikeNice81 don't act like a TROLL! You can't READ can YOU!

The Golden Rule applies to TROLL's... You can't use simple minded troll like tactics here, reading and comprehension is plan #1, right out of the Troll book.

I asked a simple question
Is the cop an anarchist? He defaced private property with blood!
And here he is a free man!

Just a simple question! And you turn it around with Troll like behavior....

Enough with You, I don't like to deal with Trolls....

As for that Seattle neighbor hood, the building owner and everyone included.... They are responsible for that rabid cop! Who do you think hired that idiot!

They should burn the whole town down, for letting that cop walk free!

I am wholeheartedly a believer in activism and dissent, but not violence. It is people like this that discredit entire movements. They had no right to deface the buildings of neighboring businesses. Those business owners now have to pay for the damages and they may very well have shared the same frustrations of the rioters.

If they wanted to make a point, they could have done so peacefully. It is possible to be peaceful and make a bold statement at the same time. They would have gotten more consideration had they done something like dress in all black and poor fake blood on themselves. The second they destroyed property was the second that no one cared about what it is they were protesting. That is sad and shameful.

reply to post by imitator


Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them a troll. Mike was very calm in his reasoning and did not lash out at anyone accept those who perpetrated the act he does not condone. It is apparent that you feel differently and maybe you should try to get your point across in a more rational way?

You say that the people deserved to have their buildings defaced because the cop murdered someone and impled they were somehow complicit. If someone murders someone in my neighborhood, does that mean the surviving family has the right to break in my windows in protest because of my proximity to the crime and inability to convince a jury to convict the perpetrator to my liking?