• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Down Goes Silent Sam

Accepting something as a cost/sacrifice to winning a greater justice, is not the same as accepting the conditions that allow those penalties. I think MLK would have said families and children stood together and faced those horrors because it was better to face those horrors now than continue to face a more long term injustice. He would not have then said that a prosecutor should charge and jail schoolchildren because they knew the risks of their civil disobedience.
 
Accepting something as a cost/sacrifice to winning a greater justice, is not the same as accepting the conditions that allow those penalties. I think MLK would have said families and children stood together and faced those horrors because it was better to face those horrors now than continue to face a more long term injustice. He would not have then said that a prosecutor should charge and jail schoolchildren because they knew the risks of their civil disobedience.

That's fair - he would argue that the law should be changed and that he believes the best way to do so is to engage in civil disobedience to show the inequity of the laws.
 
So would you still advocate prosecuting the protestors in this case?
 
That's fair - he would argue that the law should be changed and that he believes the best way to do so is to engage in civil disobedience to show the inequity of the laws.
It's the protesters perspective that pulling down the statue was worth the potential legal consequences, but that doesn't mean that we as observers have to approve of those consequences.
 
It's the protesters perspective that pulling down the statue was worth the potential legal consequences, but that doesn't mean that we as observers have to approve of those consequences.

The consequences would be minimal. If some are given more of a penalty for less participation, then your issue would be more obvious.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Actually, you and MHB make perfect sense. You want change and other things at no cost. The world doesn't work that way.
 
The consequences would be minimal. If some are given more of a penalty for less participation, then your issue would be more obvious.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Actually, you and MHB make perfect sense. You want change and other things at no cost. The world doesn't work that way.

What are you talking about? "the consequences would be minimal" he says unironically as if we don't have a mass incarceration problem.
 
What are you talking about? "the consequences would be minimal" he says unironically as if we don't have a mass incarceration problem.

I've said I AGREE with you about not only the scourge of mass incarceration but the judicial system in arresting, charging and sentencing. However, this has NOTHING to do with mass incarceration. It never has and never will.

Using your logic, no murderer, spousal abuser, rapist or pedophile should be put in jail until "mass incarceration" is 100% solved.

You still haven't answered my question. When and where have you put your life and freedom directly on the line for your personal beliefs?
 
So would you still advocate prosecuting the protestors in this case?

It's a tough topic. If I were the DA I would likely meet with the protesters involved and reach an agreement on community service. I wouldn't push for time in prison.

It's inane that at the ground level the statue still remained given the support for removing it, but I also believe that it's not a good idea to go around willy nilly ignoring laws and having no repercussions. I realize that the statue was controversial and personally believe it should have been taken down. I do not view this issue (a confederate monument) at the same level I view disobedience of Jim Crow laws. While prosecuting the destruction of a confederate monument has the potential effect of increasing mass incarceration, there is a level of difference between this and arresting people for breaking "back of the bus" laws.

I'm sure we do not agree on all aspects of this, but hopefully this lends some insight into the reasoning for my views.
 
People who do an act of civil disobedience accept and understand being arrested is part of what may happen to them. In many cases, it's part of the plan.

The evil that is mass incarceration has zero to do with this situation.
 
have to agree with RJ, it's a stretch to tie mass incarceration and civil protest together.
 
I've said I AGREE with you about not only the scourge of mass incarceration but the judicial system in arresting, charging and sentencing. However, this has NOTHING to do with mass incarceration. It never has and never will.

Using your logic, no murderer, spousal abuser, rapist or pedophile should be put in jail until "mass incarceration" is 100% solved.

You still haven't answered my question. When and where have you put your life and freedom directly on the line for your personal beliefs?


1. A faith that prosecutorial discretion can be applied fairly and without systemic bias has everything to do with mass incarceration.

2. I'm a prison abolitionist, so while I take issue with your wording and how to define "100% solving of mass incarceration," yes, I do not believe putting people in cages is the answer.

3. It is not necessary for us to have a dick measuring contest about our social justice work. If you did cool radical shit in your life, that's awesome and I celebrate it. If you are interested in work that I'm currently doing with DSA, I'm happy to talk about that.
 
have to agree with RJ, it's a stretch to tie mass incarceration and civil protest together.
Eh. You don't believe that conservatives use the punitive threat of law enforcement to discourage protest? States have been actively enacting anti-protest laws since the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots. (Black) Protests against authority are far more punitively enforced than any other type of demonstration.
 
DAs are political people. They don't want to lose the next election. Putting anyone in jail for taking Silent Sam down in Chapel Hill would be a terrible political idea. As I said, from personal experience, getting arrested at these events is often planned. There are lawyers and bondsmen on call. Effectively, this is often a goal. Your are totally offbase in including this in mass incarceration.

Although I completely agree with you about the unfairness and effectiveness of the system, the abolishing of prisons entirely is insane.

Re#3: Your answer is, you've never been anything but an internet warrior or maybe attended a couple of meetings.
 
Eh. You don't believe that conservatives use the punitive threat of law enforcement to discourage protest? States have been actively enacting anti-protest laws since the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots. (Black) Protests against authority are far more punitively enforced than any other type of demonstration.

no, i think the threat of riot police beatings, maybe, but not time in jail
 
no, i think the threat of riot police beatings, maybe, but not time in jail
Hate to break it to you, but everybody that gets beaten by the police ALSO goes to jail, and is usually charged with a crime. You can't really seperate authoritarianism and mass incarceration. There are plenty of examples of protesters being arrested for nothing.
 
It's a tough topic. If I were the DA I would likely meet with the protesters involved and reach an agreement on community service. I wouldn't push for time in prison.

It's inane that at the ground level the statue still remained given the support for removing it, but I also believe that it's not a good idea to go around willy nilly ignoring laws and having no repercussions. I realize that the statue was controversial and personally believe it should have been taken down. I do not view this issue (a confederate monument) at the same level I view disobedience of Jim Crow laws. While prosecuting the destruction of a confederate monument has the potential effect of increasing mass incarceration, there is a level of difference between this and arresting people for breaking "back of the bus" laws.

I'm sure we do not agree on all aspects of this, but hopefully this lends some insight into the reasoning for my views.

That seems like a pretty specious slippery slope argument. There is plenty of low level property destruction that goes uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

These protesters shouldn’t have been arrested or charged with anything. As a society we are clearly willing to put up with a certain amount of vandalism under certain circumstances (see any championship celebration ever). It would be a waste of resources to track down everyone who committed a misdemeanor during the last championship celebration on Franklin Street (though I would fully support this). It would be a waste of resources to pursue charges against these protestors.
 
right but people protest (and commit vandalism) despite the threat all the time
 
Property crimes generally go unprosecuted because identifying the perpetrator(s) takes a ton of time and resources. In this case don’t cops have a pretty good idea who was involved since they were there?
 
Back
Top