Skip to main content

View Diary: Dry Crescent City Bridge : Keep Escaping Walkers off - shoot them. (334 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Was that a threat? (4.00)
    I'm perplexed by the downratings of that comment, and by your inference that it implies a kind of free-standing threat.

    Perhaps I am missing some part of the historical background, but your assumption of who the Black Panthers must be the version promulgated by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and the Chicago police, officers of the law who, like those under discussion in this diary, abused their power and their weapons.

    •  there need to be some ..funerals... (none)
      there need to be some suburban funerals as well.

      I take that as an implied threat.  Take my interpretation up with the front pagers if you like.  
      •  But only in the Republican brainwarp (none)
        does a symmetry of threats constitute insurrection.

        I'll grant it was a threat, as a threat to fight against unlawful killing of citizens by officers of the law is the unspoken foundation of consent of the governed.

        Those officers were comfortable causing death and but not facing death or any lesser consequence.

        Hate radio is full of exterminationist rhetoric, and its audience is encouraged to mistake our dedication to peace and the rule of law as an advance signal of our passivity in the face of fire.

        In the minds of most people an assumption of the symmetry of conseqences pops up naturally, I think. But it is possible to overpower that assumption, as happened on that bridge.

        Those who commit such atrocities must be made to understand that they are taking on people who will protect themselves with determined and purposeful resolve.

        I myself would not say that there need to be funerals. I have not run out to buy a gun. But I am glad that others have and do. We need audible reminders for those who have forgotten that lethal injustice is not a privilege granted by consent of the people.

        We are at that point where cowering before the defamation machine could cost us lives. Has cost us lives already. The law has broken down.

        Stomping on the comment above as if it were some family embarrassment encourages those who would don uniforms to kill us.

        •  so yeah, (none)
          i guess the original question stands:

          Where is The Black Panther Party for Self Defense?

          oh yeah, some of of them are in the fucking ground.

          and one of them is Kanye's dad. (good job!)

          "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

          by binFranklin on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:29:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So we need to... (4.00)
          Fight the racism there so we don't have to fight it here?

          Sorry. As much as it might satisfy a primal need for justice, or as much as those folks "need killin", the fact is it just won't help.

          We've still got courts, and we've still got media. They're far from perfect, but they're there. Use 'em.

          Violence does not build peace. We're re-learning that in Iraq. Let's not forget it here.

          George Bush, you don't speak for me.

          by Compassionate Conservationist on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:55:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not germane. (none)
            You impute a position I did not take and motives I do not have.
            •  If I misinterpreted, it was because of this: (none)
              You wrote in part,
              I myself would not say that there need to be funerals. I have not run out to buy a gun. But I am glad that others have and do. We need audible reminders for those who have forgotten that lethal injustice is not a privilege granted by consent of the people.

              I took that as approval of the use (or threat) of violence as retribution for racial crimes. If that wasn't your intent, could you clarify what it was?

              George Bush, you don't speak for me.

              by Compassionate Conservationist on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:55:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Deterrent to genocide. (none)
                Most of us don't need a threat of reprisal to understand the repercussions of using the power of the state to murder (or, for that matter, to understand the repercussions of committing any grave unlawful violence.) We can figure out the consequences without needing to hear directly from those would deliver the consequences.

                Those police on that bridge, or whoever commanded them, have lost this automatic understanding of the social contract that takes murder off the list of practical political activities. They believe they have a broad nonreciprocal right to kill.

                They will not think their way back to civility.   They are under the illusion that they can wear the badge of law to violate, rather than enforce, the social contract that gives their badges legitimacy, without any corresponding danger to themselves.

                They need to know there is not an unending commitment to abide by a rule of law delivered by arbitrary murderers, that the suspension of the rule of law cannot last long as a one-sided privilege.

                The sooner they remember, the better.

                •  I agree. (2.50)
                  They need to know there is not an unending commitment to abide by a rule of law delivered by arbitrary murderers, that the suspension of the rule of law cannot last long as a one-sided privilege.

                  I really do agree with this.

                  But.

                  They need to know...

                  Violence, or the threat thereof, doesn't teach anyone anything. Any effect that violence imparts on the intellect is purely in the downward direction.

                  And of course, it's self-perpetuating. If the sherrifs were attacked in return, I doubt that none of the thoughts coming through any of their heads would resemble the following:

                  Oh, gosh, they have guns! How wrong we've been all this time! I guess we need to treat them like human beings after all!
                  . And as with terrorists, were any of them to be killed in the battle, others would rise to take their place.

                  BTW, I do not consider myself a pacifist, in the sense of not fighting back in self-defence. What I believe is that no forward progress is ever made through violence. If that's the case, then it follows that every alternative must be exhausted before resorting to violence.

                  George Bush, you don't speak for me.

                  by Compassionate Conservationist on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:49:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Not a family embarassment (none)
          This is a public forum.  It is perfectly possible to express ourselves without threats explicit or implicit.
          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/4/13314/5803
          It's considered rude to insult or swear at a conversation partner on the board, and it is never acceptable to threaten physical violence.  (Kos, if you're reading this, making threats should probably be grounds for automatic expulsion.)
          This is as close to a rule as dKos has about threats.
          •  You take liberties. (none)
            First, the "threatening physical violence" in that sentence you quote means threatening participants in a conversation.

            Second, the standard you infer would, for instance, extend to banishing sentiments for sending in the Seals to get bin Laden or for revolting against the British.

            Third, it would imply gross violations by, say,

            Plutonium Page

            People who do this should be fed to the animals they are eventually killing.

            or DelawareDem

            Death.

            Resignation is no longer enough.  Impeachment is no longer enough.  He must be tried, in a drumhead trial during a revolution if need be.  But it must happen.

            Martin Luther King engaged in conversations with people who debated civil disobedience. He reasoned, and he understood and respected their point of view.He did not call into question their exercise of speech.  

            Of course, at that time, the National Guard was a check on racist police viollence, at least sometimes.

            •  Go DelawareDem!!! (none)
              And thank you for that link, which I missed. I have disagreed so many times with DD I don't even read her/his posts anymore, but the link you provided was absolutely exhilarating. Bravo!

              George Bush is an enemy of the people. We can keep pretending this is just politics and we are civilized, but they aren't playing politics, and they aren't civilized, and when they start opening the concentration camps all the first amendments and rational discourse in the world won't help us.

              (none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to Kos we go, with a...

              by doorguy on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 12:21:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I've seen comments disappeared. (none)
              One comment was from a member who volunteered to show up in someone's driveway "with a shotgun".  The 'someone' in question was an anonymous road rager who evidently took offense at some liberal bumper stickers.

              There is a continuum from making specific threats against a specific person to saying a group of people should come to an unfortunate end.  

              Yes, PP does get wired about certain issues.  I never advocate violence but some of my punishments for the guilty would be deemed cruel and unusual like exile in space.   Not isolation either, I'd exile all the neocon felons into a space station together.  One happy group in their own personal echo chamber floating in near vacuum.  No violence involved at all.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site