• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is violent protest justified?

When is violent protest justified?


  • Total voters
    56
Fair question. I think my answer to your points are located in part 2 of my argument in the OP : "When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened." In the case of the store owner, he may call the police or his insurance company to get justice or money to pay for the damage. He may even get money from the public to put his store back together. And, if those do not work - if he has no constructive means of defending his livilhood - then violence may be justified.

I asked that this sort of anti-intellectual rhetoric not be brought into this thread. Please honor that. Thanks.

Rest assured that neither the police nor the insurance company are able to provide justice. Can you provide us examples of an owner being repaid by society for injuries, or loss of their home, business or property, due to criminal acts? Money cannot replace everything even with the best of insurance settlements. What did society provide to D. Wilson beaten by, or the shop owner robbed by, M. Brown?
 
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.

I believe Ferguson is justified, not by the Michael Brown death, but by the piss poor Media policies of the Ferguson Police in responding to the problem. First, they failed to immediately release relevant police reports that would have prevented an information vacuum that became filled with distorted, loud, frequent misinformation by agendas that had jumped to conclusions. Second, during the original violence many Reporters were arrested/abused/detained unlawfully and when you mess with the press, you get bad press. Third, the Police presented a militaristic response to a social problem that required persistent negotiation and was an opportunity to explain what actually happened and a complete failure to communicate resulted. Fourth, the Ferguson community must acknowledge that a black community needs black police officers that live in that community. For me personally, only the abuse of Reporters justifies the violence.
 
In a situation where the message protesters want to send is not acknowledged when they send it peacefully, what would be the next step for protesters, in your opinion?

Is violence going to get their message out, or just get them condemned as violent? What are we talking about in Ferguson, the outcome of the grand jury, or the rioting?
 
Violence has no place in protests.

Violence should be reserved for revolution.
 
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.

When the government has acted too long against the rights and liberties of the People. The right to revolution was acknowledged and reserved in our Revolution. But things have to pretty much hit rock bottom. But even then, the sort of rioting and looting common to our modern bouts of anarchy are not proper; even in violent revolt.
 
I put never, because we are talking in context of a petty incident.
 
I believe Ferguson is justified, not by the Michael Brown death, but by the piss poor Media policies of the Ferguson Police in responding to the problem. First, they failed to immediately release relevant police reports that would have prevented an information vacuum that became filled with distorted, loud, frequent misinformation by agendas that had jumped to conclusions. Second, during the original violence many Reporters were arrested/abused/detained unlawfully and when you mess with the press, you get bad press. Third, the Police presented a militaristic response to a social problem that required persistent negotiation and was an opportunity to explain what actually happened and a complete failure to communicate resulted. Fourth, the Ferguson community must acknowledge that a black community needs black police officers that live in that community. For me personally, only the abuse of Reporters justifies the violence.

I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with your reasoning.

No doubt the situation in Furguson was and is a ****show.

And many in the Furguson community have a legitimate grievance.

But attacking and destroying the property, and threatening the safety, of innocent third parties isn't an acceptable course of action.

If the citizens of Furguson have a grievance with their municipal government and police force then the municipal government and police force should be the target of their violence.

Understand, I'm not advocating for firebombing city hall and killing police officers, but if the Furguson protesters were doing that I could see how it would be a logical (if not rational) course of action given their specific complaints.
 
Well, no it really isn't against individuals. It's blind violent nonsense, not directed at any specific business or individual. If a group spefically focused on Mr Jones Hardware Store, because the owner had caused harm to the group or a member of the group, then your point would be more accurate. What I am referring to, and I believe the op is referring to, is protests such as we saw last night. That is protest, not a case of self-defense.

What, other than a case being ruled "self defense", was being protested? Vandalism, looting and burning is not a protest - those are criminal acts. Being mad at a "system" does not excuse, in any way, destruction of property of those simply living under that "system" or violence against ordinary people that happen to be employed by that "system".

Calling looters protestors is silly; there were both looters and protestors presented on TV last night but there was no overlap in those groups.
 
Violent Protest is justified when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to overthrow your government.
 
Yes there is - basic self defense is a right. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

I think you are contradicting yourself with your two posts. Protecting yourself and your property using violence is a right. The looters that you find yourself defending against are violent protesters.
 
Rest assured that neither the police nor the insurance company are able to provide justice.
If the store owner can have those who destroyed his property charged or have the damage paid for by insurance, then I do not believe he can justify violently protesting the threat to his human and civil rights. However, if cannot, then he may be able to justify violent protest.

Can you provide us examples of an owner being repaid by society for loss of their home, business or property due to criminal acts? Money cannot replace everything even with the best of insurance settlements.
I agree that money cannot replace everything. I do, however, believe that if money can replace damaged property, then violence is not justified in response to that property damage. Do you disagree? As for an example you requested, I know I've heard of communities (and wealthy individuals) raising money for businesses damaged by criminal acts in the past. I would have to search to find an example which I'm not interested in doing. Fortunately, my argument does not rely on that example.

What did society provide to D. Wilson beaten by, or the shop owner robbed by, M. Brown?
That question is not within the scope of this thread. The are other threads to debate the specifics of Ferguson. This thread is about the theory of violent protest.
 
I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree with your reasoning.

No doubt the situation in Furguson was and is a ****show.

And many in the Furguson community have a legitimate grievance.

But attacking and destroying the property, and threatening the safety, of innocent third parties isn't an acceptable course of action.

If the citizens of Furguson have a grievance with their municipal government and police force then the municipal government and police force should be the target of their violence.

This is correct only if you have an autocratic form of government without the possibility for representative correction. Since that is not the case, however, directing violence against the municipal government and police force means that one wishes to overthrow the government of the people by the people by force, and you should be dealt with accordingly.
 
At least these three conditions should be met:

1. When there are particularly oppressive laws or infrastructure in place that Violate the peoples necessities or rights.

2. When there are no peaceful mechanics Available to utilize that can allow the people to change aspects of society perceived to be oppressive.

3. If the act of committing violence doesn't create more harm than it would good in both short-term and long-term foresights.

Violence with the intended purpose of accomplishing something good is a double-edged action. It comes with negative effects in the hope that it produces a much bigger positive effect in the end. Unnecessary violence is both impermissible and unethical. The use of violence in any society structured as a democracy is unethical.
 
Last edited:
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.

My exact thought... The only time you ought to protest in violence is when you want to go to war and start a revolution.
 
I believe Ferguson is justified, not by the Michael Brown death, but by the piss poor Media policies of the Ferguson Police in responding to the problem. First, they failed to immediately release relevant police reports that would have prevented an information vacuum that became filled with distorted, loud, frequent misinformation by agendas that had jumped to conclusions. Second, during the original violence many Reporters were arrested/abused/detained unlawfully and when you mess with the press, you get bad press. Third, the Police presented a militaristic response to a social problem that required persistent negotiation and was an opportunity to explain what actually happened and a complete failure to communicate resulted. Fourth, the Ferguson community must acknowledge that a black community needs black police officers that live in that community. For me personally, only the abuse of Reporters justifies the violence.
You brought up a point that I hadn't fully considered : the role of the press in the consideration of violence. While I took issue with how the press was treated in the Ferguson case (and the relationship of the press to the government in general), I had not spent much time thinking about the influence the press has on protest, violence and the intersection of both. Thanks for bringing this up; it gives me more to think on.
 
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.
What if you want to go to war and not sever your ties, but change how business is done?
 
When the government has acted too long against the rights and liberties of the People. The right to revolution was acknowledged and reserved in our Revolution. But things have to pretty much hit rock bottom. But even then, the sort of rioting and looting common to our modern bouts of anarchy are not proper; even in violent revolt.
What, in your view, are the elements of modern violent protests that make it improper?
 
I thought about it and thought about it, and given that the OP referenced the Ferguson situation, my answer was "Never". It wasn't self-defense, and it wasn't to overthrow a dangerous regime, and it wasn't to save lives and make the world better. There was and can never be a single justification for what is going on in Ferguson, and many innocent people are paying the price.
 
Is violence going to get their message out, or just get them condemned as violent? What are we talking about in Ferguson, the outcome of the grand jury, or the rioting?
Let's take Ferguson out of it and generalize the idea. Forgive the absurd example I'm about to use, but even though the characters are silly, the situation accurately illustrates the situation I'm trying to get your take on. Consider a situation in an imaginary place where short elves are allowed to be used as literal footstools by giants according to the law. The elves have had enough, so they protest the law peacefully. After protesting the law peacefully for several years, the government refuses to change the law. What step should the elves take next to change the law given the peaceful protest has not worked? (For context, the elves live under a government modeled after American government.)
 
I think you are contradicting yourself with your two posts. Protecting yourself and your property using violence is a right. The looters that you find yourself defending against are violent protesters.

Are they not protesting self defense?
 
Are they not protesting self defense?

I'm not sure I understand your point. IMO if you come on my property, proceed to destroy my property and point a gun at me, you are a violent protester.

If I blow your sorry ass away, I am acting in self defense.

The only exception I can see is violent protest against a tyrannical government.
That would not be self defense.
 
At least these three conditions should be met:

1. When there are particularly oppressive laws or infrastructure in place that Violate the peoples necessities or rights.

2. When there are no peaceful mechanics Available to utilize that can allow the people to change aspects of society perceived to be oppressive.

3. If the act of committing violence doesn't create more harm than it would good it both short-term and long-term foresights.

Violence with the intended purpose of accomplishing something good is a double-edged action. It comes with negative effects in the hope that it produces a much bigger positive effect in the end. Unnecessary violence is both impermissible and unethical. The use of violence in any society structured as a democracy is unethical.
Welcome to the forum Thesis. Your first post was more thoughtful than posts made by many of us who have been awhile. :2razz: In any case, I think #3 is a valuable condition for violent protest, particularly in terms of specifying the consideration of both short and long term consequences. The long term is something that it is imperative to consider, but that is often neglected by those who participate in and endorse violent protests.

In terms of your final point, I'm curious about whether you think citizens should do when using the democratic process does not accomplish their goals?
 
Never, mainly because there is no such thing as *justified* violent protest. By definition protest means to express or declare objection, or disapproval, or opposition to something that happened by a group that is powerless to prevent it. Promote change to attempt not seeing the issue happen again, or as often. Violent protest then just means to engage in being militant about it for personal gain. Thus is no longer an expression of objection, but an excuse to commit crime and harm whoever. The term *justified* violent protest is a political distinction but not a social reality.

Take the subject that generated this thread. Violent protest has nothing to do with a black kid being shot by a white cop, it became an excuse to cause harm to people and businesses in the area. Neither an expression of objection to the outcome of the Grand Jury decision or an expression for wanting change because of.

Someone has already posted one of these in another forum, suggesting the real meaning of violent protest. Really look at these...

53f4cfb0cf1e9.preview-620.jpg

140816114147-01-ferguson-0816-horizontal-gallery.jpg

... because nothing says you are upset about a civil matter or care about a social issue more than using your t-shirt as a makeshift mask to then loot a half destroyed store for whatever you can find. You guys really think violent protest can be justified? Violent protest is an excuse to cause harm with no intention of doing social good. To really inflict societal change takes an attitude and personal drive that those who engaged in violent protest have no aptitude for. All evidence supporting.

Now, if you had asked about social or governmental revolution we might be having another discussion. But that is not what we are talking about here, now is it?
 
Last edited:
This is correct only if you have an autocratic form of government without the possibility for representative correction.

On paper, and in theory, the government we have allows for representative correction, sure.

In practice... not so much.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about the million and one things that I think is wrong with American government (if we begin, as we should, with the premise that our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, and should, by right, be responsive to the people).

But suffice it to say that it is my belief that we have traveled so far off the path of "representative correction" that the idea/ideal, as it applies to American governance, should only appear in history books.

Since that is not the case, however...

A point you and I clearly disagree on.

...directing violence against the municipal government and police force means that one wishes to overthrow the government of the people by the people by force, and you should be dealt with accordingly.

I agree.

It have every expectation that government will respond with force.

And the prevalence of Interceptor body armor, ACHs, MRAPs, M4s, black BDUs, sniper teams in every small town police department, and etc... certainly indicates to me that government is aware of the growing discontent and is well prepared to respond in a manner that will, at least for a time, ensure that government maintains the upper hand.

But there are a hell of a lot less gun owning government agents in this country than there are gun owning citizens and eventually the ham handed type response that government has become accustomed to using in order to shove its autocratic dictates down the throat of the American people is going to result in the overthrow of government.
 
I tentatively suggest that every person and institution is entitled to their own idea of whether violence is appropriate and that, the value of their violence should be measured according to whether or not it helped them reach their goal. In other words, I wonder if the question to ask is "Who won?" rather than "Who should and should not have used force?"

If they are willing to have the rest of society kill them.
 
Back
Top Bottom