• 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
Why should people believe that the justice system will protect them, if they get stopped by a cop after robbing a store and then apparently resist arrest?

That is an odd way to see it. It does not make any difference, why and under what circumstances the kid was shot. We do not know all that. But we do know that the cop that shot the kid will not stand no matter what happened. And a large number of citizens seem to believe that that would happen, if they were shot. They do not think the legal system protects them. And that is bad, because the legitimacy of nations stands and falls with the safety they provide their citizens. Without legitimacy the government can maintain order only with coercive force.
 
That is an odd way to see it. It does not make any difference, why and under what circumstances the kid was shot. We do not know all that. But we do know that the cop that shot the kid will not stand no matter what happened. And a large number of citizens seem to believe that that would happen, if they were shot. They do not think the legal system protects them. And that is bad, because the legitimacy of nations stands and falls with the safety they provide their citizens. Without legitimacy the government can maintain order only with coercive force.



So there should be a trial everytime a police officer shoots someone? Whether there is any evidence of wrongdoing or not?
 
Germany had mechanisms in the 1930s and we have been trying to achieve equal rights since before I was born.

And so how does burning down stores achieve your end?
 
It is sometimes justified, however, keep in mind that I'm the kindd of guy who does not like the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party and find their orientation toward achieving societal change disgusting.
 
I said other because if the tables are turned what would be said? Suppose that a store owner "violently protests" being looted/burned out by shooting the looters/arsonists - would that be acceptable? Is that store owner not allowed the basic human right of earning a living and having their personal property (and safety) respected? When the police decide to "stand down", in order to appease the race hustling, poverty pimps, then they are simply begging the otherwise law abiding folks to take matters into their own hands.

Good points. The owner has the right to protect his property, and if deadly force is used against him/her, they then should respond in a like manner. The Korean community had to take manners in their own hands during the Rodney King riots in LA because the police refused to assist them.
 
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?"

Color me cynical, but I don't that those who have indulged themselves in criminal behavior in Ferguson have asked themselves these questions.

And being disappointed in a grand jury's decision is no excuse for violence. As noted immediately in this thread, we are are society of laws. There are ways to lawfully redress grievances.
 
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.

like any other violent act... a violent protest is only justified in self defense.

in addition, for such a protest to be fully justified, the target must be only those whom have initiated violence on the protesters and caused them to defend themselves.
committing violence on bystanders or innocents is flat out unjustified.

so, in my mind, none of the violence in the protests in Ferguson are justified
 
The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest that involved the looting and destruction of private property.....and it is widely heralded as "patriotic" in our history books. I would say rarely is violent protest justified, but I think there are times when it is.
 
The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest that involved the looting and destruction of private property.....and it is widely heralded as "patriotic" in our history books. I would say rarely is violent protest justified, but I think there are times when it is.

Indeed it was a violent protest. My own politically high-up ancestors were members of the Sons of Liberty (to whatever extent they actually participated I haven't yet been able to figure out).

I hold the Sons of Liberty with disdain for their plebeian barbarism, as had many of the more aristocratic factions of the American populace. They thought such actions were beneath their social standing and were illustrative of the dangers of democratic impulses. I agreed.
 
Last edited:
Well said, but I would add one caveat to that: When the gov't prevents the legal processes that allow this to occur from happening and a large percentage of the population finds themselves completely cut off from legal avenues to address the situation, then it's time to take the gov't down. Not burn cars in the streets, but to confront the GOVERNMENT with the necessary level of violence needed to stop it from further violations of the law.

I agree with you but I always remember Jefferson's comment that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." and then his complete horror when he saw
his remark made real during the French Revolution. Violence should be the very last resort.
 
I agree with you but I always remember Jefferson's comment that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." and then his complete horror when he saw
his remark made real during the French Revolution. Violence should be the very last resort.

I always thought Jefferson's appeals to revolution were rightly smacked down by Madison or Adams. From time to time Jefferson fell to fanciful delusions about revolution and when he mentioned these things to some of his more even-keeled colleagues, they tempered him.
 
certain conditions that are only met under very special conditions which are never met in a democratic society rules by fair laws and civil rights like in the US and in just about every civilized democratic country in the western world.
 
I always thought Jefferson's appeals to revolution were rightly smacked down by Madison or Adams. From time to time Jefferson fell to fanciful delusions about revolution and when he mentioned these things to some of his more even-keeled colleagues, they tempered him.

Me too. Jefferson, who I greatly admired, was something of a dreamer as Joseph Ellis makes very clear in his biography of Jefferson. He got a huge dose of reality during his stay in France.
 
Last edited:
From my perspective, violence has no place whatsoever in the realm of protest.

Protest is an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Violence is an expression of brute force and often a direct expression of suppression of collective ideas/ideals. The two are mutually exclusive.
 
like any other violent act... a violent protest is only justified in self defense.

in addition, for such a protest to be fully justified, the target must be only those whom have initiated violence on the protesters and caused them to defend themselves.
committing violence on bystanders or innocents is flat out unjustified.

so, in my mind, none of the violence in the protests in Ferguson are justified
Do you consider self-defense to only mean defense against an imminent threat (e.g. police officers shooting at you unprovoked) or does your definition of self-defense also include defending oneself against systemic threats (e.g. systemic abuse of police force)?
 
From my perspective, violence has no place whatsoever in the realm of protest.

Protest is an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Violence is an expression of brute force and often a direct expression of suppression of collective ideas/ideals. The two are mutually exclusive.
Your second point is confusing because collective violence has historically been an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Moreover, while violence is often used as a tool of suppression, it is just as often a response to such suppression.
 
Color me cynical, but I don't that those who have indulged themselves in criminal behavior in Ferguson have asked themselves these questions.

And being disappointed in a grand jury's decision is no excuse for violence. As noted immediately in this thread, we are are society of laws. There are ways to lawfully redress grievances.
My comment wasn't about the specifics of Ferguson. In any case, what is the next step people should take when the lawful ways to redress grievances do not work?
 
Your second point is confusing because collective violence has historically been an expression of collective ideas/ideals. Moreover, while violence is often used as a tool of suppression, it is just as often a response to such suppression.

I was strictly speaking of protests.
 
My comment wasn't about the specifics of Ferguson. In any case, what is the next step people should take when the lawful ways to redress grievances do not work?

Keep using your legal means. Just because I am not satisfied with the way my causes have progressed, doesn't mean I should get to break the law to get my way.

In short: suck it up, butttercup.
 
Violent protest is pointless in my opinion. If I sympathise with your point of view and you use violent protest you will loose some of that sympathy. Protest I support. Civil disobedience as in sit ins of places that are directly involved with what you are protesting I can "support" but not violence.
 
Do you consider self-defense to only mean defense against an imminent threat (e.g. police officers shooting at you unprovoked) or does your definition of self-defense also include defending oneself against systemic threats (e.g. systemic abuse of police force)?

no, the definition does not include systemic threats

system threats call for a different class of response, such as nonviolent protest, civil disobedience, voting.. etc.. a violent response to a systemic threat would be unjustified.
 
So there should be a trial everytime a police officer shoots someone? Whether there is any evidence of wrongdoing or not?

If that is what it takes to protect kids on the streets and shopkeepers in their shops and the business areas free of riots? Why, it seems a cheap price to me. It might not be enough. Maybe a little higher proportion of minority areas' police forces should be of that minority. Maybe we will need to find a way to get more of these kids into jobs. Maybe some of the things we need to do are difficult. But it is not a good solution to have citizens shot on the streets.
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.

I don't know, one could call The Boston Tea Party (the original) a violent protest. Property was most certainly destroyed.

Does that mean that the American Revolution was not justified?
 
And so how does burning down stores achieve your end?

I do not believe that I said that. I am sure the Syrians wish that it had taken another course there and I think the Ukrainians might think so too. On the other hand, the US did rather well, when it used force to get rid of what the citizens considered illigitimate rule.
That does not mean that force as in these riots is legal. But the revolution was not legal, when it happened either. The problem is they never are considered so. That means the participants are always in the same position of not knowing with certainty and being forced to take the decision right or wrong my county. Both sides are in this position.
 
Keep using your legal means. Just because I am not satisfied with the way my causes have progressed, doesn't mean I should get to break the law to get my way.

In short: suck it up, butttercup.
If your human or civil rights are being attacked and your legal means haven't yielded results for ~20 years, what do you do next?
 
Back
Top Bottom