• 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
Let's not change what it is, rioting and vandalism. It's not protest.
 
I agree with that. What do think about a society that does not have mechanisms to change said laws?

I think you mean here third world countries and the like because most first world countries as far as I know do have such mechanisms in place?

In that case, assuming the cause is important I suppose violent protest may be the only course of action. But even then destroying the property of people who have nothing to do with it is still wrong.
 
Let's not change what it is, rioting and vandalism. It's not protest.

It is both. There is more than 1 person involved and two people could be doing two different things in the same place at the same time over the same issue.

I wonder if the police trying to push the protestors back was what set off some of the violence. Not sure.
 
I think you mean here third world countries and the like because most first world countries as far as I know do have such mechanisms in place?

In that case, assuming the cause is important I suppose violent protest may be the only course of action. But even then destroying the property of people who have nothing to do with it is still wrong.

Germany had mechanisms in the 1930s and we have been trying to achieve equal rights since before I was born.
 
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.



It is never justified.

Not in a civilized society.
 
Let's not change what it is, rioting and vandalism. It's not protest.

It was mostly protest until we decided not to bring the case to court.
 
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.

One of the reasons the founding fathers were able to give birth to a new nation was the fact the British had no idea how to deal with the Boston Tea Party. It became the rallying cry when that led to the Boston Massacre.

Whether is it the French Revolution or America in 1776 or ISIS, violence begets violence...and the first to use violence usually lose
 
It was mostly protest until we decided not to bring the case to court.




So where does breaking into or burning a store come into it?
 
Whena demonstration is set up that meets with violence: Kent state for example; then - go get 'em. Many times police agencies go way overboard when they meet a spontanious demonstration, with tear gas and riot gear; that jujst ramps up the anger and anxiety. The cops position is - "You must disperse!", and everybosdy is supposed to vanish: that's not the American way and never has been.
 
It is never justified.

Not in a civilized society.

The problem is deciding, when a society is (no longer) civilized. At which point would you have thought about stopping Hitler violently?
 
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?

I had considered elaborating further on that point of consideration, but since you asked, I will.

It heavily depends on a variety of factors and new considerations:

How rigged is the democracy that is present in a given society? Are there any peaceful loop holes that are reliable enough to create positive change? What is the degree of oppression to necessitate violence? What type(s) of oppression are present?

I think that if a democracy is not able to handle or meet the basic necessities of its citizens, Or lacks basic infrastructure for its citizens, Or is actively committing negative actions against innocent citizens (Such as genocide, enforced slavery, etc) then a controlled form of goal-driven violence is justified, just as long as the violence is funneled for the goal of making conditions better. Violence without a goal, or that ultimately does not help towards a goal to justify itself, is both pointless and unethical.

If a democracy prevents people from having basic rights and/or liberties, then the circumstances that would justify goal-driven violence aren't nearly as urgent, given that the prevention of rights isn't preventing someone from meeting their basic needs and necessities. As long as the democracy isn't severely rigged enough to prevent change democratically or through peaceful protest, and the aforementioned, then Violence can be deemed unnecessary. Violence in this second set of circumstances would most-likely almost never have to considered, and should only ever be considered if absolute stagnation is persistent on a permanent basis.
 
So where does breaking into or burning a store come into it?

Once you let the situation disintegrate and the crowd get nasty, you have flunked. The thing can go anywhere. We saw that in the Arab Spring, Ukraine or syria. The trick is to prevent demonstrations from developing into riots and riots from becoming revolts or revolutions.

I do not know that you have been following the international media, but we are not looking good to them.
 
Once you let the situation disintegrate and the crowd get nasty, you have flunked. The thing can go anywhere. We saw that in the Arab Spring, Ukraine or syria. The trick is to prevent demonstrations from developing into riots and riots from becoming revolts or revolutions.

I do not know that you have been following the international media, but we are not looking good to them.


So how should "we" have not "let the situation disintegrate and the crowd get nasty" so we don't "flunk?"

Give them what they wanted? Regardless of whether it was just?



Incidentally I could give a **** what the international media thinks of our internal affairs.
 
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 think I buy you two examples, they are good examples. But I am not sure if they are right or wrong. For me I think when violent protests are justified is like defining porn, you know it when you see it. Defining when a violent protest is justified is like knowing porn, you will know when and for what reason when you see it or felt it.

I will add this, the violent protest should be against those whom you have the grievance. Instead of burning and looting ones own businesses and homes, if it is the police burn their stations, not yours. If it is against a government, burn and loot government offices, not yours. This turning down your own places makes no sense. At least to me.
 
So how should "we" have not "let the situation disintegrate and the crowd get nasty" so we don't "flunk?"

Give them what they wanted? Regardless of whether it was just?

Incidentally I could give a **** what the international media thinks of our internal affairs.

Why that is simple. Charge the man and demonstrate justice is served. Show the evidence, hear the witnesses and all that. As it is, it feels like a cover up. And as you can see, the people do not like it.
 
Why that is simple. Charge the man and demonstrate justice is served. Show the evidence, hear the witnesses and all that. As it is, it feels like a cover up. And as you can see, the people do not like it.



There's an old saying: "You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".

Implying that getting an indictment is easy.

Yet they didn't indict.


Wonder why.


So your answer is put this man through a full-press court trial (costing a lot of money in lawyers), and all that implies, even though a grand jury did not find sufficient reason to indict, JUST BECAUSE it would appease the mob and prevent the rioting?

That's known as 'pandering to the mob' and it is an ugly habit to get into. Study some history.
 
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.)

Using your example, the problem is that in the modern world, I do not think the violent protests would improve the lot of the short elves. If anything, I think the backlash would hurt their own cause.
 
There's an old saying: "You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".

Implying that getting an indictment is easy.

Yet they didn't indict.


Wonder why.


So your answer is put this man through a full-press court trial (costing a lot of money in lawyers), and all that implies, even though a grand jury did not find sufficient reason to indict, JUST BECAUSE it would appease the mob and prevent the rioting?

That's known as 'pandering to the mob' and it is an ugly habit to get into. Study some history.

In any event the justice system failed in one of its main functions. It was not seen to have been served. And if the people do not believe that justice will protect them, they revolt.
 
Random acts of stupid violence. Never.
 
One groups justification is another groups crime. It hinges around the cause of the violent and riotest protesting. If the perception is that one group or class of citizens is being shown preferential treatment by societal standards, while another is being marginalized, then the powerlessness of their situation can cause emotionally fueled uprisings. It doesn't always matter if the initial catalyst is universally considered unjustified or not, it's the underlying schism that's not being addressed that sets off the chain reaction.

These particular protests may be mainly divided by a racial/minority basis right now, but this has the potential to widen into class warfare, with the growing separation of financial sectors in the population. Combined with the Occupy Wallstreet Protests, Hong Kong Protests and European Austerity Protests these kind of upheavals are spreading around the globe, and based on common themes of the diminishing rights of the underprivileged.
 
In any event the justice system failed in one of its main functions. It was not seen to have been served. And if the people do not believe that justice will protect them, they revolt.



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?
 
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.

Do you mean violence as in rioting,looting and destroying privately owned property as in the case with the Ferguson protesters rioters? The **** no that is never ever justified. If you mean attacking government forces as an attempt to overthrow the government then sure that can be justified but I do not see it as a protest turning violent, I see that as a revolt.
 
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.

First of all, what is happening in Ferguson is not violent protest, it's theft, vandalism and arson. there is no protest, just a bunch of thugs using this situation as an excuse to run wild.
 
The best justification for a violent protest was when American rebels demanded freedom from British rule in 1776.

Anyone who has voted for Obama twice and not regretted their actions are the very same people who would justify burning and looting in Ferguson over a clear cut case of justifiable homicide.
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom