Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest?

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

The question was: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest? I answered Yes, sometimes. The 2nd amendment would appear to agree, is all I'm saying. As to what constitute a government actively terrorizing you, well, I'm sure that would be relatively subjective and open to interpretation. But, nevertheless, it would appear that, according to your constitution, damaging / destroying property (given that one's life would be seen as one's most valuable property) is supported...sometimes.

So, by extension, if you answered No to the question, you are opposed to the 2nd amendment. Not that big a leap, is it?

Click to expand...

Implicit in the question in the OP is "other people's property." As in protesters setting people's cars on fire and the like. That is not acceptable.

I'm also not sure your equating protest - even extreme violent protest - with actual armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is valid but I admit I have to think about it a bit more. It's certainly attractive to view insurrection as the extreme end of continuum that starts at peaceful protest.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

phattonez said:

Except that the examples that I gave again were not protest, but self-defense.

Click to expand...

Some people engaging in violent protest view it as an act of self-defense.

Gaius46 said:

Implicit in the question in the OP is "other people's property." As in protesters setting people's cars on fire and the like. That is not acceptable.

I'm also not sure your equating protest - even extreme violent protest - with actual armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is valid but I admit I have to think about it a bit more. It's certainly attractive to view insurrection as the extreme end of continuum that starts at peaceful protest.

Click to expand...

It's a stretch, meant to be a bit provocative, to be sure...but taking a life in the name of revolting against a tyrannical government is technically "destroying other people's property". And I think that history would support the pattern of transition...how many revolutions around the world started as protests? I think it works, despite being a stretch. Mostly it's a bit of a reminder that while we may not agree with these protesters, it's not a new methodology, and perhaps there are lessons to be learned to prevent it from escalating to worse ends....or to find a reason to support it.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

If it isn't at least sometimes, all you Americans might want to rethink your second amendment...

Click to expand...

Where did you get the crazy idea that the 2nd amendment gives anyone the right to destroy things at random?

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

Some people engaging in violent protest view it as an act of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Most of those people would be wrong.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

Some people engaging in violent protest view it as an act of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Exactly what are leftist a-holes walking down the street, breaking every car window and painting "F*ck Trump" on every surface they can find protecting themselves against again?

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

Cephus said:

Where did you get the crazy idea that the 2nd amendment gives anyone the right to destroy things at random?

Click to expand...

This has been explained at length above, have a read through, and ask your questions when you're caught up, saves the ol' finger tips... hehe

phattonez said:

Most of those people would be wrong.

Click to expand...

Huh...and most of those people would say you're wrong. Guess what...your opinion is worth exactly as much as theirs. Interestingly, the folks doing well in most pre-revolution systems felt the revolutionaries were wrong...including the British about those pesky Americans.

Cephus said:

Exactly what are leftist a-holes walking down the street, breaking every car window and painting "F*ck Trump" on every surface they can find protecting themselves against again?

Click to expand...

From my understanding gained from reading about it (something I'm assuming you can do as well), they are protecting themselves from what they feel is a tyrannical government. Probably should be happy it's just car windows and graffiti, instead of going all the way to the ultimate option they are allowed under their 2nd amendment rights.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

From my understanding gained from reading about it (something I'm assuming you can do as well), they are protecting themselves from what they feel is a tyrannical government. Probably should be happy it's just car windows and graffiti, instead of going all the way to the ultimate option they are allowed under their 2nd amendment rights.

Click to expand...

That is utterly idiotic considering they are not attacking the government, but are causing damage to private citizens who will have to pay for the damage out of their own pocket. Are progressives really so stupid as to believe that load of nonsense?

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

Cephus said:

That is utterly idiotic considering they are not attacking the government, but are causing damage to private citizens who will have to pay for the damage out of their own pocket. Are progressives really so stupid as to believe that load of nonsense?

Click to expand...

Learn a bit of history, and see how revolutions start. Most start with protest. Anyway....you're missing the point because you're too excited to personally attack a progressive. If you go back and read the commentary, you'll see what the comment was about. I'm not defending or endorsing the protesters, the question was "Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest?", and my answer was Yes, sometimes, and given that life would be considered one's most valuable property, and that the 2nd amendment allows for the revolt using firearms against a tyrannical government, which is the ultimate escalation of protest, then clearly in the constitution it is sometimes acceptable to damage / destroy property in the act of protest.

Do you care to debate that, or are you just into getting your jollies attacking people who think differently than you? For someone who is so quick to insult others' intelligence, you're not really demonstrating much on your end, but I'm open to the possibility.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

The major problem with these actions is they almost never target the object of their fury. The mobs just go for whatever's closest and some innocent shop owner in their neighborhood pays for it. Saw this from rodney king to the london riots

If they actually went after wall street or whatever, i could understand

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

X Factor said:

Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.


Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?

Click to expand...

No its not. I am surprised that 6 people picked yes or I don't know.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

If it's your own property, yes. Otherwise no.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

X Factor said:

Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.


Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?

Click to expand...

I voted 'no', but like pretty much anything there can be exceptions. I just can't think of any right now. Never say never.

That being said, I am less likely to support a protest if it gets violent/destructive even if I support their cause. And I have had times where I stopped being sympathetic when that has happened. Especially when they start involving completely unlucky innocent people in their destruction. That's pretty much a guaranteed way to lose my support.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

OlNate said:

If it isn't at least sometimes, all you Americans might want to rethink your second amendment...

Click to expand...

That's actually a decent point.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

Goshin said:

Generally speaking, no... and I typically frown a great deal on protesters who damage property, especially random property, or do stupid crap like block roads causing innocent people to be unable to proceed about their lawful occasions.

Thing is, most of the time this happens, they're destroying their own neighborhoods and businesses... or destroying property at random without any concern for whether the owner ever did them any wrong or not.

The Boston Tea Party was an example of a TARGETED destruction of property (ie Tea) aimed at a specific issue (tax stamps) with a specific political goal (against taxation without representation). THAT, though it was still illegal, is an example of a relatively intelligent use of protest on property.... though I doubt the owners of the tea shipment were at all pleased.

Click to expand...

That's what gets me about recent riots/looting in our history. People destroy their own neighborhoods, them complain afterward that their gramma can't get her medications because her pharmacy was burned to the ground.

Well, I don't know what to tell ya. :shrug:

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

phattonez said:

If your government is actively terrorizing you, you have every right to self-defense. I haven't seen a case of that happening in this country, except for maybe during Japanese internment, conscription, and slavery.

Click to expand...

It happens quite often in the form of SWAT teams invading homes for questionable reasons, etc. And you are correct that you still have the right to self-defense, even against the government, but reality is that you will most likely die doing so.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

X Factor said:

Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.


Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?

Click to expand...

Definitely less likely.

Re: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest

That's one of the main themes of "Do the Right Thing", from start to finish, to the name of the movie.
Spike Lee would suggest that "Only a white man would ask that question". Makes you crazy right?

The reality is, that the tools an individual or community have for protesting varies dramatically.
What do you think rich wall street bankers do to protest? They make back room deals with enormous wealth, buy politicians, etc. They can defeat you before you even know what happened. Sure, your windows didn't get broken, but your government may have just gotten one more notch on its corruption belt...which is worse?

How about middle class whites? They might gather up their guns and do a sit-in somewhere, claiming they will defend it if they have to. (no black man would be that stupid to think they could try that in the south!)

How about teachers? They have numbers, and funding, they can dabble in stuff the way Wall Street does, payoffs, hiring folks, pushing candidates, but they can also get enormous numbers of voters, marches, etc., that make headlines.


What about poor blacks in a nearly all minority, poor neighborhood? So when members of your community are systematically discriminated against by the white police, leading to deaths of unarmed black youth, which tools does the (typically white male) reasonably think they have easy access to?

Breaking the law in ways that gather attention or vent frustration, is a historically common form of protest, and that includes destruction of property. Once it becomes violent, IMO it crosses the line.
Do I think they should be arrested? Yes, of course. But social/historical justified/accepted? Yeah of course. Do the people who don't have a dog in the fight think its justified? Probably not...by virtue of you know, having no dog in the fight. I don't think any protestor should break public property, personally. I'd rather see better organization and non violent actions that may violate a law less than destruction of property (at most). Communities should respond to community issues, not just angry youth.