I agree with that. What do think about a society that does not have mechanisms to change said laws?
Let's not change what it is, rioting and vandalism. It's not protest.
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.
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.
Let's not change what it is, rioting and vandalism. It's not protest.
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.
It was mostly protest until we decided not to bring the case to court.
It is never justified.
Not in a civilized society.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.