Talyn
SAINT
What is your responsibility to avoid conflict or de-escalate existing conflict, especially in times of civil unrest or civil anxiety?
Conflict Avoidance
Conflict Avoidance
CONFLICT AVOIDANCE DURING CIVIL UNREST
- Thread starter Talyn
- Start date
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Good read for those in Philly tonight 
Talyn
SAINT
I posted that as somthing helpful, not to provoke an argument.
Most recent protests came as a result of cops assaulting and killing unarmed citizens. Or did I miss something? How in your opinion should American citizens protest when they feel their civil rights have been infringed upon? Those people you refer to as "protestors" I am guessing are as passionate about their civil rights and the rights of people in their communty as you are about your gun rights. I get the sense it's not that you have an issue with protests, you have an issue with what they are protesting about and who is doing the protesting.
Not an argument, just two people have a conversation. The post on conflict avoidance was helpful and necessary IMO.
Peglegjoe
Professional
I agree - avoidance and de-escalation are key, especially when you are carrying a firearm. Not only does it give you the ability to take another's life, but it gives someone else the ability to take a life (possibly yours) if something happens to you, and you lose possession/control of your firearm. The difference between "protest" and "riot" is violence. One is legal, the other is not. Avoid these situations altogether, and stay on the side of the Law.
Oh, would those be the unarmed citizens who rush cops with a knife? Or the ones who disobey instructions to keep hands in view, and not reach under car seats when they're high on meth and have a history of violence and arrest? Maybe you mean the unarmed citizens who take cops' weapons and fire them at the cops.
Those unarmed citizens?
That's not a political statement - it's fact. You can see it all on any of the multiple body-cam videos of the events in question. In every one of these situations, the police were attacked by criminals who were a) armed (yes, knives count - just ask the French), b) high on drugs, c) had a recent and longstanding history of violence and drug use, or d) all of the above.
THEY should try reading articles like this, and also try avoiding situations that can (obviously) get them shot and killed. If you're going to attack the Police, you should expect this result. Regardless of your belief set - you don't attack cops. That should be a fairly elementary statement for anyone in polite society, regardless of your politics (just like the OP says - "avoid and de-escalate").
And I still hold to the belief that looting stores, trashing businesses, and burning cities, do not qualify as "protests". It doesn't matter who does it - this is not a political statement. Attack and ruin a business, or destroy property? You are wrong. Period. Left, right, green, black, whatever - nobody gets a free pass to destroy things. At least, nobody should. The fact that some people do? THAT is politics...which I'll avoid discussing here.
Oh, would those be the unarmed citizens who rush cops with a knife? Or the ones who disobey instructions to keep hands in view, and not reach under car seats when they're high on meth and have a history of violence and arrest? Maybe you mean the unarmed citizens who take cops' weapons and fire them at the cops.
Those unarmed citizens?
That's not a political statement - it's fact. You can see it all on any of the multiple body-cam videos of the events in question. In every one of these situations, the police were attacked by criminals who were a) armed (yes, knives count - just ask the French), b) high on drugs, c) had a recent and longstanding history of violence and drug use, or d) all of the above.
THEY should try reading articles like this, and also try avoiding situations that can (obviously) get them shot and killed. If you're going to attack the Police, you should expect this result. Regardless of your belief set - you don't attack cops. That should be a fairly elementary statement for anyone in polite society, regardless of your politics (just like the OP says - "avoid and de-escalate").
And I still hold to the belief that looting stores, trashing businesses, and burning cities, do not qualify as "protests". It doesn't matter who does it - this is not a political statement. Attack and ruin a business, or destroy property? You are wrong. Period. Left, right, green, black, whatever - nobody gets a free pass to destroy things. At least, nobody should. The fact that some people do? THAT is politics...which I'll avoid discussing here.
Bassbob
Emissary
Well when someone makes a comment that pretty much insults everyone who participates here I feel the need to address him.
You forgot to mention unarmed citizens that are assaulted or killed, while in custody, in handcuffs laying prone face down on the ground or are have been "neutralized" but I am sure that was an accidental omission. You will never hear me advocate of violence against cops or encourage keeping GOOD cops from doing the job that taxpayers pay them do to.
What sparks protests is cops tend restrain from using lethal force when the perp is of the same demographic as them while not so restrained given the same circumstances when the perp doesn't look like them.
I am still waiting to hear how people should effectively protest in your opinion since you chimmed in.
If the good cops ensured the bad cops did a better of job of being more professional, maybe there would be less civil unrest, protests and rioting. I agree, the best option is avoidance. I am all for professional law enforcement and civil interaction between the law enforcement and people in the community, but that is a two way street.
I am grown man with an opinion. YOU felt the need to respond to my post, which is your right. I am free to share my opinion whether you agree or not. Its called independent critical thinking. I don't support looting and assault. Breaking into a store to steal clothes or TVs does not serve a social or political cause in anyway. So I agree with you on that point.
But, protests and riots are caused and facilitated by many factors. There has been a nexus between protests and riots and the actions of law enforcement recently. Sans the actions of cops the riots, looting and protest never happen.
You came for me attacking me and my perspective, not the other way around. This whole thing started with what constitutes infringement on gun rights and what doesn't. I said my rights are not infringed upon since I can't carry at work and you insenuated that I don't know the difference between private and public property, etc. So let's agree, you ignore me and I will ignore you. Deal?
Bassbob
Emissary
Quote the posts you are referring to. Because nothing you said justifies you calling people cowards. Furthermore, I’m the one who pointed out that like this board, my employer not allowing me to carry on their property does not infringe on my rights. I could go back and find and quote the erroneous information you posted which prompted me to conclude you are clearly confusing private property rights with constitutional rights.
As for ignoring you, that’s a given. I’m guessing most people here will be ignoring you. Not because your opinion is different but because you don’t seem to be capable of expressing a dissenting opinion without being combative and insulting.
Peglegjoe
Professional
If they want to protest, that does not include violence, looting, intimidation, destruction of property, or assault. If they want to change policy, they work within the system and get rules and laws changed. That is how a civilized nation behaves. Looting a WalMart or a Target or a Nike store...makes their whole group look as pathetic as they truly are. Selfish, greedy bullies.
What does rioting actually accomplish? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that, since you appear to be in the camp that believes rioting is OK...
Incorrect.
There has been a nexus between riots, and the perceived actions of law enforcement. Once all the facts come to light, and the investigations are complete, and the truth comes out...the officers acted lawfully in each case. The riots come from knee-jerk reactions to what people THINK happened, when they have incomplete information (and support, organization, and urging from outside groups who profit from unrest).
"Innocent until proven guilty" - that phrase is supposed to carry as much force as the phrase "shall not be infringed", for ALL citizens - including the police.
Why doesn't it?
You are in complete denial if you don't think there was/is a connection which occurred this past summer and previous to to protests and riots and that of law enforcement. You can thank the fine officers for murdering George Floyd for that one. Lets not forget the female cop that killed a citizen while he was sitting in his apartment watching TV and eating ice cream I think her name was Heather? And after the facts came out she got convicted and went to jail. Or the guy Philando Castile that was legally carrying a weapon in Minnesota and informed the cop he was lawfully carrying to prevent a violent outcome and the cop killed him anyway as he was a passenger as reached for his wallet during a routine traffic stop. If you don't that stuff matters...keep believing that.
Regarding protests...do you think it was okay for armed thug militants to storm the state building in Michigan and verbally assault and threaten police officers and elected officials because they didn't like the governor's pandemic restrictions?
I don't agree with theft or looting, I said that before.
So please don't mistake perceptions with facts.