EDIT:// This is probably a bad idea all around. I didn't word my original thought out well. I forgot to include that even though there are already felony charges offered for rioting, how exactly would small time rioting charges be met. Even if you increase the financiali penalties, or increase jailtime for misdemeanors charge, it will only sow more discontent, further divide the economic class division. The people who would be charged would have a harder time recovering, which would make them strengthen their original discontent. It'll be a vicious circle. Lose-lose all the way.
The idea was more or less using the analogy of sending a child to timeout after escalating to a tantrum. But the idea kinda spiraled out of control when you consider how the rioters would react. Nothing would change. They would still be unhappy for the charge. They would be set back for the time loss (jail) or the financial penalties (loss of job, bail fees, gainful employment?)
I was trying to come up with an idea that could be used as a stronger deterrent. This doesn't seem like a good one. But hey, at least we were able to talk it through, right? That's the type of step that helps to build progress into actual reform.
Quick research has it that riot charges are on state level decisions. Some states have it classified as misdemeanors inciting and participating. Some are upgraded to felonies when property damages total +$1,500, result of serious bodily injury, or be in possession with a deadly weapon.
North Carolina https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.2.pdf
Riot Instigators and participators -- should be charged as felonies, lose voting rights. --That's looting, destruction of property, vandalism, intent to do bodily harm, results of bodily damage/injury to person(s),
If you can't peacefully protest and have the willingness to have CIVIL DISCOURSE, you should lose your rights to vote. If you can't have a cool level head to discuss the things the problems you are faced with, it's not CIVIL DISCOURSE. If you reject the opposing party's counter argument of why things are done like they are, it's not CIVIL DISCOURSE.
Because, voting itself is an act of CIVIL DISCOURSE.
I get it, these protestors are upset. But inciting and participating in riots is not the answer.
Ever thought about inviting seasoned police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, chiefs, HR/PR associates, and even junior officers to round tables of discussion? Ask them about policy, training, their reactions, economical factors regarding training, mental state of mind when they're in the middle of their duties? Ever thought about bringing your own set of demands or talking points to hopefully resolve some issues? Because this is civil discourse.
Because demanding and destroying things you want will only force the opposing side to be defensive. This leads to nowhere. Make it so there's a penalty for those who don't want to have CIVIL DISCOURSE lose their right to do so.
Voting rights never stopped democrats from voting though.
i don't. why are they rioting over some junkie piece of shit overdosing himself and dying?
floyd still didnt deserve to die with an officer on his neck... but what no one is talking about is when did he first have trouble breathing. Reports are that it was in the car when he was resisting. If they called EMS before he passed out, then did he have some other medical issue?
He should have thought about that before taking shitloads of fentanyl and committing crimes.
Hey if we can parade the corpse for Orangemanbad, all previous misdeeds are forgiven.
you didnt read my post. he LITERALLY overdosed on fentanyl and meth. he killed HIMSELF. the cop didn't do shit to him.
how do we know he ODd? ... I know it was in his system but do we know it was an OD?
because he had 3 times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system and he died of a heart attack as a result. its in the autopsy report
Then why didnt the autopsy conclude he died of an overdose? It concluded he died of homicide.
because they wouldn't be pandering to blacks. it's all political. the cop is being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness
Human nature:
see some form of wrongdoing -- feel the need to correct (ex: social justice warrior),
mob mentality (ex: i'm not a racist/bigot, so i support the movement),
ignorance (ex: not everyone knows all the facts, sometimes they only get what the mainstream media gives),
hypocrisy over the fairness of law(ex: why was there a shooting incident in this case and not the other?)
moral compass of occupation (ex: police are supposed to protect, why are they committing so many brutalities),
outrage against practices (ex: knee neck choke, use of lethal force, or escalation towards the use of lethal force)
Instead of resulting in these emotions, how about people just talk it out?
p0Dpw I8Qs ik j7MtO ccjvZw6Glp x wzpadEz qvpD ljX8k 3co9Vs9 k0jb j jhK2GZCMh 6D6 e8vJa Ue427 DU67jW p dvPH7 EyRN n0Z BXu9 gM IeI9O6 YZxmYH 3xk zimCO uKzW N6Ck1 KYZs vmgx sh4 FWdj Tav Ml tR WEn2Mr5u
Community Organizers and their Social Betters told them to.
Jogging man didn't work so they picked the next one.
Because they think they can.
If they thought they would be killed, seriously injured, or locked up for 30 years, they wouldn't riot even if their iphones were taken away.
Part of me thinks they genuinely want another civil war. That's where this shit leads. That would be a bad thing because the CCP would almost certainly back their side and attempt to aquire territory on the Pacific coast.
Yeah, unfortunately I feel the same way. That's something above my pay-grade in having a discussion about.
But how easy is it to just go "hey man, I know you fucked up. I fucked up too. Let's talk about it. You can vent out what you have to say, I'll get to vent out what I have to say. No repercussions. Let's work through this together"
Would they really want a civil war when that option is available?
Yes. This isn’t about pent up aggression. This is about ideological differences so enormous that if the left gains more power America will be an unrecognizable piggy bank for the rest of the world
I think the reason this entire era is so acriminious is precisely because they know that won't work (their demands are insane) and they want them anyway and they want to be absolved of any guilt or stain of wrongdoing for having completely ignored the democratic process.
It is a moral imperative for them that America fall.
especailly those two cuck lawyers throwing molotovs. The article did everything it could to defend them... saying "It was one ill advised moment"
They don't vote legally anyway. The left wouldn't care. They'd just hustle up ten dead people to vot in each empty place.
Give them something else to virtue signal about.
Get them out of their ivory towers of moral superiority. Oh we're the left, we're morally superior than the right because we can talk things out! Look at how progressive we are! The right is just a bunch of dumb dumb gun crazy rednecks that don't know how to negotiate! We can even talk to the right instead of destroying things!
/sarcasm
It'll also show their hands. If they rather have destruction, they don't care about voting. If they don't care about voting, they don't care about CIVIL DISCOURSE. if they don't care about CIVIL DISCOURSE they don't care about America. Do you know how long it took to draft 1776? Do you know how long it took for the 13 colonies to talk to the Brits about their concerns? Do you know it took more than 100 years prior to 1776 to find the inspiration from the enlightenment period philosophers to come come up with the basic principles of the Constitution?
They say that America symbolizes a melting pot. I disagree. I think it's more about coming together and working out the issues to come to a sensible solution. Yes, there was actual racism, actual slavery, actual oppression, actual imperialism, actual political resource grabs, actual political overthrows. But what makes it that can't we just come together and talk things through?
Just leave those that rather destroy out of picture. They weren't level headed when they craved destruction, so what makes them level headed when it'll come to civil discourse in placing their votes? As of now -- I think, not sure, only quick researches – in some states, you have to be charged and convicted of being part of a riot with 1) property damage over +$1,500, 2) serious bodily injury, 3) possession of carrying a dangerous weapon. Even without those three conditions, some states only have it as a misdemeanor. That’s a slap on the wrist.
If the left wants to have a hissy fit on a serious level, give them the equivalent on the serious level of a timeout. Felony class voter ban.
If the left wants to counter by saying that’s fascist, then consider CIVIL DISCOURSE has always been on the table before they got to the point they wanted to destroy. When and where has CIVIL DISCOURSE been fascist? Isn’t fascism pretty much dictator-ship, whatever the leader says, goes, no discussion?
But you're right. This proposal is by legitimate means of deterrent. It'll all come down to voter-ID in curving the illegitimate practices of the left.
RioTiNg Is A RiGHt biGoT
i dOn't wAnT To tAlK ThInGs oUt, JuSt lEt mE DeStRoY ThInGs. I sWeAR It's jUsT A PhAsE
yes! This is exactly what we need. You can protest, but you cant riot and then expect a vote.
Fuck that. One day we will riot against Democratic governments.
Careful with that. It may be us someday needing to overthrow the government.
Yea, its a satisfying thought, but creating a tool to disenfranchise people is an enormous risk. Whats to stop a leftist government from labeling me going to church as a riot and removing my ability to vote?
Very good points and perspective, wouldn't have thought that myself. I only suggested disenfranchisement as a deterrent to the avoidable destruction. Maybe there are other better ways as deterrents. Increase the severity of penalties on riot misdemeanors? That's why these discussions are so important, no matter how small, it creates the conversation.
Hmm, if you increase the penalties on the misdemeanors, whether financial or not, it's going to end up setting people backwards, it's going to keep those same people discontent with what happened. It'll be a vicious circle. Lose-Lose all the way.
As it is, you have to be charged with 1) property damage exceeding x amount of dollars, 2) bodily harm 3) inciting others to cause 1&2. I don't see how it's fair that people that throw molotovs, loot small items, set things on fire, and etc would still have small consequences as a misdemeanor. What's stopping them from doing it again? What's stopping them from escalating?
Instead of disenfranchisement and consequences, maybe this topic was about bringing out the idea that people can talk through the issues instead of rioting. Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.
Lmao POTUS has been working with Kim and Kanye to RESTORE voting rights to reformed felons, now we’re gonna take it back away
keyword being reformed.
Not the felons the democrat governors released from the prisons for the covid-riot agenda 2030
How do we identify reformed felons from non-reformed? Could become a slippery slope
Reformed also means the willingness to have civil discourse. Instead of resulting in destruction, awareness that things can be settled with talks. This was just a random of idea of mine as a way to put forward the idea of talking through issues is more favorable than losing the right to vote. Disenfranchisement might be a bad idea all together, and there might be other ways to make talks more favorable. But gotta start the conversation somewhere.
Burglary and arson are most certainly felonies where I am from.
I thought crossing state borders to participate in, organize, or fund such riots became a federal thing?
Yes you're right. Anti Riot Act of of 1968, is classed as a federal felony. I was thinking of deterrents and this idea came up. It's probably a bad idea. Increasing financial penalties or more jail time that are part of the misdemeanor charge is probably a weaker deterrent as well. That will prolly only sow more discontent, further divide the economic class division. The people who would be charged would have a harder time recovering, which would make them strengthen their original discontent.
I was thinking more of the lines of "hey, you rioted. you incited, caused property damage, and caused bodily harm. there's already felony charges for the extreme cases, but for the small cases, we don't think its necessary either to resort to destruction when you can talk it out. here's a timeout"
If someone is allowed back onto the streets, they should be able to vote.