Thoughts on recent state violence (BLM)

My head is all over the place; I don't know how to organize my thoughts or even where to share them. When I try to engage strangers in discussion on public Facebook posts, no one responds to me. Or if they do, they stop after my first or second rebuttal. I'm tired of that shutdown in communication. I'm honestly not trying to debate anyone on the facts of what's happening during the protests because none of us are participants of the protests being discussed; and this kind of discussion just becomes a murky pool of he-said-she-said since we don't trust each other's sources. I'm trying to reason with people on why Black Lives Matter is legitimate and worthwhile, and their arguments essentially boil down to something like "Your methods (arson, looting) suck, so your message (BLM) sucks. The feds should beat and arrest all of you."

----

We can agree a bad actor is not a protestor. If the average person is able to logically separate bad actors from peaceful protestors, then why can't the police and federal agents do that as well? It seems some people are claiming that violent force must be used in response to the bad actors hiding amongst the protesters. Okay...

If the officers and agents know who the bad actors are, then they should go after the specific bad actors in a lawful manner; there is no need to go after the peaceful protestors who haven't committed any crimes. Picking nearby people off the street, detaining them for hours, and then releasing them without any charges kinda tells me they don't know who they're looking for and are just grabbing anybody off the street.

If they don't know who the specific bad actors are, then why are they going after anyone at all, especially people who have been shown to be peacefully protesting or just recording the events? Why are tear gas, batons, and kinetic impact projectiles being used against protestors if someone else, the bad actor, is causing damage or harm? If someone committed arson in any other situation and you didn't see who started it, you don't just turn to the person closest to you and start beating them into submission because you don't know if they did anything.

I thought officers and agents were supposed to be trained on how to catch suspects with the least amount of harm caused to the general public. This was what I was taught through the media. If you have a suspect running away from you in a crowd, you don't shoot into the crowd just to get that suspect, unless you think everyone is a suspect and therefore is subject to the same level of force, despite not knowing anyone's level of involvement in any alleged crime. And just in case you weren't sure, while officers and agents are busy rounding up the peaceful protestors instead of the bad actors, the bad actors will continue to cause damage and harm.

I think it's just strange to claim that the violence of some people justifies state violence against all people. It seems like a fear tactic and a diversion tactic meant to deter people from protesting at all and to keep people's focus off of the BLM message of the protests and more on the general state response to the protests, the irony of which is that the protests are against law enforcement's use of excessive force against the Black community.

----

Since it is well-documented in American history, civil disobedience (à la MLK, John Lewis, Rosa Parks, and many others) is a tried and true method of protest for minorities.

Acts of civil disobedience are disruptive and illegal; the purpose is to break laws to draw attention to injustice. Unfortunately, this also draws in the bad actors who are not necessarily in support of the cause (the 1960's non-violent protests also had bad actors employed by the government and others). So the state response is expected. The question is: Is the state violence against the civil disobedience justified? You can't say that the recent state violence is only in response to the street violence occurring during the protests. If that were the case, peaceful protestors and observers wouldn't be targeted.

And if the state violence against civil disobedience is technically justified under current law, I definitely think that needs to be changed. How does it make sense for the government or anyone to punish everyone for the actions of the few that they don't know how to catch? And you can't turn this logic around on our response to police brutality with "Why punish all police officers for the actions of a few bad officers?" We're not seeking to punish all officers. We're seeking to punish the ones who've caused harm and murdered people. We're seeking to change the system that allows police officers to commit crime and murder with impunity and allows their mistakes or ill intent to be overlooked just because they have a badge.

If we are to have law enforcement at all, we need to have a system that we can trust to punish criminals fairly and equally, regardless of their skin color, wealth, or job title.

----

I needed a break from my emotions and from the ridiculous defenses of indiscriminate state violence. So I read about civil disobedience from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/. It's an interesting but somewhat long read. It's a summary of philosophical perspectives; what else can you expect?

Here's a paragraph that underscores my understanding of and reaction to "If people just follow the law, then they won't have any problems" 🙄:

"On the assumption that people have a pro tanto obligation to follow the law (or at least those laws that are not excessively unjust), it follows that people then have a pro tanto obligation to use the proper legal channels of political participation before resorting to illegal methods. On this view, civil disobedience can be justified only when employed as a last resort. But since causes defended by a minority are often those most opposed by persons in power, legal channels may be less than wholly effective. Moreover, it is unclear when a person could claim to have reached the situation of last resort; she could continue to use the same tired legal methods without end. To ward off such challenges, Rawls suggests that, if past actions have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further attempts may reasonably be thought fruitless and one may be confident one's civil disobedience is a last resort."

----

2020 has been an intense and confusing and terrifying and edifying year so far. COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter are the dominating concerns on my mind. What will become of the world as we move forward with the second half of the year? Will COVID deaths rise exponentially? The US is nearly at 150k deaths now. Hadn't someone predicted 200k deaths by the end of summer or something? We're not far off. How much more violence will befall the Black community before we acknowledge our roles in the harm to their community and hold ourselves accountable for the damage done?

Will we all learn to work together and to put the needs of others ahead of our own? Do we all really believe in the greater good, or do we just say we do so that everyone else thinks we're good people? Only our actions will reveal our true natures, right?

----

One last thing: Don't lose focus. Black lives still matter.