I think peaceful protesters should encourage armed protestors as a form of disruptive protest, but with rules of engagement as a requirement. It simply boils down to: “Don’t shoot first.” That is a fair and reasonable rule that can be easily observed, that protects both protestors and police. Of course, if police choose to riot, they should get their own bitter medicine in return.
When police are running down people with horses, vans, batons, smoke, and bullets, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the violence.
You’re either missing the context of the thread or you replied to the wrong comment?
The police/bootlickers should be the only antagonist one has to deal with, not fellow protestors. If someone is in the group which the protest is there to protect then they should be encouraged to prioritize their survival.
The very presence of armed protestors is inherently disruptive. Police, the KKK, and other enforcers of malice typically don’t engage non-violent protestors when the risk of being harmed themselves is a possibility. Armed protesters are guardians, who simply promise that violence will be met in kind.
Unfortunately, there are many “moderate” members among peaceful protesters who can only think in binary: There is either peace or violence, and being armed defaults to full-on violence in their eyes. Personally, I am of the opinion that such a position is worse than useless when demanding for peaceful reform.
If you cannot retaliate against the opposition if they decide to use force, they have no incentive to negotiate. Those who enjoy power only respects power. Purely peaceful protest movements that drive out those willing to bear arms from the cause, will result in two things:
1: Less unity and power for the movement.
2: Reduced ability to lay out rules of engagement for armed members of the movement, because the armed and unarmed wings of the reform movement don’t interact.
It is very important for peaceful and defiant wings of reform to cooperate, not to be isolated. Without both wings, the movement cannot fly.
I think peaceful protesters should encourage armed protestors as a form of disruptive protest, but with rules of engagement as a requirement. It simply boils down to: “Don’t shoot first.” That is a fair and reasonable rule that can be easily observed, that protects both protestors and police. Of course, if police choose to riot, they should get their own bitter medicine in return.
When police are running down people with horses, vans, batons, smoke, and bullets, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the violence.
You’re either missing the context of the thread or you replied to the wrong comment?
The police/bootlickers should be the only antagonist one has to deal with, not fellow protestors. If someone is in the group which the protest is there to protect then they should be encouraged to prioritize their survival.
The very presence of armed protestors is inherently disruptive. Police, the KKK, and other enforcers of malice typically don’t engage non-violent protestors when the risk of being harmed themselves is a possibility. Armed protesters are guardians, who simply promise that violence will be met in kind.
Unfortunately, there are many “moderate” members among peaceful protesters who can only think in binary: There is either peace or violence, and being armed defaults to full-on violence in their eyes. Personally, I am of the opinion that such a position is worse than useless when demanding for peaceful reform.
If you cannot retaliate against the opposition if they decide to use force, they have no incentive to negotiate. Those who enjoy power only respects power. Purely peaceful protest movements that drive out those willing to bear arms from the cause, will result in two things:
1: Less unity and power for the movement.
2: Reduced ability to lay out rules of engagement for armed members of the movement, because the armed and unarmed wings of the reform movement don’t interact.
It is very important for peaceful and defiant wings of reform to cooperate, not to be isolated. Without both wings, the movement cannot fly.