Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Because it can. The simple fact is the vast majority of calls that police respond to are not criminal in nature. And people are fed up with the police out of control. We've seen police gun down innocent people in broad daylight. We've seen police officers acting like out of control linebackers which resulted in brain damage and the need for full time care fo the rest of a young man's life. We saw a police officer punch a 16 year old girl. We saw an off duty officer pull s gun on a motorcyclist and not fired.

How else are they to be held accountable?

These are anecdotes. The more violence and criminality you have in society, inevitably, and the more people armed with firearms, the more violent encounters you will have with police. The police are not generally speaking out of control, the media focuses on rare incidents where race is a factor and ignores others. The media provides a distorted view by choosing what to cover and what not to cover.

You know the name George Floyd, but do you know who Tony Timpa is? In a country of over 300 million people there will occasionally be incidents like this. It doesn't mean they are the norm, but if the media focuses only on these incidents and ignores others, sooner or later people's perception of reality will be distorted.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Correlation vs causation error.

Did I say the decrease in complaints caused the murder rate to jump? Or that the murder rate increase caused the complaints to drop? Either would indeed be erroneous. Now suppose instead that a third factor caused both effects, and suppose that factor was that Baltimore police got a lot more casual about doing their job. Could that cause the murder rate to jump? Not hard to imagine that. Could that cause the number of complaints about police brutality to drop? It seems almost axiomatic.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

TL;DR riots are a problem, but if you're getting riots, you've got bigger problems.

Exactly. Recognising this fact, containing the situation while trying to identify and address the problem, doing this openly, and engaging with genuine actvists is not to find it "acceptable".


The Puppycow position is that this is unacceptable and must be stopped now, in the most expeditious way. Anything else constitutes acceptance. On this logic the British Government sent the Paras into Northern Ireland to police a Civil Rights march, and we know what happened after that.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yes. There are people taking that position.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-m...164500490.html

It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate? It does seem like an incremental escalation to what people will accept based on what I feel is misrepresenting peaceful protests themselves. This is also terribly viewed from those on the right from what I have seen in regards to what they expect from peaceful protests, ie - 'They have the right to protest and they should but why are they blocking traffic? They should do it where it doesn't bother anyone!' Which is dumb.

But it feels like it is becoming the same thing when reference peaceful protests and accepting at a minimum or advocating to an extent for more extreme measures. You can peacefully protest and disrupt to a huge extent. Constant, disruptive protests can inconvenience people without physically harming them. You can disrupt normal life, causing people to not only be aware of but have to address your complaints. I guess they are trying to speed up the process through escalation, but that can definitely backfire.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

I seem to recall from history class that some American protesters became rather rowdy in the year 1775.

Simply unacceptable.

Quote:

Perhaps the government at the time would have profited from a more lenient approach than the one they chose?

In the long-term, I think not. Hindsight's a great thing. The course chosen was, of course, a disastrous one in its own terms. It failed to achieve the objective, and yet the logic underlying it is still being trotted out by the likes of Puppycow, who back in the day would have been writing letters to the Times about this behaviour being absolutely unacceptable!

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by rdwight

It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate?

To me these quotes (and I've not looked any deeper into them) are historians setting the current protests in a historical context. In the past violence has contributed to what are now generally regarded as desirable and progressive changes in society. They didn't happen without it. Violence has also contributed to reactionary forces. The way this works out is beyond the range of hindsight.


Kellie Carter Jackson says :

Quote:

A revolution in today’s terms would mean that these nationwide rebellions lead to black people being able to access and exercise the fullness of their freedom and humanity.”

which sets out the terms of a win in this case. The Civil War is regarded as a win (by force against violent extremist insurrectionaries) but not in those terms. In terms of preventing the spread of slavery into new territory it was a win fair and square. Jim Crow and penal labour let the virus survive, but it was isolated so it was acceptable.



Will the violence in this case make a difference? I think not. I'm old enough to remember coverage of the Watts riots and not even Fox can conjure up anything on that scale.



What might make a difference is the footage from Selma in the same era, prompted by the death of the esteemed John Lewis at an age which would have been a very long-odds bet at the time. To a lot of people it's a revelation, to others it's a reminder, to Trump and his cult it's "That's what I'm talking about!"

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

https://www.king5.com/article/news/l...d-286332f427f0

Local news story



Only 2 arrested? Who are these people? Antifa I assume?

I'd like to know who these people are too, but I wouldn't rush to assume anything. There was a peaceful group and then there was the not-peaceful group. I'd be interested in reading more about the people who were arrested.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I'd like to know who these people are too, but I wouldn't rush to assume anything. There was a peaceful group and then there was the not-peaceful group. I'd be interested in reading more about the people who were arrested.

If charges are laid "antifa" will not feature in the indictments. That's a banker's bet.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/stat...88892471599104

I'm a loyal Democrat but I don't understand why some people on the left seem to think that this sort of thing is acceptable. Nor why local politicians like mayors would allow their cities to be destroyed like this.

This is obviously not a "peaceful protest".

It's not "political speech" it's a crime.

Maybe they weren't 'people on the left'.

Witnesses saw people on motorcycles with OR plates who came in swinging the bats.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rdwight

It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate? It does seem like an incremental escalation to what people will accept based on what I feel is misrepresenting peaceful protests themselves. This is also terribly viewed from those on the right from what I have seen in regards to what they expect from peaceful protests, ie - 'They have the right to protest and they should but why are they blocking traffic? They should do it where it doesn't bother anyone!' Which is dumb.

But it feels like it is becoming the same thing when reference peaceful protests and accepting at a minimum or advocating to an extent for more extreme measures. You can peacefully protest and disrupt to a huge extent. Constant, disruptive protests can inconvenience people without physically harming them. You can disrupt normal life, causing people to not only be aware of but have to address your complaints. I guess they are trying to speed up the process through escalation, but that can definitely backfire.

Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

To me these quotes (and I've not looked any deeper into them) are historians setting the current protests in a historical context. In the past violence has contributed to what are now generally regarded as desirable and progressive changes in society. They didn't happen without it. Violence has also contributed to reactionary forces. The way this works out is beyond the range of hindsight.

There is no doubt that violence is a great catalyst for change. It is important to keep that in context however. As I questioned, are they and you replacing violent protest with violent revolution? You can't use those interchangeably. No one would look at any of those actions as equal, or the means that those end results required as anything but extreme beyond anything anyone is actually acknowledging.

When you reference a protest or a riot as necessary for change while comparing them with things like the Civil War, American Revolution etc, it is ludicrous. To me it seems a basis to normalize the escalation, while not acknowledging the direction that people are being led.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

If charges are laid "antifa" will not feature in the indictments. That's a banker's bet.

Are you suggesting they aren't antifa or BLM?


This is just a local news camera team trying to film:

https://twitter.com/ColeMillerTV/sta...76320984707073

Protesters with black umbrellas are preventing them from filming it.

They are working with the window smashers, to prevent anyone from filming it.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.

Often the "peaceful protesters" are aiding and abetting the violent ones.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Maybe they weren't 'people on the left'.

Witnesses saw people on motorcycles with OR plates who came in swinging the bats.

Ah, yes, the same witnesses who saw the white van?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by rdwight

There is no doubt that violence is a great catalyst for change. It is important to keep that in context however. As I questioned, are they and you replacing violent protest with violent revolution?

I'm doing nothing of the sort, nor is anybody that I can see. Very few violent protests lead to violent revolution, and Jackson doesn't even mention "violent revolution". As we know from well-attested history, violent protests can be the harbingers of violent revolution, but the two are not the same.

Quote:

You can't use those interchangeably.

I never would. It's simply not in me to do so.

Quote:

No one would look at any of those actions as equal, or the means that those end results required as anything but extreme beyond anything anyone is actually acknowledging

I've tried, but can make no sense of that.

Quote:

When you reference a protest or a riot as necessary for change ...

I will specify the protest or riot, it's context, and the change.[/quote]

Quote:

... while comparing them with things like the Civil War, American Revolution etc, it is ludicrous.

I don't think the crurent troubles are comparable to the Watts Riots of my youth.

Quote:

To me it seems a basis to normalize the escalation, while not acknowledging the direction that people are being led.

Ah, the "leaders" leading people to loot free stuff when they get the chance

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Are you suggesting they aren't antifa or BLM?

I said antifa. Why do you say BLM?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Often the "peaceful protesters" are aiding and abetting the violent ones.

And you know this how?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.

Which, of course, is why it usually serves the reactionary cause. It can be used to conjure up the likes of "antifa" which stands against all that is good and righteous and exists in the Cloud, which is really scary. You can't overthrow the system by violence without a confluence of many enabling factors. You can, though, have the time of your life when the thin veneer of civilisation is worn away, however briefly.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I said antifa. Why do you say BLM?

Because at least one of them was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign. Is there not overlap? I'm trying to understand what point you were making earlier.

Some have suggested right-wingers may be responsible for what happened.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you know this how?

Because it's on video.

[portlandatheist]

This speech by Portland Police union is worth listening to. [kgw news]
He is asking for a moratorium on the violence and for dialogue

Quote:

“This is no longer about George Floyd. This is no longer about racial equity or social justice. This is no longer about reform or the evolution of policing,” Turner said. “This is about violence, rioting, destruction, chaos, anarchy, buildings on fire, dumpsters on fire, broken glass and damaged businesses in Old Town, the Pearl, Northeast and North Portland.”

I support the protesters: the people that meet at Revolution Hall and march to Pioneer Square. I do not support the rioters and think this conversation about "Do the means justify the end?" is totally misguided. They hurt people and break things for the purpose of hurting people and breaking things. Productive dialogue and reform or doing anything that would actually bring about positive change is not their agenda.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Because at least one of them was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign.

Were they carrying an antifa sign?

Quote:

Is there not overlap?

Not obviously. I understand you wanting to create one.

Quote:

I'm trying to understand what point you were making earlier

Which point?

Quote:

Some have suggested right-wingers may be responsible for what happened.

Your point being?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

This speech by Portland Police union is worth listening to. [kgw news]
He is asking for a moratorium on the violence and for dialogue

I support the protesters: the people that meet at Revolution Hall and march to Pioneer Square. I do not support the rioters and think this conversation about "Do the means justify the end?" is totally misguided. They hurt people and break things for the purpose of hurting people and breaking things. Productive dialogue and reform or doing anything that would actually bring about positive change is not their agenda.

So you believe that the rioters are just apolitical people with no larger agenda besides destroying things and hurting people?

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I haven't heard anyone call looting and rioting peaceful protest.

Well, you may not live in one of the hot zones. Nearly all of the elected council members here in Seattle have called this a peaceful protest, even during the worst rioting and even shootings.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Were they carrying an antifa sign?

One was holding a sign that said "Good Cops Quit".

Quote:

Not obviously. I understand you wanting to create one.

OK. I'm not trying to create anything, just trying to understand what is actually happening.

Quote:

Which point?

When you remarked that if there is an indictment, "antifa" would not be featured in the indictment.

Quote:

Your point being?

Again, I'm trying to understand what is actually happening here. What are the motives of these people?

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I'm doing nothing of the sort, nor is anybody that I can see. Very few violent protests lead to violent revolution, and Jackson doesn't even mention "violent revolution". As we know from well-attested history, violent protests can be the harbingers of violent revolution, but the two are not the same.

Conceded that violent protests don't always lead to violent revolutions. I hope I am not misrepresenting this beyond the confines of the rhetoric being pushed. I hope we can both agree that continued escalation leads to problems though. And when the comparison of the current situation is depicted as equal or equally justified as revolutions of the past, certainly we can discuss whether that should be the framing that is accepted.

Since I was responding to a post about the acceptance and/or the encouragement of violence, whatever level you want to depict it as, as necessary or valor educing, it is best from where i am coming from to view it in that lens. While problems exist, and should be addressed, to compare the current situation and urgency to the Civil War is absurd.

So this doesn't break down into fragments I acknowledge your additional view on things. From my view the speech entailing the end goals and what it takes to achieve them and the actual reality of what is being advocated are not one and the same. You can see that when the anarchist and general protester are compared from the other side, and yet the methods and thrust of the conversation involves the 'end justifies the means' messaging that continues to grow. Not necessarily for the aim that is stated but for the means to reach it.

Even if you feel the changes to the system are expansive, necessary and urgent, the means to which to reach them are being advocated quite differently as time goes on. I don't like the direction myself but perhaps I am in the minority and will have to reassess things in the future.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So you believe that the rioters are just apolitical people with no larger agenda besides destroying things and hurting people?

It really depends. There is a significant group of people in both Seattle and Portland that are anarchists. Their political aim is to destroy things. For a few decades now they show up at May day rallies and other marches, and use the cover of people to destroy things.

Black protest leaders and BLM members in both cities have tried to oppose them, since they hijack the message and narrative of racial justice that these protests are supposed to be about.

There is definitely a mixture of people who have been involved with the protests who have looted, others involved in the protests who have shielded them (as can be seen in the linked video), and other looting like in Bellevue where some of the people were not involved at all with the protests.

Some see the destruction and violence as justified, while others do not. It certainly is something that opposition groups to the protests have seized upon, as they would much rather show videos of out-of-control cities rather than take on the message of change for the centuries of Systemic Racism.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

It really depends. There is a significant group of people in both Seattle and Portland that are anarchists. Their political aim is to destroy things. For a few decades now they show up at May day rallies and other marches, and use the cover of people to destroy things.

Anarchists are not apolitical. As crazy as I think it is, it is a political ideology.

By destroying things they hope to achieve some political end or at least make progress toward destroying the state, which they view as illegitimate.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you know this how?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/5470348002/

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.

Why bother quoting me if you are not going to address anything at all I am talking about? I mean, do you.. but I don't get it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Because it's on video.

It's on the video that the peaceful protesters assisted the violent protesters?

Bull. Post a link where we can clearly this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

So you believe that the rioters are just apolitical people with no larger agenda besides destroying things and hurting people?

They have some kind of agenda. We don't know yet who they are or what their agenda is.

We do know they are a separate group from the peaceful protesters.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Often the "peaceful protesters" are aiding and abetting the violent ones.

That is a major problem. People are more and more becoming entrenched in their corners, and not thinking through the implications of their actions or plans.

By FAR, the largest problem in the Country right now is that people are not meaningfully talking with each other.
- More than the COVID crisis
- More than the problems of Systemic Racism
- More than the very real threats of Civil War

Most of these problems in fact have been exacerbated because people are not meaningfully engaging with ideas from opposite sides, and they are not critically thinking through potential problems of their own ideas.

I passionately believe in the movement of 'Black Lives Matter,' and that changes to address the problems of Systemic Racism is desperately needed for this Country. However the official BLM group is pushing poorly thought out ideas that would unnecessarily kill more Black people and others because they are not being challenged from within or listening to others on the negative implications of ideas like 'defund the police.' We are in a truly ironic and confusing situation where if you genuinely care about saving Black lives, and really believe that Black Lives Matter, than you would have to stand against many of the core tenets of the official BLM organization. While there are definitely still great ideas to ending Systemic Racism from the organization, and the movement of Black Lives Matter, could very well bring about some of the most positive changes to addressing Systemic Racism in the United States in my lifetime, the official BLM organization definitely has serious issues in not being able to address the problems that ideas like 'defund the police' would do to the whole Nation including the Black community. I am not sure if the tens of millions of dollars has corrupted them, but their problems have come from a serious lack of critical introspection, and the whole movement is worse off because of it.

In Seattle, one of the best media sources for covering the protests here has been Converge Media. The main reporter Omari Salisbury has been embedded with the protesters for weeks and even though he had been tear gassed and hit with rubber bullets from SPD during the protests, he recently sat down with the leader of the Seattle Police Department Guild and other officers in one of the best conversations of this protest that I have heard so far. Converge Media: Q & A with SPD's Rank and File


I don't think that most peaceful protesters believe that they are shielding violence, and to be clear the large vast majority of the protests and protesters are peaceful. Those that do shield the violence I believe don't want to criticize people fighting on the same side since that would make it more difficult to view who the bad guys are, and it might even lead to some introspection.

During CHOP in Seattle, there was a purposeful effort to not be centrally run. Many wanted to use the police free space to imagine a better way of equitably living. At the Decolonization Conversation Cafe in CHOP, people gathered for a month inside the zone to think of how to make a better world. However, the armed security that was attempting to keep the area safe was only loosely organized, and was largely based on 'what they thought was best.' As a result of there being no major rules or training, there were a lot of times of panicked people running around with guns trying to figure out what to do. There was a lot of near mass casualty events because of that, and the peaceful protesters among them did next to nothing to hold themselves accountable as more people died because of it. Accountability was always reserved for someone else, and that primarily meant the police, and the Mayor, and anyone else who did not give them a blanket check to do whatever they wanted.

Residents living in the area were consistently harassed, beaten up, mugged, and in a few cases raped. Delivery drivers were not able to enter the area, and elderly people or those in the high risk categories for COVID were not able to get food deliveries or safely leave their houses. When a car repair shop was broken into with cash/customer keys were stolen and fires were started inside, the owner's son responded and was able to put out the fires, and detain the burglar (with a box knife slash narrowly missing his groin). A drunk CHOP member gathered a crowd of at least 100 people who started to chant that they were going to kill the owner if they did not let the arsonist go. They broke down the gate, and started rushing at him even though he was armed with an assault rifle. The man stayed impressively calm during the episode, and luckily there were other members of CHOP security who were able to calm down the mob. Despite what could have been a mass casualty event, the peaceful protesters did little to hold themselves accountable during or after the event.

The worst episode in CHOP was likely the event that led to a shutdown. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...OP-safety.html

Two runaway homeless teens who were staying in chop at Anderson park stole a car, and told their street sister that they wanted to go home. Some of CHOP security started to chase them in another car, and the scared teens called their street sister who told them to escape to CHOP where "they would be safe." When they got near the zone, their car was riddled with bullets by other members of CHOP security in the zone. Some of the wild bullets lodged into nearby homes while scared members of the zone and "anyone who was not armed" were told to shelter behind barriers and on the ground as they had done in previous shooting there. On videos the CHOP security can be heard taunting the dying teens saying "oh you're not dead yet, huh," and another where they tell Omari from Converge Media who came to see the aftermath that "I only stopped shooting because I ran out of bullets" with a laugh. Afterward, members of CHOP cleared the car of all shell casings (although the blood still covered the entire front half of the car). When the police showed up, they were only able to collect the bloody car, and so far no one has been arrested, and to my knowledge no CHOP members have talked publicly about holding anyone in the zone accountable.

This was probably the biggest test in my mind for CHOP and the ideas they tried to foster, as it was a chance to see what they would do when they did something wrong. A chance to show how their accountability would be different from the accountability of the police that they so despised. So far the message that they have portrayed is that as long as the people are on their side, they can get away with murder.

The council member Shawarma Sawant who represents the district, who famously refuses to respond to any questions from constituents that is not about praising her, and who has admitted to receiving orders for all of her voting and hiring/firing decisions to outside members of her Socialist party, blamed the shooting on "Capitalism."

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Anarchists are not apolitical. As crazy as I think it is, it is a political ideology.

By destroying things they hope to achieve some political end or at least make progress toward destroying the state, which they view as illegitimate.

I agree, Anarchism is a political aim with no functional endgame. There is simply no society that would ever work as an Anarchistic society. At best it would be run by a warlord/strongman, who would quickly enact their own security force and laws of their own.

Because of that, it just turns into breaking stuff, attacking the police, and sometimes other citizens. For many members though, that is more than enough for them to have a good time and continue on.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yes. There are people taking that position.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-m...164500490.html

Ok. Your OP said that you don't understand why some people find these acts acceptable. Your quote there explains why he finds them acceptable. Agree or disagree, what don't you understand?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ok. Your OP said that you don't understand why some people find these acts acceptable. Your quote there explains why he finds them acceptable. Agree or disagree, what don't you understand?

Fine, I don't agree. I do understand. If we still live in a democracy, I believe that the important battle is the one for hearts and minds, not a physical battle to be won with crude weapons such as baseball bats. In the battle for hearts and minds, when you appear to be a violent aggressor, that elicits fear and loathing, not sympathy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Fine, I don't agree. I do understand. If we still live in a democracy, I believe that the important battle is the one for hearts and minds, not a physical battle to be won with crude weapons such as baseball bats. In the battle for hearts and minds, when you appear to be a violent aggressor, that elicits fear and loathing, not sympathy.

I agree with you. But I also understand why some people may believe that the time for getting rough has arrived. After all, sometimes that time does come.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Fine, I don't agree. I do understand. If we still live in a democracy, I believe that the important battle is the one for hearts and minds, not a physical battle to be won with crude weapons such as baseball bats.

That is a very specific viewpoint though, and not all people hold it. If you look at the white fragility thread, I should think you'll find that there are some who would view your perspective as white supremacy. Even ignoring the specifics of those beliefs, there are clearly a lot of people out there who feel that their rightness is so obvious that discussion is pointless.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

In the battle for hearts and minds, when you appear to be a violent aggressor, that elicits fear and loathing, not sympathy.

That depends on who you are, where you get your news from and how critically you consume the news. You are not their target audience.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

That is a major problem. People are more and more becoming entrenched in their corners, and not thinking through the implications of their actions or plans.

In Seattle, one of the best media sources for covering the protests here has been Converge Media. The main reporter Omari Salisbury has been embedded with the protesters for weeks and even though he had been tear gassed and hit with rubber bullets from SPD during the protests, he recently sat down with the leader of the Seattle Police Department Guild and other officers in one of the best conversations of this protest that I have heard so far. Converge Media: Q & A with SPD's Rank and File

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am watching this video now.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I agree with you. But I also understand why some people may believe that the time for getting rough has arrived. After all, sometimes that time does come.

Thanks. Because I'm trying to have a discussion here, not a debate. I'm really not the smartest of people with "the best words" like the narcissist in the white house. My goal here is not to aggrandize myself or prove how clever I am.

Here's the thing: if the "time does come" as you say, which side in America is more heavily armed? A casual observer might think it's the right, not the left. If it really is a civil war to be settled with guns, who's going to come out on top in that scenario?

I think the more violent the protests become, that is, the more they come to resemble riots, looting, vandalism, arson and the like, the more pretexts the police will have to crack down harder.