"What's your position on provocateurs specifically? Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?"
I apologize to you Joan, I was flippant and glib, and I did not answer this question, and I should have. That is on me.
"What's your position on provocateurs specifically? Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?"
I apologize to you Joan, I was flippant and glib, and I did not answer this question, and I should have. That is on me.
Allow me to rectify that.
If you see someone you think is a provocateur or someone engaged in violence, do NOT approach that person. They could be, in increasing order of danger, a person having a mental health crisis, which would put you into physical danger. They could be a right-wing provocateur, like a boogaloo boy, which would put you into physical danger. Worst of all, they could be an undercover cop, which could put you into SERIOUS physical danger.
Do not sit down next to the provocateur as a signal to the police, as that would only significantly increase your physical danger. Do not talk to the provocateur, as that would put you into physical danger, and for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT RESTRAIN THE PROVOCATEUR, because they could kill you.
Instead, walk directly away from who you think is a provocateur. Go and find a protest organizer. They are very nice. They are trying to help you have a successful protest. Explain the situation to them, and ONLY to them. Let them deal with it - they know what they are doing, you do not. You will NOT get in trouble if you are seen talking to a protest organizer.
Then return to your protest. Remember, you are a protester, not a policeman.
The worst thing you could do is approach a policeman and point out who you think is a provocateur. First of all, policemen do not like being approached at protests; you are putting yourself in physical danger if you do so (see video below). If any other protesters see you talking to a policeman and pointing out individual protesters, you are putting yourself in physical danger from your fellow protesters.
Have solidarity with the people protesting with you. If you see a problem, go to a protest organizer, not to the police.
Remember: protest organizer: friend. Policeman: not a friend. Do not let your ideological priors put you in danger.
I really appreciate the engagement with someone who does try to defend their position substantive way,
rather than offering "I agree to disagree.", which I think is an admission that the person is at a loss to defend their position but choose to hold it any way.
Your responses to me here and below are definitely giving me a more nuanced appreciation of the dilemma that JVL raises.
These sound like really sensible suggestions - but they don't solve the problem of whether the agitators will be appropriatly dealt with by event officials so as to difuse them and the harm they could cause to people around them who didn't sign up for that.
In the spirit of that caveat, can you indicate what kind of training protest organizers have? One time I spotted people along the side of a peaceful procession that I was participating in. These "sideliners" were taking photos that appeared to be trained on individual protesters, and they appeared to have professional equipment even. This looked like part of a doxing effort. I called an organizer's attention to this and the only response was a shrug and a polite smile. It seems like they could have at least used their bullhorn to warn people about the photographers on the sidelines
This speaks to a concern about whether when attending a "peaceful" event the participants can trust the the event officials along the route to be well-trained to responsd effectively and appropriately.
In the situation that an event official have strongly suspects a certain person is a provocateur - say in particular the less serious case that the suspect does not appear armed but might be throwing objects and releasing noxious gases -
What would be an appropriate response of a well-trained event official? leave them alone since they might be one of these dangerous people you speak of? and the monitor could put theirselves at risk of attack.
Another set questions not yet answered (and here expanded upon and further clarified] but which I think are really important - even more important than the one you have answered so far:
What do you think of provocateurs who agree with the theme and objectives of what had been promoted as a peaceful organized protest then show up to such protests with intent to trigger or participate in violence?
Is this a responsible moral moral behavior? . And then, are such people who use the the crowd for cover so as to reduce risk or prosecution, immoral by any standard?
In light of the preceding two questions you can understand why It is very strange to me that elsewhere you said it is the "naive protester" who is "dangerous", implying that provocateurs are "less dangerous" or "not dangerous" (which is it)?.
Such behavior certainly endangers people who in good faith attend what they believe for good reason is a low-risk event, who lack the training you speak of, ,and whose attendance could have terrible repercussions for themselves and/or their loved ones were they to get caught up in violence that was initiated by an agitator (e.g. were they to get "kettled" and arrested - or worse.
If your response is "never does one have a good reason to believe an event will remain peaceful and people should not attend any protest event if they are not trained and equipped to deal with violence"
then this response is seriously problematic, s
For one, are you not implicitly telling untrained people to stay away from even permitted events organized to be peaceful unless they are prepared for a non-peaceful event? If everyone follows this advice, then I suspect any public protest movement will remain miniscule and completely ineffective?
I will just add that I have to judge your response above as possibly coming from a person who supports the behavior I suggest is immoral
(i.e. would be agitators attending and potentially stirring up violence at events billed as peaceful and having a high attendance of old people, children, family people, working class people who feel they can't afford to be jailed, and illegal immigrants or relatives of illegal immigrants. )
Please don't take offense. I think it is a reasonable suspicion.
I am not asking you to confirm or deny, but just letting you know that I have a suspicion that colors my interpretation of all of your responses so far. I makes me think you may have a bias in how you interpret historical exampls etc. I noticed you did not mention examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful - with all or nearly all the violence from the civilian size being associated with an outside groiup (e.g. Black Panthers
I am reaching the conclusion that JVL's dilemma is not strictly resolvable but I think it reprehensible for a provocateur to use a crowd cover for violent acts, unless they are certain that everyone who as it risk of getting kettled or worse is an informed colleague of the agitator - or has the training you consider an imperative for participation in protests.. [I walked in the Seattle 1990 WHO protests by the way - first time I have encountered such agitators - very interesting what they were doing and I am glad I didn't listen to their guidance].
OK, I will continue to respond as if you are acting in good faith.
You ask a series of questions about how to police "provocateurs".
If you think the protest organizers are NOT doing a good enough job policing the protest, then I suggest you lay down your protest sign, put on a uniform, and pick up a gun and a badge. Then you can police protesters as you see fit.
I was quite explicit in my previous answer: if you are at all worried about an individual, walk directly away from them, and speak to a protest organizer. That's it. You've done your duty. Continue with your own protest, or quit the protest.
(In answer to your specific point: photographing people at a protest is Constitutionally protected behavior. The protest organizer had no power to stop them, and I think you know that).
You ask about "peaceful" vs "non-peaceful" protests. Let's be clear about what's happening: you are protesting wildly illegal autocratic acts by a criminal president. If you think that even a "permitted" protest against such a President will be peaceful, then either your naivete or bad faith is showing. You are not just challenging authority, you are challenging an authoritarian. It won't be the "provocateurs" who will run you down with armored horses, or turn Israeli skunk-water on you, or arrest you en masse.
It will be the authoritarian. You should worry about them first. Provocateurs or not, the authoritarian will come for you. They prefer, but do not need, a pretext.
The police will, and have, beaten up old people, children, family people, and working-class people. The act of being at the protest is a direct challenge to their authority. They will not tolerate it, no matter what privilege you believe will protect you. Again, they shot a nice, white, lady reporter who was not a provocateur. They used horses to trample a man on the ground, and when he tried to run away, they threw him to the ground, and beat him. So who was the 'provocateur' in those cases?
You asked why I did not mention "examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful". I didn't mention them because there are no such non-violent mass movements. You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent"?
This is whitewashing history.
A more accurate way to think of the civil rights movement is as a low-level civil war between Federal and State authorities on one side, and Black Power / Civil Rights on the other side. It had all the hallmarks of such a conflict: overt surveillance and sabotage, widespread violence, legal repression, paramilitary policing, armed resistance, and political radicalization.
You're probably aware of the famous Frederick Douglass quote:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Now, most people can only quote the first sentence, "Power concedes nothing without a demand, " which is true.
But look at the second last sentence: "...these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both"
Words AND/OR blows.
Yes, the civil rights movement and all other successful movements that brought about change had "words," but they also had "blows."
A more recent example is the prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his fellow murderers, which ONLY occurred because of violent protests. Violent protests have been a part of every step of progress in US History. There have been no successful "peaceful only" protests.
If you disagree, please list successful "peaceful only" protests.
I'm afraid to tell you that if Trump IS an authoritarian, peaceful protest alone will not remove him. At best, he will laugh at you. At worst ... well ... look at Putin.
There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence There is no way to prove that the violence was necessary to explain the prosecutions. Try to prove that the people instigating violence in the BLM movement were committed to the BLM movement and weren't just opportunistic anarchists or - at best, but still in the cowardly category -uninvited sympathetic provacateurs.
"There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence"
You are asking me to prove a counterfactual history, which is tough. But I think I CAN prove what you ask.
(I am writing this up now with much more detail, but here is a preview).
Timeline of events:
May 25, 2020 – George Floyd's Death
George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis during an arrest by police officer Derek Chauvin. A bystander video capturing the incident rapidly spread online, igniting public outrage and peaceful protest.
May 26, 2020 – Protests Begin in Minneapolis
Peaceful protests continue at the site of Floyd's death, awaiting an announcement about Chauvin and others being arrested and prosecuted.
But instead of prosecutions. Chauvin and three other officers were fired by the Minneapolis Police Department. Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced that “Four responding MPD officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been terminated. This is the right call.”
That was it; that was "the call". The 4 were fired. End of story. That's what NON-violent protest had achieved. The 4 would have been able to rejoin the police at a different precinct.
In response, mass violent protests broke out in Minneapolis, leading to instances of property damage and confrontations with police.
May 27, 2020 – Nationwide Demonstrations
Protests spread to cities including Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City. While demonstrations in these other cities remained peaceful, some areas experienced clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
Protests in Minneapolis continued to grow in violence.
May 28, 2020 – Escalation in Minneapolis
The Minneapolis Police Department's 3rd Precinct was set ablaze during intense protests. Governor Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard to assist in restoring order.
May 29, 2020 – Charges Filed Against Chauvin
Three days after the firings, the prosecutor, Mike Freeman, charged ONLY Chauvin with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, a slap on the wrist.
Because these charges were perceived to be inadequate, protests continued, with some turning violent in cities like Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
May 30–31, 2020 – Intensified Protests and Unrest
Demonstrations occurred in over 140 U.S. cities. While many were peaceful, several cities, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, reported looting, arson, and violent clashes.
Numerous cities imposed curfews, and over 20 states activated the National Guard.
June 1–2, 2020 – Continued Demonstrations
Protests persisted nationwide, with a mix of peaceful marches and isolated incidents of violence.
Law enforcement's response, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, drew criticism from civil rights organizations.
June 3, 2020 – Upgraded Charges and Additional Arrests
Responding to that mass violent protest, not only in Minneapolis but nation wide, Attorney General Keith Ellison elevated Chauvin's charge to second-degree murder. For the first time, the three other officers involved were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
After June 3, 2020
Following the announcement on June 3, 2020, of upgraded charges against Derek Chauvin and the charging of the other three officers involved in George Floyd's death, there was a notable shift in the nature of the protests across the United States.
According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), after June 3, the majority of demonstrations continued to be peaceful, with approximately 93% of the over 7,750 events between May 26 and August 22, 2020, involving no serious harm to people or property.
So there it is: initially, there was a non-violent protest. The result? The four were fired, but no charges. Then the violent protest began. The result? Minimal charges. The protests escalated and spread. The result? Real charges are brought by a serious prosecutor.
You cannot begin to tell me that Ellison would have brought the June 3 charges if there had been ONLY non-violent protest. That had been tried, and no charges were forthcoming.
Qualified Immunity
But now we get to the part that really falsifies your claim. After June 3, the protests became as you wish: non-violent.
There was still something required: the ending of national qualified immunity for cops. But that was now placed in the hands of Senators Scott and Booker. No more violent protests on the street, only non-violent protests and a "political process".
And what happened? Well, the Senate drew out "negotiations" till September 25, nearly 4 months later, when Scott killed it with the following statement: "I'm not going to participate in reducing funding for the police after we saw a major city after major city defund the police."
That is how the largest protest movement in world history died—because violent and non-violent protest (words and blows) became only non-violent protest and a political process.
You ask me, "You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent":"
Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence. Such protest could occasion one-sided violence, but this is unlikely unless agitators are present. Two way violence is almost assured if agitators are present.
The fact that violence COULD occur at a peaceful protest does not excuse the behavior of provocateurs.
I notice you still haven't answered my fair and VERY IMPORTANT question about whether uninvited agitation is moral.
I think your stance is immoral. If you disagree, then you need to do a better job defending your position that agitation at peaceful protest is not immoral, and that the "dangerous" people at such protest are NOT the agitators.
I think it is really ridiculous so say that the people who show up to a peaceful protest with a protest sign but with no weapons and no protective equipment are the "dangerous" ones. I am one of these people.
Agitation leads to more people getting hurt.
Agitators who attend a No Kings event tomorrow are the dangerous ones.
They are a danger to all the people nearby. It is audacious that you would blame me if I get hurt as a result of your agitation - especially if you did not warn me and EVERY OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE of your presence and your intent, so that they had fair warning that the level of risk of violence is elevated.
The only way to be a "moral" agitator is to stay away from peaceful protests, and make sure no-one is around who does not understand what is planned. So anyone who might get hurt or arrested is forewarned and chooses to be there anyway.
I get the appeal of taking the cowardly approach and using the crowds at a peaceful protest as cover.
If everyone follows your advice (don't go to any protest - even peaceful protests - unless you are prepared for violence, with appropriate training and equipment), then very few people will attend peaceful protest events.
If everyone follows your advice there will be no mass turnout as is needed now if there is any hope to save our country from what looks like will be a brutal fasism.
If you don't agree that agitation at peaceful protests is immoral and cowardly, then please explain.
To argue that even peaceful protests can get violent is not an valid answer.
If you chose not to answer I can understand why not,
Since I cannot imagine how you can defend the behavior as moral.
If you do respond, I expect it will be more of the same e.g. All successful movements were violent. The naive people are the dangerous ones.
If you want to carryout the violence that you think is essential for a successful movement - then show some true heroism
Go organize your own protest, Don't infiltrate a peaceful event.
Put your life and liberty on the line.
Engage in civil disobedence without infringing on someone else who did not agree to be part of your heroism.
"What's your position on provocateurs specifically? Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?"
I apologize to you Joan, I was flippant and glib, and I did not answer this question, and I should have. That is on me.
Allow me to rectify that.
If you see someone you think is a provocateur or someone engaged in violence, do NOT approach that person. They could be, in increasing order of danger, a person having a mental health crisis, which would put you into physical danger. They could be a right-wing provocateur, like a boogaloo boy, which would put you into physical danger. Worst of all, they could be an undercover cop, which could put you into SERIOUS physical danger.
Do not sit down next to the provocateur as a signal to the police, as that would only significantly increase your physical danger. Do not talk to the provocateur, as that would put you into physical danger, and for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT RESTRAIN THE PROVOCATEUR, because they could kill you.
Instead, walk directly away from who you think is a provocateur. Go and find a protest organizer. They are very nice. They are trying to help you have a successful protest. Explain the situation to them, and ONLY to them. Let them deal with it - they know what they are doing, you do not. You will NOT get in trouble if you are seen talking to a protest organizer.
Then return to your protest. Remember, you are a protester, not a policeman.
The worst thing you could do is approach a policeman and point out who you think is a provocateur. First of all, policemen do not like being approached at protests; you are putting yourself in physical danger if you do so (see video below). If any other protesters see you talking to a policeman and pointing out individual protesters, you are putting yourself in physical danger from your fellow protesters.
Have solidarity with the people protesting with you. If you see a problem, go to a protest organizer, not to the police.
Remember: protest organizer: friend. Policeman: not a friend. Do not let your ideological priors put you in danger.
https://youtu.be/FoFFUlAWr50?si=GOxnyw-X5klhioWV
Thank you for this thoughtful reply.
I really appreciate the engagement with someone who does try to defend their position substantive way,
rather than offering "I agree to disagree.", which I think is an admission that the person is at a loss to defend their position but choose to hold it any way.
Your responses to me here and below are definitely giving me a more nuanced appreciation of the dilemma that JVL raises.
These sound like really sensible suggestions - but they don't solve the problem of whether the agitators will be appropriatly dealt with by event officials so as to difuse them and the harm they could cause to people around them who didn't sign up for that.
In the spirit of that caveat, can you indicate what kind of training protest organizers have? One time I spotted people along the side of a peaceful procession that I was participating in. These "sideliners" were taking photos that appeared to be trained on individual protesters, and they appeared to have professional equipment even. This looked like part of a doxing effort. I called an organizer's attention to this and the only response was a shrug and a polite smile. It seems like they could have at least used their bullhorn to warn people about the photographers on the sidelines
This speaks to a concern about whether when attending a "peaceful" event the participants can trust the the event officials along the route to be well-trained to responsd effectively and appropriately.
In the situation that an event official have strongly suspects a certain person is a provocateur - say in particular the less serious case that the suspect does not appear armed but might be throwing objects and releasing noxious gases -
What would be an appropriate response of a well-trained event official? leave them alone since they might be one of these dangerous people you speak of? and the monitor could put theirselves at risk of attack.
Another set questions not yet answered (and here expanded upon and further clarified] but which I think are really important - even more important than the one you have answered so far:
What do you think of provocateurs who agree with the theme and objectives of what had been promoted as a peaceful organized protest then show up to such protests with intent to trigger or participate in violence?
Is this a responsible moral moral behavior? . And then, are such people who use the the crowd for cover so as to reduce risk or prosecution, immoral by any standard?
In light of the preceding two questions you can understand why It is very strange to me that elsewhere you said it is the "naive protester" who is "dangerous", implying that provocateurs are "less dangerous" or "not dangerous" (which is it)?.
Such behavior certainly endangers people who in good faith attend what they believe for good reason is a low-risk event, who lack the training you speak of, ,and whose attendance could have terrible repercussions for themselves and/or their loved ones were they to get caught up in violence that was initiated by an agitator (e.g. were they to get "kettled" and arrested - or worse.
If your response is "never does one have a good reason to believe an event will remain peaceful and people should not attend any protest event if they are not trained and equipped to deal with violence"
then this response is seriously problematic, s
For one, are you not implicitly telling untrained people to stay away from even permitted events organized to be peaceful unless they are prepared for a non-peaceful event? If everyone follows this advice, then I suspect any public protest movement will remain miniscule and completely ineffective?
I will just add that I have to judge your response above as possibly coming from a person who supports the behavior I suggest is immoral
(i.e. would be agitators attending and potentially stirring up violence at events billed as peaceful and having a high attendance of old people, children, family people, working class people who feel they can't afford to be jailed, and illegal immigrants or relatives of illegal immigrants. )
Please don't take offense. I think it is a reasonable suspicion.
I am not asking you to confirm or deny, but just letting you know that I have a suspicion that colors my interpretation of all of your responses so far. I makes me think you may have a bias in how you interpret historical exampls etc. I noticed you did not mention examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful - with all or nearly all the violence from the civilian size being associated with an outside groiup (e.g. Black Panthers
I am reaching the conclusion that JVL's dilemma is not strictly resolvable but I think it reprehensible for a provocateur to use a crowd cover for violent acts, unless they are certain that everyone who as it risk of getting kettled or worse is an informed colleague of the agitator - or has the training you consider an imperative for participation in protests.. [I walked in the Seattle 1990 WHO protests by the way - first time I have encountered such agitators - very interesting what they were doing and I am glad I didn't listen to their guidance].
OK, I will continue to respond as if you are acting in good faith.
You ask a series of questions about how to police "provocateurs".
If you think the protest organizers are NOT doing a good enough job policing the protest, then I suggest you lay down your protest sign, put on a uniform, and pick up a gun and a badge. Then you can police protesters as you see fit.
I was quite explicit in my previous answer: if you are at all worried about an individual, walk directly away from them, and speak to a protest organizer. That's it. You've done your duty. Continue with your own protest, or quit the protest.
(In answer to your specific point: photographing people at a protest is Constitutionally protected behavior. The protest organizer had no power to stop them, and I think you know that).
You ask about "peaceful" vs "non-peaceful" protests. Let's be clear about what's happening: you are protesting wildly illegal autocratic acts by a criminal president. If you think that even a "permitted" protest against such a President will be peaceful, then either your naivete or bad faith is showing. You are not just challenging authority, you are challenging an authoritarian. It won't be the "provocateurs" who will run you down with armored horses, or turn Israeli skunk-water on you, or arrest you en masse.
It will be the authoritarian. You should worry about them first. Provocateurs or not, the authoritarian will come for you. They prefer, but do not need, a pretext.
The police will, and have, beaten up old people, children, family people, and working-class people. The act of being at the protest is a direct challenge to their authority. They will not tolerate it, no matter what privilege you believe will protect you. Again, they shot a nice, white, lady reporter who was not a provocateur. They used horses to trample a man on the ground, and when he tried to run away, they threw him to the ground, and beat him. So who was the 'provocateur' in those cases?
You asked why I did not mention "examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful". I didn't mention them because there are no such non-violent mass movements. You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent"?
This is whitewashing history.
A more accurate way to think of the civil rights movement is as a low-level civil war between Federal and State authorities on one side, and Black Power / Civil Rights on the other side. It had all the hallmarks of such a conflict: overt surveillance and sabotage, widespread violence, legal repression, paramilitary policing, armed resistance, and political radicalization.
You're probably aware of the famous Frederick Douglass quote:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Now, most people can only quote the first sentence, "Power concedes nothing without a demand, " which is true.
But look at the second last sentence: "...these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both"
Words AND/OR blows.
Yes, the civil rights movement and all other successful movements that brought about change had "words," but they also had "blows."
A more recent example is the prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his fellow murderers, which ONLY occurred because of violent protests. Violent protests have been a part of every step of progress in US History. There have been no successful "peaceful only" protests.
If you disagree, please list successful "peaceful only" protests.
I'm afraid to tell you that if Trump IS an authoritarian, peaceful protest alone will not remove him. At best, he will laugh at you. At worst ... well ... look at Putin.
Show me a successful movement that did not involve massive peaceful protests.
The prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his murderous colleagues is the most recent.
But that was not my point. I quoted Frederick Douglass, who said that a successful protest required both "words and blows."
Words alone never work, EVER, which is what you claim, but have presented no evidence to support.
Blows alone sometimes work, as in the case of Chauvin.
If you want to review the full history of successful protests in the US, words and blows are most likely to be effective—which is my position.
There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence There is no way to prove that the violence was necessary to explain the prosecutions. Try to prove that the people instigating violence in the BLM movement were committed to the BLM movement and weren't just opportunistic anarchists or - at best, but still in the cowardly category -uninvited sympathetic provacateurs.
"There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence"
You are asking me to prove a counterfactual history, which is tough. But I think I CAN prove what you ask.
(I am writing this up now with much more detail, but here is a preview).
Timeline of events:
May 25, 2020 – George Floyd's Death
George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis during an arrest by police officer Derek Chauvin. A bystander video capturing the incident rapidly spread online, igniting public outrage and peaceful protest.
May 26, 2020 – Protests Begin in Minneapolis
Peaceful protests continue at the site of Floyd's death, awaiting an announcement about Chauvin and others being arrested and prosecuted.
But instead of prosecutions. Chauvin and three other officers were fired by the Minneapolis Police Department. Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced that “Four responding MPD officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been terminated. This is the right call.”
That was it; that was "the call". The 4 were fired. End of story. That's what NON-violent protest had achieved. The 4 would have been able to rejoin the police at a different precinct.
In response, mass violent protests broke out in Minneapolis, leading to instances of property damage and confrontations with police.
May 27, 2020 – Nationwide Demonstrations
Protests spread to cities including Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City. While demonstrations in these other cities remained peaceful, some areas experienced clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
Protests in Minneapolis continued to grow in violence.
May 28, 2020 – Escalation in Minneapolis
The Minneapolis Police Department's 3rd Precinct was set ablaze during intense protests. Governor Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard to assist in restoring order.
May 29, 2020 – Charges Filed Against Chauvin
Three days after the firings, the prosecutor, Mike Freeman, charged ONLY Chauvin with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, a slap on the wrist.
Because these charges were perceived to be inadequate, protests continued, with some turning violent in cities like Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
May 30–31, 2020 – Intensified Protests and Unrest
Demonstrations occurred in over 140 U.S. cities. While many were peaceful, several cities, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, reported looting, arson, and violent clashes.
Numerous cities imposed curfews, and over 20 states activated the National Guard.
June 1–2, 2020 – Continued Demonstrations
Protests persisted nationwide, with a mix of peaceful marches and isolated incidents of violence.
Law enforcement's response, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, drew criticism from civil rights organizations.
June 3, 2020 – Upgraded Charges and Additional Arrests
Responding to that mass violent protest, not only in Minneapolis but nation wide, Attorney General Keith Ellison elevated Chauvin's charge to second-degree murder. For the first time, the three other officers involved were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
After June 3, 2020
Following the announcement on June 3, 2020, of upgraded charges against Derek Chauvin and the charging of the other three officers involved in George Floyd's death, there was a notable shift in the nature of the protests across the United States.
According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), after June 3, the majority of demonstrations continued to be peaceful, with approximately 93% of the over 7,750 events between May 26 and August 22, 2020, involving no serious harm to people or property.
So there it is: initially, there was a non-violent protest. The result? The four were fired, but no charges. Then the violent protest began. The result? Minimal charges. The protests escalated and spread. The result? Real charges are brought by a serious prosecutor.
You cannot begin to tell me that Ellison would have brought the June 3 charges if there had been ONLY non-violent protest. That had been tried, and no charges were forthcoming.
Qualified Immunity
But now we get to the part that really falsifies your claim. After June 3, the protests became as you wish: non-violent.
There was still something required: the ending of national qualified immunity for cops. But that was now placed in the hands of Senators Scott and Booker. No more violent protests on the street, only non-violent protests and a "political process".
And what happened? Well, the Senate drew out "negotiations" till September 25, nearly 4 months later, when Scott killed it with the following statement: "I'm not going to participate in reducing funding for the police after we saw a major city after major city defund the police."
That is how the largest protest movement in world history died—because violent and non-violent protest (words and blows) became only non-violent protest and a political process.
You ask me, "You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent":"
Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence. Such protest could occasion one-sided violence, but this is unlikely unless agitators are present. Two way violence is almost assured if agitators are present.
The fact that violence COULD occur at a peaceful protest does not excuse the behavior of provocateurs.
I notice you still haven't answered my fair and VERY IMPORTANT question about whether uninvited agitation is moral.
I think your stance is immoral. If you disagree, then you need to do a better job defending your position that agitation at peaceful protest is not immoral, and that the "dangerous" people at such protest are NOT the agitators.
I think it is really ridiculous so say that the people who show up to a peaceful protest with a protest sign but with no weapons and no protective equipment are the "dangerous" ones. I am one of these people.
Agitation leads to more people getting hurt.
Agitators who attend a No Kings event tomorrow are the dangerous ones.
They are a danger to all the people nearby. It is audacious that you would blame me if I get hurt as a result of your agitation - especially if you did not warn me and EVERY OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE of your presence and your intent, so that they had fair warning that the level of risk of violence is elevated.
The only way to be a "moral" agitator is to stay away from peaceful protests, and make sure no-one is around who does not understand what is planned. So anyone who might get hurt or arrested is forewarned and chooses to be there anyway.
I get the appeal of taking the cowardly approach and using the crowds at a peaceful protest as cover.
If everyone follows your advice (don't go to any protest - even peaceful protests - unless you are prepared for violence, with appropriate training and equipment), then very few people will attend peaceful protest events.
If everyone follows your advice there will be no mass turnout as is needed now if there is any hope to save our country from what looks like will be a brutal fasism.
If you don't agree that agitation at peaceful protests is immoral and cowardly, then please explain.
To argue that even peaceful protests can get violent is not an valid answer.
If you chose not to answer I can understand why not,
Since I cannot imagine how you can defend the behavior as moral.
If you do respond, I expect it will be more of the same e.g. All successful movements were violent. The naive people are the dangerous ones.
If you want to carryout the violence that you think is essential for a successful movement - then show some true heroism
Go organize your own protest, Don't infiltrate a peaceful event.
Put your life and liberty on the line.
Engage in civil disobedence without infringing on someone else who did not agree to be part of your heroism.
Don't be a coward.
Don't cause collateral damage.
Be a hero.
"Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence."
By the definition of words, peaceful protests are free of violence.
"Agitation leads to more people getting hurt."
The goal of a protest is not to minimize "hurt" to the protesters, in fact, most protesters go to a protest knowing their is risk of hurt.
The goal of a protest is to affect change, even if there is a chance of harm.