Mikie Sherrill and Ras Baraka say they support the right to protest, then they use state power, police lines, and curfews to make sure protest cannot actually disrupt ICE.
Tom, I thought I responded to your question yesterday, but I don't see it here. I would call this active civil disobedience, and I don't believe anyone wants to be arrested, but these brave protesters are willing to accept that consequence when confronting an out-of-control regime and its paramilitary force. To answer your question about people being killed and the possibility of violence. A good example is Minnesota. I do not believe there’s a single person who came out in the streets in Minnesota who wanted to see anybody murdered by federal officials. But with hindsight, I do not think they would’ve changed their approach to actively confronting ICE agents to prevent them from carrying out their mission. The proof in that is that even after the first murder, and then the second, they did not change their confrontational approach.
That is not recklessness. That is brave moral commitment to our constitutional rights and love for people in your community who are under threat.
In any serious protest situation, bad things can happen, but they usually happen to the protester. If the defense of the governors and the mayors decision was that it would protect the protesters it has failed miserably. Protesters have been attacked shot with rubber bullets hit with sprays of different chemicals. Minnesota made the right decision so did Chicago. They would not use their police force to stand between ice and people expressing their first amendment right. ICE left Chicago ice left Minnesota.. many people in Minneapolis were injured and two people were murdered, but I don’t think the protesters would change what they did to drive ice from their city. The expression of your first amendment rights its only dangerous when the in power try to prevent you from expressing those. Rights with force.
Both Baraka and Sherrill have shown weakness. Both are more concerned with protecting trumps concentration camp then with shutting it down. State Troppers to protect ICE? Is Sherrill joking? The Mayor setting up a “protest zone” so far away that it became irrelevant ,all to protect ICE? Who thought that the top two vote getters in the primary race for Governor were such wimps.
Would you call this civil disobedience? Are the protesters breaking the law? Do they welcome arrests in order to draw attention to the injustice they are protesting?
And different idea entirely: was jt your sense down there that someone could get killed or seriously hurt? By ice or nearby truck traffic? If so, should sherrill and baraka do something to prevent that in your view?
To answer your question, I call these people exercising their First Amendment right to protest the inhumane treatment at the hands of a for-profit internment organization, ICE, moving in and out of the facility where people are put into horrific conditions. I call this a justice response to a great injustice.
Tom, I thought I responded to your question yesterday, but I don't see it here. I would call this active civil disobedience, and I don't believe anyone wants to be arrested, but these brave protesters are willing to accept that consequence when confronting an out-of-control regime and its paramilitary force. To answer your question about people being killed and the possibility of violence. A good example is Minnesota. I do not believe there’s a single person who came out in the streets in Minnesota who wanted to see anybody murdered by federal officials. But with hindsight, I do not think they would’ve changed their approach to actively confronting ICE agents to prevent them from carrying out their mission. The proof in that is that even after the first murder, and then the second, they did not change their confrontational approach.
That is not recklessness. That is brave moral commitment to our constitutional rights and love for people in your community who are under threat.
In any serious protest situation, bad things can happen, but they usually happen to the protester. If the defense of the governors and the mayors decision was that it would protect the protesters it has failed miserably. Protesters have been attacked shot with rubber bullets hit with sprays of different chemicals. Minnesota made the right decision so did Chicago. They would not use their police force to stand between ice and people expressing their first amendment right. ICE left Chicago ice left Minnesota.. many people in Minneapolis were injured and two people were murdered, but I don’t think the protesters would change what they did to drive ice from their city. The expression of your first amendment rights its only dangerous when the in power try to prevent you from expressing those. Rights with force.
Both Baraka and Sherrill have shown weakness. Both are more concerned with protecting trumps concentration camp then with shutting it down. State Troppers to protect ICE? Is Sherrill joking? The Mayor setting up a “protest zone” so far away that it became irrelevant ,all to protect ICE? Who thought that the top two vote getters in the primary race for Governor were such wimps.
Would you call this civil disobedience? Are the protesters breaking the law? Do they welcome arrests in order to draw attention to the injustice they are protesting?
And different idea entirely: was jt your sense down there that someone could get killed or seriously hurt? By ice or nearby truck traffic? If so, should sherrill and baraka do something to prevent that in your view?
To answer your question, I call these people exercising their First Amendment right to protest the inhumane treatment at the hands of a for-profit internment organization, ICE, moving in and out of the facility where people are put into horrific conditions. I call this a justice response to a great injustice.
Ok but I’m curious to hear your answers to my questions, am thinking it through.