LogFAQs > #962077460

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They're taking part in the same protest.

And protesting is not arson, nor is it illegal in any way (at least, not in countries that value any degree of democratic freedom). Participating in the protest is wholly irrelevant to committing the crime of arson.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty.

If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Now go back and rethink what you just said.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place.

You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them. That would be ridiculous.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wrong, it was society which decided that.

Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests.

News reports focused on the peacefulness of the majority because the violent minority was being used to discredit the movement as a whole. A great many people (mostly the sort of people that don't think it's a problem that police keep killing unarmed black people) were insistent on characterizing the protests as nothing more than a bunch of violent riots, under the pretense of wanting to lock up every single protester, but the reality was that the vast majority of protests were not violent at all (meaning there was nobody to arrest at all), and even for those that did turn violent, it was generally only a small handful of people (some of whom were just opportunistic troublemakers, some of whom were false flag instigators trying to discredit the movement (including a number of police), and some of whom were a part of the movement but let their tempers get the better of them) that were at all violent. That created a need to set the record straight.

The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority that sought to generalize that to everyone involved, including calls to arrest all of them. Saying "you don't need to arrest BLM protesters just because this tiny minority was violent" is not giving a free pass to violent criminals just because they were part of a protest, it's telling people to stop suggesting that innocent protesters should be arrested.

To be clear: Criminals should be arrested. This is true whether they're part of a protest or not. I don't know how you misinterpreted 2020 so completely as to not only think anyone was suggesting otherwise, but also to consider such imaginary suggestions to be legal precedent for dealing with every future criminal act committed during a protest, but you're very, very wrong.