The One About Riots

Almost two weeks ago, protests started over the murder of George Floyd and quickly expanded into a national discussion/protest/riot about racism and police brutality in America.

As frequently happens during national protests, there have been incidents of violence, vandalism, and looting, which bring up the same old questions about whether the presence of these activities impacts the validity of the protests.

Although many others have already discussed this issue at length (and probably more clearly and articulately), I feel compelled to also speak to it, if only to make my own position clear and unambiguous.

I intend to explore a number of positions on this topic, starting with those that are most distant from my own thinking. Hopefully this approach will be useful for someone other than me.

Let’s start with an absurdly extreme position: “Anyone who attends a protest where vandalism (or looting, arson, violence, etc.) occurs should be punished as a criminal.”

This is a position known as Collective Punishment, and it’s a war crime. I’m not even going to spend more time analyzing this one because the potential for abuse is already so well understood. If you believe this is a reasonable position, go dig into the Wikipedia footnotes and learn some history/philosophy.

So what if we make a distinction between “vandals” and “nonviolent protesters”? Would this allow us to make any claims about the responsibilities of nonviolent protesters? Maybe we should say something like, “Nonviolent protesters should stop the vandals.”

Okay, but how? Words and shaming have already been used, with very little effect. And if a nonviolent protester attempts to use stronger means, then they become a violent protester.

It is unreasonable to place this burden on nonviolent protesters without also being able to provide some effective, nonviolent strategies for preventing vandalism. I don’t know of any such means, and without a credible proposal, this position has hit a dead end.

But maybe we can continue with a slight modification: “If nonviolent protesters lack the means to contain vandals, then they should leave any gathering where vandals are present.”

This position is starting to sound reasonable, but it’s wide open for abuse. Holding nonviolent protesters responsible to leave makes them vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks: as long as the protesters’ opponents are willing to commit vandalism, all they have to do is show up at the protests and do their thing. This is not merely a theoretical weakness: there are confirmed reports of white nationalist groups attempting to subvert the ongoing protests.

Continuing to hold this position would result in effectively removing the First Amendment rights of anyone who has unethical opponents. This is untenable if we wish to have a free society.

Ultimately, we can’t ask nonviolent protesters to assume responsibility for dealing with vandals at protests.

But the vandalism is still a problem. Is there anything we can do about it? What about the police?

Unfortunately, prosecuting vandals without also involving nonviolent protesters would be tricky at the best of times. The situation is rather like Jesus’ parable of the weeds:

24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

And the current protests are certainly not “the best of times” to attempt this approach, as it is the police themselves who are being protested.

Asking law enforcement to maintain order at these protests sets up an inherent conflict of interest. The most ethical action would be for the police to recuse themselves.

However, recusing themselves is the opposite of what most police are doing. For example, here is a twitter thread of 347 (and counting) incidents of police misconduct since the beginning of the protests. Many are videos of police initiating violence against peaceful protesters or bystanders. Other agencies, like the National Guard, are also employing violence against unarmed citizens, as this video of them firing on a family for standing on their porch shows.

Each incident lends further credibility, legitimacy, and urgency to these protests. So what does this mean for someone who wants the vandalism to stop?

As far as I can tell, the only way to do this is to find a way to end the protests. I know of two ways of doing this:

One of them is to amplify the attacks on US citizens, as President Trump has suggested, in order to break the will of the protesters and push them into submission. In some ways, this proposal acknowledges the idea that the violence done by police already represents a war that is being waged against American citizens.

This, incidentally, is the very definition of treason in the US:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I’m not a big fan of treason, so this path seems pretty indefensible.

The other way is to finally attend to the claims of the protesters: namely, that there is a systemic problem within US law enforcement agencies that regularly deprives people—especially Black people—of justice.

This is not an easy conversation to have, nor are there any obvious solutions that have broad support—although beginning to prosecute the large backlog of murders and other misconduct committed by police is a healthy start. However, even if your primary concern is the ongoing property damage, this is the issue that must be addressed.

I will admit that for too long, I have failed to seek justice for my Black and Brown neighbors. Given this failure, I debated about whether I even have grounds to participate in this discussion. However, I feel that to remain silent would merely compound one error with another.

I’m also aware that I haven’t pointed towards any particular solutions. On this matter, I’m still listening and synthesizing what I’m hearing, and I think it’s most important to hear from the people who have been directly impacted by these injustices, as they have a much more intimate view of how and where the current system goes wrong. If you’re also just starting on this journey, message me privately, and I can share some of my sources.