Who does it persuade? Who does it inconvenience? Who does it harm? What does it accomplish?
https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1654973123916095488
Jordan Neely is dead, and whether there is any “justice” to be had for him depends on what one considers “justice” and what can be done to prevent the next homeless person on a subway behaving erractically and threateningly from ending up dead. To argue that discomforting people is no justification for killing them is a strawman. And there is no shortage of problems raised by the many tragedies represented by Jordan Neely that many of us would like to see changed. It’s not that there are solutions to be had for intransigent problems, contrary to the simpletons, but we could do better.
Instead, a bunch of unduly passionate kids stood on the subway tracks to make sure other people, some of whom are the “oppressed” for whom they’re being delightfully disobedient, can’t get home to their children or to work on time because they’ve decided that the most disruptive thing they can do is make other people’s lives more difficult. And, in the minds of the simplistic, disruption is the end in itself. No justice, no peace. Somehow, no subways makes sense to them.
https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1655016487092903936
For those on the subway, the disruption by protestors was not appreciated.
https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1654987775504949249
To what end?
https://twitter.com/RebsBrannon/status/1654983088017948673
No doubt the protesters passionately believed they were serving a cause of existential importance, worth whatever disruption they caused others and entitling them to violate any laws that stood in their way. A theme in Rebecca Brannon’s videos is protesters screaming “why are you touching me” at police, as if they have a right to violate the law and ignore lawful commands without recourse.
On the other hand, they could have spent the day going from subway station to subway station providing food and drink to the homeless. But that wouldn’t be as much fun and make them feel as if they changed the world as they do by stopping subway cars so other people can’t get to work on time.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Idiots today who want to protest something have no concept of the moral high ground. MLK, arguably the most accomplished protest movement leader in history and someone who many of today’s protesters look down on as being soft, understood that concept very well.
And people like this and the road blockers don’t understand that you accomplish the goal of your protest through persuasion. You don’t do it by pissing people off. This kind of stuff hurts more than it helps. But they’re too righteous and their zeal overwhelms their sense, assuming they have any to begin with.
Do we even know if the guy who killed the MJ impersonator has a plausible self defense claim or not? There’s an unusual lack of reports from eyewitnesses floating around from what I’ve seen, which given the nature of our media may answer my question.
“Do we even know if the guy who killed the MJ impersonator has a plausible self defense claim or not?”
FWIW, I heard this AM that the accused man’s lawyer said he acted in self defense/ Neely had attacked him.
While that may be true, it’s being reported that his client held the choke hold for 15 minutes. If that’s true, this is very hard to justify. It seems more like the Floyd murder then legitimate self defense.
I believe the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right, arguably the most basic human right, and just as “the tie goes to the runner”, someone defending themself should get the benefit of the doubt.
However, holding a choke hold for sev’l minutes… I’m having a really hard time imagining a set of circumstances where this isn’t excessive/ unjustified.
Imagine having to deal with a known violent threat everyday when you go to work.
Imagine being a friend or relative of the 67 year old woman he punched in the face.
Imagine living in a place where law enforcement and the court system do not work correctly,if at all.
Imagine trying to sleep peacefully knowing he can continue to hurt others without consequences.
Imagine the possibility of a small quiet group of people that decide, something needs done.
…or, maybe not.
If someone was attacking me and I got him in a hold, I’d keep him in a hold until the police arrived. You were not there, you didn’t have the adrenaline pumping through your system. I was attacked once when I was 16 on a city street in Los Angeles by a schizophrenic woman. Luckily I was able to run faster than her. Had I been stuck on a train, I would have had to fight her rather than just try to escape.
The object of blocking roads or train tracks and flinging soup at art is not to persuade others but to gain clout with the in group. I don’t even think they care about persuasion just making demands and throwingtantrums.
I saw a clip of Phoebe Plummer who threw soup at a Van Gogh to “stop oil” on TV with Jacob Rees-Mogg a former energy minister and when Rees-Mogg quite reasonably asked how food would be grown and delivered if Plummer’s demand to immediately stop oil production was met and all she could say was “people are dieing” very loudly No attempt to engage, persuade, or consider the implications of her demands
Yup. It’s all in hopes that they will get to hang out with the cool kids for awhile.
Gives new meaning to the phrase Oppression Olympics.