Is state violence ever a justifiable response to nonviolent civil disobedience?

[Capitalocracy]

Discuss.

[backscatter712]

1. No. Next question. n/t

[Lint Head]

2. Absolutely not.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Did you put on your flame suit for all the lurking authoritarians? :) - n/t

[Capitalocracy]

4. Can't go to DU without it. nt

[Warpy]

5. Depends,

If they're blocking major roads, that's a reason to remove them to the sidewalks. If they refuse to go peacefully, they're going to be picked up and carried, and that pisses the cops off.

My own advice is to go peacefully to jail. Overwhelm the system. Refuse bail. Make arrest a non viable alternative.

Remember, whether they know it or not, the cops are also part of the 99% of us who have been systematically looted over the last 30+ years.

[Scuba]

12. Arresting non-violent protestors - regardless of where - does not require a violent response. n/t

[Warpy]

19. Not if they cooperate

and tell the cop they're not trying to make his job more difficult.

They don't need to tell the cop they're trying to overwhelm the system with massive arrests.

Overwhelming the system is one way civil disobedience works.

[G_j]

6. NO

never

[Uncle Joe]

7. Not without the state losing its' moral authority to govern the people.

Thanks for the thread, Capitalocracy.

[KansDem]

8. Well, "state violence" is usually not a result of the "state" but of the few who control the "state"

They are "protecting their interests."

For example, I've always been amused by right-wingers who "hate government." Government, as I understand, is "of, for, and by the people." Therefore, when you say "I hate government," you're saying "I hate my fellow citizens."

But our government presently, just like the governments that have fallen in the mid-East of late, have been corrupted by special interests, usually by corporations and the wealthy elite. So when Jesse Venturi said recently, "I love my country but fear my government" is he really saying "I love my country but fear the corporate plutocrats who co-opted my government?"

Right-wingers* need to specify when they say they hate government are they saying they hate their fellow citizens or do they hate government bought by the oligarchs for the benefit of the oligarchs?

________
*And I'm not including Mr. Ventura in this group...

[ThomWV]

17. It is the Agencies of the State that do the violence, its immaterial who their masters are.

When the State Police beat on you its not the Koch brothers fault, its the State Policeman with the club that's hitting you that is the one to bring to account.

[KansDem]

22. Disagree...

The "State Police" are defending the status quo, and that happens to be at present the corporations and the wealthy.

I don't believe I've ever seen "State Police" beat people on behalf of the people, but then we haven't had a government "or, for, or by the people" for quite some time.

There'd be no beatings if the powers-that-be realized the errors of their ways and made the appropriate corrections...

[tama]

21. By definition

"state" means monopoly of violence. Violence is the foundation of "state" and there is no "state" without violence.

[KansDem]

24. "State" is a mode of government...

"Of, or, and by the people" is a mode of government, therefore it is a "state."

When "the state" is co-opted by the plutocrats, oligarchs, corporatists, or fascists, it is a "state" but one rife with corruption and violence, because it does not reflect the will of the people.

[tama]

28. So they lied

and for a while I believed, the gullible fool that I am. Then I ditched the noun and took up the verb, started to self-govern.

[gratuitous]

9. I am reliably informed here at DU that the answer is unequivocally

Yes. In fact, it's not only justifiable, it's practically required, and the more violent the state response, the better. There seems to be some prerequisite to make the target of the violence out to be a very, very bad person, but that can always be tacked on later if there are some namby-pamby types who insist on reading the Constitution and thinking that the quaint language of a bygone era has any application to today.

[Scuba]

14. Care to cite a post that supports your position?

[gratuitous]

20. Check any of the threads in the aftermath of the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki

Or Osama bin Laden. State violence inflicted on undesireables (or those who can be portrayed as undesireables) is cheered in all corners of our country, and I have found that my preoccupation with such constitutional considerations as a trial, presentation of evidence, and due process is misguided and quite possibly unhealthy.

I, along with others, warned that the same brutal methods used against bin Laden and al-Awlaki could be used by our government against anyone they called a bad actor. We were again assured that state violence was reserved only for very, very bad people, and that as long as we were not very, very bad, we had nothing to worry about. Well, it turns out that being very, very bad can be a pretty elastic label, stretched to fit any number of people. Imagine how surprised some of us here at DU must be!

[Scuba]

25. Well, I agree those guys should have been captured and tried, not just killed, but....

... I would hardly characterize them as "peaceful protesters".

[jmg257]

10. Define "violence", then I'll know better. nt

[Scuba]

11. NO, it is NOT !

[City Lights]

13. No.

End of story.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. By "violence" do you mean arrests? Then yes.

Disobedience which doesn't lead to arrest/ticket/sanction isn't disobedient.

It's the dance of the dispossessed. If your greatest fear in life is disapproval of the powers that be, then you're not really ready for change.

The consent of the governed. Servile respect for the system which creates laws is consent. Consent <> disobedience.

[Capitalocracy]

29. Well, there's arrest and there's arrest.

Pepper spray and tear gas to "disperse" is something I would call violence. Making a violent arrest, even just with a hard takedown, of someone who doesn't resist would count, in my book. And obviously punching, kicking, and clubbing a helpless person laying on the ground while shouting "stop resisting" is what I would call unjustified violence. But I just don't get it, they use these tactics with no provocation all the time, and so many people just say OK, well, that's what those people get for being there without a permit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Throw your bodies on the gears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5o_0ZYA5HM

[ThomWV]

16. Of course not. Non-violence can only appropriately be addressed with more non-violence.

The use of anything is is classically unjustifiable force. Just as you can't shoot an unarmed and non-threatening burglar you can not beat a non-threating protestor.

[OHdem10]

18. No but it happens. even during the Depressions.

[hifiguy]

23. No. It was unjustifiable in Selma

and it is unjustifiable now.

That is all.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Violence in reponse to peaceful protest of extreme injustice? Never justified

at least off the top of my head. Shows that there is a bigger problem and that something's gotta change/be changed.

[tama]

27. Justice is blind whore

who betrays those who love and trust Her and sleeps with the guy with the biggest gun for a lousy dime.

With a broken heart I grow a pair and wed myself to a new mistress who is free and mysterious in her promiscuous ways, Lady Anarkia.