Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    278
    Reaction score
    1,421
    Age
    42
    Location
    Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
    Offline
    So, rather than burying this subject in an already broad thread I felt this topic, and the study it is based on, deserved its own thread. A debate about whether the protests have been mostly violent or not has been had multiple times in multiple threads so when I saw this analysis it piqued my interest.

    A few key points: It characterizes the BLM movement as "an overwhelmingly peaceful movement." Most of the violent demonstrations were surrounding Confederate monuments. To this mostly non-violent movement, the government has responded violently, and disproportionately so, to BLM than other demonstrations, including a militarized federal response. The media has, also, been targeted by this violent government response. There is a high rate of non-state actor involvement in BLM demonstrations. Lastly, there is a rising number of counter-protest that turn violent. I shouldn't say lastly because there is, also, a lot of data relating to Covid too.

    The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) begin tracking BLM demonstrations since this summer, the week of George Floyd's killing. I am linking the entire study for all to read. I am highlighting excerpts I personally found interesting.


    The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020).

    Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

    Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).

    Despite the fact that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement have been overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 9% — or nearly one in 10 — have been met with government intervention, compared to 3% of all other demonstrations. This also marks a general increase in intervention rates relative to this time last year. In July 2019, authorities intervened in under 2% of all demonstrations — fewer than 30 events — relative to July 2020, when they intervened in 9% of all demonstrations — or over 170 events.

    Authorities have used force — such as firing less-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray or beating demonstrators with batons — in over 54% of the demonstrations in which they have engaged. This too is a significant increase relative to one year ago. In July 2019, government personnel used force in just three documented demonstrations, compared to July 2020, when they used force against demonstrators in at least 65 events. Over 5% of all events linked to the BLM movement have been met with force by authorities, compared to under 1% of all other demonstrations.

    Non-state groups are becoming more active and assertive. Since May, ACLED records over 100 events in which non-state actors engaged in demonstrations (including counter-demonstrations) — the vast majority of which were in response to demonstrations associated with the BLM movement. These non-state actors include groups and militias from both the left and right side of the political spectrum, such as Antifa, the Not forking Around Coalition, the New Mexico Civil Guard, the Patriot Front, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, and the Ku Klux Klan, among others (see map below).3

    Between 24 May and 22 August, over 360 counter-protests were recorded around the country, accounting for nearly 5% of all demonstrations. Of these, 43 — nearly 12% — turned violent, with clashes between pro-police demonstrators and demonstrators associated with the BLM movement, for example. In July alone, ACLED records over 160 counter-protests, or more than 8% of all demonstrations. Of these, 18 turned violent. This is a significant increase relative to July 2019, when only 17 counter-protests were reported around the country, or approximately 1% of all demonstrations, and only one of these allegedly turned violent.
     
    Clearly it's the FBI/CIA controlling the media... at the behest of the Marxist sodomite vampires.

    I don't know about the sodomy part but vampires are definitely not Marxist. They'd fall more into the anarchist or fascist political alignments. OR even just a straight up cult of personality populist dictatorship.
     
    Nope.

    They want to use police for police work. They want to use social workers for social work.
    Whatever!
    The end result has been elevation in the crime rate and low moral in police departments. The cops are afraid to police and now have a hands off approach in the inner cities.

    _119034607_a59ec7ae-4a34-493b-90f1-062c9d268e86.png


    I am assuming that the BBC a left leaning organization is providing a balance report.
    Brandon: The left also has flaws.
     
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/judg...tims-but-rioters-and-looters-during-arguments

    "Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Monday that prosecutors are barred from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as “victims,” while the defense team was permitted to refer to them as “rioters” and “looters.”

    Judge Schroeder explained to Rittenhouse’s defense team that they may not refer to those shot in such terms during opening statements, but can do so in closing arguments if evidence backs it up, The Chicago Tribune reported, according to The Hill.

    “He can demonize them if he wants, if he thinks it will win points with the jury,” the judge reportedly said.

    “The word victim is a loaded, loaded word,” Schroeder added, telling prosecution they can’t use the term “victim” to refer to those shot.

    According to the Tribune, such restrictions are not uncommon in self-defense cases."


    Didn't we have this exact same 'conversation' on this board recently? Looks like the judge and I agree. To bad this is not a bench trial.
     
    Whatever!
    The end result has been elevation in the crime rate and low moral in police departments. The cops are afraid to police and now have a hands off approach in the inner cities.

    _119034607_a59ec7ae-4a34-493b-90f1-062c9d268e86.png


    I am assuming that the BBC a left leaning organization is providing a balance report.
    Brandon: The left also has flaws.
    Speaking of mental gymnastics, the rise in violent crime now is being blamed on the cops that were trying to be defunded by the dolt leading the charge to defund them. Can anyone explain this one to me?

     
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/judg...tims-but-rioters-and-looters-during-arguments

    "Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Monday that prosecutors are barred from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as “victims,” while the defense team was permitted to refer to them as “rioters” and “looters.”

    Judge Schroeder explained to Rittenhouse’s defense team that they may not refer to those shot in such terms during opening statements, but can do so in closing arguments if evidence backs it up, The Chicago Tribune reported, according to The Hill.

    “He can demonize them if he wants, if he thinks it will win points with the jury,” the judge reportedly said.

    “The word victim is a loaded, loaded word,” Schroeder added, telling prosecution they can’t use the term “victim” to refer to those shot.

    According to the Tribune, such restrictions are not uncommon in self-defense cases."


    Didn't we have this exact same 'conversation' on this board recently? Looks like the judge and I agree. To bad this is not a bench trial.
    Only if you completely ignore the "if evidence backs it up" part.

    Maybe don't do that.
     
    If anything, this was a win for my libel case.
     
    If anything, this was a win for my libel case.
    Well, no. Like it says in your quote, "Judge Schroeder explained to Rittenhouse’s defense team that they may not refer to those shot in such terms during opening statements, but can do so in closing arguments if evidence backs it up"

    It's always been the case that you can say it if you can back it up, but not if you can't.
     
    And the plot thickens.
    "Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Monday that prosecutors are barred from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as “victims,”

    Definitely not victims since they went there 'looking for trouble' and got what they deserve. Glad the judge realized that too
     
    And the plot thickens.
    "Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Monday that prosecutors are barred from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as “victims,”

    Definitely not victims since they went there 'looking for trouble' and got what they deserve. Glad the judge realized that too

    "Got what they deserved" ?

    But a person illegally carrying an high powered rifle in the middle of a riot of a city that he didn't even live in and had to travel to, wasn't there "looking for trouble"? :rolleyes:

    You have absolutely no objectivity left.
     
    And the plot thickens.
    "Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Monday that prosecutors are barred from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as “victims,”

    Definitely not victims since they went there 'looking for trouble' and got what they deserve. Glad the judge realized that too

    From what I have read this judge takes this a bit too far. Most judges wouldn’t refer to the men who were murdered as victims during the trial themselves to maintain the innocent until proven guilty stance, but they would allow the prosecutors to argue their case. Of course, I’m no lawyer so one of our resident legal guys may have a better take than what I read.

    So, now the penalty for being in the vicinity of a protest is death by a 17 yo punk looking for trouble? That’s what they deserved? I would have called him a thug, but he’s too much of a coward and mama’s boy to be that.

    Here are the charges against Rittenhouse, but yeah it was the other guys who were looking for trouble. There isn’t an eye roll emoji big enough for you today.

    “Rittenhouse, who turned 18 on Sunday, is charged with five felonies: first degree intentional homicide in the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36; first degree reckless homicide of Anthony Huber, 26, attempted first degree intentional homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz, 22, and two counts of recklessly endangering safety, for shots fired at others.

    He also charged with being a minor in possession of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and with violating a curfew in effect on Aug. 25, a civil citation.”
     
    oh, and Republicans should never, ever be able to say they are the party of law and order again. We have seen so many times this past year where they want other people arrested (or summarily shot in the street, if you are Farb) for stuff that they want to be able to do themselves without consequences. It’s bat shirt insane.
     
    oh, and Republicans should never, ever be able to say they are the party of law and order again. We have seen so many times this past year where they want other people arrested (or summarily shot in the street, if you are Farb) for stuff that they want to be able to do themselves without consequences. It’s bat shirt insane.
    I think it depends on what 'laws' we are supporting. Burning, looting, and arson is ok but self defense is a no-no. Yeah, good luck with that.
     
    You mean the looting you support? The violence you support against police officers?

    I don’t support any looting at all, no matter how many times you lie about it.

    Pointing out that the looting is being exaggerated is not the same as saying you support looting.

    I totally support the arrest and prosecution of looters, no matter where they are. You cannot say the same.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom