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.
     
    Not to mention this tweet doesn’t link to said poll, and intentionally conflates defund and abolish. If he even really saw a poll, and it was written like his tweet, then it’s a garbage poll.
     
    Oh, what a surprise. The facts of the case totally contradicts the Democrat & media narrative just like so many recent shootings. It’s almost like they have an agenda to flame racial tensions to achieve their specific policy goals.









    I’m guessing Rittenhouse is consulting with the Covington lawyer.
     
    As usual, complete context is missing. The third guy was a paramedic, on the scene to help people injured, and drew his gun because he saw an active shooter.

    He saw Rittenhouse running with his gun and a lot of people yelling that he just killed two people. So he unholstered his weapon. He didn’t shoot because he is a responsible gun owner and he didn’t want to make a mistake. Like the fatal mistakes that Rittenhouse made.

    So I don’t pretend to know what the right answer is here, but each shooting in this case is it’s own charge. So he may be acquitted of shooting the medic. But one of the victims was apparently in a horizontal position when shot, so he may have a tougher time proving self-defense on that one.

    Either way, Rittenhouse is a terrible gun owner, IMO, who had no business doing what he did. He will have to live with taking two people’s lives that night who were unarmed. All because he felt he could “teach them a lesson” or something. He might just be a terrible person as well, but at least he will be alive to live his life, unlike the people he killed.
     
    As usual, complete context is missing. The third guy was a paramedic, on the scene to help people injured, and drew his gun because he saw an active shooter.

    He saw Rittenhouse running with his gun and a lot of people yelling that he just killed two people. So he unholstered his weapon. He didn’t shoot because he is a responsible gun owner and he didn’t want to make a mistake. Like the fatal mistakes that Rittenhouse made.

    So I don’t pretend to know what the right answer is here, but each shooting in this case is it’s own charge. So he may be acquitted of shooting the medic. But one of the victims was apparently in a horizontal position when shot, so he may have a tougher time proving self-defense on that one.

    Either way, Rittenhouse is a terrible gun owner, IMO, who had no business doing what he did. He will have to live with taking two people’s lives that night who were unarmed. All because he felt he could “teach them a lesson” or something. He might just be a terrible person as well, but at least he will be alive to live his life, unlike the people he killed.
    I think the moral of the story is that too many people with guns make things complicated.
     
    Exactly, I just read the other day about the tragic story of a “good guy with a gun” that shot and killed an active shooter, only to be then shot dead by a police officer who mistook him for the active shooter they were looking for.

    He did something brave that may have saved lives, and then was killed because the police can’t tell who is who during the heat of the moment. He didn’t even see the officer, who didn’t yell at him to drop his weapon, but just shot him. The reason I read about it the other day was because the internal investigation just cleared the officer, saying he had no reason to think this wasn’t a clear and present danger to the public. He saw a man with a gun standing over a dead body and took a shot.

    It’s a needless tragedy. So was what Rittenhouse did.
     
    As usual, complete context is missing. The third guy was a paramedic, on the scene to help people injured, and drew his gun because he saw an active shooter.

    He saw Rittenhouse running with his gun and a lot of people yelling that he just killed two people. So he unholstered his weapon. He didn’t shoot because he is a responsible gun owner and he didn’t want to make a mistake. Like the fatal mistakes that Rittenhouse made.

    So I don’t pretend to know what the right answer is here, but each shooting in this case is it’s own charge. So he may be acquitted of shooting the medic. But one of the victims was apparently in a horizontal position when shot, so he may have a tougher time proving self-defense on that one.

    Either way, Rittenhouse is a terrible gun owner, IMO, who had no business doing what he did. He will have to live with taking two people’s lives that night who were unarmed. All because he felt he could “teach them a lesson” or something. He might just be a terrible person as well, but at least he will be alive to live his life, unlike the people he killed.
    I don't think anything you typed there was correct.
    He was a paramedic on site? What company does he work for? Do civilian paramedics carry (chambered) side arms? Do paramedics rush into danger or wait until police secure the area?
    The 'medic' was carrying an illegal gun. He had his carry license taken away due to felony burglary. So if Rittenhouse did not belong there with a weapon, this idiot did not either.

    The first guy KR shot was reaching for the rifle that KR was holding after chasing him through the parking lot after making threats and being confrontational. Again, all under oath and said on the stand by the prosecution witnesses. Also, this guy was convicted pedophile.

    The 2nd dead guy attacked KR while on the ground with a skateboard. Seen on video. I think he was also arrested for domestic violence recently (this Antifa group is made up some real winners).

    I know it is hard to realize that the media completely and willfully lied to you and you fell for propaganda, besides, us conservatives are the one so gullible to propaganda.

    Now the question will be how much BLM will flex its terrorist arm to influence and intimidate the jury so you all can put a white male behind bars for what again? Self defense?
     
    I have already read everything you said above in MSM, Farb. So no, nobody is lying to me.

    You do seem to think that Rittenhouse deserves a pass for his killings, though, because of something. What would it be about him that makes him virtuous? You seem to think that the paramedic shouldn’t have been in the area and should have left enforcement to the police. What about your champion then? Why is okay for him to have been roaming the streets with a gun? You seem to think it was okay for him.

    That the one guy was reaching for his gun is under some dispute. The paramedic was there as a volunteer. I didn’t say he was there as representing anyone but himself.

    Also, I don’t think Rittenhouse was honest about why he went to Kenosha, because I believe the car dealership said they didn’t ask him to come protect their lot.

    Facts are that three people were shot by Rittenhouse, two unarmed and fatally shot. IMO, they didn’t deserve to die that night, no matter how you tend to dismiss their lives because you don’t agree with their politics. Rittenhouse was reckless at the very least. He shouldn’t have been there trying to do some sort of vigilante justice.

    The jury has heard the whole case, though, neither you nor I have. Whatever they decide, will be what they decide. I won’t use race to try to pre-judge their verdict, and you shouldn’t either.
     
    I have already read everything you said above in MSM, Farb. So no, nobody is lying to me.

    You do seem to think that Rittenhouse deserves a pass for his killings, though, because of something. What would it be about him that makes him virtuous? You seem to think that the paramedic shouldn’t have been in the area and should have left enforcement to the police. What about your champion then? Why is okay for him to have been roaming the streets with a gun? You seem to think it was okay for him.

    That the one guy was reaching for his gun is under some dispute. The paramedic was there as a volunteer. I didn’t say he was there as representing anyone but himself.

    Also, I don’t think Rittenhouse was honest about why he went to Kenosha, because I believe the car dealership said they didn’t ask him to come protect their lot.

    Facts are that three people were shot by Rittenhouse, two unarmed and fatally shot. IMO, they didn’t deserve to die that night, no matter how you tend to dismiss their lives because you don’t agree with their politics. Rittenhouse was reckless at the very least. He shouldn’t have been there trying to do some sort of vigilante justice.

    The jury has heard the whole case, though, neither you nor I have. Whatever they decide, will be what they decide. I won’t use race to try to pre-judge their verdict, and you shouldn’t either.
    Self defense. All 3 counts. If you can't actually see that, then no reason to continue the discussion.
    The first shooting no dispute, the eye witness, again a prosecution witness, explained the he was reaching for the gun when he was shot. Self defense. Also a convicted pedophile.
    The other 'unarmed' man attacked him with a skateboard. Self defense. Also a convicted felon.
    The 'medic', carrying an illegal weapon because of a felony conviction pointed that loaded weapon at KR before he was shot, his words on the stand. Self defense.

    So no, KR might deserve something for a using the rifle that was legally purchased. He worked in Kenosha, so he had as much right to be there as any of the other Antifa thugs. So yes, by their own actions, they deserved to be shot.
    This trial is exactly about race and to say it is not, is lazy. KR is a white male that shot people during a BLM rally. No other reason he is on trial. None what so ever.

    If BLM didn't decide to riot over a rapist, armed criminal and thug being shot by police then none of them would have been there but there was money to made by the BLM founders.
     
    Okay, I hadn’t seen this testimony yet:

    Grosskreutz testified that he put in hands in the air as he saw Rittenhouse’s AR-15 point towards him. He claimed that before he was shot, he saw Rittenhouse “re-rack” his weapon before firing.

    While Rittenhouse has claimed self-defense and said he was only there because he “wanted to help vigilante groups trying to protect the city of Kenosha” following riots over the police shooting that left Jacob Blake paralyzed, Grosskreutz’s testimony points to a calculated choice the shooter made. “Re-racking the weapon, in my mind, meant that [Rittenhouse] pulled the trigger while my hands were in the air, but the gun didn’t fire,” Grosskreutz testified. “So then by re-racking the weapon, I inferred that [Rittenhouse] wasn’t accepting my surrender.”

    I don’t think this case is as simple as you want it to be, Farb. Let the jury do it’s work. They’ve heard all the testimony and seen all the evidence. All you and I know is just snippets. And snippets that sway one way or another without telling the whole story.


    The Hill Reporter is a left biased source, but, and this is where they differ from your sources, they have a “high” rating for factual reporting. They have a clean fact check record. I have crossed out the part of the quote that editorializes.
     
    Self defense. All 3 counts. If you can't actually see that, then no reason to continue the discussion.
    The first shooting no dispute, the eye witness, again a prosecution witness, explained the he was reaching for the gun when he was shot. Self defense. Also a convicted pedophile.
    The other 'unarmed' man attacked him with a skateboard. Self defense. Also a convicted felon.
    The 'medic', carrying an illegal weapon because of a felony conviction pointed that loaded weapon at KR before he was shot, his words on the stand. Self defense.

    So no, KR might deserve something for a using the rifle that was legally purchased. He worked in Kenosha, so he had as much right to be there as any of the other Antifa thugs. So yes, by their own actions, they deserved to be shot.
    This trial is exactly about race and to say it is not, is lazy. KR is a white male that shot people during a BLM rally. No other reason he is on trial. None what so ever.

    If BLM didn't decide to riot over a rapist, armed criminal and thug being shot by police then none of them would have been there but there was money to made by the BLM founders.

    Was Kyle holding a firearm when the guy started reaching for his gun?

    Is the guy who shows his gun first the only one who has a right to feel threatened?
     
    So here is an interesting perspective.

    D9A5B4CF-3DCF-459F-95EA-ECF2F235949C.jpeg
     

    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