http://abcnews.go.com/US/st-louis-police-officers-acquittal-fatal-shooting-ignites/story?id=49872333
Serious protests started Friday night in St. Louis following the final verdict of another fatal shooting trial. A police officer was just found not guilty for the 2011 shooting and death of Anthony Lamar Smith. The protests turned violent when people started throwing rocks and bricks damaging both private and public property. Police officers had to use tear gas to control the crowds. The protests were declared unlawful assemblies late Friday and over thirty protesters were arrested. Following the violent protests, both U2 and Ed Sheeran canceled major concerts in St. Louis based off of safety concerns.
Discussion questions:
If protests become as violent as the ones in St. Louis, are they doing more harm than good? How can we try to prevent this from happening again while still allowing our citizens the important right to protest injustice? Should extra measures be taken if protests such as this one start to affect major events such as popular concerts that could boost the local economy?
6 comments:
I believe that the most effective way to protest is to be peaceful about it.
As proven throughout history, peaceful protests are usually a lot more effective than violent ones. Take the sit-ins that happened in the early 1960's. Those were the start of very successful peaceful protests. As soon as protests become violent the end goal is forgotten.
I do think that violent protests do more harm than good.
In the moment, if a protest turns violent it has more positives since it gets a point across, but the outcome has more negatives than positives. There should be an alternative way for individuals to get their voices heard without bringing out a gun. As Americans we’re allowed freedom of speech and I think every individual should use this amendment to their advantage, without bringing in harmful objects such as a gun. With the Ariana Grande concert being bombed over the summer and now these concerts being canceled, we do have to become more cautious of what could potentially happen with little security. Its better to have more security than be sorry and have countless lives taken.
if protest become as violent as this one, there is more harm. There is no problem being able to say your opinion,that the first amendment.However, the minute the protest becomes violent, the communication of free speech and the first amendment goes out the window.there is no possible way the purpose of the protest,to send a message, can be understood if lives are at danger or environment becomes unsafe, its beneficial for anyone and everyone. as ideal as it is to prevent violent protest, it is nearly impossible. With every protest, they are allowed to be created from the first amendment next step that can prevent is keeping it peaceful.However,human nature shows that there will always be a party that is is disagreement,and when that party is the protesters, they will revolt because of their strong beliefs. the only way to take extra measures is more securoty.
I don't think that anybody is in favor of violent protests, especially in a constitutional republic like ours, so the question becomes "What are we going to do about it?"
If violence starts affecting people's daily lives, some form of protest 'management' might need to happen, and I think the police did a good job here.
There is definitely more harm in violent protests as people end up getting hurt (in extreme cases killed) and property gets damaged and destroyed. Yes, a violent protest may get a point across clearly and loudly on social media, however there are other ways for an individual to get his or her voice across especially in the technological era that we live in. Although more security could possibly aggravate protesters more, it is indeed to the best way to keep a handle on mass protests such as the one in St. Louis. There is no guarantee, but more security may allow for the police to shut down individuals who are "stepping over the line," but still allow the other protesters to continue exercising their freedom to speech.
I agree with many of the comments above. Though the result of the case was disheartening, there is no reasonable justification for escalating these protests to the point where it becomes violent. Freedom of speech is important, and if many people are upset about this court ruling, that is completely justifiable. However, protesting to the point of violence is pointless, as it is extremely unlikely that the court will reverse their final verdict due to these protests. Furthermore, these protests are inconsiderate because it is endangering the people in that area. I believe that extra measures should be taken to prevent protests like this, especially because it can become a serious threat to public safety.
Post a Comment