Why Do You Think No One Rioted After the Sean Bell Verdict? (New York: home, neighborhood)

[StrugglingMusician91]

When police opened fire on an unnarmed Sean Bell and got acquitted of all charges, why do you think no body rioted? With a history of rioting after similiar events, why do you think this one was different. I am not saying I support riots but I am just wondering what made this time different than any other similiar situations.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by StrugglingMusician91

When police opened fire on an unnarmed Sean Bell and got acquitted of all charges, why do you think no body rioted? With a history of rioting after similiar events, why do you think this one was different. I am not saying I support riots but I am just wondering what made this time different than any other similiar situations.

Time to move on, my friend.

[SuperMario]

Cause people in NYC dont have the balls to. That's where Californians trump New Yorkers. If an injustice occurs, they let it be known that they are unhappy. Like what happen last week in Oakland, after the police shot and killed a black man for no apparent reason. I commend them for that.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

Cause people in NYC dont have the balls to. That's where Californians trump New Yorkers. If an injustice occurs, they let it be known that they are unhappy. Like what happen last week in Oakland, after the police shot and killed a black man for no apparent reason. I commend them for that.

Alternatively, one can argue that New Yorkers have found that it is self-destructive to tear apart one's neighborhood to express one's anger - after all, one has to return home after all the chaos is over, doesn't one?

And people in NYC - rightfully or wrongfully - did peacefully protest didn't they? Ask the Reverend from Harlem.

[StrugglingMusician91]

Originally Posted by Miles

Time to move on, my friend.

I was just thinkin about it today for some reason. Maybe cause the riots in Oakland and all that good stuff going on.

[StrugglingMusician91]

Originally Posted by Miles

Alternatively, one can argue that New Yorkers have found that it is self-destructive to tear apart one's neighborhood to express one's anger - after all, one has to return home after all the chaos is over, doesn't one?

And people in NYC - rightfully or wrongfully - did peacefully protest didn't they? Ask the Reverend from Harlem.

They did peacefully protest. I think that was a good thing. But! Talk to people about if they saw the peaceful protests on the news. The only thing you saw on the news was the roudyness outside the courtroom. Sad but true. Ive said it before, in America you only get attention if your violent. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the very few exceptions in history.

[justfarr1030]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

Cause people in NYC dont have the balls to. That's where Californians trump New Yorkers. If an injustice occurs, they let it be known that they are unhappy. Like what happen last week in Oakland, after the police shot and killed a black man for no apparent reason. I commend them for that.

That's not completely true. Back in the days there were riots for social and racial injustice. The last one I remember was the Crown Heights Riot back in the early 90s (93' I believe).

But all these kids nowadays care about is how many girls they can "bag" and how "fly" they are. There revolutionaires are pretty much extinct.

[009]

Originally Posted by StrugglingMusician91

Maybe cause the riots in Oakland and all that good stuff going on.

Rioting is "good stuff"? What? If some Mod cut: languageriot outside my place and jumps on my car and destroys it or breaks into my store and steals my livelihood "in protest", never mind that I have no f'ing part in the reason why they are protesting, my old case of Coronas is about to become a weapon wrapped with a rag doused in alcohol and a match. I fail to see how rioting solves anything. Protest yes, but destroying other people property? Huh? Might be good stuff to you, sounds like a plan for me to implement my population control.

[justfarr1030]

Originally Posted by StrugglingMusician91

They did peacefully protest. I think that was a good thing. But! Talk to people about if they saw the peaceful protests on the news. The only thing you saw on the news was the roudyness outside the courtroom. Sad but true. Ive said it before, in America you only get attention if your violent. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the very few exceptions in history.

Not really, there was plenty of violence, the only difference was that it was being done to him and his followers. So your statement was still partially correct.

Originally Posted by Miles

Alternatively, one can argue that New Yorkers have found that it is self-destructive to tear apart one's neighborhood to express one's anger - after all, one has to return home after all the chaos is over, doesn't one?

And people in NYC - rightfully or wrongfully - did peacefully protest didn't they? Ask the Reverend from Harlem.

True, but did it REALLY accomplish anything? (I'm seriously asking by the way)

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by StrugglingMusician91

They did peacefully protest. I think that was a good thing. But! Talk to people about if they saw the peaceful protests on the news. The only thing you saw on the news was the roudyness outside the courtroom. Sad but true. Ive said it before, in America you only get attention if your violent. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the very few exceptions in history.

On this Martin Luther King Holiday, it is quite appropriate to point out that acts of non-violence and civil disobedience by stalwarts like Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi did more to change the course of history and to champion the rights of oppressed people than self-destructive random acts of violence against all and sundry - which often do not distinguish the good from the bad.

Sure, reciting rosy verses of love on a podium directed towards institutionalized injustice will not by itself alter the status quo. But one must recognize that it takes more courage, requires more bravery, and tremendous moral, spiritual, physical stamina to be involved in protest where acts of violence are being directed against one than to be the one peretrating such acts.