Michigan Governor Reinstates State of Emergency as Protests Ramp Up

ooooo good for Whitmer, She signed an emergency declaration extending the stay at home orders in michigan anyway. yay

Most of the complaining is just obv sexism anyway

it's called white privelege, aren't you paying attention?

granted if they were kids on a college campus that'd be different i suppose

All of these Michigan protests look to me like "I don't save money" parades. I grew up in Michigan, and I'm downright ashamed of what I'm seeing with things like these protests in that state. I hardly consider it home anymore.

Oh, we have a confirmed "very good people" sighting! How fun.

Hmmm. I have noticed the word "racist/racism" isn't used as much anymore. So trying to define terms seem to work well. Let's do define "troll".

Internet troll - Wikipedia

Also let's keep this in mind ...



But let's define another term that applies here also.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

I haven't been back long enough to know the new lay of FOFCland, but I'm thinking they might want you to check the definition for "concern troll".

SI

Exactly. It's an attempt to intimidate through their firearms.

An regarding the absurd amount of white privilege displayed here, hell, we don't have to have think about Muslims wearing traditional garb armed to the teeth, state houses were very active when Black Panthers decided to show up to protest with automatic weapons - in California in 1967 they were disarmed and marched away by the police.

Is he ever not on the wrong side?

I couldn't find a definition in Wikipedia but did find one in urban dictionary

Urban Dictionary: concern troll

I'm not sure how it applies here but feel free to share a different definition?

No, no. I think that's probably the right one.

Another one that dovetails nicely with that is sea-lioning: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning (for some reason, I get a 403 about half the time on that link so you can try this, too: knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning)

SI

We're not in 1967

Yeah, we tend to be far more sensitive to guns in public since '67 after all the mass shootings.

Honestly, this is a fascinating gambit for team Trump. His instinct to side with the most rotten and debased side of divisive issues is strong, but he doesn't often do so when the numbers are really the other way. Presumably, their calculus is that by November, there will be more pissed off people, and having been the "free Michigan" guy for months will play well.

Honestly, keep in mind that literally all they care about is the election. So, deaths and other incidental trivia is just stuff dummies like us worry about. They are full-on "eyes on the prize" mode in Cult 45.

So you think protesters should be afraid that the government will shoot them?

Maybe we need a few more Kent State massacres? THAT'll put the fear of government into them!

But seriously, why on Earth do you think that this is a good line of thinking?

Deep down, we all knew this was coming, right?

The president's re-election campaign has ordered red, Trump-branded face masks for supporters. Campaign officials have discussed giving away the masks at events or in return for donations.
w/ @KThomasDC: https://t.co/GTwP0XZPrz

— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) May 1, 2020

I think that people who openly carry arms in public should be afraid that other people will want to kill them yes. Whether those people are law enforcement, military, or some freaking vigilante. Why is it ok for people to feel comfortable carrying like that? They don't want their own rights trampled, but they care not for openly infringing on the safety of others. If the counter to that is, if they don't want to be near them, then they should go there, well then, let me introduce you to my even bigger gun.

The government, for all it's wonder and ills is still the authority. It is charged with keeping peace, control, and the overall safety of it's populace. They should be the ones who have the power and the authority to execute it. They have a legit reason, and lawful execution of that authority over it's citizens.

In this case, you've got regular citizens, attempting to use a show of power to exert force, authority to get their way, then you reason, that the equal and opposite response is also valid. You arm, I arm. We're equals, dancing in the potential of mutually assured destruction. It effects your behavior and it changes your negotiation. I can either defer to your power, or I can attempt to overwhelm you with mine, or I can convince your allies that it's in their best interest to shoot you instead of me for whatever reasoning.

That is the point that I am getting at. They should FEAR the potential that they might actually be shot, for whatever reason. That is a power dynamic that is not on display here. Nor any of the Capitol houses that have let heavily armed, para-military protesters in. In that regard, any issue I wish to see fulfill my own personal needs, should be supported by my own para-military 'supporters'. Of course, in reality, that is a position I completely oppose, but if that's the nature of the beast, then I'm all in, if that's what it takes to get things done.

So you think it is OK for these guys to be packing heat to the gills in a government building shouting angrily at police officers while black parents have to teach their kids how to act if they get pulled over so they aren't shot?

Any word on whether they'll be in swastika red, confederate flag red, or just "both sides" red?

SI

Stop right there.
A harmless protester would never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever bring weapons with him. Carrying a swiss army knife already disqualifies yourself from being part of a harmless protest. If you're walking around proudly showing off your 10-year old sized automatic rifle, you send the signal that you're there with only one thing in mind: to create a bloodbath while hiding behind an unarmed human shield or as hostages.

And yet despite all those guns there was no bloodbath. Maybe they forgot to bring their ammo that day?

Or perhaps a bloodbath wasn't their intent and maybe they have legitimate grievances (in their eyes) against the government?

You're coming up with pointless questions.
Protesting and waving a gun are two completely incompatible things.
Those people are terrorists. Arrest them and prosecute them as is.

You claimed that everyone who carried a rifle was intent on creating a bloodbath. Yet there was no bloodbath. Now why was that?

Either they couldn't fire their guns for some reason or you have completely irrational ideas regarding their intent.

It is in wikipedia.

Sealioning - Wikipedia

To be fair, I really don't think Miked is either sea-lioning or concern troll. People have different backgrounds and see things in different filters. Its good to have alternate pov's in discussions.

However, I did find another word that may apply ... ranthoneous. But then we would be getting off on a tangent from the main point and instead calling people names. That would be ad hominim.

Good trigger finger discipline :)

Let's relax for a bit here, I did not claim any such thing.

The irrational people are the ones that carried guns while invading a building.

We're back to the old assumption-of-motives fallacy here, which can be used to justify literally anything. The bottom line is that I don't know what their intent was and neither do you. I don't think you are a terrible person. I think the idea that what you yourself describe in the next paragraph as a legal protest is an activity that people should worry about being shot for doing is what is thoroughly, completely, and in all other ways disgusting and indefensible.


Because they have a legal right to do it, full stop - unless I've missed something, in which case please enlighten me. Otherwhise, they are infringing on nobody's safety. This isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of law.


Under what law? Surely you aren't suggesting prosecuting people as terrorists who didn't actually break the law … or are you? I'm totally, 100% with NobodyHere on this.


One, white priviledge is a blatantly racist concept that I totally disregard every time it is brought up, except on those rare occasions where I find people interested in a reasoned discussion of its validity. Secondly, your total lack of response to the actual question posed is noted. What's really going on here is that I disagree, in the strongest possible terms, with the baked-in assumptions on race relations in general. No willful ignorance is involved there.


And that was wrong, but if the last time it happened was over 50 years ago I think we can feel free to not draw conclusions about modern American based on that event.

I for one am all for large gatherings by the militia, angry white GOP gun toters. I'd like nothing more for there to be Trump rallies and huge large gatherings all over the country because we need for the whole fo the country to be open for bidness. Exercise those freedoms boys and girls... the hospitals are starting to lighten up on their load.

Call me naive, but I honestly doubt that either of you actually is in favor of a mob invading any building that isn't their own property while doing so with what they were walking around with.

Unless you are saying that in that particular state you're actually allowed to do just that.

If you don't think it would happen exactly the same way today, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

The police may treat black folk better than they did the 1960s, but it isn't that much better.

Then you live in a completely different fucking world than I do and I can safely disregard any opinion you have on race because in Swartzville white privilege is a racist concept - I guess blacks must be the dominant race in that world.

It wasn't a random building that wasn't theirs. It was the State Capitol. Moreover, the state police came out and said that it's legal in Michigan to carry weapons so long as they are visible and carried with lawful intent.

You heard that right, the Michigan State Police say the protest was legal.

Nope. It's more that I refuse to use race as the defining characteristic of priviledge which is far more nuanced than that, inasmuch as using race in that way is as definitionally racist as it is possible to get.

Is it germane to ask WHY they brought weapons?

And I'll applaud Whitmer for recognizing that we still have a 1st amendment right to protest and not shutting it down.

generally when that question is asked the only answer you will get is because it is their right.

Sure, that's a very germane question. My answer is that I don't know, I think it was stupid, and it's not what I would have done. Mostly likely though IMO is not the reasons already mentioned here, but to assert their right to do so. It's the same idea expressed by Tom Hanks in The Post; the only way to assert your right to publish effectively is to publish.

Interestingly, the same people who are so upset about the guns in this case also tend to be those most in favor of the fact that the Pentagon Papers were published by the media. Why that is, is an exercise I leave to the reader.

Is "lawful intent" is at the determination of the police?

Nobody ever seems to want to performatively display their right to a speedy trial.

Thanks for explaining that to me.
I realize I should be more than ever relieved I was not randomly born in a place where an act of aggression like that is legally allowed.

I read this kind of argument a lot and it blows my mind. Officers can act correctly, but they're still racist because different officers, in a different agency, in a different time, acted inappropriate in a similar situation. So, in order for them not to be racist, the current officer has to violate a white person's rights the same way some completely different officer violated someone else's rights. What a world that would be if that's how they were trained or acted.

I don't know Michigan laws, but its certainly legal to carry weapons in the Idaho Capitol Building. And there's protests there very often - some conservative, but definitely liberal ones as well. They're not breaking any laws unless they're blocking traffic or something. The agencies adjust to that by having secure-access offices that you have to be buzzed in for, but the "patriots" can run around the lobby with their misspelled signs and guns all they want.

They are probably breaking whatever gathering regulations are in place, but, those haven't been enforced criminally in any context yet around here (except one lady who demanded to be arrested in playground, but she was actually arrested for regular trespassing.)

Sometimes there's other infractions being committed - a lot open container and noise stuff depending on the type of protest or gathering, but, there's a pretty clear risk/reward component to breaking up protesters and I'd advise against it in any circumstance, for any protest, unless it becomes public safety issue. And I'd think violently breaking up these protests would only encourage more dangerous protesting. Even here everybody just points and laughs at them and they go home eventually.

Do you honestly think if Black Lives Matters showed up to the State Capital armed to the tooth and tried to force their way into the State Legislature it would end the same way? Come on.

In this day and age?

They're allowed to block streets like they were Christ Christie. So yes I think they would be allowed to do the same thing as these protesters.

What do you think would happen?

"Tried to force"? Aren't they allowed in?

Anybody who tried to force their way into say, the secured governor's office in my state would have a problem. But anybody can protest with guns in the lobby or outside. Hell, they let Occupy Wall Street take over a public park for two months even though their actions excluded others' access to the public space. Easier and safer to let it die out than going in and breaking it up. I don't know what happened in Michigan with respect to whether any trespassing occurred or whether other laws were broken. Using "force" is definitely a game changer if that's what they did - meaning using their weapons to obtain access to an area they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to be. That would definitely be unlawful.

I think they should be able to. The game of hypotheticals has no useful end, but I will say this; if it did happen, I'd be just in favor of them being able to exercise their rights. I'd be just as against the idea that they were terrorists for doing it, should be arrested for doing it, should be worried about being shot for doing it, it not being a protest because they did it, etc.

And if it happened and I didn't take that approach, then shame on me.

I think they would be dragged out and arrested if they were unarmed. If armed, likely SWAT and armored police vehicles threatening them to disperse. Perhaps a stand-off and likely violence.

You get shot if they even think you're reaching for a gun. You think having your finger on the trigger in front of them would result in something less?

Sure had a different response when a legal unarmed pro-immigrant protest occurred on the border.

I'd give these folks who bring prop guns to protests the benefit of the doubt if they ever put any effort towards publicly asserting any of their other rights (or those of other folks). They don't care about their rights in general, they care about gun rights specifically. That's not to say they're generally wrong to do so, so much as to say that the insistence on shoe-horning gun rights into any issue makes it easy to dismiss their concern for every other issue.

So because some Border Control were heavy handed, other police in other states HAVE to be also or else they're racist?

I'd personally rather we train our local officers to avoid mistakes made by others.

I see one white guy getting arrested in Rain's picture. What is that suppose to tell me?

Where were the police in riot gear yesterday? What about the police armored vehicles with machine guns on top? Didn't see those either. Just wondering why they show up to certain protests and not others.

They tried to force their way into the actual chamber.