Black Lives Matter Chicago Publicly Defends Rioters and Looters


Chicago Sun-Times (Tom Schuba & Mitch Dudek) reports (you can find the entire BLM Chicago statement here):

"The mayor clearly has not learned anything since May, and she would be wise to understand that the people will keep rising up until the [Chicago Police Department] is abolished and our Black communities are fully invested in," the group said in a statement….

The stark warning and protests came after police wounded a 20-year-old man during a shootout Sunday afternoon in Englewood, leading to an hours-long standoff between officers and residents that at times grew violent. While police reported that the man fired at officers first, the activists questioned the official police narrative and noted that his shooting wasn't captured on officers' body-worn cameras…. The man who was shot, Latrell Allen, was charged Monday with two counts of attempted murder and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon ….

"Over the past few months, too many people — disproportionately Black and Brown — have lost their jobs, lost their income, lost their homes, and lost their lives as the city has done nothing and the Chicago elite have profited," the group's statement reads. "When protesters attack high-end retail stores that are owned by the wealthy and service the wealthy, that is not 'our' city and has never been meant for us."

At the demonstration later Monday, protesters held a sign that read, "Our futures have been looted from us … loot back."

I'm all for stopping crimes committed by the police—but I don't support crime by looters, and I don't support groups who defend such crime, or try to use it as a political tool.

NEXT: Public Trial Clause Not Violated by Having Spectators Observe Via Live Video and Audio

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But you do, actually. You teach at a university that sits on land looted from native people.

    1. He should resign so black voices can be heard on those native lands instead of his privileged white voice.

      1. If he had to resign because the university was on native land, then the only voices that could be heard there would be Native American voices…

    2. I do not advocate conquest, but our outrage over history must be tempered with the realization that, with the possible exception of Antarctica, no square inch of the Earth has not been taken by one group from another on multiple occasions.

      If you want to set right historical wrongs, why not start with the Saracen conquest of the Constantine Empire?

    3. Who looted it from other native peoples.

  2. The media has been trying to distance ‘peaceful’ protestors from the chaos that seems to follow where ever peace seems to go.
    Now it is as blatant as can be, with BLM officially declaring looting violence, and general lawlessness to be their method of operation.
    And the civic leaders who have been coddling the peace-nicks, like Lightfoot, are shocked, shocked at this new revelation.

    1. More shocked that BLM didn’t have the restraint to avoid admitting it publicly.

      1. Gosh, it’s almost like it isn’t a single, centrally-organized movement following a coordinated strategy!

        1. We keep explaining to you that, just because a subversive organization is organized in cells, doesn’t mean it lacks leadership.

          1. FFS BLM is not organized like a terrorist organization, Brett. You need evidence to make those kind of allegation.

            Its organized like a grass roots movement.

            1. It’s a terrorist organization using a grass roots movement as cover. It’s not exactly news that, if you want to conduct a riot, it’s a good idea to organize a protest at the same spot, to blur the lines.

              You do that often enough, though, and the only people who show up for your protest are the people who are OK with the rioting.

              1. There is a way to deal with terrorists, and that’s how we should deal with BLM — MRAPs and machine guns. They want a war, fine…

                1. Pretty revealing comments you two.

                  1. Pretty revealing that you can look at the recent looting in Chicago, and not see organized criminality.

                    1. I certainly don’t see terrorism.

  3. Good thing you don’t play for an MLS or NBA team.

    1. Larvell Blanks: Such a good thing, for so many people and so many reasons!

  4. Because every protester’s sign fully represents the views of everyone associated with the protest, as everyone knows.

    1. ?? This isn’t a protester’s sign, it’s a statement by an organization called Black Lives Matter Chicago.

    2. It’s not just the sign:
      “Over the past few months, too many people — disproportionately Black and Brown — have lost their jobs, lost their income, lost their homes, and lost their lives as the city has done nothing and the Chicago elite have profited,” the group’s statement reads. “When protesters attack high-end retail stores that are owned by the wealthy and service the wealthy, that is not ‘our’ city and has never been meant for us.”

      Yeah, this is wrong and doesn’t help the BLM cause. Getting a raw deal doesn’t mean you get to wreck those who, even unjustifiably, profited off of your raw deal. Because that doesn’t salve anything for anybody.

      Though I was a bit shaken by how the Floyd protests really only got attention once stuff started lighting on fire, albeit briefly before it returned to protesting, but now with headlines. It doesn’t do great for my MLK-is-the-way narrative.

      1. ” Getting a raw deal doesn’t mean you get to wreck those who, even unjustifiably, profited off of your raw deal.”

        Any proof that the owners of Gucci or whatever profited off of their raw deal?

        1. Nothing says “reparations” like a brand new pair of Gucci loafers. “Hey look great-great-great grandpa…the white man finally paid us the reparations for enslaving you! Check out these loafers!”

        2. Society has benefited off of black bodies for a long time. Slavery to redlining to incarcerated labor. Benefits that redound especially to the elites.

          The prison-industrial complex juices government coffers off of overcriminalization of many, including especially blacks, which allows benefits to flow to those better off.

          The working class, again disproportionately black or other minority, support the very rich owners of businesses with everything from food delivery to janitorial to repair to street cleaning. Things like redlining that prevent class mobility for specifically black people, keeping that labor market nice and fat, and that’s another raw deal helping the elites.

          1. So stealing from “luxury” brands is OK and reparations?

            1. Absolutely – I love looting now, just like I love reparations. And hate white people.

              As I have made clear in my 8:27pm comment right above.

          2. I guess you’ve accurately recounted the propaganda, anyway.

          3. Sarcast0, between welfare and Affirmative Retribution — not to mention crime — there’s been 60 years of tribute paid. Enough.

            SHOOT LOOTERS!!!!

          4. Sacastro – have you even taken an entry level economics class – Apparently not. All forms slave labor are inherently less efficient than free market labor and leave both parties worse off.

            1. That depends on whose efficiency you’re examining, doesn’t it?

              1. Both parties are left worse off –

            2. I have taken an entry level Econ Class and some more. How does having Labor Cost set at Zero, make a market less efficient. Seriously, what is your definition of Efficiency. Dr. Fogel actually won a Nobel Prize for showing that Slavery was more efficient than Market Labor. Consequence, slavery never would have ended on its own, it was a Moral choice needed to end it, ie Abolition. The actual method of calculation he used was novel and interesting, but a bit more technical than I was ready at that time. Further, his work also showed how to calculate out the gains from railroads to the GNP in the late 1800s. Sorry, slavery is efficient, and unmentioned is that prior to 1900 the world actually suffered from Labor Shortages, why you go after slaves. Being a subsistence farmers is generally better economically and in multiple other ways, than being a slave.

          5. This is a ridiculous set of claims. Which society, other than post-industrial and the one you apparently chose to see? Black bodies? Could you dehumanize people any more effectively than this? And, prove this claim. Chattel slavery was shitty, but it existed before, and it still exists.

            Over-incarceration for petty, non-violent crime is an issue. So is under-enforcement & incarceration. The rest of your statement, flow of benefits, rests on supposition and is hyperbolic.

            As for the ‘working class,’ mostly ehite in the US. Yes, within the African American population, higher instance. Bringing up redlining, which has been illegal for a long time, and seems unlikely given the political affiliation of HuD, housing across the country, is again hyperbolic. If one examines the payroll charitable donations (cfc) and understands that Carson, a single Trump appointee cannot change much of the organizational memory or working processes.

            There is racism here in the States, and any is too much in my opinion. It’s simply not under every damned rock as some would have folks believe. And, it isn’t ‘power + privilege.’

            1. Thanks for engaging. You’re the first one so far.

              The ‘black bodies’ rhetoric is dehumanizing on purpose, since that’s what the system does.

              I’m having trouble parsing your first paragraph, but I guess you’re saying other societies are also bad and exploit groups so how can America be bad? Because that’s just whattaboutism; correct me if I have that wrong.

              Under-enforcement? Of what? Our incarceration rate is pretty impressive worldwide, even China (though dunno if we trust those numbers) and our black incarceration rate even more so.
              Funny you should bring up HUD – guess what Trump is fearmongering about on twitter lately? Democrats ruining the suburbs by letting low-income people move there.

              open redlining was made illegal in the 1970s. That’s enough to have screwed living black families pretty directly. And, of course, that just made it slightly more subtle.

              I don’t blame Carson, though he’s pretty clearly not committed to solving anything. But opposition to actually rooting it out is bipartisan – plenty of liberals also don’t want undesirables moving in. LA is a great example.

              There was a miniseries, ‘Show me a Hero’ about public housing in Yonkers in the 80s’ and 90s. Bipartisan; ugly; racial.

              Racism isn’t power+privilege. But privilege is a thing that exists, and continues to advantage some groups while disadvantaging the rest. It’s not intentional conscious racism like back in the day; it’s systemic. And we need to acknowledge it if we’re going to fix it.

              1. I mean, look at this:

                The “suburban housewife” will be voting for me. They want safety & are thrilled that I ended the long running program where low income housing would invade their neighborhood. Biden would reinstall it, in a bigger form, with Corey Booker in charge!
                7:59 AM · Aug 12, 2020

                I’m sure many here won’t see anything. But you seem to be pretty up on the issues, even if we don’t agree. What do you see?

          6. I do not see how society benefitted from redlining. (Actually, I don’t see how society benefitted from any of the things you name, though certain segments of it obviously did. But wrt redlining, that seems like just deadweight loss.)

            1. I tend to agree that for none of what I was talking about did society as a whole, including everyone, benefit. But the elites did. Limited resources being lowballed in one place gotta go somewhere.

              More well-off segments of society benefit from avoiding having to deal with *undesirables* coming in.
              Property values stay high, property taxes->schools, crime rates, etc. NIMBYism is driven by self-oriented practicality, after all.

      2. I don’t read the statement as “this behavior is OK.” I read it as “this is why people are mad.” It certainly could have been clearer.

        The “loot back” was on some protester’s sign. If EV is attributing it to the whole group, that’s obviously a smear.

        1. This isn’t our city is hard for me to read as other than justification.

      3. It’s possible BLM has a different understanding of their cause than you do, and that rioting and looting fits right in with their actual cause.

        “albeit briefly before it returned to protesting”

        Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that. If you’re lucky there won’t be any “protests” in your neighborhood.

        1. Yeah, another secret liberal agenda. Sheesh, Brett.

          You don’t think the vast majority of the worldwide movement we see post-Floyd is protesting?!

          1. Good God, Sarcastro! Why would somebody in Europe give a damn about Floyd? Do we care about police wrongs in Europe? The very fact of this being a multi-national movement demonstrates that Floyd had nothing to do with it, except as a convenient excuse to kick off the riots.

            1. Yeah, I think other countries care about injustice outside their borders.

              And we don’t as much. Luxuries of being the hedgemon.

              1. Yeah, I think other countries care about injustice outside their borders.

                Which is of course why there are all those European protests about human rights violations in China, the Middle East and Africa. Of course the wrongful death in the US of a violent black felon at the hands of the police who are actually being charged and prosecuted is actually more important than the usual atrocities committed in the other places. Do you really believe that ?

            2. Do we care about police wrongs in Europe?

              I mean, yes, of course. If you don’t, that says a lot more about you than it does about BLM.

  5. The cops’ problem (and their unions’ and political masters’ problem) is that they have abused their position of trust so much for so long that they have little credibility left. It doesn’t mater what the truth is here, who shot first, anything — qualified immunity and union protection have made cops so untrustworthy that I have long since stopped believing anything they say, except possibly where the sun will rise tomorrow, and I’d double check that too most days.

    1. Worse than that – it’s given them an entitlement mentality. A lot of their responses to the protests, especially early on, had a quality of tantrums.

      1. Well, hopefully you’re in a locale where they’re in the process of voting the entitled whiny bums out and you’ll have nothing left to worry about.

          1. Cute whattaboutism, but we’re talking about the police (and their unions).

            So was I. Read twice; comment once.

            1. You vote for police?

              1. Sure beats the alternative.

                1. …That they’re hired civil servants? Because that’s how it is right now.

                  What in the world are you trying to get at?

              2. Oh, now I see your pedantic little quibble. Try this for an example: Minneapolis City Council votes to replace the police department with a new organization.

                Free your mind, and the rest will follow….

                1. I seriously wasn’t being pedantic.

                  You don’t vote out police departments. That’s one of the reasons reform is difficult.

                  1. You don’t vote out police departments.

                    … but you do in a very real sense. I suppose this doesn’t matter if you are a pedantic political hack, but if you really care, you vote in an anti-union city council with a reform agenda. The city council busts the union, places civilian oversight in place and makes it trivially easy to fire cops with too many complaints. All violent interactions have outside review and lack of body camea footage is possible grounds for termination. That’s just for starters and you attack and reform other parts of your justice system as well. The actual recipe is not that hard.

                    You are going to solve no problems by leaving the grifting team blue machines in place no matter what their supporters insist.

  6. What crimes have the police committed? The Conspirators love to throw out these unfounded accusations.

    1. Do you deny that over the years in our nation the police have needlessly killed innocent people in the past, and likely will in the future?

      1. Some have, any reliable statistics on % who have?

        1. I’m answering y81’s question. The rate doesn’t matter.

      2. Not at all, not at all. They are kind of like doctors in that regard.

        1. A bit more active in their killings, but sure.

          Except the way they acted to these protests really soured me on the idea of the bad cops being the exception.

          At least in the big cities – I’m sure there are places where the PD is legit.

          1. “Except the way they acted to these protests …”

            Do you have any specific instance in mind? Because what I generally saw was incredible restraint.

            For example, watch this video. Look at 1:00 or so, where the police are escorting the marchers. Then watch at 5:30 or so. And using lasers to try to blind people … that’s really sick behavior.

            1. Plenty of videos of beating up people who were protesting. Do some Googling; there’s plenty of examples of way excessive force in response to the protests.
              One hit: Facing Protests Over Use of Force, Police Respond With More Force: Videos showed officers using batons, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters and bystanders.


              The one that got me was LAPD cars driving by a row of protesters and spraying pepper spray out of the car into their face. There was no threat there; that was pure unneeded violence. A tantrum.

              It was on twitter and I can’t locate it now. But plenty of other examples.

              1. Do some Googling; there’s plenty of examples of way excessive force in response to the protests.

                In my experience, that equates to plenty of copies of the same handful of carefully cropped, context-free snippets with the rest filled in via inflammatory language in the post.

                The one that got me was LAPD cars driving by a row of protesters and spraying pepper spray out of the car into their face.

                And by “driving by a row of protesters” apparently you mean “trying to get through a crowd of protestors in the street brazenly blocking a string of police cars with their lights flashing and sirens blaring.” You’re ignoring even the context that’s there and simply choosing sides.

                1. Well, if you’re not going to believe video evidence, then you’re the one choosing sides, and I’m not going to convince you.

                  1. Maybe if they shot them, which is what would happen in a “workers paradise”, you could count the bodies.

                    Yes I chose sides, the side the criminals aren’t on.

          2. “A bit more active in their killings, but sure.”

            Rather less prolific though, it seems. Perhaps the focus ought to be more on where the most lives could be saved?

            1. Utilitarian arguments are for supervillains.

              Us human beings, as it turns out, do not much care for utilitarianism a lot of the time.
              Which is why BLM isn’t making a utilitarian argument.

              Anyhow, ‘Shut up about your cause, there’s a cause that’s more important over here’ is not a serious argument.

              1. “Us human beings, as it turns out,…”

                Well, now that you’ve told me I’m not a human being because I disagree with you, I’m convinced. Speaking of serious arguments and all.

                1. That’s not implied by my sentence.

    2. What crimes have the police committed?

      Murder, assault, theft, obstruction of justice, perjury…

  7. Eugene, although my political views are generally to the left of yours, and am in general a supporter of Black Lives Matter, I agree completely with your comments. Looting, vandalism, and violence should play absolutely no role in the protests against police brutality. Not only do they wrongfully injure the victims of such conduct, they are counterproductive — that is, they encourage ambivalent voters to support the President. I believe that the vast majority of protesters are peaceful, but it is difficult for them to stop those who are not. I remember how, during demonstrations against the Vietnam war, I yelled at the small minority who were throwing rocks, but short of physically attacking them there was little else I could do. I hope BLM will clearly disavow such conduct.

  8. It appears to be an outward expression of desperation.

  9. “Protesters?”

    They have been given the benefit of the doubt for a substantial period. The game’s up. Looting is not protesting.

    1. This does not in any way turn protesters into accessories to the looters or anything like that.

      1. Like we would never accuse 30s isolationists of aiding the Nazis. Anyone who makes that connection is contemptible. Thus spake Sarcastro.

        1. OK, dude.

          First, even the 30s isolationists got speech rights.

          Second, the protesters are not saying the looters might have some good points, nor are they saying don’t arrest looters.

          Third, what kind of tendentious analogy is that? Freaking Nazis?!

          1. How do you discriminate between looters who are carrying protest signs and yelling protest chants and these protesters you are referring to?

            1. By the looting.

              That’s what makes you a looter or a vandal – you loot or you vandalize.

              Carrying a protest sign is neither.

              1. Can a protester ever become a looter or a vandal?

                1. Yeah, when they loot or vandalize.

                  Not when they carry a sign, even a sign as dumb as ‘looting is reparations’ or the like.

                  1. Why are you acting like these are two completely separate classes of people?

                    Do you not watch TV? Or read anything?

                    1. Because there are two different groups.

                      And even were they not, you need to catch a particular individual looting in order to arrest that individual for looting.

                      That’s fundamental due process.

                    2. There is a clear, huge overlap.

                      Your disingenuous parsing does not erase that.

                    3. Terrorists don’t get due process.

                    4. Why are you acting like these are two completely separate classes of people?

                      Shorter Gompers: “All black people look alike to me.”

      2. It is if they attend one organized by this organization.

        1. So now all protests by BLM are riots? That’s not how this works.

          This is bad speech. It sucks. It doesn’t make anything illegal that wasn’t already illegal.

          1. If BLM doesn’t want to be known for rioting and looting they should probably stop endorsing all the rioting and looting for starters.

            1. Oh yeah, this damages their reputation. I don’t much care for it.

              But it does not allow anyone to be arrested for protesting who couldn’t already be arrested for protesting.

              1. Does little to the point that if BLM doesn’t want to be known as the mob rioting looting violent organization it has become then it ought to at least try not to actively endorse such activity.

                1. I would point you to the top of the thread, which is about actions not about the reputation of an organization.

                  I’d also note that a single comment from Chicago BLM doesn’t speak for BLM generally, unless you’re overly eager to push a narrative.

                  1. Well it is more then one comment. BLM has a history of failing to denounce violence, looting, and rioting. Shouldn’t come as a surprise though. The Left NEVER even try to distance themselves from violence or antifa.

                    1. You presented no evidence. Instead, you have a narrative. I’m sure you enjoy it a lot, as it’s very black and white.

                      But I don’t think your convenient condemnation is going to catch on.

                    2. Jimmy, BLM’s declared war.
                      Well, if they really want a war, I say give them one.

                  2. That is why my comment only pertains to the Chicago BLM organization. If you organize your own protest that is not complicity. If you attend a protest organized by Chicago-BLM. They are an explicitly pro-violence chapter of BLM.

                    1. Speech endorsing violence doesn’t turn later speech into violence.

                      Moreover, guilt by association doesn’t fly legally, and when we’ve dabbled in it bad things occurred.

                    2. They also have a pattern of violence at rallies organized by them.

                    3. I’m not sure I think that’s true, Allutz. Careful of confirmation bias there.

                      But even were it true, a pattern of past violence does not turn speech into violence.

                      To be clear: you want to round up anyone who attends a BLM rally and charge them with conspiracy to riot or something?

                  3. I would point you to the top of the thread, which is about actions not about the reputation of an organization.

                    It’s not an organization in the first place! It’s a movement!

                    (Yes, there are a couple of different people who have incorporated entities with the words Black Lives Matter in their names. But that doesn’t make them Black Lives Matter.)

                    1. Yeah, that’s a fair put. I need to keep an eye on falling for that.

  10. I look forward to the presidential debates, and asking Biden whether he supports this.

    1. I’m pretty sure riots are good actually isn’t very popular on the left with those who are willing to vote Bernie.

      1. Rather willing to give up Bernie and vote Biden.

        There’s an eat the rich crew, but they’re voting Green.

      2. I’m not saying that Twitter is a representative sample, but seeing as the media always treats it as such cruise on over there and see for yourself what the majority of people on the Left think of riots and looting. They are pretty “pro.”

        1. Loud voices on twitter are generally the types who sent snakes to Warren and won’t vote for that rapist Biden evar.

  11. Completely agree. But there is more than one way that looting and related crimes are being “used politically.”

    One, by far the biggest if counted in money, is for a political group to accept funds in the name of the looters, thus profiting from the fact that many victims and people who anticipate being victims of looting may want to donate large sums in the hope that it will protect them. (Contributions made at go to ActBlue, a shady slush fund that benefits mostly Democratic candidates but also some terror groups. Glenn Beck did an expose on them.) This amounts to the same kind of protection racket the Brownshirts used in 1920s Germany, and it seems to me federal law enforcement ought to seize the proceeds rather than allow that tactic to be used by any side in a US election.

    A second way looting might be used in politics is to publicize which party’s politicians are encouraging more looting, either by letting arrested looters out on their own recognizance, by not prosecuting them, or even by having the police stand down and not arrest them or stop the crime. It’s obvious which party that is, and we do need to vote accordingly.

    Then of course comes the temptation to generalize from what the looters look like to condemning a race. That’s regrettable but predictable. Anyone who truly wants peace between the colors must certainly be disappointed by the riots, because they’re certainly not going to make anybody trust or accept blacks more.

  12. I’m glad Burn, Loot, and Murder is out there being as Democrat as they can be to other Democrats.

    I hope BLM continues BLMing in deep Democrat areas. People need to feel the effects of their gross beliefs and their voting.

    1. I’m not very excited by Biden, but his very boringness makes him pretty hard to tie this to, in my opinion.

      1. I’m sure Trump will do his best. Good thing K-money has plenty of juicy quotes that will make good sound bites with this looting playing a b-roll.

  13. It’s a bit like the Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowdon cases. Is it a crime? Yes. Is it defensible? Also yes. (At least when we’re talking about rioting rather than helping yourself to a new flatscreen.)

    If I was African American I would burn it all down. Black people being killed by the police is only the start of the injustice. But that doesn’t make burning it all down not a crime.

    1. Just curious if you know many black people are unjustifiably killed by police annually in America?

        1. Two is how many black men were shot by police in the Bay Area last year while they were sleeping in their cars. (Separate incidents!) So I’m going to guess that the number is a bit higher than that, regardless of how flexible your definition of “unjustifiable” is…

    2. “If I was African American I would burn it all down.”

      And I’d issue “shoot to kill” orders to the police.

      1. Yes, and that’s how you’d end up with a second civil war, which would go about as well for the racists as the first one. Following Civil War I, the racists won the peace. Democracy clearly isn’t solving this issue, so maybe it’s time for a sequel?

        And, for the avoidance of doubt, none of this is to say that killing people or damaging property is (or should be) legal. Just that a country can only be virulently racist for so long before the only remaining recourse is to burn it all down and start over.

  14. No media coverage of the mob that tried to burn down a police union hall in Portland WITH PEOPLE IN IT.

    1. I read about it in those right-wing media mouthpieces, the NYTimes and WaPo. But yeah, other than that, crickets.

  15. “I’m all for stopping crimes committed by the police”

    Name a song, Al.

    Sure, that’s what one would expect a ‘colorblind Ted Cruz libertarian’ to say, but votes for white-favoring “law and order” Republicans constitute vivid evidence to the contrary.

  16. Arguments defending looting, like arguments for reparations, are difficult to understand when abstracted away from decades or centuries of history and analyzed in isolation.

    It’s certainly not going to be persuasive to a white, elite law professor working for a prominent law school across the country to defend the looting in Chicago (or New York, or wherever else it has been occurring over the past couple of months) to point to decades of mistreatment and institutionalized oppression of the Black communities in America’s major cities. In that sense, you’re just like the “go slow” moderates of the Civil Rights Era, utterly mystified that Black leaders and citizens might have reached a breaking point. But viewed within the proper historical perspective, the arguments are at least comprehensible, if not ultimately valid.

    I myself fail to see the strategic usefulness of looting as “protest,” and I worry that these actions damage the communities we’re trying to heal. Still, I’m not going to get my white panties into a bunch over it. It sucks to be Black in America. It’s about god damn time we do something about it.

    1. “It’s about god damn time we do something about it.”

      “What’s this ‘we’ crap?” — white, elite, conservative law professors

    2. “We need to do something, this is something, therefor we need to do it!”

      Maybe they need to do something helpful, rather than just something? Like, oh, I don’t know, maybe STOP VOTING FOR THE PARTY THAT HAS CONTROLLED THOSE MAJOR CITIES FOR ALL THOSE DECADES?

      1. The GOP may have had an opportunity, but wasted it. They’ve made it clear they’re not going to be better, considering the crackdown they favor, the contempt for black concerns they evince, and their prescription that the way to help the black community is more law-and order.

      2. Yes. It’s much smarter to vote for the Party that nominated an unapologetic racist for president two elections in a row.

        (But otherwise, the point is right. Unless black voters can credibly commit to vote for someone other than the Democrats, the Democratic Party will always take them for granted and do nothing to improve anything in black neighbourhoods, or even to reduce the tendency for there to be such a thing as black neighbourhoods. And, as per the North Carolina gerrymandering case, being black is a better predictor of someone voting Democratic than being a registered Democrat, so African Americans are stuffed, as far as the electoral process goes.)

        1. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, I were to concede that Trump was a racist.

          Who’s better: The racist who doesn’t like you, but doesn’t particularly see any point in crushing you? Or the ‘non-racist’ who claims to like you, but has run your city into the ground?

          At some point you have to decide that claiming to like you isn’t really a good basis for continuing to vote for your oppressor. And maybe you should even suspect that your oppressor might not be entirely honest with you about his opponent being a racist…

    3. Simon, Joe Sixpack has a breaking point, too.

      When someone like me is calling for live ammo, yea, the middle is ceasing to hold.

      1. Ed, you’re not the middle.

        You were calling for live ammo the first week.

        1. Hey, now, he wasn’t “calling for” it. He was just brazenly self-pleasuring himself while predicting it would happen.

    4. The number one way the US government could lift people out of poverty would be to cease the importation of unskilled labor completely, until everybody is making 60 grand a year.

      You don’t actually want to do anything about it though. You just want to continue virtue signaling and fantasize that you can somehow purchase absolution for some misplaced guilt.

      ” It sucks to be Black in America.”

      A lot of black people I know diasagree: They like being black. They like being in America. They suppose being in America is better than anywhere else, regardless of your skin color, even if they believe there are some issues with unequal police treatment and such.

      1. People who disagree with ML’s super nativist take on economics all actually agree with him and are lying about it because they have the White Guilt.

        Your trajectory continues, I see.
        Being proud of being black doesn’t mean it’s not unnecessarily difficult to be black in America.

        1. No, I never presumed that SimonP is aware of basic economics. In fact I assume he is unaware of the fact stated in my first sentence, and probably cognitive dissonance prevents him from recognizing it. So I don’t claim that he’s lying, and as usual you’re just making up strawmen.

          As I said, most black people I know would disagree with his statement, “It sucks to be black in America.” Even if they tend to believe there are some issues with unequal treatment.

          1. I like being me, which must mean no person or group has it better than I do.

            Your claim about SimonP is that he doesn’t care about helping end poverty. Still a pretty crappy thing to say.

      2. Where is Ilya Somin now to advocate for foot voting? If America sucks so bad, there is like everywhere else to go that is so much better.

        1. Ask Frederick Douglass. A man personally experienced in how racist America was, and yet deeply and proudly American.

    5. “Arguments defending looting…are difficult to understand when abstracted away from decades or centuries of history and analyzed in isolation.”

      Adolf Hitler probably said something similar about the Final Solution.

  17. The worst part of all this isn’t that a radical organization promotes a cause based on a false empirical premise (blacks are disproportionately killed by the police), defend violence and use tired recycled Marxist tropes and post modernist gobbledygook rhetoric. No that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that purportedly thinking people (our elites in media, the corporate world and government) have swallowed this agenda whole hog.


      About 17% of the black people who died as a result of police harm were unarmed, a larger share than any other racial group and about 1.3 times more than the average of 13%.

      1. Yeah, you’re not controlling for crime rates. That’s the usual scam: Pretend that a group with twice the crime rate of society as a whole ought to expect to have the same statistics on interacting with the police as the rest of society.

          1. Like in Ferguson?

            Or Friday in DC?

            1. Meeting statistics with anecdotes like that shows you have a narrative that’s not supported but you still want to push it.

      2. a rational person would take those 1.3 fold odds of being shot by the police over the astonishingly greater odds of being shot by someone other than the police.
        More than twenty years in trauma care in an urban center hospital, taken care of hundreds of GSW patients, none shot by the police.

        1. That’s not a legitimate tradeoff though – we don’t pay for police keeping us safe by allowing the occasional police killing of an innocent.

          Police use of force is screwed up in quite a few ways. People advocating for it to be addressed are not ignoring all other problems in the world.

  18. The stores should hire private security guards. They can pay the Black Lives Matter organization to furnish such guards. Not only would this limit the amount of mob violence, but any violence which *does* occur will be denounced vigorously.

    Everyone wins.

    1. The stores should dig a moat and not let BLM across it,

Please to post comments