*

Mike Hendricks

Mike at Night

Mike Hendricks recently retires as social science, criminal justice instructor at McCook Community College.

Opinion

Protest is protected; rioting is not

Friday, December 12, 2014

There has been a lot of conversation lately about the protests that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri and in cities across the nation in regards to the Michael Brown killing. It's important to remember that peaceful protest has been protected by court rulings for decades but rioting hasn't and rioting is what we see way too much of.

Many people believe that the peaceful protestors are from the local community and the rioters come in from other places and there is some evidence to support that perspective. But a little history is important here.

Peaceful protests started back in the 1960s with the civil rights movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, who advocated non-violent tactics. Because of the respect blacks had for Dr. King, they lived up to his example and marched peacefully. There was still violence when they did but the violence was instigated by the white onlookers and the police rather than the protestors. Those of us from the older generation vividly remember police batons, police dogs and fire hoses turned on the protestors at will, aided by a rabid group of white onlookers.

We saw the police do the same thing during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago where hundreds of thousands of young people gathered to protest the Vietnam War and were met by what came to be known as the Chicago Police Riot because the police instigated the violence rather than the protestors.

But that began to change after Martin Luther King's assassination. Because he was no longer in charge, blacks felt more free to do what they wanted to do during protests instead of what Dr. King told them to do and so their protests went from peaceful to violent. There were violent riots all over America in the aftermath of King's killing and other riots continued after that. The most severe and brutal was the riot in the Watts section of Los Angeles after several white policemen were acquitted of police brutality on Rodney King, even though the whole affair was captured on video tape. Rioters destroyed a large section of the city with massive fires and the looting of stores was unprecedented.

We have seen similar scenarios since then. Trouble makers from other areas come in to a city, march with local peaceful protestors and then begin rioting; stealing and burning whatever they can and oftentimes the peaceful protestors follow their lead and do that too. This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated because it generates a communal sense of disrespect for the community and the police that protect it.

I think this is really the genesis of the problem. My generation was taught to respect the law. We would have never thought to challenge a police officer or to not do what we were told. Some police officers took advantage of that submission but most didn't. Today's crowd is significantly different; they challenge the police on general principle alone.

A generation ago, if two guys were walking down the middle of the street, as Michal Brown and his friend were, and a police officer drove up and told them to get on the sidewalk, they would have gotten on the sidewalk. But Michael Brown didn't. He challenged the police officer even though he had just stolen cigars from a convenience store and pushed the manager into a display of groceries.

Brown has been described as a gentle giant but what I saw on the videotape showed him as a bully and a thug instead. But it was his refusal to get out of the middle of the street that caused the confrontation that led to his death.

If he had simply followed the police officer's legal order, none of the rest of what happened would have happened.

So it's a lack of respect for legal authority that leads to many of our problems today and that's what has to be solved. There are far more private citizens in this country than there are police officers and when we start disobeying lawful police orders out of hand, we are on a slippery slope toward societal chaos.

Parents, schools, churches and community action groups have to do a better job of making sure that young people respect the police.

And the police have to do a better job of earning that respect!

Comments
View 3 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Violent protest has a much longer history. A history which vouches for it's effectiveness. For example -- the American colonists staged violent protest against British rule. Ultimately, the protest turned into a deadly uprising. The net result was the forming of the United States. Very successful. The United States would not have gotten it's independence with peaceful negotiation. The whole labor unionization thing was spotted frequently with violence. Very effective. The workers would not have gotten better wages, better working conditions, etc., without turning violent. Speaking of police here. Look at this example. In about the mid to late 1970's the police union in new York went on strike. No breaking of windows, no looting , no assaulting anyone. What they did is simply refrain from enforcing the law. So, if someone was being robbed, they wouldn't step in to help the person being robbed or apprehend or deter the robber. I don't know if you would classify the protest as peaceful or violent, but it sure caused a lot of violence -and- it was successful for the police. They got the benefits they were after. They would not have gotten them otherwise. There's all kinds of examples where violent protest work. If they didn't work nobody would do them. I think , probably, the blacks in Ferguson are protesting abuse by the police. Their violent protest will likely be successful. It would be unlikely for them to be successful without some violence. You have to remember that they would not be protesting at all unless they felt they had a genuine grievance.

    -- Posted by bob s on Sun, Dec 14, 2014, at 10:03 AM
  • Bob would you think the same if the protesters broke into your home and business and robbed you, then set the place on fire even though you had nothing to do with what they are protesting? I believe there is a difference between folks who protest and folks that hit the streets to just cause vandalism and to loot.

    -- Posted by dennis on Mon, Dec 15, 2014, at 9:30 AM
  • History shows that violent protests are very often successful. They bring about the change the protestors want. Whole countries have been overthrown that way. You can see this in the modern movements in the middle east. Sometimes they are necessary - sometimes not. In regard to the ferguson riot, I don't know if they were just looting or if they were looting to draw attention to a problem. Maybe some combination of the two. I don't know what they were thinking. There are almost always unintended or innocent victims of riots or overthrows or violent protests or of wars, etc..

    -- Posted by bob s on Mon, Dec 15, 2014, at 1:38 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: