Here is what happens when you have decided the wingnut welfare is just that sweet, you'll be glad to argue out your ass. Thomas Sowell, for fuck's sake.
The political left has been campaigning against the use of force since at least the 18th century. So it is not surprising that they are now arguing that heavily armed or aggressive police forces only inflame protesters and thus provoke violence.
Yes, I am kind of proudly "against the use of force." Please to provide the evidence pro use of force.
Statisticians have long warned that correlation is not causation, but they have apparently warned in vain.
There next occurs a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about presidents and assassins, but then -- holy shit, hark! to this cold inexorable logic:
According to the prevailing vision, ghetto riots are due to racial injustices -- and the way to deal with them is to make concessions in words and deeds, while severely restricting the use of force by the police.
Factual evidence cannot make a dent in that vision.
But, for those who are still so old-fashioned as to rely on facts, here are a few: Back in the 1960s when ghetto riots broke out in cities across the country, the region with the fewest riots was the South, where racial discrimination was greatest and police forces least likely to show restraint.
That is at least seven kinds of crazy, probably more, just counting off the top of my head.
I mean, sure, in the absence of a nigh-totalitarian racist apartheid police state, people are more likely to have the opportunity to engage in violent protests against their systematic oppression, especially when faced with the brutal reality of their inferior status, such as an officer of the law shooting dead one of their own and then going away scot-free. Tear gas and assault vehicles be damned.
What was Jim Crow but a generations-long, intimately vicious race riot?
So, uh, yeah, points to you.
You crazy fuck.