Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something needs to change

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:22:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Either the occupy protesters are legitimately violating rules, or the undue violence of law enforcement needs federal attention. I have never seen such crass and irrational brutality against the exercise of constitutional rights in America.

In your opinion, who is at fault, and what ought to be done on either end to reduce the violent conflicts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:41:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
rob made an interesting point before about how the introduction of non-lethal weapons would actually lead to more violence, which made sense, so maybe to take the flash grenades off the cops isn't a bad idea?

i'd personally say leave law enforcement completely to the majority.
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 1:41:22 PM, badger wrote:
rob made an interesting point before about how the introduction of non-lethal weapons would actually lead to more violence, which made sense, so maybe to take the flash grenades off the cops isn't a bad idea?

i'd personally say leave law enforcement completely to the majority.

Yeah that's just what we need. >.<
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/30/2011 1:41:22 PM, badger wrote:
rob made an interesting point before about how the introduction of non-lethal weapons would actually lead to more violence, which made sense, so maybe to take the flash grenades off the cops isn't a bad idea?

i'd personally say leave law enforcement completely to the majority.

Yeah that's just what we need. >.<



hey, that'd be pretty much how it'd work all right. or at least it'd be public actions like those that'd incentivise people not to break the law. over here in ireland, in some areas, the IRA act pretty much as the law enforcement, them being the public in general or enough of the public anyway, and there's no such thing as heroin addiction or robberies in those areas. corporal punishment works. not that i'm for smashing peoples' heads in or anything though.
signature
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:16:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:08:22 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/30/2011 1:41:22 PM, badger wrote:
rob made an interesting point before about how the introduction of non-lethal weapons would actually lead to more violence, which made sense, so maybe to take the flash grenades off the cops isn't a bad idea?

i'd personally say leave law enforcement completely to the majority.

Yeah that's just what we need. >.<



hey, that'd be pretty much how it'd work all right. or at least it'd be public actions like those that'd incentivise people not to break the law. over here in ireland, in some areas, the IRA act pretty much as the law enforcement, them being the public in general or enough of the public anyway, and there's no such thing as heroin addiction or robberies in those areas. corporal punishment works. not that i'm for smashing peoples' heads in or anything though.

Where exactly is this in Ireland? No such thing as heroin addiction, no robberies? Come on.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:22:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To occupy is not to peacably assemble.

If they are peaceably assembling, their name is a lie, if their name is true, they are violating property rights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:23:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.

What's a "normal protest?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:23:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:16:43 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:08:22 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/30/2011 1:41:22 PM, badger wrote:
rob made an interesting point before about how the introduction of non-lethal weapons would actually lead to more violence, which made sense, so maybe to take the flash grenades off the cops isn't a bad idea?

i'd personally say leave law enforcement completely to the majority.

Yeah that's just what we need. >.<



hey, that'd be pretty much how it'd work all right. or at least it'd be public actions like those that'd incentivise people not to break the law. over here in ireland, in some areas, the IRA act pretty much as the law enforcement, them being the public in general or enough of the public anyway, and there's no such thing as heroin addiction or robberies in those areas. corporal punishment works. not that i'm for smashing peoples' heads in or anything though.

Where exactly is this in Ireland? No such thing as heroin addiction, no robberies? Come on.

well obviously there're still traces, but much less so than in areas where the IRA aren't prevalent. in the north and in cork in particlar. i've a few hooligan turned decent citizen cousins of cousins from the north who turned so given such incentivisation where the normal police had failed. and heroin dealers often turn up dead in both areas. or, well, not so often anymore...but they've learned i figure :P the IRA presenses certainly haven't alleviated.
signature
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:25:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:23:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.

What's a "normal protest?"

where people gather in a region and simply stand/walk and chant the message of their discontent, technically still occupying the region of their assembly. Protesters have a right to be on public land.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:26:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i suppose it wasn't obvious that there're still traces from my initial post, but now maybe it's more believable :P
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:25:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:23:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.

What's a "normal protest?"

where people gather in a region
No one gathers in a "Region." They gather on private property or on government property or on non-property, with or without the owner's permission, and either block or do not block the normal use of that property.

Protesters have a right to be on public land.
There is no such thing as "public" land, only private property, government property or non-property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:25:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:23:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.

What's a "normal protest?"

where people gather in a region
No one gathers in a "Region." They gather on private property or on government property or on non-property, with or without the owner's permission, and either block or do not block the normal use of that property.

Protesters have a right to be on public land.
There is no such thing as "public" land, only private property, government property or non-property.

government property = public property if you would consider a park government property
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Where was the video shot, incidentally?

A park is government property. Sleeping in it disturbs the use the government puts to it.

(Of course, the government taxed to get the park so the property isn't legitimate, but to TREAT it that way is to be at war with the government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:33:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:25:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:23:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:14:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:12:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:00:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Occupation is not constitutional nor a right, it's a military action. Maybe Occupy Wall Street isn't an occupation, I dunno, but the confusion is understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If occupation of a region was worthy of police intervention in such violent means, then normal protests would be inadmissible as well.

What's a "normal protest?"

where people gather in a region and simply stand/walk and chant the message of their discontent, technically still occupying the region of their assembly. Protesters have a right to be on public land.

They're on the streets blocking traffic. How is that peaceful?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:35:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
okay ragnar and kermit, describe for me what a "proper" protest is that does not deserve police intervention. Or are you against the right to protest altogether?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:37:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:35:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay ragnar and kermit, describe for me what a "proper" protest is that does not deserve police intervention. Or are you against the right to protest altogether?

a petition? lol
signature
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:38:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:35:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay ragnar and kermit, describe for me what a "proper" protest is that does not deserve police intervention. Or are you against the right to protest altogether?

You do realize that you need to get a permanent to protest in public area right? That's the proper way you do it. You don't just occupy an area, and start turning the place into a sanitation dump and graffiti everything (yes there has been graffiti). And yes, the city will give you the permit no matter what the type of speech. Even the KKK is given permits to protest.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:39:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:38:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:35:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay ragnar and kermit, describe for me what a "proper" protest is that does not deserve police intervention. Or are you against the right to protest altogether?

You do realize that you need to get a permit to protest in public area right? That's the proper way you do it. You don't just occupy an area, and start turning the place into a sanitation dump and graffiti everything (yes there has been graffiti). And yes, the city will give you the permit no matter what the type of speech. Even the KKK is given permits to protest.

fixed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:39:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:37:15 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:35:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
okay ragnar and kermit, describe for me what a "proper" protest is that does not deserve police intervention. Or are you against the right to protest altogether?

a petition? lol

Petititions definitely good.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:50:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?

i was gonna make that point against my own petition point, but then they needn't be all that ineffective, and riots are hardly good...which're literally a stone's throw away from occupation.
signature
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:50:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?

". I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical" - Thomas Jefferson

Protest in not done merely to let the government know of the presence of dissent, it is to pressure the government, and some rebelliousness is necessary for this purpose.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:51:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:50:06 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?

i was gonna make that point against my own petition point, but then they needn't be all that ineffective, and riots are hardly good...which're literally a stone's throw away from occupation.

and that said, i'm all for overthrowing unjust governments.
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:56:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?

No, if you want effectiveness go for an election or guns or a well-crafted court case if there's a good opportunity, in the first you need a majority, in the second you need a sizable and determined minority, and no whining about atrocities; in the third you need lawyers, in all you need opportunity. "Protests" and effectiveness are two different things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:56:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:50:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no "right to protest," there is a right to speak if one does not use the property of nonconsenting parties to speak. The government need tolerate that speech on its property only to the extent it does not interfere with the normal use of the property, private parties have no need to tolerate it at all.

If you hold up signs on the yellow lines in the middle of the street while still leaving the actual driving lanes open-- sort of like a traffic cone-- that might be a proper street protest.

It is not necessarily immoral to block the streets in the event of an unjust government, but the atrocity is the initial injustice, not the government proceeding to mow you down, and to the extent the government is legitimate there is no atrocity in mowing you down when you block the streets.

so essentially they should make themselves insignificant enough as to not disturb anything. This is what you call an effective protest?

". I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical" - Thomas Jefferson

Protest in not done merely to let the government know of the presence of dissent, it is to pressure the government, and some rebelliousness is necessary for this purpose.

Jefferson wanted blood. He knew the consequences, the OP indicates you don't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.