Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Violence against non-peaceful protest

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:23:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you think it is justifiable to use violence or even lethal measure in order to dissolve political demonstration that is not peaceful in nature?

By saying not peaceful, I means the demonstration that part of, or all pf the demonstrators had

1. Posses willingness to use violence against the government or neutral party to accomplish their cause.

2. Had committed violence against life or property of the government or neutral party either as financial losses, physical losses, or personal casualty.

which can be proved by

1. Evidence of lost that occurred, for example the mob A had been trowing rock in to one of the government building which resulted in broken window. If it is possible to prove (such as media record) that one of the protester is the one who caused a broken window, the demonstration will be deem illegitimate and should be disband at any mean necessary.

2. Provocation of violence which is a protest where there is a clear record that the mod leader had been calling for violence against government or neutral party. For example, a mod leader who call his fellow demonstrator to burn, broke, or dirty private store or shop which is own by their opposing party will be deem as violence mod and need to be dissolved, with force if necessary.

3. Possession of arms, mob that arms themselves with weapon of any kind.

A lethal or violence measure in question will be used only when all peaceful option had been exhausted. Premature violence is not a case we are talking. This a case where not using violence will result in the harm or other party while using violence will result in protesters casualty.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:45:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason for this post is that I recently had a discussion about the handle of non-peaceful protest in my country with my mother who is a strong supporter of the Royalist.

(And in case you do not know what i am talking about, I am from Thailand, I am talking about the RedShirt protest that had been ravaging the Bangkok a few years ago)

She claimed that she had been monitoring the media all the time and she can verify that, at least the first shot (which is in fact, a grenade launcher) had been fired from the site of the protester, according to the live video report. My family is running a magazine ourselves so we are able to monitor both the conventional report from TV or internet, and the more unconventional one such as radio communication of the military forces in charge of the protest. So I believe her claim can be quite accurate. And it is clear from anybody point of view that the Redshirt protesters are not completely peaceful, there is a clear evidence that they had committed violence against property of government and non-government party (violence against human life is not evidence though).

I, however, claim that regardless of the status of demonstrator, military forces is not suppose to use lethal method against civilian. At the very least, if the protesting group is proven unacceptable, they should still attempt to resolve it through non-lethal method. And regardless of the intention of the government, allowing uncontrollable protest which has tendency toward violence is a failure at the first place.

what do you guy think?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 7:08:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:45:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I, however, claim that regardless of the status of demonstrator, military forces is not suppose to use lethal method against civilian.

So are you saying it should be the responsibility of the police to use lethal method against a civilian, or that no violence should be taken at all?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 9:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 7:08:09 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 6/1/2013 6:45:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I, however, claim that regardless of the status of demonstrator, military forces is not suppose to use lethal method against civilian.

So are you saying it should be the responsibility of the police to use lethal method against a civilian, or that no violence should be taken at all?

In the end we can't reach any conclusion, I am more incline to accept that lethal method against violence protest is justifiable but it doesn't seem right. So I post it here to see some of your comment.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, absolutely. But it depends on how you're defining non-peaceful and violence. Like I don't think the first response to a bunch of protesters that don't have a permit is to kill them all, including the women and children.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 7:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In America, we can descend into martial law during times of rebellion or invasion.

During such times, habeas corpus is suspended, meaning that the government is given free license to "shoot first, ask questions later".

If such "rebellions," which is what I interpret your "non-peaceful protest" as being, turn unduly violent, then yes, I would think the government is obligated to use whatever means are necessary to bring back order into society.

It's a terrible thing to do, but if a mob has turned destructive, then it's already a terrifying situation, and as such lethal force would be appropriate.

---

This is why IMHO the only real difference in human rights across the world is relative prosperity. A richer society is generally a happier society, and would be less prone to riots, and thus less prone to human rights abuses, which would typically be charged against any government that quelled any riot or rebellion with military force.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 8:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 7:59:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
In America, we can descend into martial law during times of rebellion or invasion.

During such times, habeas corpus is suspended, meaning that the government is given free license to "shoot first, ask questions later".

If such "rebellions," which is what I interpret your "non-peaceful protest" as being, turn unduly violent, then yes, I would think the government is obligated to use whatever means are necessary to bring back order into society.

It's a terrible thing to do, but if a mob has turned destructive, then it's already a terrifying situation, and as such lethal force would be appropriate.

---

This is why IMHO the only real difference in human rights across the world is relative prosperity. A richer society is generally a happier society, and would be less prone to riots, and thus less prone to human rights abuses, which would typically be charged against any government that quelled any riot or rebellion with military force.

also if such actions happen we can rise up against martial law
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.