Two and a half centuries ago, a bunch of thugs in Boston disguised their identities and destroyed property. Should they have been shot?
didn't that start with a black man being shot by authorities who were protecting financial institutions too?
Much different circumstance. A small British garrison was basically goaded into shooting and most of the soldiers charged were found not guilty.
Did they burn the ships and the docks? Did they steal all the stuff that wasn't tea? Did they attack people in the area? Did they burn down the city? Are the rioters in 2020 making huge bonfires out of their looted stuff to protest? Are they only burning down government buildings and not innocent businesses and housing? I'd actually have more respect for them if they were doing those things. I wanted to hope you're just playing the role of a typical leftist in making this stupid thread but than I remembered that you're a leftist so no you can't tell the difference between today's riots and the Boston Tea Party. You're that dumb.
I dunno, sounds remarkably similar to the excuses made for cops killing black folk. And the usual result...
Explain how what rioters did here is the same as the people at the Boston Tea Party. Was there tea in the safe?
Now, now, @matthunter, you know there's no similarity. Without those patriotic folk dumping someone else's property into the harbor (imagine the follow-on consequences - livelihoods lost, sailors flogged, etc.) the "United" States of America would have died aborning. (Somewhere there are statistics stating that 40-45% of the Colonists were pro-revolution; 15% were Loyalists; and the rest didn't care.) Which means if the Big Boston Hooha had failed, we'd probably still be as much a part of the Commonwealth as Canada and Australia and have access to a decent uni education and affordable health care. Why would you wish that on us?
I think a better question is should the teabagger thugs have been shot. I assume the Boston Tea Party people acted in stealth and had they been seen could have faced violence. The reason they were not shot was more a matter of them not being seen rather than any restraint on the part of the brittish. However, given what the tea baggers ended up being perhaps there was a call to clean out the gene pool and voter pool of idiots and perhaps we should have shot them.
Some of them. In the footage from the third precinct last night (had the on-ground live stream running for a few hours) most of the protesters were either peaceful or were focusing on the police station, burning items from it in the Carpark, and where they were tearing stuff down we using it to form barricades. Never said they were identical, but I'm trying to get a baseline here. Clearly some level of violent protest is acceptable, I'm curious about where that line is.
