In my last post, I quoted an AP story in which the co-organizer of a BLM chapter stated that the group "rejects using violence."
But some of our friends in the criminal defense bar are more discerning. A criminal defense attorney from Knoxville, TN, Chris Seaton, wrote an article on the legal blog Mimesis titled, "Debate: Violence Against Cops Is Inevitable and Justifiable." It was one of two pieces set forth in a point-counterpoint style in the wake of the police murders in Dallas and Baton Rouge. (The companion piece takes the opposing view, though in significant measure on prudential rather than moral grounds).
The article starts with a fair summary of its thesis (emphasis added):
In response to yesterday's shooting in Baton Rouge that as of 2 p..m. Sunday had three police officers dead, I was charged to debate whether violence against police is inevitable, wise or justifiable for African-Americans? After consideration, I take the side that in our current climate, violence against police is not wise for African-Americans. However, it is the inevitable and justifiable conclusion of militarizing police forces, lack of officer accountability following shootings of African-Americans, and silencing protests with ridiculous arrests.
I encourage readers to survey Mr. Seaton's article so that they can see for themselves the full case, larded though it wisely is with lots of wiggle room, for gunning down random police officers
BLM may (when convenient) disclaim violence, but it should know, and very likely does know, that the case it's actually interested in has already been made..
Leave a comment