« on: August 13, 2014, 04:20:47 PM »
Would you say that no riots have been caused by angry people, only opportunists?
You've substituted "riot" for "looting" - I'm not sure if there's a reason for that or if you mean the same thing, but I'll take it to mean looting. In answer to your question, I have no idea. Never say never, I suppose.
Actually, it looks like you responded to my post about rioting with talk about looting. Why should we exclude things like vandalism or assault?
Do you think that every time there is a disruptive event, there is also a riot?
Of course not. What's your point?
I was wondering about your theory that disruptive events cause people to riot. Do you think that every riot is caused by a disruptive event? At what frequency do you think disruptive events cause riots? What sorts of things account for the difference between situations in which there are both disruptive events and riots and situations in which there are disruptive events but no riots?
Why do you care about correctly classifying the intentions of the rioters?
I think it's important to correctly identify the intentions of the looters because attributing the looting to the Brown shooting (1) is making excuses for lawless behaviour, and (2) unfairly tarnishes the lawful protests.
Why not just say that there is no excuse for lawless behavior?