“Property can be restored, but lives can never be regained.”
That’s the argument circulating among activists trying to find an excuse for the looting, rioting, and destruction that has taken place across America’s cities over the past week. Such an argument might indeed be true if we had only one choice: Condemn the riots or condemn the injustice that triggered them.
We face no such choice. The murder of George Floyd was wrong, and the violence rocking this nation is wrong. To force people to choose one or the other is to rid the situation of the moral complexity it demands, thereby diminishing its importance.
Those who agree with this position (which, by the way, happens to be the majority of the country) have been accused of “both sides-ism.” Of course, the violence and looting are wrong, I’ve been told, but can’t you see that the circumstances have left them no other choice?
To be sure, context is important. And we’d be doing ourselves a disservice as a country if we did not see Floyd’s death as part of the bigger problem, which is the systemic injustice plaguing our criminal justice system and the habitual police brutality that is too often swept under the rug. But context is just that — it’s context. And it does not excuse or justify the criminal acts being committed in Floyd’s name.
By making this argument, that the circumstances explain and even excuse violent behavior, riot apologists are setting themselves up for failure. What if Derek Chauvin, the officer who pushed his knee into Floyd’s neck for nine minutes, tried to make a similar argument? Floyd had traces of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, according to the autopsy, which means he was likely high at the time of his arrest. If Chauvin tried to use this circumstantial evidence in the courtroom as justification, we would all be outraged. Why? Because Floyd’s drug habit had nothing to do with his arrest and in no way does it morally or legally excuse Chauvin’s actions.
The same goes for the riots. Floyd’s murder was horrifying, and we must fight to make sure his family receives the justice it is due. But injustice is not a license for more injustice. And the victims of looting — innocent business owners who have watched their stores burned to the ground and peaceful protesters who have been harmed by the conflict rioters helped create — deserve the same consideration that Floyd was denied.
So, yes, this is a “both sides” issue. And calling out both wrongs does not diminish the importance of the Black Lives Matter movement or the tragedy of Floyd’s death. Rather, “both sides-ism,” in this case, allows us to think critically and weigh moral complexities. In other words, it allows us to engage in rational thought — which is exactly what human beings are supposed to do.
