The year 2020 was a time of great upheaval in the United States. The country was rocked by protests and riots related to racial inequality and police brutality, which culminated in the death of George Floyd on May 25th. The response to this event was swift and aggressive, with cities across the country erupting in violence.
One of the cities hit hardest by the protests and riots was New York City. For months, protesters took to the streets to demand justice for George Floyd and other victims of police brutality, often clashing with police and causing widespread property damage. The cost of this unrest was staggering, with the city estimated to have spent over $100 million in overtime pay and other expenses related to law enforcement.
In the wake of this unrest, the city announced that it would be paying out $21,500 to 320 far-left protesters who had been arrested during these events. The move was controversial, with some accusing the city of caving to political pressure and others applauding the decision as a necessary step towards justice for those who had been wrongly targeted by law enforcement.
There are questions to be asked about whether the $21,500 payout to the protesters was justified, necessary, or even reasonable. In this article, we will examine the arguments on both sides to try and draw some conclusions about this controversial decision.
The Case Against Paying Out Protesters
Many conservatives and others who oppose the protests and riots argued that the decision to pay out protesters was misguided and irresponsible. Here are some of the main arguments against the payout:
1. The protesters were breaking the law: Many argued that the protesters who were arrested were doing so because they were breaking the law. They were damaging property, disrupting traffic, and engaging in other forms of civil disobedience that put themselves and others in danger. As such, it was inappropriate to reward them for actions that ultimately hurt the city and its people.
2. The payouts were only made to far-left protesters: There are also allegations that the payout was only made to protesters who identified as part of the far-left. This has led to accusations of political favoritism and further division within the city.
3. The payout sends the wrong message: Finally, many argue that the decision to pay out protesters sends the wrong message to those who engage in civil disobedience. It suggests that there are no consequences for their actions and that they will be rewarded for breaking the law. This could lead to further unrest in the future and a breakdown in law and order.
The Case For Paying Out Protesters
While there are certainly arguments to be made against the payouts, there are also strong reasons to consider them a necessary step towards justice. Here are some of the main arguments in favor of the payouts:
1. The protesters were unfairly targeted: There is evidence to suggest that many of the protesters who were arrested during the 2020 protests and riots were unfairly targeted by law enforcement. This is particularly true for those who were engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience or were innocent bystanders caught up in the chaos. The payout helps to redress this injustice and provides some measure of compensation for those who were wrongly arrested and held in custody.
2. The decision promotes accountability: The decision to pay out protesters also sends a message to law enforcement that they will be held accountable for their actions. It signifies that the city recognizes the harm that was done to peaceful protesters and that steps are being taken to address this harm.
3. The payout is a small price to pay: Finally, while $21,500 may seem like a lot of money, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of dollars that were spent on law enforcement during the 2020 protests and riots. In the grand scheme of things, the payout is a small price to pay for the sake of justice and ensuring that something like this doesn’t happen again in the future.
Conclusion
The decision to pay out protesters who were arrested during the 2020 protests and riots in New York City was a controversial one. Some argue that it sends the wrong message and rewards lawlessness, while others believe that it provides justice to those who were unfairly targeted by law enforcement.
Ultimately, the decision to pay out protesters is a complex one that requires us to consider the nuances of the situation. While there are certainly legitimate concerns about the decision, it is important to remember that justice cannot always be achieved through strict adherence to the law. Sometimes, it requires acknowledging and redressing past injustices, even if this means breaking with traditional legal norms.
As we move forward from this difficult time in our history, it is important to continue to have conversations about justice and accountability. We must weigh our desire for law and order with a recognition of the systemic injustices that continue to plague our society. Only then can we hope to build a more just and equitable future for all.
English 
Español de Venezuela