|
Post by PNWMom on Jun 4, 2020 3:08:47 GMT
While looting is terrible and horrible and awful..........destruction of property and looting is keeping this issue at the forefront. If peaceful protesters were holding orderly rallies that didn't destroy anything, it would be front page news on day one.........and a blip on the radar after that. For better or for worse, looting and violence are playing a role in advancing the discussion of police brutality. Yes, the issue gets muddled and the message gets tainted by the small percentage of people who are running amok (and don't even get me started on how those are NOT the people out there protesting police brutality. Some legitimate protesters are definitely getting caught up in the looting and violence, but the majority is people with their own ulterior motives and agendas)....but the issue gets talked about. *you* are talking/reading about it right now. You wouldn't be if this was nice orderly marching.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,160
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Jun 4, 2020 3:17:42 GMT
Concerning insurance coverage, "The Insurance Information Institute said riots, civil commotion, vandalism, looting and fire in the U.S. are covered perils under virtually all business owners and commercial insurance property policies. Merchandise stolen by looters will also be covered. III said about 40 percent of small to mid-sized businesses are also protected by business interruption coverage. “Even if the business was still shut down or operating at limited capacity due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, most insurers will determine income loss based on a 12-month assessment of the operation’s income,” the Institute said in an email. That coverage may also protect businesses that have to shut down early because of curfews imposed by city governments, III said." (ClaimsJournal.com) Doesn't help the other 60% that don't have the coverage and may not help the 40% that do. After the SARS outbreak most insurance companies added a viral exclusion clause to business policies. Several states have already started drafting legislation to retroactively cover the pandemic and lawsuits have already started to get ins cos to pay. The cost to insurance companies is going to be tremendous and we will all pay in the end. Premiums won't just be increased on business policies, they'll be raised on all lines to cover their losses.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:08:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 3:54:56 GMT
Concerning insurance coverage, "The Insurance Information Institute said riots, civil commotion, vandalism, looting and fire in the U.S. are covered perils under virtually all business owners and commercial insurance property policies. Merchandise stolen by looters will also be covered. III said about 40 percent of small to mid-sized businesses are also protected by business interruption coverage. “Even if the business was still shut down or operating at limited capacity due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, most insurers will determine income loss based on a 12-month assessment of the operation’s income,” the Institute said in an email. That coverage may also protect businesses that have to shut down early because of curfews imposed by city governments, III said." (ClaimsJournal.com) Doesn't help the other 60% that don't have the coverage and may not help the 40% that do. After the SARS outbreak most insurance companies added a viral exclusion clause to business policies. Several states have already started drafting legislation to retroactively cover the pandemic and lawsuits have already started to get ins cos to pay. The cost to insurance companies is going to be tremendous and we will all pay in the end. Premiums won't just be increased on business policies, they'll be raised on all lines to cover their losses. Injustice is getting to be expensive.Maybe that will finally be the thing that makes it get addressed, huh?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 4, 2020 18:03:07 GMT
There were widespread protests, riots, looting and property damage following MLK Jr's assassination (April 1968). According to the Smithsonian, "in the 10 days following King’s death, nearly 200 cities experienced looting, arson or sniper fire, and 54 of those cities saw more than $100,000 in property damage." In a quick search, I was able to find estimated dollar values of the damage in 5 of those cities (DC - $26MM, Baltimore - $13.5MM, Kansas City - $4MM, Chicago - $13MM, NYC - $4MM). In the most conservative possible calculation - using the identified amounts for the 5 cities and $100K for each of the other 49 cities - that comes out to $63,400,000 in damage (note: most things seemed to be counting only *insured* property, so the actual losses were likely much higher). That's $480,716,447 in today's dollars. Nearly half a billion dollars. As a response, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 quickly passed (though similar legislation had been languishing and meeting much resistance since 1966). You may not like it, but it's revisionist history to think that destructive actions don't yield results. Just a minor correction that has no bearing on your opinion…Fair Housing Act. The Civil Rights Act was in ’64 and its passing was prompted by the assassination of JFK.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 4, 2020 18:05:31 GMT
There were widespread protests, riots, looting and property damage following MLK Jr's assassination (April 1968). According to the Smithsonian, "in the 10 days following King’s death, nearly 200 cities experienced looting, arson or sniper fire, and 54 of those cities saw more than $100,000 in property damage." In a quick search, I was able to find estimated dollar values of the damage in 5 of those cities (DC - $26MM, Baltimore - $13.5MM, Kansas City - $4MM, Chicago - $13MM, NYC - $4MM). In the most conservative possible calculation - using the identified amounts for the 5 cities and $100K for each of the other 49 cities - that comes out to $63,400,000 in damage (note: most things seemed to be counting only *insured* property, so the actual losses were likely much higher). That's $480,716,447 in today's dollars. Nearly half a billion dollars. As a response, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 quickly passed (though similar legislation had been languishing and meeting much resistance since 1966). You may not like it, but it's revisionist history to think that destructive actions don't yield results. Just a minor correction that has no bearing on your opinion…Fair Housing Act. The Civil Rights Act was in ’64 and its passing was prompted by the assassination of JFK. My understanding is there was a Civil Rights Act of 1968 as well and the Fair Housing Act was part of it (not that Wikipedia is the greatest resource, but for a quick reference en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968)
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jun 4, 2020 18:15:45 GMT
The protestors are concerned with trying to stop the looting because they know that white folks will point at those "few bad apples" to delegitimize the entire cause. Funny how those same white folks don't apply that same mindset to the "few bad apples" in policing. Then they focus on how many cops are good. Hmmm. Wonder why the inconsistency? 1,000,000,000 this!
|
|