Ramos was also apparently a supporter of Donald Trump, appearing in one Twitter post to threaten the Capital Gazette newspaper company that referring to Trump as “unqualified” could “end badly” for the paper, according to Casey Michel, a reporter for the Think Progress site.

Asked by reporters on Thursday if he believed his violent anti-media rhetoric may have motivated the Annapolis shooter, he walked away without answering, CNN reported. 

link              (note-the Casey Michael link has a twitter post, in which Ramos uses a picture of  2011 Gazette reporter Eric Hartley, who was involved reporting Ramos   criminal harassment case. He wis with the Virginia Pilot now)               

     Jarrod Ramos

Waters issued a call for concerned citizens to harass Trump Administration officials.

King, following careful thought and consultation with concerned others, sought to, and did spur campaigns of disruption, with specific, thoughtful, publicly articulated demands/aims.

It is inevitable that when a public official calls upon concerned citizens to do something as broadly described as, in this case, purposely harass Trump Administration officials, that is going to be interpreted, and acted upon in a myriad of ways by those listening who choose to take some public action.  Inevitably, opponents will seek to pin responsibility for actions they are critical of on that public official (or on the face of a targeted advocacy organization).    

While someone in Waters' position cannot "control" what those listening to her take away from what she is saying, she has to know that opponents will make every effort to hold her selectively responsible for consequences deemed unfavorable to her efforts.  She has to know that before she speaks, and take that into account before she decides whether to speak and if so, what to say.

So does that mean, therefore, don't say or do anything, because it might be misinterpreted and acted upon in ways that could create blowback and damage one's cause?

Of course not.

These same realities were true for, and fully known by, King. 

But the campaigns he helped mobilize and participate in that involved acts of protest, and in some cases civil disobedience, were defined, focused, targeted to a particular, carefully chosen place.  They were typically accompanied by vigorous efforts by King and action supporters to talk to fellow participants before the action to make it crystal clear that there was an expectation of nonviolent behavior, and to provide training in civil disobedience to those recruited to, or known to want to, engage in such acts where intentional civil disobedience was planned.  And, in those campaigns, action was taken, deliberately, before the media and the wider public.  That sort of transparency conveyed a powerful message that the protestors had nothing to hide.  On the contrary, they were holding themselves fully accountable to the court of public opinion, and indeed insisted that that be the case, for their adversaries as well as for themselves. 

Does that mean there were no actions taken by participants in King-led actions that were contrary to the spirit and intended MO of the organizers?  Of course not.  And where a minority of participants went over the line and engaged in, for example, acts of vandalism, as was true in one of the Memphis marches just before the end of his life, the criticism was merciless and the cause was set back.

There was, however, a deep underlying ethic of respect for adversaries' humanity underlying those efforts.  And this over time built up at least something of a reservoir of good will to partially cushion the blows when a minority of participants in the deliberately non-violent campaigns would sometimes engage in problematic actions.  Perceptions of what King-led actions were about were heavily contextualized by his public words and actions, and the actions of the vast majority of those who sacrificed and risked all to join in his efforts. 

All of these strenuous, disciplined efforts cracked open, even if often only slightly, the window of receptivity to what the movement was about among a minority of whites, beyond the much smaller minority of whites who were active supporters and participants in the actions that were undertaken.  To have positive impacts of the sort he was seeking, that needed to happen.  He knew that.  With a great deal of hard, brilliant, disciplined and focused work, restraint, and sheer courage, it did happen.  Real, substantial progress was fought for and made.  We are not where we need to be.  But we are all much the better off for that.

Rep. Waters is in no position to help develop, plan and execute a specific, focused advocacy campaign like King did.  That just isn't compatible with her day job, so to speak.  But those of us who want to see successful--contributing towards, rather than working against, success in the November elections, in particular but "success" has additional dimensions--protest and advocacy over the recent developments can hope that these sorts of considerations are factored into her decisions (and those of others as well, of course) about what to say publicly, if she is going to speak publicly.  And perhaps they were, and she simply reached a different conclusion from the one I hoped for.  So it goes. 

Actions have consequences.  I don't by any means believe this was a disastrous mistake, if it was a mistake.  We just move on and continue working to create the appealing narrative we want the voting public to embrace.  I believe all of this is relevant now and it will be relevant after the elections as well, no matter the outcome.