Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately.
The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.
I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either.
I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
The issue as I see it relates to collateral damage. If you anthropomorphize a crowd as if it suddenly becomes a single entity that is acting criminally, you're clubbing tons of innocent people that are peaceful and law abiding with it.
I see it all the time, people start talking about The Crowd with a capital C. Or sometimes The Protester with a capital P.
So a few individuals in a crowd are acting up, and to react to that, instead of going after them directly, we target the entire crowd of people, which includes almost always more peaceful and legally abiding individuals than not and we use force against them all without discrimination. Often times the crowd even might have peaceful children, elderly, handicapped people, yet you fire the toxic gas, the rubber bullets, the flash bangs at them all.
The Police role at a protest should be to protect the crowd from individuals endangering it first and foremost, and then to protect the bystanders and some of the surrounding private/public property, all from the individuals that are breaking the law. It is not a battle between Police and Crowd or State and Crowd, people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest without any time limits.
So if you agree with that, the question goes back to collateral damage. I just don't see where else people would accept such a undiscriminating use of force. Would you be okay that an entire apartment building be tear-gassed just to stop an escalating case of conjugal violence happening in a single unit of the appartment complex? I wouldn't, and I don't see what's different with the situation here.
The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world. Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives.
Not that this excuses their actions -- just pointing out that it's a systematic problem that's hard to weed out by looking at countries where police often leave their weapons in the car when they go to confront suspects of non-violent crimes.
I said I didn't have all the answers, but I think that's part of the problem here -
"Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives."
Do they? Really? Or is that an overreaction even in the US? Couldn't a different approach and an emphasis on peaceful de-escalation before paranoid use of deadly force be better?
Again, I don't have all the answers, but I bet there are lesons to be learned from elsewhere.
I'm sure statistically even the US police are relatively safe (as in they might well be more likely to die or be injured from car crashes, like the rest of us.)
But when the stakes are that high, being statistically safe on average does not take into account what the gamblers' call the individuals risk of ruin.
So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning. And this risk is many times greater in the US than elsewhere.
Which is then why police see it as OK to semi-arbitrarily incapacitate random people for life (by hitting them with rubber bullets, for which there are ridiculously many stories of people losing eyes or having internal organ damage--think about how you don't even want to be hit in your lower back with a fist for fear of it damaging your kidney--with studies showing like a 15% rate of permanent disability of some form from being hit by the things) and then tell sob stories about how a protestor threw something at them, which of course barely hit/hurt the officer because throwing things is really difficult? Yeah, no: I have absolutely zero sympathy for police officers taking this position.
> So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning
That's different, and a valid consideration of risk, as compared to what you said before - "pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives."
Approaching a situation in a state of mortal fear, every time, rather than with a calm understanding of real risks, and this fear mindset feeds into their behaviour, this might be part of the problem.
The absolute last thing you would want to do to someone armed with a lethal weapon would be to antagonize them with a weapon that won't consistently eliminate them as a threat.
These "less lethal" weapons aren't being used to defend against actual threats, they are being used to terrorize unarmed protestors.
> The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world.
I don't see that as a problem. Police are at least as heavily armed. I'm not aware of any instances where armed protesters created a dangerous situation.
The overwhelming majority of violence has been perpetrated by armed police on unarmed civilians. "Less lethal" weapons are used as an excuse to continue this pattern.
Well, it obviously is a problem, since the default threat level all around is insanely high in the US, where this problem is greater than in other civilised countries where the default threat level is lower.
With the justification of “We need the power to resist against a government who turns on its citizens” - now that that’s clearly BS, maybe time to tighten the gun laws and de-escalate the whole country? :P
So maybe if We The People give up the paltry remnants of our right to self-defense, the cops won't attack us so severely? This is such a tired argument, and it's completely refuted by the lack of police riots against the tacticool protestors a few weeks prior.
The police are supposed to be civilians, and the government is supposed to be subservient to the People. If the police have access to a type of weapon, the general population should as well. If someone cannot handle being a police officer in this society, the answer is simple - find another job.
Please do not post Andy Ngo's content. He orchestrates with white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys to create these stories by selective editing and replacing context with his desired bigoted message payload.
He has been caught doing this many times the last couple summers here's been here with Joey Gibson and his band of goons. Go look up that story if you wanna find out just how reliable Andy is about who the "good" guys are.
I watched Police brutality videos on Github, someone put together a compendium of it.
We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No?
I feel like there is a lot of momentum behind BLM movement, I personally support the cause and social changes. But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise. Saying anything against BLM in the bay area is like a social suicide, I would lose friends. I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. BLM is doesn't know diplomacy and strategy.
That's because BLM isn't a single organization. There doesn't appear to be leadership because there is no power structure or organization from which one could lead. It's literally grassroots.
As for diplomacy and strategy, we're talking about a subset of society that has been systematically failed by society for centuries. That they don't have diplomacy that meets the expectations of the powers-that-be should not be a surprise.
If a few bad apples discreet an entire social movement, shouldn't a few bad apples also discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus (and even the entire criminal justice system) in the US? Can't have it both ways, at least not while maintaining a logically consistent argument.
> But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise
The GP's article is terribly written and dripping with bias and it still has a large section covering other protestors stepping in, helping the man, and policing their own.
> We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No?
A basic internet search would yield this for you.
> I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen.
The sibling comment already covered this, but if you find yourself thinking about things like this, it could help to do some research. Searching for "BLM leadership" to figure out who you think won't be effective at making a change will yield sources like [1] and help give better background on what is actually going on here.
The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.