> he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer responded. Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there t

> he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer responded. Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's why he was there, and the video shows it. You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to accept that. You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.