5 ms·
What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all the world's problems so no one is angry"?
by nsxwolf 6y ago
What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all the world's problems so no one is angry"?
- zwass 6y agoDo not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-protesters-and-police-safer-heres-why-departments-respond-with-force-anyway/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro....
- nsxwolf 6y agoLet's say de-escalation fails. Then what?
- zwass 6y agoIt's possible tear gas may be a reasonable choice under extreme circumstances. Please take a look at the linked article (and HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741) and note that the Federal "Kerner Commission, which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots, found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail." Today we can see ample evidence of police escalating use-of-force (rubber bullets, tear gas, batons, etc.) on peaceful protesters.
- threatofrain 6y agoDevelop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a thousand develops there might be something really wrong. If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control? Military tactics?
- rlucas 6y agoDe-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand develops, that is something right because they are citizens calling for the righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory rhetorical step. In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides [to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops. There is no valid presumption there.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vkou 6y agoNot doing this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the_moment_it_all_happened/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gv0ru3/this_is_the... Specifically, not gassing a crowd for no reason. https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1267679820600668161?s=21 https://twitter.com/izaacmellow/status/1267679820600668161?s...
- decebalus1 6y agoThis guy pretty much nailed it: https://mynorthwest.com/1907504/bellevue-police-chief-mylett-conversation-protest/ https://mynorthwest.com/1907504/bellevue-police-chief-mylett...
- rlucas 6y agoThe fact that you're asking that question is the problem. (Assuming there's some good faith there.) Governments ought not to "control" protest crowds in a democracy. This is literally written down in the foundational-myth-papyrus of America. By and large none of these crowds start as "violent" crowds. These are drivers, bartenders, moms, students, butterfly-collectors, tinkerers, teachers, short-order cooks -- they are citizens, calling for a redress of grievances. The instinct and assumption that you ought "correctly to control" such people is what leads to increased tension and ultimately violence. Source: I live in Seattle, and for nearly 10 years lived a block off of Pine St. (almost all of the pictures or videos you have seen of Seattle recently would be on the Pike/Pine corridor). I would see protest marches off my porch and on my walk to work, as well as black bloc types. I've walked home on May Day through protests a few times. The participants all start very clearly as protesters or vandals. Protesters have signs and wear their union jackets or their scrubs or their tennis shoes and khakis, or their superhero outfits, or whatever; they are there to protest. There are very, very few proper vandals to start off these things. But you know what vandals and looters love? The chaos that ensues when forces with an instinct to "control" unleash munitions and other uses of force on the protesters. Do some protesters boil over and turn into vandals when the temperature and pressure turn up? Yes. By the time you have a "violent crowd", you've fucked up and arguably lost the mandate of heaven.
- refurb 6y agoWait, you're blaming the police if protests turn violent?
- cwkoss 6y agoAbsolutely, there are dozens of videos from the past week of police aggression turning a non-violent protest into an angry mob
- rlucas 6y agoAbsolutely. I'm utterly confused if you're not, though I recognize that you may have a different perspective based on your background. Do you live in a metropolitan city in the US? Seattle, USA is my point of reference. I have lived for 15 years here, mostly living in the most dense neighborhood and mostly working in the downtown core. Seattle is a low-violence, high-civic-engagement, high-trust, relatively wealthy city. There is typically a small 10-50 person protest weekly in front of the Federal Building. There will be additional larger protests several times annually, with a 200-500+ person gathering probably about every two months in favor of pot, anti-war, or whatever. Then 2-3 times a year there will be a large gathering, often around May Day, MLK Day, Hempfest, etc., where thousands will gather for (generally permitted and pre-planned) marching and demonstration. This is all the baseline activity level regardless of things like COVID, Trumpism, or BLM. It's very usual to see strollers and children on shoulders at these events. The strong presumption is that civic engagement in Seattle is safe and normal. If you come from a place where political parties have proxy street-fights with backed youth gangs, or where ethnic mobs are torching trains full of apostates, I understand (and I'm very sorry and hope it gets better). I know the world is a scary place and that there are such things as violent mobs. But despite how inconvenient it might be to have one's commute path blocked, or how scary it might initially be to have an Other-looking youth shouting hyperbolic slogans, protests here (and elsewhere) generally don't start, and don't inevitably turn, violent. That particular reaction requires another reagent altogether, and usually quite a bit of activation energy.
- anigbrowl 6y agoIt depends. How did you end up in this situation?
- m1n1 6y agoOver a decade ago, I read there was research on slippery foams that could be sprayed on a crowd or individual. There could still be injuries from falling, etc. But the sprayed would then find it difficult to hold anything or get back up. Not saying this is the way to go, just wanted to point out an interesting tidbit. I found this with a web search just now: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2003/04/15/slippery-solution-to-crowd-control https://www.military.com/defensetech/2003/04/15/slippery-sol...
- bcrosby95 6y agoDon't be such a hardass that needs to escalate every perceived disrespect of your authority. There's a reason why New Orleans has had relatively few problems with these protests. It's because the cops are experienced in huge gatherings of people doing stupid but ultimately harmless shit (e.g. Mardis Gras) and police not flipping their lid over it.