4 ms·

What would you have preferred? If the police shows up and the looting does not stop, they can either use force (aka violence) to make it stop, or they can go ho

What would you have preferred? If the police shows up and the looting does not stop, they can either use force (aka violence) to make it stop, or they can go home, essentially giving up the rule of law in the area. Not showing up can be a tactical decision: you don't have to generate more bad press and more cries about police brutality and you also don't need to quasi-officially hand over the area to the looters. The state's power isn't real as in "we can crush you", it rests only in everybody's fear of the state being able to crush them. If there's a chance that the state has to back down, not seeking the confrontation sounds like a smart choice to me, even if it comes at the price of a day or two of looting.

Miraste 6y ago
They are still out crushing people. They've decided to target nonviolent protestors instead of looters. Softer targets perhaps.
staticassertion 6y ago
But they were already violent, just to the peaceful protesters. So why was there a massive police force at a peaceful protest, where they were already willing to brutally engage with the protesters, but not in soho where there were looters two days in a row? Your argument can't possibly be "Because they didn't want to escalate" or "They didn't want people to think they're violent" when they did escalate and were violent elsewhere. I am in full agreement that it was tactical - it allows them to punish a neighborhood and to shift the story.
WalterSear 6y ago
The looting is giving them political cover to attack those who directly threaten their identity. It's quite clear from their other actions where their priorities lie. They have no (personal) reason to stop the looting, and at the same time, occupying their attention, the opportunity to strike out at that (very personal) threat.
OminousWeapons 6y ago
I would have preferred that law enforcement enforce the law. If people are looting which is illegal, they should be arrested or at least deterred. If they are violent and resist arrest then the minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend them should be used. If people are protesting peacefully which is legal, they should be left alone.
strken 6y ago
The state's power is not just fear alone, it's legitimacy. What stops people from looting under normal circumstances is the belief that looting is wrong and will be punished, and people will agree punishment was justified. Failing to respond to looting damages the state's legitimacy. Responding to looting and failing to stop it damages the state's legitimacy. Even responding to looting and successfully stopping it damages the state's legitimacy, because mass looting signals that looting has become more acceptable.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Oh, absolutely, but there are different levels of damage. Germany has an issue with criminal clans from the Middle East, our law enforcement system isn't equipped to deal with them and our laws in general aren't either. The approach is pretty much "try not to engage", because while it's damaging to have "extended families" with hundreds of members where basically everyone of them has a criminal record, the other option is either locking up everybody (terrible idea in Germany) or trying to reason with them and failing (showing the state tried to handle it but failed). Not engaging is just the cheapest option and does the least amount of damage (I'm not suggesting that's necessarily true for the situation in the US, I don't know it well enough). If the Leviathan shows its teeth and the problem doesn't go away, it has to bite. If it doesn't, everybody will see that the teeth aren't that sharp any more, and that will encourage more challengers. > The state's power is not just fear alone, it's legitimacy. For the people that don't require laws and punishment to behave morally, yes. For those that do, they obviously don't care about legitimacy or that looting (or any crime) is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't commit it. It's only those people that any society needs to worry about, and it's only those people that the state needs to convince that it is stronger than them.
  - josteink 6y ago
    > If the Leviathan shows its teeth and the problem doesn't go away, it has to bite. If it doesn't, everybody will see that the teeth aren't that sharp any more, and that will encourage more challengers. But that's effectively what doing nothing does. The state has teeth (the police) and it doesn't bite. That's a completely unambiguous signal to both criminals and law-abiding citizens. And the results of this policy anywhere in the world is the problems have just grown in size and gotten worse. > because while it's damaging to have "extended families" with hundreds of members where basically everyone of them has a criminal record Remember when these "extended families" were an order of magnitude smaller and we applied the same policy of non-intervention? And look what that got us! When are we finally going to apply the only acceptable course of action?

Miraste 6y ago

They are still out crushing people. They've decided to target nonviolent protestors instead of looters. Softer targets perhaps.

staticassertion 6y ago

But they were already violent, just to the peaceful protesters. So why was there a massive police force at a peaceful protest, where they were already willing to brutally engage with the protesters, but not in soho where there were looters two days in a row? Your argument can't possibly be "Because they didn't want to escalate" or "They didn't want people to think they're violent" when they did escalate and were violent elsewhere. I am in full agreement that it was tactical - it allows them to punish a neighborhood and to shift the story.

WalterSear 6y ago

The looting is giving them political cover to attack those who directly threaten their identity. It's quite clear from their other actions where their priorities lie. They have no (personal) reason to stop the looting, and at the same time, occupying their attention, the opportunity to strike out at that (very personal) threat.

OminousWeapons 6y ago

I would have preferred that law enforcement enforce the law. If people are looting which is illegal, they should be arrested or at least deterred. If they are violent and resist arrest then the minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend them should be used. If people are protesting peacefully which is legal, they should be left alone.

strken 6y ago

The state's power is not just fear alone, it's legitimacy. What stops people from looting under normal circumstances is the belief that looting is wrong and will be punished, and people will agree punishment was justified. Failing to respond to looting damages the state's legitimacy. Responding to looting and failing to stop it damages the state's legitimacy. Even responding to looting and successfully stopping it damages the state's legitimacy, because mass looting signals that looting has become more acceptable.

luckylion 6y ago
Oh, absolutely, but there are different levels of damage. Germany has an issue with criminal clans from the Middle East, our law enforcement system isn't equipped to deal with them and our laws in general aren't either. The approach is pretty much "try not to engage", because while it's damaging to have "extended families" with hundreds of members where basically everyone of them has a criminal record, the other option is either locking up everybody (terrible idea in Germany) or trying to reason with them and failing (showing the state tried to handle it but failed). Not engaging is just the cheapest option and does the least amount of damage (I'm not suggesting that's necessarily true for the situation in the US, I don't know it well enough). If the Leviathan shows its teeth and the problem doesn't go away, it has to bite. If it doesn't, everybody will see that the teeth aren't that sharp any more, and that will encourage more challengers. > The state's power is not just fear alone, it's legitimacy. For the people that don't require laws and punishment to behave morally, yes. For those that do, they obviously don't care about legitimacy or that looting (or any crime) is wrong, otherwise they wouldn't commit it. It's only those people that any society needs to worry about, and it's only those people that the state needs to convince that it is stronger than them.
- josteink 6y ago
  > If the Leviathan shows its teeth and the problem doesn't go away, it has to bite. If it doesn't, everybody will see that the teeth aren't that sharp any more, and that will encourage more challengers. But that's effectively what doing nothing does. The state has teeth (the police) and it doesn't bite. That's a completely unambiguous signal to both criminals and law-abiding citizens. And the results of this policy anywhere in the world is the problems have just grown in size and gotten worse. > because while it's damaging to have "extended families" with hundreds of members where basically everyone of them has a criminal record Remember when these "extended families" were an order of magnitude smaller and we applied the same policy of non-intervention? And look what that got us! When are we finally going to apply the only acceptable course of action?