the point is that they are being used to suppress speech rather than control violent crowds. things usually don't get violent until the police escalate and sta

the point is that they are being used to suppress speech rather than control violent crowds. things usually don't get violent until the police escalate and start trying to disperse the crowds (which is unconstitutional but again, no accountability, which is exactly what's being protested). That's consistently been the pattern with the current wave of protests. When the police start kettling and tear-gassing and firing rubber bullets, things get violent. Where the police do their jobs and stand back and surgically remove instigators/violence, things stay peaceful. at the end of the day I don't think anyone disputes that these should be in police arsenals (as opposed to some of the heavier weaponry), but they shouldn't be used to suppress speech or demonstrations. There needs to be much more restraint with their use, and there needs to be way more oversight and accountability when they are used.