4 ms·

This comment implies a lack of understanding of the nature of protestors, mobs, and what it takes to clear them. Both answers here mischaracterise the nature o

by jariel 6y ago

This comment implies a lack of understanding of the nature of protestors, mobs, and what it takes to clear them. Both answers here mischaracterise the nature of protests and the cops. First, most police actions during protests are legit and don't require some kind of condemnation, certainly not 'jail'. You don't require someone to use force to control a situation then put them in jail if the step one inch over an ambiguous line. Second, even if there were excessive penalties, it would do absolutely nothing to quell protests. Protestors absolutely do not care about the specifics, they're not even playing that much attention. They're not reading the research on relative levels of violence per arrest etc.. It's a mob. They're angry. Anger is not rational. Moroever, the most emotionally aggrieved parties do not care about reality. It doesn't matter how professional the police are, they will live their lives on Twitter condemning the 'police state'. The Police in the US are generally not brutal - they use too much force, but it's not a fascist state. They're not grabbing people randomly and beating them to a pulp as in authoritarian states. Most examples of grievances are relative minor: someone provokes a cop by walking up to them and saying something, the cop pushes the person, they fall down. Not appropriate, but this is not the Stasi. A cop shoots his paintball gun at a reporter - on purpose. Again, not appropriate. But it's a paintball gun, they're used on people - for fun - all the time. If you're going to have 100000 people involved in a physical confrontation, there's going to be some crossing of lines. So yes, make sure the cops who step across the line are punished appropriately - but by and large, it won't make a difference. Fourth, this idea that there are specific groups of specific trouble makers is generally not the case. It's a mob, emotions sway back and forth. And FYI if this is the obvious case, sometimes police can move in a little bit but otherwise it's not possible. If there is any agitation at all, then this can't really happen because it's extremely dangerous. A group of 100 people could tear a small team of cops limb from limb if they wanted to, not that it would happen to that extent, but remember that mobs are usually much greater in size than the cops. Fifth - it's not the 'violent' elements. It's everyone. You don't have the right to block a road every day because you want to. Sorry - not in the constitution. You don't get to break the law because you think your cause is legit. Usually, protests are observed and nothing happens if they peter out. But eventually either due to the length of the engagement, or 'night time' protests which turn violent, then things need to be broken up. This is when regular people need to go home. But they won't. So it becomes a problem. There's no doubt that some police tactics are just too much, and that should change. But for the most part, I don't think it would move the needle on anything. People gather in large numbers, don't want to to home, it's going to get dangerous sometimes, and, they can't continue to stay forever. If anything the 'real' concern should be around actual policing, i.e. unnecessary police shootings.

mindslight 6y ago
It seems like what you consider "understanding" is just accepting the police narrative that has been fueling the protests. > You don't require someone to use force to control a situation Protests are not something to be "controlled" with force. That's authoritarianism. > Protestors absolutely do not care about the specifics, they're not even playing that much attention. They're not reading the research on relative levels of violence per arrest etc.. It's a mob Simple dehumanizing. There have been plenty of protests that have remained peaceful when they're not attacked by police. > someone provokes a cop by walking up to them and saying something, the cop pushes the person, they fall down It is illegal to attack someone because you don't like what they've said. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such. > A cop shoots his paintball gun at a reporter - on purpose. Again, not appropriate. But it's a paintball gun, they're used on people - for fun - all the time It is illegal to shoot random people with paintballs. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such. > You don't have the right to block a road every day because you want to Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble. > If anything the 'real' concern should be around actual policing, i.e. unnecessary police shootings. That's exactly what these protests are about. Instead of accepting the message and submitting to accountability under the rule of law, police departments are escalating the protests so they can paint the protestors in a bad light, just as you are doing.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble. Do they have the right to block the road while doing so? For hours? More big-picture, I don't buy either your narrative or jariel's. I don't think the protesters are a mob. I also don't think that the violence is mostly because of the police. I see it like this: There are two groups, the protesters and the troublemakers. There is some overlap, but they are largely two distinct groups. A protest happens. It's usually in the daytime. The population is mostly protesters. Things are mostly peaceful. There is probably a police presence, watching the protest, but they usually don't do much. Time passes. Around sunset, many of the protesters go home. More troublemakers show up. It looks like the same protest, but the nature of the population has changed. There starts to be some acts of vandalism, maybe some assaults, maybe some throwing things at the police. Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops. You now get videos with the starting point very carefully chosen to make the cops look like the instigators. Now, I am not saying that the cops never start the violence. I am not saying that only troublemakers are around after sundown. I am not saying that all videos of police violence are refusing to show the antecedent/buildup. I am not saying that everyone the cops get physical with had it coming. I am saying that the majority of the action follows the scenario I described.

by jariel 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

It seems like what you consider "understanding" is just accepting the police narrative that has been fueling the protests. > You don't require someone to use force to control a situation Protests are not something to be "controlled" with force. That's authoritarianism. > Protestors absolutely do not care about the specifics, they're not even playing that much attention. They're not reading the research on relative levels of violence per arrest etc.. It's a mob Simple dehumanizing. There have been plenty of protests that have remained peaceful when they're not attacked by police. > someone provokes a cop by walking up to them and saying something, the cop pushes the person, they fall down It is illegal to attack someone because you don't like what they've said. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such. > A cop shoots his paintball gun at a reporter - on purpose. Again, not appropriate. But it's a paintball gun, they're used on people - for fun - all the time It is illegal to shoot random people with paintballs. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such. > You don't have the right to block a road every day because you want to Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble. > If anything the 'real' concern should be around actual policing, i.e. unnecessary police shootings. That's exactly what these protests are about. Instead of accepting the message and submitting to accountability under the rule of law, police departments are escalating the protests so they can paint the protestors in a bad light, just as you are doing.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble. Do they have the right to block the road while doing so? For hours? More big-picture, I don't buy either your narrative or jariel's. I don't think the protesters are a mob. I also don't think that the violence is mostly because of the police. I see it like this: There are two groups, the protesters and the troublemakers. There is some overlap, but they are largely two distinct groups. A protest happens. It's usually in the daytime. The population is mostly protesters. Things are mostly peaceful. There is probably a police presence, watching the protest, but they usually don't do much. Time passes. Around sunset, many of the protesters go home. More troublemakers show up. It looks like the same protest, but the nature of the population has changed. There starts to be some acts of vandalism, maybe some assaults, maybe some throwing things at the police. Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops. You now get videos with the starting point very carefully chosen to make the cops look like the instigators. Now, I am not saying that the cops never start the violence. I am not saying that only troublemakers are around after sundown. I am not saying that all videos of police violence are refusing to show the antecedent/buildup. I am not saying that everyone the cops get physical with had it coming. I am saying that the majority of the action follows the scenario I described.