3 ms·

You don't need to militarize the police in order to have a riot response. The warrior mentality is toxic and actually exacerbates the problem. In every protest

You don't need to militarize the police in order to have a riot response. The warrior mentality is toxic and actually exacerbates the problem. In every protest I went to where things escalated, it was the police doing the primary escalation. Bull rushing the crowd. Trying to grab things from the crowd. Shooting teargas and OC gas and flashbangs into the crowd prior to even making any announcements. Bicycle cops hitting passersby with their bicycles. A kid got maced. None of this requires the straw man that protests never turn into riots.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But that's the goal! When the police are worried the crowd might escalate, they preemptive action to end the situation before it can happen, because crowd-initiated escalations are much more destructive and deadly. Once protesters are shooting at people it's too late to step in.
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  > But that's the goal! This is incoherent. Beating peaceful protesters doesn't serve the goal of deescalation. Every single time, it resulted in more anger and frustration. Water bottles being thrown. > When the police are worried the crowd might escalate, they preemptive action to end the situation before it can happen, because crowd-initiated escalations are much more destructive and deadly. End the situation? It escalated every single time, exactly how you'd expect. Cops becoming aggressive and violent against protesters is not going to cool any heads. They teargassed kids, you know. In what world is that considered a way to "end the situation"? > Once protesters are shooting at people it's too late to step in. This is part of that dangerous warrior mentality, treating every group like an immediate existential threat that must be neutralized with violence based on nothing but speculation. If you're justifying police violence and aggression based on what you imagine might happen, you're part of the problem.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    We've just circled back around. You seem to be saying that groups of protesters are never threats, and I don't agree; it seems to me that once they start breaking random things, there's a serious and unacceptable risk they'll start killing people. Truly peaceful protests where nothing's being vandalized or set on fire - yes, the police should never respond to those by force.
    - shirakawasuna 6y ago
      > We've just circled back around. You seem to be saying that groups of protesters are never threats I've never said this. > and I don't agree; it seems to me that once they start breaking random things, there's a serious and unacceptable risk they'll start killing people. That is absurd. Damaging property is nothing like hurting people. In fact, alleging that the two are comparable is somewhat dehumanizing, as it's used to justify hurting people over damage to things. Things* should not have any level of parity with human life, particularly things like broken windows. > Truly peaceful protests where nothing's being vandalized or set on fire - yes, the police should never respond to those by force. Last time, you said the police could preemptively assume a protest will hurt people and start engaging in the violence we've been talking about. Now there's the good protester / bad rioter dichotomy, something often decried by civil rights leaders because it was the rallying cry of segregationists. That and outside agitators. I was gassed and flashbanged in a protest where we were holding our hands up and chanting, "hands up, don't shoot".
- mindslight 6y ago
  Where have you gotten this idea from? I have no doubt some police subscribe to this reasoning, but it's horribly anti-American and illegal.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

But that's the goal! When the police are worried the crowd might escalate, they preemptive action to end the situation before it can happen, because crowd-initiated escalations are much more destructive and deadly. Once protesters are shooting at people it's too late to step in.

shirakawasuna 6y ago
> But that's the goal! This is incoherent. Beating peaceful protesters doesn't serve the goal of deescalation. Every single time, it resulted in more anger and frustration. Water bottles being thrown. > When the police are worried the crowd might escalate, they preemptive action to end the situation before it can happen, because crowd-initiated escalations are much more destructive and deadly. End the situation? It escalated every single time, exactly how you'd expect. Cops becoming aggressive and violent against protesters is not going to cool any heads. They teargassed kids, you know. In what world is that considered a way to "end the situation"? > Once protesters are shooting at people it's too late to step in. This is part of that dangerous warrior mentality, treating every group like an immediate existential threat that must be neutralized with violence based on nothing but speculation. If you're justifying police violence and aggression based on what you imagine might happen, you're part of the problem.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We've just circled back around. You seem to be saying that groups of protesters are never threats, and I don't agree; it seems to me that once they start breaking random things, there's a serious and unacceptable risk they'll start killing people. Truly peaceful protests where nothing's being vandalized or set on fire - yes, the police should never respond to those by force.
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    > We've just circled back around. You seem to be saying that groups of protesters are never threats I've never said this. > and I don't agree; it seems to me that once they start breaking random things, there's a serious and unacceptable risk they'll start killing people. That is absurd. Damaging property is nothing like hurting people. In fact, alleging that the two are comparable is somewhat dehumanizing, as it's used to justify hurting people over damage to things. Things* should not have any level of parity with human life, particularly things like broken windows. > Truly peaceful protests where nothing's being vandalized or set on fire - yes, the police should never respond to those by force. Last time, you said the police could preemptively assume a protest will hurt people and start engaging in the violence we've been talking about. Now there's the good protester / bad rioter dichotomy, something often decried by civil rights leaders because it was the rallying cry of segregationists. That and outside agitators. I was gassed and flashbanged in a protest where we were holding our hands up and chanting, "hands up, don't shoot".
mindslight 6y ago
Where have you gotten this idea from? I have no doubt some police subscribe to this reasoning, but it's horribly anti-American and illegal.