5 ms·

How else would you stop a riot.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 6y ago
Water cannons (basically tanker trucks purpose built to deal with protesters and rioters) [1]. They can still cause significant injuries when abused, but they are far more humane than teargas and rubber bullets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I’d rather get teargassed than take a hit from a water cannon. Teargas wears off in a couple of minutes. A water cannon to the face will blind you.
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    To add to that, getting attacked using a water cannon during freezing weather, like during the Dakota Pipeline protests, will literally give you hypothermia [0] even if it doesn't blind or maim you. Not to mention that the cops used a combination of tear gas, baton rounds, and water cannons during that protest. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/d...
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    You're not supposed to hit people in the face with full blast at short distance. That's why these things have multiple settings. The high pressure tight beam is meant for large distance. Tear gas has a similar problem: a tear gas cartridge in the face may blind you (or worse). Wikipedia says "As with all non-lethal or less-lethal weapons, there is some risk of serious permanent injury or death when tear gas is used. This includes risks from being hit by tear gas cartridges that may cause severe bruising, loss of eyesight, or skull fracture, resulting in immediate death. A case of serious vascular injury from tear gas shells has also been reported from Iran, with high rates of associated nerve injury (44%) and amputation (17%), as well as instances of head injuries in young people." [1] 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas
    - eat_veggies 6y ago
      You're also not supposed to shoot baton rounds ("rubber bullets") directly at people's heads. This does nothing to stop police from shooting people in the head. It seems a common problem with all of these non-lethal weapons is that they are actually lethal in the hands of a cop.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
capableweb 6y ago
Fix the underlying issues that makes people riot.
- cglace 6y ago
  Because systemic issues can be fixed overnight.
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    They can't be fixed overnight, but they certainly can't be fixed by doubling down on police brutality.
    - readarticle 6y ago
      Meanwhile, the riot riots. Tear gas won’t manage gentrification and economic inequality, and overarching societal reform won’t manage a riot in progress. Right tools for the job and all that...
      - eat_veggies 6y ago
        You say this with such certainty, but empirically we have seen that protests turn violent once police start escalating and attacking them, and turn peaceful again after the cops leave [0][1][2][3][4][5]. So no, it's not the right tool for the job. The protests have continued precisely because the government has not showed a single sign of even beginning efforts toward overarching societal reform. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/31/portland-protests-federal-calm/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/31/portland-pr... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/2/21278285/peaceful-protest-oakland-george-floyd-police-violence-tear-gas https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/2/21278285/peaceful-protest-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-protests-police-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/opinions/aggressive-police-peaceful-protest-wang/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/opinions/aggressive-police-pe... [4] https://www.vox.com/2020/6/12/21279619/protesters-police-violence-philadelphia-los-angeles-washington-dc https://www.vox.com/2020/6/12/21279619/protesters-police-vio... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-force-against-peaceful-protesters-prompting-sustained-criticism-about-tactics-and-training/2020/06/03/5d2f51d4-a5cf-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-fo...
ben_w 6y ago
The best way is to prevent them starting in the first place, and the methods for deescalating conflict will have to be used eventually in any case, because escalating rather than deescalating conflict leads to civil war, independence, or massacres. Also relevant: protesters are starting to teach themselves how to deal with tear gas.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  What’s the best way to stop them from starting? What de-escalation methods are proven to work? Surely these would be in use already in far-left strongholds like Portland and Seattle.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Riot “control” agents often are used to escalate conflict. This must be acknowledged.
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      [Citation needed]
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    > Surely these would be in use… You're assuming the police actually WANT to de-escalate. They generally do not. (If you are suggesting the police in "far-left strongholds like Portland" behave or are motivated qualitatively differently than police in other cities... nope). They want to scuffle, they want to punish people who have verbally antagonized or threatened them, or who they think deserve it; they want to protect challenges to their authority and maintain control of the situuation, or think they need to crack down hard to avoid a total social breakdown (the opposite of de-escalation) -- they have a variety of values and priorities, avoiding a "riot" is seldom one of them. ("Winning" the riot is). Here in Baltimore, the last few months of protest had very little property destruction or scuffling. Some here wanted to credit the restraint or intentions of "proestors" -- I think it's far more likely that the police administrators this time, somehow, got the forces in the street to actually avoid escalation. I am a middle-aged leftist who has been at many many protests. Every "riot" I have been near was initiated by escalation by police, including chemical weapons use, agitating the crowd to respond, bringing more response in turn. If the police avoid escalation, it doesn't happen. This isn't always what the leftist radicals want to admit either -- they may want to think it's "the people" who are in control of things, who are angry enough to rise up or something. In fact, it's the folks who are trained to act together, with the better weapons and the (usually) disciplined command and control structure, who have pre-existing relationships of working together as a team -- who largely determine whether to escalate or de-escalate -- and this isn't that surprising. The police usually don't actually want to de-escalate, they want to knock heads. By "the police" I mean both the "white shirts" and the "blue shirts". Sometimes the decision-makers might have preferred not to escalate, but literally would not be able to control those they ostensibly control though; the police are there for a fight.
jrochkind1 6y ago
The police have started far more riots with chemical weapons than they have stopped. Most things resembling riots are in fact started by police escalation and aggressiveness, including chemical weapons use. Yeah, there are various studies and reports showing this, it's also the general experience of most who have been present.
- chance_state 6y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment?
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    I don't think so? "Why can't we stop the police from using chemical weapons too?" => "How else would you stop a riot?" => I say: "in fact, police use of chemical weapons have started far more riots than they have stopped".
Zigurd 6y ago
There are several answers better than gassing one's own citizens. The bottom line is, taking this form of riot control away from governments is a net benefit: 1. Don't have a despotic government. If you have a despot, like in Belarus, that despot should not have access to these weapons. 2. Don't kill people in the course of law enforcement. This happens far too frequently in some places. Police that do this should not have chemical weapons. 3. How many recent riots are down to other causes? How many recent uses of teargas are legitimate and necessary? If there is no legitimate need for teargas, get rid of it.
082349872349872 6y ago
US Military thoughts on handling civil disturbance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616564 (plus FEMA)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Water cannons (basically tanker trucks purpose built to deal with protesters and rioters) [1]. They can still cause significant injuries when abused, but they are far more humane than teargas and rubber bullets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon

chrisseaton 6y ago
I’d rather get teargassed than take a hit from a water cannon. Teargas wears off in a couple of minutes. A water cannon to the face will blind you.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  To add to that, getting attacked using a water cannon during freezing weather, like during the Dakota Pipeline protests, will literally give you hypothermia [0] even if it doesn't blind or maim you. Not to mention that the cops used a combination of tear gas, baton rounds, and water cannons during that protest. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/d...
- wongarsu 6y ago
  You're not supposed to hit people in the face with full blast at short distance. That's why these things have multiple settings. The high pressure tight beam is meant for large distance. Tear gas has a similar problem: a tear gas cartridge in the face may blind you (or worse). Wikipedia says "As with all non-lethal or less-lethal weapons, there is some risk of serious permanent injury or death when tear gas is used. This includes risks from being hit by tear gas cartridges that may cause severe bruising, loss of eyesight, or skull fracture, resulting in immediate death. A case of serious vascular injury from tear gas shells has also been reported from Iran, with high rates of associated nerve injury (44%) and amputation (17%), as well as instances of head injuries in young people." [1] 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    You're also not supposed to shoot baton rounds ("rubber bullets") directly at people's heads. This does nothing to stop police from shooting people in the head. It seems a common problem with all of these non-lethal weapons is that they are actually lethal in the hands of a cop.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

capableweb 6y ago

Fix the underlying issues that makes people riot.

cglace 6y ago
Because systemic issues can be fixed overnight.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  They can't be fixed overnight, but they certainly can't be fixed by doubling down on police brutality.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    Meanwhile, the riot riots. Tear gas won’t manage gentrification and economic inequality, and overarching societal reform won’t manage a riot in progress. Right tools for the job and all that...
    - eat_veggies 6y ago
      You say this with such certainty, but empirically we have seen that protests turn violent once police start escalating and attacking them, and turn peaceful again after the cops leave [0][1][2][3][4][5]. So no, it's not the right tool for the job. The protests have continued precisely because the government has not showed a single sign of even beginning efforts toward overarching societal reform. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/31/portland-protests-federal-calm/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/31/portland-pr... [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/2/21278285/peaceful-protest-oakland-george-floyd-police-violence-tear-gas https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/2/21278285/peaceful-protest-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-protests-police-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/opinions/aggressive-police-peaceful-protest-wang/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/opinions/aggressive-police-pe... [4] https://www.vox.com/2020/6/12/21279619/protesters-police-violence-philadelphia-los-angeles-washington-dc https://www.vox.com/2020/6/12/21279619/protesters-police-vio... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-force-against-peaceful-protesters-prompting-sustained-criticism-about-tactics-and-training/2020/06/03/5d2f51d4-a5cf-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-fo...

ben_w 6y ago

The best way is to prevent them starting in the first place, and the methods for deescalating conflict will have to be used eventually in any case, because escalating rather than deescalating conflict leads to civil war, independence, or massacres. Also relevant: protesters are starting to teach themselves how to deal with tear gas.

eanzenberg 6y ago
What’s the best way to stop them from starting? What de-escalation methods are proven to work? Surely these would be in use already in far-left strongholds like Portland and Seattle.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Riot “control” agents often are used to escalate conflict. This must be acknowledged.
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    [Citation needed]
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  > Surely these would be in use… You're assuming the police actually WANT to de-escalate. They generally do not. (If you are suggesting the police in "far-left strongholds like Portland" behave or are motivated qualitatively differently than police in other cities... nope). They want to scuffle, they want to punish people who have verbally antagonized or threatened them, or who they think deserve it; they want to protect challenges to their authority and maintain control of the situuation, or think they need to crack down hard to avoid a total social breakdown (the opposite of de-escalation) -- they have a variety of values and priorities, avoiding a "riot" is seldom one of them. ("Winning" the riot is). Here in Baltimore, the last few months of protest had very little property destruction or scuffling. Some here wanted to credit the restraint or intentions of "proestors" -- I think it's far more likely that the police administrators this time, somehow, got the forces in the street to actually avoid escalation. I am a middle-aged leftist who has been at many many protests. Every "riot" I have been near was initiated by escalation by police, including chemical weapons use, agitating the crowd to respond, bringing more response in turn. If the police avoid escalation, it doesn't happen. This isn't always what the leftist radicals want to admit either -- they may want to think it's "the people" who are in control of things, who are angry enough to rise up or something. In fact, it's the folks who are trained to act together, with the better weapons and the (usually) disciplined command and control structure, who have pre-existing relationships of working together as a team -- who largely determine whether to escalate or de-escalate -- and this isn't that surprising. The police usually don't actually want to de-escalate, they want to knock heads. By "the police" I mean both the "white shirts" and the "blue shirts". Sometimes the decision-makers might have preferred not to escalate, but literally would not be able to control those they ostensibly control though; the police are there for a fight.

jrochkind1 6y ago

The police have started far more riots with chemical weapons than they have stopped. Most things resembling riots are in fact started by police escalation and aggressiveness, including chemical weapons use. Yeah, there are various studies and reports showing this, it's also the general experience of most who have been present.

chance_state 6y ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  I don't think so? "Why can't we stop the police from using chemical weapons too?" => "How else would you stop a riot?" => I say: "in fact, police use of chemical weapons have started far more riots than they have stopped".

Zigurd 6y ago

There are several answers better than gassing one's own citizens. The bottom line is, taking this form of riot control away from governments is a net benefit: 1. Don't have a despotic government. If you have a despot, like in Belarus, that despot should not have access to these weapons. 2. Don't kill people in the course of law enforcement. This happens far too frequently in some places. Police that do this should not have chemical weapons. 3. How many recent riots are down to other causes? How many recent uses of teargas are legitimate and necessary? If there is no legitimate need for teargas, get rid of it.

082349872349872 6y ago

US Military thoughts on handling civil disturbance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616564 (plus FEMA)