2 ms·

Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal echochamber effect to be particularly insightful. Although police giving coffee and hot

Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal echochamber effect to be particularly insightful. Although police giving coffee and hot chocolate to protestors reads like a light-hearted PR move, it raises interesting questions about why police and protestors are by default at odds, when they often have overlapping concerns and agendas.

stefs 12y ago
my thoughts exactly: policemen and -women are people and citizens too (with kids that probably wont grow to be police themselves), and citizens have an interest in upholding the law. it's NOT an us vs. them situation.
MBCook 12y ago
The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because they (at least appear) to be non-neutral. When the police are the target of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't want to obey them. The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to squash legitimate protests and suppress speech. But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic. I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they were perceived to be neutral. That neutrality makes a big difference. With it the police are there to help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is going to react very differently to those two things.

stefs 12y ago

my thoughts exactly: policemen and -women are people and citizens too (with kids that probably wont grow to be police themselves), and citizens have an interest in upholding the law. it's NOT an us vs. them situation.

MBCook 12y ago

The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because they (at least appear) to be non-neutral. When the police are the target of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't want to obey them. The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to squash legitimate protests and suppress speech. But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic. I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they were perceived to be neutral. That neutrality makes a big difference. With it the police are there to help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is going to react very differently to those two things.