6 ms·

If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include: - the tactic of first-mov

by ibejoeb 12y ago

If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include: - the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters - the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration - shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles These things are the antithesis of peacekeeping.

couchand 12y ago
the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration Far too many people dismiss this too readily, but it may be the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspect of police response to protest.
dclowd9901 12y ago
I've tried making this point before, but you've made it in a way I've always failed to. When police approach a situation fulfilling the role of the individual ready to respond to an incident, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Yes. I've seen this happen myself. In college, after some sportsball event, everybody poured out into the streets, milling around, chatting, celebrating. As soon as the police started to try to make everybody go home, suddenly there was a focus. They created an oppositional dynamic all by themselves, and from there it escalated. The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.
xanderjanz 12y ago
> shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles In your ideal world, when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  Presumably the police would maintain a minimal, unobtrusive monitoring presence and only gear up/deploy if violence began. This might delay response during a violent protest, but, in theory, would make a peaceful protest safer and might prevent it from turning violent. I don't know what to think about the proposal but it's not completely ridiculous.
- click170 12y ago
  Perhaps more thought should be given to the idea that showing up in full riot gear before anything violent has occurred is itself viewed by some protesters as incitement. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the wrong situations.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Evacuate the civilians and just cordon off the area until the pressure decreases. If you dress for going to war, a war you should find.
- tobz 12y ago
  This has been covered and mentioned way before me, but there are in fact tactics and techniques that can (and should) be used to attempt to de-escalate situations before they get to the point of active rioting. Specifically, the Army (I believe), and I'm sure other branches of the armed forces, have training manuals on how to interact with people in ways to keep both parties (the would-be combatants/rioters AND other military personnel) from boiling over. This is the sort of this that is incredibly useful, a necessity even, when you're in an active war zone. There's a direct translation over to civilian life, though. At the end of the day, you're trying to keep the peace. Does it always work? I don't know: I'm not military personnel, nor a LEO, and I haven't looked at all of the available data. As a person who isn't comfortable with the amount of force that local law enforcement in America shows to all people, innocent or guilty, I can tell you 100% that I would personally feel better if I never saw officers show up in armored vehicles.. ever. They're not trained for it, they shouldn't have it.
- innguest 12y ago
  > [...] when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting? I already pay taxes, do I have to give the government solutions to all problems in society in a silver platter too? Why don't they use some of that money to research an answer to that very question? Because guns. I mean, there could be a foam that slows people down when sprayed. Or a net that makes it confusing to walk. Who knows. So many possibilities. But guns!

by ibejoeb 12y ago

couchand 12y ago

the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration Far too many people dismiss this too readily, but it may be the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspect of police response to protest.

dclowd9901 12y ago

I've tried making this point before, but you've made it in a way I've always failed to. When police approach a situation fulfilling the role of the individual ready to respond to an incident, it almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

wpietri 12y ago
Yes. I've seen this happen myself. In college, after some sportsball event, everybody poured out into the streets, milling around, chatting, celebrating. As soon as the police started to try to make everybody go home, suddenly there was a focus. They created an oppositional dynamic all by themselves, and from there it escalated. The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.

xanderjanz 12y ago

> shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles In your ideal world, when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?

jamesaguilar 12y ago
Presumably the police would maintain a minimal, unobtrusive monitoring presence and only gear up/deploy if violence began. This might delay response during a violent protest, but, in theory, would make a peaceful protest safer and might prevent it from turning violent. I don't know what to think about the proposal but it's not completely ridiculous.
click170 12y ago
Perhaps more thought should be given to the idea that showing up in full riot gear before anything violent has occurred is itself viewed by some protesters as incitement. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the wrong situations.
venomsnake 12y ago
Evacuate the civilians and just cordon off the area until the pressure decreases. If you dress for going to war, a war you should find.
tobz 12y ago
This has been covered and mentioned way before me, but there are in fact tactics and techniques that can (and should) be used to attempt to de-escalate situations before they get to the point of active rioting. Specifically, the Army (I believe), and I'm sure other branches of the armed forces, have training manuals on how to interact with people in ways to keep both parties (the would-be combatants/rioters AND other military personnel) from boiling over. This is the sort of this that is incredibly useful, a necessity even, when you're in an active war zone. There's a direct translation over to civilian life, though. At the end of the day, you're trying to keep the peace. Does it always work? I don't know: I'm not military personnel, nor a LEO, and I haven't looked at all of the available data. As a person who isn't comfortable with the amount of force that local law enforcement in America shows to all people, innocent or guilty, I can tell you 100% that I would personally feel better if I never saw officers show up in armored vehicles.. ever. They're not trained for it, they shouldn't have it.
innguest 12y ago
> [...] when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting? I already pay taxes, do I have to give the government solutions to all problems in society in a silver platter too? Why don't they use some of that money to research an answer to that very question? Because guns. I mean, there could be a foam that slows people down when sprayed. Or a net that makes it confusing to walk. Who knows. So many possibilities. But guns!