It depends. Not massacres. Damage can be repaired. Death cannot.
4 Likes
Identify people who are breaking the law.
Distinguish between those people and citizens who are there for a political protest.
Arrest only those who cause actual damage.
Assist the protesters in their efforts for justice and keep them safe from the criminals.
14 Likes
Huh? Not sure what you’re trying to say.
1 Like
I’d also add “…and if you can’t figure out a way to do any of these things without escalating the situation then do nothing.”
I’m reminded of the campus cop at U.C. Davis who used military-grade pepper spray on passive protesters because they didn’t obey orders to disperse. Just because you can’t think of a peaceful way to achieve compliance doesn’t mean you are allowed to resort to a violent one.
26 Likes
Well . . . do you have a solution?
I considered your question and originally didn’t reply because I couldn’t think of anything that would satisfy you. You obviously admit that wholesale slaughter is not a solution, but the way you phrased it almost implies it’s still better than nothing.
As much as I find phalanxes of cops in riot gear distasteful and dystopian, if a riot ensues they should be out there, but trying to rein it in as peacefully as possible, even if that means the violence and destruction will continue for a while. Buildings can be rebuilt, humans lives cannot.
Police forces are supposed to serve the community, but they seem more interested in meting out justice to someone they think is already guilty, the courts be damned. That kind of attitude enrages the community, and ensures a riot. The police need to look in the mirror, and stop closing ranks behind their blue wall of silence. They won’t fix the problem until they admit they are part of the problem.
14 Likes
Let me rework this slightly and see if she still agrees with her own logic.
So I am watching the news in Baltimore and see a large swarm of police, roughing a kid up, and he winds up dead. Solution.Simple Shoot Em. Period.End of discussion. I don’t care what causes the police to turn violent… What the "They did it because reason is… No way acceptable. Flipping disgusting.
This is in no way my feelings, as I hope we can get to a point where the police stop beating and killing people without anyone else losing their life needlessly.But if you agreed with her first statement, the second statement is in fact the same.
11 Likes
It was an honest question, met with a lot of antagonizing responses. I have no solution, and fully agree that mowing people down with guns is not the answer. I like Brainspore’s response, tho, as perhaps the answer is that there is nothing to be done in such situations that doesn’t make it somehow worse.
Perhaps the answer is simply, in riot-like situations, for law enforcement to observe and document the destruction of property, and intervene only when life or limb is threatened. After tempers calm, the video documentation can be used to go after those who used lawful protest as a cover for unlawful destruction.
7 Likes
Nope; what we could do are the following:
- Let the protesters vent their anger.
- Let the riots tire themselves out.
- Investigate the cause of both the protests and the riots.
- Takes steps to prevent future riots and protests from ever happening.
- If step 4 fails, repeat steps 1-4.
9 Likes
Certainly, in the big picture, understanding the cause of protests and riots, and working to eliminate those causes, is in everyone’s best interests. However, in my opinion, there is no ‘excuse’ for rioting. We live within a system of law, not anarchy, and there are victims of the rioters who deserve justice as well.
Riot police enjoy greater access to both defensive equipment and ‘less lethal’ weapons of various flavors now than at pretty much any time in history. They also have access to substantial imaging capabilities, databases, taggants, and similar identification mechanisms.
With all that available, you should be able to choose any response from ‘form line, resist projectiles until the crowd gets bored’ to ‘identify and charge with assault the individuals throwing bricks’ without even considering live rounds.
Exactly how aggressively you respond to the people throwing things is a tactical question; but I’m pretty sure that the penalty for assault isn’t ‘death by firing squad’ in any relevant jurisdiction(never mind the near certainty of hitting at least as many bystanders as targets); so her proposal falls radically outside the pale(“Pick out, arrest, and try everyone engaged in assault or vandalism” is the maximum legal force option, “stand behind your riot shields and wait for the lack of additional provocation to sap people’s enthusiasm” is the soft touch approach).
7 Likes
I don’t think you get justice…from police.
Neither does the system of law you reference.
Your need to focus on the riots & not the cause of the riots speaks volumes. The reason they shout & make loud noises & eventually set fires is because you don’t listen.
You think your system of laws matters to the people it murders? Beyond their demands to see it remade into a not murdering them so much system?
It will now quiet down a bit because charges were finally laid on the murderers.
The protesting, civil disobedience/unrest and yes, the rioting, are what got those charges laid because those whose responsibility it was to seek justice had their hand forced.
Otherwise it’d continue apace and the murder culture of those police would become deeper & more entrenched.
But you, you worry about the property damage.
12 Likes
I prefer to have a society that aspires to solving problems through rational discourse and the rule of law, rather than mob action. It sound like you are suggesting that we should make decisions as a society by whoever causes the most destruction.
2 Likes
Perhaps, despite the honesty, it was still a stupid question.
5 Likes
OK. I think BBS needs a “Privileged Dimwit” badge or something.
8 Likes
Do you have kids? Ever try to give them a timeout/punushment when they misbehave? Ever try doing that ten times in a row (especially when they got mad in the first place because you promised them something and then forgot)?
NOT PRODUCTIVE.
1 Like
Alright, then. The people unable to engage in civil discourse and who must resort to name calling when they don’t have anything useful to say are back.
I too prefer society that solves problems through rational discourse and law. But if “polite” society has not engaged meaningfully with a substantial, repressed minority for decades, what options left on their table? The sad fact is, most of us are perfectly happy maintaining the status quo.
8 Likes
I haven’t implied, inferred, alluded to or stated any such thing. We’re talking about This, the situation which happens to include some riots among mostly protests.
I also haven’t insulted you even if my pointing things out makes you feel that way or causes others to see you in the light you perceive as coming from me (among others).
So own up, you keep hand wringing about the rioting, clearly placing it above the institutionalized serial murders. Why do you? Oh go ahead, deny it. But you ignore direct, reasoned, appropriate responses to your hand-wringing questions.
I couldn’t help but notice you completely ignored this:
and went on with your concern driving trollies, despite this answer, which everyone else saw, precisely and concisely answers your “concerns” over what else society could do beyond shooting protesters.
Go ahead and pretend you’re being ganged up on. What else can you do?
9 Likes
I am extremely amused at where the TV station’s CMS chose to cut off the article’s headline in the page’s <title> tag.
Is there enough difference between that post and this one, that the prosecutor can simply resign and not worry about being arrested?
1 Like
