Rubber bullets have steel cores, and are aimed indiscriminately. Imagine getting hit by a steel paintball. Without a mask or protective clothing. People get hit in the face, losing eyes.
Chemical weapons like CS gas are an aerosolized powder, dispersed using a burning canister. It was never meant for anyone who might be infirm, and it floods the area, getting into people's homes.
Flash bangs will permanently damage hearing and create shrapnel that can cause injury.
In Seattle, police were firing these weapons into packed crowds of peaceful protesters, and specifically targeted medical tents.
Thankfully, the Seattle City Council just voted to outlaw the possession or use of crowd control weapons, including all the weapons in this article, by the police. Here's hoping other cities follow suit. (Contact your city council member! Get a friend to do the same!)
The problem you are trying to underline is that these are meant to be an alternative when force is absolutely necessary, whereas a lot of users pretend they are "safe" options to be used in any situation without harm.
Yeah. Maybe the root cause here is how to interpret 'absolutely necessary'. It's clear, however, that the police interpretation is overly broad, and they cannot be trusted to deploy these in the emergencies that might warrant them.
It can be made easy: these are alternatives to use of a firearm. They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing a weapon, but not actively hurting people with it.
> They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing
They're not, because legal justification and department policy are different. If, for example, someone is threatening people with a knife and is close enough to use it, the law usually allows a police officer to shoot that person without taking any other actions.
Department policy can require the use of specific tactics to maximize opportunities to resolve situations with minimal force. An example policy would be to attempt to separate the subject from bystanders, delay until backup arrives, negotiate verbally, then use less lethal weapons, only resorting to firearms if someone is about to be stabbed.
The potential use of force is absolutely necessary for the enforcement of any law, otherwise it's just a polite suggestion that can and often will ultimately be ignored by antisocial individuals.
Now, personally, I would love to live in a society populated solely by considerate, thoughtful, and polite people who always follow polite suggestions and don't need to be forcefully coerced. However we don't live in that society and the claim that we don't because of law enforcement using force is very much an example of wet streets causing rain.
I'm not sure I think they should be outlawed, but I absolutely think the use of them should have extremely radical laws controlling them. For instance: if these "non-lethal" weapons are to be used, the Mayor of the city should be required to sign-off on their use, and there should be a mandatory election held no less than 1 month later.
Right now there's basically 0 downside/accountability to them being deployed, which is why they're used indiscriminately.
How do you control huge crowds if they go violent, go into neighborhoods and start killing/robbing/raping ______ people?
Edit: I am raising a hypothetical question which people are responding with the current reality. Yes, I know that it is not happening currently, which is why I am raising the what-if question. I've even left the race or sides off of the question to talk about the objective ways of dealing with a situation like this.
First, that seems to be far far less frequent than police force abuse. So infrequent that I don't think I've heard of mass-killing crowds in Europe/US in the past 15 years, that sounds more like a theoretical possibility.
Second, you're answering somedy that calls for accountability. How does that prevent violent crowd control?
There is a huge income inequality, the society is splitting 4-ways - top/bottom(social status and income) and left/right (political).
As we get more polarized, there is a possibility of people starving and oppressed which will end up going on the left or right or top or bottom and creating havoc.
2020 is an unprecedented year so far. I don't agree that this is a theoretical possibility.
maybe you should be proposing hypothetical solutions to address the issues of income inequality and oppression instead of how hypothetically you would like to see masses of people gunned down in the streets
I went to the protests myself and I support the cause. May be we should question all aspects of a problem, leave aside biases and understand the situation to make a better society? Getting rid of police control measures without proper authority is a good idea, but there should be reservations for when it's needed. I want to make sure those are not eroded or the society turns into something like Somalia.
I also found your comment distasteful as it condemns my intent without substantiation. It is like calling someone with "obsession for murderous things". I take offense in that.
When that becomes an issue, we'll address it. Police still have weapons and tools to address violence, but they shouldn't be bringing them to peaceful protests.
Edit to address your edit: When you bring that question to the current discussion around the current police brutality, it appears that you are trying to draw a line between the two OR trying to reframe/divert the conversation. It's a common tactic used by trolls online (not saying you are trolling, but your question probably trigger the immune response many people have to trolls online.)
If it's a serious question, I'd ask it on its own and see if you can get any engagement.
I've been pretty careful about phrasing it as I know the trolls. But I am afraid that we cannot discuss all sides of the equation even though they are uncomfortable.
This is the drowning of the voices, the chilling effect of a massive momentum where certain things will inevitably get tramped. Allowing discussion in a polite, unbiased manner should not be met with opposition, but with objective refutal if you have any.
Just saying "When that becomes an issue, we'll address it" is inadequate as that just screams of going too far, removing law and order and turning this place into a total anarchy. Yes, this is the trolling narrative as well - I fully recognize it.
I want peace in the world. Law and order and uplifting of the nation, a unification of both left and right into doing what's right for progress. Yes, we are stuck in chaos of echo chambers.
The primary method is by building a society in which people, predominantly, have something to lose by doing so. The social contract is not some optional lofty ideal.
> If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character.
If there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home.
If there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nations.
When there is order in the nations, there will peace in the world.
the point is that they are being used to suppress speech rather than control violent crowds.
things usually don't get violent until the police escalate and start trying to disperse the crowds (which is unconstitutional but again, no accountability, which is exactly what's being protested). That's consistently been the pattern with the current wave of protests.
When the police start kettling and tear-gassing and firing rubber bullets, things get violent. Where the police do their jobs and stand back and surgically remove instigators/violence, things stay peaceful.
at the end of the day I don't think anyone disputes that these should be in police arsenals (as opposed to some of the heavier weaponry), but they shouldn't be used to suppress speech or demonstrations. There needs to be much more restraint with their use, and there needs to be way more oversight and accountability when they are used.
But no one is doing that? You have a bunch of peaceful protests that the police want to portray as looting and rioting so they can get out their jackboots and step on some throats.
The National Guard is a military force. They aren't trained for non-lethal combat and quite frankly shouldn't be, that's not their job. Even if they WERE, it takes DAYS to get a unit online and ready to operate, that's not an acceptable timeline for a scenario in which Police would need to use non-lethal force.
The problems that the crowds are complaining about are very deeply rooted and cannot be summed up in a single social media post. I won't take the time to sit and lecture you.
I can understand being overwhelmed if you're only now tuning in. But there's a ton of opinions and views if you'd only pay attention. Take the time to learn about the problems instead of reflexively whining that the police are the easiest/only solution.
I'll leave you with two links from my own echo chamber. The last few words of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight from a few weeks ago are extremely relevant [0]. And, here's a story from someone who claims to be a former cop [1].
Several protestors have had an eye shot out by US police in the last 2.5 weeks, it's time for an eye-for-an-eye law for police (or anyone) that use these weapons on protestors.
There is no excuse that someone could shoot someone's eye out and then not be required to replace it.
I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly.
But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control? (This is not a rhetorical question. Are there other theories, strategies, or technologies available?)
And just to state explicitly: I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.
Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately.
The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.
I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either.
I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
The issue as I see it relates to collateral damage. If you anthropomorphize a crowd as if it suddenly becomes a single entity that is acting criminally, you're clubbing tons of innocent people that are peaceful and law abiding with it.
I see it all the time, people start talking about The Crowd with a capital C. Or sometimes The Protester with a capital P.
So a few individuals in a crowd are acting up, and to react to that, instead of going after them directly, we target the entire crowd of people, which includes almost always more peaceful and legally abiding individuals than not and we use force against them all without discrimination. Often times the crowd even might have peaceful children, elderly, handicapped people, yet you fire the toxic gas, the rubber bullets, the flash bangs at them all.
The Police role at a protest should be to protect the crowd from individuals endangering it first and foremost, and then to protect the bystanders and some of the surrounding private/public property, all from the individuals that are breaking the law. It is not a battle between Police and Crowd or State and Crowd, people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest without any time limits.
So if you agree with that, the question goes back to collateral damage. I just don't see where else people would accept such a undiscriminating use of force. Would you be okay that an entire apartment building be tear-gassed just to stop an escalating case of conjugal violence happening in a single unit of the appartment complex? I wouldn't, and I don't see what's different with the situation here.
The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world. Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives.
Not that this excuses their actions -- just pointing out that it's a systematic problem that's hard to weed out by looking at countries where police often leave their weapons in the car when they go to confront suspects of non-violent crimes.
I said I didn't have all the answers, but I think that's part of the problem here -
"Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives."
Do they? Really? Or is that an overreaction even in the US? Couldn't a different approach and an emphasis on peaceful de-escalation before paranoid use of deadly force be better?
Again, I don't have all the answers, but I bet there are lesons to be learned from elsewhere.
I'm sure statistically even the US police are relatively safe (as in they might well be more likely to die or be injured from car crashes, like the rest of us.)
But when the stakes are that high, being statistically safe on average does not take into account what the gamblers' call the individuals risk of ruin.
So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning. And this risk is many times greater in the US than elsewhere.
Which is then why police see it as OK to semi-arbitrarily incapacitate random people for life (by hitting them with rubber bullets, for which there are ridiculously many stories of people losing eyes or having internal organ damage--think about how you don't even want to be hit in your lower back with a fist for fear of it damaging your kidney--with studies showing like a 15% rate of permanent disability of some form from being hit by the things) and then tell sob stories about how a protestor threw something at them, which of course barely hit/hurt the officer because throwing things is really difficult? Yeah, no: I have absolutely zero sympathy for police officers taking this position.
> So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning
That's different, and a valid consideration of risk, as compared to what you said before - "pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives."
Approaching a situation in a state of mortal fear, every time, rather than with a calm understanding of real risks, and this fear mindset feeds into their behaviour, this might be part of the problem.
The absolute last thing you would want to do to someone armed with a lethal weapon would be to antagonize them with a weapon that won't consistently eliminate them as a threat.
These "less lethal" weapons aren't being used to defend against actual threats, they are being used to terrorize unarmed protestors.
> The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world.
I don't see that as a problem. Police are at least as heavily armed. I'm not aware of any instances where armed protesters created a dangerous situation.
The overwhelming majority of violence has been perpetrated by armed police on unarmed civilians. "Less lethal" weapons are used as an excuse to continue this pattern.
Well, it obviously is a problem, since the default threat level all around is insanely high in the US, where this problem is greater than in other civilised countries where the default threat level is lower.
With the justification of “We need the power to resist against a government who turns on its citizens” - now that that’s clearly BS, maybe time to tighten the gun laws and de-escalate the whole country? :P
So maybe if We The People give up the paltry remnants of our right to self-defense, the cops won't attack us so severely? This is such a tired argument, and it's completely refuted by the lack of police riots against the tacticool protestors a few weeks prior.
The police are supposed to be civilians, and the government is supposed to be subservient to the People. If the police have access to a type of weapon, the general population should as well. If someone cannot handle being a police officer in this society, the answer is simple - find another job.
Please do not post Andy Ngo's content. He orchestrates with white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys to create these stories by selective editing and replacing context with his desired bigoted message payload.
He has been caught doing this many times the last couple summers here's been here with Joey Gibson and his band of goons. Go look up that story if you wanna find out just how reliable Andy is about who the "good" guys are.
I watched Police brutality videos on Github, someone put together a compendium of it.
We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No?
I feel like there is a lot of momentum behind BLM movement, I personally support the cause and social changes. But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise. Saying anything against BLM in the bay area is like a social suicide, I would lose friends. I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. BLM is doesn't know diplomacy and strategy.
That's because BLM isn't a single organization. There doesn't appear to be leadership because there is no power structure or organization from which one could lead. It's literally grassroots.
As for diplomacy and strategy, we're talking about a subset of society that has been systematically failed by society for centuries. That they don't have diplomacy that meets the expectations of the powers-that-be should not be a surprise.
If a few bad apples discreet an entire social movement, shouldn't a few bad apples also discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus (and even the entire criminal justice system) in the US? Can't have it both ways, at least not while maintaining a logically consistent argument.
> But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise
The GP's article is terribly written and dripping with bias and it still has a large section covering other protestors stepping in, helping the man, and policing their own.
> We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No?
A basic internet search would yield this for you.
> I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen.
The sibling comment already covered this, but if you find yourself thinking about things like this, it could help to do some research. Searching for "BLM leadership" to figure out who you think won't be effective at making a change will yield sources like [1] and help give better background on what is actually going on here.
> I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.
"Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
IANAL, but it seems to me this behavior is protected under the first amendment no?
> I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly.
There's a reason that the article uses the term "less lethal". These weapons are not "non-lethal". They're not "less than lethal". They are weapons that are capable of, and often cause, the death of their target. Calling these weapons "non-lethal" is irresponsible at best. They are "lethal".
In the same vein, shooting people in the kneecaps is a "less lethal" response, in that with proper medical attention the victim is less likely to die than a more vital hit. It has been openly and widely employed without significant outcry from the global community (1).
Let's plug that into your statement instead and listen to how it sounds: "I agree with the idea that 'shooting people in the kneecaps' is often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control?"
To state explicitly, I also believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area. But It is unjust and counterproductive to use lethal weapons (even if you use ones that are a little less likely to cause death) against citizens who have done so.
There are plenty of other strategies; de-escalation instead of deliberate escalation comes to mind. There are plenty of other tools; agents that cause obnoxious smells without inducing harm are a good example.
The methods that are used right now are KNOWN to do not work.
When there is a protest, having the police to show up in large numbers riot gear is just going to escalate the tensions and increase the chances of violence.
(I am not saying that there is no need for riot gear .. if anything the boogaloos could use some violence applied to them)
US Police should have a lot more incentive to do not resort to violence for every situation. As well as ending qualified immunity and not having cops investigate cops when there is abuse.
to do not work if the objective is to avoid violence and riots. Sadly it seems that this is not the objective of many police departments
> How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned?
Start by not shooting at them, especially when the protest is legal.
Escalation is the big problem here, nobody is complaining about using rubber bullet against dangerous armed people. They're complaining about using rubber bullet against people in a non-violent protest. If the police is using significantly more force than their "targets", there's an escalation problem
I don't think they are using significantly more force. Looking at the riots across the US, the police appear in general to be showing an almost saintly level of restraint, and being killed and severely injured as a result.
Wow, you'll have to provide extraordinary proof to this extraordinary claim that goes against so much evidence.
What I've seen (from outside the US) is the exact opposite, police shooting, beating and killing protestors while they were peacefully protesting (or medics, or journalists, or people in their own homes).
This has to be trolling. The whole thing started because of the police literally committing murder, and in most cases closing ranks and getting away with it.
I strongly disagree. Footage from protest after protest shows police firing weapons into crowds, causing permanent injuries with zero accountability.
As far as I am aware, no active police officers have been killed by protesters. (One was killed by a right wing extremist.) Meanwhile, several protesters have been killed by police at these protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence...
The police aren't supposed to punish people. The courts are supposed to determine guilt and and punishment, as everyone has a right to a jury trial.
Tear gas, rubber bullets, and any other form of violence is only supposed to be used when people are somehow in real danger. That's why the police often insist they are "protecting themselves", as they tear gas protesters who weren't doing anything remotely threatening. They're pretending that they're obeying the law.
The medical tent targeting is currently being investigated by the Seattle OPA, and has several eyewitness accounts. We'll see where the OPA lands (though, the OPA is composed of mostly police officers, so....)
What would be better? Stand down. Let the protests protest. Listen to the concerns, make changes.
What would be better, from the perspective of a non-US person, would be having a de-militarised police force who were trained in de-escalation and the application of force (any force) as a last resort.
> How do you get people to obey the law, in a way that is safer for all concerned?
When the law states that you cannot leave your home after 1pm in the afternoon, or after 7pm at night, I do not think that any level of enforcement, of any kind, will prevent Americans from breaking the law.
Most of the lethal and harmful force used by the police in the US recently was at the excuse of the peaceful protesters being out "past curfew" even at 2pm in the afternoon. The simplest way to prevent that violence would have been to not employ a curfew to the citizens at insane and unruly hours - or frankly, at all.
The next simplest way would be to reduce the anger felt by the population at the police. That would mean that nationwide, there would have to have been coordinated police action to not needlessly harm and kill peaceful protesters. The last month saw the opposite strategy from police, seemingly coordinated because it was so ruthlessly violent across the country, nearly all stemming from unprovoked police actions.
Even better actually, would be to stop the systemic racism and police terrorism and brutality in the first place. Ensure that no police officer is likely or even able to randomly kill someone they have detained, like George Floyd. Especially when there is clear racial bias in the police departments across the country that harms black and minority groups.
Less police violence, less racism, less systematic oppression of the already oppressed == A lot more law-obeying citizens.
Gassing and shooting innocent civilians indiscriminately after killing an unarmed-and-already-detained black man is not a path to peace or an orderly, law-obeying society.
I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. If they're alright firing it at someone they should be alright getting hit by it.
This would be really cool because it would turn protests into paintball matches. Show the police that the citizens have the numbers and with equal weaponry they would be overpowered. Remind them who they answer to.
Another thing, somewhat of an extension of the first, is that any less-lethal weapon the police carry for use on protestors should be legal to every day carry. I carry a pocket knife (legal in California) for emergencies. I really don't want to stab someone and deal with blood. It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons. That has always struck me as strange. I'd much rather give someone a few bruises if it comes down to it.
This will destroy any credibility the protesters have. It will stop being about police violence the instant this happens. I think protesters should continue to protest without violence and do everything they can to counteract the methods used by the police to protect themselves and other protesters.
That said, I am angry at what I see and it is difficult to not feel contempt for the police using teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, and rubber bullets. That contempt has prompted me to demand reform.
> It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons.
I'm not going to dig up sources for this. However, when I looked into the reasons for laws prohibiting these items about a decade ago I discovered that these laws came to be in the late 19th and early 20th century. Washington explicitly prohibits nun-chucks and butterfly knives. It appears this was intended to target Chinese Americans who were more likely to poses these. Those individuals may have been disenfranchised from owning firearms. This was a way to further disenfranchise them from owning any weapons. Readers of this comment should do their own research to confirm or disprove.
What world am I in Christ. You got a bunch of people protesting. The cops put their boots to their throats. And you’re hemming and hawing about them “breaking the law actually” by protesting.
I can’t even begin to see your perspective. These jackbooted thugs suck and all this deflection is weird as hell. You don’t need to beat the living shit out of someone to arrest them that shouldn’t be radical.
>There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to reduce that with as little harm as possible.
Cops are the ones breaking the law. The way to "reduce that with as little harm as possible" is to abolish the police and replace them with a public safety department that isn't systematically power hungry, racist, and violent.
You should start looking at the videos. I've seen a couple of unconscious people being kicked in the head this week by "protesters". These people are nothing like law-abiding.
At least in the US, this is why it's not uncommon for certain demonstrations to be full of people who are armed, openly. It's much less likely that the police will open fire on a crowd that is at least equally, if not more, heavily armed. Though, this requires a certain critical mass among the demonstrators to be successful. I believe I see this more commonly with conservative demonstrations as the overlap of conservative values and gun ownership is somewhat high.
It's the demonstration equivalent of mutually assured destruction, whether one agrees with it or not.
>In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”
>The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
There have been a few incidents of Black Lives Matter protest groups armed with rifles. I don't believe there has been any violence between those groups and police.
I have read about at least one pro-gun, anti-government US-based group (described by some outlets as far-right) that has been vocal about its opposition to the abuse of power by the police, and has turned up at the recent protests.[1][2]
Red tribe members see people who are clearly part of blue tribe fighting the police. Blue tribe generally wants to take away red tribe's guns and expand the power of the state. Now a subset of blue tribe is protesting or rioting, fighting a subset of the state.
Why should your average red tribe member think that if they helps these people, they won't turn around and stab them in the back with the same policies they've been loudly pushing (while loudly calling red tribe members nonpersons) for years?
What rational person would risk their life for their tribal enemies who loudly proclaim how much they hate them and want to end their way of life? It would be (somewhat) like antifa showing up on the side of those people protesting the corona lockdown earlier this year because the lockdown is a fascist policy that overwhelming economically harms marginalised people.
I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Oklahoma City. Right-wing groups have consistently demonstrated their ability and will to resist encroachment on their rights and freedoms. Whether those rights and freedoms are morally legitimate is irrelevant on the streets, especially for those with skin in the game. At the end of the day, the police just want to go back home to their families, and being shot isn't a part of that.
Meanwhile, left-wing groups don't resist to the same degree and in the same manner...because not blowing up a daycare with a truck bomb is the responsible thing to do. Hence they get stomped on.
The right understands and has always remembered what the left has forgotten. Freedom isn't free, and the price is much, much, much higher than going out and waving a sign for a few days.
Another reason is there's a lot of police that are sympathetic or even members of those far right and white supremacist groups. (eg: the Lynwood Vikings a white supremacist gang in LA composed entirely of deputy sheriffs) [0]. It's not isolated either and supremacist groups in some cases encourage members to join the police. [1]
The podcast Behind the Bastards is doing a series at the moment about the direct evolution from slave patrols to police and the, lets say cozy, relationship between groups like the KKK and police.
You bring up a great point. Right-wing groups are highly proactive about using every lever at their disposal to advance their agenda, including infiltration of government agencies. I don't think it has to be strictly right-wing groups, though. Scientology, whose political leanings I'm unfamiliar with, infiltrated a variety of government agencies, and as far as I know only paid a one-time price (short prison terms for leadership) for long-term gains in unchecked reach and influence.
All of which brings to question what moderates and left-wing groups are doing in order to secure their own future in this country.
1 million people sat in the government square for two whole months in winter in order to force the president of South Korea to not just resign, but forcibly impeached. When was the last time we in the U.S. did that? MLK's million man march comes to mind, but I think that was only one day. Going back further rings no bells for me.
I don't think you have to rely on the police to be sympathetic to your cause to get what you want. You do need to exert material losses on certain levers of power. Cause enough pain to certain keys, and they will unlock the safe for you, doesn't matter what they believe in. Right-wing groups bomb and shoot people, because their numbers are low and they need disproportionate acts to get the respect they want. South Korea shuts down the country, because consistently doing one act is easy when many people are on the same page and want the same thing.
The great thing about powerful people is there's so many different ways to hurt them. It sounds sociopathic because it is. Waving a sign for one day used to work because for most of our history we had leaders who genuinely wanted to work for us, they just didn't know where it fell in terms of priorities. For those who crave power and nothing else, us waving a sign does absolutely nothing.
A police officer's job is keeping order, and they're paid by the state, not directly by taxpayers. So they're enforcers for whatever order the state decides works for them. If left-wing groups paid police officers to run long-term private security, and infiltrated law enforcement, and did all the stuff right-wing groups did, police officers might start espousing more left-wing takes on matters like treating protesters with respect as fellow citizens.
I don't like how things are, and I don't agree with right-wing groups. I'm pointing out a hard truth. I think it's great that people are out on the streets asking for what they want, and that more and more people are listening to them. But I'm pessimistic that anybody in power will enact meaningful change, because the protesters don't act by the laws of power. That will become ever more important, and the failings ever clearer, the more and more people in power respect only power and not substantive public policy.
> I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently
I think the reason police treat right-wing groups more leniently is that police officers, at all ranks from cadets through chiefs, and the prosecutors with whom they work, are more likely themselves to be members of right-wing groups.
I had to read that twice to figure out that I might agree with it.
Likely to be members of right-wing groups? No. More likely than they are to be members of, say, antifa? Probably yes.
I'm not sure I buy that that's why the police treat right-wing groups more leniently, though. But then, based on news reports over the last year or two, I'm not sure that the police treat right-wing groups more leniently than left-wing. It looks to me that the police are letting both proceed a fair distance past the point where I think they should be reined in. (But who knows how far you can trust the news reports about such events...)
> “One of the reasons it’s a complete misnomer to call [a weapon] ‘nonlethal’ or ‘less lethal’ [is] if it’s being used to force people into the [attack range] of cops with batons"
Note that "kettling" does not occur anywhere in https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf
and in fact 2-90 clearly states "A crowd on the move should not be hurried to avoid panic. At no time should the crowd be cornered in a position where there is the perception of no escape. This invokes the “fight-or-flight” syndrome, possibly escalating violent activity."
Fig 2-2 includes "Indicate the method, streets, and direction that the crowd should use when dispersing."
Todd Winn was right to say that problematic police need "accountability for failed TTPs and EOF abuse." (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures) (Escalation of Force)
Thank you. Looks like "Field Force Operations PER-200"[1]? https://twitter.com/CDPfema hasn't been very active this year.
If FEMA promotes kettling, then maybe they should pay more attention to the TTPs and EOF of people who attempt to win hearts and minds in even more dangerous situations, outside CONUS.
Cattlemen would say "don't crowd a mob", because stampedes don't make anyone's life better.
[1] seems like a reasonable document. have the problematic police departments attended the course?
2.d.(11) Use low-profile tactics. Don't become the focus of the demonstration.
3.i ... establish escape routes so protesters can safely leave the area.
Annex A 10 and 12 (case studies) may be of interest.
- in principle a jurisdiction can be sued for "failure to train" its justice officers but City of Canton v Harris and Brown v Bryan indicate it's difficult in practice.
- states that the vast majority of a protest is composed of everyday citizens protesting, neither "professional protesters" nor "anarchists."
I think there is an unrealistic but understandable desire to have some way giant disorderly masses of people can be managed with perfect safety.
Crowds are intrinsically dangerous, even fully peaceable people following every instruction can crush or trample individuals.
To whatever degree a crowd is more antagonistic to control measures, the risk increases.
I, personally, can’t figure out a way for any of this to be safe. Every intervention injured and upsets people, while zero intervention runs a risk of many injuries and property damage.
The way I understand the social dynamics at play, it's classic longtermism vs shorttermism.
But first: many of these crowds the police are trying to control were not in need of being externally controlled. They might look scary if you're part of the establishment they're protesting against, but the vast majority of people are not out to cause harm -- it's the opposite.
Now, as you say, zero intervention does run a risk of injuries and property damage. What you left out is in the short term. Intervention might prevent that, but it will (as I understand it) greatly increase public sympathy for the protester's cause. In the long term, it runs a risk of causing even greater number of injuries and property damage.
So as Deming might have said, the US and its police force are a system that's already set up for injuries and property damage. You can't force your way out of that without causing more injuries and property damage. The course has been set, even if not all the events are played out yet.
The only thing that can be done is absorb the blow, listen to the people, and build something great out of the ashes to replace the old system.
But the system needs to be rebuilt. It cannot be tweaked into working. It cannot be fixed by force.
If you have a group of people upset and disenfranchised enough to leave their homes to protest, it doesn't seem like beating them, shooting their eyes out or gassing them is going to defuse or better the situation. It seems that rarely does this disincentive the protesters. This isn't making anyone more safe though I'm not sure that's the purpose of the riot police.
They are already out protesting because they don't feel they have a voice any other way. If the state they feel doesn't hear them decides to attack them (in many cases unprovoked) they'll run to the next block and burn the city down. What else are they to do?
"Less Lethal" weapons are a cover by the police in their ability to escalate the use of force and when they do injure or maim they can say it was "unintended" and a random accident, thereby covered by immunity.
i think its good to have them. far beats the way it used to be done before these inventions (police opening fire, killing a few, hoping the rest runs away).
I’m surprised no localities have rolled out an ADS[1] yet to deal with crowds. These systems always gave me an ominous feeling, and I don’t want to be around when they start doing trial runs on Americans.
I know it was deployed in the past month Buffalo, Portland, Seattle, New York and Washington DC at least, and I'm sure many more police departments have used it.
These should be banned along with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash grenades. The indiscriminate nature and damage these weapons cause is the definition of excessive force.
EDIT: Sorry, was mistaken. ADS is not the same as LRAD - though neither should be in the hands of local police departments.
Fortunately not the same devices. The ADS gives people the sensation their skin is burning. From wikipedia:
> The ADS works by firing a high-powered (100 kW output power) beam of 95 GHz waves at a target, which corresponds to a wavelength of 3.2 mm. The ADS millimeter wave energy works on a similar principle as a microwave oven, exciting the water and fat molecules in the skin, and instantly heating them via dielectric heating.
I think using the word "sensation" is even downplaying things. Their skin is burning. People are drowning. It just (usually) stops before permanent injury or death.
Compared to less-than-lethal means like rubber bullets, beanbags, and tasers, acute RF exposure at reasonable distances and safety margins causes quite a bit less physical damage while making those exposed very, very uncomfortable.
However, the video demonstration shows testing on volunteers, with the ADS at a great distance, following strict safety protocols. In the wrong hands, things could quickly change. I don't want to imagine what 100kW of directed 95GHz RF can do to skin at a distance of tens of meters on trapped or immobilized targets for long exposure durations. It could not only be lethal, but an instrument of torture.
The ADS is way worse than anything else because its potential for abuse.
Police appear to abuse any tool they are given. They shoot protestors directly with tear gas grenades, aim for the face with rubber bullets, and pepper spray people in the face that are already prone and in handcuffs.
From the wikipedia page on the ADS:
"..may lead those who use them to become "trigger-happy", especially in dealing with peaceful protesters. Others have focused on concerns that weapons whose operative principle is that of inflicting pain (though "non-lethal") might be useful for such purposes as torture, as they leave no evidence of use, but undoubtedly have the capacity to inflict horrific pain on a restrained subject. According to Wired, the ADS has been rejected for fielding in Iraq due to Pentagon fears that it would be regarded as an instrument of torture.[54]"
That's horrifying. And it yet again feels irresponsible to be selling this as a somehow safe method of crowd dispersal when in reality it's just a low power long range flamethrower.
Chemical weapons like CS gas are an aerosolized powder, dispersed using a burning canister. It was never meant for anyone who might be infirm, and it floods the area, getting into people's homes.
Flash bangs will permanently damage hearing and create shrapnel that can cause injury.
In Seattle, police were firing these weapons into packed crowds of peaceful protesters, and specifically targeted medical tents.
Thankfully, the Seattle City Council just voted to outlaw the possession or use of crowd control weapons, including all the weapons in this article, by the police. Here's hoping other cities follow suit. (Contact your city council member! Get a friend to do the same!)