Credit to our Right-Wingnuts
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
Which bring us back to the original topic of this thread. So far, Canadian authorities have used a lot less force than American authorities have in similar situations. If this continues, that seems like something we can learn from.
PVW said:
Which bring us back to the original topic of this thread. So far, Canadian authorities have used a lot less force than American authorities have in similar situations. If this continues, that seems like something we can learn from.
We'll see how it plays out I guess. From what I'm reading, the less force is more a function of a slow police response which is coming under criticism as a tactical error, rather than a well thought-out and planned police response.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/15/world/canada-protests-news
And if I'm living in Ottawa, I don't know how much I'm digging this protest or thinking the police response (or lack thereof) should be a model for authorities in other cities. Clear 'em out I say.
I'm curious, then, what kinds of protests you find acceptable and not meriting physical force as a response? Putting aside the constitutional and other legal differences between Canada and the US, what would an acceptable version of the protests happening in Ottawa look like? Which, if any of the thousands of BLM protests would you hold up as a model? Or do the inconveniences and disturbances to residents and business always deserve more weight?
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
PVW said:
I'm curious, then, what kinds of protests you find acceptable and not meriting physical force as a response? Putting aside the constitutional and other legal differences between Canada and the US, what would an acceptable version of the protests happening in Ottawa look like? Which, if any of the thousands of BLM protests would you hold up as a model? Or do the inconveniences and disturbances to residents and business always deserve more weight?
I didn't attend any BLM protests but from what I saw and read about them, plus the post-protest data ml1 was kind enough to share, those protests, on balance, seemed acceptable to me. Meet in the day, march, speak, wrap it up before it gets too late, don't commit any crimes or do anything stupid. I have no specific BLM protest to hold up as a model but overall it seemed the protests, and the police response to the protests, were okay.
I'd liken Ottawa to more like OWS where protestors come in and park themselves in a way that disrupts/impairs the lives of the local citizenry. What's acceptable exactly I don't know, but I'd think some leeway should be given (as was given for OWS and has been given so far in Ottawa), but at some point, it's clear out or be cleared out. It seems Canadian police are making that point now. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/16/world/canada-protests-news
Do you think it's acceptable for the truckers to stay parked in Ottawa city center for however long they want to, and they should be allowed to stay and just leave on their own volition?
PVW said:
I'm curious, then, what kinds of protests you find acceptable and not meriting physical force as a response? Putting aside the constitutional and other legal differences between Canada and the US, what would an acceptable version of the protests happening in Ottawa look like? Which, if any of the thousands of BLM protests would you hold up as a model? Or do the inconveniences and disturbances to residents and business always deserve more weight?
for myself, I'd allow an "occupation" type protest indefinitely. If protestors set up camp in a public space that doesn't impede people otherwise going about their business, it can be better to let them be than to clear them out by force.
I'm not sure this gets much exposure in history classes, but during the depression, veterans camped out in DC for months as a protest. And it didn't go well for the government when they finally got fed up and drove them out.
The press saw it differently. Even the Washington Daily News, typically sympathetic to Hoover’s Republicans called it “A pitiful spectacle,” to see “the mightiest government in the world chasing unarmed men, women, and children with Army tanks. If the Army must be called out to make war on unarmed citizens, this is no longer America.”
The political consequences were severe. 1932 was an election year, and the economy was the prevailing issue. The “pitiful spectacle” of starving, ragged veterans being driven off by tanks weakened Hoover’s bid for re-election. In November, his opponent, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was swept into office by an American populace eager for change. Roosevelt became America’s longest-serving president, elected to four terms in office. Another Republican would not hold the White House until Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953, his immense popularity for his leadership in World War II vastly overshadowing his role in the affair on the Anacostia Flats.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
You can drop the "confused" and "not paying attention" digs, as I don't think they add anything to the debate.
Given the low arrest/injury numbers from BLM protests, I assume the police mostly did just wait out the demonstrations as you recommend. And yes, I agree that should always be the first option. But in certain circumstances and in certain situations, doing nothing is not the right option and could in fact backfire. Every police chief has to make that difficult decision on what to do on his/her own, in real time, based on the facts on the ground, not what an internet link says.
And the Madison Method link you posted is solid all around and I agree with most/all of it. Funny though, you said earlier that police should never use military-style tactics on peaceful protestors, but the very link you posted says:
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
What exactly do you think they mean by "specialized equipment to disperse a crowd"? Boom boxes blasting classical music perhaps?
I think it's probably tear gas and flash grenades.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
You can drop the "confused" and "not paying attention" digs, as I don't think they add anything to the debate.
Given the low arrest/injury numbers from BLM protests, I assume the police mostly did just wait out the demonstrations as you recommend. And yes, I agree that should always be the first option. But in certain circumstances and in certain situations, doing nothing is not the right option and could in fact backfire. Every police chief has to make that difficult decision on what to do on his/her own, in real time, based on the facts on the ground, not what an internet link says.
And the Madison Method link you posted is solid all around and I agree with most/all of it. Funny though, you said earlier that police should never use military-style tactics on peaceful protestors, but the very link you posted says:
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
What exactly do you think they mean by "specialized equipment to disperse a crowd"? Boom boxes blasting classical music perhaps?
I think it's probably tear gas and flash grenades.
It shouldn't be a difficult decision to decide whether or not to open fire on peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets. I'm surprised you think it is. Or maybe you aren't seeing my continued use of the word "peaceful" in this discussion. Sure if hundreds of people are violently rampaging, that's a different standard for use of force. But in many, many, many cases officers initiated the violence (something I've also repeated again and again), not the demonstrators.
and with regard to "specialized equipment" I'm not a trained officer like Lt. Marcou, but I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal. Unless you're a trained officer, I doubt you know either.
Smedley said:
I didn't attend any BLM protests but from what I saw and read about them, plus the post-protest data ml1 was kind enough to share, those protests, on balance, seemed acceptable to me. Meet in the day, march, speak, wrap it up before it gets too late, don't commit any crimes or do anything stupid. I have no specific BLM protest to hold up as a model but overall it seemed the protests, and the police response to the protests, were okay.
I'd liken Ottawa to more like OWS where protestors come in and park themselves in a way that disrupts/impairs the lives of the local citizenry. What's acceptable exactly I don't know, but I'd think some leeway should be given (as was given for OWS and has been given so far in Ottawa), but at some point, it's clear out or be cleared out. It seems Canadian police are making that point now. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/16/world/canada-protests-news
Do you think it's acceptable for the truckers to stay parked in Ottawa city center for however long they want to, and they should be allowed to stay and just leave on their own volition?
There's a few things I'm looking at as I follow the news from Canada here:
- Where are the protests being allowed
- What methods are the authorities using to shut down protests where they are not allowed
As for the "where", I agree with the decision to clear the international crossings. I've never been to Ottawa and don't know the city at all, so it's harder for me to form an opinion on the protests in the city center. I would say that I expect Americans to be able to protest in places like the National Mall and Lafayette Park but wouldn't find it reasonable for a protest to set up a weeks-long blockade on major DC roads. I don't know if there is an Ottawa equivalent to the National Mall or where, exactly, the protests are set up.
As for the "how", while I can't claim to be a pacifist, I think the bar for force needs to be very high. I was interested in the stories of how NZ, for instance, has been handling this that @joanne shared. If the Canadian authorities are able to arrest and disperse the protests without the accompanying stories of people being blinded or sometimes even killed, then I'd say our police should look closely at how this was accomplished. As the police response is currently on-going, though, I'd say it's still too early to draw conclusions.
Terp also raised the question about financial accounts being frozen. Details seem pretty scarce on this so far though. I saw some reporting on distribution from fundraising sites to the protests being halted. I think that's totally reasonable. But if private individuals start having their accounts frozen, especially without a court order, that becomes concerning. How long are accounts frozen, what recourse do the affected individuals have for appealing or getting their accounts unfrozen, etc?
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
You can drop the "confused" and "not paying attention" digs, as I don't think they add anything to the debate.
Given the low arrest/injury numbers from BLM protests, I assume the police mostly did just wait out the demonstrations as you recommend. And yes, I agree that should always be the first option. But in certain circumstances and in certain situations, doing nothing is not the right option and could in fact backfire. Every police chief has to make that difficult decision on what to do on his/her own, in real time, based on the facts on the ground, not what an internet link says.
And the Madison Method link you posted is solid all around and I agree with most/all of it. Funny though, you said earlier that police should never use military-style tactics on peaceful protestors, but the very link you posted says:
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
What exactly do you think they mean by "specialized equipment to disperse a crowd"? Boom boxes blasting classical music perhaps?
I think it's probably tear gas and flash grenades.
It shouldn't be a difficult decision to decide whether or not to open fire on peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets. I'm surprised you think it is. Or maybe you aren't seeing my continued use of the word "peaceful" in this discussion. Sure if hundreds of people are violently rampaging, that's a different standard for use of force. But in many, many, many cases officers initiated the violence (something I've also repeated again and again), not the demonstrators.
and with regard to "specialized equipment" I'm not a trained officer like Lt. Marcou, but I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal. Unless you're a trained officer, I doubt you know either.
Yes officers should not initiate violence on peaceful protestors for no good reason. Those who do should be disciplined up to and including termination (alas good luck with that given the PBA), just like the "protestors" who didn't care about George Floyd but wanted to smash windows and beat up shopkeepers and get new Nikes, should be punished with jail time. I think we agree on those points.
I question your "many, many, many cases", as going back to the numbers you shared, 94% no arrests and 97.9% no participant injuries at BLM protests. And surely SOME of those incidents were initiated by real or faux protestors, yes? So we're talking <2.1% of marches, probably <2%, maybe <1%, resulted in participant injuries due to altercations initiated by police. Is that "many, many, many"?
But where we disagree is what to do with peaceful protestors who fail to disperse when ordered to. I think they need to be physically moved at some point after other options have failed. You don't.
Lastly you're right, I don't know what the in-between specialized equipment is, but frankly I don't think a viable in-between option exists. I think in the link you posted, they are referring to tear gas and flash grenades, ie military-style stuff. if you're advocating for something else, you should know what that something else is.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
You can drop the "confused" and "not paying attention" digs, as I don't think they add anything to the debate.
Given the low arrest/injury numbers from BLM protests, I assume the police mostly did just wait out the demonstrations as you recommend. And yes, I agree that should always be the first option. But in certain circumstances and in certain situations, doing nothing is not the right option and could in fact backfire. Every police chief has to make that difficult decision on what to do on his/her own, in real time, based on the facts on the ground, not what an internet link says.
And the Madison Method link you posted is solid all around and I agree with most/all of it. Funny though, you said earlier that police should never use military-style tactics on peaceful protestors, but the very link you posted says:
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
What exactly do you think they mean by "specialized equipment to disperse a crowd"? Boom boxes blasting classical music perhaps?
I think it's probably tear gas and flash grenades.
It shouldn't be a difficult decision to decide whether or not to open fire on peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets. I'm surprised you think it is. Or maybe you aren't seeing my continued use of the word "peaceful" in this discussion. Sure if hundreds of people are violently rampaging, that's a different standard for use of force. But in many, many, many cases officers initiated the violence (something I've also repeated again and again), not the demonstrators.
and with regard to "specialized equipment" I'm not a trained officer like Lt. Marcou, but I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal. Unless you're a trained officer, I doubt you know either.
Yes officers should not initiate violence on peaceful protestors for no good reason. Those who do should be disciplined up to and including termination (alas good luck with that given the PBA), just like the "protestors" who didn't care about George Floyd but wanted to smash windows and beat up shopkeepers and get new Nikes, should be punished with jail time. I think we agree on those points.
I question your "many, many, many cases", as going back to the numbers you shared, 94% no arrests and 97.9% no participant injuries at BLM protests. And surely SOME of those incidents were initiated by real or faux protestors, yes? So we're talking <2.1% of marches, probably <2%, maybe <1%, resulted in participant injuries due to altercations initiated by police. Is that "many, many, many"?
But where we disagree is what to do with peaceful protestors who fail to disperse when ordered to. I think they need to be physically moved at some point after other options have failed. You don't.
Lastly you're right, I don't know what the in-between specialized equipment is, but frankly I don't think a viable in-between option exists. I think in the link you posted, they are referring to tear gas and flash grenades, ie military-style stuff. if you're advocating for something else, you should know what that something else is.
there were 2500 or so protests in the summer after Floyd's murder. So yeah, there were many instances of police initiated escalations. Minneapolis was televised. I watched live as officers fired tear gas at people standing with their hands up who were doing nothing more than "failing to disperse."
Yes, we disagree on this issue. I don't think failing to disperse on command is in and of itself a reason to be tear gassed. And from your responses you seem to think it's ok.
and from most of your comments you don't seem to be much in favor of protests in general, unless they don't inconvenience anyone.
meanwhile, here's the brain trust bringing us Truckers The Sequel - Mayhem in America
National Organizer of the upcoming US trucker ‘Freedom Convoy’ from CA to DC is asked her objective: “What we want is the national emergency lifted. We want our constitution reinstated. We want accountability .. which means congressional hearings.” pic.twitter.com/PacapcqmYj
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 16, 2022
Police officers can be almost completely restrained and professional at all times yet they will be defined by cases where inappropriate force is used and by cases where there is no accountability for the consequences of their actions.
Combine this with a history of the police being used to visit special policing on black people and you arrive to where we are today.
So, whether policing is 50% good or 75% good or 95% good, the part that is bad has to be dealt with.
And the accountability in the case of Derek Chauvin doesn't really count. There was a video of him kneeling on George Floyds neck for 9 minutes.
tjohn said:
Police officers can be almost completely restrained and professional at all times yet they will be defined by cases where inappropriate force is used and by cases where there is no accountability for the consequences of their actions.
Combine this with a history of the police being used to visit special policing on black people and you arrive to where we are today.
So, whether policing is 50% good or 75% good or 95% good, the part that is bad has to be dealt with.
And the accountability in the case of Derek Chauvin doesn't really count. There was a video of him kneeling on George Floyds neck for 9 minutes.
my issue here with regard to responses to demonstrations isn't at all about officers who lost their cool in the heat of the moment and used excessive force.
The tactics used in places like Minneapolis, Kenosha, and DC were officially sanctioned from the top down. They weren't a case of poor judgement in the middle of mayhem. The choice to armor up the police, roll up in armored vehicles, armed with rubber bullets and tear gas was made in advance, without anger, but with malice.
And if that happens in even 3 or 4% of protests, it's too much, and it shouldn't be acceptable to anyone who cares about civil rights.
Have you read the history of our Canberra Tent Embassy?? Started as a land rights/black rights protest back in the 70s, and only dispersed this year, after anti-vaxxers took advantage of their location to ‘storm’ and vandalise Old Parliament House (including trying to burn it down) and then stop traffic to new Parliament House.
Decades of peaceful, respected protest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy
I should add we were all shocked and mortified when the federal police were told to clear them out this year. That actually confirmed more people to push for a new federal government that sign a Treaty, and give a Parliamentary Voice.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well the unfortunate reality is that sometimes police have to use force. Protestors may be peaceful but if they're blocking a road or violating a curfew or somesuch, and refusing orders to disperse, the police have to do something, right? Or else there's no point in having laws.
I imagine your response would be to ask people nicely to leave, and if they don't, just keep asking, adding pretty pleases. But somehow I don't think that would work.
curfews are almost always pretexts for using force. In Minneapolis, police waited for the curfew to begin, and then fired tear gas on otherwise peaceful demonstrators. Simply for violating a curfew.
In most circumstances the best decision law enforcement can make is to just stay back and wait out the demonstration. People will usually disperse on their own when the demonstration ends.
You're really not paying attention or reading links on this issue are you? The point is that in many, many instances, the police instigated the disorder by their actions.
here's an example of what police should be doing at a demonstration:
The ‘Madison Method’ for crowd control
Nobody, and certainly not me, is advocating that police never use force in a crowd control situation. The problem is when the police themselves escalate the violence, which happens more often than it should.
You can drop the "confused" and "not paying attention" digs, as I don't think they add anything to the debate.
Given the low arrest/injury numbers from BLM protests, I assume the police mostly did just wait out the demonstrations as you recommend. And yes, I agree that should always be the first option. But in certain circumstances and in certain situations, doing nothing is not the right option and could in fact backfire. Every police chief has to make that difficult decision on what to do on his/her own, in real time, based on the facts on the ground, not what an internet link says.
And the Madison Method link you posted is solid all around and I agree with most/all of it. Funny though, you said earlier that police should never use military-style tactics on peaceful protestors, but the very link you posted says:
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
What exactly do you think they mean by "specialized equipment to disperse a crowd"? Boom boxes blasting classical music perhaps?
I think it's probably tear gas and flash grenades.
It shouldn't be a difficult decision to decide whether or not to open fire on peaceful demonstrators with tear gas and rubber bullets. I'm surprised you think it is. Or maybe you aren't seeing my continued use of the word "peaceful" in this discussion. Sure if hundreds of people are violently rampaging, that's a different standard for use of force. But in many, many, many cases officers initiated the violence (something I've also repeated again and again), not the demonstrators.
and with regard to "specialized equipment" I'm not a trained officer like Lt. Marcou, but I would hope there is equipment somewhere between the extremes of boom box and tear gas that can be used for crowd dispersal. Unless you're a trained officer, I doubt you know either.
Yes officers should not initiate violence on peaceful protestors for no good reason. Those who do should be disciplined up to and including termination (alas good luck with that given the PBA), just like the "protestors" who didn't care about George Floyd but wanted to smash windows and beat up shopkeepers and get new Nikes, should be punished with jail time. I think we agree on those points.
I question your "many, many, many cases", as going back to the numbers you shared, 94% no arrests and 97.9% no participant injuries at BLM protests. And surely SOME of those incidents were initiated by real or faux protestors, yes? So we're talking <2.1% of marches, probably <2%, maybe <1%, resulted in participant injuries due to altercations initiated by police. Is that "many, many, many"?
But where we disagree is what to do with peaceful protestors who fail to disperse when ordered to. I think they need to be physically moved at some point after other options have failed. You don't.
Lastly you're right, I don't know what the in-between specialized equipment is, but frankly I don't think a viable in-between option exists. I think in the link you posted, they are referring to tear gas and flash grenades, ie military-style stuff. if you're advocating for something else, you should know what that something else is.
there were 2500 or so protests in the summer after Floyd's murder. So yeah, there were many instances of police initiated escalations. Minneapolis was televised. I watched live as officers fired tear gas at people standing with their hands up who were doing nothing more than "failing to disperse."
Yes, we disagree on this issue. I don't think failing to disperse on command is in and of itself a reason to be tear gassed. And from your responses you seem to think it's ok.
and from most of your comments you don't seem to be much in favor of protests in general, unless they don't inconvenience anyone.
I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.
You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.
Smedley said:
I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.
You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.
which part do you think I disagree with?
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
terp said:
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
yeah yeah. it's a labor protest.
puhleeze
terp said:
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
if it's a working class protest they need to do better messaging.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
yeah yeah. it's a labor protest.
”Come together on an issue,” he said. He didn’t say it was a labor issue.
(When working-class people come together, the issue at hand does tend to have something to do with how aggressively the left opposes them.)
Tent ‘embassy’. An offshoot of the Wave Hill strikes mob, and their generation.
I can’t remember too much about mainstream adults’ reactions; Uni papers and radio were full of the student support for the protest from almost all political sides in the first half-dozen years. (I had to promise my family I wouldn’t travel to Canberra for any reason!!) And yet the protests were largely non-violent; loud, colourful, in-your-face, and hard to miss but to a large extent, non-violent.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
yeah yeah. it's a labor protest.
”Come together on an issue,” he said. He didn’t say it was a labor issue.
(When working-class people come together, the issue at hand does tend to have something to do with how aggressively the left opposes them.)
I know he didn't say it. But others of his ilk have been saying it. Others who largely give a crap about working class issues. "working class" is a tell in this case. So I put 1 and 2 together and got 3.
If he meant something else, I do apologize.
You'll have to explain your other comment, because it baffles, and certainly doesn't follow from terp's comment. He's describing a polar change - you're describing business as usual.
drummerboy said:
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It is interesting to see working class people come together on an issue and the left oppose them pretty aggressively. There has been a polar shift in politics.
yeah yeah. it's a labor protest.
”Come together on an issue,” he said. He didn’t say it was a labor issue.
(When working-class people come together, the issue at hand does tend to have something to do with how aggressively the left opposes them.)
I know he didn't say it. But others of his ilk have been saying it. Others who largely give a crap about working class issues. "working class" is a tell in this case. So I put 1 and 2 together and got 3.
If he meant something else, I do apologize.
Careful, you know how sensitive he gets about math.
I suppose if the political left had a history of opposing employer work safety measures, this would be a shift. I'm having trouble thinking of any examples though. I can't recall significant blocks on the left claiming employees have a right to smoke at the office or come to work drunk, for instance.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.
You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.
which part do you think I disagree with?
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I re-read the Madison Method you posted and I agree with it 100%. Spot on. If this were in police training manuals and amplified by police brass at every opportunity, our society would be a better place.
You apparently disagree with one key provision of what you posted, which you didn't flag when first posting. But we agree on everything except that.
which part do you think I disagree with?
"There may be a time when a decision may have to be made to disperse a crowd to preserve peace and prevent injuries and property damage. This can best be done by officers possessing the specialized skills and equipment to disperse a crowd."
how can anyone, except maybe an anarchist, disagree with such an anodyne, non-specific statement as that?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
the police should never be using military type tactics on peaceful protesters. We're not talking about a few cops losing their tempers and hitting someone. The tactics I'm referring to are officially sanctioned sweeps with armored cops using flash grenades, tear gas, and sometimes using armored vehicles.
Sorry that you think it's ok if it only happens in some cities but not all.