Imagine if all the occupy wallstreet protesters had had semi auto rifles, body armor and pistols. The cops probably wouldn’t have beaten the shit out of them as often.
Seems like a recipe for disaster. If cops are going to beat up non-violent protesters but be hands off with armed ones, its basically giving a green flag for breaking the law as long as you’re in an armed group? I remember during the bundy standoff, there were people armed with rifles pointed at government officials, to my knowledge nothing was done about this.
What are the long term implications of this? Is this going to create an arms race of the public vs the cops?
Is there also an ideological component? In general police are more conservative, are they more likely to identify with the coronavirus type protesters rather than groups like black lives matter or occupy wall street, and as a result less likely to use force on the first group? Will it be like the black panthers, where gun control is pushed when people seen more on the fringes of society carry guns but its excused when in-groups do it?
I think it is just practical common sense - armed protesters are significantly more dangerous to cops than unarmed ones, and police officers are ultimately human and just want to return home safe and sound when the day’s work is over, like anyone else.
It does send the wrong message, yes (kind of like how Islamic violence has the effect of silencing many people in the West who might otherwise criticize Islam, thus rewarding the violent behavior). But unfortunately, it’s cops thinking short-term and not accounting for the long-term effect of their behavior.
It’s complete cowardice by the state leadership. It was shameful that these mass gatherings in Michigan and Wisconsin, in which there were fewer face masks than guns, were allowed to go on. I was shocked that they weren’t all rounded up and thrown in jail, and with their guns confiscated. Especially the ones that occupied the state government building. Knowing how this disease spreads, the gatherings should have been broken up immediately. And if the reason was that there was fear these assholes would shoot their weapons, it makes it even worse.
Perhaps I am just reiterating what the OP said, but this was one particular failure of government that really infuriated me. Mostly because the President wouldn’t have been able to stop a governor from breaking these disease-spreading parties up. But they failed to do so.
No, I am just saying that caving in to threats of violence by giving the violent/threatening people what they want, is rewarding their behavior and encouraging further threats/use/display of weapons.
More likely the police would have just killed them all. Something the left wingers of my acquaintance point out when the subject comes up.
Guns aren’t really a protection since the police will just wait until they go home and kill them in their beds. Something that is *also *pointed out by my left wing acquaintances.
Of course it is. The police are full of right wingers and outright white nationalists. They are notorious for looking the other way when it comes to right wing terrorism and violence, when they aren’t actively collaborating in it or engaging in it.
These people are the future paramilitary death squads of the upcoming fascist America. Today they threaten state governments, in a few years they’ll be barging into the homes of suspected liberals, homosexuals or minorities and massacring them while the police carefully look the other way.
I think the part about them being middle class white men is 99% of it.
If any other demographic was foolish enough to think the same rules applied to them and hold a public protest while carrying weapons, the government would declare them a public threat and send in troops to shoot them.
No, it’s America where the police have never been very shy about doing that sort of thing. As long as you are dark skinned or a suspected leftist, at least.
Yep, I’m waiting for someone to implement the Chappelle Solution - bring in a bunch of brown people with assault weapons and have them lurk around government buildings in masks. The police will be implementing new policies within hours.
Some armed black guys did escort a congresswoman, but I don’t think they stuck around.
They’re quite to the left when it comes to their pensions, their union, and due process and leniency when wrongdoing for one of their own is made public.
If I may, do you mean green light? I’ve been trying to figure out what a green flag would mean and going off on all kinda tangents. The chips are starting to crumble.
The right message is not to forceably arrest the protesters with guns, it’s to also not use force on the ones without guns.
The solution to protest should as much as possible be to be present in case things turn violent, take pictures so you can later arrest or fine people who are doing illegal things, and otherwise just let them shout. Either they will grow in popularity to the point where they effect real social change or they will eventually get bored and go home.
A green flag means to start a race, but green light is a good term too.
I was thinking it would lead to an arms race between police and civilians. Civilians show up with semi auto rifles, shotguns and pistols so police leave them alone. So then the police respond by showing up with SWAT vehicles, machine guns, sniper posts, etc.
But with the Bundy standoff, they were treated far better than the occupy wallstreet crowd.
If you nonviolently protest in the park, the police will beat the shit out of you. If you storm the capital the police sit by and watch just so long as you have rifles that you are using to intimidate politicians while you do it. Its a bad signal.
The part about them being middle class and white may play a role, but OWS was also a middle class, college educated white movement to a large degree too.