We all can agree that police shouldn’t just sit and watch “protesters” burn buildings to the ground, but they need to change their tactics. They have all the technology in the world to put people under surveillance. Surely they can use some of that to observe and isolate people who are causing the problems.
It’s interesting how law enforcement has the patience to wait for weeks or even months on end as angry white ranchers who are armed to the teeth barricade themselves in federal buildings or on some remote ranch, but they have no patience for people who are throwing around a few water bottles or spray painting a statue.
“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
Here is the clarification to what NDAA is and how it has been used under the Obama Administration:
Who can be detained?
Anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the 9/11 attacks, or “harbored those responsible.” Also, anyone who been “part of or substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban, “or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and its coalition partners.”
If the violent protesters are somewhat separate from the peaceful (e.g. violent on the sidewalk breaking windows, peaceful people in the street) then yes that would seem to be the best approach.
If the violent people are mixed in with the peaceful protesters, throwing objects and shooting fireworks then it becomes more challenging, not sure the optimal approach.
This is a topic I’ve looked into at various times over the years, reading up on researchers and people that work with police departments to understand what they think needs to change. Despite being a person that believes the police are necessary and that most police, like most of anyone in any walk of life, are good people, I could see what seems to be a massive over-reaction to some situations.
One of the researchers (can’t remember the name) felt the issue was driven by a philosophy that no policeman should ever be injured or die (something like that), which she said is a much more extreme position than the military, the military expects casualties. Because the police are (understandably) hyper-ramped up to protect themselves, it leads to over-reactions.
Good post, and I actually agree with the general thrust of what you wrote.
Yes, I do think a lot of what I refer to as the militarization of police is driven a lot by the idea that all police officers have a right to a safe working environment and should return home alive.
Don’t get me wrong – I want officers to return home to their families, and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t (other than their adversaries on the streets).
But as I’ve posted before, “I was afraid,” cannot be the bar. Officers first have to accept that their job is dangerous, and potentially life-threatening. It’s no different than people who repair mobile phone towers or build wind turbines. Mistakes and bad luck can result in death. They accept that the day they sign on. Obviously, we have to do what we can to ensure that they can operate in an environment where there is as much safety as possible, but not at the expense of basic human rights. Police need to rely less on big guns and more on risk assessment and finding ways to deescalate a situation first before trying to run roughshod over people.
Having said that, this is a criminal justice problem, and not just a problem of law enforcement. Criminal justice can determine where police officers should focus their energies and resources in the first place. We also really, really need to get firearms off the street. If there’s anything we can do in terms of giving police tactical advantages, rather than building up the armaments that police departments possess, we might be better off reducing the production and flow of firearms.
Technically, government employees (including the Police, no matter what their oath says) have no duty to protect anyone. The can, if they feel so inclined, but their primary job is to catch the bad guys. Why, exactly, they are being used for “riot control” is difficult to justify.
Marching in the streets is protected by the Constitution, which supersedes local code related to event permits. The protesters are not breaking the law, even if they are running afoul of local ordinances. Inconveniencing other people is annoying, but so is constitutionally-protected bullshit-spewing being perpetrated by certain unspecified news media.
The police should be seeking to identify and apprehend individuals who are causing mayhem. That is their job. Condoning and herding the protesters is not their job and they absolutely should not be involved in doing that, even if the protesters are hurting their feelings.
In fact, I am not convinced that they have a right to respond to having things thrown at them: if it is likely to cause injury, and the uniform is the target, they need to hunker down or depart the scene, but retaliation is simply not appropriate.
The evidence suggests that, in general, LEOs avoid situations that put themselves in peril. When they do not clearly have the upper hand, they tend to back off and, sometimes call for backup. Most of them seem to be strutting cowards, who do not send officers after the window smashers or torch throwers, because those people might be dangerous, and it is much easier to lob tear gas at people who are not much of a threat.
In the case of Malheur, the Feds were standing back not so much because of fear of crazy people with guns (though that was a factor) but to give the occupiers an opportunity to self-immolate. The government did not want the bad publicity that rounding them up roughly would generate. It was strategic restraint.
Marching in the streets is protected, but:
“You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic.”
Perhaps there isn’t an easy answer, but it has been a fundamental tenet of our legal system that the rights of the innocent are more important than apprehension of the criminal.
And that means as much as it may pain you to watch it on the news from the comfort of your home, the 95% of people exercising their right to protest freely is at its core more important and more American than punishing the 5% of people who are doing what you believe is “destroying the city” (so, how long until these folks raze Portland to the ground? Or are you maybe engaging in hyperbole to justify your emotional response?).