Sure i can, not any that work very well though or without putting yourself in a perfect situation to escalate the situation even more.
Although they could have just played Dream on by Aerosmith over a very loud speaker for hours on end , that would have worked on me
We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the anger being expressed in Portland isn’t just about Portland or the abuses by police in Portland. I’m sure you’ve seen all the many instances of police brutality across the nation once the protests started. I won’t list them except to mention once I saw where what looked like a 5foot something 95lb young woman of arabic decent was shoved by a 6’2" 240lb cop. He shoved her so hard she was knocked out of her shoes and sustained a concussion. All because she was standing near the sidewalk as he was striding by. Scenes like that, and there are plenty of them, is why the majority of protesters are out there. Some of them are quite angry. Are they the “bad apples”? Maybe. Or maybe they began to turn bad because of what they have seen and continue to witness and suffer at the hands of the police.
I think that in any context, but especially in context of BLM, this can be taken as remarkably tone deaf and historically insensitive. I hope that you didn’t mean it in that way.
I can think of an excellent way to treat peaceful protesters.
But then, I am for freedom of speech. I suppose if your intent is to prevent people from protesting peacefully, well, you will not be able to be peaceful in your efforts.
If people are protesting police violence, then you just need to use more violence till they shut up, amiright?
Sorry. I cannot comprehend it for you. Try reading the block quote, then try reading the Wiki page in the citation the block quote was lifted from. OC (oleoresin capsicum) is pepper spray, and while the original Mace contained CN, OC has been substituted for it except in their “Triple Action” formula which has both, plus a marker dye.
Thanks. Having read it, I’m no more enlightened than I was before. Everything I read about the Fed response tells me that these guys are not trained in crowd control and their actions serve to make things worse than better. They exit the building like raiding parties to threaten and insight the protesters and then recede again. Broadcast more threats. Repeat.
Surely, if the Feds wanted to find a peaceful solution, leaders among them could engage with the various local protest leaders of the moment and ask them to encourage their fellow protesters to stop the agitation like lighting fires and throwing stuff over the fence. It seem to me that simply going out with fire extinguishers to put out the small fires and nothing more, without provocation, would go a long way to calm the anxiety of the crowds and show them they are not there simply to punish people for protesting.
No, I mean it in the way I meant it. If in the context of BLM, they had support for sweeping changes in policing, finding ways to change the visuals, everyone was on their side. (Just like some of the examples you listed) And then we get the De-fund campaign, that lost a whole host of folks that were prior to that completely on your side. Now we have seen peaceful protests turn into rioting and the protestors and the people defending them while decrying the looting are also harboring them within their ranks knowing that any attempt to determine who did what would be pointless.
More division.
Take that bite of apple, more will follow but IMO people always want more more more. It ends up working against them.
Well, to be clear, I didn’t ask you to read it, it didn’t address the things that you were saying. If it was a reply from me, it was mis-attributed as I pointed out to two others to go read it as it directly addressed what they asked.
The Lawyer who was charged sent out some texts.
This is the best analysis of Portland that I’ve seen. This is theater–except that people are really being hurt. But it is performance, a show, a public display-- it’s reality TV.
The very idea seems, on the face of it, sheer madness. In Portland, Oregon, federal security officers dressed for combat—wearing jungle-camouflage uniforms with unclear markings, carrying heavy weapons, using batons and tear gas—are patrolling the streets, making random arrests, throwing people into unmarked vans. The officers do not come from institutions that specialize in political crowd control. Instead, they come from Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard. These are people with experience patrolling the border, frisking airline passengers, and deporting undocumented immigrants—exactly the wrong sort of experience needed to carry out the delicate task of policing an angry political protest.
Unsurprisingly, these troops are making rudimentary mistakes. Instead of working with local leaders, they have antagonized them. Instead of coaxing people to go home, their behavior has caused more people to come out onto the streets. Instead of calming the situation, they are infuriating people. They have escalated the violence. They have made the situation worse.
Why has this been allowed to happen? Any rank amateur could have predicted that unprepared troops with guns would increase tension and prolong the crisis. The people in the White House and the Department of Homeland Security who have sent employees of ICE and the Coast Guard into Portland surely knew that they would make people angrier. But although the administration’s behavior makes no sense as law enforcement, it makes perfect sense as a new kind of campaign tactic.
Welcome to the world of performative authoritarianism, a form of politics that reached new heights of sophistication in Russia over the past decade and has now arrived in the United States. Unlike 20th-century authoritarianism, this 21st-century, postmodern influence campaign does not require the creation of a total police state. Nor does it require complete control of information, or mass arrests. It can be carried out, instead, with a few media outlets and a few carefully targeted arrests.
…That’s because the purpose of these troops is not to bring peace to Portland. The purpose is to transmit a message. Americans should find this tactic familiar, because we’ve seen it before. When the Trump administration cruelly separated children from their families at the southern border, that was, among other things, a performance designed to show the public just how much the president dislikes immigrants from Mexico and Honduras. The attack on demonstrators in Portland is like that: a performance designed to show just how much Trump dislikes “liberal” Americans, “urban” Americans, “Democrat” Americans. To put it differently (and to echo my colleague Adam Serwer): The chaos in Portland is not an accident. The chaos is the point.
The chaos is also a tactic, and now it will be put to use.
…
The Atlantic allows four free articles per month without a paid subscription.
The “Defund” thing was too stupid to defend as a slogan. The early arguments for abolishing of police were even more inane. What it actually stood for, “Fundamental Police Reform”, is entirely defensible and very much needed.
I’ve seen rioting and looting. But I’ve also seen protesters intervene and physically prevent looting and wanton destruction of property. Given the numbers of protests and protesters who did so peacefully tells me the overwhelming majority of people are not out there to loot and riot. They do not deserve to be assaulted and teargassed by the authorities.
The ACLU came up with a much better slogan "Divest and Re-invest".
I was going to say, ‘which article? I’ve read a number of them’ but apparently that was answered further down. You mean this one?
Yes, I read that one. I just read it again. It doesn’t say the feds were called – it says specifically, more than once, that they were asked to stay away. It doesn’t say they weren’t tear gassing the crowd, including peaceful protestors; in fact, it says that they were. It doesn’t say anybody among the peaceful crowd could have been better expected than the police to identify the people who were throwing things. It doesn’t address the kidnapping into unmarked vehicles.
Does it really look to you like the presence of the Federal forces is restoring order?
Appears to me that it’s having exactly the opposite effect.
I’m not even sure it’s intended to restore order. The effect is of provocation, the techniques are such as are likely to create outrage. I suspect the intention is to provide pictures of a furious mob, with the news sources being followed by Trump’s base carefully leaving out what the mob is furious about.
Of course, if the protestors quietly go home instead, then opposition has been silenced. Trump very likely thinks he’s got a win-win there. Nobody’s visibly angry? Then there must not be a problem. People are visibly angry? How dare they!
I urge you – general-you, anyone reading this – not to fall for that tactic.
Doesn’t look to me like it’s lost its focus. There were protests against police misbehavior. Now the police are responding by misbehaving, and this is causing further protests against police misbehavior.
Why the hell shouldn’t people have the whole apple?
‘Here, have a small bit of justice mixed in with your large portion of injustice.’ Why on earth do you feel entitled to be disappointed that people won’t be satisfied with that?
If you show up at the only grocery in town, and you buy a bag of apples, and the grocery gives the people ahead of you and behind you in line full bags and gives you half of an apple and a vague promise that you can get the rest of the bag next year or next century maybe, are you seriously going to be happy with that?
No. No, they weren’t. If everybody had been on their side, there wouldn’t have been any problem to start with.
As I was saying earlier, this appears to be calculated to achieve the opposite of alleged objectives of establishing law and order.
FFS. Marketing and Communication degrees hard at work. 
That is simplistic and incorrect.
I’ve been a supporter of solving problems with policing, but the “defund” movement completely loses me. The term is either being used correctly by the person (those that want to abolish) and I 100% disagree with that. Or the term is being used completely incorrectly, which is just plain dumb.
One of my friends said: “but it’s just like a negotiating tactic, you ask for more than you expect to get.” But I’m not interested in such an extreme level of poor communication. If I’m selling my house and someone offers zero dollars as their starting point, I’m not even going to respond, there is a significant chance that communication with that type of person is just a waste of time.
Protesting police violence with arson, looting, racial and politically motivated assaults, and vandalism isn’t peaceful. Nor is it speech.
Your repeated posting of that position without indication of irony or sarcasm up until post #532 in this thread. If all we have to go by is your text alone there is no reason to think you are anything but sincere in what you state.
No, you’re right. The only correct response to police violence is: “Thank you sir! May I have another!”
I am questioning if some of the orders being given are lawful. I suspect they are not. So do other people with far more knowledge of the law than I have, such as the ACLU and various other entities filing lawsuits.