Yes, that was the original question:
“should the police attempt to stop those individuals or not”
I purposefully stated it that way to focus on the individuals. From there it’s possible to branch out talk about our opinions about which methods are appropriate and which methods are inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
Where did I advocate for that?
My question very clearly stated focusing on the individuals, and I did that on purpose.
Is that what you were trying to imply? In that case the answer really depends on their methods. And honestly it’s hard to imagine a method of dealing with a rock throwing person hiding behind two rows of innocent protesters that is going to end well.
I mean, what are the options?
(Note that in my opinion, “hose the entire crowd down with machine gun fire to ensure the anonymous rock thrower gets his” falls into the category of “not ending well”.)
If there are only 5 people breaking windows then arrest those 5 people, as I already stated.
If there are 200 people breaking windows and there are 50 police, then declare the protest over, disperse the crowd and then get the 200 people, using tear gas if required.
The scenario: a row of police officers is facing a large crowd of protesters, who are facing them mostly silently. Then, from somewhere in the middle of the crowd, a single rock arcs overhead. Not having been aimed, it falls short, striking the ground and rolling to bump up against one of the officers’ boots.
All the officers have been threatened. They all unholster their weapons and consider their options.
What should they do?
Only if they can do so safely without escalating the situation. Which probably isn’t possible. But they can and should review all video footage in the days following the protest and make every effort to ID the individuals breaking the law and arrest them.
This seems to be the way arrests during rright-wing protests are handled, possibly because the cops see the right wingers as brethren and don’t actually WANT to beat on them.But when the protesters are on the other side it’s just not as much fun, I guess.
One method would be to have police, either undercover or otherwise in the crowd and making arrests.
I have read articles in the past by people trying to find methods of removing agitators (e.g. people throwing things at the police) from crowds (not sure if it was academics working with the police, or if it was just the police trying different methods), and one of them had good success with the plain-clothes police in the crowd. By not wearing a uniform it prevented tensions from ramping up, and by removing the agitators rapidly it prevented others from joining in.
That would be a good method.
And as an added bonus, the crowd-control cops would probably be less hasty to engage in recreational tear gassing if some of their buddies were in the mix.
The one I saw has no audio, but if people did call him out- that is great and exactly what we need more of. Those anarchists keep turning peaceful protests into violent ones.
And no doubt that are some other bac actors infiltrating the protests.
Yes, the versions I saw had no reactions and no audio.
True, he did have a stick.
Wwell, if they called him out and he stopped, that is the minimum that shoudl be expected. Thats fine. Circling him, and telling to leave and escorting him out would be better, and they did that in Oakland. Turning him over to the police would be ideal, but i dont expect that.
So, you are against tear gas being used against the crowd to stop individuals from committing petty vandalism?
What should the reaction of the police be, if they see an individual or small group of people hurting a fence while they are surrounded by peaceful protesters?
Is it worth gassing the peaceful ones in order to stop the fence rippers?
If not, then we are in agreement.
Do you mean violent acts like showing a press pass, holding a boom box or asking a question?
Or letting a police officer shove you into another police officer?
I think it will be fascinating to see the number of convictions that arise from these arrests and the number of civil lawsuits that are won against the government.
If there is a crowd of 1,000 people, and they are all committing “petty vandalism”, like breaking windows and lighting fires, then the issue is no longer “petty” even though each individual one may be “petty” by itself.
In this case tear gas is absolutely ok in my opinion.
On the other hand, if it’s just one person, then tear gas seems like overkill.
There is a continuum of the magnitude of the issue and there should be a related continuum of response. Where the line is in which tear gas clearly becomes the tool of choice, I do not know, I haven’t studied the pros and cons in that much detail, and I haven’t read the opinions of unbiased experts about it either.
If it truly is all then I agree.
But it never is all.
It’s never most.
It’s rarely even many.
I would say that the line of when tear gas should be used is if you either have determined that the vast majority (90% or more) are participating in destructive behavior, or if lives are being threatened and that is the only way to prevent the threat.
Anything else is punishing the group for the actions of the individual. A very effective technique, even if a bit of an abhorrent one.
One person or a small group:
As stated multiple times, I would arrest the individuals.
Because tear gas is a broad tool, meaning it will impact many, it would seem appropriate when impacting many is in alignment with the goal.
For example, if a lawful dispersal order was given to support safety concerns, and the crowd refused to disperse, then tear gas would seem appropriate.
With regard to the protests occurring today, this sounds like a fictional scenario. Honestly I’m not sure how a crowd of 1000 people committing petty vandalism would work - the person standing in the middle of the crowd is going to vandalize, what, the pavement under his feet? The person standing next to him?
You might get a crowd of 1000 people cheering while four of them throw rocks and molotovs through the windows of the Robert E Lee memorial police station or whatever, but there would not be charges levied against all 1000 of them, not in America. Honeslty, teargassing the crowd sounds like extralegal punishment.
I maintain that the only justification for teargas and other violent mob pacification techniques would be if the police honestly believed themselves (or somebody else, like a potential lynchee) to be in imminent risk of serious harm or death. And I believe that that has happened exactly zero times at the protests in the past month.