Why do we permit/accept vandalism?

It’s right here in the book. Catch!

What I don’t get-kids vandalizing/destroying stuff that is put there FOR their benefit-I’m talking about the basketball courts with the baskets ripped down,the public swimming pool showers with the faucet handles ripped of, the bus seats ripped up to shreds.
What possible satisfaction does somebody get by destroying things like this?
I have always advocated that nothing public be “free”-force the little fuckers to pay even something minimal-say $0.25 to use the pool-that would keep most of the vandals away.

If it’s not free, it’s not really public.

Anyway, that’s the wrong idea, and might well make the problem worse.

The real solution is to make kids and adults think of the public space and public amenities as truly theirs. People hardly ever trash their own stuff.

Great idea, one kid who never uses the court rips off the basket and now everyone that does use the court has to pay.

Mob mentality is similar to a high BAC.

You can’t prosecute for a criminal act in advance of it occurring, unless it’s about to occur and super obvious. Plus, if you over-respond to peaceful protest you run the risk of police brutality charges.

They don’t really have any choice. In these situations the police, even with reinforcements from nearby cities, are heavily outnumbered by the protesters.

As others have already stated, the police will always be outnumbered by the protesters, and public safety is the number one issue. If the police went into the crowd just to stop a vandal, you can bet a riot would likely ensue. It’s better to capture the event on video, and detain the person later if they can be identified.

I remember visiting my old undergraduate university one day when a protest was going on related to animal rights, and one specific PhD was being targeted for his primate work. The local radio station and news were there to film it, and the police also had people filming the event. Nothing violent happened, though the protesters were badgering the police to try to make something happen so the ‘police brutality’ would make it on the news. In full view of the police, one protester wrote obscenities about the PhD in question on the side of his research building in spray paint. All cameras focused on him doing this, but no one stopped him. The next day, his arrest was noted in the paper, so clearly he was arrested/detained after the event even though he appeared to be “getting away with it” at the time. The building had the paint sandblasted off one day later.

This makes sense where you are talking about an event with a political purpose, which might attract both demonstrators and rioters. But there aren’t any “peaceful protesters” in the losing city after a sports event. Everyone is either rioting, or at home, with only a small number of innocent bystanders mixed in among the rioters. These “demonstrations” aren’t “applied for” at City Hall in advance, either. I wish the police could send everyone home from these things even before the first window gets broken.

But not everyone in the street is committing a crime. It’s absurd to state everyone out there is committing criminal acts. After a major sports event it’s certain many people who were simply out watching the game will be in the streets.

In the OP…

Is this really true and accurate? Perhaps it is possible to predict that if a certain event occurs, then it will be followed by riots. But is it possible to predict exactly where those riots would occur?

I think the OP may be asking to police to perform an impossible task. Is it really possible to put the police into position in advance? Or do the riots occur spontaneously?

“Downtown Oakland” is a big area. Is it possible for the police to know in advance exactly where the violence will begin?

Because we don’t punish people for crimes without having a trial first. That’s so we don’t get the wrong person by mistake. We don’t let cops go around beating up anybody they see committing a crime.