6 ms·

I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What

by Strang 6y ago

I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control? (This is not a rhetorical question. Are there other theories, strategies, or technologies available?) And just to state explicitly: I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately. The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.
- Strang 6y ago
  I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either. I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nursie 6y ago
    In the UK crowds are contained until they can be dispersed, without the use of this stuff. I don't have all the answers, but perhaps studying other countries with lesser police violence problems might help.
    - kqr 6y ago
      The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world. Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives. Not that this excuses their actions -- just pointing out that it's a systematic problem that's hard to weed out by looking at countries where police often leave their weapons in the car when they go to confront suspects of non-violent crimes.
      - Nursie 6y ago
        I said I didn't have all the answers, but I think that's part of the problem here - "Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives." Do they? Really? Or is that an overreaction even in the US? Couldn't a different approach and an emphasis on peaceful de-escalation before paranoid use of deadly force be better? Again, I don't have all the answers, but I bet there are lesons to be learned from elsewhere.
        kqr 6y ago
        I'm sure statistically even the US police are relatively safe (as in they might well be more likely to die or be injured from car crashes, like the rest of us.) But when the stakes are that high, being statistically safe on average does not take into account what the gamblers' call the individuals risk of ruin. So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning. And this risk is many times greater in the US than elsewhere.
        saurik 6y ago
        Which is then why police see it as OK to semi-arbitrarily incapacitate random people for life (by hitting them with rubber bullets, for which there are ridiculously many stories of people losing eyes or having internal organ damage--think about how you don't even want to be hit in your lower back with a fist for fear of it damaging your kidney--with studies showing like a 15% rate of permanent disability of some form from being hit by the things) and then tell sob stories about how a protestor threw something at them, which of course barely hit/hurt the officer because throwing things is really difficult? Yeah, no: I have absolutely zero sympathy for police officers taking this position.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. If they're assembled illegally, then surely you want to arrest them and have them face justice, not let them go by dispersing them. If they're not assembled illegally, then leave them alone.
  - didibus 6y ago
    The issue as I see it relates to collateral damage. If you anthropomorphize a crowd as if it suddenly becomes a single entity that is acting criminally, you're clubbing tons of innocent people that are peaceful and law abiding with it. I see it all the time, people start talking about The Crowd with a capital C. Or sometimes The Protester with a capital P. So a few individuals in a crowd are acting up, and to react to that, instead of going after them directly, we target the entire crowd of people, which includes almost always more peaceful and legally abiding individuals than not and we use force against them all without discrimination. Often times the crowd even might have peaceful children, elderly, handicapped people, yet you fire the toxic gas, the rubber bullets, the flash bangs at them all. The Police role at a protest should be to protect the crowd from individuals endangering it first and foremost, and then to protect the bystanders and some of the surrounding private/public property, all from the individuals that are breaking the law. It is not a battle between Police and Crowd or State and Crowd, people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest without any time limits. So if you agree with that, the question goes back to collateral damage. I just don't see where else people would accept such a undiscriminating use of force. Would you be okay that an entire apartment building be tear-gassed just to stop an escalating case of conjugal violence happening in a single unit of the appartment complex? I wouldn't, and I don't see what's different with the situation here.
- downerending 6y ago
  This is one of the things the protesters did, and they bear responsibility for it. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/watch-man-tries-to-help-victim-gets-knocked-out-kicked-in-the-head/ https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/watch-man-tries-to-help-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I watched Police brutality videos on Github, someone put together a compendium of it. We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No? I feel like there is a lot of momentum behind BLM movement, I personally support the cause and social changes. But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise. Saying anything against BLM in the bay area is like a social suicide, I would lose friends. I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. BLM is doesn't know diplomacy and strategy.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      That's because BLM isn't a single organization. There doesn't appear to be leadership because there is no power structure or organization from which one could lead. It's literally grassroots. As for diplomacy and strategy, we're talking about a subset of society that has been systematically failed by society for centuries. That they don't have diplomacy that meets the expectations of the powers-that-be should not be a surprise. If a few bad apples discreet an entire social movement, shouldn't a few bad apples also discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus (and even the entire criminal justice system) in the US? Can't have it both ways, at least not while maintaining a logically consistent argument.
    - magicalist 6y ago
      > But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise The GP's article is terribly written and dripping with bias and it still has a large section covering other protestors stepping in, helping the man, and policing their own. > We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No? A basic internet search would yield this for you. > I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. The sibling comment already covered this, but if you find yourself thinking about things like this, it could help to do some research. Searching for "BLM leadership" to figure out who you think won't be effective at making a change will yield sources like [1] and help give better background on what is actually going on here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Structure_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Structure_a...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
didibus 6y ago
> I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message. "Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" IANAL, but it seems to me this behavior is protected under the first amendment no?
- Strang 6y ago
  You are right. I would amend my comment to limit it to a non-peaceable assembly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shaftway 6y ago
> I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. There's a reason that the article uses the term "less lethal". These weapons are not "non-lethal". They're not "less than lethal". They are weapons that are capable of, and often cause, the death of their target. Calling these weapons "non-lethal" is irresponsible at best. They are "lethal". In the same vein, shooting people in the kneecaps is a "less lethal" response, in that with proper medical attention the victim is less likely to die than a more vital hit. It has been openly and widely employed without significant outcry from the global community (1). Let's plug that into your statement instead and listen to how it sounds: "I agree with the idea that 'shooting people in the kneecaps' is often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control?" To state explicitly, I also believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area. But It is unjust and counterproductive to use lethal weapons (even if you use ones that are a little less likely to cause death) against citizens who have done so. There are plenty of other strategies; de-escalation instead of deliberate escalation comes to mind. There are plenty of other tools; agents that cause obnoxious smells without inducing harm are a good example. (1) - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters-1.8632555 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-kne...
on_and_off 6y ago
The methods that are used right now are KNOWN to do not work. When there is a protest, having the police to show up in large numbers riot gear is just going to escalate the tensions and increase the chances of violence. (I am not saying that there is no need for riot gear .. if anything the boogaloos could use some violence applied to them) US Police should have a lot more incentive to do not resort to violence for every situation. As well as ending qualified immunity and not having cops investigate cops when there is abuse. to do not work if the objective is to avoid violence and riots. Sadly it seems that this is not the objective of many police departments

by Strang 6y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Your last sentence is what you've got wrong. I've been down to the protests in pdx. The police escalate pointlessly every 15 min or so. Our chief resigned, which briefly led to the police backing off for a bit. What did these super dangerous protestors do? They tore down the stupid fence around the justice center that's been so obnoxious. But then after discussion decided that might seem too confrontational, so they re-assembled it. Well apparently that really pissed off the police, because shortly after the fence was restored they came charging out as a group firing rubber bullets indiscriminately. The police's actions during this protest have nothing to do with public safety. It's entirely about them abusing their authority to try to silence and suppress legal protests attempting to hold them accountable.

Strang 6y ago
I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either. I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Nursie 6y ago
  In the UK crowds are contained until they can be dispersed, without the use of this stuff. I don't have all the answers, but perhaps studying other countries with lesser police violence problems might help.
  - kqr 6y ago
    The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world. Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives. Not that this excuses their actions -- just pointing out that it's a systematic problem that's hard to weed out by looking at countries where police often leave their weapons in the car when they go to confront suspects of non-violent crimes.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      I said I didn't have all the answers, but I think that's part of the problem here - "Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives." Do they? Really? Or is that an overreaction even in the US? Couldn't a different approach and an emphasis on peaceful de-escalation before paranoid use of deadly force be better? Again, I don't have all the answers, but I bet there are lesons to be learned from elsewhere.
      - kqr 6y ago
        I'm sure statistically even the US police are relatively safe (as in they might well be more likely to die or be injured from car crashes, like the rest of us.) But when the stakes are that high, being statistically safe on average does not take into account what the gamblers' call the individuals risk of ruin. So yes, I think they have to consider that an armed citizen could incapacitate them for life at a distance with nearly no warning. And this risk is many times greater in the US than elsewhere.
        saurik 6y ago
        Which is then why police see it as OK to semi-arbitrarily incapacitate random people for life (by hitting them with rubber bullets, for which there are ridiculously many stories of people losing eyes or having internal organ damage--think about how you don't even want to be hit in your lower back with a fist for fear of it damaging your kidney--with studies showing like a 15% rate of permanent disability of some form from being hit by the things) and then tell sob stories about how a protestor threw something at them, which of course barely hit/hurt the officer because throwing things is really difficult? Yeah, no: I have absolutely zero sympathy for police officers taking this position.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. If they're assembled illegally, then surely you want to arrest them and have them face justice, not let them go by dispersing them. If they're not assembled illegally, then leave them alone.
- didibus 6y ago
  The issue as I see it relates to collateral damage. If you anthropomorphize a crowd as if it suddenly becomes a single entity that is acting criminally, you're clubbing tons of innocent people that are peaceful and law abiding with it. I see it all the time, people start talking about The Crowd with a capital C. Or sometimes The Protester with a capital P. So a few individuals in a crowd are acting up, and to react to that, instead of going after them directly, we target the entire crowd of people, which includes almost always more peaceful and legally abiding individuals than not and we use force against them all without discrimination. Often times the crowd even might have peaceful children, elderly, handicapped people, yet you fire the toxic gas, the rubber bullets, the flash bangs at them all. The Police role at a protest should be to protect the crowd from individuals endangering it first and foremost, and then to protect the bystanders and some of the surrounding private/public property, all from the individuals that are breaking the law. It is not a battle between Police and Crowd or State and Crowd, people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest without any time limits. So if you agree with that, the question goes back to collateral damage. I just don't see where else people would accept such a undiscriminating use of force. Would you be okay that an entire apartment building be tear-gassed just to stop an escalating case of conjugal violence happening in a single unit of the appartment complex? I wouldn't, and I don't see what's different with the situation here.
downerending 6y ago
This is one of the things the protesters did, and they bear responsibility for it. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/watch-man-tries-to-help-victim-gets-knocked-out-kicked-in-the-head/ https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/watch-man-tries-to-help-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I watched Police brutality videos on Github, someone put together a compendium of it. We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No? I feel like there is a lot of momentum behind BLM movement, I personally support the cause and social changes. But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise. Saying anything against BLM in the bay area is like a social suicide, I would lose friends. I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. BLM is doesn't know diplomacy and strategy.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    That's because BLM isn't a single organization. There doesn't appear to be leadership because there is no power structure or organization from which one could lead. It's literally grassroots. As for diplomacy and strategy, we're talking about a subset of society that has been systematically failed by society for centuries. That they don't have diplomacy that meets the expectations of the powers-that-be should not be a surprise. If a few bad apples discreet an entire social movement, shouldn't a few bad apples also discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus (and even the entire criminal justice system) in the US? Can't have it both ways, at least not while maintaining a logically consistent argument.
  - magicalist 6y ago
    > But, I am getting an impression of hypocritical aspects of this momentum and not addressing problems when they arise The GP's article is terribly written and dripping with bias and it still has a large section covering other protestors stepping in, helping the man, and policing their own. > We need a similar compendium of brutal protestors instigating violence and promoting things like this, too? No? A basic internet search would yield this for you. > I personally think that BLM is extremely disorganized and doesn't have good leadership to make the change happen. The sibling comment already covered this, but if you find yourself thinking about things like this, it could help to do some research. Searching for "BLM leadership" to figure out who you think won't be effective at making a change will yield sources like [1] and help give better background on what is actually going on here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Structure_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Structure_a...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

didibus 6y ago

> I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message. "Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" IANAL, but it seems to me this behavior is protected under the first amendment no?

Strang 6y ago
You are right. I would amend my comment to limit it to a non-peaceable assembly.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

shaftway 6y ago

> I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly. There's a reason that the article uses the term "less lethal". These weapons are not "non-lethal". They're not "less than lethal". They are weapons that are capable of, and often cause, the death of their target. Calling these weapons "non-lethal" is irresponsible at best. They are "lethal". In the same vein, shooting people in the kneecaps is a "less lethal" response, in that with proper medical attention the victim is less likely to die than a more vital hit. It has been openly and widely employed without significant outcry from the global community (1). Let's plug that into your statement instead and listen to how it sounds: "I agree with the idea that 'shooting people in the kneecaps' is often used irresponsibly. But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control?" To state explicitly, I also believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area. But It is unjust and counterproductive to use lethal weapons (even if you use ones that are a little less likely to cause death) against citizens who have done so. There are plenty of other strategies; de-escalation instead of deliberate escalation comes to mind. There are plenty of other tools; agents that cause obnoxious smells without inducing harm are a good example. (1) - https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-knees-in-one-day-israeli-snipers-open-up-about-shooting-gaza-protesters-1.8632555 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-42-kne...

on_and_off 6y ago

The methods that are used right now are KNOWN to do not work. When there is a protest, having the police to show up in large numbers riot gear is just going to escalate the tensions and increase the chances of violence. (I am not saying that there is no need for riot gear .. if anything the boogaloos could use some violence applied to them) US Police should have a lot more incentive to do not resort to violence for every situation. As well as ending qualified immunity and not having cops investigate cops when there is abuse. to do not work if the objective is to avoid violence and riots. Sadly it seems that this is not the objective of many police departments