>Law enforcement wants to brand protesters as rioters because it helps law enforcement aims and goals, which is to end the protest and the riots. Categorically

>Law enforcement wants to brand protesters as rioters because it helps law enforcement aims and goals, which is to end the protest and the riots. Categorically false. There were dozens upon dozens of peaceful protests across the country in the past weeks that were decidedly not branded as riots. Very few police departments have declared groupings as riots, fewer than ten. Orders of magnitude less than the amount of protests. >This should be obvious, as they have allowed looting and rioting in instances, as well as curtailing and meaningfully impeding constitutionally protected protest activity. This makes little sense and actually disproves your point? City councils and mayors oversee the police departments and tell them to stand down. >When law enforcement is allowed to designate people or groups as rioters indiscriminately, and then brutalize them, then arrest them, it’s clear that your rights are being impinged. So you just said they're not able to since in other areas they've been told to stand down and not enforce or designate anything. You can't have it both ways. >and can do as much or more “journalism” on a Twitter account today than William Randolph Hearst could on a good day in 1898.[1][2] >An interesting historical footnote from Total non sequitur.