The appropriate strategy is deescalation and regaining the public trust through the rule of law. The first step is putting criminal cops in jail to show that the "bad apples" haven't spoiled the whole bunch. Stop allowing police to create battle lines to "control crowds" by attacking protesters. Once there is some semblance of public trust that police officers will be held accountable under the rule of law, deploy small units of police into crowds to stop troublemakers. The units should be sized such they can deal with a few violent aggressors, but are otherwise at the mercy of the crowd (eg to make citizen arrests) - remember that the right dynamic is that the police ultimately serve the citizenry. I'm not saying that it's easy for control-fallacy politicians to accept this strategy, but it is the only way forward.
This comment implies a lack of understanding of the nature of protestors, mobs, and what it takes to clear them.
Both answers here mischaracterise the nature of protests and the cops.
First, most police actions during protests are legit and don't require some kind of condemnation, certainly not 'jail'. You don't require someone to use force to control a situation then put them in jail if the step one inch over an ambiguous line.
Second, even if there were excessive penalties, it would do absolutely nothing to quell protests. Protestors absolutely do not care about the specifics, they're not even playing that much attention. They're not reading the research on relative levels of violence per arrest etc.. It's a mob. They're angry. Anger is not rational.
Moroever, the most emotionally aggrieved parties do not care about reality. It doesn't matter how professional the police are, they will live their lives on Twitter condemning the 'police state'.
The Police in the US are generally not brutal - they use too much force, but it's not a fascist state. They're not grabbing people randomly and beating them to a pulp as in authoritarian states. Most examples of grievances are relative minor: someone provokes a cop by walking up to them and saying something, the cop pushes the person, they fall down. Not appropriate, but this is not the Stasi. A cop shoots his paintball gun at a reporter - on purpose. Again, not appropriate. But it's a paintball gun, they're used on people - for fun - all the time. If you're going to have 100000 people involved in a physical confrontation, there's going to be some crossing of lines. So yes, make sure the cops who step across the line are punished appropriately - but by and large, it won't make a difference.
Fourth, this idea that there are specific groups of specific trouble makers is generally not the case. It's a mob, emotions sway back and forth. And FYI if this is the obvious case, sometimes police can move in a little bit but otherwise it's not possible. If there is any agitation at all, then this can't really happen because it's extremely dangerous. A group of 100 people could tear a small team of cops limb from limb if they wanted to, not that it would happen to that extent, but remember that mobs are usually much greater in size than the cops.
Fifth - it's not the 'violent' elements. It's everyone. You don't have the right to block a road every day because you want to. Sorry - not in the constitution. You don't get to break the law because you think your cause is legit. Usually, protests are observed and nothing happens if they peter out. But eventually either due to the length of the engagement, or 'night time' protests which turn violent, then things need to be broken up. This is when regular people need to go home. But they won't. So it becomes a problem.
There's no doubt that some police tactics are just too much, and that should change. But for the most part, I don't think it would move the needle on anything. People gather in large numbers, don't want to to home, it's going to get dangerous sometimes, and, they can't continue to stay forever.
If anything the 'real' concern should be around actual policing, i.e. unnecessary police shootings.
It seems like what you consider "understanding" is just accepting the police narrative that has been fueling the protests.
> You don't require someone to use force to control a situation
Protests are not something to be "controlled" with force. That's authoritarianism.
> Protestors absolutely do not care about the specifics, they're not even playing that much attention. They're not reading the research on relative levels of violence per arrest etc.. It's a mob
Simple dehumanizing. There have been plenty of protests that have remained peaceful when they're not attacked by police.
> someone provokes a cop by walking up to them and saying something, the cop pushes the person, they fall down
It is illegal to attack someone because you don't like what they've said. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such.
> A cop shoots his paintball gun at a reporter - on purpose. Again, not appropriate. But it's a paintball gun, they're used on people - for fun - all the time
It is illegal to shoot random people with paintballs. This is criminal violence and needs to be prosecuted as such.
> You don't have the right to block a road every day because you want to
Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble.
> If anything the 'real' concern should be around actual policing, i.e. unnecessary police shootings.
That's exactly what these protests are about. Instead of accepting the message and submitting to accountability under the rule of law, police departments are escalating the protests so they can paint the protestors in a bad light, just as you are doing.
> Roads are public ways. People do have the right to use public ways to peaceably assemble.
Do they have the right to block the road while doing so? For hours?
More big-picture, I don't buy either your narrative or jariel's. I don't think the protesters are a mob. I also don't think that the violence is mostly because of the police.
I see it like this: There are two groups, the protesters and the troublemakers. There is some overlap, but they are largely two distinct groups. A protest happens. It's usually in the daytime. The population is mostly protesters. Things are mostly peaceful. There is probably a police presence, watching the protest, but they usually don't do much.
Time passes. Around sunset, many of the protesters go home. More troublemakers show up. It looks like the same protest, but the nature of the population has changed. There starts to be some acts of vandalism, maybe some assaults, maybe some throwing things at the police. Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops. You now get videos with the starting point very carefully chosen to make the cops look like the instigators.
Now, I am not saying that the cops never start the violence. I am not saying that only troublemakers are around after sundown. I am not saying that all videos of police violence are refusing to show the antecedent/buildup. I am not saying that everyone the cops get physical with had it coming.
I am saying that the majority of the action follows the scenario I described.
> Do they have the right to block the road while doing so? For hours?
Phrasing it as "blocking the road" is dragging in a bunch of assumptions. Another way of looking at it is that the protestors are using the road to the exclusion of others, in the same way that a parade or even rush hour traffic does. This is a judgment call, but given that protests aren't terribly common, I think the large group of people doing work to air their grievances deserves the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the entire point of a protest is to express outrage in a way that may be uncomfortable for everyone else.
> Eventually the police say that it's enough. They either order the crowd to disperse, or try to arrest someone. The crowd, being by this time mostly troublemakers, won't disperse peacefully and won't accept having one of their members arrested without going the rounds with the cops
This is the crux of the problem - the police asserting that they have the right to say "that's enough", declare a protest over, and then commit violence against anyone in the area. The dynamic is accelerated since the protest is explicitly against the police.
The police need to either stick to arresting specific people committing crimes, or withdraw and accept that their authority has become overwhelmed in an area. Escalating the lawlessness by committing violence against the entire group is unacceptable in a society based around individual freedom.
Well, as the law is written, the police do in fact have the right (under certain circumstances) to declare a gathering to be a riot, and to demand that it disperse. Those who refuse are in fact breaking the law, and can therefore be arrested, even under your criteria.
And I argue that it should in fact be that way, at least in some circumstances. If you have a large group of people, some of whom are committing, say, vandalism, and the group's boldness is growing as they see that they can get away with such acts, and the group is making kind of a compact body, so that it's difficult for officers to reach and arrest any individual who has committed a crime, then... what? Just let it go on, because it's "just vandalism" (so far)? Then what do you do when it isn't just vandalism (if in fact it continues to escalate)? Or do you just trust that it won't continue to escalate? "Just trust people who are already breaking laws" doesn't seem like a reasonable police approach. Or do you just let it escalate however far it's going to, because violence by the police is unacceptable in all cases?
> I think the large group of people doing work to air their grievances deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I do, too... but not forever. That is, they want to block a road for a protest? Sure. It's inconvenient, but they have the right. They want to block it every day for two months? That's a bit of a different question.
The rule of law inherently relies on society buying into the concept, and most everyone doing their part to enforce it. Most crime is prevented by people themselves choosing to follow societal norms and people keeping each other in check. Lack of respect for this dynamic is a large part of how the rule of law has been slowly undermined - eg use of the legal system to force outside norms onto subcultures, known as the "war on drugs".
When a large group has collectively decided to abandon some laws, the rule of law has already broken down. Citizens rightly outnumber police, and looking for a top-down response is fallacious. The real question to be asking is why have so many citizens become so disenfranchised as to start rejecting laws? For protests, answering this is quite straightforward - the entire point of a protest is to tell you.
At what point are police justified in attacking a rowdy group? At the very least it needs to be equitable. If the group is committing property crimes such as vandalism and graffiti, responding with physical violence is itself a significant escalation.
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to assert that the group will continue to escalate - just because they have abandoned respect for some laws does not mean the group has abandoned all moral code.
As I started off saying, the real solution to policing low level crimes is to deploy small units of officers distributed throughout the group. If those officers are attacked, only then do they have the right to defend themselves with force. What the police have been doing in the name of control has mostly been a state sanctioned counter protest, complete with battle lines.
> the entire point of a protest is to express outrage in a way that may be uncomfortable for everyone else
It sounds like your idea of a protest is necessarily aggravating. That may be non-violent, but it isn't peaceful.
> unacceptable in a society based around individual freedom
The mob aren't acting as individuals - which is the point, and any actual individuals are no longer free to use the road, which has been taken to the exclusion of others - your freedom has to end where in limits mine.
Also, a large component of the threat posed by the mob is the anonymity it grants individuals to commit crimes; No society based around individual freedom should allow that kind of freedom.
> It sounds like your idea of a protest is necessarily aggravating. That may be non-violent, but it isn't peaceful.
"No justice, no peace". Yes, protests obviously aren't peaceful. They're also generally responses to conditions that are not peaceful. If this is supposed to be a condemnation, then I'm happy that online petitions suffice for you.
> individuals are no longer free to use the road
Just like parades or rush hour traffic, as I said.
