zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
What's the correct way to control a violent crowd? Anything besides "solve all the world's problems so no one is angry"?

>>nsxwol+kv
Do not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro....

>>zwass+Zv
Let's say de-escalation fails. Then what?

>>nsxwol+dw
Develop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a thousand develops there might be something really wrong.

If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control? Military tactics?

>>threat+YA
De-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand develops, that is something right because they are citizens calling for the righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory rhetorical step.

In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides [to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops. There is no valid presumption there.

>>rlucas+5L
Cops have been shot and at least four are in hospital as we speak right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkY2tDQeGY

>>jpxw+Q11
How many innocent people have been shot by cops?