zlacker

>>laurex+(OP)
Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations.

I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the crowd.

I find it really hard to not come to the conclusion that the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith.

>>jascii+Wb
>the police is desperately trying to set a narrative to justify a history of violence by escalating more violence, but please, someone, restore my faith

Seems fairly accurate. I'm just annoyed that many people can't grasp that awful police behavior and awful behavior from other actors are not mutually exclusive. There is lots of unjustified police violence and provocations against perfectly peaceful protestors. There is also systematic vandalism and arson by people who aren't peaceful protestors. And there is massive amounts of opportunistic vandalism and looting. All three can and do co-exist.

This is not a two-sided conflict. More like three- or four- sided mess.

>>collle+zl
One of the sides mentioned has a monopoly on the lawful use of force. Shouldn't we expect better from them in return?

>>Alexan+lr
No, the police do not have a monopoly on the lawful use of force. Not in the USA... or, at least, not in most areas of the USA.

It's ironic that the people trying their best to change that are also the ones who are most closely aligned with the victims of police brutality, politically speaking. One of many things I don't understand.

>>Camper+kC
What are you hinting at? A second amendment thing? Because that really has nothing to do with the monopoly on use of violence. You can be violent without a gun. Who gets to be violent in a legal manner is an orthogonal issue.

And how is it ironic? When has the second amendment ever done anything for victims of police brutality? How often has widespread gun ownership been used as an excuse for excessive police force?

>>morsch+uG
The second amendment has everything to do with the question of whether the police (or any other state-sanctioned agency) is entitled to a monopoly on the use of force.

But like I said, I don't understand any of this. Maybe others can offer some insight.