zlacker

>>epista+(OP)
I feel like some upfront setting of expectations would really, really be helpful here. If you're planning to arrest people after curfew, explain that in clear terms: "Our curfew is at 8pm, so we will start asking groups to disperse at 7:30. At 8pm, no large assemblies will be permitted, and police will begin arresting people in large groups at that time. We understand some people will engage in civil disobedience, and if they are cooperative with the police, they will be arrested peacefully. If any protesters start taking action that endangers police (e.g. throwing bricks or running at police unexpectedly), they will be met with force and arrested. Because it can be difficult for police to determine the perpetrator of violence, additional crowd control tactics such as tear gas may be used, so we strongly encourage you to self-police and prevent any violence towards police. After 8pm there will be a 30 minute grace period for those who are not gathered in groups but are in the process of heading home. At 8:30pm, anyone who remains on the street will be detained."

I think it would really help both in terms of outcomes as well as the perception of police if they gave this kind of clear description of what's going to happen. As it stands now, the curfews aren't enforced with any kind of regularity, so they just cause confusion.

>>awille+t8
That all sounds perfectly reasonable, but there's still a problem: police using force against people not doing anything obviously wrong. That loses the police their legitimacy, and makes protesters more angry and less likely to obey; leading to more force, leading to more anger.

Imagine this scenario: Maybe 80% of the protesters are totally planning on going home at 8pm. You have 15% who are stubborn and don't like to be told what to do; they'll go home at 9pm if they're asked to insistently, just to show that you're not their boss. And 5% who are downright looking for a confrontation and won't go home until it's clear they won't get one.

What happens when you apply your rubric?

Well, when you apply your force at 8:30, those 15% move from the "stubborn" camp to the "confrontational" camp. In the 80%, there will be people who see the unnecessary violence, and move to the "stubborn" camp; in addition to people who tried to get home by 8:30 but couldn't for whatever reason.

Now you've got 30% of your protesters in the "confrontational" camp. The police get more defensive, and start doing stupid things like shooting people before 7:30. Congrats, now 40% of the people are in the confrontational camp.

Malcolm Gladwell recently posted a chapter from a book he wrote, concerning The Troubles in Northern Ireland, as a podcast recently; it addresses one of the core assumptions in your suggestion, that people are simple cost-benefit calculators, and so that with enough force, you can make impose your will on people. It never really turns out the way people think it will.

https://podbay.fm/podcast/1119389968/e/1591088400