zlacker

>>srames+(OP)
I won't deny that there are corruption and accountability problems among US police forces, but I also can't help but feel like many people, especially now, don't appreciate the fact that American police deal with people who are violent, disrespectful, and frequently mentally ill on a sometimes daily basis.

These are humans too and they're watching society (and especially media) totally dehumanize them. To some degree their anger is arguably justified.

I feel like it's impossible to get an accurate feel for how many people are protesting and what proportion of the population supports the protests. But I have a feeling it's a minority, maybe 10-30% of the population, in which case you cannot let a fraction of your population hold your entire city hostage, especially when opportunists are simultaneously looting and burning, though that seems to have calmed down recently.

Point being, if the protestors won't listen when asked to leave, and if they are disrupting the lives and livelihoods of 70-90% of the population, I don't see any option other than gradual escalation, which typically precedes gas and rubber bullets.

The police in a city in Canada went on strike in the late 1960s[1]. Things didn't go well. And we've already seen that American demographics are willing to burn and loot even with police present...so I don't mean to defend police but I really don't see anything good coming from police standing down or refusing to use force.

1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot

Edit: Downvotes are intended for discouraging low effort or otherwise poor comments, not to shame people for disagreeing. Whether you like it or not at least half the country supports police, they play an important role in society, and that makes this a discussion worth having.

>>tw0000+E7
Peaceful protests and rallies are generally legally protected by the first amendment. Just because you don't like what some group is saying doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them. These rights exists so that minorities can protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority which is exactly what is happening right now.

>>marcin+e9
This is misleading.

You do not have the right to block traffic, march down the street etc. as an expression of your 1st amendment rights. You literally need a permit for most of that.

If the city puts down a curfew, you don't have any '1st Amendment rights' there either.

"doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them."

Much of what we are seeing is not a legal expression of 1st Amendment rights at all, in which case breaking it up is not remotely illegal.

Some of it may be though.

Here are the ACLU's guidelines:

[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...

>>jariel+J9
>"doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them."

>Much of what we are seeing is not a legal expression of 1st Amendment rights at all, in which case breaking it up is not remotely illegal.

Think about what you're doing right now. You're responding to someone saying that cops shouldn't be killing people in the streets for blocking traffic. Your response isn't "cops shouldn't kill people!". It's "what they are doing is illegal".

This about this. Think about what you're doing.