zlacker

>>srames+(OP)
It has been terrifying and astounding to see the police response to protests against brutality with... more brutality.

>>jumell+J5
Versus what though? Outnumbered 25:1, rampant looting and mayhem all around, and seeing your mates hit with bottles of water filled with quikcrete, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

Just because something makes you feel bad for society doesn’t mean the actions at an individual basis are purely malicious or unreasonable.

>>koolba+e6
There have been numerous videos recorded of police brutally assaulting peaceful protestors without any kind of provocation. Just look at Buffalo PD shoving an elderly man to the ground and creating a distraction as the cameras start turning on, or the bystander in Austin who was watching away from any crowds and was sniped with a bean bag round that fractured his skull.

There’s been an unbelievable amount of violence perpetrated by police these last few weeks. You cannot stand by this argument if you’ve been watching the footage.

>>save_f+O6
> There’s been an unbelievable amount of violence perpetrated by police these last few weeks. You cannot stand by this argument if you’ve been watching the footage.

There’s no way you can say with a straight face that the police have committed more acts of violence and destruction than the rioters.

>>koolba+j8
So police violence is OK as long as it’s less than what the protestors do? That’s an absurd argument.

Our taxes pay their salaries, and our taxes also pay their legal settlements and fees when they get caught up killing unarmed black men and women. They live in a system fundamentally devoid of accountability. They deploy tools like tears gas and poorly tested “less lethal” ammunition that still has the ability to permanently and critically injure targets. No amount of violence against peaceful protestors should be tolerated. The police exist to protect the public, not treat them like enemy combatants.

>>save_f+F9
Anyone that showed up to an 11pm “protest” the day after looters and rioters commandeered the previous night’s gathering knows exactly what they’re enabling and and the risks involved. At that point you’re aiding and abetting the actions of the small minority that are directly causing the damage and in doing so you can’t complain to be caught in the literal crossfire.

If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them.

>>koolba+kb
> If a crowd of 1000 people has one person throw a brick at the police. I think it’s well within their rights to tear gas the entire group to disperse them.

This is an utterly unethical and immoral point of view. If one person commits a crime, a group should never be punished for it. This is collective punishment, and it (along with tear gas) is prohibited under the Geneva conventions.

>>drewbu+kl
It isn't so clear it is a 'punishment'. Conceptually the role of the police isn't to punish anyone, they mainly compel presence, absence of people or action of people.

The tear-gassing specifically isn't to punish anyone. It is because their commanders think the situation is unsafe and that order needs to be restored. The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police.

There are very fine lines involved, but there is a point where there isn't a reasonable expectation that the police should break ranks and move into a potential violent mob to arrest an individual. That would be asking them to take on too much risk. It isn't going to violate the Geneva Conventions.

>>roenxi+3u
> The crowd, by its presence, is creating a safety hazard where people might assault the police.

It is rather the other way around there: The situation is made dangerous by presence of the police, the solution is the police pulling back.