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.
And by the way, the point of protests is not to leave when people ask you to.
It's not surprising that Americans feel 'anger is justified' however, that's very different from saying for example that 'riots' or 'protests past curfew' are supported.
"And by the way, the point of protests is not to leave when people ask you to."
No - it is absolutely not.
Neither you nor I get to decide what is lawful and what is not.
The 'rules' are a 'social contract' that we all get a say in, you don't get more of a say because you want to hold a sign up past 10 pm or block a street.
It's disturbing to read this because I don't think people grasp the real variety in American opinion out there, and what some others might want to 'protests beyond what the community wants them to'. You might find yourself on the other side of the fence.
Not only this - it's counterproductive. Things like 'million man march' do a lot more good than the Watts riots, which are both directly damaging to the community, and probably very damaging to the movement.
If the point is to 'make change' - people are losing tons of allies by stepping outside the bounds of civility. Everyone is fine with signs in parks, and possibly a march through town - beyond that, it's just bad.
This is a bold oxymoron:
"The law is the law, except where it is not the law because you have other constitutionally guaranteed laws that enable you to break said laws"
This misunderstanding underlies a lot of the commentary here lamenting police breakup of ostensibly 'legal' protests which are actually, totally illegal.
If the city has a curfew for protesting, that's literally quite lawful in every sense, and you don't have a legal or constitutional right to protest at that point.
I mean, you could take up with the courts.
Add to that the protests appear to have popular support and the issue of curfew becomes largely irrelevant. I am not arguing legality here.
edit: added not. geez that was bad
Yes, that is what a social contract means, we already have that.
"The protests suggest that the law is no longer within acceptable range for society, but the administrators of the law, for whatever reason, chose not to address it."
The 'administrators' are we the voters - not the protestors.
You're advocating anarchy: the protestors get to decide what is lawful and what is not, for whatever arbitrary reason.
It's incredibly naive for people to support extra-judicial action, a lot of which is disruptive and a total transgression of other people's rights, and is sometimes violent.
Consider the next time there is a protest you don't agree with, and they decide that 'the law is not relevant in that case because it's not what the protestors deem appropriate'.
It's the total civil breakdown.
The thread of the 'protesters are above the law logic' is totally unwound and nonsensical.