zlacker

That requires that the protestors want the situation to deescalate as well. When they want to loot and burn buildings it doesn't work. Your options are to let them do that or use violence to stop them.

>>treis+(OP)
The cops should never be escalating. That's the point.

>>treis+(OP)
This implies that a riot was the intended goal of the protestors. I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine militarized police showing up gave the protestors warm and fuzzy feelings. The implied threat of violence amps up adrenaline, and it only takes one person doing something dumb for the police to violently swoop in and for everything to fall apart.

At the very least, there should be a parity in force used. The current police strategy seems to be overwhelming force, which is both not working, and a moral failure in my opinion.

>>treis+(OP)
You don't know what they want. If you deploy teargas before any of that has happened then perhaps the behavior you object to was in response to escalatory behavior of yours. You're essentially saying you have the right to deploy force because it's justified by any subsequent retaliation. If people don't retaliate or take any defensive action then you can declare a great victory and say they wanted to but you dominated them.

Your entire chain of reasoning is built on the claim that you have special knowledge of the future. Fine, so do I. If these people are not stopped then they're going to build Skynet and there will be nuclear strikes followed by terminator robots. Prove me wrong.