zlacker

Do not escalate the crowd to violence. See yesterday's https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de-escalation-keeps-pro....

>>zwass+(OP)
Let's say de-escalation fails. Then what?

>>nsxwol+e
It's possible tear gas may be a reasonable choice under extreme circumstances.

Please take a look at the linked article (and HN comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741) and note that the Federal "Kerner Commission, which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots, found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail."

Today we can see ample evidence of police escalating use-of-force (rubber bullets, tear gas, batons, etc.) on peaceful protesters.

>>nsxwol+e
Develop longstanding community relations as other western countries do so that you can exercise the tools of trust and patience. When a mob of over a thousand develops there might be something really wrong.

If de-escalation fails with a large crowd in an urban setting and both sides presume violence with guns, how are police supposed to maintain control? Military tactics?

>>threat+Z4
De-escalation begins at home, my friend. When a group of over a thousand develops, that is something right because they are citizens calling for the righting of some wrongs. A "mob" is something else, and calling a thousand in the street a "mob" absent an existing violent action is itself an escalatory rhetorical step.

In none of the instant cases (the last four days of nationwide protests focused on or around BLM-esque causes) has it been correct for "both sides [to] presume violence with guns." Only the state agents could reasonably be presumed to have and use firearms. These protesters are not shooting at cops. There is no valid presumption there.

>>rlucas+6f
Cops have been shot and at least four are in hospital as we speak right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkY2tDQeGY

>>jpxw+Rv
How many innocent people have been shot by cops?