You are confusing the idea of collectivism (in which each individual is responsible for the welfare of the members of the group, and is expected to sacrifice to some extent—different variations on collectivism vary on the extent—their own welfare for the common good) with the concept of collective punishment (a widely recognized violation of human rights and, in the context of armed conflict, a war crime, in which members of a group are punished for mere shared membership in a group which contains wrongdoers, without any evidence of collaboration in or support for the wrongdoing.)
They are not equivalent.
No, it's not. Participation in a mass protest may be motivated by collectivist ideals, or it can be motivated by the individualist ideal that it is better to discourage a government course of action that could in the future be of grave danger to you individually, and that the immediate risk of participation in the protest is less than the long-term risk of the policy being protested against.
People of ideologized strictly and emphatically opposed to collectivism engage in mass protests.
> Collective punishment may be a violation of human right [...]
> what is your solution when [...] your task is to make sure that the city is still there the next morning?
The legitimate task of the police is to protect the rights of all (innocent, suspect, and even, except to the extent specifically and legitimately deprived due to their guilt, the guilty). There is no circumstances when participation in a gross abuse of human rights is within the scope of their legitimate task.
Why are you not applying the same logic to the police state? The police murdered George Floyd, so doesn't that imply the police are no longer innocent at this point? Why is only one side beholden to rights and responsibilities? At that point isn't it your obligation to stand up to a group becoming criminal?
You've provided the theory, but you didn't answer my practical question: you have 1000 people representing authority and 100,000 people crowd. Let's say 4% of that crowd is violent. That is still 4 times your capacity. All while a large number of the remaining 96k are shouting at you. Put yourself in the shoes of those 1000 and your task being "restore order". In which case, the ball is in the crowd's yard. As an outside spectator(and someone who literally grew up in the epicenter of daily protests as a child), what I'm seeing here is the recent South Park episode turning into a documentary.
It's really easy to quote laws and rules, but in the real world, they are not always applicable. And in the case of mass gatherings, they are hardly ever applicable. Are you seriously suggesting that you were never put in a position where your only course of action was to grossly break the rules? If so, I envy you, I really do. No one hates breaking the rules more than I do but on many occasions in life, I've had to. It doesn't have to do with how rules and laws are defined or implemented. It's simple math: you have two bricks and three holes to fill, otherwise your house will flood. It's the same story with the pandemic - no one wants lockdowns or businesses crashing but it's either that or the death of millions.
That's the equivalent of blaming any European for the Holocaust or any Muslim for terrorist attacks or any eastern European for car thefts or any other stereotype you can think of. I mean isn't this what the whole thing is about? Abolishing stereotypes? I'm all up for that, but trying to abolish something by actively using it seems really counter-productive to say the least.
As I previously said, I've had encounters with horrid police officers, regardless of my polite manners. But I'm also aware policemen are people with the exact same problem like any of us. I see something deeply hypocritical in the whole situation(and the many similar situations across the world over the years). Truth be told I only know one police officer personally. And the truth is he is one of the kindest people I have ever met, despite being utterly strict in his work. Now given the opportunity to choose between rocks flying his way and people calling him a dirty pig or playing with his 2 year old granddaughter in the evenings, which one do you think he'd rather pick?