Appropriate response to rioting

[marshwiggle]

The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

[writingprof]

All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

[Diogenes]

All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

Define "violent"
Does that include just vandalism?
What if only one individual causes physical injury, while the rest are just kicking over trash cans?
What if it's a bunch of drunk frat boys and sorority co-eds who are just excited about their area sports team winning?
What if it's a bunch of drunk frat boys and sorority co-eds who are just bummed about their area sports team losing?

Part of a quality gen Ed curriculum is to help people understand and navigate the complexities and grey areas in life. You clearly didn't get that.

[mahagonny]

The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

Best thing Joe Biden can do is be a one term president. He's not even president yet and he's already showing us his spineless, acquiesce to the noisy 'activists' side..

"You can't tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesters yesterday they wouldn't have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," Biden said in Wilmington, before beginning to hammer his fist against the lectern. "We all know that is true. And it is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view."

So what's the solution, Joe? More looting privileges? I seem to remember widespread looting and in at least one city, the mob owning the streets and setting fire to a police cruiser. And the police let them. Not to mention there were fatalities on Wednesday. This article sums it up well.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/stop-trying-to-make-the-capitol-riots-into-a-race-issue

And I expect Kamala Harris to be screaming about race at every opportunity. The only good thing about them winning as opposed to someone with more sanity and backbone is that they are now the establishment. When there are riots, it will be their problem. And they will have and also deserve the job of fixing it with solutions, instead of heckling the main act from the balcony. I almost laugh -- Joe's acting like he's still campaigning. No Joe. You won. Time to roll up your shirtsleeves and get to work.
on edit: Actually, Harris has shown she's got the stomach for being tough on criminals. Perhaps she will just switch hats.

[mahagonny]

More general answer: it is not the job of police to hug protesters or rioters or take photos with them or otherwise self dramatize for a social justice cause built on exaggeration and media hype. We already have professional athletes for that. Police need to stick to their job when it's unpleasant and potentially unpopular too. That's what they signed up for.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Rioters should be prosecuted. The details of that prosecution depend on the details of the rioting. Trump's rioters should be prosecuted for all of the usual things, as well as charges related to sedition and treason.

There is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.

[Parasaurolophus]

You cannot, and should not, criminalize dissent. And yet, for all the free speech talk, the last twenty years have seen dissent increasingly criminalized, and state responses to it have gotten much more violent. That's very bad, and Biden has shown no signs at all that he will reverse the trend. Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal. By contrast, beating someone to death with a fire extinguisher is a big deal.

But make no mistake: what happened on January 6 was not an ordinary protest gone wrong. It was a straightforward coup attempt, a terrorist act that failed. The US came within a whisker of losing the first three people in the presidential line of succession, along with a goodly chunk of the country's politicians. Had the terrorists been only a little more competent, organized, and determined, we'd be having a very different conversation.

It was a dress rehearsal for the future, and it exposed some pretty fucking serious problems in the law enforcement community. Those problems were there for all to see for a long time--they're not new!--but I think they're much harder to ignore now. It is appropriate and necessary for the perpetrators to be pursued to the full extent of the law.

All violent mobs should be fired upon.  Real bullets, please.

No. You absolutely cannot begin massacring your own population, especially over their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, even if it gets violent. That is a very, very bad path to take.

Best thing Joe Biden can do is be a one term president. He's not even president yet and he's already showing us his spineless, acquiesce to the noisy 'activists' side..

"You can't tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesters yesterday they wouldn't have been treated very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol," Biden said in Wilmington, before beginning to hammer his fist against the lectern. "We all know that is true. And it is totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. The American people saw it in plain view."

There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

[mahagonny]

What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.

There's no outrage about police brutality against white civilians. White lives don't matter. if you don't care about that, you lose your opportunity to convince.

There is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

There's a myth that our jails are full of innocent young black men and democratic leaders don't have the balls to comment much at all on the question.

Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal. By contrast, beating someone to death with a fire extinguisher is a big deal.

I encourage you to google thing like 'wanton or careless destruction of property' 'negligent damaging of property' and then 'malicious destruction of property.' Motive matters. We are paying for protection against menacing citizens. There are specific difference in the law for a reason.
Or just go on being an anarchist if that suits you.

[mahagonny]

There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.

[Sun_Worshiper]

What some posters have a problem with is politicians and citizens being outraged by racism, police brutality, and the double standard in law enforcement, which are perfectly reasonable things to be outraged about.

There's no outrage about police brutality against white civilians. White lives don't matter. if you don't care about that, you lose your opportunity to convince.

There is a myth among conservatives that liberals don't want to prosecute rioters, but I have not heard that from, for example, Democratic leadership. On the other hand, a large segment of the "conservative" party, led by its leader, actively encouraged rioting in the capital.

There's a myth that our jails are full of innocent young black men and democratic leaders don't have the balls to comment much at all on the question.

A typically irrelevant set of responses to specific points that I made about rioting, the topic of this thread.

[Parasaurolophus]

There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.

Bullshit. This was planned in the open, for days (weeks?) in advance. The BLM protests, on the other hand, were mostly spontaneous.

And even if they were just incompetent and caught off-guard, their eventual response was awfully kind. How many people were arrested, again? How many people gassed, how many skulls and bones cracked? How many litres of gas were used, and how many rubber bullets fired? How many police vehicles rammed the crowd? How many people were escorted off the premises and allowed to go on their merry way? How many people were snatched off the street and put into unmarked vehicles by masked and unidentifiable law enforcement officials in camo?

[lightning]

The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

We can discuss 2020, the Bonus Army, Kent State, and other historical events, later. We can speculatively discuss the Biden administration's plans to deal with civil unrest and what we would like to see, later.

Discussing this now would give the appearance of an attempt to contextualize the Jan. 6 insurrection/sedition/invasion/terrorist attack/protest/riot/demonstration (whatever you want to call it) into a larger related but distracting discussion, a subtle "whataboutism" attempt to mitigate the cognitive dissonance and the political fallout of those who agreed with and aligned with Trump and the MAGA movement.

[mahagonny]

Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.
on edit: Oh I almost forgot. Setting fire to police cruisers. Well, it can't be helped when a large group of people assemble. Yeah, doesn't that regularly happen at football games?

[marshwiggle]

There is absolutely no question that the police response to the movement for Black lives was very, very different to the police response on January 6. It was much, much more robust and violent, and if you don't see that, then you're deluded.

In a word, bullshit. The police were overwhelmed on Wednesday. There was miscalculation and unperprepareness. One of them is in critical condition today. I bet his wife would have something to say to people who claim the police let them in intentionally.

Bullshit. This was planned in the open, for days (weeks?) in advance. The BLM protests, on the other hand, were mostly spontaneous.

In places like Portland, riots continued for weeks (or months). Even if they are spontaneous, how long should they be able to continue before being shut down?

The past year has seen rioting, property damage, injuries and even deaths from people with various political causes. Now that there is a new administration in Washington, what should the new government adopt as policy for dealing with these events in the future?

Should damage to public propery lead immediately to arrests?
Should damage to private property lead immediately to arrests?
Should refusals to identify leaders of protests lead to arrests?
Should injuries to individuals during violent protests be charged to the leaders of the protests?
What level of force should police be able to use to quell protests?
When (if ever) is calling in the National Guard appropriate?
What sanctions should be placed on identifiable organizations proven to have had some responsibility for the violence (by encouraging it and/or actually organizing it)?

We can discuss 2020, the Bonus Army, Kent State, and other historical events, later. We can speculatively discuss the Biden administration's plans to deal with civil unrest and what we would like to see, later.

Discussing this now would give the appearance of an attempt to contextualize the Jan. 6 insurrection/sedition/invasion/terrorist attack/protest/riot/demonstration (whatever you want to call it) into a larger related but distracting discussion, a subtle "whataboutism" attempt to mitigate the cognitive dissonance and the political fallout of those who agreed with and aligned with Trump and the MAGA movement.

How is it "whataboutism" to say that all violent protest should be dealt with summarily? The Jan. 6 rioters don't deserve any more sympathy than anyone else involved in that kind of violent rioting.

[Parasaurolophus]

Also: property damage is entirely irrelevant. When you gather up a very large group of people, some property damage is almost inevitable, and it's basically impossible for anyone to stop it from happening. But it's also not a big deal.

It's no myth that people on the left, democratic voters, do not want to prosecute all of the guilty rioters. Para just admitted it. As well as no interest in the difference between accidentally knocking over a public wastebasket because people are pressing against you and it couldn't be helped versus smashing windows so you can steal. And then getting defended in the media for seeking restitution for debts owed because of slavery.

Broken property can be replaced. It's not the kind of crime that merits a response resulting in loss of life or limb.

I'm not at all worried that the terrorists stole the congressional lectern yesterday. Who gives a fuck? It's a lectern, grow up. I am worried that they tried to overthrow the government. I am worried that some of them planned to kidnap or execute politicians. I am worried that they beat a cop to death with a fire extinguisher. And, hey! I'm also worried that the cops shot one of them and she died since, given that nobody else felt the need to shoot them, it seems unlikely it was necessary to shoot her. And I'm worried that the people in charge seem to think that peaceful protests merit a more serious response than a coup attempt. Those things are a big deal.