Appropriate response to rioting

[marshwiggle]

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.

By that standard, bombing empty buildings is no big deal.

[Parasaurolophus]

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?

My point was that they began spontaneously. The violent police over-response triggered a cycle of further protests and occasional rioting.

Remember also that of 7750 BLM protests that took place between May 26 and August 22, 2020, over 93% were peaceful by any measure (including vandalism and property damage which, as you know, I don't class as 'violent' in the first place).


I do think there's a need for intervention when there's violence, or when property damage is not isolated, but spreads through the crowd (and as someone who has been to his share of very, very large protests--including crowds in the several hundreds of thousands--I can tell you that's awfully rare). That response needs to be measured, and should not focus on causing bodily harm to the crowd or holding crowds of thousands responsible for the actions of a handful of people. And it should never, ever, be a pre-emptive and violent response, which is what we saw over and over again in Portland and elsewhere.

[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.

By that standard, bombing empty buildings is no big deal.

It isn't a very big deal when nobody is hurt or put in danger, no. It's not a good thing, obviously, but it's also nowhere near as big a deal as actually hurting someone.

Likewise, stealing a lectern isn't as big a deal as bombing a building. It's not a good thing, but it would be stupid to equate the two.


And lest we forget, the terrorists actually tried to bomb the building with everyone still inside it. And that is a big deal.

[lightning]

. . .

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.

It should be obvious.

But if you need an example, look what happened with the thread that you started. It sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests, instead of keeping the focus on Trump, Republicans, MAGA, the attempt to overturn election results, discussions of treason, and most importantly, the placement and degree of culpability and accountability for the Jan. 6 insurrection (or whatever you want to call it), beginning with Trump himself, downward to his enablers like Pence & McConnell, to the Republican congress people who wanted to overturn election results, to the ones who did the actual storming of the Capitol, to the inciters, to the enablers, to the ones who cheered on, to the apologists, to the ones who silently agreed with all of them and let them do it, all the way to the ones who would rather focus on 2020 civil unrest, so they don't have to confront their role, in Jan. 6, whether direct or indirect.

[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.

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.

You posted that it's impossible to stop property damage from happening. Last summer in Boston rioters set fire to a Police cruiser. The buildup to this incident, and the media coverage predicting it, including a former officer included in the broadcast, went on for some 20 minutes. A decision was made to let it happen. They could have been stopped. I am not going to sit here while some puffed up classroom teacher with a PhD who has likely never faced danger of any serious kind says it's no big deal, without responding. I'm a taxpayer, and think it's a big deal, because where there is malicious destruction of property there is serious danger to innocent people. And I think people like you serve as an excellent negative example of what is rotten in higher education.

[Parasaurolophus]

ROFL

[apl68]

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.

One rioter was shot dead.  Three others died from what appear to have been attacks brought on by stress.  Fourteen police were injured, one fatally.  I don't recall any BLM protests in which five people died.  I don't see where this was not a "robust" response.

[mahagonny]

ROFL

I think I see what's happening. Whereas everyone posting on these fora in the last several days is concerned and shocked that an attempt to subvert government has been carried out, and there was never any debate over that,  you believe that your caring is for some reason, special. Now I'm laughing.

[marshwiggle]

. . .

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.

It should be obvious.

But if you need an example, look what happened with the thread that you started. It sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests, instead of keeping the focus on Trump, Republicans, MAGA, ....

It only "sucked part of the fora into defending BLM protests" inasmuch as they felt the need to defend BLM protests. Anyone willing to renounce violent protests for any cause are free to be as explicit as they want about the Jan. 6 events. 

Trying to make two different sets of rules is always going to be more complicated than making one set of rules to be applied consistently.

[apl68]

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)?

This thread has predictably turned into an instant slanging match between our resident radicals,  but I thought it could use at least one honest response to an honest question.

For law enforcement in rioting, there are no good solutions.  A "robust" response will likely lead to injuries and possibly deaths among protestors and police, as has happened just now in Washington.  Then again, if the police hold off in hopes of not escalating the situation, things can get out of hand and they will be blamed for that. 

We see this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dynamic with the Capitol Hill police.  They're being roundly condemned for not making a strong enough initial display of force to deter the rioters from rioting in the first place.  That's an obvious failure, and it may indeed be the case that they would have had a different response had this been a BLM protest.  But that's a hindsight judgement.  At the time they probably feared that a display of that sort may have provoked exactly the kind of violence that they were hoping to deter.  And they may well have been right.  We'll never know now.  At any rate, this was pretty much a no-win situation for them.

There just aren't any easy answers.  Every potentially violent protest situation is different, and every one requires its own judgement calls.  In the event of violence, any and all decisions made by law enforcement will be picked apart in hindsight.

There are, to some extent, best practices for dealing with protests.  The police in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, were criticized by other law enforcement for their blatant attempt to intimidate the initial protests--in all probability that created avoidable escalation.  Knowledgeable experts are probably going to cite the Capitol Hill police for the opposite mistake, once they've had time for a proper postmortem.  They should have at least has more back-up in place in case efforts not to provoke the protestors failed.

Personally I do believe that property damage, public or private, should lead to arrests.  So should rock and bottle throwing, etc. aimed at injuring police officers.  It's often forgotten that scores of police officers were injured in last year's BLM protests.  Whenever protestors do things like that, whether they feel "provoked" or not, they've crossed the line into rioting.

[Descartes]

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?

Are you kidding me? 

I saw the police tear gassing them, punching them, and a cop actually shot and killed a woman breaching the private part of the chambers through a broken window.

Also, the arrests are just beginning.  When we had BLM riots in my city, by the end of the night I think only something like 5 or 6 people had actually been arrested. 

It's just not true that there was so much more restraint here compared to BLM riots.

And for the record - I thought the cops should have shot the BLM rioters and I wish they would have shot (more) of these too. (Well, what I really mean is, it should be completely legal and a best practice for them to do it.)  Rioting is rioting.  It's a straw man argument that people are only in favor of that and prosecutions when it's black people doing it.  Lock all of these up with long prison terms!

[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)?

This thread has predictably turned into an instant slanging match between our resident radicals,  but I thought it could use at least one honest response to an honest question.

For law enforcement in rioting, there are no good solutions.  A "robust" response will likely lead to injuries and possibly deaths among protestors and police, as has happened just now in Washington.  Then again, if the police hold off in hopes of not escalating the situation, things can get out of hand and they will be blamed for that. 

We see this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dynamic with the Capitol Hill police.  They're being roundly condemned for not making a strong enough initial display of force to deter the rioters from rioting in the first place.  That's an obvious failure, and it may indeed be the case that they would have had a different response had this been a BLM protest.  But that's a hindsight judgement.  At the time they probably feared that a display of that sort may have provoked exactly the kind of violence that they were hoping to deter.  And they may well have been right.  We'll never know now.  At any rate, this was pretty much a no-win situation for them.

There just aren't any easy answers.  Every potentially violent protest situation is different, and every one requires its own judgement calls.  In the event of violence, any and all decisions made by law enforcement will be picked apart in hindsight.

There are, to some extent, best practices for dealing with protests.  The police in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, were criticized by other law enforcement for their blatant attempt to intimidate the initial protests--in all probability that created avoidable escalation.  Knowledgeable experts are probably going to cite the Capitol Hill police for the opposite mistake, once they've had time for a proper postmortem.  They should have at least has more back-up in place in case efforts not to provoke the protestors failed.

Personally I do believe that property damage, public or private, should lead to arrests.  So should rock and bottle throwing, etc. aimed at injuring police officers.  It's often forgotten that scores of police officers were injured in last year's BLM protests.  Whenever protestors do things like that, whether they feel "provoked" or not, they've crossed the line into rioting.

Thanks for that measured response. The reason I started this is that civil society relies on people accepting rules that apply to everyone. Especially in an academic crowd, this shouldn't need explanation. This was a chance for people who support BLM but are upset about the recent violence to express principles which would apply in both of those cases, based on a universal idea of what is appropriate.

Sadly, the main response seems to be "Those two are different; PERIOD."
Which just amplifies the polarization in society by suggesting each group gets to make up their own rules which they get to impose on everyone else whenever they're in power.

A person's character is much more evident in what restrictions they will accept having placed on them than on what restrictions they want to place on others.

[mahagonny]

Thanks for that measured response. The reason I started this is that civil society relies on people accepting rules that apply to everyone. Especially in an academic crowd, this shouldn't need explanation. This was a chance for people who support BLM but are upset about the recent violence to express principles which would apply in both of those cases, based on a universal idea of what is appropriate.

Sadly, the main response seems to be "Those two are different; PERIOD."
Which just amplifies the polarization in society by suggesting each group gets to make up their own rules which they get to impose on everyone else whenever they're in power.

A person's character is much more evident in what restrictions they will accept having placed on them than on what restrictions they want to place on others.

The wokelings on the thread think, pretend, or imply, that your initial question was passive aggressive. Which really conveys to me something else, the reluctance to come to workable agreement.

[clean]

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

I believe that the phrase (from the 60s by the Miami Chief of Police, not Trump) is "When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

For what it is worth, I am glad that the Capital is not riddled with bullets. It is enough that this 'failure' occurred without the reminder, for centuries, of bullet holes in the marble of the building.  The damage can be repaired. The ones that can be identified as being in the building illegally can and should be tracked down, tried and sentenced.

I would like to hope that the ones looting during the BLM protests would likewise have their pictures posted, rewards offered for identification be arrested, tried and sentenced for their thefts and damage to property.

I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

[mahagonny]

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

I believe that the phrase (from the 60s by the Miami Chief of Police, not Trump) is "When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

For what it is worth, I am glad that the Capital is not riddled with bullets. It is enough that this 'failure' occurred without the reminder, for centuries, of bullet holes in the marble of the building.  The damage can be repaired. The ones that can be identified as being in the building illegally can and should be tracked down, tried and sentenced.

I would like to hope that the ones looting during the BLM protests would likewise have their pictures posted, rewards offered for identification be arrested, tried and sentenced for their thefts and damage to property.

I fear that IF shop owners were encouraged to shoot looters, that extreme looters would shoot the owners first and then lead the rest to loot.  So in addition to property damage, even more lives would be lost and the journey to Mad Max land would be further along.

It was thought that some kind of tactical practical thought process like that was used in Boston. They let the cop car get torched, figuring they were containing the mayhem to small more manageable area, watchable area. Whereas trying to sweep the area of all demonstrators (et al) would have likely spread the mayhem in directions that would have been harder to contain, harder to watch and might have had more hazards present. They had to plan several moves ahead. To this layperson it seems reasonable to suppose that the police have to make tough choices like those 'in the moment'. That's different from someone saying, weeks later (you certainly have not said this, which I appreciate) 'destruction of property is no big deal,' which means, really, rule of law is ours to follow, or not, as we prefer. The best thing one could say about that would be 'incredibly stupid.' If you could round up people who circulate those ideas, I would consider doing it. Of course one may say 'I got maimed and crippled for life when an overturned car fell on me during a mostly peaceful protest against the George Floyd incident, but it was for a good cause.' It's a free country and one has the right be a certain kind of lunatic.