National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)

Devildoc said:
We get taxation with representation with an asterisk. We do via voting, but as we know it's binary, and although we vote we get no say in anything regarding taxation.

Bringing this back to cops, the actions of the capitol police sure didn't do anything to ensure trust, but based on the video, it looks like many of the others exercised enormous restraint on the grounds based on the way some of those morons were acting.
Click to expand...
You mean the police exercised restraint? I'd agree, especially because I think the assumption was that far more protestors were armed than were arrested for carrying.
 
frostyred said:
You mean the police exercised restraint? I'd agree, especially because I think the assumption was that far more protestors were armed than were arrested for carrying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after the crowds were booted from the capitol and everyone was outside, some of the video showed some up-close-and-personal jackasses getting into the cops' grills, and the LEOs weren't engaging, and in my opinion, showed pretty good restraint.

I was a state-certified LEO once (I had to be to be a medic on a LE SWAT team), but never a 'real' cop. With my desire to rapidly pepper spray, tase, or asp some knees anyone who annoys me, I would not have made a good street cop: I would have escalated things quickly with booger-eaters. If I was at the capitol last night, I know that I would not have the same restraint.
 
Devildoc said:
Yeah, after the crowds were booted from the capitol and everyone was outside, some of the video showed some up-close-and-personal jackasses getting into the cops' grills, and the LEOs weren't engaging, and in my opinion, showed pretty good restraint.

I was a state-certified LEO once (I had to be to be a medic on a LE SWAT team), but never a 'real' cop. With my desire to rapidly pepper spray, tase, or asp some knees anyone who annoys me, I would not have made a good street cop: I would have escalated things quickly with booger-eaters. If I was at the capitol last night, I know that I would not have the same restraint.
Click to expand...
Yeah. MPD has its problems, for sure, but throughout the protests all this year, I think they've generally showed a decent amount of restraint. I went and biked around in May, keeping my distance and observing, and it was really, really intriguing to see how it was all going.
 
I think it’s going to be a tough defense, considering there were so many armed officers directly behind her, and clearly they didn’t see a need to shoot despite being on the same side of the door as the “threat”
 
I think we're overlooking something: did the officer act within the constraints of his department's policies? The guy who kneeled on George Foreman or whoever's neck in MN was following dept. procedure.

I was kind of incensed at the shooting, but would like to know if the officer was within the law. Not common sense, not our bias, not some Twitter videos, not our own LEO/ Mil background...but the law as it applies to this case.
 
AWP said:
I think we're overlooking something: did the officer act within the constraints of his department's policies? The guy who kneeled on George Foreman or whoever's neck in MN was following dept. procedure.

I was kind of incensed at the shooting, but would like to know if the officer was within the law. Not common sense, not our bias, not some Twitter videos, not our own LEO/ Mil background...but the law as it applies to this case.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been taught to lunge towards someone you were shooting? The guy took aim for about 5 seconds and then lunged forward.
 
AWP said:
I think we're overlooking something: did the officer act within the constraints of his department's policies? The guy who kneeled on George Foreman or whoever's neck in MN was following dept. procedure.

I was kind of incensed at the shooting, but would like to know if the officer was within the law. Not common sense, not our bias, not some Twitter videos, not our own LEO/ Mil background...but the law as it applies to this case.
Click to expand...

From looking at the video....I can't see where using deadly force would be warranted. Physical force, or less lethal, yep.

Unless there was a pistol/knife/club in her hand that we didn't see and "disappeared" after she fell. I have only seen that one vid and can't tell.

EDIT: I would be curious what ROE's USCP might have.
 
Last edited:
Board and Seize said:
Here's an interesting article that examines riots as a group coordination problem.

It would be pretty nice if we could generally strip away the 'moral' (tribal) valence from our discussions of these kinds of things so that we can actually examine the underlying processes, then improve our systems (now I'm sounding naive!).
Click to expand...
What a nice read. I love how s/he described to a tee the rioting patterns that I have personnally witnessed occurring between individual people (testing with minor acts of carnage) and other onlookers (following suit after seeing at least one other person do it first) during demonstrations.

This line summed up the article for me: "No civic order can be breached until the ambitious few have broken a few windows."
 
My favorite bit/definition:

Entrepreneurial rioting:

Haddock and Poisby describe the individuals who go about testing the desire of the crowds riot entrepreneurs:
Even in an unstable gathering, the first perpetrator of a misdemeanor is at risk if the police are willing and able to zero in on him. Thus, someone has to serve as a catalyst—a sort of entrepreneur to get things going—in Buford’s account usually by breaking a window (a signal that can be heard by many who do not see it). In civil rights, anti-war or anti-abortion marches, it is probably pretty common to find participants eager to expose themselves to arrest in exchange for the chance to optimize the desired impact of their protest. This sort of self-sacrifice is certainly rare in ordinary riots, where potential rioters’ behavior is consistent, we suppose, with something like the following calculation: “If somebody else gets the riot started, I can participate without much risk. But if I stick my neck out and nobody follows, I’ll be the only one arrested. So I’ll wait for somebody else to go first.” If every would-be rioter reasoned thus, nobody would cast the first stone, and the riot would not ignite. This is a typical free-rider problem, as economists have called it. It is usually sufficient to prevent riots from occurring, even where there is a plentiful supply of disposed participants. Riots await events that surmount the free rider problem. The entrepreneur will throw the first stone when he calculates that the risk that he will be apprehended for doing so has diminished to an acceptable level.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Board and Seize
Rationality and Erisology
2
Replies
29
Views
7K
Gunz
G
Marauder06
Full Spectrum Ops in the Homeland- a "Vision for the Future?"
Replies
2
Views
2K
Red-Dot
Red-Dot
Ravage
SOF LEADER: A Salute to Special Operators, with Concern for Fraying of the Forces
Replies
0
Views
4K
Ravage
Ravage
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top