From what I saw on Twitter, most of the videos alleging police using force without reason were misleading, and leaving out all the footage preceding police action. In cases where others uploaded longer videos or different angles, it was clear that protesters were acting illegally, or ignoring clear verbal warnings, or refusing lawful orders to disperse, and so on. By leaving those crucial additional bits out, activists were generating outrage online where none was deserved. The same applies here, and I encourage people to take resources like this with a grain of salt.
I don't like this US attitude where people think that once police has given an order to do something you have to comply immediately or you can be shot or run over no matter the situation. I just saw a video where protesters were crowding a police and suddenly the car sped up and ran over people because the cops felt "threatened". Thats just not OK.
This is key. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that unarmed protestors are being very aggressive towards police, even ignoring orders to disperse or follow curfew. Perhaps they are even verbally threatening police!
Should this give police authority to use violent force to retaliate? (E.g. pepper spray, rubber bullets, fists, etc)
In my opinion, no. I realize that legally, police are protected in these scenarios. Hell, most folks understand that. That’s what people are protesting for: they want the legal system to change.
As a society, I think we morally accept using force in self defense (for example, using pepper spray on an assaulter). We accept it even if someone’s life isn’t actually in danger. Should we accept the same from police? I doubt it. We should hold the protectors of the law to higher standards than common citizens, right? I myself might not fully understand the law and will be acting on my emotional response if I use force in self defense. But police officers should have the training to understand much better when lives are actually in danger. They should have techniques to handle situations like this without violence.
These videos show that whether or not the police were acting out of self defense or within the boundaries of the law, they are still using serious force on unarmed citizens. This is not ok whether or not the citizens are in the right.
The root of the problem is the police force. Even if people are acting in a aggressive, rebellious way against police, they are doing so because of decades of improper use of police force. If we want to change the situation, people must feel safe around police. It’s not just “were police legally right,” it’s “do people feel safe in their own communities.” Clearly not, and we must make changes to help people feel safe. To aid with that, police should be much less powerful, since abuse stems from power.
We should all get behind these changes because police brutality is dangerous to everyone, and especially dangerous to minority communities.
For all of the arguments I've seen from people claiming we need to be free from government tyranny, that small government is good and that we should defend ourselves from corruption, all of that seems to go out the window when the discussion changes from government to police. Suddenly the state deciding to execute people is perfectly acceptable, destroying property is fine (they were probably criminals anyways) and locking people up without due process should be expected if you question authority.
"Lawful orders to disperse" is there such a thing? You don't hear about "lawful orders to stop speaking" or "lawful orders to stop practicing a religion "
And just because a" clear verbal warming " was issued, doesn't mean it had to be followed, nor does it mean excessive force woukd be used.
While I agree that some instances of "peaceful protestors" aren't actually peacful, many are. And in some of the cases where the protestors aren't peaceful, the show off force is exessive.
When your protest becomes a riot, yes, it is lawful to order dispersal. You have a right to expression, not a right to ransack other people's property (public and private), if you commit the latter in the guise of the former, then you are in the wrong.
That doesn't explain why people receive permanent disabilities for non compliance. By non compliance I don't mean threatening the life of the police officer by the way I literally mean standing somewhere without moving.
