​While there were peaceful protests in both of those cities the fact that they were destroyed by riots goes to show that not everything was peaceful about it and the police were justified in their response.

​Why are you looking at it in such a broad scope? If there is a peaceful protest occurring, and police respond to it with tanks and tear gas and disperse the crowd, that is unconstitutional.

​Why are you looking at it in such a broad scope? If there is a peaceful protest occurring, and police respond to it with tanks and tear gas and disperse the crowd, that is unconstitutional.

Think about it like this. A nice event is going on, maybe a famous person visiting somewhere. Place gets shot at/bombed and people die, there was low security at the event. These protests are similar, they started peacefully then became riots, smashing cop cars and property, attacking cops. So the next time this event takes place, this theoretical famous visit, there is higher security, preventing a bombing or shooting or attack. Due to tight security it either doesn't happen again or its contained when it happens. Now, protests have had normal police response, and ended violent and couldn't be contained easily. Since this is a common problem police send riot police to contain the now very likely threat of a dangerous riot. It's completely justifiable and has led to successful containment of riots. Those who say that sending riot police sparked riots are talking bullshit, because they rioted against less armoured cops long before they started sending riot officers

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by RDWAIFU

​Why are you looking at it in such a broad scope? If there is a peaceful protest occurring, and police respond to it with tanks and tear gas and disperse the crowd, that is unconstitutional.

​The only time they responded that way is if the protest got out of hand or if it was an unlawful assembly. I know everyone today thinks they are entitled to do whatever they want but that is not how it works. If you decide to start marching hundreds of people down an interstate and block traffic that is illegal and will be dealt with accordingly. It does not matter if they aren't destroying anything. Notice how when people follow the law and put in a permit for a protest the response is not nearly as drastic? I know, following the law is a crazy concept these days. Everyone wants to talk about their rights but nobody actually takes the time to do research on what those rights are, they just know the numbers of a couple amendments to the Constitution (apparently that's all you need to know to be a legal expert in today's world).

The bottom line is if a protest turns to a violent riot, force must be met with force.  http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1435846/baltimore-riots.jpg?w=736

Think about it like this. A nice event is going on, maybe a famous person visiting somewhere. Place gets shot at/bombed and people die, there was low security at the event. These protests are similar, they started peacefully then became riots, smashing cop cars and property, attacking cops. So the next time this event takes place, this theoretical famous visit, there is higher security, preventing a bombing or shooting or attack. Due to tight security it either doesn't happen again or its contained when it happens. Now, protests have had normal police response, and ended violent and couldn't be contained easily. Since this is a common problem police send riot police to contain the now very likely threat of a dangerous riot. It's completely justifiable and has led to successful containment of riots. Those who say that sending riot police sparked riots are talking bullshit, because they rioted against less armoured cops long before they started sending riot officers

The right to assemble is a fundamental constitutional right we are as Americans. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to protest based on whether or not you agree with them. I doubt you would support violent intervention of a peaceful protest in favor of the cops. But by your logic, if all riots started as protests, we should be making sure nobody protests ever. 

It is unconstitutional and un-American to shut down a peaceful protest, more specifically one that challenges the government. Police have to wait until violence erupts before intervening, that's just how our country works.

​The only time they responded that way is if the protest got out of hand or if it was an unlawful assembly. I know everyone today thinks they are entitled to do whatever they want but that is not how it works. If you decide to start marching hundreds of people down an interstate and block traffic that is illegal and will be dealt with accordingly. It does not matter if they aren't destroying anything. Notice how when people follow the law and put in a permit for a protest the response is not nearly as drastic? I know, following the law is a crazy concept these days. Everyone wants to talk about their rights but nobody actually takes the time to do research on what those rights are, they just know the numbers of a couple amendments to the Constitution (apparently that's all you need to know to be a legal expert in today's world).

​That's just not true. There have been plenty of instances of militarized police assaulting journalists and peaceful protests, and even sending in undercover officers to incite violence, although the last part is hard to prove definitively.

The Civil Rights movement practiced civil disobedience, and so are the current peaceful protesters.

 

​That's just not true. There have been plenty of instances of militarized police assaulting journalists and peaceful protests, and even sending in undercover officers to incite violence, although the last part is hard to prove definitively.

The Civil Rights movement practiced civil disobedience, and so are the current peaceful protesters.

 

You seem to forget that civil disobedience isn't necessarily legal. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully defying a law or regulation that you deem inappropriate or wrong. This can include being naked on your front porch, or walking down the middle of the street. It's still against the law, and you'll be dealt with accordingly 

​Why are you looking at it in such a broad scope? If there is a peaceful protest occurring, and police respond to it with tanks and tear gas and disperse the crowd, that is unconstitutional.

​Only people that don't have lives protest. And Police don't use Tanks, they use Armored Vehicles.

You seem to forget that civil disobedience isn't necessarily legal. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully defying a law or regulation that you deem inappropriate or wrong. This can include being naked on your front porch, or walking down the middle of the street. It's still against the law, and you'll be dealt with accordingly 

​But that doesn't the police should escalate the situation with tear gas and batons, because as we've seen, when they do that it turns into a riot. People that are peacfully protesting don't just all of a sudden say "Hey, why don't we light a car on fire?"

People that are peacfully protesting don't just all of a sudden say "Hey, why don't we light a car on fire?"

​Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what happened in Baltimore pretty much? I don't remember the police using any tear gas or batons until those teenagers started the riot after Gray's funeral. The protests and police response were very peaceful imo, up to that point. Again, I could be wrong

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by BlackJesus1

The right to assemble is a fundamental constitutional right we are as Americans. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to protest based on whether or not you agree with them. I doubt you would support violent intervention of a peaceful protest in favor of the cops. But by your logic, if all riots started as protests, we should be making sure nobody protests ever. 

It is unconstitutional and un-American to shut down a peaceful protest, more specifically one that challenges the government. Police have to wait until violence erupts before intervening, that's just how our country works.

I think you need to realise that while it is your right to go out and protest, you cannot simply gather a large group and March down the freeway or into any area. Appropriate authorities must be notified of the protest, otherwise it will be deemed an illegal gathering and dispersed with force if necessary. It's been said already, everyone's all up about their rights, but few actually know them

​Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what happened in Baltimore pretty much? I don't remember the police using any tear gas or batons until those teenagers started the riot after Gray's funeral. The protests and police response were very peaceful imo, up to that point. Again, I could be wrong

​Typically what happens in situations like these is that the peaceful protesters are shouting and screaming at police, and the police begin detaining people, often violently, which fuels the flames even more and the situation spirals further out of control. 

I think you need to realise that while it is your right to go out and protest, you cannot simply gather a large group and March down the freeway or into any area. Appropriate authorities must be notified of the protest, otherwise it will be deemed an illegal gathering and dispersed with force if necessary. It's been said already, everyone's all up about their rights, but few actually know them

​So you don't support civil disobedience, ever? Under any circumstance?

 

 

​Typically what happens in situations like these is that the peaceful protesters are shouting and screaming at police, and the police begin detaining people, often violently, which fuels the flames even more and the situation spirals further out of control. 

This is not the case. Protestors begin disrupting the peace and acting out of line, acting unlawfully. Now, the police officer's creed states that "By law I cannot walk away." This is true, by law a police officer cannot let a lawbreaker go if he is present to see the crime or has sufficient evidence, unless ordered to let them go by higher ups. Police officers are obliged to arrest these lawbreakers, and since a large majority of those in these protests can't understand the simple idea of not breaking the law, they start attacking cops, destroying property, etc. The police are completely justified in their actions in this regard. Cops don't violentky detain someone unless they resist, which they do, and suddenly the crowd of idiots who can't keep in their pent up frustration start swarming and attacking cops, so cops respond with quick use of force and calls for backup, because they very well fear for their lives.

​So you don't support civil disobedience, ever? Under any circumstance?

Not when it is entirely useless and when the term "civil disobedience" gets used as a way to justify attacking cops and destroying property, no. Civil Disobedience is generally illegal, that's the point of it. People can't sem to understand that they need to take responsibility for their actions

 

Edited May 21, 201510 yr by RDWAIFU

Cops don't violentky detain someone unless they resist, which they do, and suddenly the crowd of idiots who can't keep in their pent up frustration start swarming and attacking cops, so cops respond with quick use of force and calls for backup, because they very well fear for their lives.

 

Oh boy.

 

 

 

 

​

Not when it is entirely useless and when the term "civil disobedience" gets used as a way to justify attacking cops and destroying property, no. Civil Disobedience is generally illegal, that's the point of it. People can't sem to understand that they need to take responsibility for their actions

Our country has literally been built upon civil disobedience. Literally nobody is justifying harming police or destroying property, I don't know how you got that impression. Sure, some young and dumb kids might be running around saying "f*** the police", but they don't represent the entire movement.

 

Oh boy.

 

 

 

 

Our country has literally been built upon civil disobedience. Literally nobody is justifying harming police or destroying property, I don't know how you got that impression. Sure, some young and dumb kids might be running around saying "f*** the police", but they don't represent the entire movement.

​I don't mean to debate with you, but it's the little things you people say in your posts that I always disagree with.

"Our country was built on civil disobedience", not technically. Historically speaking, our country was built on freedom, rights, and immigration. Everyone has contributed to the success of this country so that it can be considered the land of opportunity, and the land of freedom. Civil disobedience has contributed to achieving civil rights and equality, but America wasn't necessarily built on civil disobedience.

​That's just not true. There have been plenty of instances of militarized police assaulting journalists and peaceful protests, and even sending in undercover officers to incite violence, although the last part is hard to prove definitively.

The Civil Rights movement practiced civil disobedience, and so are the current peaceful protesters.

 

I would not say plenty of instances. If you look at the big picture the number of cases of police using excessive force is very small compared to the overall picture. And like you said, there is no evidence of the police using undercover officers to incite violence and until such evidence comes out I have a hard time believing that. Why would the police put themselves in more danger than they already are? The only thing undercover officers are used for in a protest or riot is to find who the leaders are and who is inciting violence so those people can be targeted and stopped.​

Unfortunately I think your definition of "peaceful protesters" is way different than mine. The people in Baltimore are not peaceful protesters and many of the protests that everyone saw on the news in Ferguson were not peaceful protesters. As I said before, there were peaceful protesters in both cities but that is not what we saw on the news and that is not what is shown on either of the videos you posted. Those were people breaking the law and when the police showed up the protesters resisted. Do we really live in a world where you can complain about being arrested by the police after you broke the law and resisted them? I really hope not.

 

​But that doesn't the police should escalate the situation with tear gas and batons, because as we've seen, when they do that it turns into a riot. People that are peacfully protesting don't just all of a sudden say "Hey, why don't we light a car on fire?"

So you are saying the police should show up with nothing and hope that they don't need it? If I was a business owner or this was happening where I lived I would not want the police to wait for people to start destroying my property and my neighborhood before doing something. It is called being proactive and it is part of police work. If the police sat around all day waiting for things to happen then our country would be a lot worse. Do you use the same logic for burglars? If a guy is walking through a neighborhood and sees a police car does that make him want to break into a house? And as far as your last comment goes, yes that is pretty much how a riot usually starts. One or a handful of people will take part in a protest and feed off the emotions of the protesters to encourage people to take part in illegal activities.

 

​Typically what happens in situations like these is that the peaceful protesters are shouting and screaming at police, and the police begin detaining people, often violently, which fuels the flames even more and the situation spirals further out of control. 

​Typically what happens in these situations is protesters will see police officers and want to take out their frustration and rage on them. The police will stand there and take this verbal abuse, the protesters will get more and more frustrated that their verbal attacks are not phasing the officers so they will start throwing stuff at them, that is when the police start detaining people. And yes, it is often violent but that is because people resist arrest. Sorry to burst your bubble, but arresting people who are fighting you is violent. It is only violent because the person being arrested is resisting. You rarely see people cooperating getting their ass beat by police. You would not believe the things the police have been putting up with during these protests. There was a video showing police officers standing calmly in a line while people got in their face and called them every name in the book. In the video there was even a black police lieutenant escorting the protesters as they marched through the streets while people from that same protest were calling him a sell out to the system and saying that his kids should be ashamed of him, but he just kept walking and making sure that their march could keep going. Of course after spending 20 minutes searching for the video again I could not find it because nobody wants to see that, it goes against what they want to believe. They only want to see police "abusing" people.

I just find it sad that police departments in America feel the need to use armored vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to feel safe, but there's an underlying issue here that violence is on the rise. The response to that shouldn't be more violance, or bigger and badder toys, it should be finding a solution to the increase in violent acts against civilans and police alike. 

I just find it sad that police departments in America feel the need to use armored vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to feel safe, but there's an underlying issue here that violence is on the rise. The response to that shouldn't be more violance, or bigger and badder toys, it should be finding a solution to the increase in violent acts against civilans and police alike. 

​So what is the other solution? 

​So what is the other solution? 

​I wouldn't be here if I had the solution :P Violence breeds violence sadly, and I want to put a stop to it all together. There shouldn't be any need for police to require armored cars to deal with protests. Criminals needs to be locked up, guns taken away. I know america is a different culture than my country, but looking at America right now I am frightened at the rash development of violent "get-togethers".