[Strang]

I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either.

I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?

[didibus]

The issue as I see it relates to collateral damage. If you anthropomorphize a crowd as if it suddenly becomes a single entity that is acting criminally, you're clubbing tons of innocent people that are peaceful and law abiding with it.

I see it all the time, people start talking about The Crowd with a capital C. Or sometimes The Protester with a capital P.

So a few individuals in a crowd are acting up, and to react to that, instead of going after them directly, we target the entire crowd of people, which includes almost always more peaceful and legally abiding individuals than not and we use force against them all without discrimination. Often times the crowd even might have peaceful children, elderly, handicapped people, yet you fire the toxic gas, the rubber bullets, the flash bangs at them all.

The Police role at a protest should be to protect the crowd from individuals endangering it first and foremost, and then to protect the bystanders and some of the surrounding private/public property, all from the individuals that are breaking the law. It is not a battle between Police and Crowd or State and Crowd, people have the right to peacefully assemble and protest without any time limits.

So if you agree with that, the question goes back to collateral damage. I just don't see where else people would accept such a undiscriminating use of force. Would you be okay that an entire apartment building be tear-gassed just to stop an escalating case of conjugal violence happening in a single unit of the appartment complex? I wouldn't, and I don't see what's different with the situation here.

[chrisseaton]

> I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd.

If they're assembled illegally, then surely you want to arrest them and have them face justice, not let them go by dispersing them.

If they're not assembled illegally, then leave them alone.

[Nursie]

In the UK crowds are contained until they can be dispersed, without the use of this stuff.

I don't have all the answers, but perhaps studying other countries with lesser police violence problems might help.

[kqr]

The "problem" with studying other countries is that US citizens are armed to their teeth compared to citizens of most of the rest of the civilised world. Police in the US pretty much always have to approach a situation fearing for their lives.

Not that this excuses their actions -- just pointing out that it's a systematic problem that's hard to weed out by looking at countries where police often leave their weapons in the car when they go to confront suspects of non-violent crimes.