[Philorandroid]

This reads like you suppose the only thing to do is let rioters vent their outrage against whatever objects happen to be in their way at the time, and hope that there exists some legal comeuppance after the fact.

Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage? What moral dilemma exists that makes protecting property deserve a comparison to executing someone?

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage?

It can, of course. If a police officer sees an individual engaging in property damage, that officer may walk over to that person and arrest them. If that person resists arrest, the officer can use appropriate force.

If you're talking about using force against innocent individuals who happen to be nearby, of course that is both outrageous and out of the question.

[immibis]

Outrageous, out of the question, and practiced at 99.9% of protests that disagree with the government's foreign policy.

[fc417fc802]

> Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used

No one said that. It was suggested that physically injuring someone in direct retaliation for property damage wasn't appropriate. Add to that the fact that riot control measures are hardly targeted.

There are many non-violent options available. Sometimes rioters will escalate violently against the officers carrying those out. It's far less likely anyone objects to proportionate and necessary use of force in such cases.

[Philorandroid]

If threat of injury is what stops someone from destroying your car, then it's appropriately leveraged.

I'm also curious, what kind of effective, 'non-violent' means are there to control the initial mob-martyrs, and ensure level-handed justice is served? Those looking to escalate will use any police activity against them or their group as justification to do so.