Youth riots in France

[Adrian Laguna]

Firearms are new, but if the police in France weren't equipped to handle the riot (sounds like not) then they either take a lot of injuries or fire into the crowd and kill. I'm pretty sure firearms would call for at least tear gas, but lethal force? No fucking way, not when a police force's job is to minimize innocent deaths.

The articles state that the police have used tear gas and rubber bullets. They have fired at the crowds, but not with lead.

[Androsphinx]

Part of me wonders whether it's really random chance that these riots coincide with large-scale protests and strikes against the labour reforms proposed by the Sarkozy government.

Pretty much. These are basically identical to those two years ago, with similar causes, starting-points and tactics, and involving the same disenfranchised minority suburbs. The strikes, etc are a common feature of French employment negotiations. The two do not appear to be linked

[Ryan Thunder]

Improvised explosives and even firearms are parts of professional riots. The problem is whoever organizes the riots has media sensationalism in mind. So they hire "professional rioters" who come with gas masks and throw molotov cocktails to provoke the police to do exactly what you're suggesting: fire into the crowd. What happens is the riot organizers want to escalate it to the point police are firing and killing civilians, then they can point to it and go, oppression. The idea is try and isolate one police officer and drag him into the crowd, or make the police charge and get pictures of brutal beatings. And the best: actual gunfire.

Well, if there was some way to jam/fry the electronics, we could at least deprive them of their bloody camera-phones and digital cameras.

But I'll hazard a guess that they may be smarter than that.

Alternatively, perhaps a national ban on reporting riots within so many hours of their occurrence would be in order. Give the feds some time to clean things up so the fuckers can't glorify the aftermath.

There's gotta be a way to single the fuckers out. It simply will not do to have them running around free after purposely trying to make things worse.

That the French police didn't respond with lethal force means they are highly disciplined and trained, not that they are pussy for not beating the shit out of hundreds of teens or killing them.

Certainly. The level of restraint required to not just kill/maim the fuckers must be enormous.

So sorry to spoil your fun gun freaks. Sometimes, violence is not the best response, even to violence.

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

[TithonusSyndrome]

So sorry to spoil your fun gun freaks. Sometimes, violence is not the best response, even to violence.

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression? After all, it's doing wonders in Iraq, right?

[Stark]

The solution is to liquidate poor people. It helps that many of them aren't white.

[TithonusSyndrome]

My dad is the smartest guy in the whole wide world. He has taught me that all poor people are actually things called clods. I wanna live in a world of only gods, so my idea to make Ameica better is put all the poor people into camps. If we get rid of them, there will be nothing but rich people. And there won't be any hunger, poverty, or homeless people. 'Cause they'll all be dead. The end.

[Ryan Thunder]

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression?

Why would they? What are they, retarded?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression?

Why would they? What are they, retarded?

Maybe they are; there really isn't a good reason for them to be rioting and burning shit now. Either way, do you honestly think that even unaffected affluent French middleclass or the international media would allow them to massacre protesters with impunity?

[Adrian Laguna]

Why would they? What are they, retarded?

Not retarded, angry. Never count on angry people to act in a cool and rational manner. You start shooting rioters, and people will get angry. Their parents will get angry, their brothers, sisters, cousins, and peers will get angry. Not only that, people who have nothing in common with the rioters will get angry too. Rich white kids will see police brutality and start to feel the ideological fervour rising-up.

Shooting rioters is the best way to turn "civil disorder in the suburbs" into "OMG PARIS IS ON FIRE!"

[Lancer]

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression? After all, it's doing wonders in Iraq, right?

Right, because breaking up the riots with teargas, pepper-ball rounds, or some other means of crowd control and then identifying, arresting, and locking up the profesisonal rioters and their backers, hence obliterating the group(s) responsible for the violence, is exactly the same thing as deliberately gunning down everybody in the crowd.

Well then, somebody should tell those fools in charge of security at the WTO and G10 summits, because obviously they could just shoot every protester, right?

Or perhaps you meant that the French police should just stand there armed only with harsh language and nicely ask the rioters to stop?

[Lancer]

Fuck, that should say G8 summit, not G10...

[brianeyci]

Well, if there was some way to jam/fry the electronics, we could at least deprive them of their bloody camera-phones and digital cameras.

But I'll hazard a guess that they may be smarter than that.

Alternatively, perhaps a national ban on reporting riots within so many hours of their occurrence would be in order. Give the feds some time to clean things up so the fuckers can't glorify the aftermath.

There's gotta be a way to single the fuckers out. It simply will not do to have them running around free after purposely trying to make things worse.

Yes let's jam and fry electronics. No wait, a molotov cocktail doesn't have electronics, and taking pictures is part of something called freedom of the press. There is also freedom of assembly, so oops, can't ban protests.

Are you dumb?

Not to mention there's faraday cages. Use your head man.

I'll probably never understand this... How can you have further violence if the source of the violence has been obliterated?

Because riots go away on their own. They are emotional, short term reactions and the organizers cannot sustain them at that tempo indefinitely. In short, people will fucking go home and go back to their jobs, then the protestors will be isolated from the rioters. You can address the root causes of the violence, and then people won't want to go rioting.

Do you need people to explain this shit to you? What the fuck.

By the way from context (sorry to spoil your fun gun freaks), it is clear I mean gun violence and not arrests or police standing in a line using tear gas. So don't try and semantic whore that into police should just surrender to rioters.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression? After all, it's doing wonders in Iraq, right?

Right, because breaking up the riots with teargas, pepper-ball rounds, or some other means of crowd control and then identifying, arresting, and locking up the profesisonal rioters and their backers, hence obliterating the group(s) responsible for the violence, is exactly the same thing as deliberately gunning down everybody in the crowd.

Obliterate =! disperse. At least, I don't consider them synonyms. When someone goes around suggesting that protesters be "obliterated", images of tear gas and over half of the crowd of those original protesters running off to riot another day don't come to mind.

Well then, somebody should tell those fools in charge of security at the WTO and G10 summits, because obviously they could just shoot every protester, right?

Or perhaps you meant that the French police should just stand there armed only with harsh language and nicely ask the rioters to stop?

Did you even read the rest of the thread? Brian already went over this; the French police are treading carefully and professionally so as to not play into the hands of stupid rebel-without-a-cause riot hooligans' intentions. So far, they've managed to deny them what they want.

[Ryan Thunder]

Qualification: Riot != Protest.

I'd rather illegalize both, myself, however. Protests seem to be to be a sign of nothing more than insecurity; if their views were largely held enough to be worthy of consideration, they shouldn't need to demonstrate it to begin with.

After all, why should they inconvenience regular people like you or me just to "send a message" to the authorities if its important enough that they undoubtedly are painfully aware of it already?

[brianeyci]

Protests can turn into riots easily with a small band of guys going out to cause trouble. Did you not read that? Or did you just skip it on purpose?

I'd rather illegalize both, myself, however

That's because you're fucking dumb. Union strikes are a form of protest, and a large group of people getting together is sometimes the best way to let the government know there ARE widely held views. Freedom of assembly is a guaranteed right under the UN human rights charter.

People like you think that protestors are too "pushy" and probably think that any kind of civil disobedience is being too "pushy." Well boo hoo, governments are inefficient, bureaucratic and not always ideal, so freedom of assembly is needed. You've been so comfortable you really don't see the need for Rosa Parks, anti-war protests, anti-discrimination protests and strikes? You probably think that gays are too "pushy" in their "agenda" too.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: By the way I like how you stigmatize protestors and rioters as "not regular people." It's all about your personal convenience isn't it, all about how convenient it is for you. If the government is tyrannical, rioting is the best way to get media attention like the Burma riots.

[Lancer]

Freedom of assembly isn't immunity for criminal activity, so the moment something goes from peaceful protest to car-burning, window-smashing, brick-throwing riot, then you're no longer covered.

Moltov cocktails are considered destructive devices, so possession alone would be grounds for arrest. A crowd that's using moltov cocktails has clearly crossed the line quite a while back.

Taking pictures in and of itself isn't criminal, but if you're taking pictures because you're a part of the group hoping to provoke use of force from the police, then at best you're disrupting lawful assembly (which is typically covered under disorderly conduct).

If you're building a faraday cage for your cell phone that's powerful enough to block a cell-phone jammers, then there's no need for anyone to deploy cell phone jammers since your faraday cage will do the job of preventing you from recieving a signal just as well. It's less of an issue for regular cameras, but if you start rioting and then get arrested, good luck posting those images anytime soon.

It doesn't matter if riots go away on their own or not. What matters is that you now have people running around performing criminal acts. It doesn't make a difference if you're rioting because the Terrapins just beat Duke or because you just need to "get it out of your system", you're still hurting the livelyhood of innocent people, and you're quite probably doing something to endanger your life and the lives of those around you.

[Lancer]

Fuck, you're right, what a stupid idea. They should just cut the protesters to ribbons with gunfire and that'll be that. Surely none of the like minded anti-government or downtrodden people of France will be spurred into taking up their cause by this show of violent suppression? After all, it's doing wonders in Iraq, right?

Right, because breaking up the riots with teargas, pepper-ball rounds, or some other means of crowd control and then identifying, arresting, and locking up the profesisonal rioters and their backers, hence obliterating the group(s) responsible for the violence, is exactly the same thing as deliberately gunning down everybody in the crowd.

Obliterate =! disperse. At least, I don't consider them synonyms. When someone goes around suggesting that protesters be "obliterated", images of tear gas and over half of the crowd of those original protesters running off to riot another day don't come to mind.

I read it to mean obliterate (as in to render non-functional / cause to be forgotten) the group responsible for turning a peaceable protest into a riot, not kill all the bystanders.

Well then, somebody should tell those fools in charge of security at the WTO and G10 summits, because obviously they could just shoot every protester, right?

Or perhaps you meant that the French police should just stand there armed only with harsh language and nicely ask the rioters to stop?

Did you even read the rest of the thread? Brian already went over this; the French police are treading carefully and professionally so as to not play into the hands of stupid rebel-without-a-cause riot hooligans' intentions. So far, they've managed to deny them what they want.

Yes, they're treading carefully, but I still expect that at some point they'll have to arrest those same stupid rebel-without-a-cause hooligans responsible for trying to escallate the riots.

[brianeyci]

Freedom of assembly isn't immunity for criminal activity, so the moment something goes from peaceful protest to car-burning, window-smashing, brick-throwing riot, then you're no longer covered.

This doesn't change the fact that Ryan wants both banned regardless of their level of violence.

Moltov cocktails are considered destructive devices, so possession alone would be grounds for arrest. A crowd that's using moltov cocktails has clearly crossed the line quite a while back.

And the appropriate response is tear gas and non-lethal force. A brick is lethal too, if it hits the right place: would you condone the use of guns on a crowd of guys with a few guys throwing bricks? Do you understand a single bottle from one guy could precipitate a lethal response that could kill many more if you train your police to be easily provoked? Handling a crowd is not the same as handling an individual because you cannot isolate.

Taking pictures in and of itself isn't criminal, but if you're taking pictures because you're a part of the group hoping to provoke use of force from the police, then at best you're disrupting lawful assembly (which is typically covered under disorderly conduct).

With 24 hour news networks, the protestors don't even have to do anything in developed nations.

If you're building a faraday cage for your cell phone that's powerful enough to block a cell-phone jammers, then there's no need for anyone to deploy cell phone jammers since your faraday cage will do the job of preventing you from recieving a signal just as well. It's less of an issue for regular cameras, but if you start rioting and then get arrested, good luck posting those images anytime soon.

Why would you want to jam cell phones anyway? The pictures will leak out eventually, and word will get out of the jamming, which in developed nations will scream coverup. You don't realize you're playing right into their hands with this shit?

Why would you want to stop the spread of information that will eventually come out later anyway? Do you think that if it comes out a few hours later, it'll be less sensational? Maybe a little, but a Rodney King is still sensational hours later or a day later. What a stupid idea a ban is, with potential for extreme abuse by governments for coverups and seizure of pictures of police illegitimately beating peaceful protestors. And don't think it couldn't happen: civil rights movement happened just a few decades ago. We are not at the point yet where the government can be trusted with such extreme powers, for anything.

It doesn't matter if riots go away on their own or not. What matters is that you now have people running around performing criminal acts. It doesn't make a difference if you're rioting because the Terrapins just beat Duke or because you just need to "get it out of your system", you're still hurting the livelyhood of innocent people, and you're quite probably doing something to endanger your life and the lives of those around you.

What matters is the amount of people who will die. I don't particularly care if the police hold back and get some injured, if less people die. Property destruction sure is terrible, but not as bad as many dead teens, unless you're the Chinese government.

[Lancer]

Freedom of assembly isn't immunity for criminal activity, so the moment something goes from peaceful protest to car-burning, window-smashing, brick-throwing riot, then you're no longer covered.

This doesn't change the fact that Ryan wants both banned regardless of their level of violence.

I could care less if Ryan wants both banned, there's still a clear distinction between your right to lawful assembly and what constitutes criminal activity.

Moltov cocktails are considered destructive devices, so possession alone would be grounds for arrest. A crowd that's using moltov cocktails has clearly crossed the line quite a while back.

And the appropriate response is tear gas and non-lethal force. A brick is lethal too, if it hits the right place: would you condone the use of guns on a crowd of guys with a few guys throwing bricks? Do you understand a single bottle from one guy could precipitate a lethal response that could kill many more if you train your police to be easily provoked? Handling a crowd is not the same as handling an individual because you cannot isolate.

Did I say that they should fire into the crowd with live ammunition? No, but if there are firebombs being thrown and guns are being fired from what once was a peaceful protest, then there's clearly been some deliberate and criminal effort to turn the situation violent.

Taking pictures in and of itself isn't criminal, but if you're taking pictures because you're a part of the group hoping to provoke use of force from the police, then at best you're disrupting lawful assembly (which is typically covered under disorderly conduct).

With 24 hour news networks, the protestors don't even have to do anything in developed nations.

Yes, and the news networks are far less likely to paint a sympatheic image of rioters than they are of peaceful protesters. Just look at media coverage of G8 rioters in the past as opposed to their current coverage of the Burma protesters.

If you're building a faraday cage for your cell phone that's powerful enough to block a cell-phone jammers, then there's no need for anyone to deploy cell phone jammers since your faraday cage will do the job of preventing you from recieving a signal just as well. It's less of an issue for regular cameras, but if you start rioting and then get arrested, good luck posting those images anytime soon.

Why would you want to jam cell phones anyway? The pictures will leak out eventually, and word will get out of the jamming, which in developed nations will scream coverup. You don't realize you're playing right into their hands with this shit?

The goal is to disrupt the coordination of the group behind the riots. There will still be media coverage from the news networks, but that isn't an issue, as news networks are't going to plaster "ZOMG Opression!" onto pictures of a violent mob being arrested.

Why would you want to stop the spread of information that will eventually come out later anyway? Do you think that if it comes out a few hours later, it'll be less sensational? Maybe a little, but a Rodney King is still sensational hours later or a day later. What a stupid idea a ban is, with potential for extreme abuse by governments for coverups and seizure of pictures of police illegitimately beating peaceful protestors. And don't think it couldn't happen: civil rights movement happened just a few decades ago. We are not at the point yet where the government can be trusted with such extreme powers, for anything.

You're not stopping the spread of information, as the media networks will still inevitably carry the story. What you're doing is preventing those same groups responsible for disrupting protests and causing riots from getting a media "first strike". Their story of the "protestors being oppressed" will look a lot less credible if there's already been network news coverage of them throwing bricks and burning shit for the past day.

It doesn't matter if riots go away on their own or not. What matters is that you now have people running around performing criminal acts. It doesn't make a difference if you're rioting because the Terrapins just beat Duke or because you just need to "get it out of your system", you're still hurting the livelyhood of innocent people, and you're quite probably doing something to endanger your life and the lives of those around you.

What matters is the amount of people who will die. I don't particularly care if the police hold back and get some injured, if less people die. Property destruction sure is terrible, but not as bad as many dead teens, unless you're the Chinese government.

Rioting is inherently a risky activity. At the University of Maryland "riots", police are content to just watch so long as nothing stupid or outright illegal occurs. However, the moment somebody tries to tip a bus or set stuff on fire, then the police step in to stop it. Here, all that requires are some officers with batons and riotshields.

At the WTO or G8 summits, it may require something more, perhaps pepper balls or teargas. However, the point is still to stop the crowd before they endanger themselves and those around them. Property damage isn't as tragic as a death, but it's a useful indicator for whether or not a peaceful assembly is about to degenerate into an actual riot, and it gives the police an usable excuse to step in to prevent it from doing so.

[brianeyci]

I could care less if Ryan wants both banned, there's still a clear distinction between your right to lawful assembly and what constitutes criminal activity.

So what?

Don't you think I know that?

I only brought up freedom of assembly because he brought up banning.

By the way, that is wrong. If it was so easy to separate lawful assembly from unlawful, or ethical from unethical, then they would've dealt with the Church of Phelps bullcrap a lot quicker. They had to pass special anti-funeral protest laws, and a special group of bikers had to form to shield relatives from Phelps crap.

It is not easy, because some people are there for lawful purposes, while others are not. More importantly: some protests and riots have legitimate complaints, while others do not. Sometimes the law is unethical, as in racist laws in the civil rights era. It is also not easy, because once rights are lost they are difficult to regain if at all, and there is no clear line. What part of that don't you accept?

Did I say that they should fire into the crowd with live ammunition? No, but if there are firebombs being thrown and guns are being fired from what once was a peaceful protest, then there's clearly been some deliberate and criminal effort to turn the situation violent.

So what?

All it takes is one guy with one gun to start the police firing guns back into a crowd?

What exactly do you think police should do? What kind of point are you trying to make?

Yes, and the news networks are far less likely to paint a sympatheic image of rioters than they are of peaceful protesters. Just look at media coverage of G8 rioters in the past as opposed to their current coverage of the Burma protesters.

It depends totally on what they are rioting about. This is not over, not in our lifetimes: if gays are going to get rights, they'll have to protest if not as hard then harder as blacks did.

The goal is to disrupt the coordination of the group behind the riots. There will still be media coverage from the news networks, but that isn't an issue, as news networks are't going to plaster "ZOMG Opression!" onto pictures of a violent mob being arrested.

Why the fuck not? Do you think they are dumb? Pictures are being smuggled out of North Korea on camcorders. You cannot control the flow of information, not in this day and age. Someone, somewhere will figure a way around the silly jamming device, either with a insulated camera or a hard line. Then, game the fuck over. News vans will go incognito. Not to mention this doesn't rebuttal my point that allowing governments to stop civilian coordination is tantamount to putting a matchbook around kids. It's a recipie for abuse, because when there's totally peaceful, non-violent protests, the same camcorders and news networks are the ones who check the police. Who wants a gay beat today?

You're not stopping the spread of information, as the media networks will still inevitably carry the story. What you're doing is preventing those same groups responsible for disrupting protests and causing riots from getting a media "first strike". Their story of the "protestors being oppressed" will look a lot less credible if there's already been network news coverage of them throwing bricks and burning shit for the past day.

You're trying to pander to the dumb. The people who will be convinced without looking at the details and the facts are not worth "shielding" from the information. You can't protect the masses from poor political choices, any more than you can protect them from failing in school.

Rioting is inherently a risky activity. At the University of Maryland "riots", police are content to just watch so long as nothing stupid or outright illegal occurs. However, the moment somebody tries to tip a bus or set stuff on fire, then the police step in to stop it. Here, all that requires are some officers with batons and riotshields.

At the WTO or G8 summits, it may require something more, perhaps pepper balls or teargas. However, the point is still to stop the crowd before they endanger themselves and those around them. Property damage isn't as tragic as a death, but it's a useful indicator for whether or not a peaceful assembly is about to degenerate into an actual riot, and it gives the police an usable excuse to step in to prevent it from doing so.

The point is stopping a crowd requires excessive police manpower and can result in brutal beatings. The point is, unless the police outnumber the protesters by many times (which happens in G8 when they flood the city with every cop in the country) then ad-hoc riots cannot be contained and property destroyed is better than a general melee. It takes several officers to arrest one protestor.

The point is, it's not always possible with the manpower and resources at hand to arrest very many people.

[K. A. Pital]

Qualification: Riot != Protest.

I'd rather illegalize both, myself, however. Protests seem to be to be a sign of nothing more than insecurity; if their views were largely held enough to be worthy of consideration, they shouldn't need to demonstrate it to begin with.

Are you an idiot? The society is stratified; protesting against poverty only concerns, hoopla, the poor classes, and not the others. They are largely held by their own class (the poor, disenfranchised, the unemployed, the beggars, etc.) but not by other classes. Of course, an idiot such as you would want to illegalize protest too. Just why?

"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear"
"If you are poor, work harder!"
"Illegal immigrant? Do not protest, go the fuck away!"
"Dying? Lack of material resources for sustnance and medicines? Well... you're insecure and you brought this upon yourself. Sorry"

After all, why should they inconvenience regular people like you or me just to "send a message" to the authorities if its important enough that they undoubtedly are painfully aware of it already?

Ah, of course. They're so fucking aware that thousands of poor go out and riot. I mean, there IS no problem, right? What a spectacular moron you are.

Yes, and the news networks are far less likely to paint a sympatheic image of rioters than they are of peaceful protesters. Just look at media coverage of G8 rioters in the past as opposed to their current coverage of the Burma protesters.

God, what an idiot you are too. "Media coverage" depends on who orders that coverage. Do you really think the megacorporate media could ever show anti-globalist riots in a positive light? You're more fucking dumb than I thought, right.

I mean, the media has shown protests in Georgia and Ukraine which brought another generation of corrupt political hacks to power, in a very positive light despite them turning out corrupt, authoritarian, and stealing just a little time later - but protests against "pro-Western" regimes are shunned down or even alltogether ignored.

Look how well your "media" covered protests in Georgia which were violently dispersed with toxic gas, internal forces' clubs and panic-inducing soundguns, or the protests against Musharraf. I bet that represents some of the best possible "coverage" of protests

The goal is to disrupt the coordination of the group behind the riots.

Police violence is what these people NEED the most. Provide it to them, and they will FIND a way to get it to the news. YOU will be the moron here, and YOU will be responsible for the violence, which will quickly be used against you.

Their story of the "protestors being oppressed" will look a lot less credible if there's already been network news coverage of them throwing bricks and burning shit for the past day.

That is being done by governments on a regular basis. You're an idiot if you think the government does not submit any newsfeeds which carry it's own perspective on the riots. That's called "information counter" and it has been successfully used both now and in the past. However, that is not going to stop the riot bosses to show the police violence which was REAL, thanks to your retarded ideas.

[Elfdart]

I note occasionally that America is pretty mild and sedate. We get worked up occasionally, but it washes away with the next episode of random reality show, or celebrity scandal, etc. Pretty inane, but mild anyway.

Europeans are opposite. Generally more intelligent and world-smart, but nuttier.

How many people get killed in these French riots?

How many people got killed when the Detroit Pistons won the NBA championship?

French hoodlums are pussies.

[Androsphinx]

I note occasionally that America is pretty mild and sedate. We get worked up occasionally, but it washes away with the next episode of random reality show, or celebrity scandal, etc. Pretty inane, but mild anyway.

Europeans are opposite. Generally more intelligent and world-smart, but nuttier.

How many people get killed in these French riots?

How many people got killed when the Detroit Pistons won the NBA championship?

French hoodlums are pussies.

Put it this way. No theatre in the USA was ever trashed by rioting patrons on the opening night of a play because it wasn't in blank verse.

[Lancer]

So what?

Don't you think I know that?

I only brought up freedom of assembly because he brought up banning.

By the way, that is wrong. If it was so easy to separate lawful assembly from unlawful, or ethical from unethical, then they would've dealt with the Church of Phelps bullcrap a lot quicker. They had to pass special anti-funeral protest laws, and a special group of bikers had to form to shield relatives from Phelps crap.

They had to pass those funeral-protest laws because the Phelps were still operating within the letter of the laws at the time, if just barely. Now, if the Phelps had rushed the funeral-goers, set their cars on fire, or even so much as verbally threatened the funeral-goers, then they'd have clearly passed into the realm of criminal activity. Even then, that didn't and still doesn't protect the Phelps from civil suits.

Note how the police didn't go rushing in to beat up on the defenseless protesters, reviled though they were?

It is not easy, because some people are there for lawful purposes, while others are not. More importantly: some protests and riots have legitimate complaints, while others do not. Sometimes the law is unethical, as in racist laws in the civil rights era. It is also not easy, because once rights are lost they are difficult to regain if at all, and there is no clear line. What part of that don't you accept?

I don't accept that having a legitimate complaint gives you an excuse to destroy somebody elses property or endanger the lives of those around you just because you feel like it. You can march, you can protest, and you can demonstrate all you want so long as you do it peacefully, but you do not have a right to throw bricks at people, toss firebombs, or take potshots at the police.

There's a marked difference between the civil disobedience methods employed by the civil rights movement of the mid 1900's and a bona fide riot. Most notably, the civil rights protesters that most helped their cause didn't act try to trash and destroy the places they were marching through.

So what?

All it takes is one guy with one gun to start the police firing guns back into a crowd?

What exactly do you think police should do? What kind of point are you trying to make?

I'm saying that a violent mob performing criminal actions (note, violent != unruly) should be all it takes for the police to disperse the crowd and start arresting the rioters. They don't have to do so immediately, but at some point they'd have to prevent the situation from escallating. Again, I'm drawing a distinction between peaceful protesters and violent rioters.

It depends totally on what they are rioting about. This is not over, not in our lifetimes: if gays are going to get rights, they'll have to protest if not as hard then harder as blacks did.

And as long as they peacefully protest, I could care less about the lack of police intervention. However, if a gay rights march in DC tries to recreate Sherman's march to the sea, then I definitely expect the police to take actions to contain the situation, just like they would for anyone else.

Why the fuck not? Do you think they are dumb? Pictures are being smuggled out of North Korea on camcorders. You cannot control the flow of information, not in this day and age. Someone, somewhere will figure a way around the silly jamming device, either with a insulated camera or a hard line. Then, game the fuck over. News vans will go incognito. Not to mention this doesn't rebuttal my point that allowing governments to stop civilian coordination is tantamount to putting a matchbook around kids. It's a recipie for abuse, because when there's totally peaceful, non-violent protests, the same camcorders and news networks are the ones who check the police. Who wants a gay beat today?

You're trying to pander to the dumb. The people who will be convinced without looking at the details and the facts are not worth "shielding" from the information. You can't protect the masses from poor political choices, any more than you can protect them from failing in school.

Unabashedly yes, I am pandering to the dumb. The people who will be convinced without looking at the details just so happen to be the most likely to be provoked into joining the riots. People who are rational, critical thinkers are more likely to see the situation for what it is, rioters deliberately trying to provoke the police, and say "peaceful protest my ass" instead of taking to the streets, torching cars and screaming "gov'ment oppresion!".

I think it's perfectly ok for the news networks cover the story. Let them do so. I'm not advocating a total media blackout, which is what you seem to be strawmanning my position into. If you get police opening fire on peaceful protesters, news networks will still flay them alive, but by the same token, news networks are unlikely to edit their footage just to paint rioting thugs as peaceful protesters.

The point is stopping a crowd requires excessive police manpower and can result in brutal beatings. The point is, unless the police outnumber the protesters by many times (which happens in G8 when they flood the city with every cop in the country) then ad-hoc riots cannot be contained and property destroyed is better than a general melee. It takes several officers to arrest one protestor.

The point is, it's not always possible with the manpower and resources at hand to arrest very many people.

There used to be a time (as recent as 2002) where the riots at UMD required the mobilization of university, county, and even state police. But after penalties for rioting were increased and more aggressively enforced, the riots toned down a lot. Compare the arrests of 18 people in 2002:

...Prince George's County Police made nine arrests; University Police, eight arrests; and Maryland State Police, one arrest.

University of Maryland Police made the arrests in connection with a variety of assaults, disorderly conduct and damage of property, said spokesman Capt. Paul Dillon. At least one person was arrested after throwing glass bottles at police and another when officers saw him damaging a police cruiser.

Two of the arrests county police made were in connection with the looting of College Park Bicycles. Of the others, six were for disorderly conduct and one was for disorderly conduct and assaulting an officer by hitting him in the jaw with a bottle, County Police Chief Gerald Wilson said.

The person state police arrested was charged with second degree assault, said spokesman Sgt. David Blake.

Medics were as busy as police, as the two groups moved together throughout the night to respond to injuries and fires.

"For every one of those calls, there was at least five Maryland State Police officers accompanying us," for safety and easy access to the victims, said Ronald Blackwell, chief of the Prince George's County Fire and Rescue Department.

The department responded to 40 calls in a four-hour period, 24 of which were for medical attention and 16 involving fires on campus and in the College Park area, Blackwell said.

Of the 24 medical calls, eight individuals were sent to hospitals for burns, cuts, bruises, seizures and alcohol-related problems, Brown said. One student was treated for deep cuts on his head, another person was transported with second degree burns on his hands....

To what happened just two years later.

...Fans spilled into the streets in College Park, Md., after Maryland's victory against Duke.

Police wearing riot gear had to disperse one large crowd that was blocking traffic. Firefighters finally got through to reach the scene of a bonfire that had been set in the road. Another fire, quickly put out, was set along Fraternity Row. No arrests were reported.

In recent years some of Maryland's biggest athletic wins and losses have sparked rioting, bonfires and property destruction....

Granted, there will be instances where the police will be caught off guard, but containment does work, at least locally. If you establish a culture which says "hey guys, it's ok to riot", then you'll get more severe riots. If you establish a culture that says "hey guys, it's ok to assemble, but don't fucking do anything illegal", then you won't get as many major riots.