What is the American police trying to achieve?

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters, to the point where some cops have said they're "tired" or "exhausted".

What does the police think it can gain politically from these methods?
What do you think are their goals here?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have been wondering something similar. With their name being smeared all over the place, and becoming synonymous with violence, lying and corruption, I am not sure what they think they are achieving by confronting any group of people who are committing no crime (many groups only protesting, which is entirely legal) with tear gas and rubber/wooden bullets. They are only further entrenching their image in violence and over-reaction.

I've heard talk from politicians of starting up efforts to dismantle current police forces and replace them with alternatives. I think it is a good idea - even if it is only to get rid of current peoples in place and replace them with an entirely fresh set of people. The whole outfit seems to need a sort of "reset button." Granted - not really fair to those officers doing their jobs without hurting (or killing) people unnecessarily... but as with a great many things, those causing the problems are apparently willing to go on ruining it for everyone.

 

[PureX]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters, to the point where some cops have said they're "tired" or "exhausted".

What does the police think it can gain politically from these methods?
What do you think are their goals here?

They have been trained to "take control" and to "enforce order", rather than to "serve and protect". And this is causing a fundamental conflict between the police and the people they've sworn to serve and protect. They need to re-establish their original mission, and change their training accordingly. I think what happened in Buffalo NY, with that older man being pushed back for no logical reason, causing him to fall and be seriously injured, is a classic example of the failure of police training and tactics to do what the police were established and sworn to do: that is to "serve and protect" the citizenry. Not to "enforce order". It's this insistence on enforcing order that is fueling so much irrational and unnecessary violence against citizens in the U.S.,.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I have been wondering something similar. With their name being smeared all over the place, and becoming synonymous with violence, lying and corruption, I am not sure what they think they are achieving by confronting any group of people who are committing no crime (many groups only protesting, which is entirely legal) with tear gas and rubber/wooden bullets. They are only further entrenching their image in violence and over-reaction.

I've heard talk from politicians of starting up efforts to dismantle current police forces and replace them with alternatives. I think it is a good idea - even if it is only to get rid of current peoples in place and replace them with an entirely fresh set of people. The whole outfit seems to need a sort of "reset button." Granted - not really fair to those officers doing their jobs without hurting (or killing) people unnecessarily... but as with a great many things, those causing the problems are apparently willing to go on ruining it for everyone.

I also disagree with the methods that the police are using on protesters. But it's worth noting that only a few weeks ago, many Democrats (including NYC mayor de Blasio) were encouraging police to use tear gas and pepper spray on a Jewish crowd attending a funeral, for fear of spreading Coronavirus. It's ironic to me how, all of a sudden, many liberals have decided that large crowds should be 100% permitted, when only a few weeks ago many of them advocated for arrest and quarantine of those gathering in large groups. It's a glaring and bothersome inconsistency to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think corrupt police tend to be a universal problem everywhere not particularly in the USA. We have laws, institutions and beliefs that restrain our cops, and we have internal affairs divisions to investigate them. They're also subject to investigations by the FBI, commissioners and mayors. They aren't controlled by a particular political party, either. Generally they do protect and serve, and they put up with a lot of ****, too.

I'm very surprised that northern states still have racist delusions even among some police officers. Kind of seems stupid to me. I'm in the South. I'd have thought the North would have learned something from our example.

 

[Nakosis]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters, to the point where some cops have said they're "tired" or "exhausted".

What does the police think it can gain politically from these methods?
What do you think are their goals here?

Their main job is to serve and protect the local government. This is the real priority over to serve and protect the people. To serve and protect the "people" is more PR then fact.

Because of this politics plays a big part in the tactics used. Local governments have their own agendas so the response is not unified. Some depts have a hands-off approach. Others are law and order. Though we elect the local officials, that doesn't mean they always have our best interest in mind. Anyone can be corrupted by outside influences. Business, unions, corporations etc... Sometimes it is money and power which serves the interest of local government more than the wellbeing of the people.

 

[sun rise]

I think corrupt police tend to be a universal problem everywhere not particularly in the USA. We have laws, institutions and beliefs that restrain our cops, and we have internal affairs divisions to investigate them. They're also subject to investigations by the FBI, commissioners and mayors. They aren't controlled by a particular political party, either. Generally they do protect and serve, and they put up with a lot of ****, too.

I'm very surprised that northern states still have racist delusions even among some police officers. Kind of seems stupid to me. I'm in the South. I'd have thought the North would have learned something from our example.

True. Police in other nations are used to enforce the will of dictators. Hong Kong is a classic example.

There are also good cops and bad cops, good departments and bad departments. We've seen a lot of the latter in the past few days. It seemed that almost every day I read about a few who were caught on camera and were subsequently relieved of duty, fired or charged with crimes. I've also seen some who embody "protect and serve".

Someone on my local Nextdoor offered the idea that before people become cops, they need to work in a non-policing community support role for a while and have community feedback determine whether or not they are hired as cops. I like the idea. Of course, there are questions and details but the basic principle is sound.

 

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, when it comes to their methods of dealing with protests, there is very little difference between the police forces of "dictatorships" and those of nominally democratic and "free" countries.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As far as I can tell, when it comes to their methods of dealing with protests, there is very little difference between the police forces of "dictatorships" and those of nominally democratic and "free" countries.

Like I said the difference is that in our country the police can get into trouble, so they have to behave. They answer ultimately to the public. Hence you are hearing about it here. You've drawn a ridiculous false equivalence.

 

[Tambourine]

Like I said the difference is that in our country the police can get into trouble, so they have to behave. They answer ultimately to the public. Hence you are hearing about it here. You've drawn a ridiculous false equivalence.

What country is that, if I may ask?

The police where I live is nowhere as bad as in the US, but they still can expect minimal disciplinary action when they kill a Black guy.

EDIT: And the police doesn't answer to the public here. They are an administrative unit of the Ministry of the Interior. There is absolutely no mechanism here where "the public" gets to hold the police accountable for anything it does.

 

[Kenny]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters, to the point where some cops have said they're "tired" or "exhausted".

What does the police think it can gain politically from these methods?
What do you think are their goals here?

I don't think overall it is really "violence against peaceful protesters" as much as it is against destructive and violent protestors. Usually, when they are peaceful, the policemen kneel, help protect, or help make sure nothing bad is happening.

Not saying that there hasn't been violence against peaceful protest but rather "overall".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dictatorships are only as strong as the dictator who is of course going to die and may go mad first, and History shows that eventually someone like Trump steps into the dictatorships. Imagine our president as a dictator. That is what eventually happens in dictatorships. Somebody goes nuts, like what happened in 12th century England or Marxist Cambodia. There's a reason why people are getting rid of dictators. They go crazy, and when they die the instability can be devastating. There is a long list of famous and insane dictators and that list is why people are getting rid of that form of government.

 

[George-ananda]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters

I would assume those so-called peaceful protestors are not following legal protesting rules!

 

[PureX]

I don't think overall it is really "violence against peaceful protesters" as much as it is against destructive and violent protestors. Usually, when they are peaceful, the policemen kneel, help protect, or help make sure nothing bad is happening.

Not saying that there hasn't been violence against peaceful protest but rather "overall".

I think the problem is that the police are being told and trained to establish and to "keep order", by employing methods that will inevitably harm anyone who dares not to submit. Yet not submitting is what the protesters are there to do. And often they don't even know how they are expected to "submit" in the first place, as there is a lot of confusion in the streets during a protest. Different protesters are protesting in different ways. Some by being destructive, some by being a nuisance, and some by orderly marching, chanting, etc.,. But the police are told not to differentiate. They are told to "clear the streets" of everyone by whatever force is necessary. And this is where the violence becomes fundamentally abusive and wrong-headed. The orders given pit the police AGAINST the citizenry, when they are supposed to be serving and protecting the citizenry.

This idea that the police must enforce "order", and "control" at any and all cost, is where policing in the United States has gone off the skids. And this is where it needs to be completely refocused, and all it's officers retrained. Their purpose should be to serve and protect the citizens, NOT to establish and enforce social "order" or "control" (whatever that means).

 

[Tambourine]

I would assume those so-called peaceful protestors are not following legal protesting rules!

Why would you assume that?

 

[Ponder This]

As far as I can tell, they are still continueing to use violence against peaceful protesters, to the point where some cops have said they're "tired" or "exhausted".

What does the police think it can gain politically from these methods?
What do you think are their goals here?

Probably their goal is to keep from being murdered or injured on the street, since 17 people have died from unrest caused by George Floyd protesters and more than 400 police officers have been injured in riots across the US.

 

[Tambourine]

I don't think overall it is really "violence against peaceful protesters" as much as it is against destructive and violent protestors. Usually, when they are peaceful, the policemen kneel, help protect, or help make sure nothing bad is happening.

Not saying that there hasn't been violence against peaceful protest but rather "overall".

There have been instances where the police attacked people who weren't doing anything but protesting.
There was also the case in Washington DC where the police attacked people who were protesting at a park, on orders of the POTUS.

In none of these cases did the police kneel, or help protect anybody but themselves.

If a few violent protesters are enough to justify police violence against all of them, then why aren't a few cases of violent police enough to justify attacks against all police?

Probably their goal is to keep from being murdered or injured on the street, since 17 people have died from unrest caused by George Floyd protesters and more than 400 police officers have been injured in riots across the US.

Then why are they attacking peaceful protesters and bystanders? That seems counterintuitive.

 

[George-ananda]

Why would you assume that?

The ridiculousness of the idea that police routinely use violence against peaceful protestors following all the rules. The police have enough real stuff to do.

 

[Tambourine]

The ridiculousness of the idea that police routinely use violence against peaceful protestors following all the rules. The police have enough real stuff to do.

So it is based on deontological principles ("the police will not use violence against people who are peaceful") which you simply assume to hold true in the real world.

I take it you assume that any reports to the contrary are based on lies?

 

[George-ananda]

So it is not based on inference from observation, but on deontological principles which you simply assume hold true.

It's from a lifetime of observing reality and from that forming intelligent opinions.