Should the army be brought in to control violent demonstrations

[Chris_Sleeps]

Read the post again please.

I shall prod your tautology if you wish. The police don't lawfully attack people because attacking people is against the law.

 

Are you saying the police don't break laws?

[andygardener]

So the police have a carte blanche? Any police violence can be called "reasonable" because it's impossible to prove otherwise?

 

In public order scenarios, pretty much yes. The copper who killed that bloke down in london (who wasn't even at the protest) got away with it.

[Chris_Sleeps]

The copper who killed that bloke down in london (who wasn't even at the protest) got away with it.

Which is a terrible injustice.

[harvey19]

I shall prod your tautology if you wish. The police don't lawfully attack people because attacking people is against the law.

 

Are you saying the police don't break laws?

I explained why the police use force to control a situation.

Let me ask you what you would do if you were confronted by an aggressive number of people who would not listen to reason and were attacking you, throwing missiles and destroying property.

Police officer have been charged and imprisoned for breaking laws.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Let me ask you what you would do if you were confronted by an aggressive number of people who would not listen to reason and were attacking you, throwing missiles and destroying property.

I can honestly say i don't know. One of the problems in such situations is an "us" vs "them" mentality, on both sides. The police represent authority, and some people can't understand there is a human being under the uniform. The protestors represent ... well, i dunno.

 

I can't condone people attacking the police, and on the other hand i can't condone the police attacking anyone. I'd love to say "the guilty should be arrested" but it isn't that simple, sadly.

[harvey19]

I can honestly say i don't know. One of the problems in such situations is an "us" vs "them" mentality, on both sides. The police represent authority, and some people can't understand there is a human being under the uniform. The protestors represent ... well, i dunno.

 

I can't condone people attacking the police, and on the other hand i can't condone the police attacking anyone. I'd love to say "the guilty should be arrested" but it isn't that simple, sadly.

Just to add that for any situation different peoples perception of what happened can differ dramatically.

[Chris_Sleeps]

This is the problem with violence. It muddies the waters. We can't grasp a concept of good or bad, right or wrong in a violent protest. I can't say the man throwing a snooker ball was worse or better than the policeman pulling a disabled man from his wheelchair. It makes the whole thing ugly.

[Halibut]

This is the problem with violence. It muddies the waters. We can't grasp a concept of good or bad, right or wrong in a violent protest. I can't say the man throwing a snooker ball was worse or better than the policeman pulling a disabled man from his wheelchair. It makes the whole thing ugly.

 

I agree that violence muddies the waters, but in the example you cite, I think I can say with some confidence that the guy hurling the snooker ball is somewhat less wrong than the cop dragging the bloke out of the chair - at least if you view it in terms of power relationships.

 

Bloke throwing ball - presumably mobile, able to run or evade capture. Throwing the ball - highly dangerous (potentially fatal) , but presumably throwing it at police lines - superior numbers, hopefully dressed in full protective gear. Knows the police can arrrest him and charge him with offences if they catch him.

 

Copper dragging bloke out of wheelchair - bloke represents no threat to him, vastly unequal in power terms, knows he is unlikely to be disciplined and even more unlikely to face any charges as a consequence.

[Conrod]

I agree that violence muddies the waters, but in the example you cite, I think I can say with some confidence that the guy hurling the snooker ball is somewhat less wrong than the cop dragging the bloke out of the chair - at least if you view it in terms of power relationships.

 

Bloke throwing ball - presumably mobile, able to run or evade capture. Throwing the ball - highly dangerous (potentially fatal) , but presumably throwing it at police lines - superior numbers, hopefully dressed in full protective gear. Knows the police can arrrest him and charge him with offences if they catch him.

 

Copper dragging bloke out of wheelchair - bloke represents no threat to him, vastly unequal in power terms, knows he is unlikely to be disciplined and even more unlikely to face any charges as a consequence.

So a bloke throwing a potentially lethal object at people is less wrong than Police doing their job and dealing with a protestor by dragging him from his chair.

 

On the one hand, the politically incorrect move of manhandling somebody in a wheelchair.

On the other, trying to grieviously injure/kill a Policeman - and you think that's relatively ok because he knows the risks (and you don't seem to like the Police having unequal power).

 

Dear God.

[harvey19]

I agree that violence muddies the waters, but in the example you cite, I think I can say with some confidence that the guy hurling the snooker ball is somewhat less wrong than the cop dragging the bloke out of the chair - at least if you view it in terms of power relationships.

 

Bloke throwing ball - presumably mobile, able to run or evade capture. Throwing the ball - highly dangerous (potentially fatal) , but presumably throwing it at police lines - superior numbers, hopefully dressed in full protective gear. Knows the police can arrrest him and charge him with offences if they catch him.

 

Copper dragging bloke out of wheelchair - bloke represents no threat to him, vastly unequal in power terms, knows he is unlikely to be disciplined and even more unlikely to face any charges as a consequence.

If the man was inciting violence a wheelchair does not make him immune from arrest.