http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huxley-or...
(The creator, Stuart McMillen, felt compelled to remove it from his own website. He explains: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...)
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s...
That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in the wrong.
It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used constantly during the occupy protests, and many of those offenders were later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up the protests and destroy their message.
...except the police officers murdered in Dallas this year didn't wear riot gear on purpose and the violence started when a sniper started shooting officers. Some crazy person executed two officers in Iowa three days ago.
I'm not advocating riot gear, but there are holes in your narrative.
These reasons don't fit into "because The Man" narratives without some explanation.
They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment.
How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?
"Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
"acting like they are only increases popular resentment"
Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear...
"How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?"
Valid point. Lets ask a similar question. How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
> "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
> Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa.
> Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails.
Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed.
> How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
They are a tiny minority of protestors.
Sure, but their job is literally go find the most dangerous people in the country, and make them give up their freedom.
Imagine yourself outside the headquarters of a gang of meth cooks, known to be armed and high. Unfortunately, yeah, people get shot. Lets not pretend like these are kind, innocent people. I know sometimes their relatives will say that on tv[1]. Imagine what its like to deal with hardcore criminals on a regular basis.
"it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed"
I agree. The problem is, how do you know in advance? Peaceful protests can turn violent in the blink of an eye. When they do need the gear, they needed it 5 minutes ago. I would love to hear a solution that doesnt involve the police running back to their cars, right at the moment that things get out of hand.
"They are a tiny minority of protestors"
Agreed. But again, how to know which ones? Now you can see why they want to monitor social media(not taking a position here). If 99 people are saying, "grab a coat and join us for a peaceful protest", and 1 is saying "grab rocks and head the park", well, now maybe we know who to watch.
1. http://wncn.com/2016/11/03/parents-of-pizza-hut-robbery-susp...
Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack?
> Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised.
While that has certainly happened, you are referring to Michael Brown, who did not, in fact, have his arms raised and was, in fact, beating the police officer who shot him.
> The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.
I suspect you blame Drug Prohibition (and I agree that it should end immediately), but that's not actually true: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/releasing-drug-offenders-...
Looking at what people actually go to prison for, it often seems like stuff we'd want to send people to prison for: murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud. Maybe we might look at why Americans commit so much murder, assault, theft, rape and fraud?
The one where they were shooting at cops, you mean? True, that part didn't get a lot of coverage.
Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go:
1. Violent crime
2. Property crime
3. Everything else
Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas.
The overwhelming majority of incarcerated felons victimized somebody else. It's also worth considering that the majority of those incarcerated for property crimes victimized those people in society least able to absorb the harm: rich white people live in low-crime neighborhoods with 2x the police coverage.
Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules.
Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies.
We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And Plato was firmly convinced that democracies were bad. After all he was sponsored by the wealthy ones that hated the people to have power.
Perhaps it's less of a democracy then we think it is, but it's not wrong to call the US a democracy.
However I used the word in the way how it is used nowadays by public. I am from Europe and people here will tell you we have "democracies".
You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.
Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.
Unless you can personally claim ownership of those people, among other things you're claiming ownership* of, there is no aggression (initiation of violence) taken upon your person or things when someone is destroying their life.
If you can personally claim ownership of those people, and society as a whole, then you are correct and the selling of the drugs would be an act of aggression towards yourself.
* The act of withholding something from others.
However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.