US Policing and crowd control... a study in the wrong mind-set

Recently, people around the globe appear to be experiencing something far from acceptable, from those they employ to protect and police their communities.

Often we hear spurious claims about the collective stupidity of "people." People are told to fear large gatherings of protestors. "A person can be smart" but "People are stupid" we are repeatedly reminded at every appropriate opportunity.

The consistent message delivered is that protests are just a hairs breadth away from a riot, and good citizens should stay clear.

It appears police approach scenarios of protests as expecting the inevitable confrontation as a matter of course... to that end they are both fired up, aggressive to react, and generally fearful to protect themselves as if "they" were the target of the protest personally.

But most of this is to say that the posture is in large part a principle component of the problem. And I am not alone in that notion...

Considering the tragedies being seen in Ferguson, Missouri; we can't be ready to believe that the response to any protest is only going to get worse. More "projection of force" responses will lead to more protests, which will lead to ever-escalating "projections of force" and protests... eventually we will get to the point where a serious debate about the right to protest will take place... and we are likely to be so weary of the conflicts that we'll entertain the thought of removing that last venue of speaking to power as a people. We already lost the vote, our politicians are already the "property" of someone other than "the people," and the ruling technocracy has pretty much reduced the citizens of our country to human resource 'widgets.'

I hope someone is listening.

Another author wrote:

One of the most worrying aspects of this drama is what it reveals about US crowd-control methods. In Europe, many police forces have started to accept that the traditional model of public-order policing, which treats all crowds as potentially dangerous, often makes things worse. This model dates back to the French Revolution, which seeded the idea that crowds turn people into primitive, dysfunctional automata, and that the only way to deal with protestors is to attack, disperse or "kettle" them – a draconian form of containment.

Such tactics are slowly being abandoned in Europe because social psychologists have demonstrated time and again that they can have a dramatic and often catastrophic effect on how people in crowds behave. They have found that the way a protest is marshalled has a greater influence on whether it ends peacefully or violently than the actions of any hooligan minority within the crowd. This puts the police in a powerful position, even before they take aim with rubber bullets or tear gas.

To paraphrase the author, some social psychologists have challenged this idea that crowds are dangerous, and have conducted research from within which can be interpreted differently from the predominant model.

People in such crowds don't "lose their minds" but instead adopt a common outlook ... whether it be protesting a government action, event, or supporting a favorite team. Part of that dynamic makes people more responsive to common perception, including threats... where one is seen to be victimized all sense the threat of victimization... hence, pepper spray a protestor, and be prepared to pepper spray a hundred more... we know where this leads.

In the US, however, police appear still to cling to the old "riot squad" methods. They are wedded to the idea that large protest groups are inherently dangerous and that force is the best way to deal with them. The so-called "war on drugs" and fears of terrorism post-9/11 have encouraged US authorities to equip their law enforcement agencies with military-style weapons and other high-octane hardware. Containment takes precedence over negotiation every time.

I think the hypothesis I would like to offer is that we ought to rethink a way to convince the police that quite frequently they precipitate, cause, give rise to, and or actually start the problems they are so fearful of. Perhaps they might benefit from de-escalating every response to crowd gatherings rather than seeking direct and immediate violent containment.

Hammers see all problems as nails.... give the hammer a tear-gas canister and the hammer may very well see all problems as targets.

(excerpts from Source )

This was very informative. Now we get to get it to mayors and police cheif accross the US.

It's not police tactics that we need to change (nor can we change them).

It is our tactics that must change. They would like nothing better than to get into a violent mass confrontation with the people--it's what they've been trained to do. Many of them just can't wait to beat someone down or launch tear gas into someone's backyard.

They're completely brainwashed, and there isn't a psychological or sociological study in the world that is ever going to change that.

Forget trying to change the police. We are not going to "convince them" of anything. We need to come up with innovative methods of resistance for which the police are not prepared. The onus is on us. It is our responsibility, not the cops, the politicians, or the social scientists.

While its true a person can only control themselves. What you propose seems to be do nothing. So more people will die and be injured.

No. I prefer to speak out and ask that our LEOs receive the training required to interact with the public as we are. Not the public they want us to be.

a reply to: NthOther

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
What you propose seems to be do nothing. So more people will die and be injured.

No. I prefer to speak out and ask that our LEOs receive the training required to interact with the public as we are. Not the public they want us to be.

You say I'm proposing doing nothing, yet then you propose that all we do is "speak out", and beg them to not beat us up anymore.

Really? Talk is cheap and ineffective. We don't need to ask them for anything.

I advocate innovative direct action. Did you even read my whole post?

originally posted by: NthOther
It's not police tactics that we need to change (nor can we change them).

....

They're completely brainwashed, and there isn't a psychological or sociological study in the world that is ever going to change that.

Forget trying to change the police. We are not going to "convince them" of anything. We need to come up with innovative methods of resistance for which the police are not prepared. The onus is on us. It is our responsibility, not the cops, the politicians, or the social scientists.

While I do support the idea that we shouldn't have to ask , as well as the idea that there is a "they" who must be convinced. I disagree however in your direction beyond that.

We shouldn't have to ask because in an ideal world, some of those police, were they not on duty, would be protesting with us.

It is not the police who need convincing... it's those who demand they use these tactics... mostly that is not the police... ever notice who lobbies the politicians about police gear, criminal management, and "ways to identify threats?" Mostly military-tactical experts.... (A hammer seeing a nail.)

Protest, furthermore, is a matter of free speech... and neither you nor I can impose a "way it is to be done" without negating the freedom that right represents.

Protesters and police must never "be at war" with one another. Police are trained armed - and most importantly - they are a team... Protest rally-goers do not gather as a "team" - they are there to be heard. If they brought weaponry then their object was not protest, but violence. (That invites all manner of abuse.)

Where police seem to fail is in making their efforts to enforce protesters to "shut up" and "stand down." Such an efforts is implicitly includes having one's voice silenced. The more idealistically you believe you have a right to protest, the more you are compelled to resist. That's why fear almost always enters such encounters....

Protesters nearly always fail when they ignore their responsibility to "be heard" and instead pursue behavior that moves them away from being heard. It takes only one motivated to violence; that violence sparks overwhelming force... and most inflamed co-protesters have no idea why it appears that protester is being repressed... and they act on the appearance in response...

In protest there is no real "us".... only motivated people who agree on particular point or aspect of life (outside of that there is no contract between them.)

There is no "right" way to do it... only a wrong way to react (from outside or within)

Peace

a reply to: NthOther

I did, ty for asking. I personally don't get paid during my interactions with LEOs. Do others I'm not aware of?

I happen to know due to seminars I take involving my children's education that there are people that do beg the police to allow them to train them on how to handle a person with special needs. Free. Not only free but accredited. At this time "a few " departments take them up on this.

Alternativly there are life skills classes even adults can take that do indeed include what to.do during an LEO interaction. This method while is taking responsibility for yourself is not cheap and is a form of training that the general public has no reason to realize they need.

Personally I have experienced LEOs that don't understand that not everyone has to look like they have an issue to actually have an issue. I stood next to the sign of a program for special needs children and had to explain to the officer what the place was and, that the police were called for the EXACT behavior the child was referred there for. This officer honestly had no idea that unless the occupants of that building were employees, then they had to be diagnosed with a special need to be there. This is that mans community, lived there... drove by there. He just didn't know.

If we put the responsibility back where it belongs. On the people paid to protect and serve, my hope is better interactions and understanding of the public that is actually being served. I believe the police should know that address of a behavioral heath treatment location. Anyone going to or coming from that address may not be able to properly communicate.

a reply to: Maxmars
In reading your post I realized that we all see an issue. We simply can't decide how to resolve it. That was an eye opener for me. Ty.

Or we could show the brainwashed LEO's what a real protest looks like.

Here the American cops cry like little babies when water bottles were thrown at them.

Remember Kiev? That's a real protest.

American LEO's would be running scared for the hills if they ever were given any real resistance.

Not advocating this - just a thought.

a reply to: Maxmars

Is call in my books mental conditioning, to get the people ready for new rules, laws, acts, regulations and rewording that will restrict more our ability to exercises our civil rights.

Patriot act is still very much alive. Remember.

a reply to: NthOther

Wrong. Police tactics NEED to change. They are the violent precipitators more often than not these days. Your attitude couldn't be more wrong. Its too late to sympathize and feel sorry for violence merchants.