[arcticbull]

Without taking a meaningful position here, how do you differentiate between the individuals on the street who are generally poor and powerless (and if you take them at their word, disenfranchised), while the police are backed by the institution, carrying military weapons, and legally empowered to use violence to stop them?

This is a question I have struggled with, so I'm curious what your take is, and that of the rest of the community here.

In the platonic ideal, of course, the protesters would be peaceful and affable people. On the other hand, in a platonic ideal, nobody would need to be protesting in the first place.

Similarly, in the platonic ideal, police would be kind and friendly, but of course, then they wouldn't be defending the state from these individuals in the first place.

So, where does that leave us?

tl;dr: Does the situation change if we frame the protestors as "mostly poor, powerless and disenfranchised" and the police as "mostly powerful, backed by the largesse of the state and largely militarized" in this specific time and place?

[edit] In a way, I would argue that the police are entrusted with using violence - in the right time and place - and are rarely held accountable for failing to do so. It's not the police' use of violence people are protesting in general (after all this is the monopoly they have been granted), but rather their lack of accountability for failing to do their jobs in the instances that they do.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'd certainly agree that, when poor, powerless and disenfranchised people are randomly lashing out, the only solution is to enfranchise them and bring them out of poverty. (And of course, we should try to do those things no matter what - bringing people out of poverty is an important priority no matter how peaceful things are.)

What scares me is when wealthy, powerful, and enfranchised people fan the flames. There was a period of a week or so when mobs were going around breaking things, buildings in every major city were being boarded up - and many politicians and news outlets explicitly endorsed the mobs! There was a famous video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1mxJMIIMuE) where an MSNBC reporter said the protests were "not generally speaking unruly" while standing in front of a building burning to the ground.

[symlinkk]

What’s with the wall of text? Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it

[arcticbull]

> What’s with the wall of text?

Because, if you'd read it, it's much more nuanced than you're making it out to be. I felt an exploration might be interesting. You clearly disagree.

> Violence isn’t justified regardless of who’s doing it.

Yes, it is. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period. I doubt even a pacifist monk would disagree.

Where things get more interesting is what if an oppressive system comes at you, and isn't interested in your feedback or reforms?

[bleepblorp]

Quoting from your downstream posts for which HN is blocking replies:

> The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded.

Police work doesn't even break the top ten most dangerous careers in the US. Landscaping workers are more likely to die on the job than police officers.[0]

Police work is just not that dangerous.

[0] https://www.workandmoney.com/s/most-dangerous-jobs-29090b32c...

[bra-ket]

> If someone comes at you with a knife, you're justified in a violent response. Period.

Exactly. Only there is no 'oppressive system', but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon who's about to attack.

[arcticbull]

So there's a few things here.

> Only there is no 'oppressive system'.

I think this is open to debate, and it's not fair to simply state it as fact given the evidence.

> ... but an individual officer responding to 911 call and standing against an agitated individual with a weapon and who's about to attack.

Indeed, but that's also overly simplistic. A violent response is justified but isn't necessarily preferred, and degree matters. Proper training in de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, safety equipment, non-lethal, less-lethal and eventually if necessary lethal weapons are all available to officers.

How you pick is a systemic question. How much training and what kind is a systemic question. And the results are measurable. Indeed Canada's per capita police shooting rate is 1/10th that of the US -- and Canada's pretty high as far as rich countries go! New Zealand police killed 2 or 3 people since 2015.

It's overwhelmingly not a kill-or-be-killed situation, and further, the job of an officer is not to eliminate 100% of harm potential for themselves at all costs -- but instead to resolve the situation with the optimal outcome for all involved. The job is in fact risky, which is why the profession is so highly regarded.

I maintain the issue is one of accountability, between police not being held accountable for gross negligence, the unequivocal support from the police unions and of course, qualified immunity. I suspect people just want to feel like they're being treated fairly. If you don't hold anyone accountable it creates a negative feedback loop breaking trust and making the job more dangerous for everyone.