[guscost]

Was there to document and distribute some propaganda, we did not get very close to the militant action, but a few things to report:

- At least one flash-bang (probably) and one tear gas grenade (definitely) were used on the capitol steps.

- Their duty as police is to protect and serve, so shooting would have been a terrible idea. Evacuation is not difficult in an ultra-hard target like the capitol, and a lot of civilians had bags, some of which definitely contained firearms. I also heard some shouts about fetching guns from hotel rooms (we did not stay overnight in the city). A gun battle would have been catastrophic on both sides.

[8note]

Their duty is not to protect to serve though, it's to enforce. Get the bad guy as long as you don't put yourself in danger; collateral damage is fine

[guscost]

What I’m saying is that they almost certainly would not have been able to “get the bad guys” without being shot themselves, unless the tactic was machine-gun emplacements turning everyone into hamburger, with the side effect of starting a shooting war nationwide.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

I think you have a very weird and wrong idea of what "collateral damage" means. Actually, the police should avoid collateral damage at all cost, even if it means not catching the bad guys.

[modo_mario]

I think he refers to the fact that there's been (supreme)court cases about this that generally rule in the polices favour saying they're under no obligation to protect, etc.

And repeated examples of disregard for collateral damage and proportionality during enforcement like: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ups-driver...

Protocol changes are made like ones with regards to high speed chases but often only after a lot of hubris in which police and/or bystanders die