Not at all. Daddyo tries to say that 25 to 1 odds in a protest is exeptional and due to that, police are automaticly under a deadly threat. Because they are under deadly theat they can just start throwing tear gas at protesters and when that does not work start throwing flash bangs.
I don't believe that's what he said. I think you are twisting what he has said, and leaving other circumstances out, to come up with that.
Post him saying saying exactly what you said up there. I've been mostly reading the posts directed at me for several pages so I may have missed it. And I mean what you said...not some inference.
Personally I think this line of reasoning is a load of crap.
Please articulate your education/experience that you are drawing from to conclude his reasoning his a load of crap.
His evidence to support this is that he learnt about it in the course he did. And because he did this course he has an insight into the fear and danger a police officer faces during a protest. His insight is greater than ours and we sould believe him based on his knowledge and nothing else.
Here he is setting himself up as an expert.
If he had provided evidence anywhere to support his arguments I would leave him alone. But everything falls back to this one course and his exeptional insight.
So when called to support his reasoning he just claims it is because he knows better. When called on his knowledge he cries and claims that he never said he was an expert.
If we were just a few guys spitballing here about mixing some household cleaning chemicals to make a great cleaner, and some guy chimed in that he learned in chemistry class a better mix of chemicals, would you accuse him of trying to set himself up as an expert or would you take it for what it is....just some guy with SOME additional insight weighing in?
Riddle me this... What could he post that would satisfy this "evidence" standard you are looking for?
There is no bright line rule for tactics, just like there is no definitive definition of when probable cause exists. Even the courts cannot define it and they have said so in their opinions.
So as a cop do you thow tear gas at protesters to clear them?
do you throw flash bangs at protesters giving first aid?
If the protesters have become rioters or members of an unlawful assembly due to exceeding their rights as "peacable demonstrators" and after they refuse orders to disperse...yes, using tear gas is a legitimate tactic.
Your second question is too simplistic. I would respond, does it take 25 people to give first aid to one person?
My view has always been from the start that if they are climbing over the barriers and being a threat. Throw anything you want at them. But if you are throwing tear gas at people because you can't be stuffed physicly moving people and making arrests it is lazy policing.
If you do dissagree show an actual damn example to support your point.
It's not lazy policing... It's actually efficient and prevents serious injury to the protesters and the cops.
Anytime you go hands on with someone you risk a physical fight. In that fight, there is always someone who is armed...the cop (at least). Often, someone ends up getting hurt.
There are those that don't think we should be able to use pepper spray or TASERs. To them, it would be much better if we went back to using fists and sticks to beat people into handcuffs who were resisting. They are usually the ones who think we can shoot the gun out of someone's hand.
As for proof... I've seen many people pepper sprayed and TASERed. And I've seen many people get the fists and the sticks. Of all the people I've seen pepper sprayed and TASERed, I have never seen any of them with lasting significant injuries. I have seen many people with lasting injuries and broken bones after using fists and sticks.
On this vein of lazy policing I will hunt down another piece of video where police are using pepper spray to protect themselves from protesters violently sitting down. (And then running away. This on is seriously weird)
Personally I feel these tactics of gadget reliance does not work and is not ethical.
Well again I ask, you feel this "personally" based on what??? I have SEEN and USED these gadgets and I can tell you they work. And my perspective is from having been there/done that and not from some "theory" I arrived at from in front of my T.V or computer screen.
