Why do police agencies always have to put down peaceful protests?

Economics Political Theory
1

I just looked at an article from the paper earlier today and I’ve noticed a historical trend. I don’t want to say this is a historical fact here. But I’ve noticed more and more that in oppressive regimes and in supposed Democratic ones that the police always seem to be in favor of the state. Why is it that the police seem to be unwilling to follow unconstitutional orders, and, illegal actions, such as oppressing peaceful protests, not just in our country, but also in other countries around the world? First I’d like to show a few examples from our country, the United States, and I’d like to show examples from other countries like Thailand, China, and perhaps Israel, where the Police have been used against protesters who haven’t done anything wrong. But they just try to stir up trouble to make them look bad.

Our government has something called cointelpro. Other governments do things that are similar. I don’t think it has to be this way. But I’m thinking more and more often that it is.

Just an FYI, for those who don’t know what COINTELPRO is. COINTELPRO is why the anti-war protests have been targetted for speaking out against the government. Democrats have been operating with a clandestine COINTELPRO program against the tea party. It still lives on today. It’s what the government does when it wants to smear peaceful protesters. They have the police go after protesters who are using their constitutional rights, and, to smear them for going against the establishment.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thai-police-protestors-in-stand-off-after-attacks-2010-04-22?reflink=MW_news_stmp

http://www.today.az/news/turkey/65330.html

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that all police are bad here. The police in Mexico serve a purpose. They have to fight all the drug cartels and make sure they’re not wrecking the country. But why is it that police generally tend to be on the side of the executive branch and the government? They have to enforce the laws. That’s what their role is. But they should be more independent and they shouldn’t just be dogs and try to quiet peaceful protesters who aren’t breaking any laws. I don’t see why police have to be always in favor of the current regime. Why does it have to be like this? I know I could use more examples… but that’s all I could think of right now.

2

Large protests usually get media attention. Police intervention is just their way of advertising the fact that “we the people” really need them more than ever to protect from all these hobgoblins! It’s not enough that their cronies in government need to invent new crimes to slam people in the pen…

3

You have it backwards. The current regime is always in favor of the police. The police have the guns. The regime is just the public face, and is totally replaceable.

The same in the United States: the military industrial complex doesn’t care who’s face is in the newspapers (Bush or Obama), as long as they don’t have to find a job pumping gas.

Protesters bring into question the authority of the state. It means that the top-down structure of rulership is weakened. The police will never stand for that.

4

I dunno, I personally think the 1 million teabags being rerouted for lack of permit makes sense even though it’s red tape at its finest. I also think investigating a package that gets thrown towards the White House makes sense. Can’t be too careful and the protestors were allowed to return after the package had been inspected. I don’t understand how the one about bad weather has anything to do with this. The incident at Pittsburgh does sound bad. Although if they were doing something illegal, they were doing something illegal. Either way, the police response sounds like it was unnecessarily brutal, so that’s a real problem.

5

Sun. 10/04/25 14:02 EDT
.post #76

[url=Why do police agencies always have to put down peaceful protests?]

Or, it could be answered this way:

Because the current regime employs the police. Therefore, the police “serve and protect” … not “the people,” but the current regime.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

A problem with the free-market?
6

I’m sorry, I don’t get it. You think the current government is illegitimate, for whatever reason (birth certificate, socialism, whatever) and then you apply to it for a permit? What do you expect when you submit to having your protest be centrally planned? I prefer not to have protests, really.

7

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in all these misspent years is that individual policemen may act to their own accord but the whole force always act according to orders. A few quick examples I know very well.

Fifteen years ago there was a protest involving cattle ranchers. They just hired a parcel of land from a farmer near the railway and parked there their tractors, holding up signs. It was a curious way to protest but surely nobody was hurt and no private (or public for all that matters) was jeopardized. After a few days the media began to flock there to witness this most unusual protest. The government in Rome, for reasons I do not wish to discuss, decided these ranchers needed a lesson. Police unions simply refused on grounds that there’s no law against standing in a private muddy field holding signs. Government simply changed approach: they had military police conscripts do the dirty job. These boys were simply threatened with the harshest penalities if they didn’t follow orders and, lacking formal anti riot training, behaved like a pack of rabid dogs.

Ten years ago we had the infamous Genoa G8 meeting. Thousands of policemen were sent there to keep the infamous “Black Block” protesters at bay. Among them was an old friend of mine who served as a third in command in a specifically trained anti-riot unit. He expected to be deployed in the thickest of the action but, to his surprise, his unit was posted to the very outskirts of Genoa where absolutely nothing happened, while police academy trainees were posted in the heat of the action. There were many injured on both sides and one protester was shot dead by an inexperienced policeman. A few years ago, after he left the service, told me he was sure “somebody” had arranged for inexperienced officers, lacking training and equipment, to be posted in the most dangerous sector as to maximize mayhem.

A few years ago auto union workers blocked one of our busiest highways for hours while police looked on, doing absolutely nothing. A protester was run over by a van which failed to stop in time. Blocking a highway on purpose is a crime, yet no persecution followed. As Mises rightly remarked police seems to have a soft spot when strikes are involved.

8

Nielsio

That makes sense. As long as they have a job they won’t complain. But what does that say about the private policemen who follow the orders of the state anyways although they have no real loyalty to them? I’m sure that there have been cases of private police who have done it too. Are they just grunts? I know to not make the mistake of painting all the police with the same brush… but it seems like whenever they are ordered to put down a protest they do it with no questions asked.

JAlanKatz

I could envision a system where you could protest and you don’t need the government’s permission to do it. But as far as it goes, regardless of how unconstitutional permits are, that’s the way things are. The good thing about a protest is that it attracts the attention of a public. If you do nothing but sit at home no one will hear your cry but going to a protest that’s when other people will see your cause and you’ll gain legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Of course, the state will try to demonize you. But, protests aren’t that bad. I’m not sure where you get the idea that protests are evil, or something like that.

Kakugo

Interesting. What do you think could be done to solve the group think that goes on with police in protests? Do you think from your experience that it’s part of a larger phenomenon?

9

Silent, I’m not talking about some constitutional nicety, I’m talking about the idea that you walk up to the powerful and say “yes, hi, your majesty, I’m here to ask your permission to hold a protest demanding your removal from power.” What reaction do you expect? Either they’ll say ‘thanks for asking, but no’ or they’ll say ‘oh, of course, there’s your free speech zone’ then go congratulating themselves about their tolerance and how they can’t possibly be doing anything harmful to freedom because, well, they even allow you to speak about why they should be overthrown! Of course, they have no intention to listen to anything you say…

Communist dictatorships tend not to allow free speech. They crush dissent. In the US, we send everyone to public school and ensure that no one will listen to dissenters, then we let them talk as much as they want…and lecture China.

10

Then wouldn’t you all be in favor of having peaceful protests, as long as they don’t turn into violence? JAlanKatz, you gave me the impression that because in our current system that since you need a permit to protests, that it’s all bad. What I’m saying, is that you shouldn’t have to go to the government to get a protest. Having a protest where people don’t harm other people would be perfectly acceptable with the NAP philosophy as a form of protest. Saying that because we have to get a permit to protest at all, and, that in other countries that they don’t allow protests at all, and that we shouldn’t have protests for those reasons… is a little silly.

11

I don’t know about bad, but pointless is more my opinion. I don’t see what message you’re getting across by asking government permission to dump tea - which isn’t taxed more than other things right now - into the water. Did the colonists ask permission?

12

JAlanKatz

No. But to say that because you have to ask permission to do it means that you shouldn’t do it altogether is self defeating. It’s true that you have to ask the government for permission to do a protest. That’s just the way things are in our current system. You just have to work around the government, knowing that they give you permission to protest. It’s just the nature of the system.