Why would the riot cops appear nervous when it's fucking obvious that they have the superior firepower ... and the protestors were confined to a caged-in area? What level of cowardice does that show on the part of the riot cops?
Okay, I'm going to make a huge leap of faith here, and assume that riot cops are actually human beings, and are not just a bunch of bloodthirsty sociopaths who joined for the nifty black armour and an excuse to crack heads. I know, radical. Play along.
At that point, I'm guessing it's because fences can be scaled, emotional people (especially in large groups) are scary driven and unpredictable, and weilding superior force (I can't spot guns, and am not saying "firepower" until I do) isn't a completely effective deterrent which means you might actually have to use it.
I mean, I know it's much more far-fetched than suggesting that the only reason to be nervous when in a situation where you might have to hurt another person is because of personal cowardice, but it's a theory I like better.
(Here's a fun exercise. Find a cop. Ask him how he feels about answering domestic dispute calls. Should he or she express discomfort about the idea, accuse them of personal cowardice. Go.)
Tear gas is a non-lethal weapon; therefore, the police had superior firepower. There is a vast difference between a domestic dispute, where the people at the home can be armed and intoxicated and you're there with one other officer, and using tear gas on people who you know are unarmed and who are in a cage. So vast, in fact, that your analogy between the two situations is laughable.
> Tear gas is a non-lethal weapon; therefore, the police had > superior firepower.
*shrug* Dictionary.com disagrees with you, offering three definitions which all involve the ability to deliver fire (which it further defines as being essentially ballistic in nature). You want to use it nonetheless, go ahead. I will continue to disagree.
Yes, there is a difference between the two analogies. However, in both cases you can reasonably expect to deal with untrained civilians who are in a highly emotionally charged state. This is not fun, and you cannot count on it to remain a non-violent situation, no matter what level of superior force is at your disposal.
Look, if it really makes you that happy to suggest that the only reason the riot cops are nervous is because they're cowards rather than because they're exhibiting the basic human trait of being reluctant to hurt other humans, go right ahead. Have fun dehumanizing people who are doing something you don't agree with. God knows, it's only the cool kids and the free spirits who can decide to do something they might not enjoy because they think it's the right thing--riot cops are just fucking evil. Transmet told me so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-29 03:53 pm (UTC)What level of cowardice does that show on the part of the riot cops?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-30 03:53 pm (UTC)At that point, I'm guessing it's because fences can be scaled, emotional people (especially in large groups) are scary driven and unpredictable, and weilding superior force (I can't spot guns, and am not saying "firepower" until I do) isn't a completely effective deterrent which means you might actually have to use it.
I mean, I know it's much more far-fetched than suggesting that the only reason to be nervous when in a situation where you might have to hurt another person is because of personal cowardice, but it's a theory I like better.
(Here's a fun exercise. Find a cop. Ask him how he feels about answering domestic dispute calls. Should he or she express discomfort about the idea, accuse them of personal cowardice. Go.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-30 04:46 pm (UTC)There is a vast difference between a domestic dispute, where the people at the home can be armed and intoxicated and you're there with one other officer, and using tear gas on people who you know are unarmed and who are in a cage. So vast, in fact, that your analogy between the two situations is laughable.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-30 10:07 pm (UTC)> superior firepower.
*shrug* Dictionary.com disagrees with you, offering three definitions which all involve the ability to deliver fire (which it further defines as being essentially ballistic in nature). You want to use it nonetheless, go ahead. I will continue to disagree.
Yes, there is a difference between the two analogies. However, in both cases you can reasonably expect to deal with untrained civilians who are in a highly emotionally charged state. This is not fun, and you cannot count on it to remain a non-violent situation, no matter what level of superior force is at your disposal.
Look, if it really makes you that happy to suggest that the only reason the riot cops are nervous is because they're cowards rather than because they're exhibiting the basic human trait of being reluctant to hurt other humans, go right ahead. Have fun dehumanizing people who are doing something you don't agree with. God knows, it's only the cool kids and the free spirits who can decide to do something they might not enjoy because they think it's the right thing--riot cops are just fucking evil. Transmet told me so.