Seattle, part 2

The insanity continues - 

So, let her introduce something.   Will be interesting to see what, her definition of "Crowd Control Weapons", i.e. gas, rubber bullets, (and those of the police, mayor, governor, committee members), what constitutes "peaceful" protesting.   Is it already in law and just needs amending, or a new law?

I'm all for transparency, what to expect if one chooses to participate in a protest that turns from peaceful, to...destructive.   What happens when the first firebomb is thrown, the first storefront violated, the looting starts.  Who will decide?  Everyone should know.  Better to put it on the table than leave it to everyone's own imagination.

If Seattle takes such a measure, it will be at the behest of Seattle's elected officials, who were put there by the voters of Seattle. Therefore, it will be what those voters want.

Do you want the police to be able to use rubber bullets and tear gas against peaceful protestors? That is certainly debatable, and communities would have many different collective opinions. The residents of a city should have the final say on what is allowable in their community.

I think the real issue is, when a single protestor (or a few) commits a violent act, is it now open season on ALL the protestors, bring out the tear gas and load up the rubber bullets? Because that's what seems to me to happen a lot of the time--and then, of course, everything goes to hell.

  Explain how these scenerios should be addressed; 1) say that you have 100 people consisting of 95 peaceful protesters and 5 window breaking, car destroying, store burning, civilian attacking rioters doing what they are doing, then - 2) you have 100 persons consisting of 95 window breaking, car destroying, store burning, civilian attacking rioters and 5 peaceful protesters doing what they are doing. How are the Police to respond to each of these scenarios?

1) identify the rapscallions; remove them from the scene; dispose of them 

2) dispose of them; accept friendly casualties

EDITED TO ADD:

. . . by legal means in both cases.

Ok- how do the police "remove them"? How do the police "dispose of them"?

Poor old DonDiego is not an officer-of-the-law.

Presumedly the professional law-enforcement-personnel possess the tactical knowledge/skills to accomplish the job safely.  DonDiego hopes the police will suffer no casualties.  

The reason I ask is because someone needs to come up with an acceptable way to deal with these situations that is "politically" and morally correct to those who complain but offer no sane suggestions. Defunding police departments is completly asinine and only puts law abiding citizens and their property at risk. And all of this upheavel because of a bunch of law breaking criminals - who "have rights". Well, what about the rights of common citizens? 

Kevin asks:  "Do you want the police to be able to use rubber bullets and tear gas against peaceful protesters?"

Well no, not against the "peaceful", but herein lies part of the problem, which is what does anybody "want" and what is considered "peaceful"?   Should be part of the planning.  

That last one seems easy enough: walking in groups, chanting, singing, loudspeakers, sign carrying, street blocking only with police presence for traffic management.

Non peaceful violent protesting:  Weapons, flares, fires, damage to personal or commercial property, graffiti, blocking private and commercial businesses, threatening passersby; failure to disburse when directed by police (this would need to be a call based on "peaceful" turning "violent", as when any of the "nons" start happening and escalate.

They need me on those committees.  LOL

I think the point Davis is making is if you have a crowd of 100 people & 5 people in the middle start throwing bricks & 1 person  sneaks off to loot, how do the police handle it?

How can the police disperse the crowd?