Originally Posted by
26 Inf
First of all I generally agree with everything Carlson wrote. I'm posting this 6 hours and several unread pages later, so I beg indulgence if anyone else has reflected on this:
What you’re watching is the ancient battle between those who have a stake in society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don’t, and seek to destroy it.
To a great extent this is true. As has been reported and documented, there are many agitators from outside the areas effected helping drive the ongoing disturbance chain. But, that is really too simplistic a view, what about the original disturbance which sparked all this?
I had to study and educate myself on riots and mass disturbances in order to give credible basic riot control instruction to police recruits. Part of that study embraced mob psychology and makeup in order to use tactics to 'persuade' less-committed rioters to flee, hopefully creating a cascading effect that is effective in breaking the disturbance. That is a simplistic explanation to give some background to my thoughts.
And I want to remind you, I'm talking about the initial riot/disturbance, not follow-on events which are originated by the folks Tucker was talking about.
So, who are those less-committed rioters? In come cases they are tag-a-longs, folks who are there because they are with someone - spouse, friend, family member - who is interested in the cause. They are among the first to say ' let's get out of here,' often before things get bad.
Next up is the person who was lawfully assembling to redress their grievances. They didn't come to do damage and destruction, but often as the situation cascades and becomes a riot, resistivie action becomes legitimized, often because ineffective techniques used by the police to control the situation. If you asked many of them to give context their actions during the riot several days after the event, you would likely receive a variation of no one was more surprised than I regarding what they did. They didn't come to do damage, it just happened.
Having said this, please understand this in no way reduces culpability for their actions.
Going back to the riot, these folks give credence to my belief that the police response to the first brick thrown is probably the most important event in terms of controlling the riot.
The thing is that these folks generally have a legitimate reason for originally showing up to protest. It's easy to say those who have a stake in society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don’t, and seek to destroy it. But, the fact is that many, certainly not all, of these folks have a stake. They are raising kids, many are working, and many feel under-represented and oppressed.
Reading that explanation, do you ever wonder why CPA's, stockbrokers, bankers, don't take to the streets to protest what they perceive as unfair treatment? Primarily because they have other ways to redress their grievances.
So yeah, I get it, some of the folks involved in these disturbances want to tear society down, it think it is rather myopic to simply state these disturbances are simply between those who have a stake in society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don’t, and seek to destroy it.
Bookmarks