Not at all. My suggestion is that police should not use tactics based on intimidation or threatened violence when faced with protests. The lines of militarized police were not present when the looting was happening, nor were they, for example, actually out trying to arrest the looters. Instead they were lined up to intimidate protestors and members of the media. You are mixing up what the police should have been doing during the rioting with what they actually did after the rioting.
All the tough guys with guns shown on TV somehow managed to not be at the stores being looted, but did manage to show up to intimidate protestors the next day.
Regardless of whether protestors are angry about what they believe to be an unjustified killing, or excessive taxes, or the WWII Memorial being closed, or uncontrolled illegal immigration, a response by police which reduces tensions instead of inflaming them is the proper approach.
First off you have to expect that the approach used by the police in one situation will be used in others. Do you really want to have some guy with an M4 pointing it at you if you are marching down the street with a sign? Remember, what you started off calling "animal behavior", the protests after the rioting, is known as protesting when the people doing it are, for example, your fellow Freepers.
Second, a bunch of amped up guys with guns can make a mistake, with long lasting, terrible consequences. Look at Kent State for one example, or the long run effects of the siege at Waco.
Finally, tactics based on intimidation and threats of violence rarely lead to the desired outcome, but only more violence. Ultimately police forces can only function when an overwhelming majority of the population supports them. If a community believes that the police are the enemy, and even a tiny minority of hot-headed extremists begin to actively rebel against the police (as opposed to avoiding them like typical criminals) then it is the police department that ends up changing its procedures in order to regain the support of the community.
If you want to understand that dynamic better I would encourage you to look at the history of policing in Philadelphia in the 1970s.
” the protests after the rioting, is known as protesting when the people doing it are, for example, your fellow Freepers.”
Excuse me, sir. FReepers nor other conservative protesters loot, steal, burn buildings then shoot at helicopters.
“Not at all.”
Call it what you will. I call it pacification. Again, ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked for him and the entire world. As I said, we all have our opinions. How long can anyone/any entity bend before they break and the criminals start dictating? I can assure you that the next ‘issue’ like this will have even more dire circumstances. I suppose, though, that the rioters should be commended for burning their own neighborhood and further destroying what little economy they had which will not return. They have cut off their noses to spite their faces.