So everyone hops onto a thread discussing the issue of the police demanding the streets in the riot area be cleared, and folks use this as a place to trash the police.
Whew. The police have the right to revoke people’s right to peaceful assembly in special circumstances. I wouldn’t be backing this play, if it weren’t for the riots. A peaceful assembly on the sidewalks in normal circumstances is protected.
It isn’t protected in a riot zone.
Again, it's no secret the wide spread and escalating distrust for law enforcement/government has been ramping up in the past decade or so. And much of this distrust is very legitimate and justified...This isn't even debatable.
And this is exactly what happens when they themselves have created this environment of distrust. When they need the support of the law abiding, one day it's just not going to be there if this trust continues to deteriorate.
This does not make for happy times ahead.
It's about following a regular civil order.
Ours is a government of civilian leadership over police and military. The police don't just swarm in with full military gear and heavy armament and declare the area closed.
The civilian leadership first declares a curfew or state of emergency, and then the police have the authorization to establish enforcement perimeters and take protective actions.
But the police do not have unilateral plenary authority to take over a part of a city and make absolute statements like that.
While I do believe that the police should have been there, they should have had the mayor or city council prepare the police with statements to the people that a curfew would be put in place.
We cannot allow a precedent where we let elected city officials avoid calling for a state of emergency for political reasons, and then allow the police to operate unilaterally as if the city officials had done so. That's a slippery slope that eventually leads to abuse.
-PJ
Please cite the time and date it was declared a Riot Zone.