I’m not sure what your point is since I have not come out against the existence of SWAT teams or effective and appropriate riot control or police self-defense.
If, however, you are justifying the setting up of a manned, tripod-mounted machine gun on top of an APC pointed at the crowd, or having SWAT officers roam the crowd pointing loaded M-16s at people or firing tear gas into private yards containing peacefully assembled people, then yeah, I have a problem with that.
A big one. Call it a 230+ year-old philosophical difference of opinion.
" deliberately inciting the rioting by these acts, nothing less."
I indicated that the police were not inciting rioting in the least, rather, they were responding to increased violence, Molotov cocktails, looting, burning, etc.
Also, if you think that US civil law enforcement has not responded in the past to rioting, looting and armed violence in this nation with overwhelming and deadly force in its 230 history...you are sadly misinformed. There is no 230 year old difference in founding US philosophical principles here.
As it is, in Ferguson, no resort to the use of heavier weaponry has been necessary, thank God. Rioters and protestors have been arrested, tear gas has been used, but that has been done to date with no protestors being injured by law enforcement.
The LEO actions, to date, have clearly served to reduce increased violence and illegality instead of inciting it.
So, thus far their tactics are working without the need for resorting to any harsher means. But they have shown, in a potentially very violent and explosive civil unrest environment that the rioting, looting and violence could also be put down if it got terribly out of hand.
Let's all pray that does not happen.