" 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.
Heavier weaponry like tripod-mounted machine guns?
Yeah, thank God they didn't feel the need to mow everyone down to re-establish peace. Because hey, if people riot, what else could they possibly do? There simply aren't any alternatives. And its not like pointing that machine gun incites feelings of fear, defensiveness or anger in already unstable crowds. I mean, it's not like they're cops, who get alarmed enough and incited enough to empty magazines into crazies holding a knife, or worse, if they see someone armed with one-tenth of what they're carrying. That's different.
I keep forgetting, incitement is something by which only the authorities can be victimized.