Have you guys been following the news coverage of the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh this week? I'm all about protesting, but it's hard for me to support protesters who use violence to communicate their message. Thoughts? Anyone live in the Pittsburgh area?

AP story

quote:

The march turned chaotic at just about the time that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with leaders of the world's major economies.

The clashes began after hundreds of protesters, many advocating against capitalism, tried to march from an outlying neighborhood toward the convention center where the summit is being held.

You have a good point on the power dynamic being uneven. The police certainly have a lot more of the power in that situation so it makes for an unfair advantage when violence does break out.

Word. Peaceful protest and discourse when at all possible.

The onus, in my opinion, is on the police to avoid antagonizing the protesters, since there's such a tremendous power disparity between the two. The police as a matter of course use their state-sanctioned authority to disrupt if not outright suppress left-wing protest, and what's the protesters' recourse? Protest more only to be brutalized further?

The protesters aren't entirely blameless, sure, but I do think that if the police focused more on maintaining order than suppressing dissent, the protesters would have an avenue for peacefully disseminating their views, which for the most part is their ultimate goal.

_{holy hell that was a lot of commas}

I'm totally with you re: violence and public opinion, though--violent protest should only be used when there's absolutely no other recourse.

The police are certainly not blameless when it comes to violence and protests, and I know some effed up stuff has gone down with them using tear gas and dogs and weapons when it's totally unnecessary. I guess it's a chicken or egg situation for me-- if protesters made a point to use nonviolent resistance, would the police be less likely to use violence to subdue them? Or if the police were less reactionary with protesters, would the demonstrators be less violent?

I was living in France during the race/class riots in Paris and Marseille a few years ago and that got out of hand really fast-- Molotov cocktails, cars set on fire, business windows smashed. I got why the protesters were so angry (racial discrimination is not just in the US, yay), but it got to the point where people didn't want to agree with their perspective because their actions were so damaging.

in case some of you kids aren't familiar with some of the riot cops' newer toys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTTlfL1J0aw

it's cool though, the filth still know how to kick it old school:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...esTk&feature=related

and shit, why bother with crowd control when you can just spirit those damn malcontents away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...gfWw&feature=related

in conclusion:

quote:

Y'know that there's good
And there's evil
And there's evil
Disguised as good
They're knocking at my door
They're knocking at my door
Don't let them in
Don't let them in
I think it's the Milwaukee Police
I think it's the police
I think it's the polizei
I think it's the polizei I I I

let the gutters run red with the blood of the bourgeoisie

But seriously, the typical police response to left-wing protests is ridiculously disproportionate, and I can't help but think that most of the violence could be avoided if they took a less antagonistic stance towards the protesters. Take your news story, for instance:

quote:

Hundreds of police in riot gear were seen massing at Phipps, but only a handful of demonstrators were there.

Oh no a baker's dozen of college-age anarchists we're outmatched lads *busts out the sonic weaponry & tear gas*