I'm sure there were a minority of people, perhaps a sizeable minority, who were keen for a riot. The police should be prepared for that. They too have families, and they deserve to be able to go home and see them after a day's work. But put yourself in the shoes of someone who wanted to protest peacefully, as is your right, and in some cases your civic duty. If I saw police dressed like that, I wouldn't even be willing to protest peacefully. It's chilling. It means that those who remain are more likely to be those in a combative state of mind. It filters out the "good" protesters and leaves the rioters. Then people sitting watching at home go, "Look at those pesky protesters! Damaging stores!" It becomes hard to empathise with an otherwise worthy cause, when all you see are the negative elements.
I suppose my point is that militarised equipment is probably good for the safety of the police... but I'd wager it actually provokes violent protests, rather than stymies them. This probably contributes to more and more protesters becoming frustrated, that they can't seem to get their moderate message out without being treated like looters. The good get lumped in with the bad. The actions of the police provoke negative reactions from the protesters, and in turn the protesters' movement is damaged through no real fault of its own. The Watts Riot was triggered by something small and just... but quickly spiralled out of control largely in part due to the actions of the police. The parallel between that and recent events is actually quite stunning.
But then again this may also be a matter of perception: being a consumer of media, I only really get to see what most people are going to click on. Fires and guns and deaths are more exciting than 200 people gathering in a town square with placards.
Bookmarks