Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

One of several advantages military/policing/etc forces have is detailed records of what worked & what didn't in a confrontation, and the other doesn't even necessarily know that they are fighting. That and purpose-built gear which nearly goes without saying.

Something I've noticed with the riots in Europe/America/China/the Middle East/Africa is that we now have first hand video footage of how situations play out. Often longform over 20 minutes which goes far beyond what traditional media forces would show.

It isn't anywhere near enough to erase the organisational gap, but it is the furthest along the civilians have ever been in that game.

View on HN

The main advantage 'the man' has is organization and unit cohesion.

Riots look fun on TV. and then you're in one. And you've only met these protesters casually a few times. Are you ready to take a beat down for them? And are you willing to fight hard against a tight unit like LEO or the military who have a lot more weapons to escalate with.

I believe a better question to ask yourself in such a situation is "Are you ready to avoid senseless violence?" ie. "is this worth it?" I don't believe is worth fighting police during a demonstration. I'm biased, sure, but still if you are in such situation you need to stop for a moment and think about such questions.

Whenever I went to demonstrations -and, granted, its been a while since War in Iraq started- I made a very conscious decision about this beforehand. Its part of planning, because it might affect your OPSEC (things such as your possessions and your planned behavior).

I also believe its not a valid comparison between physical violence and emotional violence (such as threats). I'm currently reading Ronan Farrow's Catch and Kill, and I keep thinking: "now this is a fight worth fighting for". I'm at 2/3 and I have not read about physical violence [against the reporter, Farrow; not referring to the violated women!] as of yet.

> I don't believe is worth fighting police during a demonstration.

As many protesters will tell you, in a lot of cases the police start the fight. Are you saying you're okay with them being able to just silence you? What do you propose doing when they use violence to shut down your protest?

>them being able to just silence you

A protest is ordinarily not a story. The police suppressing a protest is a story. Protestors understand this, and there's a whole romanticism around getting arrested on camera.

A protest is ordinarily not a story.

Over the last month we've seen the strongest proof of this that one could imagine. In India, 250 million farmers and associated union members went on strike. Somehow this event went completely unreported by USA journalists. In nations where the USA "defense" department could conceivably waste more money, the threshold is considerably lower than 250M... more like, say, ten? Twenty? Possibly a hundred protesters in Syria or Hong Kong would be worth a report.

Sorry, I do not believe the police in uniform are the ones who start the fight. Not in my (democratic) country, at least.

Instead, you need to announce a permit for a demonstration. If you don't have one, the police will tell you to leave the premise. If you fail to comply, you might get arrested, even if you don't use violence. But the part where protestors fail to comply with (reasonable and legal) instructions by the police is the part you omit.

Whereas I never got into trouble with the police. Partly because I got the popular skin colour, gender, etc but also because I know when to be obedient and sincere. I can only recommend the same. Pick your battles!

> I do not believe the police in uniform are the ones who start the fight.

If they did, you would see police initiating physical violence against a group of otherwise non-violent protesters.

> Instead, you need to...

Or else, you would see police initiating physical violence against a group of otherwise non-violent protesters.

In a brutal dictatorship, violent suppression of dissent is direct and obvious. In your democratic country it is hidden among "reasonable and legal" stages; this keeps the Good Citizens [1] obedient and sincere.

----

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_German

I think that the biggest advantage the "man" has is the law.

If violence is perpetrated against the police, preparators will go to jail.

That is however not the case when done by anti-riot police.

These asymmetrical rules prevent much from happening.

Jail is probably the best possible outcome for someone who uses violence against the police, justified or not. As you note the color of law (and usually sympathy of the public as well) is the greatest of the asymmetrical assets of law enforcement and so the police at least in the US have the opportunity to assault or kill you with little or no legal liability.

> One of several advantages military/policing/etc forces have is detailed records of what worked & what didn't in a confrontation

And this play against them, an enemy can study them too. The saying it that the Sun clan spread its military manuals far, and wide to indoctrinate everybody into using few easily predictable military strategies.

A brilliant military strategy is always like a zero day exploit.

Seeing an errand enemy spy always showing up at known route, and known times to check your garbage, or steal your post? A perfect opportunity to confront him with a few muscular guys, and a soft enough rubber hose.

The reason the 1% is able to utterly dominate the remaining 99% is they are hyper organized. They're even organized around the concept, idea, and execution of organization.

The fact that the most desperate of the 99% will take the 1%'s money to oppress the rest of the 99% has something to do with it. Put another way, I never once met a cop from the 1%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com