- the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters - the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration - shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles
These things are the antithesis of peacekeeping.
Far too many people dismiss this too readily, but it may be the most dangerous and anti-democratic aspect of police response to protest.
The next day, the papers were of course full of reports of badly behaved crowds and near-rioting stopped only by dedicated law enforcement officers. That's definitely not what I saw.
In your ideal world, when exactly should the police gear up to disperse a crowd? While it's actively rioting?
Specifically, the Army (I believe), and I'm sure other branches of the armed forces, have training manuals on how to interact with people in ways to keep both parties (the would-be combatants/rioters AND other military personnel) from boiling over. This is the sort of this that is incredibly useful, a necessity even, when you're in an active war zone. There's a direct translation over to civilian life, though. At the end of the day, you're trying to keep the peace.
Does it always work? I don't know: I'm not military personnel, nor a LEO, and I haven't looked at all of the available data. As a person who isn't comfortable with the amount of force that local law enforcement in America shows to all people, innocent or guilty, I can tell you 100% that I would personally feel better if I never saw officers show up in armored vehicles.. ever. They're not trained for it, they shouldn't have it.
If you dress for going to war, a war you should find.
I already pay taxes, do I have to give the government solutions to all problems in society in a silver platter too? Why don't they use some of that money to research an answer to that very question? Because guns.
I mean, there could be a foam that slows people down when sprayed. Or a net that makes it confusing to walk. Who knows. So many possibilities. But guns!